Economics: Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory is an approach used by social scientists to understand human behavior. The approach has long been the dominant paradigm in economics...," (Green, 2002).

This theory is a fundamental framework for understanding "rationality" in relation to economics. And here, rationality simply means that individuals make well deliberated decisions - individuals reason with themselves before purchasing items or making other economic decisions. This is the theory of weighing costs and benefits.

While there are many sub-theories within the overarching theory of rational choice, the main tenant of the theory posits that individuals regularly, and logically, make decisions based against what constraints face them at any particular time (e.g. money constraints, market constraints, sociological constraints, etc., etc...). Most scientists and theorists that support this theory openly acknowledge that this model does not completely reflect reality and the complex structures of choice faced in everyday situations. Yet it is a good model for constructing an understanding of the ways in which individuals rationalize choices.

Individuals maximize their benefits while minimizing their costs through careful consideration of different courses of action. Individuals, according to this model, have infinite amounts of time available in the decision making process.

A rational choice analysis of the market for fresh tomatoes, for example, would generally involve a description of the desired purchases of tomatoes by buyers, the desired production and sales of tomatoes by sellers, and how these desired purchases and desired sales interact to determine the price and quantity sold of tomatoes in the market. The typical tomato buyer is faced with the problem of how much of his income ( or more narrowly, his food budget) to spend of tomatoes as opposed to some other good or service. The typical tomato seller is faced with the problem of how many tomatoes to produce and what price to charge for them, (Green 2002).

Common sense tells us that individuals have sets of outcomes based on sets of decisions. For example, based on whether the tomato buyer buys a tomato, walks away from the stand with nothing, or chooses another vegetable (if applicable) the outcomes vary. The latter would propose a new set of options that would lead into more complex tributaries of decision. Nevertheless, concepts such as strict preference (an individual prefers one particular thing, but could swayed to another), indifference (an individual does not prefer one item over the other), completeness (individual actions are ranked, thus setting up a hierarchical, decisional framework), and transitivity ( an individual prefers one thing over all other things), are all just that, concepts.


Another interesting concept is that of dynamic inconsistency. This concept relates to how individuals view the present and the future when determining what decisions to make. Moreover, to better understand this before talking about it, this concept champions the idea of multiple-selves - each individual is composed of the present-self, the future-self, the past-self, etc., etc.This concept is based on the idea that the decision-maker's selves cannot always (and to be more distinct, hardly ever) agree with one another, fighting among themselves about which decisions to make.

The important concept to know when discussing dynamic inconsistency is that rational choice theory predicts that all of a person's selves will agree with each other at some point (more often than not) and become time-consistent. But this take on dynamic inconsistency is backed up by empirical data that is found to be common in all human instances - it is inherent - it is not a special case relegated to the theory of rational choice.

An example of time inconsistency is: Students, the night before an exam, often wish that the exam could be put off for one more day. If asked on that night, such students might agree to commit to paying, say, $10 on the day of the exam for it to be held the next day. Months before the exam is held, however, students generally do not care much about having the exam put off for one day. And, in fact, if the students were made the same offer at the beginning of the term, that is, they could have the exam put off for one day by committing during registration to pay $10 on the day of the exam, they probably would reject that offer. The choice is the same, although made at different points in time. Because the outcome would change depending on the point in time, the students would exhibit time inconsistency (Wikipedia). 

There are more examples and sub-theories dealing with rational choice, but, for the sake of the economic slant of this post, these are the most important. These are the main points stressed when this theory is applied to economics as opposed to other sociological sciences.

But these concepts seem to apply and only hold true in the face of ideal, self-contained instances and don't hold as much weight in real world situations as there are a wide array of circumstances affecting the decision making processes of individuals. And, it would seem, that if rationality were the sole actor in decision making, other theories would not exist due to rationality's implicit role in every day life. We must think of market values and fluctuations, inflation, political and economic health, and the overall idea of rationality itself. What is rational to some may be irrational to others - rationality depends on situational events and individual ideologies.

Sociology: Theories on War

War has existed from the moment man realized he could kill. Wars have been fought for a plethora of reasons:  from power and resources to women and honor to religion and ideology. It seems there is nothing worth attaining peace for - for every stride taken in the name of peace, there is a stride taken in the name of war, a rebuttal to that peace.

Scholars have long debated the rationals and reasons behind war, what facilitates it, what keeps it going, and what ends it. And there are varying theories that attempt to answer these questions that take into consideration, among other things, economics, governmental ideologies and systems, societal norms and mores, and individual and small group decisions. Therefore, governments and societies in general, are invested in the study of war as war serves two key roles: chief shaper and fundamental liquefier of states.

One theory posits that nation-states are fundamentally concerned with their own security. This theory implements an  "interstate/anarchic" system, one that pits each state against the other. Each state is subject to the unforeseeable actions of the states which border it and the desires and plans of the peoples within those states. Any thing could happen at any time. Security, this theory suggests, can only be maintained through military power, not diplomacy or any other action.

This "interstate/anarchic" theory does raise interesting and pertinent points and, as a theory, is logical. Yet, history does prove that military power is not the determining factor of security as diplomacy and other factors often way in when considering politics and inter-governmental structures. 


Leaders are often influenced by societal norms and mores within any particular nation-state. These held values and principles can negatively or positively affect the outcome of any political process. These stresses of what the populace expects weigh heavy, most of the time, on the minds of politicians, if for nothing more than chances at re-election. This thought stems from a theory which hypothesizes that bureaucratization is a chief factor in declaring war.

And many nations have fought wars that are not economically sound or what is best for national security, but over territory, religion and ideology. Sometimes, these choices are irrational, they are based on fear, hate, passion, and self-interest. Sometimes, these choices ignore best interests of the nation as a whole and executives and bureaucrats ( or in some cases the populace as a whole)  become temporarily blinded by short term aspirations.

The concerning factor is uncertainty. War breeds from uncertainty. War breeds from impatience. War breeds from constriction. 

For example, take the American Revolutionary War. Under constraints put on the colonies by the British monarchy and, to some extent, parliament, the thirteen colonies banded together in revolt. The sociological structure shifted from that of the controlled to that of the free (or less controlled as the fledgling government grew).

Uncertainty, as a cause of war, can be seen through the Holocaust. Before WWII, the German people were all ready on shaky ground with those of Jewish heritage and descent. But economic depression took hold in Germany and the socialist movement gained more and more support. The conditions grew ripe for the German people to act on their uncertainties, uncertainties that the Jews were the cause of all German problems.

Ideology leads to war. The spread of Communism throughout the world suring the 20th century can attest to this. Many nations, including the United States, were sucked into conflicts of ideology - East v. West, Capitalism v. Communism, containment. And here, war needen't be categorized as open conflict: the Cold War, although, as the name implies, one of no open militarisitc agression, was still a war. It was simlpy a war of ideology and social constructs.


But a steadfast, concrete theory of war will forever be elusive. The factors that lie behind the armed conflicts around the globe are far too intricate to boil down to one cohesive theory. War is erratic, unpredictable. It is the one societal occurrence that is the most terrifying. War is not isolated - whole societies become involved or don't. There is no picking and choosing. 

Hard Topics, Harder Writes

Many times, writers have a difficult time drawing their readers in because the topic is obtuse or odious or just flat boring: medicine, economics, legal issues. Sometimes issues can be touchy. Sometimes the writer has to tread carefully, hoping not to step on toes. Religion is the key culprit here, but truly, it could be any topic depending on the audience and region in which the piece is to be published in and for. And sometimes topics are simply difficult to write about due to the exorbitant amount of facts related to them.

Writers have to know the facts. Hard topics can make the writer feel ignorant because the facts may be convoluted or it's not the writer's niche. Understanding of the topic is necessary for the writer to connect with his audience and understanding takes research and, most importantly, time, something most writers are severely short of.

Here are some op-ed pieces that do a good job in engaging the reader and making him care about the material, pieces that up and coming writers can learn a little something from.These articles present easily digestible facts.

I do not disagree or agree with all of the following pieces and some I partially agree or disagree with. I simply believe these to be pertinent examples of good, persuasive writing.

Economics: Panic, Debt, and Unemployment

Legal Issues: Delaying health benefits is a big risk

International Affairs: The not-so-safe Euro zone

Arts and Culture: Conan O' Brian made the smart move

Medicine and Health: Calorie counters

Religion: Sack the pro-life quarterback? (most of these step on toes no matter the subject. If interested, check the multitude of op-ed dissentions found in the On Faith section in which this piece was found. These could also fall under legal issues, but they more directly address ethical issues rather than legislative issues.)

Sports: Payton's clutch moves, Peyton's biggest loss, More snap judgments