“What I wish to point out here is that even purely at the logical level, there exist certain areas of politics where the assumptions of rational choice theory must break down. Consequently, while the methodological usefulness of the rational choice assumption is undeniable, it is necessary to realize that there is a certain class of political phenomena for which this method of analysis may be inappropriate.” - Partha Chatterjee, "On the Rational Choice Theory of Limited Strategic War"

According to some studies, Chinese society has higher rates of collectivism and identity fusion, and on average individuals in Chinese society employ a more value-driven decision-making apparatus over a “rational” decision-making apparatus. It is my understanding that modern American military strategies all have some basis in rational choice theory (especially deterrence theory), which makes basic value assumptions that often do not stand true for immanent value-driven or otherwise rationally divergent actors with high identity fusion, such as leaders in China. In confrontational situations involving a party with the aforementioned characteristics, rational choice theory breaks down and conflict typically results due to misattributions.

For example, deterrence theory’s effectiveness is posited to rest on three criteria known as the credibility trinity: celerity, severity, and certainty. In the event that violence is perpetrated despite deterrence, the “rational” party typically is led to believe that the credibility (celerity, severity, or certainty) of their retribution threat is in question and so are only allowed two choices as a result of this incorrect conclusion: reestablish credibility by following through with the original deterrent threat or risk the potential consequences of losing face internationally. Following through with the threat means escalation; the same is the case for losing face internationally. The epistemic gap in this thought process, however, lies at the heart of motivation. In many cases involving rationally divergent actors, it is not that the deterrence threat was not credible, but that the threat was in and of itself not deterrent at all. Individuals with high identity fusion, whose judgments are made using immanent values (such as spiritual promises or cultural beliefs in manifest destiny), do not see whatever deterrence costs being incurred as outweighing the benefits or importance of their end goal, and so they breach deterrence boundaries. The misattribution of deterrence failure leads to violence in cases where simple adjustment of deterrence was necessary, or even mild diplomacy. Instead of credibility being the issue with deterrence in this case, it was value assessment. In short, the West (and the US in particular) approaches deterrent selection and manufacture with an ethnocentric view, which ultimately mitigates the effectiveness of deterrence against rationally divergent actors.

So why then does it appear that current US attempts at deterrence and coercion using rational choice theory seem to be having their intended effect on Chinese foreign policy (at least, as close to the intended effect as can be hoped)? Why do we see conflict between the US and rationally divergent actors similar to China (e.g., many middle eastern nations and Asian states throughout the past century such as Iraq, North Korea or Vietnam), and yet not with China itself?

I suggest a new theory to explain this strange relationship: Action Alignment Theory (AAT). AAT posits that the reason two rationally divergent international actors are able to peacefully coexist despite differing values and rationales is due to “action alignment”, which is best explained as two parties both viewing the same action(s) as vital to the achievement of diametrically opposed end goals, despite differing value systems and logic bases. For example, two parties with respective end goals of bolstered global materialism vs global utopian spiritualism (i.e., two goals antithetical to each other) both view peaceful cohabitation with each other as a means of progressing towards those opposing ends and thus cooperate.

In essence, AAT, when applied to the current US-China dynamic, posits that peace does not exist due to the credibility of US deterrence, but rather to mutual interests in the same situation of peace for different reasons arising from different rationales. If this were not the case, world actors culturally and sociologically similar to China (such as those previously mentioned in the middle east or Asia) would have responded to US deterrence in kind with China, or China would have responded to US deterrence similarly to the aforementioned nations (which, from history, we know they have not). Instead, these two powers currently exist in relative peace because relative peace means progress towards their respective end goals, despite those end goals ultimately being anathema to each other (the goals being US economic and military dominance vs. China’s rejuvenation of ancient global Sinocentrism).

While it is true that one could argue this alignment is due to the threat of deterrence, this does not mean that deterrence as a threat of annihilation is the key to peace. In rationally divergent actors, death is not a deterrent. What is a deterrent, however, is not being able to realize a future goal. In the case with China, rejuvenation of Sinocentrism is that future goal, and annihilation would make the realization of that goal impossible, and so they seek peace. Some may say this is splitting hairs, but it is important to keep this distinction between reasons for deterrent success in mind because it means there may be other alternatives to use to threaten the realization of some future goal other than violence in the event that deterrence is breached. This is the value of AAT.

This current convenient alignment of interests is transient at best without active measures of ensuring it’s continuance. As soon as mutual peace does not serve one or more of the parties in advancing them towards their end goals (and assuming actors remain rationally divergent), the collaboration will cease to exist and armed conflict is likely to result unless action alignment can be restored. The CCP's approaching of its 100th anniversary may very well be the impetus that changes this status quo, as they may become increasingly convinced that rejuvenation of Sino centrism cannot be accomplished while peacefully coexisting with the US (for example, US interference in the Taiwan issue could be changing the temperature).

Methods as to how to maintain or restore action alignment vary from militance to diplomacy. Such strategies may include active maintenance of the status quo through force or diplomacy, limited military action oriented towards engineering artificial action alignment, economic interdependence, strategic irregularity, controlled acquiescence, outright bribery, and more.

AAT does not stand on its own, nor is it meant to replace deterrence theory, but rather serves to fill epistemic gaps in rational choice theory (and consequently deterrence theory) that are dangerous pitfalls for the long peace we currently enjoy. I believe the concept of action alignment should be applied to RCT, deterrence theory (with its staunchly deterministic attitude towards violence), and general diplomacy, in the hopes that perhaps by realizing aligned actions and striving to maintain them, we can avoid loss of life and other expenses by engineering an equilibrium of mutual progress among all parties involved, be that progress perceived or actual.

I believe a project analyzing situations involving action alignment and identifying trends in such situations could prove useful for future strategic and political decision-makers, especially in the US-China relations realm. Who knows… maybe through proper development and implementation of consistent action alignment paragons a world where two powers both peacefully achieve their end goals can exist? Perhaps this is the key to avoiding Thucydides' Trap. Perhaps international relations no longer need be a zero-sum game where there are only two sides on the chess board and only at the cost of one side’s king can the other side win. Perhaps a world where the US remains a democratic entity and the independent leading technological and economic powerhouse can exist in a globally Sinocentric international theater that accepts the irrefutability of Marxism... Or perhaps achieving an interminable state of action alignment is wholly untenable. More research (specifically into the following questions I list below) and the development of AA analysis/implementation could be a worthwhile contribution to the field of geopolitics and achieving lasting peace.

1. What theory(ies) does the US or China use when dealing with entities that use differing rationales or who are entirely irrational altogether without resorting to violence if any at all?

2. Does the Chinese government have a Rational Choice Theory original to their own philosophies that has evolved with noticeable differences from Western RCT due to cultural differences and institutional drift?

3. What does the US and or China do when their rational choice theory breaks down in the limits of war or exceptional international circumstances?

 


**SOURCES**
[(558) Analysing the limits of rational choice in political and cultural conflict | Scott Atran - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDS2g4qSO8)

http://www.jstor.com/stable/41854567

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249705048_The_Role_of_Values_in_Rational_Choice_Theory

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601362. Accessed 26 Jun. 2022](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601362.%20Accessed%2026%20Jun.%202022) Rational Choice Theory in International Relations.

[Full article: ON RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY AND THE STUDY OF TERRORISM (tandfonline.com)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1024269052000344864#:~:text=When%20rational%20choice%20theory%20is,a%20price%20change%20in%20another.)

[Revisiting the criticisms of rational choice theories - Herfeld - 2022 - Philosophy Compass - Wiley Online Library](https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12774)

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
My new book, Altruismo racional, is now on presale. It is my attempt at presenting a compelling case for a particular strand of "classical EA"[1]: one that emphasizes caring deeply about global health and poverty, a rational approach to giving, the importance of cost-effectiveness, and the 🔸10% Pledge. In this post, I provide some context on my reasons for writing this book and what I hope to achieve. If “new EA-themed book in Spanish” was all you needed to know, feel free to skip to How you can help or preorder now. Why write a book Imagine you wake up one morning and discover the world has changed in a few peculiar ways. There has been no 10th anniversary edition of Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save—it was last edited more than a decade ago and has been out of print for years. Will MacAskill has not written Doing Good Better nor any of his pieces for The Guardian. And that’s not all. You ask around about EA and get mostly confused looks. Someone mentions a blog called “Codice Stellare Something” that later changed its name. You look it up but it's written in some foreign language that's hard to understand. “Toby who?” He seems to be associated with something called Geben Was Wir Können that you cannot pronounce, let alone remember. Welcome to Spain—or, I dare say, the Spanish-speaking world—where language friction[2] curbs the potential of most of the ways people first hear about EA. This is true for many other topics, of course. In Spain, people usually don't hear directly from those doing cutting-edge work in the English-speaking world, but rather from local explainers or commentators. Top non-fiction books like Sapiens or Antifragile are read, overwhelmingly, in translation. I have been close to some attempts to translate key EA-themed books into Spanish. The problem? Publishers are quite uninterested because only a handful of English-speaking public intellectuals have the global name recognition to guarantee sales. The Scout Mindset and What We Owe T
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Summary * 🤰🏽 A randomized study in Kenya found that giving families a $1,000 GiveDirectly cash transfer immediately cut infant deaths by 48%. → * 🏥 Deaths dropped most for mothers living near physician-staffed health facilities and those who received cash in the weeks before they gave birth. → * 🩺 GiveDirectly is launching a new program to maximize these life-saving impacts, partnering with a Kenyan community health provider to get cash to more expectant mothers. → ---------------------------------------- In rural Kenya, giving poor families a one-time $1,000 transfer cut infant deaths nearly in half, one of the largest reductions ever recorded for a poverty program. With global aid budgets shrinking and funders under pressure to do more with less, the findings point to cash as a powerful, underused tool to reduce preventable deaths. Cash cut infant deaths by 48% The study, led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Oxford, tracked over 100,000 births and found that infant mortality fell by 48% in the years families received a one-time $1,000 transfer from GiveDirectly. It’s a striking result, reinforcing what decades of research have already shown: poverty itself is one of the biggest risk factors for a child’s survival. As the researchers note, “infant and child mortality appears highly sensitive to economic conditions.” Cash saved lives by helping new moms rest, eat, and deliver safely The biggest gains were among newborns: deaths within the first 30 days of a baby’s life fell by 63%, with drops in maternal and newborn causes of death accounting for more than half of the overall decline in infant deaths.  This drop was driven by a 45% increase in hospital deliveries and a 51% drop in work (often physically strenuous) during the third trimester and postpartum. Less work in late pregnancy coincided with fewer deaths from complications at birth.  When mothers have cash, they get care, proving that sometimes, the best way to save a child’s life is to simp