The Public Choice Analysis of Market Failures and Government Failures

Abstract

In recent years, the Public Choice School scholars argue that public policymaking has its own failures. Public Choice scholars pointed out that the people who make public decisions – politicians or bureaucrats - are in fact just as self-interested as anyone else. They are, after all, the same people; individuals do not suddenly become angels when they get a job in government. We call it ‘democracy’, but actually it is politics, and political interests to colour the whole process. People do not vote at elections out of ‘public interest’, but they vote to promote their own interests. The politicians and bureaucrats also have personal interests of their own. So the Public Choice School economists suggest that it might be better to leave the markets alone, rather than replace market failure by an even worse government failure. 
 Over the last few decades, the Public Choice School’s arguments have had a growing effect to explain real politics. In established democracies, there is more recognition of the private interests of legislators and bureaucrats, and of the need to restrain them. In addition, policies designed to restrain public decision making, inspired by the Public Choice School, are becoming more common. In this essay, I attempt to explain the Public Choice School’s main idea and various issues in a conceptual and critical way.