Evaluate the Strengths and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory.docx

Evaluate the Strengths and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory.docx

《Evaluate the Strengths and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Evaluate the Strengths and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

EvaluatetheStrengthsandLimitationsofRationalChoiceTheory

EvaluatetheStrengthsandLimitationsofRationalChoiceTheory

Introduction

Rationalchoicetheoryisatheoreticalframeworkderivedfromeconomicsforanalyzingandoftenformallyconstructingpredictivemodelsofhumanbehaviours.Politicalscientistshaveusedthisapproachtobuildtheoriesthatallhuman’sactionsarefundamentalrationalandthatpeoplecalculatethepotentialbenefitsandcostsofanyactionaccordingtoapredeterminedsetofpreferencesandconstraintsbeforedeterminingwhattodo.Anditisfurtherarguedthat,politicalactionsderivedfromsuchrationalbehaviourwillservetomaximizeindividual’sutility.Rationalchoicetheoreticalframeworkshavebecomeincreasinglytheoreticalincontentconvergingtothecurrenttrendinmain-streamneoclassicalmicroeconomics.Itisnotedthatpoliticaltheoriessuchasthestudyofvotingandcoalitionformation（Down1957&Riker1962）havebeenincreasinglycolonizedbysuchmathematicalmodels.

Yet,despitetheprimafacielogicalsoundnessaswellastheassertedscientificnatureofthevariousmodelsbasedonindividual’srationality,andthatthatpeoplebehaverationallyhasbeenrecognizedbymanyeconomists,sociologistsandpoliticalscientists,thispaperarguesthathumanbehavioursarefarmorecomplexwhichcannotbemerelyexplainedbyindividuals’rationality;therearemanyinstancesthatpeoplebehaveaccordingtohabitual,traditional,emotionaloraffectualaction,andmanytypesofvalue-orientedactionsthatcannotbeexplainedsolelyrelyingonrationality.Asaconsequence,itisnotsurprisedtoseethatrationalchoicemodelhavebeensubjectedtoongoingcriticismamongboththeoristsandpractitioners.Indeed,themostoftenheardcriticismofrationalchoicetheoryisthelackofrealismaspeopleoftenactimpulsively,emotionallyandhabitually.Thispaperwillbedividedintothreeparts.Firstly,thetheoreticalfoundationofrationalchoicetheorywillbeexamined;followingthat,wewilladdresstothequestionwhyrationalchoicetheoriesaresoappearingtosomepoliticalscientistsandsociologists;andfinallytheshortcomingsofsuchmodelswillbediscussed.

TheTheoreticalFoundationoftheRationalChoiceTheory

Theanalyticalmethodologyoftherationalchoicetheoryisbasedontheproblematicandcontroversialnotionof“methodologicalindividualism”（Fine2000）.Thatistosay,nomattertheformorthestructureofanation’spoliticalinstitution,anation’suniquehistoricalcircumstancesandanation’svalue-orientation,itassumesthatindividualsmustfollowtheirself-interestorgreed.Therefore,neitherboththeinterestsandbehavioursofacommunityornationaresubjectmattersoftherationalchoicetheory,rather,theinteractionanddecisionmakingofrationalindividualsformaximizingtheirutilityandminimizingcostsarethefoundationofpoliticaldecisions.Andthismethodology,inturn,iscloakedwithabstractmathematicalframeworkandbasedonanumberofabstractassumptionsthathavelittleconnectiontothereallife（GoodinandKlingemann1996）.Firstly,itisassumedthatindividualspossessasetpreferencesthatareexogenousdeterminedorgiven.Thatistosay,individuals’preferencesarederivedindependentlyfromthesocietyandanyotherexternalcircumstancesthatmaycontributetotheformationofsuchpreferences.

Itisassumedthatindividuals’preferencespossesstwoproperties.Firstly,theyarecompleteinthesensethatallactionscanberankedinorderofpreferenceinthreesituations:

actionAisstrictlypreferredtoactionBandthereforeactionAyieldsmoreutilitythanActionB;actionBisstrictlypreferredtoactionA;andactionAisindifferenttoactionBsotheyareequallydesirable.Secondly,itisassumedthatpreferencesaretransitive;namely,ifactionAispreferredtoActionB,andactionBispreferredtoActionC,thenactionAisalsopreferredtoActionC.Yet,inreality,ifwethinkabitdeeperorjustresorttoourcommonsense,itisnotdifficultforustoseethatindividuals’preferencesarealwayssociallyconstructed.Hereisasimpleexample.Mr.Ahatespepper,butloveschillyandheistryingtocourtMissB.However,pepperisMissB’sfavoritefoodandshedoesnotlikechilly.Therefore,intheeventofMr.AinvitingMiss.Boverfordinner,itisverylikelythatMr.AwouldpurchasepepperandhaveapeppermealwithMiss.Bandrefrainhimselffromhavingchillysoastogetherheart.Hence,thecompletenessaswelltransitivityassumptionsareviolatedsincetheeventualoutcomeispepper>chillyforMr.A.

Thesecondassumptionoftherationalchoicetheoryisthat,individualshavefullorperfectinformationaboutwhatoutcomesarethebestforthemaswellastheparticularoutcomesthatoccurunderaparticularaction（MarshandStoker2002）.Therefore,underthisassumption,rationalindividualswillchoosethebestactionswhichgivethemthehighestlevelofutility.Yet,inreality,itisoftenthecasethatinformationisalwaysimperfect.Rather,individualsactaccordingtotheirexpectationoftheoutcomeofaparticularaction.Althoughithasbeenarguedthatexpectationmaybecalculatedbyprobabilitytheories,giventhefactthatinrealitytheoutcomeofaparticularactionmaybeinfluencedbyamultiplicityofuncertaintiesandsuchuncertaintiesaresometimesreinforcingeachother,itishardlyconvincedthatexpectationcanbecalculatedatanydegreeofprecision.Thethirdassumption,whichisequallydubiousasothers,oftherationalchoicetheoryisthatindividualshavethecognitivecapabilityaswellastimetocompareandweighteverychoiceofactionagainsteveryotherpossiblechoice.Togiveasimpleexampletothisquestion,letusimaginethesituationofMr.Awhoisshoppinginasuppermarketthathasonethousanddifferenttypesofgoods.IfMr.Aneed1secondtoweightonegoodagainstanotherone,thenitwouldrequire1,000multiplesby1,000secondstoevaluateallthegoodsinthesupermarket,or277hours;nottomentionthatfactthattherearenormallytensofthousandsgoodsinalargesupermarketsandmyriadsinthewholeworld.Therefore,itisnotdifficulttoseethatthisassumptionistotallyinfeasible.

HerbertSimonrevisestheassumptionofperfectrationalitybyintroducingthenotionofboundedrationality.Simon（1996）arguesthatmostindividualsareatbestpartlyrational,andtheyinfactpossessemotionalorirrationalattributesintheremainingpartsoftheiractions.Hestatedthat“boundedlyrationalagentsexperiencelimitsinformulatingandsolvingcomplexproblemsandinprocessing（receiving,storing,retrieving,transmittinginformation”（citedinWillamson1981:

553）.Furthermore,Simonmadeanumberofrestrictionstothetheoryofperfectnationalitysoitcanbemademorerealistic.Yet,theapproacheshetookstillremainwithinthelimitofrigorousformalization.Undertheboundedrationalitytheory,utilityfunctionsaresomewhatmorelimitedtoindividualscircumstances;thecostsofgatheringaswellasprocessinginformationandhencetheexistenceofimperfectinformationarenowrecognized;andmoreover,utilityfunctionsarenownolongerunique;itisnowpossiblefortheexistenceofmulti-valuedutilityfunctions（Simon1957）.Itisadmittedthat,undertheboundedrationalitytheory,therationalchoicetheoryisnowsomewhatmorerealistic.Yet,itisarguedthatpoliticalinteractionbetweenindividuals,communitiesandcountriesisaneverintricateprocessinfluencedbyanumberofspecificfactorsthatcannotbemathematicallydeterminedandmeasured.Althoughbycoveringsuchrationalchoicetheorywithnaturalscienceelementslikeabstractmathematicalframeworkmayappeartobemorescientific,inordertomaketheunderlyingmathematicstractable,realismofthemodelhasbesacrificedbymakinganumbersimplifiedassumptions.

Moreover,althoughrationalchoicetheoryseeksviewindividualandsocietaloutcomesastheresultsofutilityorvaluemaximisation,rationalchoicehasbeensilentontheoriginalandthenatureofindividualvalues.Indeed,becauseofthedifficultyifnotimpossibilityinmeasuringhuman’sinternalstates,therationalchoicetheoriststendtoimposevaluesonsocialactorsbasedonsomepriorassumptions（Hechter1994）.

TheApplicationofRationalChoiceTheory

Theorisingonthebasisofrationalchoicetheoryhasalongtraditionwithinsociology.

Overthepastfewdecades,rationalchoicetheorieshavebeenappliedtoanalyseawiderangeofpoliticalandsocialcircumstancesincludingtheformationoffamilyanddemography（Sen1983;Colman1993）,religionformationandchoice（Starketal.1996）,genderdistinctionandbehaviour（FerberandNelson1993）,crimeanddeviance（Gibbs1975）,andsoon.Inexplainingthesesocialphenomenon,sociologistsandpoliticalscientistsseektoconstructmodelsofindividualactionandsocialcontext.

Proponentsofrationalchoicetheoryhavearguedthat“rationalchoicetheoryprovidestheonlyscientificbasisforsocialtheory”（Ricker1995:

23）.Proponentsofrationalchoicetheorybelievethatthegoalofscienceistocreateaccurateempiricalgeneralizationsaboutnaturebysimplifyinghumanbehavioursandwhichinturnwouldallowforusefulprediction.Moreover,theybelievedthatscienceisaimedatexplanationasmuchasatprediction.Ifageneralizationcanbeexplainedthenitisequivalentofgivingthegeneralizationtheoreticalcontentandfromwhichthenecessaryandsufficientconditionsforsuchgeneralizationtobehappenedcanbededuced.Therefore,ifanempiricalgeneralizationcanbeembeddedinatheor