Abstract
Complexity of policies is shown to confer differential benefits on those people who have the time necessary to understand the policies. Understanding is defined to mean the ability to predict the consequences of implementation. Breton's economic theory of representative government postulates three groups in society: politicians, bureaucrats, and citizens, with the first two groups forming government bureaucracies that have policies as their sole output. This paper shows that complexity of policies is preferred by bureaucrats, politicians, and citizens in that order because, as one goes down the list, individuals have less time to understand policies and more policies that affect them. Bureaucrats, in order to achieve a level of incomprehension in the other two groups that mazimizes bureaucratic power, must sometimes design policies that they cannot fully understand themselves. This leads to policies with unintended and unanticipated consequences.
References
Abelson, Philip H. ‘The Federal Regulatory Machine,’ Science 200 (4341), (1978), p. 487.
Borcherding, Thomas E., ed. Budgets and Bureaucrats: The Sources of Government Growth. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1977.
Breton, Albert. The Economic Theory of Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974.
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1962.
Charters, Werrett Wallace. Complexity As A Dimension of The School's Technical System, A Working Paper. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon. July, 1970.
Committee on the Costs of Education. Financing Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools (Interim Report Number 7). Toronto: The Government of Ontario, 1975.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1957.
Downs, Anthony. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1966.
Holland, Daniel M., ed. ‘Tax and Budget Simplication,’ National Tax Journal 30 (3) (September 1977), pp. 223–369.
Johnston, Donald J. How to Survive Canada's Tax Chaos (revised and updated). Markham, Ontario: Paperjacks Ltd., 1977.
Kerr, Wendie. ‘Foundation chairman finds trend toward more simplified tax laws,’ The Financial Post, April 12, 1978, p. B1.
La Porte, Todd R., ed. Organized Social Complexity: Challenge to Politics and Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Michael, Dinald N. ‘On Coping with Complexity: Planning and Politics,’ Daedalus 97 (1968), pp. 1179–1193.
Miller, George A. ‘The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information,’ Psychological Review 63 (1956), pp. 81–97.
Niskanen, William A. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine, 1971.
Niskanen, William A. Bureaucracy: Servant or Master? London: The Institute for Economic Affairs, 1973.
Nurmi, Hannu. ‘On the concept of complexity and its relationship to the methodology of policy oriented research,’ Social science information sur les sciences sociales 13 (1) (February 1974), pp. 55–80.
Simon, Herbert A. ‘Theories of Bounded Rationality,’ in C.B. McGuire and Roy Radner, eds., Decision and Organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972, pp. 161–176.
Wise, Arthur E. ‘Why Educational Policies Often Fail: The Hyperrationalization Hypothesis,’ The Journal of Curriculum Studies 9 (1), (May 1977), pp. 43–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bezeau, L.M. Complexity as a characteristic of policies in Albert Breton's economic theory of representative government. Public Choice 34, 493–498 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00225684
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00225684