1916), Vilfredo Pareto outlined a generalised theory of social interaction which methodologically is the application of economic ~easoning 2 to the analysis of not only the eco.nomy, but also of a conceptually enlarged system, comprising the economy, legal institutions and the judicature 3 together with the interaction of social and political groups in society.
Pareto's proposal for a generalised theory of politics -the term is to be understood in its broadest meaning -rests methodologically on economics. Though one of the earliest and clearly the most ambitious of a sequence of b, omparable approaches, it has, however, (unfortunately) not been altogether successful. Economists tend either to ignore or to neglect 4 Pareto's comprehensive approach which, unlike the purely economic general equilibrium theory, has always been alien to them. s Its economic methodology notwithstanding, Pareto's Treatise is often referred to as "Political Sociology" (and consequently ignored). Meanwhile, in sociology, Pareto's work has gained more respect than influence, perhaps due to its economic methodology. Recently, it has even been argued that:
Pareto's owrl individual theories ... are by now only of historical interest and very imperfect from a modern perspective. 6 This is surely partly true, particularly with respect to detail, but not where the basic approach is concerned.
In recent years, another and (initially) less ambitious attempt to integrate economics and politics based on an economic methodology has attracted considerable attention. This approach, the seminal works of which include Schumpeter's. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1943), 7 Downs' Economic Theory of Democracy (1957) and Buchanan and Tullock's Calculus of Consent (1962) has become known as the Economic Theory of Politics or more simply Public Choice. s In what follows, I shall exclusively refer to these three "classics" of the Public Choice School. 9