Introduction to Rational Choice Theory
H. Stobbs, MFA
Political Science 200:
Liberal Democracy in America
Copyright Notice
Certain materials in this presentation are
included under the fair use exemption of
the U.S. Copyright Law and have been
prepared with the multimedia fair use
guidelines and are restricted from further
use.
The Problem of Political Science
Problem: Whereas economics has the
“science of choice” and sociology has
been called “the science of no choice at
all,” political science has no characteristic
scientific approach to call its own.
Solution: Borrow from other scientific
fields.
Origins
• In the 1940’s and 50’s many scholars
began seeking a genuinely scientific basis
for political science – they looked
admiringly upon the fields of sociology and
psychology and began to adopt behavioral
methods that focused on questions about
political psychology and political sociology
Origins
• In the 1970’s many scholars grew
dissatisfied with these non-rational
approaches. They began to look to more
concrete disciplines like operations
research and economics theory (Such as
Hotelling’s Law on Minimal Differentiation
and its opposing Product Differentiation
Model) and for models to restore
rationality to the field of political science.
Origins
• This caused a backlash on the part of the
behavioralists as well as historically- and
philosophically-focused scholars who
complained, as Morris P. Fiorina writes,
about “ the reduction of political man and
woman to atomistic calculators, and the
capture of the research agenda by applied
mathematicians and ‘economic
imperialists’.”
Origins
• In the early “aughts” scholars concerned
that a biological approach had been
overlooked began to push the field toward
biopolitics, which examines how genetic
and physiological tendencies are related to
political behavior.
Mayhew’s Approach
David Mayhew is one of many
political scientists who have
adopted “Rational Choice theory”
and its variants economic theory
and public choice theory. The most
important commonality of these
three variants is that they focus on
behavior. Mayhew aligns himself
more closely with economics than
with sociology.
Variants within Variants
• Decision theory centers on cost-benefit
calculations that individuals make without
reference to anyone else’s plans
• Game theory analyzes how people make
choices based on what they expect other
individuals to do.
General Assumption
Individuals choose the best option
according to their preferences and the
constraints they face
Most Models Based in
Methodological Individualism
• Assumes that social situations or
collective behaviors are the result of
individual actions
The Basic Idea
• Patterns of behavior in society reflect
choices made by individuals as they
try to maximize benefits and minimize
costs
• By “rationality,” we mean wanting
more rather than less of a good
Say, Olly, How many social
scientists does it take to
screw in a light bulb?
Why, none, Stan! Social scientists don’t
change light bulbs… they search for the
root cause of why the bulb burned out in
the first place!
Two Assumptions about Individual
Preferences
• Completeness: All actions can be ranked
in an order of preference; indifference
between two or more alternatives is
possible
• Transitivity: If action a1 is preferred to
action a2 and action a2 is preferred to a3,
then a1 is preferred to a3.
Forms That Preference may Take
• Strict Preference: When an individual
prefers a1 to a2, but not a2 to a1
• Weak Preference: When an individual has
a preference for at least a1 (similar to the ≤
operator)
• Indifference: When an individual does not
prefer a1 to a2 or a2 to a1
Other Assumptions
• An individual has full or perfect
information about what will happen under
any choice made (in more advanced
models, a probability value is assigned)
• An individual has cognitive ability and
time to weigh every choice against every
other choice (More advanced models rely
on bounded rationality)
Utility Maximization
• Payoff Function (u): u (a;) > u (a;)
• u (Sara) > u (Roger) > u (abstain)
Say, Frick, How many
political scientists
does it take to change
a light bulb?
Just one, Frack… but
it's not the light bulb
that needs changing it's the system!
Mayhew and Rational Choice
• Mayhew follows on work by economists
Anthony Down and Mancur Olson, as well
as political scientist Richard Fenno
• Fenno’s findings: House committee
members pursued three principal goals –
reelection, influence within the House, and
good public policy.
Rational Choice Theory:
It Has Its Critics
• Green & Shapiro: Pathology of Rational Choice
Theory (1994); Schram & Caterino (2006) –
some basic criticisms include:
– Weak methods
– Limited contributions to political science
– Methodological pluralism versus strict
adherence to natural science methods
– Too reliant on social science
– Not reliant enough on historical analysis
– Doesn’t account sufficiently for culture
My Own Two Cents
Everybody’s right, and nobody’s wrong.
Don’t get hung up on turf.
Use the best and lose the rest.
Bibliography
Fiorina, Morris P. Fiorina. “When Stakes Are High, Rationality Kicks In.” Article on-line. Accessed 12
January 2008 from http://phoenix.liu.edu/~uroy/eco54/histlist/pol-sci-rational.htm.
Jacobson, Gary. The politics of Congressional elections, 6th ed. New York: Pearson, 2004. Accessed
20 Aug 2012 from http://wikisum.com/w/Jacobson:_The_politics_of_Congressional_elections.
Mayhew, David R. Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Ed. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2004.
Shapiro, Ian. “A Model That Pretends to Explain Everything.” Accessed 12 January 2008 from
http://phoenix.liu.edu/~uroy/eco54/histlist/pol-sci-rational.htm.