The Consequences Of Deborah Stone's Polis Model Of Political Decision-Making

How would one go about making a decision such as whether to vote for or against a referendum raising the minimum wage in their state? Who and what influence this decision? Do individuals always consider the consequences of their actions on not only themselves, but also their community? The Rational Choice Theory, otherwise known as the Market Model suggests that humans act as self-interested individuals, who also make calculations to determine possible outcomes when making these decisions. However, Deborah Stone, the author of Policy Paradox, states that the Market Model is not an accurate representation of how individuals make political choices. She believes in her self-created Polis Model, which places the community and influences such as loyalty and public interest in the center of political decision-making. Although Deborah Stone’s Polis Model of political decision-making lays out
the aspects of what may be desirable in making decisions, such as considering the community good instead of self-interest, the Rational Choice Theory is a more accurate representation of today’s policymaking system because we are inherently self-interested and looking to maximize our personal goals when making political decisions. Distinguished economist, Jack Hirshleifer, has previously called Rational Choice Theory the “universal grammar of social science” (Marx and Mazlish 1996, 85).
Rational Choice Theory can be ultimately described as a theory in which political decisions are connected to the economy and future economic decisions (Boscarino). In this model, risks and consequences are deeply researched and calculated based on one’s own self-interest and the Laws of Matter. Conversely, in Stone’s Polis model, the influence for decision-making comes from others and society through values like loyalty, in order to promote the public interest. Although the Rational Choice Theory’s primary influence for decision making is “selfish”, that does not mean that these individual decisions cannot together result in a decision that ultimately benefits both the individual and the society as a whole. In fact, it has been reported that by maximizing one’s own self-interest, it coerces individuals to become productive and resourceful, which in turn, places the community at a better economic standpoint (Stone 2012,
20). In today’s society, individuals tend to make decisions based upon the needs of not only themselves, but also their families, as the Polis Model states. However, many people view an immediate family as one individual unit, because they tend to vote in the same manner on issues because they are in the same social and economic standing. In the Market Model, the chief conflict is one person’s self-interest versus another’s self-interest. It is essentially one person attempting to further promote their goals, and impose those goals onto another person in order to get legislation passed in their favor. On the contrary, the Polis Model’s chief conflict involves an individual’s self-interest versus public interest, which results in commons problems. Commons problems are issues in which what is best for the public (better educational systems and other amenities), may not line up with an individual’s preferences (paying low taxes). The Polis Model’s chief conflict is relevant in today’s society because many times individuals are morally supportive of increasing the funding of education to promote better schools, for example, but are unwilling to monetarily contribute in order to make these positive changes for the community to occur. Nevertheless, it is apparent that elections and votes within Congress today are mostly based on one person’s self-interest or the sum of a group’s individual self-interest versus another. It is acknowledged that the Market Model of political decision-making also has its downfalls. One weakness of this Model is that there is always inadequate information and uncertainty when making decisions due to secrecy and ulterior motives of politicians. For that reason, some people may choose to make a random political decision for or against a policy. Regardless of this perpetual incompleteness of information, many citizens choose to become as educated as possible about politics, or a specific area that they plan on being involved with or voting on in order to accurately calculate what decision will provide them maximized personal gain. Ultimately, it would be favorable if individuals always thought of the public good and the community when making choices, as the Polis Model suggests, but as renowned philosopher Thomas Hobbes once stated, humans are inherently selfish. In his famous work, The Leviathan, Hobbes claims that humans are not opposed to hurting ones another politically or socially if it will help us personally. The Rational Choice Theory has sustained an extensive length of time, while the Polis Model is relatively new and not as highly recognized and referred to when discussing political decision-making. A prime example of the two conflicting models appears in Betsy Malcolm’s opinion editorial entitled “Rich Freeloaders”, which discusses tax reform for wealthy Americans. In this article, Ms. Malcolm states that she believes that wealthier people should be taxed at a higher rate in order to preserve and improve her community for American children. Malcolm wrote, “I imagine a future in which each American child gets a good public education and can compete for the world’s best jobs, our transportation system is the finest in the world, and government invests in basic research to keep our economy vibrant and jumpstart new industries. I’m willing to play my part in that future. Isn’t that only fair?” (Malcolm 2012, 2) In this article her motives for tax reform appear to be altruism and self-interest, as well as a loyalty to her community to provide for an enhanced society for the future generations. She also discusses the selfishness of wealthy Americans who are not willing to support this reform and do their part. Those individuals that she references are making the decision to not support reform based upon the Rational Choice Theory; they want to keep their fortune and do with it as they please. Yet again, their self-interest in keeping their fortune could lead to a better economy if they should choose to invest their money.
Surprisingly, if an individual looks deep enough into what Ms. Betsy Malcolm states in her opinion editorial, he or she will recognize the fact that she says, “I want to leave my children more than money. I want to leave them a better world” (Malcolm 2012, 2). She specifically references her children as the reason why she wants to leave the next generation with an enriched and improved America, and therefore is acting in her own self-interest, which includes the well-being of her children. No matter how altruistic a decision may seem, there is usually an aspect that points toward a selfish motive behind their decision to be altruistic.
“Self-interest drives our decisions and actions, whether these are purchasing a car, voting, or formulating a public budget” (Frederickson & Smith 2004, 186). Rational Choice Theory is the driving force behind individual decision-making. Anderson’s Rational-Choice Theory includes a quote from economist James Buchanan where he declares that, “politicians are guided by their self-interest rather than by an altruistic commitment to such goals are statesmanship or the national interest” (Anderson 2011, 25). It may be discouraging to individuals like Deborah Stone and her supporters that this model of Rational Choice is so widely accepted, but it is simply what IS in today’s world, not how society would like our decisions to be made; through communal goals and interests backed by loyalty and cooperation. The Market Model of decision-making has withstood the test of time thus far. For that reason, it is not likely that American’s will be able to switch their adopted values and process of decision-making to emulate the Polis Model any time in the near future.