This chapter explores aspects of Sen’s analysis of self-interest and commitment, seeking to highlight their interplay by probing some imagined situations. Detailing three facets of self-interest the author detects in traditional economic theory and the two forms of committed behaviour he then identifies (not confining one’s goals to the pursuit of ones own welfare and not basing one’s choices exclusively on one’s goals at the expense of those of others), the implied eightfold pattern of interrelations between these subtle concepts is presented, illustrated by a hypothetical internet dating conundrum. Sen’s stress on the self as a reasoning, self-scrutinizing agent who may but (in contrast with much prevailing theory) need not choose on the basis of self-interest underpins an account of rational choice that pays more respect to individual freedom, with significance in economics. Using an example outlining conflicting duties and pressures UK MPs might have felt during Brexit votes, Sen’s account is defended against attacks that, through reliance on strained definitions of interests and goals, seem to over-exploit the potential malleability of language.

People undertake a decision-making process when they perceive a criminal opportunity although these decisions are often not purely rational. To clarify this process, several theories have been developed to explain how criminal decisions are made. Three such theories – deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and routine activity theory – along with major concepts from each theory, are examined in this chapter. Among the topics covered are the celerity, certainty, and severity of punishment, the utility of cost–benefit analysis, and the necessity of considering the role of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians in explaining a criminal event. The limitations of a purely rational approach to criminal decision-making and how opportunity, incentive, emotion, and irrational thinking affect these decisions are also discussed. Finally, the practical and policy implications of these results are explored, after which recommendations for future research focusing on the methodology and domains that influence these decisions are made.

Theory in the social sciences is not written in stone and undergoes change as it is continuously being tested in new research. This allows for an appreciation of the dynamic but also volatile nature of our subject matter, politics. While physicists have plenty of time to solve puzzles within a single and common theoretical frame, political scientists keep encountering anomalies that challenge their dominant theory. This tension between constancy and renewal has been and still is a prominent feature of Comparative Politics. Its challenges become especially evident in an Africanist perspective. Theory is generated in already “developed” or “democratic” societies, making Africa a poor fit. The main issue there is not the backsliding experience of countries with a democratic tradition. Instead, it is how to build democracy in a context where its benefits were denied the local population by the colonial administrators. This chapter is devoted to reviewing the theoretical constructs that political scientists have used to advance the comparative analysis of politics. It points to three main breakthroughs that have shaped Comparative Politics since its inception sixty years ago: structural functionalism, rational choice theory, and, in recent decades, democratic theory.

Constitutions are not mere sets of written words and letters: they, most of the time, touch upon deeper layers of human nature - our emotions. Constitutions are imagined worlds we use as an element to craft social reality. Cognitive sciences help us understand how we use emotional rationality to do this.

Constitutions - in a political sense - provide solutions to the age old problem of leadership changes and how majorities and minorities should interact. If political communities solve these problems the can better coordinate their efforts, which in turn will give them a competitive advantage (military, fiscal, economic, etc.) to other (less coordinated) political communities. This chapter looks into the political effects constitutions have, and how they try to calibrate these kind of balances. It also look into the possibilities of calculating or engineering (new) balances like this, for instance for divided societies and transitional democracies (constitutional engineering)

We introduce BPS, a research paradigm which takes seriously the cognitive limitations and varied motivations of citizens and elites as they make politics happen around the world. The most important claim in this book is that a set of ideas from psychology, economics, political science and communication studies can be combined in a simple way to greatly enhance our understanding of politics. These approaches can help explain the many deviations we see in political attitudes, political decision making, and political behavior that are often predicted from the dominant, alternative approach to understanding politics: RCT. The BPS paradigm encapsulates a broad set of research programs that challenge traditional assumptions about the processes and motivations structuring political decision-making, including: (1) the role, use and influence of heuristics and cognitive biases on decision-making, 2() the effects of message framing on political attitudes, (3) institutional factors and the psychology of group-decision making in state policy formation, (4) the role of emotions in political behavior, (5) individual differences in preferences stemming from personality, values and norms, and (6) the importance of motivation and identity in information processing.

This chapter introduces the research puzzle of the study, provides a brief background on Christians in Turkey and Muslims in France, and reviews existing work on religious minorities in these contexts. The chapter examines existing explanations (modernization theory, historical institutionalism, ideology and rational choice theory) and elaborates the argument of the book. It also discusses how the theory developed in the book can contribute to scholarly debates in the study of religion and politics. It defines relevant concepts and describes data sources and methodological tools.