Meg McKean wrote:

Ratcho followers have no trouble
explaining acting on principle. If one gets a lot of utility out of pursing principle, then a rational actor will do so. Ratch does not explain where people's preferences come from.

I want to make sure I understand you, and whether all
(most?) rational choice proponents would agree with your characterizaton of the theory.

Are you saying that rational choice theory can offer us nothing on why Noda chose to pursue the tax hike at the expense of virtually everyhing else, including his own position as Prime Minister, the electoral fortunes of his party, and his interest in other policy goals. That latter would include restarting more nuclear plants (now made more difficult by reports that a DPJ panel headed by Maehara may vow a total gradual phase-out of nuclear power); and Japan joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (now reportedly put off indefinitely)? Are you saying that, all that ratcho can explain is that, having made this choice for some unknowable reason, Noda pursued it as cleverly (rationally) as possible?

Political leaders are constantly faced with the problem of trade-offs among different, often conflicting, goals. If rational choice theory cannot explain, let alone predict, the choices that political leaders make, how is it useful?

Richard Katz
The Oriental Economist Report