That public choice concept gains another proving

A proof as in a test of the veracity rather than an insistence upon it:

Specifically, “bad” outcomes, such as apartment blocks being built (which locals oppose) or school closures, are significantly less likely in neighbourhoods where politicians from a local ruling party live (compared with areas where local opposition politicians live).

The effect is large: when a party wins power it leads to a 19 percentage-point fall in the chance of proposed school closures in areas where politicians from that party live.

The authors say this is a sign that favouritism drives decisions and surprising to find in Sweden, with one of the world’s lowest corruption levels. Some might now want to break out the champagne when an MP moves next door but I’m old fashioned. Maybe it shows why we should care about them failing to live up to important ideals of public service, even if they’re not technically corrupt.

Public choice economics is simply the observation that politicians and their bureaucrats are humans like the rest of us. As such they are incentivised by their own self-interest along some spectrum of purely selfish to enlightened.

The corollary of this contention being true is that we should give politicians - and bureaucrats - minimal control over our lives so as to reduce the portion of it subject to their self-interest. That is, minarchy is the solution to the problem that we are all human, yea even those who rule over us.