Different Perspectives on Public Choice Issues between Economists and Political Scientists in Korea: A Survey Analysis

Abstract

The ‘Public Choice’ represents an interdisciplinary field studied and researched by both economists and political scientists. Given the different perspective from which economists and political scientists view the same issues, different conclusions are likely to be reached. In other words, economists and political scientists are thought to disagree on many topical issues. In order to examine their disagreement or consensus on public choice topics, we made a survey containing 34 questions on various public choice issues to economists and political scientists. The survey finds a systematic difference in responses between two fields to many questions. Firstly, among the total 34 questions, the two groups exhibited “statistically significant” differences with 12 questions. Secondly, the differences between the two groups on the questions of normative beliefs were more systematic than the differences on the questions pertaining to the positive assumptions of the theory. Thus, opinions on ‘normative beliefs’ are more systematically differed than those on ‘positive assumptions’. Paradoxically, this result implies that the Public Choice needs interdisciplinary studies between two fields. To realize meaningful interdisciplinary studies of Public Choice Theory through close collaboration, it is imperative to make efforts to remove the fundamental differences in opinion between the two groups.