> From: David H. Slater
> Date: 2012/08/23
>
> Doesn't that pretty much put rational choice theory
out of the running
> as a serious tool of understanding the complexity of
almost any
> social, cultural or political phenomena?

Reading somewhat tersely the posts and thus probably missing the main point, I cannot but feel like I am looking at a group of people who are huddled around a combustion engine engine wondering what good it does.

Before trying to explain my point, let me just say that I am not trying to be a wise ass or to cause any offense

1. I think probably most of us were told when defending our dissertation prospectus, "your answer is only as good as your question." Obviously it is the question that counts. And to my mind "how does rational choice theory explain Noda?" is not a good way to phrase a question.

I tried to explain that there are a number of theories, (or hypotheses if you wish),that can answer Noda's behavior. Some may wish to explain that from a psychological point of view ("a man possessed"?), some may wish to explain that from an anthropological point of view. You can also explain it from a rationalist point of view (which is not rational choice), or you can explain it using rational choice modeling (in which case the questions is likely to become Prime Minister Noda's behavior or party leader Noda's behavior). But if you want to employ political science (or any other
disciplinary) theorizing to answer your question,I think it is necessary that you ask the question in ways that respond to what the theory is suppose to answer.

Of course, not all questions need to be academic, and hence "is Noda rational?" is a legitimate question but it is one that will probably invite answers as good as the question. I think the same can be said with questions like 'is Noda similar (or different) from Koizumi?" If the validity of a theory is the question, the question should address what constitutes the theory that is tested by using Noda's case,including the core tenets, the scope, and the proof of the theory.

2.In a similar vain, whether rational choice is a serious tool of understanding the complexity of almost any social, cultural or political phenomena seems to me to be a (North American) moot question but not a rhetorical one. It's like asking what good an engine does when engines are fit into a variety of mobile and transportable devices.
Rational choice
theorizing is at the core of economic science, and has been widely and successfully used to generate a large number of invaluable insights in political science, particularly in the study of American politics, international politics, and political economy, and the reasoning is spreading to (not retreating from) the study of comparative politics.
Everyone has the right to write off most of the advances in economic and political sciences over the last few decades as rubbish, but in doing so they should be aware that they are making the clam that such developments have added almost nothing to our understanding of the complex social phenomena,

3. Finally,not that it matters, but I would disagree with the rational choice impotence hypothesis. I stand in awe when I think of how rational choice students of Congress have penetrated and explained the messy and complex process of lawmaking that was once thought as something akin to sausage making. The bottom line is,our current day understanding of lawmaking is nothing like sausage making. The same can be said of the workings of international institutions and inter-state relations. More to the point, without rational choice there would be no theory of nuclear deterrence or a rational explanation of war. If you can provide a theory (a theory, mind you, not the theory) that can predict when war is likely to break out, or why weak states may initiate wars (which is ostensibly irrational since they are going to lose), I think rational choice theories are doing pretty well.

Nobuhiro Hiwatari
Institute of Social Science