Bridging Historical Analysis and Strategic Choice in Area Studies: An Analytic Narrative of Volatile Politics in Thailand, 1938–1963

Abstract

Rational choice analysis and in particular game-theoretic applications are rare in Southeast Asian area studies. In some ways this is natural, as in its most generic and pure form rational choice turns a blind eye to those very factors that area studies places its focus on: cultural traits, historical processes, subjective lifeworlds and other idiosyncrasies that area studies has a relative advantage in researching. However, often ignored in area studies, there are “middle-of-the-road” approaches that pay heed to the importance of these factors but seek to integrate historical and cultural analysis into an actor-centered institutionalist research framework. While variants of these approaches have made their inroads into political science at large, they have yet to find widespread acceptance in Southeast Asian studies. This chapter argues for a strengthening of methodological pluralism between social science disciplines and area studies, and a shift of epistemological debates away from purist views of cultural contextualization versus a rigid rational choice paradigm. It therefore revisits the methodological crossover offered by “Analytic Narratives” (Bates et al. 1998) and discusses its usefulness for (Southeast Asian) area studies. While we have to acknowledge general concerns and also practical difficulties, the cross-fertilization of different methodological perspectives can help to bridge knowledge gaps, shed new light on complex social phenomena and link research findings across studies.KeywordsPrime MinisterRational ChoiceHistorical AnalysisStrategic ChoiceStrategic InteractionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.