POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics Rationality, Structure, and Culture Lecture Date: October 24 and 31, 2006

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

Rationality, Structure, and Culture Lecture

Date: October 24 and 31, 2006

Rational Choice Approach

Lead Question: What does it mean to act in a rational manner?

Answer: Those who act rationally are assumed to be acting in their own self-interest. This is the basic assumption from which most rational choice analysis begins.


Rational choice does not absolutely require the assumption that individuals are self-interested.

Instead, as some rational choice scholars argue, as long as people act consistently in relation to their preferences, it is possible to use a rational choice approach


Additional point: it is possible for rational choice scholars to incorporate non-egoistic considerations into their analysis

Doing so adds “complexity”


Whatever assumption of rationality we use, we must also understand that rational action is complicated by a number of other factors, two of the most important of which are:

Strategic calculation

Strategic interaction


Strategic calculation is a fancy way of saying that any decision is based on a calculation of costs and benefits

Example: Deciding to attend or skip class; deciding to prepare for today’s quiz


Strategic interaction

Most decisions are not made in isolation

That is, many decisions involve two or more “players”

In these cases, we can say that individual decisions are generally part of an interactive process, in which one player’s decision is influenced by the existence of another player

In chess and football, strategic interaction is integral to the dynamics and outcome of the game


What is the significance of strategic interaction?

When more than one player is involved, the “payoffs” (or the benefits) of any decision will depend on what the other player does or does not do.

To determine what is rational, therefore, each To determine what is rational, therefore, each player needs to “guess” how another player player needs to “guess” how another player might act.might act.

The right “strategic” moves in football will lead to a touchdown; the right moves in chess will lead to checkmate.


Basic point: Strategic calculation and strategic interaction can make “rational decision-making” much more complex than it appears on the surface

In this scenario, the final outcome (e.g, “mutually assured destruction” is the product of a complex process of rational decision-making shaped by strategic interaction.


Additional point: Rational choice scholars tell us that we should always assume that the large majority of decisions are rational, unless proven otherwise.

This further means that one of the major task of rational choice is to uncover the underlying dynamics of the decision making process, even when or especially when

decisions seem irrational.

In rational choice, insane “decision-makers” such as the fictitious Hannibal Lecter, are the rare exception, rather than the rule. It is assumed that most decision-makers, especially those occupying positions of responsibility, are generally rational.


Consider the following questions, all of which appear to have been “irrational”:

Why did North Korea’s Kim Jong Il decide to conduct a nuclear test?

Why did Saddam Hussein launch an invasion of Kuwait?

Why did George W. Bush launch a “pre-emptive” invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Are they all just crazy, evil, or obsessed?


The Key PointThe Key Point For all questions we need to identify the For all questions we need to identify the

underlying rationality of the decision.underlying rationality of the decision.

To do this, we need to consider questions of To do this, we need to consider questions of strategic calculationstrategic calculation and and strategic interactionstrategic interaction..

Perhaps Kim, Saddam, and Bush all have/had justifiable reasons and clear objectives for their decisions …


We also need to consider a number of other factors:We also need to consider a number of other factors:

The quality, reliability, and amount of “information” The quality, reliability, and amount of “information” that was available to the decision makerthat was available to the decision maker

Let’s listen to Donald Rumsfeld explain this point explain this point ……

““Contextual factors,” outside the direct control of Contextual factors,” outside the direct control of the decision maker, that influenced or shaped their the decision maker, that influenced or shaped their decisionsdecisions


To repeat: Contextual factors are part of the strategic environment, which is an important part of rational choice analysis

To put more simply, decisions don’t happen in a social, political, economic or institutional vacuum


Important Caveat: Important Caveat: Not all rational decisions lead to Not all rational decisions lead to optimal results.optimal results.


QuestionQuestion: Why can rational decisions end up : Why can rational decisions end up being bad decisions? being bad decisions?

Answer: Answer: For all the reasons we have already For all the reasons we have already discusseddiscussed

Picture: The New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Sending stranded citizens to the Picture: The New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Sending stranded citizens to the Superdome was a bad decision.Superdome was a bad decision.


More on the strategic environment More on the strategic environment It important to understand that the decision-It important to understand that the decision-making process is almost always subject to making process is almost always subject to constraintsconstraints

There are two major types of constraints: There are two major types of constraints: (1) (1) scarcityscarcity (or material constraints) and (or material constraints) and (2) (2) institutionalinstitutional constraints constraints


Key questions to ask in any analysis: Who are the main actors? How are their interests defined? What type of constraints do they face? How do the constraints influence their actions? What are the other important elements of the strategic

environment? And others ….


Repeating, restating, reiterating a key point:

To use the rational choice framework in an analysis, you need to go well beyond simply asserting that actors are rational.

Structural Approach

Structural approaches are based on the idea that Structural approaches are based on the idea that human actions are partly and even largely human actions are partly and even largely determined by underlying, sometimes invisible determined by underlying, sometimes invisible forces, over which individuals have little or no forces, over which individuals have little or no control.control.

An analogy:An analogy: Consider the structure of DNA and its affect your Consider the structure of DNA and its affect your lifelife

Structural Approach

• An example: If you use the phrase, “He’s a victim of circumstances,” for example, you are implicitly making a structural argument. If you are argue that “Society causes violence,” (or poverty or some other outcome) you are making a structural argument.

This images suggests that we are all bound in some ways: “Social chains” may be broken, but they are often very strong.

Structural Approach

Constraints vs. Structure: What’s the difference?Constraints vs. Structure: What’s the difference? In principle, the idea of constraints in Rational Choice is the same as In principle, the idea of constraints in Rational Choice is the same as

“structure,” but the structural approach sees constraints as much “structure,” but the structural approach sees constraints as much more deeply embedded, much more powerful, and, therefore, much more deeply embedded, much more powerful, and, therefore, much less subject to change than the rational choice approach less subject to change than the rational choice approach

Consider a continuum:Consider a continuum:

weak------------------------strong---------------------strongestweak------------------------strong---------------------strongest (Rational choice) (Institutionalism) (Rational choice) (Institutionalism) (Historical-structural approaches)(Historical-structural approaches)

Structural Approach

Another way to think about the structural approach is to recognize that it is Another way to think about the structural approach is to recognize that it is concerned with concerned with relationshipsrelationships, which themselves exist within a broader , which themselves exist within a broader framework or system of actionframework or system of action..

Examples:Examples: Consider the relationship between women and men in a Consider the relationship between women and men in a patriarchal structure, the patriarchal structure, the relationship of workers to capitalistsrelationship of workers to capitalists (or the rich (or the rich and poor) in a capitalist structure, the and poor) in a capitalist structure, the relationship of slaves to mastersrelationship of slaves to masters in a in a structure of slavery, the structure of slavery, the relationship of peasant to lordrelationship of peasant to lord in a feudal in a feudal structure, and so on.structure, and so on.

Structural Approach

One more way to understand the structural One more way to understand the structural approach is to think of structures as deeply approach is to think of structures as deeply embedded games, which are governed by a set of embedded games, which are governed by a set of unyielding rules and conventionsunyielding rules and conventions

Consider the game of chess …Consider the game of chess …

Structural Approach

Structures as games

Structural ApproachStructural Approach

To sum up:To sum up: To understand the world, and how it To understand the world, and how it works …works …

you need to identify the structure or framework you need to identify the structure or framework within which the game is playedwithin which the game is played

You need to identify the rules of the games, You need to identify the rules of the games, the players and their roles, and so onthe players and their roles, and so on

Only once you do all this, are you ready to Only once you do all this, are you ready to understand/explain why things happen the way understand/explain why things happen the way they dothey do

Structural Approach

The Broad Church of StructuralismThe Broad Church of Structuralism

Not all structural arguments are the same. There are Not all structural arguments are the same. There are both historical and both historical and aahistorical structural arguments, historical structural arguments, and “hard” and “soft” structural argumentsand “hard” and “soft” structural arguments

There are structural arguments that focus exclusively There are structural arguments that focus exclusively on economic forces and those that do noton economic forces and those that do not

There “radical” structural arguments and “liberal” or There “radical” structural arguments and “liberal” or mainstream onesmainstream ones

In sum, structuralism is a very broad church--or, as In sum, structuralism is a very broad church--or, as others like to say, a very “big tent”others like to say, a very “big tent”

Structural Approach

Historical-Structuralism and MarxHistorical-Structuralism and Marx

Most of the important work, at least for comparativists, Most of the important work, at least for comparativists, has been done by historical structuralists, and especially has been done by historical structuralists, and especially MarxistsMarxists

We’ll discuss the Marxist perspective later in the quarter, We’ll discuss the Marxist perspective later in the quarter, so for now just a few basic points …so for now just a few basic points …

Structural Approach

Historical-Structuralism and MarxHistorical-Structuralism and Marx

While Marx is dead, Marxism is While Marx is dead, Marxism is notnot Marx focused on the dynamics and consequences of capitalist Marx focused on the dynamics and consequences of capitalist

development: to Marxists, capitalism is the key structural force development: to Marxists, capitalism is the key structural force shaping societyshaping society

Marxism focuses on social class as the key unit of analysisMarxism focuses on social class as the key unit of analysis Most contemporary historical-structuralist approaches today--Most contemporary historical-structuralist approaches today--

including dependency and world-systems theory--draw deeply from including dependency and world-systems theory--draw deeply from Marxist analysisMarxist analysis

Cultural Approaches

Cultural arguments are probably the most maligned Cultural arguments are probably the most maligned (by social scientists) and the most misused (by social scientists) and the most misused approach, especially by pundits and other “arm-approach, especially by pundits and other “arm-chair” analystschair” analysts

But even comparativists sometimes misuse or But even comparativists sometimes misuse or misunderstand “culture” misunderstand “culture”

On the surface, there’s an obvious reason for On the surface, there’s an obvious reason for this, which is simply that the cultural this, which is simply that the cultural perspective seems cut-and-dry, but really is much perspective seems cut-and-dry, but really is much more complicated and nuanced than it appears.more complicated and nuanced than it appears.

Cultural Approach

Consider this question:Consider this question: How would you use culture to explain East Asia’s How would you use culture to explain East Asia’s

rapid development or the lack of democracy in the rapid development or the lack of democracy in the Middle East? Middle East?

Cultural Approach

Here’s an example of “bad” cultural argument purporting to explain the lack of democracy in the Middle East:

There is a reason political pluralism, individual liberty and self-rule do not exist in any of the 16 Arab nations in the Middle East. Cultural traditions there tend toward anti-intellectualism, religious zealotry and patriarchy, values which provide little fertile ground for progressive thinking. The U.N. Arab Human Development Report of 2002 noted that the Arab world translates only about 330 books annually.

What’s wrong with this argument?

Cultural Approach

The problem with the foregoing argument can be summed up very simply: It assumes that culture is essentially fixed, monolithic, and one-directional

Fixed: Cultures don’t ever change.

Monolithic: People of a “single” culture all share the same values, beliefs and practices. They’re all the same.

One-directional: Culture is either an obstacle to change, or it’s not; it’s either progressive or regressive.

Cultural Approach

The First Basic Lesson We must begin with the assumption that culture is highly

malleable, multivocal, and multidirectional (with regard to causation)

Malleable: Cultures can and do change, both quickly and slowly.

Multivocal: People of a “single” culture can and do disagree, sometimes in a fundamental manner.

Multidirectional: Culture can have contradictory and complex effects; in different contexts, at different times, culture may block change or it may be a source of change.

Cultural Approach

What is culture?

One definition, provided in the chapter is this, culture “is a worldview that explains why and how individuals and groups behave the way they do, and includes cognitive and affective [emotional] beliefs about social reality and assumptions about when, where, and how people’s in one’s culture and those in other cultures are likely to act in particular ways.”

More simply, we may say that culture “marks a distinctive way of life” that members of the culture share and upon which they forge a common and unique identity (note: cultures can be relatively limited; that is, they do not necessarily encompass entire societies).

Cultural Approach

Second Basic LessonSecond Basic Lesson Understanding the cultural approach means recognizing Understanding the cultural approach means recognizing

that the ideas, beliefs, values and identities societies that the ideas, beliefs, values and identities societies embrace and by which they define themselves—among embrace and by which they define themselves—among both the “leaders” and the “masses”—both the “leaders” and the “masses”—have powerhave power. .

These ideas, beliefs, values and identities have power at These ideas, beliefs, values and identities have power at both the individual and collective levelsboth the individual and collective levels

Cultural Approach

Culture as a political resource or asset:Culture as a political resource or asset: Because Because “culture” is an unavoidably fluid system of meaning, “culture” is an unavoidably fluid system of meaning, which further means that it is subject to continuous which further means that it is subject to continuous “negotiation” and competing interpretations. “negotiation” and competing interpretations.

Significantly, then, the power of an ostensibly single Significantly, then, the power of an ostensibly single culture can be culture can be harnessedharnessed or or co-optedco-opted by opportunistic by opportunistic leaders and others to achieve self-serving goals. leaders and others to achieve self-serving goals.

Cultural Approach

Important Caveat: Culture is not tangible. It cannot be simply picked up or stored.

In addition, culture is, by definition, “public”: everyone has access to culture, unlike other types of material resources.

Lastly, despite its intersubjective and malleable nature, there is an enduring or historical substance to most any culture. Cultures cannot simply be created out of whole cloth.

For all these reasons, a comparativist must avoid reducing culture to a mere resource or asset.

Cultural Approach

Intersecting ForcesIntersecting Forces

One Last Caveat:One Last Caveat: When attempting to incorporate culture When attempting to incorporate culture into your analysis, it’s critical to understand that cultural into your analysis, it’s critical to understand that cultural forces rarely, if ever, can be understood without examining forces rarely, if ever, can be understood without examining them within specific contexts.them within specific contexts.

Thus, it is more appropriate to see culture as Thus, it is more appropriate to see culture as intersectingintersecting with political, social, economic and other forces to produce with political, social, economic and other forces to produce specific outcomes in specific places and time periods.specific outcomes in specific places and time periods.

Cultural Approach

In sum …In sum …

culture is complex culture is complex

It is malleableIt is malleable

Its effects are sometimes obvious, but frequently Its effects are sometimes obvious, but frequently subtle and even hidden and contradictorysubtle and even hidden and contradictory

Culture has power, but it is not always or Culture has power, but it is not always or necessarily a causal powernecessarily a causal power

Documents

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics Rationality, Structure, and Culture Lecture Date: October 24 and 31, 2006