The unitary rational actor (URA) model enjoys a strong position in the study of international politics. I argue that it is far from obvious that the URA model is the most fruitful point of departure in the study of international environmental politics compared to more complex models of bureaucratic politics and the role of interest groups. The argument is based on a brief description of international environmental problems and politics and various criteria of fruitfulness. Particular attention is devoted to the principle of methodological individualism as one criterion of fruitfulness. The discussion is illustrated by applying the models to explain the development of EU climate policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agassi, J.
(1960) `Methodological Individualism', British Journal of Sociology11: 244-270.
2.
Agassi, J.
(1975) `Institutional Individualism', British Journal of Sociology: 144-155.
3.
Allison, G. T.
(1969) `Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis', American Political Science Review63(3): 689-718.
4.
Allison, G. T.
(1971) Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Glencoe, IL: Scott Foresman.
5.
Boudon, R.
(1982) The Unintended Consequences of Social Action. London: Macmillan.
6.
Chayes, A.
and Chayes, A. H. (1993) `On Compliance', International Organization47(2), 175-205.
7.
Cowhey, P. F.
(1993) `Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments: Japan and the United States', International Organization47(2): 299-326.
8.
Elster, J.
(1983) Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
9.
Elster, J.
(ed.) (1986) Rational Choice. Oxford: Blackwell.
10.
Elster, J.
(1989) Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Føllesdal, D.
(1982) `The Status of Rationality Assumptions in Interpretation and in the Explanation of Action', Dialectica36(4): 301-316.
12.
Føllesdal, D.
, Walløe, L. and Elster, J. (1989) Argumentasjonsteori, språk og vitenskapsfilosofi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
13.
Grieco, M. J.
(1988) `Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism', International Organization42(3): 485-507.
14.
Haggard, S.
and Simmons, B. A. (1987) `Theories of International Regimes', International Organization41(3): 491-517.
15.
Hernes, G.
(ed.) (1978) Forhandlingsøkonomi og blandingsadminstrasjon, ch. 10, `Mot en institusjonell økonomi'. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
16.
Hovi, J. (1992) Spillmodeller og internasjonalt samarbeid: oppgaver, mekanismer og institusjoner. Institutt for statsvitenskap, University of Oslo.
17.
Hovi, J.
and Rasch, B. (1993) Strategisk handling. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
18.
James, P.
(1993) `Neoliberalism as a Research Enterprise: Toward Elaborated Structural Realism', International Political Science Review14(2): 123-148.
19.
Keohane, R.
(ed.) (1986) Neoliberalism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
Lakatos, I.
and Musgrave, A. (eds) (1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Lave, C. A.
and James, G. M. (1975) An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper and Row.
22.
Mayer, F. W.
(1992) `Managing Domestic Differences in International Negotiations: The Strategic Use of Side-Payments', International Organization46(4): 793-818.
23.
Milner, H.
(1991) `International Theories of Cooperation among Nations', World Politics (3): 466-496.
24.
Putnam, R. D.
(1988) `Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games', International Organization42(3): 427-450.
25.
Skjærseth, J. B.
(1993) `The Climate Policy of the EC — Too Hot to Handle? A Study of Interests and Preferences versus EC Problem-Solving Capacity', Report 2. Oslo: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
26.
Skjærseth, J. B.
(1994a) `The Unitary Rational Actor Model and Environmental Politics — A Discussion of the Fruitfulness of Alternative Models', R:004. Oslo: Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
27.
Skjærseth, J. B.
(1994b) `Nasjonal Selvbestemmelsesrett under press fra transnasjonale miljøproblemer', in S. Gjerdåker, T. Skålnes and T. Tvedt (eds) Nasjonalstaten under press?, Oslo: Chr. Michelsens Institutt/Cappelen.
28.
Sprinz, D.
and Vaahtoranta, T. (1994) `The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy', International Organization48(1): 77-105.
29.
Underdal, A.`Issues Determine Politics Determine Policies: The Case for a “Rationalistic” Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy Decision-Making'
, Cooperation and Conflict14(1): 1-9.
30.
Underdal, A.
(1984) `Can We, in the Study of International Politics, Do without the Model of the State as a Rational, Unitary Actor? A Discussion of the Limitations and Possible Fruitfulness of the Model, and Its Alternatives', Internasjonal Politikk1: 63-79. Oslo: NUPI.
31.
Weale, A.
(1992) The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
