Rational Choice Analysis In Classical Chinese Political Thought: TheHan Feizi

Unraveling the Philosophical Foundations of Co-opetition Strategy

“…Legalism focuses on the immorality of human behavior (Fu, 2016) that follows ‘after benefit as water flows downward’ ( Shang junshu 23:131; Book of Lord Shang 23.2). According to Han Feizi, individual profit-seeking behavior varies across circumstances ( shi ) or forces that ‘make sense of the action’ (Moody, 2008: 99) and from which military operations emerge. Therefore, the system of incentives should fit the circumstances that progressively emerge as to induce individuals to obey (Shang, 2017).…”

‘East is East, and West is West’? Reimagining Asian Exceptionalism and the Study of Democratization

“…A critical division between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies lies with the tenet of methodological individualism that underpins the rational-choice approach and the collectivist treatment in Asian studies. Methodological individualism refers to the assumption that group actions may be reduced to and understood in terms of individual goal-seeking behaviour (Kim 2011; Moody 2008); in contrast, collectivist treatment assumes that the collective is more than the sum of individuals, so that social causation – based on certain types of organizations or groups – must be taken into account (Chuang 2013; Little 2013). 7 It is useful to note that the tussle between methodological individualism and collectivism rages well beyond the rational-choice approach and Asian studies, with no sign of abating (Little 2012).…”

“…The three books with their disparate approaches, methodologies, focus and objectives highlight the different usages of the rational-choice approach and Asian studies in the study of democratization. Before engaging in the possibility of a bridge between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies towards theory-building, I consider the oft-cited areas of contention between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies – methodological individualism versus collectivism; social values versus individual preferences (Hay 2004; Johnson 1997; Little 1991; Moody 2008; Pollack 2007) – that purportedly reveal fundamental contradictions and incompatibilities in their inferences. In the following, I examine the reviewed books to evaluate the extent to which these are at play and, importantly, if the books betray the entrenched conflict portrayed by the fields.…”

“…Yet, such a successful mediation between theory-building of comparative studies on the one hand and focused small-n or country-specific Asian scholarship on the other remains the exception rather than the rule. Instead, tensions dog Asian studies regarding what and how to front scholarship – as part of theory-building exercises versus underlining and differentiating Asian studies – to the latter’s detriment as its ‘noticeable inhospitable’-ness to theory-building increasingly sidelines its scholarship (Acharya 2001; Moody 2008). Fundamental to the tension is the unease that theory-building means sacrificing contextual richness, reducing Asian countries to ‘raw data’ for testing theories mostly developed from Western societies (Acharya 2001).…”

Han Fei in His Context: Legalism on the Eve of the Qin Conquest

“…Han Fei's general picture of politics is close to, if often more interesting than, the rational choice perspective now fashionable in political science and once paradigmatic in economics: 1 To put it crudely, we are all out for ourselves and we are motivated by interest and we act in the most efficient way we are capable of to achieve those interests.There is no moral order either in society or the universe. The central political problem is how to achieve order and security in a world without an intrinsic moral order.…”