Abstract
Ration Choice Theory is also known as Rational Action Theory or Choice Theory. It is basically a framework that rests on the assumption that decision makers have complete mental models of the consequences, events and acts that constitute their environment. The rational choice theory is an approach used by social scientists and other professionals to understand human behavior. Rationality is usually interpreted as “desiring more rather less of a good”. This assumption however is widely used in the analysis and macroeconomic models as well in human decision-making. Rationality therefore means “in a thoughtful clear headed manner” or basically “sane”. It then follows that decision makers who also are the expected-utility maximizers have a key role of analyzing equilibrium decisions.
However, these empirical theories make no direct claim whatsoever; although to some extent they have relevance to ethics. Although the rational choice theory has made substantial progress in certain social sciences, its sociological progress has to a great extent been limited (Gilboa, 2010, p. 163). This essay propositions a new foundation for choice theory that does not quite rely on preferences, acts and consequences as primitive concepts. Instead, agents articulate their values and beliefs through the recognition of trades or small gables in a stylized market. This essay will propose a new foundation for choice theory that seemingly does not recline on acts, consequences and preferences as primordial concepts.
The main purpose of this essay is to provide a coherent overview of Rational Choice theory and how its status has evolved and extended to include other perspectives such as, situational crime prevention, deterrence and routine activity theory. This paper will focus on the various ways in which rational choice standpoint has been applied to a wide range of offenses and crimes including vandalism, drug use, robbery and white collar crime.
Introduction
Rational choice theory originated with the work of Cesare Beccaria in the late 18th century. It is among the fastest growing theories in the social sciences today. Majorly, its assumptions have to a great extent been integrated into various criminal justice interventions and criminological theories. Many political scientists and sociologists today defend various claims and assumptions that the rational theory could provide the basis for comprehensive and unified theory of social behavior. Rational choice theory is founded on the principles of purposive action and methodological individualism. Methodological distinctiveness suggests that economic and social phenomena are elaborated in terms of a particular arrangement of persons, their situations, dispositions, physical resources, beliefs and environment. In the last decade, this theory has gained visibility and influence in various social sciences as well as disciplines such as law and philosophy.
Analysis
Notably, there are three key points that support in rational choice theory. The first point asserts that rational choice theory can work worse or better for various types of crime, nevertheless it is often thought that there seemingly are rational choices in pathologic and also in impulse crimes. The second theory ought to have some affect on a crime-specific basis. Consequently crimes such as burglaries can no not under any circumstance be grouped collectively among commercial and residential categories. Instead, there is need to break them into smaller aspects such as wealthy residential neighborhoods or public housing burglaries. Criminal environment illustrates various ways in which persons are involved in crime and further go on with their lives or refrain from such a lifestyle. Subsequently, criminal events have very distinctive reinforcements which basically are shorter processes as compared to structures of criminal involvement (Goldstein, 2009, p. 234).
One goal of rational choice theory is to elucidate every type of crime in all categories. Conversely, this does not mean that there is indeed a principal unity in all types of crime like in certain theories. On the contrary, these varied elements are of paramount importance in elaborating the occurrence of such procedures. It also integrates certain factors that cause crime, accounts for situational variables of crime and the blueprint of decisions throughout a criminal career. In contrast, the preclusion theory suggests that the trepidation of legal punishment pretty much distracts persons from crime. On the other hand, rational choice theory depicts that the benefits are always weighed in deciding whether to commit crime or not. Consequently, the two theories suggest that more often, pain is a major cause for not committing offenses.
Quite often, the strong points of the rational theory can also be seen when compared to the routine activity theory. Routine activity theory stresses that there are three basic elements needed for crime, suitable targets, motivated offenders and also the absence of capable custodians. Therefore, environmental conditions ought to be right for crime to take place. This assumption pretty much relates to a similar aspect of the rational choice theory; the account for situational inconsistencies such as the chance of punishment. On the contrary, routine activity theory seemingly does not actually look and judge why persons commit crime; instead it is often assumed that the rational choice theory assesses ways which could have made an individual to commit crime (Baert, 2010, p. 189).
According to the rational choice theory, behaviors that violate law ought to be viewed as an incident that normally occurs when a criminal chooses to violate the law after taking into account his or her own current situation such as; personal values, need for money or probably learning experience. Before the criminal chooses to commit crime, he or she takes time to reason and evaluate possible risks of the significance of the expected punishment, trepidation, his or her immediate need for crime again and the value of the criminal enterprise. This theory argues that crime reduction and crime prevention could be achieved through policies that influence criminals to avoid certain targets or refrain from criminal actions. Relevant strategies to this perspective include self-defense skills, deadbolts and target hardening (König, 2011, p. 115).
It is believed that certain components such as intellect, physique, school behavior, social cultural factors and leisure time play a key role juvenile negligence. Also, it is depicted that observing one characteristic alone can quite figure out patterns of crime. At a young age, anti-social behavior could cause negligence later in life. Moreover, anti-social youths are often shaped by their own worlds and their environment at the same time. Social scientists claim that there are two types of antisocial people; adolescent-limited offenders who only commit crime during adolescence and persistent offenders who throughout out their lives commit crime from one level to another progressively. Temperaments and difficult behavior occur as a result of disruptions in health particularly before and early after birth. Studies show that the antisocial behavior persistence is connected to a discrepancy in neuropsychological abilities that develop in individuals early in life. Additionally, poor parent-child relationships and environmental conditions greatly affect if a child will develop criminal partialities. For this reason, life-course offenders could have most probably been raised in antisocial behavior.
The central point of the rational choice model in economic analysis suggests that it is of paramount importance to be aware of its limits and role. One of the most basic rational choice model is based on sensitive real-world choices that often appear to be highly context-dependent or situations. The manner in which choices are posed, the emotional state of the decision maker, the social context of the decision and a host of other similar environmental factors seemingly appear to influence choice behaviour. Existence of the marketing industry in relation to this theory is an authentication. Using this theory, political scientists, economists and other researchers can predict what people will actually do if handed certain options. It is used more and more to illustrate occurrences as varied as consumerism, voting tendency and business decisions.
Rationality and Social Exchange
Methodological individualism asserts that the basic unit of social life is the personality of human action. To illustrate social change and social institutions is to explain how and why they arise as a result of the interaction and action of individuals. Moreover, rational choice theory has argued that its general principles could be used to recognize and understand various connections in which resources such as information, time, prestige and approval are involved. Also, the rational choice theory depicts that persons are normally motivated by goals or wants which articulate their partiality and preferences. They work on the basis of the information and given constraints under which they are acting. The relationship between constraints and preferences can pretty much be seen in the sole conditions of the association of a means to an end.
The practical individuality of rational choice theorists directs them to begin from individual actions and to see any other occurrences as reducible to particular actions. On a psychological basis, the main idea of rational action is by and large assumed to imply a cognizant common actor seemingly engaging in purposeful calculative strategies. This implies that people often avoid the thing they have been punished fir and do things which mainly lead to rewards. For this reason, this kind of behavior could be studied in an objective and external terms and there is hence no need to appeal to any inner mental states. Generally, people learn from their past mistakes and experiences, therefore every individual should take into consideration that our experiences are majorly what we ought to know to elucidate the behavior (Alpman, 2012, p. 322).
Notably, in social interaction, people are pretty much involved in communal reinforcement. The behavior of each participant either punishes or rewards the other and moreover, their behavior which is jointly structured, build up through the exchange of punishing and rewarding behavior. Both approval and money are the basic means of exchange in all social interactions.
Conclusion
Though the rational choice theory makes no ethical claims, it appears to have ethical relevance to some extent. Rational behavior which is attributed to mankind could lead to ethical choices. For this reason, we therefore not only have a substantial reason to be ethical, but also have to be ethical much of the time in our lives. Some rational theories compare “self-interested” with “rational” and state that persons more often habitually act out of self-centeredness. The rational implications of rational choices have been explored extensively and comprehensively in other theories such as social choice theory which have had very interesting conclusions.
At this point one might conclude that from the rational choice theory, ethical implications are far from straightforward, but quite indicative. At the same time, we have to rely on the intrinsic prudence of ethical behavior. In the West for instance, we have a tendency of breaking laws that are irrational and obey those that appear to be reasonable, this is majorly because conformity with the law to a large extent voluntary in all aspects apart from a police state. We therefore have an obligation of constructing a rationale that justifies ethical and legal conduct in our minds. Social structures cannot under any circumstance be reduced to an individual’s actions. Although rational theory has made substantial advances in various sciences such as social and economic sciences, its progress particularly in sociology is limited.
References
Gilboa, I. (2010). Rational choice. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Goldstein, W. S. (2009). Marx, critical theory, and religion: A critique of rational choice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
König, P. (2010). Using underlying priorities for rational choice explanations: An analysis of the bearing of postmaterialism and materialism on the weight of determinants of voter turnout within a rational choice framework. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH.
Alpman, A., Gardes, F., & Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris). (2012). Endogenous social norms and rational choice: Theory and empirical test. S.l.: s.n..
Baert, P., & Silva, F. C. (2010). Social theory in the twentieth century and beyond. Cambridge, U.K: Polity.
