Causal inference and American political development: contrasts and complementarities
- PDF / 775,290 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 28 Downloads / 307 Views
Causal inference and American political development: contrasts and complementarities Devin Caughey1 · Sara Chatfield2 Received: 10 July 2019 / Accepted: 17 July 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Causal inference and American political development (APD) are widely separated and (to some) fundamentally incompatible tendencies within political science. In this paper, we explore points of connection between those two perspectives, while also highlighting differences that are not so easily bridged. We stress that both causal inference and APD are centrally interested in questions of causation, but they approach causation with very different ontological and epistemological commitments. We emphasize how the sort of detailed, contextualized, and often qualitative knowledge privileged by APD can promote credible causal (and descriptive) inferences, but also that scholars of causal inference can benefit from alternate conceptions of causality embraced by APD work. We illustrate with two empirical examples from our own research: devising weights for quota-sampled opinion polls and estimating the political effects of the Tennessee Valley Authority. We conclude that bringing APD and causal inference together on more equal terms may require a broader perspective on causation than is typical of scholarship in the causal-inference tradition. Keywords Causal inference · American political development · Survey research · Policy feedback JEL Classification N4 · C0 · H4
* Sara Chatfield [email protected] Devin Caughey [email protected] 1
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, E53‑463, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
2
Department of Political Science, University of Denver, Sturm Hall, Room 473, 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Public Choice
1 Introduction Although their emergence as self-conscious movements in political science occurred roughly contemporaneously, causal inference (CI) and American political development (APD) have evolved largely in isolation from, if not in active opposition to, one another. In the 1970s and 1980s, while the statistician Donald Rubin was developing concepts and methods of CI later imported into political science (see, e.g., Sekhon 2008), APD was emerging as an “insurgent movement” led by Stephen Skowronek, Karen Orren, and other social scientists who sought to reinvigorate the historical study of American political institutions (Mettler and Valelly 2016, p. 1). As this special issue attests, many scholars have sought to keep a foot in both camps. The theoretical commitments and empirical practices of the two are so disparate, however, that maintaining that dual footing requires considerable agility. Our goal in this paper is to bridge the gap between APD and CI by exploring points of connection and synergy while also highlighting and explaining differences that are not bridged so easily. Echoing the advice of Dunning (2012) and others, we emphasize the ways that credible design-
Data Loading...
