ABSTRACT
Rational choice theory (RCT) has been successful in explaining numerous kinds of behavior, including voting, migration, divorce, and civil war. If this theory provides fruitful explanations of so many heterogeneous social phenomena, it is to be expected that a systematic exploration of its implications for the explanation of crime will yield new insights into why crime happens and why it does not happen, and when existing theories of crime must be modified. The label rational in “RCT” often elicits extremely negative emotions. The theory seems to be so plainly wrong that one wonders that there is anybody who takes it seriously. The wide version of RCT holds that all kinds of an actor’s goals (i.e., preferences) are possible determinants of behavior. In contrast to a narrow RCT, there are no restrictions on the goals: they may be material or non-material, egoistic or altruistic, normative (i.e., the goal may be to follow accepted norms), and non-normative.
