Jim Devin asked: >how does the "rat choice" method of PoliSci differ from that of >economics? >supposedly, rat choice logic is one of the major theoretical tools that >sharpens rather than obscures economic thinking, right? Yes and No. It depends on what we mean by "economic thinking". If economics is defined in terms of utility maximizing individual, rational agency model and free market, i think rational choice theory perfectly fits into and sharpens this mainstream definition of economics. On the other hand, since rational choice theory is an "ideology", it obscures fundamental political-economic realities already built into the assumptions of economics. I don't know perfectly the specific application of rational choice theory in economics dicipline. What i know is that this branch of study has come to dominate political science since the 1970s under the influence of economists and political economists such as Buchanan (1975), Anthony Downs (1957), Mancur Olson (1965), William Riker (1962) Gordon Tullock (1965) and recently Robert Bates (1981). An alternative to conservative rational choice theory has evolved through the works of so called leftist economists among whom John Roamer, Adam Przeworski, Jon Elster and Erik Wright are of particular interests to comparative political economists. Their work is an extension of neo-classical ideology in its emphasis on equilibrium analysis and rational decision making. Political scientists in the radical tradition complain about this recent trend by pointing out the "imperialization of social sciences" under a hegemony led by economics (rational choice, game theory, formal modeling). Of couse, I am talking about what is happening in the "core" of political science. On the other hand, the "consolation" of our own diciplines such as polscie, history and sociology, etc.. is that we are still able to generate alternative radical visions to mainstream views more so stringently than economics. As it is applied in one version of political science, rational choice theory is primarily ideology and assumes that all individuals can be rational. With the studies of economists like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on decision making in government institutions, an argument was made that an "analysis of the market should be based on rational individuals who pursue their own self-interests". Following this has emerged methodological individualism in which benefits and costs are calculated concerning how efficiently government institutions should shape "individual preferences about public goods". As an alternative to rational choice economists, rational choice "political scientists" in the 60s and 70s have turned their attention to economics to explain political bahavior in different socio-economic contexts. However, without challenging the false assumptions of rational chioce theory, they instead combined it with historical, sociological and antropological sciences to be able deal with the utilities of people cross-culturally "across the social strata and overtime". This effort can be seen in the work of Robert Bates (1981) on Africa and Third World political economy (agrarian question).His work is still, in my view, heavily influenced by rational choice theory (despite its critic of conventional economics) because of its biased treatment of Marxian works on peasentary and class location in the third world. The ideological fallacy of rational choice theory and economic theories alike are manifold.1) they create individualistic theories that can not move in space and time 2)they are ahistorical because they can not effectively deal with historical change 3) they are dogmatic because refuse to accept conceptions of exploitation and class. Rational choice economists in the leftist tradition pursue the same neo-classical bias by trying to reorient (and distort) marxist epistemology and its assumptions towards subjective social analysis. In attempting to build Marxist thery in micro foundations, rational choice marxists (Elster, Roemer), have argued that actions of class can be reducable to individual preferences (See Elster's _Making Sense of Marx_). In contrast to Elster, Wrighta and Przeworski placed more emphasis on structurally determined individual preferences. With a much better twist, Roemer employed rational choice to show exploitation occurs as a consequence of unequally distributed property relations, not as a result of what happens in the process of production. On the other hand, Wright has shifted emphasis from class contradictions and labor process towards more subjective analysis like political power groups and coalition building theories. While ephasis on power groups has generated some important insights (as in Bates too), it is also misleading because the importance of production and exploitation is obscured by attention to politics (elites abstracted from society). In sum, it is difficult to draw line between political science rational choice theory and its version in economics. Rational choice is a natural outcome of neo-classical ideology, and this particular world view tends to dominate both diciplines with varying emphasis. Suprisingly too, market ideology implicitly permeates to the discourses of even alternative perspectives in economics field. One of the major problem with this view is that capitalism is defined in an ideological(idealized) manner: free markets, rational and free individuals, rather than a concrete product accumulating capital out of surplus. From an historical perspective too, capitalism has never been the ideology of free market capitalism as we are told in economics. Instead the history of capitalism is a history of concrete manifestations of capitalism, and free market is a historical product of capitalist accumulation built upon power, oppression, war and blood, not "freedom" (to reiterate Marx and Wallerstein).Rational choice theory obscures the historicity of capitalism by idealizing it. Mine
