Suchergebnisse

A review essay on a book by James Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Press, 1990 [see IRPS No. 63/92c01569; also see listing in IRPS No. 88]). Coleman attempts to reconcile rational choice theory with classical sociological concerns: the relationship between the individual & society, & the historical & normative status of rationality. He identifies limits to the rational choice model & suggests some promising but ultimately unconvincing ways around them. His project does, however, offer an important critique of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy, which is of value in analyzing relationships between corporate actors & particular persons. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

▪ Abstract  Skepticism toward sociology has grown over recent years. The attention granted to rational choice theory (RCT) is, to a large extent, a reaction against this situation. Without doubt, RCT is a productive instrument, but it fails signally in explaining positive nontrivial beliefs as well as normative nonconsequential beliefs. RCT's failures are due to its move to use too narrow a definition of rationality. A model can be developed that combines the advantages of the RCT (mainly providing self-sufficient explanations), without falling victim to its shortcomings. This model is implicitly used in classical and modern sociological works that are considered to be illuminating and valid.

Although rational choice theory has made considerable advances in other social sciences, its progress in sociology has been limited. Some sociologists' reservations about rational choice arise from a misunderstanding of the theory. The first part of this essay therefore introduces rational choice as a general theoretical perspective, or family of theories, which explains social outcomes by constructing models of individual action and social context. "Thin" models of individual action are mute about actors' motivations, while "thick" models specify them ex ante. Other sociologists' reservations, however, stem from doubts about the empirical adequacy of rational choice explanations. To this end, the bulk of the essay reviews a sample of recent studies that provide empirical support for particular rational choice explanations in a broad spectrum of substantive areas in sociology. Particular attention is paid to studies on the family, gender, and religion, for these subareas often are considered least amenable to understanding in terms of rational choice logic.

Feminism and rational choice theory have both been hailed as approaches with the potential to revolutionize political science. Apart from a few exceptions, however, work utilizing these two perspectives rarely overlaps. This article reviews their main contributions and explores the potential for a combined approach. It argues that a synthesis of feminism and rational choice theory would involve attending to questions of gender, strategy, institutions, power, and change. The contours and benefits of this approach are illustrated with reference to one particular area of research: the adoption of electoral gender quotas. Despite a current lack of engagement across approaches, this example illustrates that the tools of feminist and rational choice analysis may be brought together in productive ways to ask and answer theoretically and substantively important questions in political science.

The heated debates about rational choice theory (RCT) in political science raise many issues but follow up on few of them.This book therefore discusses RCT's fundamental assumptions and methodology, the value and use of models, and the use of theories in science, enabling a more nuanced evaluation of both the theory's potential and limits.

A contribution to a special journal issue entitled "Rational Choice Theory & Politics" (see related abstracts in SA 44:1). Donald P. Green's & Ian Shapiro's (1984) critique of rational choice theory underestimates the value of unification & the necessity of universalism in science. The central place of intentionality in social life makes both unification & universalism feasible norms in social science. However, universalism in social science may be partial, in that the independence hypothesis -- that the causal mechanism governing action is context independent -- may hold only locally in certain classes of choice domains. Adapted from the source document.