Why Bloomington is not in Virginia: Contrasting the Social Ontologies of the Ostroms and Buchanan

This article contrasts the ontological foundations of two major strands of the public choice tradition: the Virginia school, led by James M. Buchanan, and the Bloomington school, represented by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom. While their early collaboration was grounded in a shared ambition to apply economic reasoning to political analysis, the Bloomington school remained long marginalized. Its renewed visibility following Elinor Ostrom's Nobel Prize in 2009 has prompted efforts to reconcile the two schools. This article argues, however, that such reconciliations are only possible at the cost of simplification, which overlooks an ontological divide concerning the nature of collective action and the so-called 'constitutional moment'. Buchanan's framework, centered on exchange among rational individuals and the principle of unanimity, stands in sharp contrast to the Ostroms' institutionalist approach, which emphasizes reciprocity and the formation of "communities of shared understanding" as the foundation of collective action. These ontological differences underpin distinct methodological commitments and ultimately entail important nuances in their practical approaches to public sector governance. In highlighting this contrast, the article also advances the relevance of social ontology as a conceptual lens for the history of economic thought