Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation

Rather than focus on why the states did not contribute to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation asks why they, in fact, did--even when they should not have been expected to contribute. Why did states pay large portions of their requisitions to the federal government when problems of collective action and the lack of governmental incentives suggest that they should not have? Using original data, Keith L. Dougherty shows that states contributed to the national government when doing so produced local gains.

"[D]eeply interesting...Dougherty's book provides compelling evidence for what we have always known partially accounted for states' cooperation..." Donald S. Lutz, University of Houston, William and Mary Quarterly

"This book should be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about what led the framers to create the Constitution as they did, and is required reading for anyone interested in early U.S. public finance." Journal of Economic History

"COLLECTIVE ACTION UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION is a wonderful account of why state complied with congressional requistions during the Revolutionary War and under the Article Of Confederation. This book is an excellent example of the useful application of social choice theory to provide insights into the historical events." The Law and Politics Book Review

"Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation is a laudable effort to bring modern social science to bear on key problems of political history." Political Science Quarterly

"Dougherty provides ample food for thought in this volume, and gives readers an interesting analysis of the first dozen years of U.S. politics...thought-provoking and insightful...For anyone interested in a solid analysis of government under the Articles, this book is very worthwhile." Public Choice

"Dougherty's handling of these amendments is deft and contributes in an area that is almost always ignored." American Historical Review