Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Rationality

  • Anne-Marie MohammedEmail author
  • Sandra Sookram
  • George Saridakis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_404

Synonyms

Definition

Rationality involves the evaluation of choices to achieve a goal or to find the optimal solution to a problem. Simon (1972, p. 161) defined rationality as “a style of behavior that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints.”

Introduction

The notion of rationality has become a central idea in the various disciplines within the social sciences. This entry discusses the concept of rationality, which has been a core concept in the explanation of human behavior in economics and the other social sciences. In the field of economics, it is expected that individuals behave rationally and that organizations should make rational decisions. A substantial number of economic theories are established under the assumption that when individuals act they do so in a rational manner. Simon (1957) revises this...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akers RL (1990) Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: the path not taken. J Crim L Criminol 653Google Scholar
  2. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buonanno P, Montolio D (2008) Identifying the socioeconomic determinants of crime across Spanish provinces. Int Rev Law Econ 28(2):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherry TL, List JA (2002) Aggregation bias in the economic model of crime. Econ Lett 75:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cournot A (1838) Mémoire Sur Les Applications Du Calcul Des Chances À La Statistique Judiciaire. journal des mathematiques pures et appliquees 12. T. 3Google Scholar
  6. Devine JA, Sheley JF, Smith D (1988) Macroeconomic and social-control policy influences on crime rate changes, 1948–1985. Am Soc Rev 53(3):407–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards W, Lindman H, Savage LJ (1963) Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychol Rev 70:193–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrlich I (1973) Participation in illegitimate activities: a theoretical and empirical investigation. J Polit Econ 81(3):521–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrlich I (1996) Crime, punishment and the market for offense. J Econ Perspect 10(1):43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ensor T, Godfrey C (1993) Modelling the interactions between alcohol, crime and the criminal justice system. Addiction 88(4):477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Entorf H, Spengler H (2002) Crime in Europe: causes and consequences. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Entorf H, Spengler H (2000) Socioeconomic and demographic factors of crime in Germany: evidence from panel data of the German states. Int Rev Law Econ Rev 20:1323–1357Google Scholar
  13. Field S (1990) Trends in crime and their interpretation: a study of recorded crime in post-war England and Wales. Home Office Research Study, vol 119. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman M (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs JP (1968) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Soc Sci Quart 48:515–530Google Scholar
  16. Han L, Bandyopadhyay S, Bhattacharya S (2010) Determinants of Violent and property crimes in England and Wales: a panel data analysis. Department of Economics, University of Birmingham Discussion Paper 10-26RGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartung G, Pessoa S (2004) Demographic factors as determinants of crime rates. Website: http://www.abep.nepo.unicamp.br/SeminarioPopulacaoPobrezaDesigualdade2007/docs/SemPopPob07_1062.pdf
  18. Holt CA, Roth AE (2004) The Nash equilibrium: a perspective. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(12):3999–4002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langlois R (1997) Cognition and capabilities: opportunities seized and missed in the history of the computer industry. In: Garud R, Nayyar P, Shapira Z, dir (eds) Technological innovation: oversights and foresights. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 71–94Google Scholar
  20. Marvell T, Moody C (1997) The Impact of Prison Growth on Homicide. Homicide Studies, 1(3):205–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshall A (1961/1890) Principles of economics, 1st edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauwels L, Weerman F, Bruinsma G, Bernasco W (2011) Perceived sanction risk, individual propensity and adolescent offending: assessing key findings from the deterrence literature in a Dutch sample. Eur J Criminol 8:386–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popper K (1945/1966) The open society and its enemies, vol 1, 5th edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Popper K (1967) The rationality principle. In: Miller D (ed) Popper selections. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 357–365Google Scholar
  25. Raphael S, Winter-Ebmer R (2001) Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. J Law Econ 44(1):259–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rauhut H, Junker M (2009) Punishment deters crime because humans are bounded in their strategic decision-making. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(3)Google Scholar
  27. Saridakis G (2004) Violent crime in the United States of America: a time-series analysis between 1960–2000. Eur J Law Econ 18:203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saridakis G (2011) Violent crime and incentives in the long-run: evidence from England and Wales. J Appl Stat 38(4):647–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saridakis G, Spengler H (2012) Crime, deterrence and unemployment in Greece: a panel data approach. Soc Sci J 49:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sardakis G, Sookram S (2014) Violent crime and perceived deterrence: an empirical approach using the offending, crime and justice survey. Econ Issue 19(1):23–55Google Scholar
  31. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon HA (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire CB, Radner R (eds) Decision and organization. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Tittle CR (1969) Crime rates and legal sanctions. Soc Probl 16:408–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsebelis G (1989) The abuse of probability in political analysis: the Robinson Crusoe Fallacy. Am Polit Sci Rev 83:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turocy TL, Stengel B von (2001) Game theory. CDAM research report LSE-CDAM-2001-09Google Scholar
  36. Vanberg V (1993) Rational choice, rule-following and institutions– an evolutionary perspective. In: Maki U, Gustafsson B, Knudsen C (eds) Rationality, institutions, and economic methodology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Woplin K (1978) An economic analysis of crime and punishment in England and Wales, 1847–1967. J Polit Econ 86(5):815–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witte AD, Witt R (2002) Crime causations: economic theories. In: Dressler J (ed) Encyclopedia of crime and justice, vol 1, MacMillan reference library. Free Press, New York, pp 302–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Marie Mohammed
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandra Sookram
    • 2
  • George Saridakis
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Faculty of Social SciencesThe University of the West IndiesSt. AugustineTrinidad and Tobago
  2. 2.Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic StudiesThe University of The West IndiesSt. AugustineTrinidad and Tobago
  3. 3.Small Business Research Centre, Business SchoolKingston UniversityLondonUK