Preview

Political science

Advanced search

Methods of causal inference in contemporary political science

https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.01.04

Abstract

This paper serves as an exposition of the causal inference methods that are most popular in political science. Rather than focusing on technical details we present a brief summary of main ideas behind each method with the goal of making them accessible to a broad audience of researchers. We also provide a research design algorithm for each method. First, we focus on a general motivation behind causal inference methods. We discuss how the problem of causality arises in hypothesis testing and describe the relationship between democracy and economic development as a case in point. Second, we give an exposition of a general causality problem within the framework of Rubin Causal Model (RCM). We provide all basic definitions and then demonstrate how the problem of causal inference arise within RCM. Third, we describe the most frequently used methods of causal inference such as randomized experiments, regression discontinuity design, difference-in-difference design, and instrumental variables. For each method we give a reader a general description as well as steps of a research design. We also briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of each method. Armed with this knowledge, a reader can use it to find the method that is the most appropriate for a research problem at hand. We conclude by arguing that the ideas of causal inference are useful for both quantitative and qualitative research.

About the Author

E. A. Sedashov
HSE University
Russian Federation

Moscow



References

1. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J.A. The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation // American economic review. 2001. Vol. 91, N 5. P. 1369-1401. DOI: 10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 EDN: FNVQTN

2. Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A. Why nations fail. New York, NY: Crown business, 2012. 546 p. EDN: QVJWUL

3. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.-S. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist' companion. Princetion, NJ: Princeton university press, 2008. 392 p.

4. Bates R.H., Lien D.D. A note on taxation, development, and representative government // Politics & Society. 1985. Vol. 14, N 1. P. 53-70. DOI: 10.1177/003232928501400102 EDN: JOQWLH

5. Card D., Krueger A.B. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania // American economic review. 1994. Vol. 84, N 4. P. 772-793. DOI: 10.1257/aer.90.5.1397 EDN: HEMUDN

6. Chattopadhyay R., Duflo E. Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India // Econometrica. 2004. Vol. 72, N 5. P. 1409-1443. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x

7. Collier P., Hoeffler A. Greed and grievance in civil war // Oxford economic papers. 2004. Vol. 56. P. 563-595. DOI: 10.1093/oep/gpf064 EDN: IVLJEB

8. Democracy does cause growth / D. Acemoglu, S. Naidu, P. Restrepo, J.A. Robinson // Journal of political economy. 2019. Vol. 127, N 1. P. 47-100. DOI: 10.1086/700936

9. Dell M. The persistent effects of Peru's Mining Mita // Econometrica. 2010. Vol. 78, N 6. P. 1863-1903. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA8121

10. Ferwerda J., Miller N.L. Political devolution and resistance to foreign rule: A natural experiment // American political science review. 2014. Vol. 108, N 3. P. 642-660. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055414000240

11. Field experiment estimate of electoral fraud in Russian Parliamentary Elections / R. Enikolopov, V. Korovkin, M. Petrova, K. Sonin, A. Zakharov // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013. Vol. 110, N 2. P. 448-452. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1206770110 EDN: REVGZL

12. Frye T. Economic sanctions and public opinion: survey experiments from Russia // Comparative political studies. 2019. Vol. 52, N 7. P. 967-994. DOI: 10.1177/0010414018806530 EDN: CSNTGU

13. Gelman A. Preregistration of studies and mock reports // Political analysis. 2013. Vol. 21, N 1. P. 40-41. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mps032

14. Gelman A., Imbens G.W. Why high-order polynomials should not be used in regression discontinuity designs // Journal of business & Economic statistics. 2018. Vol. 37, N 3. P. 447-456. DOI: 10.1080/07350015.2017.1366909

15. Hansen L.P. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators // Econometrica. 1982. Vol. 50, N 4. P. 1029-1054. DOI: 10.2307/1912775

16. Humphreys M., Sanchez de la Sierra R., Van der Windt P. Fishing, commitment, and communication: a proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration // Political analysis. 2013. Vol. 21, N 1. P. 1-20. https://10.1093/ pan/mps021. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mps021

17. Imbens G.W., Kalyanaraman K. Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator // Review of economic studies. 2012. Vol. 79, N 3. P. 933-959. DOI: 10.1093/restud/rdr043

18. Imbens G.W., Lemieux T. Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice.

19. Journal of econometrics. 2008. Vol. 142, N 2. P. 615-635. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.001

20. Imbens G.W., Rubin D.B. Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge university press, 2015. 625 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139025751

21. Lee D.S. The electoral advantage to incumbency and voters' valuation of politicians' experience: A regression discontinuity analysis of elections to the US house // NBER working paper series. 2001. N w8441.

22. Lipset S.M. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy // American political science review. 1959. Vol. 53, N 1. P. 69-105. DOI: 10.2307/1951731

23. Miguel E., Satyanath S., Sergenti E. Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach // Journal of political economy. 2004. Vol. 112, N 4. P. 725-753. DOI: 10.1086/421174 EDN: HDJFPP

24. Monogan J. Research preregistration in political science: the case, counterarguments, and a response to critiques // PS: Political science & Politics. 2015. Vol. 48, N 3. P. 425-429. https://. DOI: 10.1017/S1049096515000189

25. North D.C., Weingast B.R. Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England // Journal of economic history. 1989. Vol. 49, N 4. P. 803-832. 10.1017/ S0022050700009451. DOI: 10.1017/S0022050700009451

26. Olken B. Monitoring corruption: evidence of a field experiment in Indonesia // Journal of political economy. 2007. Vol. 115, N 2. P. 200-249. DOI: 10.1086/517935

27. Pearl J. Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Second edition. N.Y.: Cambridge university press, 2009. 459 p. 10.1017/ CBO9780511803161. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511803161

28. Sargan J.D. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables // Econometrica. 1958. Vol. 26, N 3. P. 393-415. DOI: 10.2307/1907619


Review

Views: 424


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1998-1775 (Print)