This article re-examines the main propositions which underlie Public Choice argumentation in respect to the growth of the state and evaluates their plausibility in light of current knowledge. The majority of the hypotheses are confirmed, at least partially. Their principal contribution is at the level of strategies which can be attributed to political and bureaucratic personnel, although the influence of the latter appears to be exaggerated.

The Public Choice explanations remain very partial. Taking state intervention as a theme, Public Choice shows well how once an activity is begun, it has a tendency to expand. However, Public Choice says nothing of the social dynamics responsible for the fact that the state has been induced to intervene from the start. Intervention has had as its first function the quelling of social conflicts. The argumentation of Public Choice can explain only the recent growth of the state at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. The new trend of putting a ceiling on government expenditures rests largely unexplained. These gaps are not inherent in the model and can be corrected. When the Public Choice authors adopt a more historical perspective, which brings about a relative treatment of the phenomenon, they will be able to propose more convincing interpretations.