Rationaalisen valinnan teorian rakenne ja tieteellisen edistyksen arviointi

Authors

• Kaisa Herne
• Maija Setälä

Abstract

In this article it is argued, first, that much of the critique of rational choice theory has been inappropriate. However, the criticism of expected utility theory and the empirical testing of rational choice models should be taken seriously. Second, the structure of rational choice theory is assessed. For this purpose, thirty models representing various fields of rational choice scholarship are analysed. It is argued that rational choice theory does not fit to Lakatos’s (1970) concept of a research programme, whereas it can be regarded as a research tradition in Laudan’s (1977) sense. Third, Lakatos’s and Laudan’s views on scientific progress are discussed with reference to rational choice theory. It is argued that in Lakatosian terms rational choice theory cannot be judged as a whole, whereas in Laudan’s terms it can. Finally, ad hoc theory development and domain restrictions are discussed.