Críticas à teoria da escolha racional e hierarquias de conhecimento na ciência política
Palavras-chave:
Teoria da Escolha Racional, Modelos Formais, Hierarquias do ConhecimentoResumo
A teoria da escolha racional tornou-se anátema na ciência política contemporânea. Desde os primeiros modelos de escolha racional, os teóricos dessa linha são criticados pelo conteúdo epistemológico de seus trabalhos, bem como pelo recurso a modelos formais como abordagem metodológica dos fenômenos políticos. As críticas reverberam em diferentes disciplinas, nomeadamente psicologia, economia e ciência política. Este artigo reconstrói os debates na área de ciências comportamentais e cognitivas, e na própria disciplina de ciência política, buscando compreender como eles se desenvolveram. O artigo também apresenta dados bibliométricos sobre a produção recente em teoria da escolha racional e discute como eles revelam hierarquias do conhecimento sobre a alegada proeminência de modelos de escolha racional nos principais periódicos de ciência política.
Downloads
Referências
ALEXANDROVNA, A.; NORTHCOTT, R. It’s just a feeling: why economic models do not explain. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 20, n. 3, p. 262-267, 2013.
AXELROD, R. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
______. The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
BARBERIS, N.; HUANG, M.; THALER, R. Individual preferences, monetary gambles and the equity premium. American Economic Review, Nashville, v. 96, n. 4, p. 1069-1090, 2006.
BAS, M. A.; SIGNORINO, C. S.; WALKER, R. W. Statistical Backward Induction: a simple method for estimating recursive strategic models. Political Analysis, Oxford, v. 16, n. 1, p. 21-40, 2008.
BATES, R. H. et al. Analytic narratives. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998.
BECKER, G. S. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1976.
BENARTZI, S.; THALER, R. H. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Cambridge, v. 110, n. 1, p. 51-71, 1995.
CARTWRIGHT, N. Models: parables v fables. In: FRIGG, R.; HUNTER, M. (Eds.). Beyond mimesis and convention: representation in art and science. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands, 2010. p. 19-31.
CLARK, W. R.; GOLDER, M. Big data, causal inference, and formal theory: contradictory trends in political science? Introduction. Political Science & Politics, New York, v. 48, n. 1, p. 65-70, 2015.
CLARKE, K. A.; SIGNORINO, C. S. Discriminating methods: tests for non-nested discrete choice models. Political Studies, Hoboken, v. 58, n. 2, p. 368-388, 2010.
COX, G. The empirical content of rational choice theory: a reply to Green and Shapiro. Journal of Theoretical Politics, Thousand Oaks, v. 11, n. 2, p. 147-169, 1999.
______. Lies, damned lies, and rational choice analyses. In: SHAPIRO, I.; SMITH, R.; MASOUD, T. E. (Eds.). Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 167-185.
DOWDING, K. Is it rational to vote? Five types of answer and a suggestion. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, Hoboken, v. 7, n. 3, p. 442-459, 2005.
______. Power, luck, and freedom. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017.
DOWDING, K.; HINDMOOR, A. The usual suspects: rational choice, socialism and political theory. New Political Economy, Abingdon, v. 2, n. 3, p. 451-463, 1997.
ERIKSSON, L. Rational choice theory: potential and limits. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
FEHR, E.; FISCHBACHER, U. Why social preferences matter – the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and motives. The Economic Journal, Hoboken, v. 112, n. 478, p. C1-C33, 2002.
FIORINA, M. Rational choice, empirical contributions, and the scientific enterprise. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, Abingdon, v. 9, n. 1-2, p. 85-94, 1995.
FLYVBJERG, B. A Perestroikan straw man answers back: David Laitin and phronetic political science. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 56-85.
GIGERENZER, G.; SELTEN, R. Rethinking rationality. In: GIGERENZER, G.; SELTEN, R. (Eds.). Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001. p. 1-12.
GINTIS, H. Beyond Homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics, Amsterdam, v. 35, n. 3, p. 311-322, 2000.
GINTIS, H.; HELBING, D. Homo socialis: an analytical core for sociological theory. Review of Behavioural Economics, Delft, v. 2, n. 1-2, p. 1-59, 2015.
GLIMCHER, P. W. Foundations of neuroeconomic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
GREEN, D.; SHAPIRO, I. Pathologies of rational choice theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
HAUSMAN, D. M. ‘Testing’ game theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 12, n. 2, p. 211-223, 2005.
______. Paradox postponed. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 20, n. 3, p. 250-254, 2013.
HINDMOOR, A. Ian Shapiro and Donald P. Green, Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. Utilitas, New York, v. 10, n. 3, p. 370-372, 1998.
HINDMOOR, A.; TAYLOR, B. Rational choice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
HOCHSCHILD, J. L. Editor’s note: introduction and observations. Perspectives on Politics, Washington, DC, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-4, 2003.
HODGSON, G. M. On the limits of rational choice theory. Economic Thought, Bristol, v. 1, n. 1, p. 94-108, 2012.
ISAAC, J. C. From the editor. Perspectives on Politics, Washington DC, v. 13, n. 4, p. 929-934, 2015.
ISHIYAMA, J. Report of the editors of the American Political Science Review, 2013-14. Political Science & Politics, New York, v. 48, n. 2, p. 400-403, 2015.
JACKSON, P. T. A statistician strikes out: in defense of genuine methodological diversity. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 86-97.
JACOBY, W. G. et al. Report to the Editorial Board and the Midwest Political Science Association Executive Council. American Journal of Political Science, Washington, DC, 2017. Disponível em: <https://bit.ly/2HRHUKq>. Acesso em: 13 maio 2018.
JOHNSON, J. Models among the political theorists. American Journal of Political Science, Washington, DC, v. 58, n. 3, p. 547-560, 2014.
_______. Models-as-fables: an alternative to “the standard rationale” for using formal models in political science. In: Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, 2017, Chicago. Roundtable: New directions in formal theory. Disponível em: <https://bit.ly/2HOWGBJ>. Acesso em: 14 jun. 2018.
KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
LIMA, E. L. N. B. O. Explanation as prediction: the raison d’être of formal models in Political Science. Revista Política Hoje, Recife, 2018. No prelo.
LIMA, E. L. N. B. O.; MÖRSCHBÄCHER, M. Contribuições e desafios do institucionalismo histórico na ciência política contemporânea. BIB – Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 81, n. 1, p. 103-122, 2017.
LOHMANN, S. The poverty of Green and Shapiro. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, Abingdon, v. 9, n. 1-2, p. 127-154, 1995.
MÄKI, U. On a paradox of truth, or how not to obscure the issue whether explanatory models can be true. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 20, n. 3, p. 268-279, 2013.
MONROE, B. L. et al. No! Formal theory, causal inference, and big data are not contradictory trends in political science. Political Science & Politics, New York, v. 48, n. 1, p. 71-74, 2015.
MORTON, R. M. Methods and models: a guide to the empirical analysis of formal models in political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Norris, P. Towards a more cosmopolitan political science? European Journal of Political Research, Hoboken, v. 31, n. 1, p. 17-34, 1997.
QUACKENBUSH, S. The rationality of rational choice theory. International Interactions, Abingdon, v. 30, n. 2, p. 87-107, 2004.
REISS, J. The explanation paradox redux. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 20, n. 3, p. 280-292, 2013.
ROSENKRANZ, S.; SCHMITZ, P. W. Reserve prices in auctions as reference points. The Economic Journal, Hoboken, v. 117, n. 520, p. 637-653, 2007.
RUBINSTEIN, A. Comments on the interpretation of game theory. Econometrica, New York, v. 59, n. 4, p. 909-924, 1991.
SATZ, D.; FEREJOHN, J. Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy, New York, v. 91, n. 2, p. 71-87, 1994.
SCHEIBEHENNE, B.; RIESKAMP, J.; WAGENMAKERS, E.-J. Testing adaptive toolbox models: a Bayesian hierarchical approach. Psychological Review, Washington, DC, v. 120, n. 1, p. 39-64, 2013.
SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. Introduction: reframing the debate. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 1-16.
SCHWARTZ-SHEA, P. Conundrums in the practice of pluralism. In: SCHRAM, S.; CATERINO, B. (Eds.). Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method. New York: New York University Press, 2006. p. 209-221.
SELTEN, R. What is bounded rationality? In: GIGERENZER, G.; SELTEN, R. (Eds.). Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001. p. 13-36.
SEN, A. The formulation of rational choice. The American Economic Review, Nashville, v. 84, n. 2, p. 385-390, 1994.
______. Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, New York, v. 65, n. 4, p. 745-779, 1997.
______. A ideia de justiça. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2009.
SHAPIRO, I.; SMITH, R.; MASOUD, T. Introduction: problems and methods in the study of politics In: SHAPIRO, I.; SMITH, R.; MASOUD, T. (Eds.). Problems and methods in the study of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 1-18.
SIGNORINO, C. S.; YILMAZ, K. Strategic misspecification in regression models. American Journal of Political Science, Washington, DC, v. 47, n. 3, p. 551-566, 2003.
SIGNORINO, C. S. On formal theory and statistical methods: a response to Carrubba, Yuen and Zorn. Political Analysis, Oxford, v. 15, n. 4, p. 483-501, 2007.
SIMON, H. A. Models of man. New York: Wiley, 1957.
SLOVIC, P. The construction of preference. In: KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. (Eds.). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
SNIDAL, D. Rational choice and international relations. In: CARLSNAES, W.; RISSE, T.; SIMMONS, B. A. (Eds.). Handbook of International Relations. London: SAGE, 2006. p. 73-94.
SUGDEN, R. Explanations in search of observations. Biology and Philosophy, New York, v. 26, n. 5, p. 717-736, 2011.
______. How fictional accounts can explain. Journal of Economic Methodology, Abingdon, v. 20, n. 3, p. 237-243, 2013.
THELEN, K. Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, Palo Alto, v. 2, n. 1, p. 369-404, 1999.
THELEN, K.; MAHONEY, J. Comparative-historical analyses in contemporary political science. In: MAHONEY, J.; THELEN, K. (Eds.). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 3-36.
VON NEUMANN, J.; MORGENSTERN, O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2007.
