{"title":"The Promise and Limitations of Rational Choice Theory","authors":"Stanley Kelley","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443374","url":null,"abstract":"Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory is a valuable survey and critique of research in the rational choice tradition, but one that slights that tradition's past and potential contributions to the study of politics. The authors rightly note limitations of rational choice theory but understate what it has to offer political scientists, for they fail to focus clearly on its essentials; adopt too narrow a basis for evaluating scholarship; and wrongly identify rational choice theory with the shortcomings of some scholarship that makes use of it.","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117225858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Engineering or Science: What Is the Study of Politics?","authors":"P. Ordeshook","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443378","url":null,"abstract":"Green and Shapiro's argument that rational choice theory is too inattentive to substantive matters is well taken. However, their suggestions for future research are unlikely to generate what they seek: an empirically relevant, coherent theory of political processes and a rational choice paradigm that accommodates other perspectives. To achieve this end, we require a clearer understanding of the practical objectives of our discipline and of the difference between modelling and theorizing about politics, and between science and engineering. Until the “engineering” component of the discipline assumes a more central role, research—whether theoretical, empirical, or any combination of the two—will continue to generate an incoherent accumulation of theorems, lemmas, correlations, and “facts.”","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126475409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Secret Existence of Expressive Behavior","authors":"R. Abelson","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443369","url":null,"abstract":"The rational choice assumption that any chosen behavior can be understood as optimizing material self‐interest is not borne out by psychological research. Expressive motives, for example, are prominent in the symbols of politics, in social relationships, and in the arts of persuasion. Moreover, instrumentality is a mindset that is learned (perhaps overlearned), and can be situationally manipulated; because it is valued in our society, it provides a privileged vocabulary for justifying behaviors that may have been performed for other reasons, and encourages the illusory belief in the universality of rational choice.","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132070691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What Rational Choice Explains","authors":"R. Lane","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443375","url":null,"abstract":"Rational choice theories have been falsified by experimental tests of economic behavior and have not been supported by analyses of behavior in the market. Politics is an even less fertile field of application for rational choice theories because politics deals with ends as well as means, thus preventing ends‐means rationality; voters have partisan loyalties often “fixed” in adolescence; political benefits have no common unit of measurement; “rational ignorance” inhibits rational choices; and there is no market‐like feedback to facilitate learning. Research comparing public and private efficiency does not support rational choice. Ironically, while law and business schools are now employing better microeconomic theories, political scientists are taking up rational choice theory, regardless of the disconfirming evidence.","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133603860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：