The article is a critical analysis of rational choice explanations in social science. It is argued that there are a number of restrictions to this work. First, many authors in this tradition develop post-hoc theories: they adjust their theoretical framework to available empirical evidence. The theories are thus immunised against empirical refutation. Second, the so-called internalist approaches fail to distinguish between acting as though one is rational on the one hand, and acting because one is rational on the other. Third, the so-called externalist perspectives fail to differ significantly from other theories. Fourth, rational choice theories mistakenly assume that rationality is free from cultural influence.
Rational choice; Social Science; Political Science; Individual Action; Rationality