| Review of: | Rational Choice by Andrew Hindmoor |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Stuart Astill |
| Reviewed in: | Political Studies Review |
| Date accepted online: | 14/01/2008 |
| Published in print: | Volume 05, Issue 03, Pages 395-474 |
Book Reviews: Political Theory
This quasi-textbook, part of the 'Political Analysis' series edited by Peters, Pierre and Stoker, manages a neat trick. It presents a sizeable chunk of the key elements of the rational choice canon in clear terms but sets that alongside a value-driven analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the methods and their ability to address issues in political science.
Hindmoor has taken what I have always considered to be the only reasonable approach to rational choice, whether teaching or using it: treat it as a tool. Rational choice is appreciated when it can be levered to explain, to provide insights or to stimulate thinking. It is reviled when it is seen as a holy grail or a panacea. The field and its celebrated proponents are far from perfect, far from being the only good method and rarely easy to get to grips with. That said, Hindmoor does make the ideas comprehensible, given a pencil and paper and a quiet room. However, despite his best efforts I still see flashes of the elements that used to incite me, when my students asked 'What use is it', to reply: 'You can use it to pass the exam in Public Choice'.
Taking a good course in rational choice teaches one much more than rational choice; it teaches about modelling, methodology, the need to question assumptions and some philosophy of science, and it can even introduce the notion, common in mathematics, that a beautiful solution is inherently better than one that is not. This book is the foundation of a good course in rational choice because it teaches us far more than how Laver and Shepsle use coloured pencils and a ruler to prove very little about a system that exists nowhere except on the piece of paper. This book makes us think about how we pursue political science inquiry and, ultimately, how much we want to take from the limited science of economics and how much we still want to be able to tell a traditional good story.