Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T20:51:51.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Bernard Grofman  and
Scott L. Feld
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Scott L. Feld
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We identify three basic elements of Rousseau's theory of the general will: (1) there is a common good; (2) citizens are not always accurate in their judgments about what is in the common good; and (3) when citizens strive to identify the common good and vote in accordance with their perceptions of it, the vote of the Assembly of the People can be taken to be the most reliable means for ascertaining the common good. We then show that Condorcet's (1785) model of collective judgment shares these assumptions with Rousseau and that understanding the implications of Condorcet's (1785) “jury theorem” enables us to clarify many of the most obscure aspects of Rousseau's treatment of the general will, including his discussion of the debilitating effects of factions and his confidence in the ability of the Assembly of the People to discern the general will by means of voting.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 567 - 576
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Baker, Michael. 1980. Condorcet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1964. The Public Interest. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 38:9–14.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1965. Political Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1950. The Unity of Political and Economic Science. Economic Journal 60:506–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, John. N.d. Assessing the Power of the Supreme Court. In The “Federalist Papers” and the New Institutionalism, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Withnan, Donald. New York: Agathon. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Cobban, Alfred. 1964. Rousseau and the Modern State. 2d ed. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Condorcet, Marquis de. 1785. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des decisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris.Google Scholar
Drucker, Peter F. 1971. Men, Ideas, and Politics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1984. Voting Procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellenburg, Stepeh. 1976. Rousseau's Political Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Farquharson, Robin. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Allan. 1980. Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilden, Hilail. 1983. Rousseau's Social Contract: The Design of the Argument. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai, and McMillan, Henry. 1987. Legislation and the Cost of Making Proposals. University of California, Irvine. Photo-offset.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 1982. Political Theory and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1975. A Comment on Democratic Theory: A Preliminary Mathematical Model. Public Choice 21:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1978. Judgmental Competence of Individuals and Groups in a Dichotomous Choice Situation: Is a Majority of Heads Better Than One? Journal of Mathematical Sociology 6: 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1979. A Preliminary Model of Jury Decision Making as a Function of Jury Size, Effective Jury Decision Rule, and Mean Juror Judgmental Competence. In Frontiers of Economics, vol. 3, ed. Tullock, Gordon. Blacksburg, VA: Center for Study of Public Choice.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1981. Mathematical Models of Jury/Juror Decision Making. In Perspectives in Law and Psychology. Vol. 2, The Jury, Judicial, and Trial Processes, ed. Sales, Bruce D.. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Feld, Scott L., and Owen, Guillermo. 1982. Evaluating the Competence of Experts, Pooling Individual Judgments into a Collective Choice, and Delegating Decision Responsibility to Subgroups. In Dependence and Inequality, ed. Geyer, Felix and van der Zouwen, Hans. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Owen, Guillermo. 1986a. Condorcet Models: Avenues for Future Research. In Information Pooling and Croup Decision Making, ed. authors. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Owen, Guillermo, eds. 1986b. Information Pooling and Group Decision Making. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, and Feld, Scott L.. 1983. Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth. Theory and Decision 15:261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Christopher. 1987. To Persuade without Convincing: The Language of Rousseau's Legislator. American Journal of Political Science 31: 321–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Keith, and Wagner, Carl. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, Howard. 1982. Selfishness, Altruism, and Rationality: A Theory of Social Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Nicholas. 1986. Information, Electorates, and Democracy: Some Extensions and Interpretations of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Nitzan, Shmuel, and Paroush, Jacob. 1985. Collective Decision Making: An Economic Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Hannu. 1984. Social Choice Theory and Democracy: A Comparison of Two Recent Views. European Journal of Political Research 12:325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, Guillermo. 1986. “Fair” Indirect Majority Rules. In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo. Wesrport, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Pinkham, Roger S., and Urken, Arnold B.. 1982. Competence and the Choice of a Voting System. Stevens Institute of Technology. Typescript.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1976. Axiomatic Social Choice Theory: An Overview and Interpretation. American Journal of Political Science 20:511–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1969. Decision Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice. American Political Science Review 63:40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William. 1964. Voting and the Summation of Preferences. American Political Science Review 58:341–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, Patrick. 1986. The General Will before Rousseau. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1984. Of the Social Contract. Trans. Sherover, Charles M.. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Runciman, W. G., and Sen, Amartya K.. 1965. Games, Justice, and the General Will. Mind 74: 554–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1966. A Possibility Theorem on Majority Decisions. Econometrica 34:491–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd S., and Grofman, Bernard. 1984. Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies. Public Choice 43: 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shklar, Judith. 1969. Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1971. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1945. Democracy in America. New York: Random House Vintage.Google Scholar
Young, H. Peyton. 1986. Optimal Ranking and Choice from Pairwise Comparisons. In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo. Westport, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Zablocki, Benjamin. 1971. The Joyful Community. New York: Pelican.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.