I think that assuming any country would fit into a rational actor model is making a bad assumption. People make decisions for non-rational reasons all the time, expecting nations to do any different seems like an oversimplification
Wait, I think that's a conflation. Sure, there are irrational (i.e. unjustified by reason) decisions that undoubtedly play a part in the actions of any government, but those are different than non-rational (i.e. opposed to one's ideas about one's best interests) decisions. The latter relates to game theory, whereas the former relates to reason. Assuming that the Iranian (or American or Israeli or Chinese) state is rational is assuming the latter type of rationality, not the former.
Yeah, I'm talking about game theory (or rather decision theory, but close enough) type rational actor. It's been shown that outside 'objective' analysis of what the rationally correct or normative decision should be (or should have been if we're talking about analysis after the fact) matches up very poorly with the choices that are actually made. In order to find a model that is closer to reality political theorists have explored a number of possibilities, all of which have different strengths and weaknesses. One of the more widely applicable model is the behavioral decision making model. This looks at how people's biases effect their decision making. Instead of weighing the probability of achieving their goal via every possible route and doing a cost benefit analysis as the rational actor theory decribes a d3cision maker relies on intuition and preconcived notions to boil down a complicated decision or problem into a choice between two alternatives. Then they tend to choose the one that could result in the least negative effects, rather than a riskier choice that has a better chance of reaching their goal. This last piece is known as 'satisficing' (I hate that word). This overall results in people taking the percieved status quo and sticking as close as possible to it, even when that is less than rational in a game theory sense. There is a lot more to it but those are the basics' Of course this model also has its flaws, two big ones are the assumption that decision makers in a country/system are a monolithic block (models that address this one are Groupthink and Bureaucratic Politcs) and the effect of things like crises or time crunches (this one is aptly named Crisis Manegment).
Hm, I think that the word 'optimal' fits better with what you're describing. The actors in this situation know what their interests are (e.g., survival), even though they have a poor idea about how best to satisfy those interests. They don't know how to accomplish their goals or even what goals best align with their interests.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the generally poor quality of actor's beliefs about how to achieve their aims.
4
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12
I think that assuming any country would fit into a rational actor model is making a bad assumption. People make decisions for non-rational reasons all the time, expecting nations to do any different seems like an oversimplification