Logic of appropriateness

Last updated May 30, 2024

The logic of appropriateness is a theoretical perspective to explain human decision-making. It proposes that decisions and behavior follow from rules of appropriate behavior for a given role or identity. These rules are institutionalized in social practices and sustained over time through learning. People adhere to them because they see them as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. In other words, the logic of appropriateness assumes that actors decide on the basis of what social norms deem right rather than what cost-benefit calculations suggest best. The term was coined by organization theorists James G. March and Johan Olsen. They presented the argument in two prominent articles published by the journals Governance in 1996^[1] and International Organization in 1998.^[2]

Overview

According to James G. March and Johan Olsen, the core intuition of the logic of appropriateness is that humans maintain a repertoire of roles and identities, which provide rules of appropriate behavior in situations for which they are relevant. Following these rules is a relatively complex cognitive process involving thoughtful, reasoning behavior. Such a process of reasoning is not connected to the anticipation of costs and benefits, as rational choice theory would suggest. Rather, the assumption is that actors will generally try to answer three elementary questions: (1) What kind of a situation is this?; (2) Who am I?; and (3) How appropriate are different actions for me in this situation? Then they will often do what they regard as most appropriate.^[3]^: 23 Put differently, actors typically follow "internalized prescriptions of what is socially defined as normal, true, right, or good, without, or in spite of calculation of consequences and expected utility."^[4]^: 479

March and Olsen recognize that the term "logic of appropriateness" has overtones of morality, but they emphasize that rules of appropriateness may underlie atrocities of action, such as ethnic cleansing and blood feuds, as well as moral heroism. The fact that a rule of action is defined as appropriate by an individual or a collectivity may reflect learning of some sort from history, but it does not guarantee moral acceptability, they explain.^[4]^: 479

The logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequences

March and Olsen distinguish the logic of appropriateness from what they term the "logic of consequences," more commonly known as rational choice theory. The logic of consequences is based on the assumption that actors have fixed preferences, will make cost-benefit calculations, and choose among different options by evaluating the likely consequences for their objectives.^[2]^{: 949–951} According to this rational choice perspective, rules, norms, and identities do not play any significant role in shaping human behavior.

Joerg Balsiger suggests that the logics of appropriateness and consequences have distinct political implications. The logic of appropriateness assumes that actors follow rules because they are perceived as natural, valid, and legitimate. Rules may be replaced or modified over time through processes of selection and adaptation. This outlook emphasizes the notion of political community and its definition of accepted social relations. In contrast, the logic of consequences stresses individual interests and treats political order as an aggregation of rational actor preferences through processes of bargaining, negotiation, and coalition formation.^[5]

The two logics are often presented in mutually exclusive terms. March and Olsen, however, argue that human decision-making "generally cannot be explained exclusively in terms of a logic of either consequences or appropriateness."^[2]^: 952 They recognize that actors are motivated by both the "logic of consequences" and the "logic of appropriateness." Hence, they suggest exploring them as complementary, rather than assuming a single dominant behavioral logic. This makes it possible to examine the logics' variations, shifting significance, scope conditions, prerequisites, and interplay. Analysts can investigate empirically which logic plays a greater role in any given situation. They can also explore under what conditions and how each logic is invoked, lost, and redefined. Finally, they may examine how the logics interact and under which circumstances each logic may become dominant.^[4]^: 491

Joerg Balsiger suggests that the two logics can also be understood as opposite poles of a single continuum. In the face of uncertainty, the analysis of a specific situation may yield a variety of appropriate alternatives. The choice among these may then involve an assessment of the likelihood of different consequences with regard to the costs and benefits of expected outcomes.^[5]

Inferring rules of appropriateness

According to March and Olsen, rules prescribe what is appropriate action. They store information about social and institutional norms and practices that inform actors what to do in a specific situation. They contain a repertoire of appropriate actions fitted to a situation by an actor. And they tell actors where to look for precedents and who the authoritative interpreters of different rules are. Actors then take decisions on the basis of their interpretation of a situation, their identities, and the associated rules.^[4]^{: 484, 489}

March and Olsen also point out that the clarity of rules cannot be taken as given, however. Rather, rules may be unspecific, ambiguous, or contested. Inferring and identifying them may require time and energy. Furthermore, individuals have multiple roles and identities that are, in turn, associated with a variety of alternative rules. At times, these rules may compete or collide with each other. Actors may then challenge and disobey some rules because they adhere to other rules. March and Olsen stress that while rules guide behavior and make some actions more likely than others, they ordinarily do not determine decision-making or policy outcomes precisely. Rather, rules provide broad parameters for action, and sometimes actors show considerable ability to accommodate shifting circumstances by changing behavior without changing core rules. In order to understand the impact of rules on action, analysts thus need to examine processes like learning, socialization, diffusion, regeneration, deliberate design, and competitive selection. They also need to take into account how institutions distribute resources and enable actors to follow rules.^[4]^{: 484, 489}

Applications

In his otherwise very critical review, Kjell Goldmann acknowledges that James G. March and Johan Olsen's logic of appropriateness has "inspired scholars in fields ranging from public administration to international relations." The perspective's "influence has been strong and positive in the research community," he notes.^[6]^: 48

In the field of International Relations, for example, numerous scholars, especially proponents of constructivist approaches, have employed the logic of appropriateness as their action-theoretical foundation. For instance, some analysts have explored how international organizations like the World Bank or UNESCO have sought to set standards of appropriateness and to diffuse these international norms. They have found that these institutions can play an important role in mobilizing various group socialization processes to shape states' behavior.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Other scholars have suggested that the Chinese government, for example, has changed important aspects of its behavior as a result of socialization in the context of international organizations.^[11]^[12]

Yet other experts have found that international institutions can facilitate a gradual transformation of the logic of consequences into a logic of appropriateness. Initially, the discourse about whether to join an international agreement, for example, may still be driven by rational choice thinking. Government officials would then ask whether this would be in their country's interest. As norms strengthen, however, states presumably begin to frame behavior contradicting institutional obligations in norm-based rather than interest-based terms. Accounting for actions in normative terms may then become self-reinforcing: By framing its decisions in normative terms, a government strengthens the expectation of other countries and of its own citizens that it will not later reverse those actions based on changes in interests.^[13]^[14]

Critiques

Some scholars have critiqued James G. March and Johan Olsen's conceptualization of the logic of appropriateness.

For example, Ole Jacob Sending argues that the logic of appropriateness has a structural bias both regarding the understanding and the explanation of individual action. As such, he concludes, "it is untenable as a theory of individual action."^[15]^: 445

Kjell Goldmann criticizes that "it is difficult to determine what kind of constructs the so-called logics are – whether they are to be seen as perspectives, theories, or ideal types." He also charges that the logics of appropriateness and consequences overlap considerably, which, in his eyes, makes their "analytic utility [...] debatable."^[6]^: 35 Moreover, he finds that March and Olsen "do not adequately distinguish between the actions of individuals and collectivities." In his opinion, "it is not obvious whether they expect us to study individuals or organizations in search of the logic of political action." This is important, however, "because one logic may predominate at the level of individuals within an organization and another logic at the level of the organization itself."^[6]^: 41–42

Robin Markwica critiques that the logic of appropriateness neglects the emotional underpinnings of normative motivation.^[16]^: 6 March and Olsen acknowledge that human decision-making may be driven by emotion.^[4]^: 490 Yet, their conceptualization of the logic of appropriateness disregards the role of emotion and focuses solely on its "cognitive and normative components."^[4]^: 478 They treat rule-following as a "cognitive process involving thoughtful, reasoning behavior."^[4]^: 479 Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Markwica points out that emotion plays a key role in normative action. Emotions endow norms and identities with meaning. If people feel strongly about norms, they are particularly likely to adhere to them. Rules that cease to resonate at an affective level, however, often come to lose their prescriptive power. He notes that recent findings in neurology suggest that humans generally feel before they think. So emotions may lead them to prioritize the logic of appropriateness over the logic of consequences, or vice versa. Emotions may also infuse the logic of appropriateness and inform actors how to adjudicate between different norms.^[16]^: 26 Given that the logic of appropriateness has difficulties accounting for the role of affect and emotion in decision-making, the "logic of affect" or emotional choice theory has been proposed as an alternative logic of choice.

Related Research Articles

Rational choice theory refers to a set of guidelines that help understand economic and social behaviour. The theory originated in the eighteenth century and can be traced back to the political economist and philosopher Adam Smith. The theory postulates that an individual will perform a cost–benefit analysis to determine whether an option is right for them. It also suggests that an individual's self-driven rational actions will help better the overall economy. Rational choice theory looks at three concepts: rational actors, self interest and the invisible hand.

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence. This quality can apply to an ability, as in a rational animal, to a psychological process, like reasoning, to mental states, such as beliefs and intentions, or to persons who possess these other forms of rationality. A thing that lacks rationality is either arational, if it is outside the domain of rational evaluation, or irrational, if it belongs to this domain but does not fulfill its standards.

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good, desirable, or permissible, and others as bad, undesirable, or impermissible. A norm in this sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. "Normative" is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in science, law, and philosophy try to restrict the use of the term "normative" to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.

Decision theory is a branch of applied probability theory and analytic philosophy concerned with the theory of making decisions based on assigning probabilities to various factors and assigning numerical consequences to the outcome.

Neo institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups. New institutionalism traditionally encompasses three major strands: sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. New institutionalism originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.

In sociology, social action, also known as Weberian social action, is an act which takes into account the actions and reactions of individuals. According to Max Weber, "Action is 'social' insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course."

Reflectivism is an umbrella label used in International Relations theory for a range of theoretical approaches which oppose rational-choice accounts of social phenomena and positivism generally. The label was popularised by Robert Keohane in his presidential address to the International Studies Association in 1988. The address was entitled "International Institutions: Two Approaches", and contrasted two broad approaches to the study of international institutions. One was "rationalism", the other what Keohane referred to as "reflectivism". Rationalists — including realists, neo-realists, liberals, neo-liberals, and scholars using game-theoretic or expected-utility models — are theorists who adopt the broad theoretical and ontological commitments of rational-choice theory.

"Instrumental" and "value-rational action" are terms scholars use to identify two kinds of behavior that humans can engage in. Scholars call using means that "work" as tools, instrumental action, and pursuing ends that are "right" as legitimate ends, value-rational action.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

Social rule system theory is an attempt to formally approach different kinds of social rule systems in a unified manner. Social rules systems include institutions such as norms, laws, regulations, taboos, customs, and a variety of related concepts and are important in the social sciences and humanities. Social rule system theory is fundamentally an institutionalist approach to the social sciences, both in its placing primacy on institutions and in its use of sets of rules to define concepts in social theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cristina Bicchieri</span> Italian–American philosopher

Cristina Bicchieri is an Italian–American philosopher. She is the S.J.P. Harvie Professor of Social Thought and Comparative Ethics in the Philosophy and Psychology Departments at the University of Pennsylvania, professor of Legal Studies in the Wharton School, and director of the Master in Behavioral Decision Sciences program and the Philosophy, Politics and Economics program. She has worked on problems in the philosophy of social science, rational choice and game theory. More recently, her work has focused on the nature and evolution of social norms, and the design of behavioral experiments to test under which conditions norms will be followed. She is a leader in the field of behavioral ethics and is the director of the Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Generalized game theory is an extension of game theory incorporating social theory concepts such as norm, value, belief, role, social relationship, and institution. The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates. The theory seeks to address certain perceived limitations of game theory by formulating a theory of rules and rule complexes and to develop a more robust approach to socio-psychological and sociological phenomena.

In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to have the power and resources to fulfill their potential. For instance, structure consists of those factors of influence that determine or limit agents and their decisions. The influences from structure and agency are debated—it is unclear to what extent a person's actions are constrained by social systems.

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical approach to the study of institutions arguing that actors use institutions to maximize their utility, and that institutions affect rational individual behavior. Rational choice institutionalism arose initially from the study of congressional behaviour in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Influential early RCI scholarship was done by political economists at California Institute of Technology, University of Rochester, and Washington University. It employs analytical tools borrowed from neo-classical economics to explain how institutions are created, the behaviour of political actors within it, and the outcome of strategic interaction.

The rationalist–constructivist debate is an ontological debate within international relations theory between rationalism and constructivism. In a 1998 article, Christian Reus-Smit and Richard Price suggested that the rationalist–constructivist debate was, or was about to become, the most significant in the discipline of international relations theory. The debate can be seen as to be centered on preference formation, with rationalist theories characterising changes in terms of shifts in capabilities, whereas constructivists focus on preference formation.

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." Its explanations are constructivist in nature. According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism

treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character.

In behavioural sciences, social rationality is a type of decision strategy used in social contexts, in which a set of simple rules is applied in complex and uncertain situations.

Emotional choice theory is a social scientific action model to explain human decision-making. Its foundation was laid in Robin Markwica’s monograph Emotional Choices published by Oxford University Press in 2018. It is associated with its own method for identifying emotions and tracing their influences on decision-making. Emotional choice theory is considered an alternative model to rational choice theory and constructivist perspectives.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

Citations

↑ March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (1996). "Institutional Perspectives on Political Institutions". Governance. 9 (3): 247–264. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00242.x. ISSN 1468-0491.
1 2 3 March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (1998). "The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders". International Organization. 52 (4): 943–969. doi:10.1162/002081898550699. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 144697665.
↑ March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-02-920115-2. OCLC 19723616.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 March, James G.; Olsen, Johan P. (2011). "The Logic of Appropriateness". In Goodin, Robert E. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0024.
1 2 Balsiger, Jörg. "Logic of Appropriateness". Encyclopedia Britannica.
1 2 3 Goldmann, Kjell (2005). "Appropriateness and Consequences: The Logic of Neo-Institutionalism". Governance. 18 (1): 35–52. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00265.x. ISSN 1468-0491.
↑ Finnemore, Martha (1993). "International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy". International Organization. 47 (4): 565–597. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028101. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 153323578.
↑ Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/9781501707384. ISBN 978-1-5017-0738-4.
↑ Johnstone, Ian (2010). The Power of Deliberation. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195394931.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-539493-1.
↑ Legro, Jeffrey W. (1997). "Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the "Failure" of Internationalism". International Organization. 51 (1): 31–63. doi:10.1162/002081897550294. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 154368865.
↑ Acharya, Amitav; Johnston, Alastair I., eds. (2007). Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-37136-3. OCLC 652330622.
↑ Kent, A. E. (2007). Beyond Compliance: China, International Organizations, and Global Security. East-West Center. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5551-1. OCLC 71842647.
↑ Chayes, Abram; Handler Chayes, Antonia (1995). The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-61782-7. OCLC 32746064.
↑ Neumayer, Eric (March 2002). "Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental Commitment? A Cross-country Analysis". Journal of Peace Research. 39 (2): 139–164. doi:10.1177/0022343302039002001. ISSN 0022-3433. S2CID 53464222.
↑ Sending, Ole Jacob (2002-12-01). "Constitution, Choice and Change: Problems with the 'Logic of Appropriateness' and its Use in Constructivist Theory". European Journal of International Relations. 8 (4): 443–470. doi:10.1177/1354066102008004001. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 145559042.
1 2 Markwica, Robin (2018). Emotional Choices: How the Logic of Affect Shapes Coercive Diplomacy (First ed.). Oxford, OX. ISBN 978-0-19-251311-3. OCLC 1028637637.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)