william h. riker (1921-1993)

William H. Riker (1921-1993)Author(s): William C. MitchellSource: Public Choice, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Feb., 1994), pp. iii-ivPublished by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30013408 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Choice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:06:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Public Choice 78: iii-iv, 1994. © 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

William H. Riker (1921 - 1993)

William H. Riker is dead at 72, brought down by a decade-long battle with cancer. His death draws to a close a distinguished career in which he became the leader of the rational choice movement in Political Science. His battle with cancer revealed a man of remarkable courage, altruism, and grace; for he never once shared his tragic knowledge with anyone other than his immediate family. He refused to "burden" friends beyond their own daily personal concerns, fears and hopes.

In its obituary, The New York Times (June 29, 1993), noted that Professor Riker "was best known for devising his political theory, which used the structured reasoning of mathematical formulas to interpret political events" and that he did so "...well ahead of most experts in the field". While true, both statements are seriously incomplete and perhaps even misleading. Bill Riker's

scholarship, teaching, and leadership were distinguished by several qualities. He

was, above all else, a passionate scholar, one who knew who he was and what he wished to accomplish. He was a positivist in the best sence of the word. In his best known work, The Theory of Political Coalitions he displayed his commit- ments and his talents as an innovative game theorist. Despite his penchant for formal theory, he wrote with considerable verve and a classical gracefulness achieved by few in our discipline. And, despite his formal theoretical

proclivities, he, more than most, tested theories, his own and those of others. In this endeavor, he brought to bear an almost encyclopedic knowledge of American political history. Bill really came to life whenever he set forth incidents and personalities in our nation's history. Had he chosen to be an historian, he would have been among their foremost innovators.

It is not necessary to cite his voluminous publications; they are now our

legacy. Readers of this journal may not, however, be as cognizant of his role as a teacher. Over the past thirty years at Rochester, Bill built his Department into one of the foremost among political science departments. Many of our current

leading political scientists were his students, including Shepsle, Aranson, Ordeshook, Masur, Fiorina, and Poole. Only Chicago of the 1930's and Yale in the 50's can claim so many outstanding students. Those who attended his classes in positive theory or heard his guest lectures and papers at conferences can

testify as to his charisma. He was never unprepared and always full of energy and unbounded enthusiasm for the task at hand. Little wonder, then, that he

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:06:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

should have attracted so many gifted students, nor that he imbued them with a mission as well as providing them with its demanding, but necessary technical skills.

Bill Riker was a dear friend for more than thirty years. Although at opposite ends of the country, we exchanged letters and phone calls and met at countless conferences. While I never shared his deep commitments to positive or scientific

analysis and game theory our friendship was never in doubt. Nor did he share

my enthusiasm for the work of economists, those of the Virginia School in

particular. His doubts perhaps were best expressed in a lecture he delivered before the 1987 Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society and printed in this

journal (57 (1988): 247-57) under the title "The Place of Political Science in Public Choice".

In a special panel consisting of Gordon Tullock, Peter Aranson and myself the afore-mentioned lecture was hotly contested. Shortly, thereafter, we went out to

dinner, and this one like all the other restaurant goings we shared over the years was just marvelous. Bill and his wife Mary Elizabeth, were among the Mitchell's favorite dining companions. Without him, attending professional conferences can never again be the same. There is a terrible void in the lives of those who knew the Rikers and their obviously affectionate marriage and love for their children. Gracious and full of life, they cared for and respected others without ever being condescending or patronizing. And, honest. One always knew where Bill stood on scholarly as well as personal matters. Yet, his high standards never stood in the way of his genuine like people in all walks of life. No malicious gossip. No professional envy. No academic pettiness. There were more important things to consider and do. He loved life and brought joy to

everything he did. While deeply sensitive to the tribulations of democracy he, like Churchill, preferred it to all alternatives.

Mary Elizabeth has lost her husband of more than half century. His daughters Katherine and Mary and son William H., Junior, have lost their father and best friend. Public choice analysts have lost one of their original leaders. And I, one of my closest friends. But the important thing is that we had him as long as we did. His work remains to inspire and inform all who would consult it.

William C. Mitchell

Department of Political Science, University of Oregon

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:06:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions