By Political economics I do not mean the "economical" advice given by some people(see the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) but rather the heavily mathematized subfield of Economics studying and trying to explain government failures throught rationality presuming politicians are not free from motives and are thence economic agents seeking their own utility and having their own motives(office-seeking, rent-seeking)

By combination I mean uniting for a benefit a double sided aproach. In benefit I mean welfare-improving. Combating government failures

I am particularly interested in Auction theory and Mechanism design. Whether one could design voting and offices, the system to make the politicians maximise their personal utility only if they maximise social utility. Kaldor Hicks and Pareto Optimality and Envy freeness.

I see a Stag-Hunt in the Bona Fide voters.


If we applied a cardinal open(not secret) voting, Clarke pivotal agent and required politicians to be indepedent and prohibited coalittions and parties could we fix anything?

The Arrow Imposibility theorem fails with cardinal voting.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you mind adding more details to your question? For example, only in the title, you have a clear question, but it is not clear at all what it means. Can you add in the body what do you mean by a "combination" and by "beneficial"? Most modern research done in political economics uses game theory tools. As stated, the question seems super broad. Politicians have multiple functions and its effect on people is sometimes very direct and sometimes very subtle. You can find a lot of research studying the alignment between politicians and voter's preferences, but for a specific domain... $\endgroup$ – Regio Jul 3 '19 at 4:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.