Scholarlink

<p>As Amadae observed in her 2003 <i>Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy</i>, “the priority dispute between Black and Arrow over the mathematical analysis of election problems was bitter and unresolved.” Arrow’s 1951 <i>Social Choice and Individual Values</i> would subsequently overshadow Black’s contributions. Based on a study of Black’s, Tullock’s, and Coase’s papers (housed at the University of Glasgow, Hoover Archives– Stanford University, and the University of Chicago respectively), the present article aims to provide a historical reconstruction of the dispute between the two authors and to show its implications for Black’s scientific and personal life. The article also brings to light the strong assistance that Black received from American researchers (Coase, Tullock, Riker) from the 1960s onwards, before finally being recognized as the “founding father” of public choice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Duncan Black and group decision-making: from early priority dispute to late recognition

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月23日

查看全文
  • Herrade Igersheim

摘要

As Amadae observed in her 2003 Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy, “the priority dispute between Black and Arrow over the mathematical analysis of election problems was bitter and unresolved.” Arrow’s 1951 Social Choice and Individual Values would subsequently overshadow Black’s contributions. Based on a study of Black’s, Tullock’s, and Coase’s papers (housed at the University of Glasgow, Hoover Archives– Stanford University, and the University of Chicago respectively), the present article aims to provide a historical reconstruction of the dispute between the two authors and to show its implications for Black’s scientific and personal life. The article also brings to light the strong assistance that Black received from American researchers (Coase, Tullock, Riker) from the 1960s onwards, before finally being recognized as the “founding father” of public choice.