Rational Choice - The Political And Scientific Research

Over time, the scope and approaches of Political Science research have evolved. This has led to the development and spread of new ideas, which has broadened researchers understanding of the political they seek to examine. The Rational Choice approach identifies the nature of the political it reviews by applying methods of economics to the study of politics. “Rational Choice theorists start by assuming that people can be relied upon to act in ways which best secure their goals and that these goals reflect their self-interest”. Lowndes et. al (2017) notes there are two assumptions to the Rational Choice approach that are of central importance to its understanding. It is the idea that people are guided by their rationality and self-interest.

During the latter half of the 20th century, American Political Scientists and Economists began to highlight the intersections of the Rational Choice Theory in both academic disciplines. This has led to what is known as theoretical border crossing, as Rational Choice Theory has become an interdisciplinary paradigm equally likened to both Political Science and Economics. Following the emergence of Rational Choice as a political phenomenon, Denis Mueller “went so far to predict that Rational Choice Theory and Political Science would become virtually indistinguishable in the future”. Though Mueller’s prediction appears to be bold, with regard to the political, Rational Choice Theory has merit. According to Lowndes et. al (2017) academics acknowledge that Rational Choice Theory’s utility within Political Science cannot be doubted because, if people are rational and self-interested, it is possible to construct simple but potentially powerful explanations about political events. The rest of this paper will attempt to evaluate how appropriately Rational Choice perspectives first fit within the political and then will assess its contributions to ‘scientific’ research and understanding. The following section of this paper will attempt to synthesize the major debates, overlaps, and critiques of three sources of contemporary Rational Choice literature.

The first article discusses how decision makers are rational actors that pursue self-interest subject to information and opportunity cost. This article is a contemporary exploration of voting and the factors that drive people to vote. The paper reviewed 90 empirical studies of individual-level voter turnout in national elections published in ten top-journals during the decade between 2000-2010. In the 90 articles reviewed there were over 170 different variables used to explain voter turnout. However, Smets and Van Hamm (2012) found that only 8 of these independent variables were included in more than 25 percent of the studies reviewed: education, age, gender, race, income, marital status, party identification, and political interest. “Not only does this imply that there is no consensus on a ‘core model’ of voter turnout, it also implies that authors rarely include the same control variables in their models – despite often referring to these as ‘the usual suspects’”. This refers to a common problem that “Political Scientists often express concern about the lack of a theoretical consensus within their discipline”. In order to address this issue, Lowndes et. al (2017) recommends that Rational Choice theorists should continue to refine their arguments by relaxing the assumptions of self-interest and perfect rationality. At the same time, critics need to recognize that Rational Choice has simple insights about how collective action problems arise, but these can serve as a useful starting point for more detailed research work. The second article refers to the idea of theoretical border crossing and interdisciplinary paradigms. This reading focuses on voter behaviour through a Rational Choice lens based on evidence of strategic voter behaviour and what the researchers deemed to be an unsettling fact “that there is not a canonical rational choice model of voting in elections with costs to vote”.

According to Fedderson, (2004) while a single model does not yet exist, the literature appears to be converging toward a group-based model of voter turnout, in which group members participate in elections because they are either directly coordinated and rewarded by leaders as in mobilization models or because they believe themselves to be ethically required to act in a manner that is consistent with the group’s interest as in ethical agent models. The development of contemporary voting models ties back to Rational Choice’s emphasis on constructing economic models and examining collective action group formation. This research stipulated that in order to appreciate the development of group-based models; it would be useful to begin with a discussion of the decision-theoretic literature on voting, with a focus on the paradox of not voting. He then moved to the game-theoretic and group-based models of voting that ties in with Rational Choice. In the final analysis, his research highlights some of the problems that group-based models of voting must address.

Central to the criticisms of Rational Choice Theory, Fedderson (2004) concluded that a group-based model of voting, whether based on mobilization or on ethics, must ultimately come to grips with the questions of why people join groups. The third article is “based on the assumption that understanding how different groups of users make choices is central to explaining the outcomes of choice-based mechanisms such as those observed in education systems across different national contexts”.

Bridge and Wilson (2015) discuss two established perspectives that explain decision-making in relation to class and education and develop an argument for the explanatory potential of an elaborate, interactive, Sociological Rational Choice Perspective. In doing so, the authors attempt to explain how such a framework may be “operationalized to inform policy aimed at reducing class differentials in school choice and subsequent educational outcomes in the context of New Public Management ideas”. This article speaks to the future of Rational Choice Theory. This is because it is advancing the framework towards new perspectives and realms within Political Science. In the end, Bridge and Wilson (2015) highlight that employing this theoretical approach; alongside empirical testing of the framework in the different policy contexts, would be productive for advancing future research. In the final analysis, Rational Choice Theory is a valid research method that has merit within the political realm.

Despite Lowndes’ et. al (2017) identification that Rational Choice Theory bases its analysis on equilibrium outcomes, assumes like-mindedness, rationality, and selfishness, garners theoretical support for banal ideas, and is highly political politicized it is still an important approach for examining Political Science discourse. This is because it allows researchers to construct models of human behaviour to test empirically and develop powerful explanations about political and economic events. However, Rational Choice Theory lacks merit within the ‘scientific’ realm of research and understanding. Despite efforts to have Political Science recognized as a scientific study, critics suggest it fails to meet the scientific standards of analysis.

According to Ake (1973) contemporary Political Science hardly has any scientific status because it relies too heavily on inductive explanations, uses descriptive terminology instead of highly abstract concepts, and its phenomenon cannot usually be explained because its occurrences are difficult to predict. In essence, Ake is suggesting that Political Science contradicts the laws of natural science. Thus, demonstrating that Rational Choice Theory produces valid research for examining the political, but it has not garnered enough support to be considered an appropriately ‘scientific’ research method.