IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v41y2011i01p191-210_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Review Article: ‘Major Combat Operations Have Ended’? Arguing about Rational Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Hindmoor, Andrew

Abstract

Arguing about rational choice theory remains a popular pastime. Following the publication of Green and Shapiro’s Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, a backlash against the use of rational choice theory within political science gained momentum. This article shows how, since 1994, sceptics have refined and extended the critique of rational choice and how practitioners have defended their approach, and a more general argument has emerged. In the 1990s, attitudes towards rational choice theory constituted a fundamental fault-line within the discipline, but changes to the way in which rational choice is practised and defended, together with some broader changes in the social sciences, have created more areas of common ground and taken some of the urgency out of this debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Hindmoor, Andrew, 2011. "Review Article: ‘Major Combat Operations Have Ended’? Arguing about Rational Choice," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 191-210, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:41:y:2011:i:01:p:191-210_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123410000372/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:41:y:2011:i:01:p:191-210_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.