1. How To Think

2. Today’s puzzle World is complicated
Lots of potential interrelations between phenomena
How do we explain politics?

3. Our goal Arguments Also called causal inference
Link between cause and effect
Shows that one thing follows from another
X  Y (or more complicated versions)
Can always draw arrow diagrams
Also called causal inference
Some arguments better than others
More truthful, correspond to way world actually works

4. Types of Arguments Normative Argument Positive Argument
Ethical or moral argument – values
What “should” or “ought” to be
Positive Argument
About actual state of world
Shows the way things are
Answers question “Why?” or “How?”

5. Which are positive and normative?
Incumbents win when the economy is growing
We should reduce the amount of money in politics
America needs to spend more on foreign aid
Lobbying doesn’t change legislative votes
Educating women will lead to more democracy
An Obama victory is better for America
The US needs to intervene in Syria because the Syrians have used poison gas.

6. One key normative argument
Normal standards of ethics don’t apply to politics
Because politicians are responsible for people’s lives, they need to weigh expected consequences of their actions
Can’t act just morally and let chips fall where they may
To achieve best outcomes may need to compromise, double-deal, lie, etc.
Ethic of responsibility versus ethic of ultimate ends

7. Positive argument has two parts
Dependent variable
Phenomenon we want to explain
Effect
Independent variable(s)
Phenomenon that explains it
Cause
Systematically affects dependent variable

8. Types of Positive Arguments
Deductive
from general theory to specific case
but only as good as your assumptions
Empirical/Inductive
from specific facts to general theory
search for patterns in the world
but world is complex

10. Where to start? A good question An interesting puzzle
What causes countries to become democratic?
An interesting puzzle
Why is India democratic?
Seems unexpected b/c so poor and so diverse

11. Causality = counterfactual
To say that X causes Y means that if we take away X, we don’t get Y
“Not X” is the counterfactual
The problem is that we can’t observe both X and not X at the same time
You either get the drug or you don’t

12. Gold standard Ideally an experiment
Assign subjects randomly to two groups
One groups receives treatment, other doesn’t
The control group is the counterfactual
But how to do in comparative politics?
Give democracy drug to some undemocratic countries but not others
Ethical & practical issues

13. Inductive approach
Look at countries and see what they have in common and where they differ: search for patterns
Which countries?
Might start with democracies
Why also look at non-democracies?
Which independent variables?
Is this correlation enough?

14. Correlations Positive: as one variable rises, second rises
Negative: as one variable rises, second falls
Significant: unlikely to be result of random chance
Insignificant: likely to be result of random chance

15. Inductivist approach Country Democracy Wealth Ethnic divisions
Parliamen-tary US
Yes No UK
Belgium
Saudi Arabia

16. Inductivist turkey Too many potential causes Never enough cases
Which ones are important?
Never enough cases
We can’t isolate the counterfactual

17. Deductive approach Start with theory
Assumptions about human nature plus set of constraints – then logically reason to outcome
What would lead political elites to allow democracy or citizens to demand it?
If this is true, what implications should we see in the world?

18. Usually go together Need a theory to prevent inductivist turkey
Need data to keep theory tied to reality
Often go back and forth

19. Not as easy as it looks Say we find a correlation, a pattern
Richer countries tend to be democratic
How do we know if it is a truthful argument?
Does the pattern indicate genuine causation or is it spurious

20. Does wealth distinguish democracies and non-democracies?

21. Pitfalls in causal inference (1)
Case selection – how did you choose your examples?
Selecting on the dependent variable
i.e., choosing only “successes” or only “failures”

23. Pitfalls in causal inference (2)
Confounding factors, omitted variables
Does another factor cause both X & Y
Correlation is not causation

24. Obesity and friends

25. Pitfalls in causal inference (3)
Endogeneity (reverse causality)
Does Y cause X
Going to Harvard and getting rich

26. Pitfalls in causal inference (4)
Causal mechanism
Can I tell a reasonable story connecting cause and effect including all the intermediate steps?
Helps to have evidence for these steps
Correlation between distance from Berlin and postcommunist democracy/economic reform

27. Pitfalls in causal inference (5)
Falsifiability
How would I know if it was false

28. Conspiracy theories

29. Pitfalls in causal inference (6)
Measurement
Have I measured everything well?

30. Does wealth cause democracy?
Correlation: Yes, but not perfect
Omitted variables: Possibilities?
Case selection: Middle East? India? Population? Time period
Endogeneity: democracy => wealth
Causal mechanism
Measurement: How have we defined democracy? Wealth?

31. How to read a political science article
What is the author trying to explain? (dependent variable)
What is the cause? (independent variable)
What mechanism connects cause and effect?

32. How to critique an article
How were cases selected?
Omitted variables
Endogeneity
Shows all the connections
Measurement of concepts
What evidence might disprove

33. Being a good political thinker
Are you becoming angry at politics?
Do you have strong opinions before you look at the evidence?
Do your opinions change as you gather evidence?
Do you seek info only from sources you agree with?
Do you think those who disagree with you are evil?