To understand the intersection of Rational Choice and Krasner, it is best to view his scholarship as a transition from seeing the state as a coherent utility maximizer to seeing the state as an instrumental user of norms.
1. The State as a Rational Unitary Actor
In his early seminal work, Defending the National Interest (1978), Krasner challenged the pluralist view that foreign policy is merely the result of competing domestic interest groups (the "bureaucratic politics" model).
-
The Rationalist Premise: Krasner argued that the state acts as a coherent, autonomous entity with its own preferences.
-
The Intersection: This is a core rational choice assumption. By isolating the state as a unitary actor, Krasner posits that the state processes information and makes decisions to maximize its national interest, often insulated from the noise of domestic society. This allowed him to model foreign policy decisions as strategic choices made by a single rational mind rather than an accidental byproduct of compromise.
2. Regime Theory: Functional Rationality
Krasner’s editorship of International Regimes (1983) is the most direct application of rationalist logic to his theory. The study of regimes attempted to explain why states, in an anarchic system, would voluntarily agree to constraints on their behavior.
-
Solving Collective Action Problems: The rationalist interpretation of regimes is functionalist: states create regimes (sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures) to lower transaction costs, provide information, and reduce uncertainty.
-
Rational Choice Logic: If the system is anarchic, why build institutions? Krasner and his contemporaries argued that rational states calculate that the long-term benefits of stable cooperation (through regimes) outweigh the short-term gains of defection. The regime becomes the vehicle through which rational states manage interdependence without sacrificing their fundamental security interests.
3. "Organized Hypocrisy": Rationalism Applied to Norms
His later work, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1999), represents his most sophisticated engagement with rational choice. Here, Krasner dismantles the idea that sovereignty is a fixed, sacred international norm.
-
Sovereignty as an Instrument: Instead of viewing sovereignty as an exogenous, immutable rule of the international system (as traditional Realists or Constructivists might), Krasner treats it as a variable.
-
The Rational Choice Strategy: States invoke sovereignty when it serves their interests (to maintain territorial integrity) and violate it when it serves their interests (to intervene in other states or pursue domestic goals).
-
The Logic: This is quintessential rational choice. It portrays states as strategic calculators. They do not "obey" norms; they use norms as tools. When the cost of respecting sovereignty (e.g., losing a security advantage) is higher than the cost of violating it (e.g., international condemnation), a rational state will choose to violate it.
Summary Comparison: Krasner’s Evolution
Why This Matters for Your Study
When analyzing Krasner, do not look for mathematical models or game theory matrices; look for the logic of the calculation. Krasner utilizes the rationalist assumption that political actors—whether heads of state or bureaucrats—are goal-oriented. By treating rules, regimes, and sovereignty not as binding constraints, but as instruments in the toolbox of power politics, he maintains the Realist tradition while adopting the methodological rigor of rational choice.
