Rationalism (international relations)

Rational choice (also termed rationalism) is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.^[1] In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics.^[1]^[2] Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories,^[3]^[4]^[5] as well as liberal theories of international relations.^[6]^[7]

Rational choice research tends to explain conditions that bring about outcomes or patterns of behavior if relevant actors behave rationally.^[1] Key concepts in rational choice research in international relations include incomplete information, credibility, signaling, transaction costs, trust, and audience costs.

: actors comply with norms due to coercion, cost-benefit calculations, and material incentives

Rationalism

: actors comply with norms due to social learning and socialization

Constructivism

Cognitive factors: new information does not lead actors to change their beliefs or behaviors in a consistent way

[36]

Domestic politics: leaders' aims in war are reflected by personal or domestic political interests rather than what is strictly in the state's interest^[37]

[36]

: the identities of actors are realized through conflict^[38]

Constructivism

Multi-player bargaining: war can be an equilibrium solution to bargaining between more than two actors

[39]

Divergent interpretations of identical information: two actors can interpret identical information differently

[40]

Usefulness in individual cases: due to uncertainty, the model cannot explain the onset of war in individual cases

Criticism[edit]

Proponents of emotional choice theory criticize rationalism by drawing on new findings from emotion research in psychology and neuroscience. They point out that the rationalist paradigm is generally based on the assumption that decision-making is a conscious and reflective process based on thoughts and beliefs. It presumes that people decide on the basis of calculation and deliberation. However, cumulative research in neuroscience suggests that only a small part of the brain's activities operate at the level of conscious reflection. The vast majority of its activities consist of unconscious appraisals and emotions.^[74] The significance of emotions in decision-making has generally been ignored by rationalism, according to these critics.

Moreover, emotional choice theorists contend that the rationalist paradigm has difficulty incorporating emotions into its models, because it cannot account for the social nature of emotions. Even though emotions are felt by individuals, psychologists and sociologists have shown that emotions cannot be isolated from the social environment in which they arise. Emotions are inextricably intertwined with people's social norms and identities, which are typically outside the scope of standard rationalist accounts.^[75] Emotional choice theory seeks to capture not only the social but also the physiological and dynamic character of emotions. It represents a unitary action model to organize, explain, and predict the ways in which emotions shape decision-making.^[76]