Abstract:

Having embraced the assumption of the individual's rationality, most studies in International Relations conclude that groups, institutions, and states are also rational actors and can take rational decisions. To these assumptions the strongest criticism so far has come from bureaucratic-politics studies. This article, through reviewing the seminal works in bureaucratic politics, reflects on the criticisms leveled against the rationality assumption at three basic levels, namely individual, group, and bureaucracy. Although bureaucratic politics has made invaluable contribution to the field by demonstrating that actors sometimes did not and cannot take rational decisions, if social scientists' objective is not only explanation and understanding but also prediction, then, the rationality assumption is somewhat necessary. Those social scientists, who have been trying to contribute to the development of social science and to provide policy suggestions with leaders and policy makers, will need to adopt the assumption of rationality and simplify complex social issues and the data in hand. This conclusion does not mean that we can underestimate the frequency or the importance of irrational behavior in international politics, but that social scientists working under the assumption of rationality can better hope that we can predict future events.

Keywords: