Duncan Snidal,
"Rational Choice in IR" in Handbook of International Relations
2002.
1) theory
Defending Rational Choice theory
2) methods (iv = ... dv = ...)
present definition (already favorable to rational choice), critiques(counter-argument), and arguments
3) evidence (detail 버리고 argument에 초점)
* Definition of rational choice (according to Snidal)
- Rational choice==individual goal-seeking under constraints
- goals not restricted to material interest or self-regarding but could include normative and ideational goals.
- most often used as a positive theory, but can be used as a normative theory to evaluate how actors behave and how they should behave.
>> This is only Snidal's argument. Rational choice is not about ideational goals (because ideal goal is different for each person. Rational choice base on 'given the same condition, the same decision/outcome.') nor normative theory.
Normally, Rational choice can be explained 2-folds: First, humans are self-interested utility maximizers; and second, humans are choosing rationally on the basis of a consistent (transitive) preference ranking.
- Goal-seeking/being rational does not cover all human behavior There are other researches in IR: psychological/cognitive limits of decision-makers(Jervis), identity/culture(Katzenstein), role of appropriateness for behavior(Finnemore), etc.
- a methodology incorporating general theoretical assumptions but it is widely open to specific substantive content.
- realism, neorealism, neoliberalism in IR make easy to confuse the limits of these approaches as inherent limits of rational choice. But rational choice limitations are not inherent. It represent tactical methodological choices to facilitate analysis.
>> Isn't rational choice a mere assumption for simplify theoretical models? Easy to analyze? "Assume that people are rational..." Rational choice is not a theory but a meta-theoretical framework.
What is being rational? Utility maximization? seeking for power and wealth? Is this the only criteria?
- formalization is not a necessary feature of rational choice but has played an indispensable role in its development.
- but non-math approaches have been equally central
- formal and soft approaches are highly complementary, not competitive
>> Point taken. Yet, scientist should choose methods, and they are competing each other in terms of popularity.
* 3 major critiques against rational choice
- Internal critiques (2)
a. Formalization: mathematical technique overwhelmed the substance. Worst case: even argument highly compatible with rational choice but not couched in its technical garb, have not been appreciated. (If cannot prove math, then discard)
b. Little empirical evaluations: theoretical speculations be found little support, increasingly irrelevant.
- External critique
c. Skewed emphasis (by constructivist): Rational choice emphasizes certain problems and sets aside other issues by assumption. Unable to answer big questions such as 1) who the key actors are, 2) explaining their interest, 3) explain the origin of institutions, 4) explain how these change.
>> Why not explained? I think rational choice can. Snidal simplified the critique from the constructivists.
Constructivist says, "Identity is also central for the sociological critique of rational choice approaches, which assumes that this socially constructed identity is causally prior to the definition of interests."(STEFANO GUZZINI, "A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations") They think rational choice are too egoistic, and people usually do not move solely by egoism.
>> Proponents of rational choice insist that the formula ‘value-maximization’ does not at all exclude altruistic preferences (Keohane, 1984: 74)
But this lessens the predictability of rational actor, the merit of rational choice.
* Argument for each critiques
a'. formalization is not essential condition of rational choice but only a tool. Skeptics should appreciate the power of formal approach which established meaningful results.
b'. Rational choice is driven by empirical considerations and plays a central role in a empirical work.
On quantitative side, example would be Bruce Bueno Mesquita's 'expected utility theory of war'
On qualitative side, historical and comparative case studies (such as Jeffry Frieden, Gilpon, Joanne Gowa, Grieco, etc.)
c'. Rational choice might seem ineffective for studying change, because of the concept 'equilibrium.' To incorporate dynamics and change, there are dynamic IR rational choice analysis. e.g. Power transition theory (Gilpin) . Rational choice analysis of cooperation and institutions -> possibility of broader change in IR.
- fixed preference and endogenous actor problem: rational choice has actors and interests fixed/static. If hot, changing preferences lead to untestable arguments. But in reality, preference changes and sometimes actors deliberately seek change in their national preference.
- normative analysis problem: along the utilitarian line, which point is the best?(normative question) > rational choice cannot answer yet. Cannot explain 'international legalization.'
But rational choice already contains some normative elements (e.g. what is the best choice? cooperation for a superior equilibrium, etc).
>> Not sure if those are normative elements.
4) conclusion
Rational choice to be broadened and incorporate shortcomings!
5) critique
- Questions
- Other evidence? Alternative explanation?
- Potential Ideas (for my paper)
- Destroy/murder paper
* C.f. Bourdieu
Bourdieu explicitly tries to avoid different reductions inherent in rational choice approaches or functionalist approaches, by offering a theory around the concept of a field(champ), a social subsystem. A field stands both for a patterned set of practices which suggests competent action in conformity with rules and roles, and for the playing (or battle) field in which agents try to advance their position. The starting point is the relationship between structure and field (champ).
In Bourdieu, structure is conceived as the product of collective history. In the widest sense, structures are social, not natural phenomena.
