Game Theory

● an autonomous discipline that is used in applied mathematics, social sciences,

economics, biology, engineering, political science, international relations, computer
science, and philosophy
● it is a mathematical study of strategy and conflict
● initially developed in economics to understand a large collection of economic behaviors
● firms;markets;consumers

It has been used to attempt to develop theories of ETHICAL OR NORMATIVE BEHAVIORS

It has been applied in economics and philosophy to help in the understanding of rational
behavior.

Objectives
1. provide brief overview of game and game theory
2. background and impact of game theory
3. analyze the prisoner's dilemma game
4. present applications of game theory with attention to philosophy

keywords: game game theory strategy prisoner's dilemma philosophy

i. Game
- it is the object of studying in game theory
- it is described by a complete set of rules
- a play is an instance of the game
- most games are played for fun, entertainment and leisure

Checkers, chess, football, judo, squash are formalized contests which are examples of games
in which there are two players or teams. Most of these only have one winner.

Other situations can be formulated as games. They are abstract, defined as a formal description
of a strategic situation.

Strategic interactions involve two or more decision makers (players), each with two or more
ways of acting (strategies).

- The outcome of of the game depends on the strategy choices of the players
- Each player has well defined preferences among all possible outcomes, enabling
corresponding utilities (payoffs)
- A game makes explicit rules governing players interactions, strategies, and their
preferences over outcomes
All games have three essential elements- players, strategies, payoff. so, a game in normal form
consist of:
a) a finite number of players P= {1,2,3, ...,n}, {P1,...,Pn}
b) a strategy set Si assigned to each player : {S1,...,Sn}
c) a utility/payoff function- set player gains: {U1,...,Un}

Different Categories of Game

Games can be distinguished by:

a) According to number of players:

Usually they have more than one player, the maximum number of players is finite. A player can
be defined as a nation, a team, companies, associates, etc.
Can be categorized as a one-person, two-persons, or n-person (n>2) game

b) According to rationality of players:

It is a supposition that players are rational, one who chooses an action which gives a preferable
outcome, given what they expect their competitor to do.

Can be distinguished into two extremes; the intelligent player, one that is acting in rationality,
and the other is a player who chooses/acts in random actions

c) According to cooperation:
Games can be categorized into cooperative and non-cooperative
Cooperative: players are allowed to cooperate on a joint strategy
Non-Cooperative: individual players can not cooperate

d) normal and extensive form:

Normal form / strategic form :
Basic type of game in non-cooperative game theory
A game which list each player and the outcomes that result from each possible combination of
choices
Extensive form / game tree:
More detailed; a complete description of how the game is played over time

e) Zero-sum and non-zero-sum games:

Zero-sum/Constant sum: have the property that the sum of the payoffs to the players equals
zero.
Ex. Poker, chess, and most sports games
Non-zero-sum: all players could win or lose together, and players have common and conflicting
interests.
Ex. Most games in real life and business. Ie. Price wars between firms

ii. Game theory

The logical analysis of situations of conflict and cooperation
A theory of rational decision in conflict situations
a) A set of decision makers, players
b) A set of strategies available to each player. Courses of action which they could choose
to follow
 c) A set of outcomes, the strategies chosen by each player determines the outcome of the
game.
d) A set of payoffs, accorded to each player in each of the possible outcomes

- A study of how players should rationally play games

- Players would like the game to end in an outcome which gives him as large a payoff as
possible.
- He has some control on the outcome since his choice of strategy will influence it
- Introduced by mathematicians and economists as a tool to analyze economic
competition and political conflict

distinguished game theorists Robert Aumann and Oliver Hart, explain the
attraction in the following way:
-Unified field theory for the rational side of social science
-Includes human and non-human players (plants, animals, computers)
-does not use different ad hoc constructs
-develops methodologies that apply in principle to all interactive situations

-The subject of the theory are situations, where results not only depend on a players decisions,
but also on the behavior of the other players
-A theory of independent and interdependent decision making in organizations where outcomes
depend on decisions of two or more autonomous players.
-One of these players may be nature itself, where no single decision maker has controls on the
outcomes .
-Provides a common language to formulate, structure, analyze and understand different
scenarios
-A scientific discipline that investigates conflict situations
-it uses mathematical apparatus as well as an important tool in economics, political science, law,
psychology, philosophy and other disciplines.

iii. Background and impact on game theory

iv. Game examples

V. Some applications of game theory

-Expanded and applied to economics, business, biology, computer science, political science,
psychology and philosophy
-Can describe a number of specific phenomena; interpersonal relations, competitions, war and
political affairs,
-Can be identified in the works of ancient philosophers
-Develop theories of ethical or normative behavior
-Economists and philosophers applied game theory to understand rational behavior.
Economics and business
-modeling the patterns of behavior of interacting agents
-Samuelson stated that game theory analyzes the way that two or more parties, who interact in
an arena such as a market
-choose actions or strategies that jointly affect all participants
-as a tool to analyze economic competition, economic phenomena = bargaining, auction, voting
theory
-determining different strategies in the business world.
-Offers valuable tools for solving strategy problems
-Interacting economic choices produce outcomes with respect to the preference.
-Potential tools in analyzing firm decisions
-forces each player to consider the actions of another player in picking their strategies, in
which the other player correspond to the actions done by the other player thus gives benefit to
decision making

Politics
-focused on areas of international politics, war strategy, strategic voting
-analysis any situation of conflict between individuals, companies, states and political parties
-useful tool for terrorism because it captures the interaction between attacked subject and
terrorist organization

Evolution of cooperation
-applied to analyze many anomalous natural phenomena in biology
-evolution of cooperation a fundamental problem in biology because its unselfish
-game theory offers evolutionary context, a tool to address evolution of cooperation
-Tit for Tat by Anatol Paport
-self interested persons will cooperate to promote their general interests
-Prisoner’s Dilemma
One of the most popular and basic game theory strategies is the prisoner's dilemma. This
concept explores the decision-making strategy taken by two individuals who, by acting in their
own individual best interest, end up with worse outcomes than if they had cooperated with each
other in the first place.

In the prisoner’s dilemma, two suspects apprehended for a crime are held in separate rooms
and cannot communicate with each other. The prosecutor informs both Suspect 1 and Suspect
2 individually that if he confesses and testifies against the other, he can go free, but if he does
not cooperate and the other suspect does, he will be sentenced to three years in prison. If both
confess, they will get a two-year sentence, and if neither confesses, they will be sentenced to
one year in prison.

research shows most rational people prefer to confess and testify against the other person than
stay silent and take the chance the other party confesses.
Game theory and philosophy
- has been used as a tool in philosophical discussions
- offers a way of interpreting the conception of Philosophers

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

- Supreme principle of morality
- One’s actions hold power to become a universal law
- Game theory “choose only a strategy that all of the players will be chosen, would yield a
better outcome”
- Solution to prisoner’s dilemma, cooperative choice

Epistemology
-the study of knowledge
-challenged philosophers to think in terms of interactive epistemology.
-Players have common knowledge of the structure of the game and mutual rationality
-Cristina Bicchieri “Epistemic approach to game theory provides a formal analysis of strategic
reasoning”

Rational Behavior and Decision Theory

-useful and potential tool for te understanding of human affairs
-game theory has been expounded as part of a general theory of Rational Behavior
-Rationality is a normative concept which indicates to what we should do in order to attain a
given end or objective.
- Von Neumann and Morgenstern wish to find mathematically complete principles which define
‘rational behavior’ for the participants in a social economy, and to derive from them the general
characteristics
of that behavior’
-Game theory as a theory of rationality advices what players should do in specific interactive
situations, given their preferences
-Game theory is closely related to decision theory, which studies interactions between
self-interested players
-Game and decision theory analyzes interdependent decision problems between rational,
strategic agents
-Decision theory treats all outcomes as exogenous events
-Game theory the prime source of uncertainty is the way other agents will behave
-Game theory has been the object of philosophical inquiry.
Theories of the State (Elitism, Pluralism, Feminism)

State - A state is an organized political community acting under a government.

4 Characteristics
● Population
○ A state cannot exist without people. Must have a population regardless of the
number.
● Territory
○ Must have clear, defined territorial boundaries.
● Government
○ Must have an established government that is able to develop laws and enforce
security.
● Sovereignty
○ Must have supreme power or authority to act within its territory

Theory - a set of systematically interrelated constructs and propositions intended to explain and
predict a phenomenon or behavior of interest, within certain boundary conditions and
assumptions.

Elitism
● Definition
○ “Elite” - a select group that holds a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege,
or power; in short, this a group or somebody who is superior in terms of qualities
or abilities to the rest of his group or to the society.
○ Elitism - from a classical point of view, this theory of state argues that the history
of politics has been characterized by elite domination
○ This theory implies that there are two classes of people in politics and society - a
class that rules and a class that is ruled.
○ Classical elite theorists, Gaetano Mosca, argues that the elite ones are less
numerous (few), perform all political functions, monopolize power, and enjoy the
advantages that power brings, whereas the second class the one that is ruled,
are more numerous, and are being directed and controlled by the first class.
These are considered to be the ordinary people that don't hold any authority or
power in the government.
● Criticisms
○ It is noteworthy that the provided definition of elitism earlier was derived from a
classical point of view or classical approach. This view, however, is no longer
justified because there is insufficient evidence to suggest that governing elites
act as cohesive, active, and self-perpetuating social groups.
○ This is rooted in the fact that Classical elite theorists such as Michels, Pareto,
and Mosca generally assume the integration of elites without any rigorous
empirical investigation.
 ○ Michels’ argument on elite domination became vulnerable to counter critique.
Pareto, on the other hand, failed to demonstrate a theory of elite domination in
his native country in Italy, while Mosca showed that governments in the past were
often characterized by a self-serving elite, he did not establish that this was
always the case.
● Overall, elitism delves into both the ownership and control of wealth and the
monopoly of political power that still resides in the hands of the few.

Feminism
● Definition
○ Sees the state as a vexed (problematic space).
■ The state is the reflection of the interest groups that control its institutions
■ State institutions have tended to be dominated by men, reflecting male
interests, but it can be “captured back” if women were to dominate
○ Noted that the state is patriarchal
■ Since the state is dominated by men, it represented the rule of men - the
male supremacy
■ If women’s liberation were to happen, patriarchy had to be dismantled
■ MacKinnon (1987, 1989): the law sees and treats women the way men
see and treat women.
● Men made laws that worked for them. Although there were laws
on rape, abortion, and pornography, they were never fully and
effectively enforced.
○ Different Approaches
■ Liberal Feminism - tackle inequality in systems by legal reform
■ Marxist Feminism - exploitation of women by society by men and
capitalism; male supremacy and control in the workforce thus the
inequality in the workplace
■ Radical Feminism - patriarchy is present in all aspects of society; changes
made are superficial in nature and only symbolic
● calls for a radical reordering of society in which male
supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic
contexts, while recognizing that women's experiences are
also affected by other social divisions such as in race, class,
and sexual orientation.
● Criticisms
○ Liberal Feminism - It did not challenge the deeper structure of male supremacy, it
rather became an avenue to make patriarchy subtler, and potentially more stable
and powerful than earlier forms (Pringle and Watson 1990)
○ For Marxist Feminism - there have been changes in the inequalities within the
workplace as there has now been a feminization of the workplace
○ ​The feminization of the workplace is the feminization, or the shift in gender roles and
sex roles and the incorporation of women into a group or a profession once
dominated by men
 ○ Radical Feminism - neglects the progress that has been made and ignores the
intersectional nature of women’s experiences
○ Feminism in general became critical of malestream research and rejected the
scientific research methodologies that are objective and scientific

Pluralism
● Definition
● Plural: refers to the state of having more than one of anything
● Coexistence of many different things
○ such as nations, groups, opinions, principles, beliefs, and ways of life.
● Commitment to diversity
○ Respecting diverse political views is beneficial to the society as it
promotes equality and social justice
○ Diversity is healthy and desirable usually because it safeguards
individuals liberty and promote debate, argument, and understanding
○ “Recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is
seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions,
and lifestyles”
● Should be the result of continued and deliberate choices and actions by:
Individuals, civil society, and the gov’t
○ Relationship between the government and civil society
○ Group based rights
● Help achieve a compromise by helping decision-makers become aware of
and fairly address several competing interests and principles.
○ Pluralists acknowledge that a number of competing interest groups will be
allowed to share power.
○ Usually seen as a theory of group politics in which individuals are
represented largely through their membership of organised groups and all
such groups have access to the policy process
○ “Government tends to be depicted as a mechanism for mediating and
compromising a constantly shifting balance between group interests
rather than as an active innovator or imposer of policies upon society.”
● Multiculturalism and the Plural Society
○ Multiculturalism
- based on the idea that no single set or norms or values should dominate a
society and that the role of the state should be about reconciling different
interests rather than ensuring the dominance of a particular group.
- based on the notion of group identities
- Multiculturalist are opposed to the notion that a single group can dominate a
other groups (the basis of multiculturalism is the equal treatment of groups and
so the role of the state is to balance conflicting group interests)
- been moved on to examine how the state should develop a positive role
in developing and protecting the rights of minority groups
 - also draw on the pluralist tradition of seeing rights as group based rather
than individually based
● Plural Society
○ plural societies were held together merely by the existence of a shared
economic system and force.
● Criticism
○ Fail to problematize the state
■ A common problem that pluralists fall prey to is that they fail to
problematize the state (power) (Governance focuses specifically on the
nature of the contemporary state but elides the issue of state power)
(ironic as pluralism is derived from a fear of an over-powerful state and
the belief that strong associations are necessary to limit the power of the
state)

Normative Theory

Origin
- Normative inquiry as the basis of political research
- Normative inquiry provides foundations for political research. Norm statements provide
descriptions of what the world ought to be rather than what the world is. Take, for
example, the question “what is justice?” The question seeks an empirical definition of
justice but as a question related to a philosophical inquiry asking what is justice requires
normative orientation and reflection, reason why it is more accurate for political theory to
ask “what should justice be?” rather than “what is justice?”

- Normative political theory was developed in ancient Greece

- It is a discipline with roots stretching back to ancient times and is concerned with thinking
about the world not only as it is but also how it should be by understanding the political
values to achieve harmony, stability, and utility in the usual political life.

- It originated from the political philosophy of Greek philosopher Plato.

- Plato believed that an ideal state and its entire structure are built upon the concepts
such as 'should' and 'ought.' He stated in his book "The Republic'' that humans do not
want to live a life based solely on the necessities of survival; we want to live well. But,
what does it mean to live a good life? This we may say is the art of politics—law,
leadership, and rule that seeks to improve society and individuals. In other words,
politics is necessary if we want to live well rather than just survive. This implies that
normative theories of what politics should be is linked to our perceptions of reality.

- The theory emphasizes the opinions of different philosophers about politics,

human nature, interaction, and justice.
- Plato and Aristotle were both normative philosophers in the sense that they were
interested in what forms of government best achieved justice. They inquire as to which
brings greater security to a political community: democracy or more authoritarian rule.
 The question arises from a traditional institutional and normative view of politics. It
invokes key principles on how people should act and organize themselves. Thus, it
seeks to provide 'norms' that prescribe appropriate ways of acting both independently
and collaboratively.

Definition
- The Normative Theory, in a general way, suggests the mode by which an imperfect
political or social order would be made perfect.
- The thinkers are primarily concerned with political values to achieve harmony, stability,
and utility in common political life.
- Those that adopt this thinking believe that peace and harmony is the only way which
might help to overcome numerous obstacles. (The example works are Plato’s Republic
and Rosseau’s Social Contract.)
- It focuses attention on ethical questions or values with reference to the good order of
society.
- Normative theories use normative statements that tackle the people and society's
values, opinions or judgement. We ask do we think this is good or bad and we can look
for phrases like I think we should do this, we should ought to that or everyone should do
this. It's a statement of opinion that can not be tested to be true or false.
- It generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in
human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or
permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible.
- Many researchers in science, law, and philosophy try to restrict the use of the term
normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes
as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.

Application of the Theory

- (The normative theory’s goal is to find the best way of living or perfecting policy, laws,
system or norm) In trying to explain what is “ought to be” “should be” in the political
landscape, it also tries to provide solutions to problems to build a better society, policy,
and norm, or to some extent, make it perfect. For example, the statement “The
Department of Health should raise the hazard pay of health workers” pushes the DOH, a
national health agency, to provide better support and compensation to the health
workers that are at extreme risk in this pandemic.
- It’s prescriptive and value-loaded) Unlike the positivist approach, which is value neutral
(it answers the question ‘what is’), normative theory has a lot of political philosophy
aspects involved. Meaning it answers ethical, moral, or questions about values and uses
it to impose or prescribe a rule, a policy that could help make a better living.
- (It doesn’t have to be fully factual.) Although it starts from a factual assumption (from a
known phenomenon or norm), it’s still nonempirical, meaning it doesn’t necessarily need
intensive research of facts or evidence. Although it’s nonempirical, it’s not anti-empirical.
Empirical research can use normative theory as its guide and normative theory still uses
empirical data to strengthen its assumptions.
 - (It’s not strict in testing variables) Since the normative theory doesn’t need much
evidence, the researcher is free to write up his thoughts and propose ideas without
testing variables. The normative theory deals with a lot of moral arguments as
justification of the research thesis, and, if it does require all factual evidence, then it
would have been empirical research.
- (the researcher has freedom to write their thoughts without being pressured to provide
evidence in all assumptions) There are no restrictions or specific procedures that the
researcher should follow. They have the freedom to choose which step they will take.
They could start from a fact assumed from personal experience or other’s research. For
example, I could start research on how to improve the performance of CHED in this
online setup, based on my academic observation or experience as a college student in
her 2 years’ experience with online class or, I could use an article or existing research as
my foundation and develop it.

Criticism on the Theory

- Normative models are used to guide our activities along commonly accepted
norms or practices. It is not intended so much to devise or amend political theories as
to use what political theories tell us about society and politics as a basis for making
political decisions.
- And, according to Shively W.P. (2009), Empirical theorists can benefit from the
specification and clarification of arguments provided by normative theory and
normative theorists would do well to look to empirical research rather than
hypothetical arguments to help support their case.
- an Abstraction from Reality -a principled way to deal with settling everyday issues is
pointless and disregards reality. They regularly expect "realities" that can't in any way,
shape or form be tried against the real world. According to Shively (2009), normative
theorists must be free to imagine realities that have never existed before. Most of the
theories or “realities'' are based on assumption. It has no historical evidence.
- Inhuman Approach – the standards articulated in a generic setting which goes about as
a direction for conduct is becoming a predictable approach (has been utilized ordinarily;
not unique). To which normativism attempts to put a norm for sure "should" to be without
precision – becoming uncertain as various factors and assortments like human relations,
nature, and feelings are not perceived.
- Prescriptive Approach – this approach recommends that moral difficulties can be
settled by endorsed rules, though the obvious dynamic includes people and their
relations through their own wariness and judgment. With this comes liberalism in which
one of the important figures – John Locke. According to Marsh and Stroker (1995), John
Locke has criticized the normative way of thinking claiming that an objective
comprehension of things should continue not from aggressive theoretical suggestions
but rather from clear thinking dependent on substantial proof.
____________________________________________________________________________
BEHAVIORALISM

DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND

Behaviouralism as a social theory, it can sometimes be seen as an easy concept to
comprehend, as it revolves around mostly asking the question, “Why do people behave in the
way they do?” It is an approach that analyzes the observable behavior of political characters
and also that of the masses and individuals that reside under their power. In a certain fashion,
these said individuals can also be defined as political characters, as without input or data on
their behavior, a political theory cannot be established. The theory wishes to seek answers from
these questions such as: What do the actors involved actually do? And how can we best explain
why they do it? As it tries to understand people’s behaviour.

The origin of the theory can be somewhat traced back to the First World War, wherein scientists
were analyzing political behavior. It wasn’t until the conflicts of the Second World War that it
gained traction. Its first major development came in the hands of Frank Kent, a journalist who
was able to use his expertise and experience in his craft to write the book Political Behaviour,
the Heretofore the Unwritten Laws, Customs, and Principles of Politics as Practised in the
United States. Soon after, others followed him, such as Herbert Tingsten, who also wrote a book
titled Political Behaviour, Studies in Election Statistics. His book primarily focuses on a more
detailed and advanced analysis of political behavior and was quite relevant not only to Europe
but to the nation of America. Speaking of America, due to the turmoil caused by the Second
World War, European scholars looking to expand the study on the political spectrum migrated to
the United States, wherein they were able to continue and even enhance their studies as they
benefited from the abundance of funds allocated to their research. The behavioral approach
then continued to develop with this new development and became one of the dominant
approaches during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Main Features:
Behavioralism prides itself for being value-free and stems its work from impartial examination
which aims to make scientific law-like generalizations or theories. It does not concern itself with
ethics or norms nor does it push for an “ideal” political system, rather, they empirically and
scientifically analyze political phenomena through the use of quantitative data based on
observable facts. Lastly, behavioralists believes that the theories they generate should be
falsifiable and replicable because theories or propositions wouldn't be scientific if it isnt so.

- Value-Free
- Empirical and Scientific
- Inductive

Application of Behaviouralism
Because the goal of behavioralism is to translate and analyze observable facts into scientific
and law like political theories, its application is more appropriated with studies regarding - e.g
chuchuhcuchu, and under the context of Contemporary Philippine Politics, behavioralisms
application involves asdfjsakdfjshdf
The particular maxim of behaviouralism is “Why do individuals and social aggregates behave
and act the way they are.” Through behaviouralism, we can study the behaviors of individuals,
groups, or even nations in a political context. The most significant study involving a
behavioralistic approach comes from the work of Plümper and Neumayer (2006). Their study
analyzes the effects of violent conflicts on the life expectancy rates of men and women. Lastly,
due to the strengths of behaviouralism such as its ability to be replicated, the need for absolute
clarity (thus leaving no room for any ambiguity), and its systemic empirical methodology have
resulted in innovative and scientific political research. Examples of the applications of
behaviouralism in the political sphere mainly revolves around Election studies such as
influences of Political Party attachment, Political behavior, and voting behavior.

Political Party Attachments

There have been many studies that involve political party identification and attachments
in a behaviouralistic approach. Some of the notable ones are the work of V.O. Key Jr.
(1908-1963) wherein he identified the shifting of political parties by American voters due to
several elections. Another behaviouralistic study conducted by Campbell et al. (1960) argued
that religion, social class, ethnicity, and region are some of the determinants for an individual’s
voting behaviour and political party attachment.

Political Behavior
A study conducted by Stein Rokkan discovered that regions far from the political center
tend to vote differently than from the regions near or at the center of political and economical
activity. Seymour Martin Lipset also used behavioralistic approach for his work Political Man:
The Social Bases of Politics (1960). He identified that the political behavior of the working class
tends to favor more the leftist groups.

Voting Behavior
The same works by Campbell et al. (1960) and Stein Rokkan finds religion, ethnicity,
region, and social class are some of the factors contributing towards an individual or a groups
voting behavior.

Behaviouralism in the Philippines

Unfortunately, behaviouralistic studies in the Philippines are scarce but there are a lot of political
phenomena happening in the Philippines which could potentially contribute or become subjects
for behaviouralism studies. Examples of those phenomena include: Balimbing Phenomenon,
Wheelchair Phenomenon, Campaign Styles, etc.

CRITICISMS AGAINST THE THEORY

Criticism of Behaviouralism
Disclaimer - Inheriting the positivist claims
1 No room for normativism

From a positivist’ point of view, anything that can not be explained empirically nor defined using
a tautology is viewed as meaningless, However, researchers using the behavioralist approach
does not view normativism or ethics as meaningless, rather, they believe that they have no role
in political analysis but they do provide a different form of knowledge that is useful in other
disciplines (Lowndes et al., 2018), but normativism plays a huge role and impact in
understanding possibly deeper political phenomena which is not measurable through statistics.

2 Struggle for absolute Empiricism

Because Behaviouralism abides strongly by a framework of empiricism, their form of scientific
inquiry was criticized, because according to Hempel and popper, it is narrowly inductive due to
their need to observe every “relevant facts,” which could be never ending. They argued that they
need to have some sort of theoretical expectation in order to guide the observation. And this
form of inductivism was popular among behavioralist research during the 50’s and 60’s, thus this
focus for absolute empiricism resulted to:

1.) Their tendency to focus on what can be easily measured using empirical data, rather
than what could potentially be more theoretically important, i.e. avoid potentially more
important phenomena just because they are difficult to measure.
2.) Its inability to provide understanding for deeper and more complex political issues like
interests or socio-political contexts.
3.) There’s also the potentiality of respondents to not answer surveys or questionnaires
honestly or rationally, or they would give more conservative and socially accepted
answers. These problems are due to Behaviouralism’s exclusive use of quantitative
data.
4.) Lastly, because behavioralism relies heavily on already observable facts, it is prone to
restating already obvious statements. Such as the working class would vote for liberals,
and rich business owners would most likely vote for conservatives

3 Independent and Dependent variable causation Dilemma (britannica)

For Behavioralists, the questions ``What do the actors involved do? And Why do they do it? Are
the most relevant questions that they attend to, thus the idea of causation is essential in
Behaviouralism. However, the use of statistical correlation alone in order to explain how
variables change together, comes at a limitation, one of which is its incapability to determine
which caused what, and that is what happens in some cases of behaviouralism. Moreover, It
could even be argued that a third variable may be causing or influencing the dependent
variable, thus a need to rely on “intuition” becomes a necessity to assume a third variable, but to
reiterate intuition is an instrument that behavioralists rarely use
INSTITUTIONALISM
● Definition: is an approach to the study of institutions that primarily focuses on rules,
norms, and values that govern political exchanges

● Rhodes (1997) describes the institutional approach as the ‘historic heart’ of the study of
government and politics and ‘part of the toolkit of every political scientist’
● Normative - concerned with ‘good government’
● Structuralist approach - Structures determine Political Behavior
● Historicist - history-centric political behavior
● Legalist - law plays a major role in governing
● Holistic - concerned with describing and comparing whole systems of
government
● Functionalist perspective - particular institutions are present because they help
the political system work well

● Understanding of the Scientific Claim: Political science should be grounded on empirical,

theoretically informed, and reflective data

● Theory Applied in Politics:

○ Reliant on political actors, Keen on making connections with people of power

○ For example, in looking at political institutions in the US, Britain, France and
Germany, Finer (1932) did not use a country-by-country analysis and instead
compared institution-by-institution (e.g. parties, electorates, civil service,
judiciaries) across countries.

● Criticisms against the theory:

● Critics of institutionalism point to its limitations in terms of both scope and method
● Tendency to assume ‘Simplistic Superiority’ with certain institutions and
structures, therefore deeming other governments who do not follow the same
institutional structures inferior.
● Concerned with the institutions of government, and yet operated with a restricted
understanding of its subject matter.

NEO-INSTITUTIONALISM

Definition: is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and
enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups.

Neo-institutional theory is one of the main theoretical perspectives used to understand

organizational behavior as situated in and influenced by other organizations and wider social
forces—especially broader cultural rules and beliefs. Initial scholarship theorized and
documented how the construction of broader cultural rules constituted actors and facilitated
organizational isomorphism—the growing similarity of organizations in a field. Subsequently, the
scope of the theory was expanded to account for the transformation and change of institutions,
as well as the heterogeneity of actors and practices in fields. This has spawned new strands of
theorizing such as that related to the institutional logics perspective. While neo-institutional
theory is most closely informed by ideas and debates in sociology and management, it also
draws from cognitive and social psychology, anthropology, political science and economics.

Methodologies used in Neo-institutionalism:

● Mathematical modelling – Crouch (2005) uses modelling to show that
institutional heterogeneity facilitates innovation in economic policy, by
presenting new opportunities when existing ‘paths’ are blocked, and by
allowing for new combinations of elements from existing paths.
● Game theory – Dunleavy (1991) uses game theory to develop his theory of ‘bureau
shaping’ as an alternative to conventional ‘budget maximisng’ assumptions in explaining
how self-interested bureaucrats seek to influence the institutions they work through.
● Laboratory studies – Ostrom et al. (1994) use experimental methods to investigate the
institutional and physical variables that affect whether cooperation can be achieved, and
overexploitation avoided, in the use of ‘common pool resources’ like forests or grazing
lands.
● Ethnography – Douglas (1987) uses anthropological and ethnographic methods to
develop her theory of ‘how institutions think’, differentially structuring categories of
thought across cultures, whether in law, religion or science.

● Case studies – Streeck and Thelen’s (2005:9) international collection of ‘theoretically

self-conscious ... empirical cases’ develops a comparative analysis of the ways in which
incremental change can lead to institutional transformation in contemporary capitalism.

Theory Applied in Politics:

The new institutionalism in political science: institutional power and group strategies.
Institutions shape the preferences and goals of the actors in the decision-making process by
distributing power among the players— help shape the outcomes of this process. The two main
variables are the institutional distribution of power, and the formation of strategies to obtain
desired goals by individual actors given their institutional context.

System Theory
I. Definition of the Theory
- The study of society as a complex arrangement of elements, including individuals
and their beliefs, as they relate to a whole (e.g., a country).
- The key concept of systems theory, regardless of which discipline it’s being
applied to, is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
 - Systems theory is also involved in analyzing how society adapts to its
environment through adjustments in its structure, with important implications for
the understanding of social order.
II. Introduction to System Theory In Work
- It is enables the professional to look at clients condition and it’s environmental
factors
- It helps the social worker to help the client in solving the problem
III. History of System Theory
- Ludwig von Bertalanffy research in the 1948 - 1950 and in 1968 he published
“General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications”
- More broadly, Von Bertalanffy envisioned general system theory as a way to
address the increasing complexity of the world's problems.
- General system theory emerged as an alternative to the dominant form of inquiry
and way of thinking, reductionist analysis, which was criticized for being unable to
address whole, interdependence, and complexity.
IV. How the Theory can be Applied
- For Ecology, An interdisciplinary field of ecology, systems ecology takes the
holistic approach of systems theory
- For Engineering,Systems engineering is another interdisciplinary approach that
employs the principles of systems theory.
- For Psychology, Systems psychology is a facet of psychology that examines
human behavior and experiences within complex systems.
V. Criticisms Against the Theory
- One flaw of social systems theory is that this approach to an individual’s issues is
not always adequate to explain their present circumstances.
- Another problem with social systems theory is the difficulty of drawing actionable
conclusions based on what is found.
- Too broad in its focus. One question is, since everything is interconnected, how
does one know what to specifically study, since systems in society are not
stagnant, but changes or transforms through time.

DISCOURSE THEORY ( The father of discourse theory: Michel Foucault)

I. What is Discourse?
- Michel Foucault looked at discourse as a precursor to understanding systems of
representation. Here discourse would simply mean textual passages that are
connected by writing or speech.
- It suggest that the truths that we live by are not simply “out there”
- Discourse means you have a range of statements that provide a language with
the way of talking about something. It provides a language with a way of
representing knowledge about a particular subject matter at a particular given
historical juncture.
 II. Discourse Theory
- For Foucault, discourse was about both language and practice making of
distinction between what one says and talks about ideas and what one does, and
how one puts those ideas into practice.
- Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language - that there are
rules and there are practices that produce meaningful statements, and that
regulate discourse in particular historical periods.
- The idea that discourse produces objects of knowledge, and that nothing exists
outside discourse was really central to Foucault thinking process. This is not to
say that there is no real particular existence to an object, like a tree or a book or
a ball, they do exist physically in the world. You can see them and you can touch
them. But what Foucault argued and came to see as well was that these objects
have no real meaning outside of discourse
- Discourse constructs the topic. It defines and produces the objects of our
knowledge.
III. Power and status controls Discourse
- Discourse theory is concerned with questions of power, and often with
questions of institutional hierarchies.
- Such hierarchies lead to domination and resistance, for example when
different people try to assert who should speak with authority on issues of
health policy.
- For example, when different people try to assert who should speak with
authority on issues of health policy.
IV. Meaning not Existence
- Objects become institutionalized through the language and social
practices attached to them.
-What it's about is what meaning and action is attached to that object. That is to
say, physical objects, though they exist have no fixed meaning. They only take on
meaning and become institutionalized objects through the language attached to
them, and the social practices that accompany those ideas with discourse, both
language and practice,
V. Controversies on Discourse Theory

1. Is discourse primarily language?

- Some scholars emphasize that Text is not the only mode in which humans
communicate, and that sounds and visuals, or even tastes and smells should
also fall under the term discourse.
- Meaning that, Humans have different forms of communication, and language is
only a fraction of it. We can create meaning through drawing, symbols, signs,
pictures etc.
- Let’s us traffic signs as an example, not all of them have text in it but we can
draw out the meaning of these signs without having any text at all..
 2. What exactly does discourse “construct”?
- Discourse theorists disagree on which parts of our world are real, in other words,
they take different ontological stances,
- Knowledge is a generally accepted truth.
-“Beliefs, values, ideologies” these are considered as false knowledge because they vary
from place to place and person to person.
- What you know might not be the same knowledge other people know about.

3. Who is the agent in Discourse Theory?

- Power is not something that certain people use to dominate others.
- Power is a mesh of relations and hierarchies that has its own logic, and that no
one is consciously steering (Howard 2000, Laclau and Mouffe 2001).
- In discourse theory, there must be identifiable people that started these
discursive ideologies.
- Let’s take as an example the superstitions of Filipinos. We have believed in them
since time immemorial.

4. Where does discursive construction happen?

- Others look towards social practices and argue that discursive truths influence
the habits of people.
- We give meaning to things when we have prior knowledge about it.
- However, our thoughts and actions are linguistically determined, and that we
cannot think and act outside of the things we can express. Now, how can we give
meaning to these new things if our intellect is just acquired from the socially
accepted truths? Does discourse stop there?

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

Definition:
● Rational choice theory is based on the assumption of involvement from rational actors.
What are Rational Actors? Rational actors are the individuals in an economy who
make rational choices based on calculations and the information that is available
to them.
● Rational choice theory states that individuals use rational calculations to make rational
choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own personal objectives.
These results are also associated with maximizing an individual's self-interest.
● Rational choice theory expresses that individuals are in control of their decisions.
They don’t make choices because of unconscious drives, tradition or
environmental influences. They use rational considerations to weigh
consequences and potential benefits.
● Using rational choice theory is expected to result in outcomes that provide people with
the greatest benefit and satisfaction, given the limited options they have available.
In other words, every choice that is made by an individual is completed by first considering the
costs, risks and benefits of making that decision. Rational choice theory stipulates that each
individual will look at the cost of making one decision over another, whilst also analyzing the
benefit. In the end, humans are rational and so choose the option which provides them
the most benefit. Choices that seem irrational to one person may make perfect sense to
another based on the individual's desires.

Rational Choice Theory Benefits

Rational choice theory has application in many fields ranging from economics to politics to
sociology. Its use has had many benefits throughout these fields and has advanced our
understanding of human decision behavior. The benefits of rational choice theory are:
Explains Irrational Behavior
- Rational choice theory assumes that each individual makes a rational decision. This
helps us move on from just assuming an individual makes an irrational decision. Rational
choice theory questions the assumption that there is an irrational choice. For, every
person is faced with different costs and benefits.
Predictive
- Rational choice theory has helped produce a wide number of theories in a whole host of
different fields. It has helped reduce the wide range of likely human actions to more
defined outcomes. Each individual action is seen to be rational based on the cost and
benefits of that decision. So this is considered when looking at predicting human actions.
Generalized human behavior
- Not only is Rational Choice Theory used to analyze political and economic decision
making, but also far-reaching behavior with relation to choices such as education,
marriage, child-bearing, and political matters. It also extends to business decisions about
the level of output, investment decisions, hiring decisions, and many others.
- Rational choice theory applies to all these areas of life and covers human actions
through many applications. And more often than not, it is an accurate representation of
human action.

Brief History of Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theorists were not the first to employ the assumptions of rationality and
self-interest. A ‘realist’ tradition within international relations, tracing its origins back to ancient
Greece and Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, suggests (at its simplest) that
states’ actions are explicable in terms of a self-interested drive for power and that their leaders’
commitments to justice, peaceful co-existence and international norms of behaviour are ‘cheap
talk’ (Dunne and Schmidt, 2007). But over the last few decades it is rational choice theorists
who have most zealously applied the assumptions of rationality and self-interest to the
broadest range of political activities.

Application of the Rational Choice Theory.

Rational choice theory can apply to a variety of areas, including economics, psychology and
philosophy. This theory states that individuals use their self-interests to make choices that will
provide them with the greatest benefit.The easiest way to show the application of the Rational
Choice Theory is to compare it to how voters determine the candidates that they want in politics.
(Their voting behavior)

The rational choice model recognizes that most voters aren't strong identifiers and don't
have a strong emotional attachment to political parties. As a result, they are fundamentally
misaligned

Voters sometimes make decisions about how to vote based on a sequence of judgments
made about a variety of relevant criteria. This means that voters make a decision not based
on class, age, ethnicity or gender or party identification but on who will benefit them and their
families more.

.
Criticisms against Rational Choice

An argument against rational choice theory is that most people follow social norms, even
when they're not benefitting from adhering to them. Also, some critics say that rational
choice theory doesn't account for choices that are made due to situational factors or that
are context-dependent.

Critics of the rational decision-making model say that the model makes unrealistic
assumptions, particularly about the amount of information available and an individual's
ability to process this information when making decisions.

Riker (1990) argues that it is the failure of political science to whole- heartedly embrace rational
choice theory which accounts for its lack of theoretical and empirical progress. But critics argue
that rational choice is a flawed enterprise.
Searle (2001) argues that people are rational to the extent that they deliberate or reason about
their goals and how best to secure those goals in a world in which the relationship between
actions and consequences is inherently uncertain.

People do not simply have beliefs about the world which they act upon. They have preferences
over beliefs in the sense that they sometimes believe what they want to believe rather than what
they ought to believe given the available evidence.

The rational choice approach to politics assumes that individual behavior is motivated by
self-interest, utility maximization, or more simply put, goal fulfillment. (Pettraca, 1991)

People are rational to the extent that they select the best possible means to achieve their goals.
But people may not always know what consequences of their actions are going to be and for
this reason actors can make mistakes. Indeed, Searle (2001) argues that people are rational to
the extent that they deliberate or reason about their goals and how best to secure those goals in
a world in which the relationship between actions and consequences is inherently uncertain.

People do not simply have beliefs about the world which they act upon. They have preferences
over beliefs in the sense that they sometimes believe what they want to believe rather than what
they ought to believe given the available evidence.

The second criticism on rational choice theory states that rational choice privileges structure
over agency and ignores ideas.

This is because theorists often assume that people who are classified into a particular group,
let’s say politicians, have the same self-interested goals which they pursue in the same method.
According to Hay, Individuals have different empirical ideas about how the world works and
these differences can lead people to make contrasting calculations about which course of action
is in their self interest. Agents do not always act in the same way when placed in the same
situation.

Next is that, rational choice’s empirical record is poor.

When it comes to defences that people are not always rational and actually differ in behavior,
rational choice theorists use instrumentalism as their approach. As defined by Robertneufville,
instrumentalism is the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for
solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world. However,
Green and Shapiro also pointed out that most rational choice theories are not tested empirically.
There is a contradiction on how rational choice theorists spoke of their method and how it is
actually applied.

Last is that rational choice is politically destructive.

After the second world war, economists used the rational choice theory to show that political
processes with participants who are driven by self-interest are likely to generate inefficient
results.

It may also increase chances of government failure because of the risk that rational choice
theory will be understood by the people as being self-interested, which also applies to
government intervention that is motivated only by electoral interest.

It also ignores the many successful instances of government intervention and downplay the role
opposition parties and the media can play in exposing and so deterring political malfeasance.

To conclude our report, the objection with rational choice theory is that it is too simple, it misses
and cannot fully explain the complexity of political life. It is better suited for generalized
explanations of particular events, rather than the specific details. Thus, we are to reach a clear
middle ground accepting what rational choice theory can and can’t explain. Although the use of
rational choice theory in political science is not as broad as other approaches, it is still useful in
explaining other aspects of a phenomenon.

rational choice - practising a rather naive positivism

Increase of chances in government failure because it encourages people to act in self-interested
ways because of the risk of rational choice theory being understood as everyone being
self-interested, which also applies to government intervention that is motivated only by electoral
interest.
simply ignore the many successful instances of government intervention and downplay the role
opposition parties and the media can play in exposing and so deterring political malfeasance

---

Should be clear on what rational choice theory can and can’t explain --- middle ground
Objection on rational choice theory: It is too simple, it misses the complexity of political life. It is
better suited for generalized explanations of particular events, rather than the specific details.
Still can be used to explain other aspects of a phenomenon. It does not mean we cannot use
rational choice to help us explain anything just because we cannot use it to explain everything

DIFFERENCE FROM GAME THEORY

Game theory aims to understand situations in which decision makers interact. Chess is
an example, as are firms competing for business, politicians competing for votes, jury members
deciding on a verdict, animals fighting over prey, bidders competing in auctions, or threats and
punishments in long term relationships. The theory of rational choice is a basic component of
game-theoretic models. This theory has been criticized from a descriptive viewpoint, arguing
that it requires way too much calculating capabilities from ordinary beings that use, at most,
simple heuristics.

The difference between rational choice theory and that of game theory is that: Rational
Choice Theory is more self-interested. It is focused on what decision the self will make for its
own benefit. In Game theory, one also relies on the situation of other “players” in order to see
which will be the better choice for oneself. Rational choice theory = own actions, rational, how it
affects self. Game theory = interaction with others, making choices, for self, one action,
everyone is affected(?), taking into account choices of others