Book Reviews : The Economics of Collective Action. By JOHN R. COMMONS. (New York: The Macmillan Company. 1950. Pp. xii, 414. $5.00.)

• Date: 01 September 1951
• Published date: 01 September 1951
• Author: Roger Dehem
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295100400338
• Subject Matter: Articles

529
periodic registration (p. 76), or the failure to hold elections on Saturday
or Sunday (p. 77)? Is &dquo;internal separatism&dquo; really a &dquo;corollary of federal-
ism&dquo; ? Hypotheses should be verified, not acted upon.
Further, the Report is internally inconsistent. Can one square the as-
sertion that &dquo;there is no real ideological division in the American elector-
ate&dquo; (hypothesis-&dquo;fact,&dquo; p. 20) with the proposal for programmatic reform
to present policy alternatives for the voters? Again, if it is true that &dquo;the
whole weight of tradition in American politics is against very rigid party
discipline&dquo; (hypothesis-&dquo;fact,&dquo; p. 21), how can the sanctions for disloyalty
and rebellion advocated (p. 23) be successful? If the closed primary has
failed to produce a membership concept, why nationalize it?
The conclusions of the Committee are unrealistic and naive. One
reads the Report wondering if we have gotten any closer to the roots of
the classic problems of localism, pressure-group dominance, oligarchy,
and public apathy. These problems are perceived as too simple; the causes,
too evident; and the remedies, too easy. Proposed cure is formalistic, not
functional. Merely overhauling party machinery and the ballot will never
achieve reform. Other than institutional determinants for the ailments of
our political system exist. We might well study individual motivation,
values, and attitudes, as well as the group structure of our society before
we pose as reformers.
In sum, the profession has assumed the role of political engineering
before proving the causes and facts of the party system. There are, sig-
nificantly enough, no supporting studies to the Report. There is in fact
scant evidential support for most of the Committee’s proposals. Demo-
cratic, responsible, and effective parties, and &dquo;program-conscious&dquo; voters
who participate, are indeed good goals, but it is a bit absurd to believe
that it can be hatched...