Why is or isn't the public choice theory or model important?

 

Public choice, or public choice theory, is the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science. The content includes the study of political behavior. In political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that studies self-interested agents (voters, politicians, bureaucrats) and their interactions.

Public choice provides a vital insight into why politicians and bureaucrats behave the way they do, why governments look like they do, and why we are governed in the way that we are. Public choice theory is often used to explain how political decision-making results in outcomes that conflict with the general public's preferences. For example, certain lobbying groups and pork barrel programs are not the goal of the overall democracy. Yet it makes sense for lawmakers to help these initiatives. It could make them feel strong and important. They will also benefit financially from opening the door to potential riches as lobbyists. The initiative could be of concern to local officials, raise district votes or campaign donations. The politician pays little to no expense to get these privileges, as he spends taxpayer money. Special-interest lobbyists often behave rationally. They will earn government incentives worth millions or billions for comparatively limited contributions. They face a risk of losing out to their competitors if they don't seek these favors. The taxpayer is also behaving rationally. The cost of defeating any one government give-away is very high, while the benefits to the individual taxpayer are very small.

Each citizen pays just a few pennies or a few dollars for any sort of government favor, when the cost of ending the favor will be several times greater. Everyone involved has rational incentives to do exactly what they are doing, even if the wish of the general electorate is the opposite. Costs are diffuse, whereas advantages are localized. Voices of vocal minorities of much to gain are heard above voices of indifferent majorities with nothing to lose on their own. However the idea that groups with concentrated agendas will control politics is insufficient since it is just part of the democratic balance. Something must inspire those who are preyed to fight even the strongest coordinated focused interests.