Rational Actor Model

The rational actor model is largely based on assumptions about uncertainties. In the realm of international relations and how states relate to one another, there are few certainties. The very nature of uncertainties makes it somewhat irrational to make assumptions about them. Therefore, the rational actor model, while making assumptions about said uncertainties, is irrational by nature. There are too many uncertainties in international relations to safely and accurately assume a specific outcome based on a given set of circumstances (Green, 11).

While the rational actor model makes rational assumptions about the way rational people make decisions, i.e. (1) identifying an objective or desired outcome, (2) establishing a set of potential courses of action to achieve that outcome, (3) determining possible benefits and consequences for each potential course of action, and (4) choosing that option which is most likely to provide the best potential outcome based on costs and benefits (essence of decision doc, 2), it is quite irrational to assume one’s assumptions based on a certain set of fluid circumstances will remain the best of all possible options once the set of circumstances has been acted upon. In other words, once the rational actor has chosen his/her course of action, the circumstances change based on the results of that action and his/her opponent’s perception of that action. Once the action has been taken, the circumstances used to conclude that the action was the best of all possible actions change, making the action nothing more than a gamble in the first place. No set of circumstances is consistently static, especially once they have been acted upon. Circumstances are entirely dynamic and to assume otherwise would lead one to make irrational assumptions, and therefore irrational decisions.

Rational actor model assumes the rationality of the actors and that all actors are equally rational. It also assumes that equally rational actors will come to the same conclusions if given identical circumstances. This is clearly not the case. An obvious current example of the fallacy of this assumption is found in the national debate over health care reform. Clearly there are a lot of very rational people on both sides of the debate, and yet polar opposite opinions as to which outcome would be best for America given the same set of circumstances. When President Kennedy was provided a set of circumstances by which to make a decision in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could easily do so but to do so with a reasonable assumption that the Soviets would respond in a certain way was irrational because President Kennedy’s and Premier Khrushchev’s experiences and understandings about life were very different. Culturally, politically, socially, the two were very different men, and as a result could likely make very different seemingly rational decisions if given the identical set of circumstances.

Rational actor model is based largely on assumptions about many components of the circumstances and the players. In order to make decisions, one must of necessity take risks in determining the best decision to reach the best possible outcome. Winston Churchill said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” (Green, 2). I believe this is the case with rational actor model. Although there are plethora of other behavioral models out there, and although it certainly has its flaws, it seems to be as effective at its purpose as any other.

Allison, Graham T. and Philip Zelikow. “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” 1999, Chapters 1 and 2.

Green, Steven L. “Rational Choice Theory: An Overview.” Baylor University Faculty Development Seminar on Rational Choice Theory, May 2002. http://business.baylor.edu/steve_green/green1.doc (accessed March 3, 2010).