Rational Choice Theory
Since the end of WWII a new and controversial theory has arisen in the political science world, the Rational Choice theory. This method concerns itself more precisely with explanation and analysis rather then the traditional descriptive and judgmental method of looking at political phenomenon. As shown in the article 'It isn't Rocket Science, but..." The rational choice scholar concerns itself more with the method by which an individual goes about making a decision when faced with different alternatives. However, along with the emergence of this new theory, oppositions to it have also emerged. In the article "When did Political Science forget about politics" the actual reliability of this theory is challenged. Therefore, one must ask itself, is it possible to develop a universal scientific theory that could apply to all political areas? Can Political Science be viewed as a science? These are the questions that these articles are centered around. As mentioned above, the first article focuses more on the actual methods employed by an individual when faced with more then one possibility or outcome. It looks at what an individual's preferences regarding a final outcome are and the beliefs that guide the individual in accessing which
Furthermore the underlying competition that has formed between economics and the success it has enjoyed in creating universal laws that apply consistently to their field and the lack of such methods in political science seems to have encouraged the rational choicer to come up with a similar method but for the wrong reasons. Economists have claimed, "that while they have the wealth of nations political science had merely a wealth of notions."(11) Although I am sure that the rational choice practitioners does fundamentally want to be able to explain political phenomena in a universal manner one cannot help but ask if the true motivation was not based more on sheer competitiveness, leading to a flawed, incomplete theory that does not hold up to empirical testing. "Competition may be beneficial and scientists may often be spurred to greater creative effort by pet attachments to the hypotheses they seek to vindicate, but this in no way buttresses the suggestion that systematic testing of proffered hypotheses is dispensable." (10p189) This debate, if we can call it that, between the role that morals and values play in the decision making process is an aspect, which I would have liked either one of the articles to elaborate a little further on. How does the rational choicer go about explaining how norms and values fit into their theory, if at all? How do they go about explaining the role that they can have on our decision making process? Do they address this issue in their theory, if so how? How do they defend it? This is an important aspect that I feel should be elaborated on further in order for the reader to get a true sense of the issue at hand and to then be able to form and educated opinion on the subject of rationality and the question of politics as a science.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Green Shapiro, Political Science, Dennis Chong, Rational Choice, Rocket Science, rational choice, rational choicer, political science, , Ian Shapiro, choice theory, rational choice theory, preferences beliefs, real life, article focuses, green shapiro, politics science, theory hold, political science forget, isn't rocket science, article focuses actual, article political science,
Approximate Word count = 2029
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
