Search results

The Neoclassical approach to analysing personal choice is compared with an approach contained in a Biblical Christian mode of analysis. This paper compares the Neoclassical and Christian positions via analysis of characteristics of the Neoclassical rational choice model. The main characteristic examined is a basic assumption of the rational choice model that human choice is explained as the optimisation of utility via rational self‐interest. The two positions are compared in terms of how they treat self‐interest and rationality, the degree to which basic assumptions about human behaviour are specified, the importance they attach to the realism of assumptions underlying their models, and the explanatory and predictive purposes for which the models are used. The conclusion of the comparison is that the Biblical Christian perspective encompasses the variables regarded as important in Neoclassical explanation, but presents them in the context of a more embracing worldview perspective than the Neoclassical. This Christian belief perspective is applicable to human behaviour in both “economic” and “non‐economic” domains.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to argue that utility maximisation, taken from a narrow economic understanding of rationality, frames contemporary business school pedagogy and management theory. The chapter will illustrate this observation by detailing the rational framing assumptions in social capital literature. The chapter will argue that these framing rational notions foster a perspective that inclines towards excessive self-interest as well as a concomitant lack of fellow feeling or morality.

Methodology – Literature review of Social Capital theory.

Findings – The chapter demonstrates that the narrow economic understanding of rationality that predominates as the framing notion in management theory tends towards amorality as it privileges individual self-interest. In consequence, the significance of ethics and cooperation are under-reported and under-emphasised which leads to Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI). These observations are discussed with reference to social capital theory.

Research implications – To consider the significance of the under-acknowledged rational background or framing perspectives in distorting theory and empirical research in social capital literature, and more generally in contemporary management literatures and business school pedagogy.

Social implication – There is a need to re-examine and challenge the validity and application of rational notions in contemporary management literatures and pedagogy.

Originality – The chapter identifies that a narrow utility maximising understanding of rationality frames and therefore inhibits current management literatures and pedagogy, including social capital literature.

Rational choice theory has numerous implications for the analysis of organizational governance structures. This chapter reviews some of these applications. The main emphasis is on relational contracting. It will be argued that repeated games theory, that is, a variant of rational choice that deals with rational agents who repeatedly interact, can explain the outcomes of relational contracting. There is some controversy about the merits of rational choice explanations. Can they deal with inefficient structures and their (alleged) stability, with path dependence and mimetic processes? Many of these issues have been addressed by new sociological institutionalists. It is argued that rational choice analysis is in fact consistent with many of these observations. There is, in other words, some convergence between rational choice and institutionalist approaches.

In the wake of numerous late twentieth century cult disasters, and most recently, the September 11 tragedy, this paper considers the question, why do people obey outrageous commands from charismatic authorities? According to Gary Becker, “the economic ap‐proach provides a valuable unified framework for understanding all human behavior” (Becker 1976:14). We test this generalization by attempting to explain, in terms of rational choice theory, the behavior of two members of infamous cults, the Manson Family and the Ragneesh Foundation International. Each of these subjects slavishly obeyed orders from a charismatic personality, one to the extent of committing murder. Were they mentally ill or rationally maximizing their utility? We consider these theoretical options. In August of 1969 Charles Manson ordered several of his followers to commit gruesome murders for the purpose of initiating the apocalypse. They obeyed. In late 1978, Jim Jones commanded over 900 members of the Peoples Temple to commit suicide. They obeyed. From 1981 to 1985, executing orders to build utopia perceived to come from their guru, members of the Ragneesh Foundation International terrorized the inhabitants of Antelope, Oregon. Similarly, followers of Osama Bin Laden are suspected of carrying out the disastrous suicide murders of September 11. Over past decades, the incidence of violence involving submission to a charismatic leader appears to be escalating. Increasingly the public must contend with the “awesome power” of charisma, “enshrouded in a mystique of irrationality” (Bradley 1987: 3–4). The extent to which followers committing criminal acts of obedience may be held accountable has become a pressing legal issue. How can this kind of volatile religious commitment be explained? In recent years, experts on cults have experimented with rational choice theory. According to economist, Gary Becker, “the economic approach provides a valuable unified framework for understanding all human behavior” (Becker 1976: 14). We test this extravagant claim with two cases of seemingly irrational commitment to a charismatic cult leader—one a follower of Bhagwan Rajneesh, the other a Manson Family killer. These subjects are not representative cult members but rather were chosen because they demonstrated an exceptional loyalty to their leaders that has been widely construed as the result of brainwashing or insanity. Rather than survey data, we rely on autobiographical testimonies since they offer a more detailed and comprehensive view of the thought processes that motivate behavior, the subject matter of this paper.

This paper aims to examine the factors affecting travelers’ decision to select more than one destination in their trips. Drawn from the rational choice theory, this study posits that the selection of multi-destination tours, as a rational choice, is determined by the travelers’ perception of costs and benefits associated with that choice.

The conceptual model was developed from both an exploratory research with in-depth interview and the literature. A logistic regression model linking four explanatory variables representing perceived benefits and costs of multi-destination option with travelers’ choice of multi-destination trips. The conceptual model is controlled for diversity of travel purposes; tour group size; type of travel arrangement and travelers’ demographic characteristics while the research context of multi-destination travel within Phu Yen – Dak Lak – Gia Lai – Binh Dinh helps control for the characteristics of the destination set (spatial proximity and traffic convenience). The conceptual model was tested based on data collected from 1,361 Vietnamese travelers who have ever visited at least one of the four provinces.

This study finds that perceived benefits in terms of diversifying tourism experiences and perceived costs of traveling in multiple places compared to taking single trips represent the most significant drivers for tourists’ selection of multi-destination tours. In addition, the diversity of travel purposes and tour group size have a positive and significant impact on the demand for traveling more than one destination in a trip. Moreover, the richer, older and married travelers have a significantly higher tendency to select multi-destination packages.

The research findings provide important strategic implications for promoting multi-destination trips, thereby, maximizing economic benefits from tourism.

While multi-destination travel patterns have been examined empirically in individual studies sporadically without a common theoretical background, this research makes some progress on this front by using the rational choice theory to connect the relative contributions of those factors to the travelers’ choice of multi-destination trips. Specifically, this study provides a new perspective in explaining the selection of multi-destination trips – from tourists’ perceptions about costs and benefits associated with that choice.

It is argued that addicts, as people in general, are forward-looking and that they try to make the best of what they have got. However, this does not imply that they are fully rational. Cognitive defects, instabilities in preferences, and irrationalities in the form of wishful thinking and dynamical inconsistency play an important role in addictive behaviours. These “imperfections” in people's rationality may not have very large consequences in the case of ordinary goods, but their effect can be dramatic in relation to addictive goods. In the first part of the paper, the rational addiction theory and the empirical evidence that have been presented in support of the theory is reviewed. Regarding the conventional tests of the theory by econometric methods, it is argued that the tests are misguided, both theoretically and methodologically. Furthermore, it is claimed that the definition of addiction implicit in the rational addiction theory is unrealistic, and that the theory makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature. Some empirical evidence for these claims is reviewed. It is concluded that although the theory has its virtues, it faces serious problems and must be rejected in its original form. Secondly, the socio-cultural embeddedness of addictive behaviours, and the social roots of individual preferences, are discussed. These issues are more or less ignored in rational addiction theory. It is argued that we cannot expect to obtain a proper understanding of many addictive phenomena, unless they are seen in their proper socio-cultural context.

This article assesses a rational-choice model of bureaucratic behaviour - the bureau-shaping model - as an explanation of budget-making in British local government. The bureau-shaping model is essentially a reconstructed rational-choice model of bureaucratic behaviour in liberal democratic states, which emerged from critiques of its rival budgetmaximising model. The explanatory power of the bureau-shaping model is significantly superior to the budget-maximising model. However, the explanatory power of the bureaushaping model is limited because, as a supply-side model, it cannot explain how budgets are demanded and controlled by political sponsors, who in turn are constrained politically. Budgetary decision-making takes place in a political arena where both supply and demand are mediated; a supply-side model, at best, can explain only half the budget-story.

This paper provides an overview of a form of factor analysis, Q Methodology, and suggests how it might be applied in an institutional analysis setting. Q Methodology provides for a middle ground between positivist and phenomenological methods, and that its usage will not necessarily result in overly contextualized findings that render generalization impossible. The paperʼs primary focus is to suggest several uses of Q Methodology within different established policy studies frameworks, namely the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), and the policy process as conceptualized by Lasswellʼs Policy Sciences approach.