POLS1009 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Collective Action, Strategic Dominance, Historical Institutionalism
L10 RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY
1. A definition of RCT (including what it excludes)
2. Nash equilibrium
3. Collective action problems/social dilemmas
4. Political Illustrations
5. RCT vs. historical institutionalism
A definition:
- Rational choice theory is an ‘-ism’ according to which outcomes are explained by the goal-oriented
and strategic behaviour of individuals (who are often assumed to be selfish and materialistic)
-…especially where those outcomes represent (or, surprisingly, appear to contravene) ‘Nash
equilibria’
-The Prince (1513): a precursor to RCT?
-‘Goal-oriented’:
oEach individual has preferences over possible outcomes and acts so as bring about the best
within that individual’s power (i.e. they ‘maximize’ or ‘optimize’)
Preference over each state of affairs. Bring about the best conceivable world.
oThis outcome may only be better on balance (greater costs are just outweighed by still
greater benefits)
(Cost-benefit analysis: individuals respond to both incentives and disincentives)
-Strategic’ (important!):
oIndividuals recognize that the outcomes they are in a position to bring about depend not
merely on their choices (within physical
constraints) but also on how others will react
(which defines social constraints)
Especially my choice in response to other
peoples choices.
o(To that extent, RCT is synonymous with game
theory: i.e. mathematical modeling of behavior
given ‘anticipated reactions’)
-‘Selfish’/‘egoism’: individuals rank possibilities according to their wellbeing
oDon’t care about impact on others.
- ‘Materialistic’: only money and (coercive) power increases wellbeing
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
L10 rational choice theory: a definition of rct (including what it excludes, nash equilibrium, collective action problems/social dilemmas, political illustrations, rct vs. historical institutionalism. Rational choice theory is an -ism" according to which outcomes are explained by the goal-oriented and strategic behaviour of individuals (who are often assumed to be selfish and materialistic) Especially where those outcomes represent (or, surprisingly, appear to contravene) nash equilibria". Goal-oriented": each individual has preferences over possible outcomes and acts so as bring about the best within that individual"s power (i. e. they maximize" or optimize") Bring about the best conceivable world: this outcome may only be better on balance (greater costs are just outweighed by still greater benefits) (cost-benefit analysis: individuals respond to both incentives and disincentives) Strategic" (important: individuals recognize that the outcomes they are in a position to bring about depend not merely on their choices (within physical constraints) but also on how others will react (which defines social constraints)
