Strategic Models of Talk in Political Decision Making
| Author | David Austen-Smith |
| Published date | 01 January 1992 |
| Date | 01 January 1992 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/019251219201300104 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
45-
Strategic
Models
of
Talk
in
Political
Decision
Making
DAVID
AUSTEN-SMITH
ABSTRACT.
Talk
in
politics
is
effective
only
insofar
as
the
speaker
is
able
to
persuade
his
or
her
audience
of
the
relevance
of
some
point,
or
the
validity
of
some
claim,
contained
in
the
speech.
From
a
rational
choice
perspective,
therefore,
such
speech
making
is
a
strategic
activity
in
which
speakers
seek
to
influence
the
beliefs
of
decision
makers.
This
paper
is
an
informal
introduction
to
rational
choice
models
of
political
decision
making
involving
the
strategic
use
of
speech.
Introduction
Talk
in
politics,
whether
in
formal
legislative
debate,
campaign
rhetoric,
or
the
advice
of
lobbyists,
can
be
effective
only
insofar
as
the
speaker
is
able
to
persuade
his
or
her
audience
of
the
relevance
of
some
point
or
the
validity
of
some
claim
contained
in
the
speech.
If,
as
is
natural,
individuals’
preferences
over
final
outcomes
(e.g.,
the
consequences
of
legislation,
or
the
election
of
one
type
of
candidate
over
another)
are
taken
as
given,
such
&dquo;persuasion&dquo;
necessarily
amounts
to
changing
individuals’
beliefs
about
how
particular
actions
yield
particular
outcomes.
In
this
case
individuals’
induced
preferences
over
actions
(e.g.,
how
to
vote
over
an
agenda,
or
between
candidates)
may
change,
since
these
are
defined
by
the
composition
of
preferences
over
final
outcomes
and
beliefs
regarding
how
actions
differentially
promote
such
outcomes.
The
extent
to
which
talk
succeeds
in
changing
individuals’
induced
preferences
is
therefore
dependent
on
exactly
how
individuals
assimilate
and
interpret
any
information
speech
makers
volunteer.
In
turn,
the
sort
of
speeches
offered
will
themselves
depend
on
these
same
factors.
At
one
extreme,
audiences
could
believe
without
question
everything
they
were
told;
this
would
be
very
naive.
At
another
extreme,
individuals
might
ignore
everything
said
in,
say,
debate;
in
which
case
it
is
hard
to
account
for
why
debate
persists
in
legislative
decision
making.
Evidently,
not
all
possible
speeches
alter
others’
beliefs,
and
not
all
possible
speeches
are
ignored.
The
central
issues
for
understanding
the
role
of
talk
in
political
settings,
therefore,
are
to
identify
circumstances
under
which
information
offered
in
debate,
or
by
speech
To continue reading
Request your trial