Strengths and Weaknesses of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) as an Analytic Framework for Politics and IR - Coursework Example

Strengths and weaknesses of Rational choice theory (RCT) as an analytic framework for politics and IR of the of the [Name of the Course] [Date] Strengths and weaknesses of Rational choice theory (RCT) as an analytic framework for politics and IR Introduction Rational Choice theory (RCT) is applied in the field of international relations and politics as the most influential paradigm for couple of decades. It has become popular and most discussed theory due to its claim to predict the political future of various issues. It has been in use as a scientific methodological theory to propagate political activism and has reached the stature of globally applicable to the world political and IR issues. Rational choice theory had its root in Liberal belief, and economic theory based on rationality. This theory, in fact, aims to evaluate the actions and behaviour of an individual as rational with respect to its choices. Becker was the first to develop the theory and applied rational actor models in economic widely. According to Rational action theory, when there are several course of action to carry out a task, an individual will choose the one which he thinks is most likely to be the best rewarding (Ogu, 2013). This paper will focus on application of RCT in paradigm of Politics and International Relation, with its benefits and drawbacks. As all theories rest on assumptions and assumptions are evaluated on their usefulness and applicability. In politics and economics, competition has been the main drive for greater power for scarce resources. Semblance of politics and economics and, unravelled nature of relationship between economic and political competition of goods in former case and for power and privilege in the later, has made the theorist to apply economic methods in the study of politics. Some researches show that individuals or representatives in economic and political paradigm acts in the same manner on overall value scale while taking part in market of political activity. In this way, the research shows that the voters are inherently the same as costumers because the same individual is a voter and a customer simultaneously (Tullock, 2006). Since its development by Becker, the rational choice theory came along way and stormed the field of political science. It is because of two important advantages which rational choice theory possesses over its rival theories that are; first, the theory possesses immense analytical advantage. Then, secondly, it is not a mere theory, rather a technique to develop theories. Although, it work with certain other theories, however, it explains the behaviour of political actors while making selection from a certain set of options in order to get their goal with minimal input. Briefly, it illustrates the fashions and ways in which people behave when provided with choices. Similarly, this theory entails the behaviour explicitly depicted by the voters, bureaucrats and vested interests groups. This theory has strongly influenced the institutional public theory in detail analysis of political analysis. Anthony Downs in 1957 introduced the rational choice theory into electoral behaviour and electoral competition in United States of America (Downs, 1957). Down consider that the voters and parties are in constant pursuance to enhance their utility in the system. However, Olson has contradicted the assumption deeming the self-interested practices of the political practitioners. He works found out that it is not necessary for self-interested and self-serving persons to work for collective action to achieve some common goal. It can be evident when someone refuses to pay tax, despite the fact that the tax amount will be used for the welfare. This drawback resulted in the development of the theory of collective action theory, which assists to explain the failures in collective actions can be minimized where there are few people involved in decision making (Olson, 1965). Self-interest behaviour of people has caused much damaged to the market problems because of the exercises of bureaucrats in order to gain more control of budget and control over cost structure of welfare expenditures of states. The start point of this theory was the individual’s personal viewpoint, in other words, individual’s self-interest. However, its interpretation varied among various theorists. One such perspective considered the individuals as the central figure, which is responsible for both individual actions and social actions (Abell, 1991). This perspective determines the individual’s self-serving behaviour behind both individual and social action. Founding, on the basis of the individualism theory, further expands the theme of the theory. It describes the social phenomenon of competition and co-operation, sharing, norms and values and cultures demonstrations in the process of decision-making. Furthermore, it is sociologically minimalist even in political paradigm; the theory asserts itself as simple assumptions related to individuals and inter-relationship between them. The model framed from this perspective then encompasses complex relationships of larger groups, system and whole societies. This approach is in contrast with Emile Durkheim or Pearson’s approach, which propagates for the system’s values and societal norms as the basis for behaviour. However, Marxist’s tradition implies large-scale, global, and historical social forces based on class difference. Theory of rational choice theory is indicative of the concept of utilitarianism, where people (political practitioners in our case) analyse and chooses the best and efficient method to achieve their objectives. Advantages The rational choice theory has been in enormous application in political science and international relations. This theory gives a deductive approach to evaluating behaviours in political affairs. Becker considered it as a unified framework for understanding all the human behaviour. This theory was considered more general and advanced. The theory possesses great aspect of general applicability in itself. Here, Generality mean applicability of assumptions of the theory to an individual’s or collective social action in the environment to another environmental settings. The theory of rational choice gives the decision makers within a country and among different countries a common ground to select from varying political options available to them. The application of the rational choice theory or even failure of the theory does not limit the validity of the theory to other matters. The theory still possesses the validity for its application in other fields of a nation and of relationships among different nations. However, this assumption leaves some space for contradictions, but the contradictions will be centred around the environment that is provided, not on the nature of the theory or the actors in it. The common deductive base provides the opportunity for the comparison of different theories that shares the common base for the theory. In other term, it reduces the gaps between theories that share the common deductive base, enhancing the prospects of merging of different such theories into a unified single coherent body. Its generality gives the base derive other theories and hypothesis. Parsimony is the advantage in the use of rational choice theory. In terms of Michael Ogu (2013) “The common knowledge of rationality assumption, the assumption of isomorphic and self-regarding utility function, when combined with the rational optimization model, allow rational choice theories to treat variations in choices among actors and by an actor over time as entirely a function of their structural position. Preferences and beliefs are simply perceived as the only relevant variables for determining action” (Ogu, 2013). Moreover, it is obvious that different people have a different opinion about the environment and its suitability for application of theories; whereas, these opinion arises from variations in information available about that particular environment. Generality takes processes of inference, utility functions, and decision-making processes of all actors as isomorphic or same. Therefore, generality seems to reinvigorate the parsimony. The rational choice theory can be used to develop many other theories. The decisiveness of the rational choice theories rely on two factors; first on the structure of the individual actor and secondly, on the assumptions of the individual actor. Rational choice theory deals with the environments as an unspecified area; however, there are certain limits that ensure that the generated theories may be realistic to a maximum extent. It is, therefore, unlikely that a self-serving political actor never sacrifices himself for a political objective. As the rational choice theory is in coherence with all structural assumptions, it uses nearly the same variables used in structural theories. These variables include distribution of wealth, military strength, technological advancement and others (Shapiro, 1994). Empirical accuracy of the theory and applications is open to wide criticism. Despite much criticism, the assumption proposed by the theory has much acceptance with reference to its empirical evidence. Disadvantages Despite the usefulness of the theory, there is much criticism of its assumptions that seem unrealistic in certain situations and inability to encompass many important human phenomena. First, the assumption of rational choice theory that illustrates utility functions is uni-dimensional (therefore static). Hence, it promotes self-servility and self-interest. Thus, actors whether they are politicians, states or capitalists, are more likely to maximize their wealth, power, perks and prestige and economic benefits. Somehow, there are exceptions. Primarily, propagated through sense of justice and philanthropic tendencies. This theory assumes that the environment of a particular type observable to an observer gives birth to beliefs and hypothesis. Whereas, huge research shows that much of the beliefs in individuals are contradictory to what rational choice theory proposes. In real world, many of the beliefs are based on emotional and sentimental notions rather than logic. Similarly, decision-making is carried out by biases and prejudices present in norms of international relations or state’s policy. Thus, they rely on other techniques while making decisions. Rational choice theorist argues that individual approaches and actions determine macro-institutions and its functions. It is not, however, applicable everywhere. In fact, there are certain complexities in defining the individual role as the basis of actions of macro institutions from states, governments or parties. Therefore, the organisational behaviour may not necessarily determine individual’s behaviour. Critiques argue that preferences and beliefs can be the cause or the consequence of actions. Therefore, for adequate understanding of political behaviour it is essential to analyse and comprehend both these concepts and inter-relationship between them. Norms, habits, mores, and values exist everywhere, from international dealings to state’s relationships to the government decision making to market trends. These norms are strong and assertive, hence, poses great influence on the action of the actor, irrespective of whether the actor is a stated or government or individual. Masses acknowledge and accept such norms. Therefore, they seem to be meaningful in a political, social or economic environment. Few theorists expanded the scope of rationality and included the self-sacrifice and people serving and welfare into it. Thus, these non-rational actions become of part of rationality. Therefore, the choice of rationality becomes dubious and ambiguous. In the field of international relation and political science, there are certain lapses that are indicated and criticised by the opponents. The functioning of democracies is not fully interpreted by the rational choice theory remain unable to interpret the functional aspects of democracies. In a democratic system, people sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the whole society, i.e., a social action. In contrast to the prediction of the theory, preferences and beliefs resulted in ‘empirical anomalies’ in the global politics. In politics, self-servile behaviour predicted by the rational choice theory has been negated and differed by the policies and strategies involving serving the people. Parties possess tendencies to serve the people. They plan out strategies and policies to give more relief to the people while deriding the notion of self-serving or self-interested behaviour. Conclusion In political and international behaviour, rational choice theory provides the most pragmatic solution to problems produced during decision-making. It illustrates the appropriate way by analysing the ‘causes’ and ‘consequences’ of the options available. Many decisions are taken using this comparative method in global and statutory issues. However, there are certain limitations that have restricted its application in the field of politics and international relations. List of References Abell, P., 1991. Rational Choice Theory. Illustrated ed. Aldershot: E. Elgar. Downs, A., 1957. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), pp.135-50. Ogu, M.I., 2013. Rational Choice Theory: Assumptions, Strengths, and Greatest Weaknesses in Application Outside the Western Milieu Context. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter), 1(3), pp.90-99. OLSON, M., 1965. Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. illustrated, reprint, revised ed. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. Shapiro, I., 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. illustrated, revised ed. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press. Tullock, G., 2006. The Vote Motive. 2nd ed. London: institute of Economic Affairs. Read More