IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v185y2020i3d10.1007_s11127-019-00703-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Causes, theories, and the past in political science

Author

Listed:
  • Sanford C. Gordon

    (New York University)

  • Hannah K. Simpson

    (Texas A&M University)

Abstract

A theoretically grounded approach to causal questions illuminates both the utility and limitations of the potential outcomes (PO) framework as a model for historically-focused, quantitative empirical research. While some causal questions are immediately reconcilable with the PO framework, for others, theoretical guidance is valuable in ascertaining relevant comparisons or characterizing the generalizability of findings to different contexts. A third category of important causal relationships feature strategic or information-based interactions, or multiple or unobservable mechanisms, many of which cannot be directly tested using the PO framework. Here, theory is critical in elucidating additional, observable implications that may be tested empirically. In all three categories, historical research promises special benefits: it expands the set of cases on which to test causal claims, may provide counterfactuals not available in contemporary contexts, and can feature institutional transformations that function as plausibly exogenous modifier variables. We clarify this classification of causal questions using examples from our own historical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanford C. Gordon & Hannah K. Simpson, 2020. "Causes, theories, and the past in political science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 315-333, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:185:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00703-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke & Keele, Luke & Tingley, Dustin & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2011. "Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 765-789, November.
    2. Sean Gailmard & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2009. "Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 324-342, April.
    3. Sekhon, Jasjeet S. & Titiunik, Rocã O, 2012. "When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(1), pages 35-57, February.
    4. David S. Lee & Enrico Moretti & Matthew J. Butler, 2004. "Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U. S. House," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 807-859.
    5. Donald B. Rubin, 2005. "Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 322-331, March.
    6. Hirano,Shigeo & Snyder, Jr,James M., 2019. "Primary Elections in the United States," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107440159.
    7. Gordon, Sanford C. & Huber, Gregory A., 2007. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 107-138, May.
    8. Gregory A. Huber & Sanford C. Gordon, 2004. "Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 247-263, April.
    9. Sarah F. Anzia & Christopher R. Berry, 2011. "The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 478-493, July.
    10. James Feigenbaum & James Lee & Filippo Mezzanotti, 2022. "Capital Destruction and Economic Growth: The Effects of Sherman's March, 1850–1920," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 301-342, October.
    11. Gordon, Sanford C., 2009. "Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 534-554, November.
    12. Gordon, Sanford C. & Simpson, Hannah K., 2018. "The Birth of Pork: Local Appropriations in America’s First Century," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 564-579, August.
    13. Hirano, Shigeo & Snyder, James M. & Ansolabehere, Stephen & Hansen, John Mark, 2010. "Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 5(2), pages 169-191, August.
    14. Hirano,Shigeo & Snyder, Jr,James M., 2019. "Primary Elections in the United States," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107080591.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vlaicu, Razvan & Whalley, Alexander, 2016. "Hierarchical accountability in government," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 85-99.
    2. Cintolesi, Andrea, 2022. "Political polarization and primary elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 596-617.
    3. Christian Dippel & Michael Poyker, 2019. "How Common are Electoral Cycles in Criminal Sentencing?," NBER Working Papers 25716, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Stefano Gagliarducci & M Daniele Paserman, 2022. "Gender Differences in Cooperative Environments? Evidence from The U.S. Congress," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(641), pages 218-257.
    5. Fowler, Anthony & Hall, Andrew B., 2015. "Congressional seniority and pork: A pig fat myth?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 42-56.
    6. Castanheira, Micael & Huck, Steffen & Leutgeb, Johannes & Schotter, Andrew, 2023. "How Trump triumphed: Multi-candidate primaries with buffoons," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Dodlova, Marina & Zudenkova, Galina, 2021. "Incumbents’ performance and political extremism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Chen, Daniel L., 2016. "Priming Ideology: Why Presidential Elections Affect U.S. Judges," TSE Working Papers 16-681, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Aug 2016.
    9. Brollo, Fernanda & Troiano, Ugo, 2016. "What happens when a woman wins an election? Evidence from close races in Brazil," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 28-45.
    10. Scott R. Baker & Nicholas Bloom & Brandice Canes-Wrone & Steven J. Davis & Jonathan Rodden, 2014. "Why Has US Policy Uncertainty Risen since 1960?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 56-60, May.
    11. Crutzen, Benoît S.Y. & Sahuguet, Nicolas, 2023. "Comparative politics with intraparty candidate selection," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Ferreira, Fernando & Gyourko, Joseph, 2014. "Does gender matter for political leadership? The case of U.S. mayors," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 24-39.
    13. De Magalhaes, Leandro, 2015. "Incumbency Effects in a Comparative Perspective: Evidence from Brazilian Mayoral Elections," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 113-126, January.
    14. Drazen, Allan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2019. "Does “being chosen to lead” induce non-selfish behavior? Experimental evidence on reciprocity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 13-21.
    15. Marcos Chamon & Sergio Firpo & João M. P. de Mello & Renan Pieri, 2019. "Electoral Rules, Political Competition and Fiscal Expenditures: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from Brazilian Municipalities," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 19-38, January.
    16. Christian Dippel & Michael Poyker, 2023. "Do Private Prisons Affect Criminal Sentencing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 511-534.
    17. Matsusaka, John G., 2017. "When Do Legislators Follow Constituent Opinion? Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes," Working Papers 264, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    18. Tracy M. Sweet, 2019. "Modeling Social Networks as Mediators: A Mixed Membership Stochastic Blockmodel for Mediation," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(2), pages 210-240, April.
    19. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    20. Michael Grätz, 2022. "When less conditioning provides better estimates: overcontrol and endogenous selection biases in research on intergenerational mobility," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3769-3793, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Causal inference; Quantitative historical analysis; Generalizability; Counterfactuals; Mechanisms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • N41 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
    • N43 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - Europe: Pre-1913

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:185:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-019-00703-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.