Mosca revisited

Abstract. The paper offers a favourable re-assessment of the thought of Gaetano Mosca, a most unfashionable thinker. Three elements of his thought are examined: (1) his 'historical method', (2) his 'unmasking' of the democratic ideal, and (3) his critique of Marxian socialism. It is argued that his model of an objective political science, based on empirical observation, was essentially sound, though he himself did not live up to its rigorous requirements. Whatever the flaws in his methodology, however, his analysis of the parliamentary system seems convincing enough. As for his complaints against marxism and socialism, these cannot be dismissed as the fulminations of a reactionary, for the simple reason that most of them have been echoed, in one form or another, by Marxists and socialists themselves. It is concluded that social critics could learn much from Mosca, in spite of his conservative leanings.     

Meritocracy revisited

Michael Young is author of The Rise of the Meritocracy,reissued in paperback by Transaction. Among his other books is Family and Kinship in East London (with Peter Willmott).He is founder and director of the Institute of Community Studies in London. He is a past chairman of the Social Science Research Council of the United Kingdom and founder of the Open University. He is a member of Parliament as Lord Young of Dartington.     

Species loss revisited

Among his books are The Economics of Population Growth; Effort, Opportunity, and Wealth;and Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration (the latter was published by Transaction).     

Sequential contests revisited

In a past issue of this journal, Morgan (Public Choice 116:1–18, 2003) finds that aggregate effort is greater in sequential than in simultaneous lottery contests. We show that Morgan’s result is incorrect owing to a slip in a proof, and that aggregate effort turns out to be greater in sequential contests only if the contestants are sufficiently homogeneous. Additionally, we discuss the robustness of the corrected result to different specifications of the contest success function, and we partially restore Morgan’s case for sequential contests by showing that these contests are more desirable when maximizing only the effort of the winner, rather than maximizing the aggregate effort.     

Democracy and dictatorship revisited

We address the strengths and weaknesses of the main available measures of political regime and extend the dichotomous regime classification first introduced in Alvarez et al. (Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 31(2):3–36, 1996). This extension focuses on how incumbents are removed from office. We argue that differences across regime measures must be taken seriously and that they should be evaluated in terms of whether they (1) serve to address important research questions, (2) can be interpreted meaningfully, and (3) are reproducible. We argue that existing measures of democracy are not interchangeable and that the choice of measure should be guided by its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. We show that the choice of regime measure matters by replicating studies published in leading journals.