Content area
Full text
Rational choice theorists have not clearly articulated their epistemological positions, and for this reason, their arguments in favor of rational choice theory are inconsistent, contradictory, and unpersuasive. To remedy this problem, I describe how two of 'the main positions in the philosophy of science, instrumentalist-empiricism and scientific-realism, act as competing epistemological foundations for rational choice theory. I illustrate how these philosophical perspectives help political scientists (1) understand what is at stake in the theoretical debates surrounding the rationality assumption, selfinterest, and methodological individualism, (2) identify inconsistencies in the epistemological positions adopted by rational choice theorists, and (3) assess the feasibility and desirability of a universal theory based on the rationality assumption.
Rational choice theory (RCT) is arguably the most popular and fastest-growing theoretical orientation in contemporary political science. RCT has substantially changed the way political scientists study issues as diverse as voting, intralegislative bargaining, political party organization, social movements, nuclear deterrence, the origins and effects of international institutions, and theories of justice. Many advocates of RCT see it as the most plausible candidate for a universal theory of political and social behavior, whose simple and intuitively plausible assumptions hold the promise of unifying the diverse subfields of political science. Critics, however, vigorously dispute the utility of RCT. They charge that the assumptions employed in RCT are unrealistic, the models empirically intractable, and the findings trivial. Although RC theorists acknowledge many of these problems, the cumulative impact of criticisms of RCT is uncertain because no clear standards exist for evaluating these arguments.^sup 1^ To add to the confusion, RC theorists themselves disagree about a number of crucial issues. RC theorists are divided as to the substance of their theoretical assumptions, such as whether the rationality assumption is sustainable, how to define self-interest, and the utility of methodological individualism. RC theorists also differ in their opinions about the scope of RCT in political science, specifically whether RCT should apply to all realms of social inquiry or be restricted to particular empirical domains. These debates are integral to the development of RCT as a viable research program in political science, yet RC theorists have not come to a clear consensus about the substance or stakes of these questions.
The issues involved in these debates are diverse and...