Rational Choice Theory Essay

“Man is a logical animal who always loses his outburst when he is called upon to behave in accordance with the dictates of reason. ” As noticed from Oscar Wilde’s famous quote, rationality is one of the most important and debatable subjects in studying individual behavior. To study and analyze this rationality, numerous college students have tried to establish their own theories and generalize all their explanation with empirical evidences from real-world, which ultimately produces so-called, the theory of rational decision.

Rational Choice Theory is definitely an approach to understand human patterns. The procedure has long been the dominant paradigm in economics, but in latest several decades it has become extensively used in additional fileds including Sociology, Personal Science, and Anthropology. The key purpose of this paper is to provide an summary of rational choice theory and briefly talk about its fundamental assumptions, opinions, political implication, and option explanations of individual decision mechanism. Firstly, historical experience of realistic choice theory and its move from the field of Economics to that of Political Research will be elaborated.

Next, various definitions and meanings with the rational choice will be talked about. The basic presumptions of the realistic choice procedure with personal implication will be followed. A number of issues increased by rational choice theory will be followed after this conversation. This daily news will suggest some of the primary criticisms which were levied up against the rational decision approach.

Limited empirical quality of realistic choice theory and methodological individualism, which will reveals inborn problematic characteristics of the theory, will be talked about. Finally, substitute explanations of individual decision mechanism will certainly sum up this kind of discussion. Ahead of elaborating their theoretical dialogue, it is necessary to go over historical skills of rational choice theory.

In the article, “A Genealogy of Realistic Choice: Rationalism, Elitism, and Democracy”, Maloy introduces Skinner’s analysis of behaviorism since fundamental history for the topic of rational choice theory. He states that, “Skinner’s analysis justifies the attention in the recent debates around rational choice ecause it phone calls attention to the ineluctable ideological features of methodological debate” (Maloy 751). In respect to Maloy, Skinner can “clarify the kinds of ordre force which in turn attach to empirical theories in social savoir by a close textual analysis of a few leading advantages to the behaviorist debate”, which in turn ultimately allows the discussion of rational decision to be furthered applied in to different fields of study (Maloy 751).

Milton Freidman is another important figure that delivers profound theoretical base intended for discussing realistic choice theory. In “The Methodology of Positive Economics”, Friedman argues that people and firms produce decisions which could maximize their particular profit beneath perfect data. He defended rational decision model by simply arguing that, “a theory should be judged by the predictive accuracy, not the realism of its assumptions” (Friedman 10).

His disagreement provides assumptive foundations of rational decision theory in Economics, even though it is often belittled by after scholars due to the weak scientific validity and ceteris paribus nature. Whilst rational decision theory have been dominant paradigm in Economics, it has become “adapted and modified in a number of ways to fit” different fields of study including Political Technology; Maloy points out that “the distinctiveness with the rational choice approach among political researchers consists, in general terms, inside the use of economic models to clarify and forecast political tendencies (Maloy 753). Maloy points out three dominant figures, Arrow, Downs, and Olson because rational decision founders especially in the field of political scientific research.

According to Maloy, Arrow’s work is targeted on so called, “collective rationality whose underlying purpose is to measure collective choices using specifications normally applied to individual alternatives (Maloy 753). Down uses Arrow’s communautaire rationality while the starting point of his study and “aims to articulate a behavior secret for democratic governments so that they could be included in economic theories of general equilibrium, along with non-state real estate agents like personal firms and consumers (Maloy 754).

Finally, Olson’s evaluation has used “the key elements of Arrow’s and Down’s constructs and applied those to a less wide field”; This individual argues that “as long as the service provided by a voluntary association is a public great on which an individual can ride-free, there is not any incentive basically to take on the costs associated with signing up for, membership and participation, unless of course the marginal contribution of this individual considerably advances the organizational cause” (Maloy 754). All three decision founders’ performs have allowed rational choice theory to get in the central place of politics discussion in “the innovative and cross-disciplinary ways” (Maloy 755).

Simply by arguing that voting benefits have no certain social meaning, voting does not have individual efficacy, and engagement in interest group activity has no unique individual effectiveness, these logical choice creators could criticize unrealistic and irrational presumptions and best practice rules of classic democratic program and take rational choice model to the place of politics discussion in the field of Economics (Maloy 755). Logical Choice Theory generally depends on consideration from the choice behavior of person decision-making units, which in economics are often customers and companies. The theory suggests that the individual decision-making unit is certain larger group such as potential buyers or sellers in a particular market.

Once individual actions are set up, the analysis generally moves on to examine how specific choices have interaction to produce final results. Then, how much does it suggest by fighting that a options are rational? In rational choice theory it implies that an agent’s choices reflect the most preferred possible alternative between given possibilities.

In other words, choices must reflect utility optimization. Elinor Ostrom defines realistic choice theory as a tips for “understand humans as self-interested, short-term maximizers” in his function, “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Decision Theory of Collective Action” (Ostrom 2).

In the article, “The Politics Psychology of Rational Choice Theory”, William H.  Riker also suggests that “the rational choice version begins with all the assumption that actors know very well what they want and will order their very own wants transitively” (Riker 25). “Transitively” here means that a realtor of rational choice unit can do it called, “a transitive ordering”; “To know what one would like requires that you choose the best from among a lot of goals and, failing to attain it, to choose the second ideal, etc” (Riker 24). This kind of formulation of ordering allows an agent to pursue the best option with given constraints that limit alternatives he or she can have got.

In their work, “Rational Decision Theory”, Coleman and Fararo define realistic choice sociologically as they make use of the term, “models of calculated action”, rather than rational choice; “These versions rest for the assumption that actors are purposive meaning they work in ways that tend to develop beneficial results” (Coleman and Fararo 21). These several definitions explain that options pursuing utility maximization and outcomes manufactured by these selections are important elements in rational choice theory. Then how is different once rational choice theory is applied in to the field of Political Research instead of various other fields of study such as Economics and Sociology?

In respect to Riker, Economists’ priority for rational choice is “the process and outcomes produced by voluntary exchange, where naturally , all participants benefit. On the other hand, “Politics generally concerns processes and results produced by group decisions which are practically joining on individuals who cannot decide from the group. Thus, there might be losers and winners in politics in accordance to Riker’s argument (Riker 24).

Although Rational decision theory is definitely the prominent paradigm in Economics and other fields of study, it has been subject to energetic criticism. In “Pathologies of Rational Decision Theory”, Add Green and Ian Shapiro raises a number of empirical issues that rational decision theory have; they “conclude that a number of methodological insufficiencies plague empirical applications of logical choice models. They believe, “fundamental and recurrent methodological failings grounded in the universalist aspirations that motivate so much rational decision theorizing” (Freidman 59).

In respect to Green and Shapiro, “these mistakes stem via a method-driven rather than a problem-driven approach to analysis, in which experts are more desperate to vindicate one or another universalist model than to understand and explain real political outcomes” (Friedman 59). Green and Shapiro’s argument can be summarized into 3 propositions; “there is a set of methodological characteristics that are unfavorable in an scientific science and are also thus to be avoided. ” “Empirical applications of rational decision theory are more inclined to commit these mistakes than any other types of empirical analysis in politics science. “These pathologies are generally not due to and historical coincidence, but are grounded in fundamental characteristics of rational decision theory, specifically its universalist aspirations as well as the lack of specificity in the logical actor assumption” (Freidman 60).

These propositions suggest that realistic choice theory has it is empirical limit for testing and forecasting actual political outcomes. In more detail, Green and Shapiro point out several problems of rational choice theory that possibly undermines the scientific validity from the theory alone. Post hoc theory development” known to statisticians as “curve fitting” is one of these conditions that rational decision theory includes. Green and Shapiro “contend that instead of formulating strong predictions which can be falsifiable by empirical data, rational decision theorist have a tendency first to consider the scientific evidence, then design a rational decision model best suited it” (Friedman 5).

Another problem brought up by Green and Shapiro is rational choice theorists’ engagement in “arbitrary domain restriction” (Friedman 5). Since discussed previous, certain limitations or constraints enable “a transitive ordering” in logical choice theory. Green and Shapiro argue that these limitations and restrictions are defined in unclear ways in rational decision model, which ultimately makes the empirical quality of the theory weakened.

Green and Shapiro’s examination of the phenomenon of voting behavior is another major example that shows these problems logical choice theory innately has. “In a real-world selection with a huge electorate, it truly is instrumentally illogical for anyone to case a ballot, as no single political election has more than an infinitesimal chance of selecting the outcome. If one favors selfish or selfless ends, virtually any activity in pursuit of those ends would be more effective than the time spent on voting and educating one self about individuals and issues. Yet hundreds of millions of people do vote.

Intended for rational choice theory, this may appear to be a gigantic anomaly” (Friedman 6); As noted previous, rational choice theory presumes that an agent of the version seeks best possible outcomes to increase his or her electricity in provided constraints. However , according to Green and Shapiro, in a real-world voting behavior does not confirm this kind of assumption of rational choice theory in which voters solid a boule without having enough time to assess or predict its possible outcome and realizing whether his or her action of voting maximize gain or not really.

Another issue raised simply by Green and Shapiro is free operating problem; While voters can simply pursue a free riding action on the initiatives of others to help the cause do well, there is no need for individuals to devote resources of the time and cash to cause desired benefits. In other words, “rational choice theory would seem to be refuted not simply by people who vote, but by people who contribute small amounts of money to political promotions, attend rallies, and engage in other forms of collective action designed to secure goals whose success is in addition to the efforts of any solitary participant” (Friedman 7).

While seen by Green and Shapiro’s founding, most criticisms of realistic choice theory seem to be that the assumptions in the theory are not literally and completely true. No model can easily pass these kinds of a test, as almost all theories fuzy from truth in certain approach. Determining the empirical validity of a style would consequently seem to involve an study of both feasibility of presumptions and conformity with real-world data. The standard assumption of rational choice theory is usually that the primary device of analysis is the individual decision-maker.

Those who believe that groups are fundamental include criticized this assumption. This issue of so called, “methodological individualism” are treated in many situations in the social sciences. Available, “Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique”, Coleman and Fararo argues that models of purposive action or realistic choice model can be useful in explaining and predicting human being behavior. They further their argument by saying that “because the values and values of individuals are shaped mainly by the socializing influences of society, specifically as mediated through social relationships with significant other, an awareness of the lifestyle and framework of societies and of the positions of individuals within all of them is necessary” (Coleman and Fararo 22).

According to Coleman and Fararo, major problem for applying rational decision model specifically into Economics and Politics Science, where the primary curiosity has been in get worse level outcomes, “is which the postulate of purposive action has been connected to arbitrary and narrow presumptions about what persons value and believe” (Coleman Fararo 33). Also the assumption that human actions are narrowly self-interested and the use of the term rationality to refer for the efficient pursuit of economic rewards has frequently produced completely wrong assumption that rational decision model will be innately egoistic; “that they regard individuals as determining the anticipated benefit to themselves of alternative lines of action and acting appropriately (Coleman and Fararo 34).

Recent empirical evidences suggest that human beings are equipped for acting in ways for the interests more or the social group above their self-interest, which implies that the assumption of individual’s pursuit of self-interest does not complement reality. Coleman and Fararo further all their discussion of this “methodological individualism” by fighting that a sociable norm can be one primary example, which in turn refutes the fundamental assumption of rational choice model. According to Coleman and Fararo, “When a social usual is find out to have recently been violated, some type of formal or perhaps informal peine will result” (Coleman Fararo 35).

Formal sanction such as a legal code or a group of rules and informal sanction like a disapproval or interpersonal ostracism could affect individual’s choice production process. Therefore , unlike the basic assumption of rational choice version suggests that man behavior is oriented from self-interest, by the a result of social best practice rules and beliefs, individuals can easily consequently work in generous or non selfish way for following a interests of groups they can be involved in. For its limit and problematic mother nature of logical choice theory, the need for alternate explanation is becoming necessary for many scholars who also criticize the idea.

Dennis Chong provides a few insights to get the possible alternative of rational choice theory in his article, “Rational Choice Theory’s Mysterious Rivals”. According to Chong, even though Green and Shapiro’s evaluate against logical choice theory has failed to provide complete sort of alternative justification, there are some assumptive debates and discussions that suggest conceivable theoretical replacement or modification. Chong argues that, “Green and Shapiro occasionally refer to the affect of social-psychological and moral factors” including group loyalties, emotions, personal identities, ideology, obligation, and altruism (Friedman 47).

Since found in Coleman and Fararo’s arguments that institutional or perhaps social elements can affect individual’s choice making process, many college students further their particular discussion of this social determination as the choice of rational choice theory. In his content, “When Rationality Fails”, Michael jordan Taylor argues that social identification and intrinsic inspiration can explain some of significant social sensation and communautaire action that has been ignored simply by rational decision theory; “If a person defines herself as a member of the group, or perhaps if her membership in a group is done cognitively prominent, then she actually is more likely to take notice of the group’s rules and interact personally with group members in social dilemmas” (Friedman 230).

For intrinsic motivation, Taylor swift explains that there are some activities that are intrinsically motivating people to be took part in such as interesting work, helping out, and politics activities. In such a case the activity alone or excitement from that activity is the prize for people. When ever extrinsic benefits like cash are presented, intrinsic inspiration would diminish (Friedman 231). By indicating the concept of interpersonal identification and intrinsic motivation, problems of rational choice model to get explaining some collective action can be fixed.

In this daily news, a sense of just how rational decision theory functions and of their methodological footings has been presented. It has also been noticed that realistic choice theory is rather than an ultimate response. The theory is definitely subject to a number of criticisms, yet there is no doubt that its affect in various areas of research have brought tremendous levels of theoretical arguments, and improved the depth of economical, sociological, and political discussion posts. It is not possible to attain full knowledge about nearly anything, especially cultural phenomena. Nevertheless , it is certain that rational decision approach is definitely one of most crucial theoretical resources for human beings to learn and analyze to gain this kind of ultimate response.

It can be beneficial or deceiving, depending on just how it is cured. It is responsibility of staying and upcoming scholars and individuals to correctly apply and use this theory with open minded attitude.