Public choice looks at political activity from an economic point of view. This month we look at literature to explore how such thinking began. It’s often been asserted that the economic way of thinking is a very recent creation - the product, perhaps, of influential thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume, or even of revenue-hungry 18th century governments, who encouraged otherwise noneconomic actors to take on the unfamiliar habits of Economic Man.

This month’s lead essayist, Sarah Skwire, is skeptical. She looks at a much earlier source, Shakespeare’s history plays, and sees evidence not just that Shakespeare and his audience were aware of the occasional venality of state action, but that this venality could be found among all parties and interest groups. No man is an angel; none are perfectly disinterested. Instead, she finds that the play’s characters openly discuss different forms of venality, the incentives that various agents face, and how to arrange their affairs with a view toward doing politics without romance — in other words, the very stuff of public choice.

Joining us to discuss this month are Professor Ross Emmett of the James Madison College of Michigan State University; Professor Maria Pia Paganelli of Trinity University, and Professor Michelle Vachris of Christopher Newport University.

We welcome you to join the dicussion in the comments, which will be open through the end of the month.