Skip to main content
Log in

George J. Stigler’s theory of economic regulation, bootleggers, baptists and the rebirth of the public interest imperative

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

George Stigler’s pathbreaking 1971 article set forth a clear and testable economic theory of regulation and fundamentally changed how economists and others organized their thoughts about government regulation. Until Stigler’s work appeared, the public interest theory, the notion that elected officials and bureaucrats sought first to respond to the broad public desire for government services, dominated the literature. Stigler changed that and in doing so pushed the public interest theory aside. But there was something lacking in Stigler’s regulation theory that suggests there is still a strong role to be played by the public interest theory. While Stigler argued that politicians respond primarily to private interest demand for their services, it is still the case that politicians must explain their actions to the broad public and must work to make certain that the private interest regulatory benefits they produce are actually delivered. Justification and assurance of delivery are functions that are served in the Bootlegger/Baptist theory of regulation. Because the Bootlegger/Baptist theory combines the demand of two interest groups for the same regulatory service, the result will be more regulation. And the fact that both Bootleggers and Baptists will assist in seeing that regulation benefits are delivered, their activity reduces the cost encountered by politicians when seeking to serve the two groups. Again, more regulation will result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Stigler’s powerful economic theory of regulation reinforced earlier historical work that emphasized industry capture of regulators (Kolko 1963, 1965). The piece was also the first olive out of a bottle from which came extraordinary foundational work by Becker (1983), McChesney (1987), Peltzman (1976), and Posner (1971).

  2. On this, for a brief but cogent statement summarizing Public Choice, see Buchanan (2003) and for a sample of Public Choice literature of key importance to me and related to the present piece, see. Buchanan et al. (1980). For several extraordinary examples of Stigler’s logic applied to specific policy issues see (Ackerman and Hassler, 1981), (Libecap, 1992) and (Maloney and McCormick, 1982).

  3. I note that Murray Rothbard described clearly a Bootlegger/Baptist theory in his incomplete book, which was to be titled The Progressive Era. Rothbard’s book developed across a 10-year period that ended in the early 1980s. The Rothbard book has been completed under the editorship of Patrick Newman. See Newman, 2017, 25–26. I thank Cato Institute’s David Boaz for calling this to my attention.

  4. Also see Aranson’s (1990) treatment of regulation theories and especially his elimination of the viability of the public interest model.

References

  • Ackerman, B. A., & Hassler, W. T. (1981). Clean Coal/Dirty Air. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranson, P. H. (1990). Theories of economic regulation: From Clarity to confusion. Journal of Law and Politics, 6, 247–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1983). Becker. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (2003). Public choice: Politics without romance. Policy, 19, 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D., & Tullock, G. (1980). Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. Texas A&M Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mesquita, B. B., & Bueno, B. (2011). The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1998). Behavioral foundations of reciprocity: Experimental economics and evolutionary psychology. Economic Inquiry, 36, 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, G. (1963). The Triumph of Conservatism. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, G. (1965). Railroads and Regulation. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libecap, G. D. (1992). The rise of the Chicago packers and the origins of meat inspection and antitrust. Economic Inquiry, 30, 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, M. T., & McCormick, R. E. (1982). A positive theory of environmental quality regulation. Journal of Law & Economics, 25, 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McChesney, F. S. (1987). Rent extraction and rent creation in the economic theory of regulation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCraw, T. K. (1975). Regulation in America: a review article,” The Business History Review Summer:: 159–183

  • McLaughlin, P. A., Smith, A. C., & Sobel, R. S. (2019). Bootleggers, Baptists, and the risks of rent seeking. Constitutional Political Economy, 30, 211–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. (Ed.). (2017). The Progressive Era: Murray N. Rothbard. The Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law & Economics, 19, 211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (1971). Taxation by regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, 2, 22–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. C. (2019). Why Culture Matters Most. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamoun, D. Y., & Yandle, B. (2016). Asserting presidential preferences in a regulatory review bureaucracy. Public Choice, 166, 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiller, R. (2019). Narrative Economics. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. ([1759] 1982). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Liberty Fund

  • Smith, A. ([1776] 1982). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Liberty Fund.

  • Smith, A. C. (2020). Bootleggers and Baptists Reconsidered. The Legacy of Bruce Yandle, Donald J. Boudreaux and Roger Meiners, eds. Mercatus Center.

  • Smith, A. C., & Yandle, B. (2014). Bootleggers and Baptists. Cato Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1971). The Theory of Economic Regulation. Bell Journal of Economics & Management Science, 2, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackee, S. W. (2011). The politics of ex parte lobbying: Pre-proposal agenda building and blocking during agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (advance access).http://www.thecre.com/oira/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ex-Parte.pdf.

  • Yandle, B. (1983). Bootleggers and Baptists: The education of a regulatory economist. Regulation, 7, 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yandle, B. (2013). How Earth Day triggered environmental rent seeking. The Independent Review, 18, 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Yandle.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yandle, B. George J. Stigler’s theory of economic regulation, bootleggers, baptists and the rebirth of the public interest imperative. Public Choice 193, 23–34 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-021-00907-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-021-00907-9

Keywords

Navigation