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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Below, we consider an example of research that exploits historical data for precisely this purpose.
That practitioners in the PO tradition often do not explicitly state their assumptions concerning operative mechanisms lies at the heart Pearl’s 2009 critique of the framework. Pearl argues that such mechanisms ought to be formalized, and that directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an appropriate technology of formalization. The response to Pearl by statisticians working in this area is extensive, but beyond the scope of this article.
We use the term “observability” rather than “selection” owing to substantial variation across scholarly communities in the use of the term “selection bias.”
This variation could, of course, be useful as a placebo test for the mechanism.
Anecdotally, an example of the former effect might be the use by local US governments of court fee and fine increases, rather than tax increases, to meet revenue shortfalls (Goldstein et al. 2018). An example of the latter effect might be the selective assignment of property rights to regime supporters (Onoma 2010).
For simplicity, Simpson (2019) uses historical information to classify counties as highly threatened, somewhat threatened, or secure, depending on whether they were contiguous to pivotal castles, contiguous to land held by John, or not.
References
Alt, J., Bueno de Mesquita, E., & Rose, S. (2011). Disentangling accountability and competence in elections: Evidence from u.s. term limits. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 171–186.
Anzia, S. F., & Berry, C. R. (2011). The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen? American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 478–493.
Ashworth, S., Berry, C. R., & Mesquita, E Bd. (2015). All else equal in theory and data (big or small). PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(1), 89–94.
Bueno de Mesquita, E., & Tyson, S. A. (2019). The commensurability problem: Conceptual difficulties in estimating the effect of behavior on behavior. Working paper.
Eggers, A. C., & Spirling, A. (2014). Electoral security as a determinant of legislator activity, 1832–1918: New data and methods for analyzing british political development. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(4), 593–620.
Elwert, F., & Winship, C. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 31–53.
Feigenbaum, J. J., Lee, J., & Mezzanotti, F. (2018). Capital destruction and economic growth: The effects of sherman’s march, 1850–1920. NBER Working Paper No. 25392.
Gailmard, S. (2017). Building a new imperial state: The strategic foundations of separation of powers in america. American Political Science Review, 111(4), 668–685.
Gailmard, S., & Jenkins, J. A. (2009). Agency problems, the 17th amendment, and representation in the senate. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 324–342.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Kaplan, E. H. (2014). The illusion of learning from observational research. In D. L. Teele (Ed.), Field Experiments and their Critics (pp. 9–32). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Goldstein, R., Sances, M. W., & You, H. Y. (2018). Exploitative revenues, law enforcement, and the quality of government service. Urban Affairs Review (forthcoming).
Gordon, S. C. (2009). Assessing partisan bias in federal public corruption prosecutions. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 534–554.
Gordon, S. C., Hafer, C., & Landa, D. (2007). Consumption or investment? On motivations for political giving. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1057–1072.
Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. A. (2007). The effect of electoral competitiveness on incumbent behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 107–138.
Gordon, S. C., & Simpson, H. K. (2018). The birth of pork: Local appropriations in America’s first century. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 564–579.
Green, D. P., Ha, S. E., & Bullock, J. G. (2010). Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 200–208.
Hall, A., Huff, C., & Kuriwaki, S. (2018). Wealth, slaveownership, and fighting for the confederacy: An empirical study of the american civil war. American Political Science Review, 113(3), 658–673.
Hirano, S., & Snyder, J. M. (2019). Primary Elections in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr., Ansolabehere, S., & Hansen, J. M. (2010). Primary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 169–191.
Huber, G. A., & Gordon, S. C. (2004). Accountability and coercion: Is justice blind when it runs for office? American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 247–263.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.
Jacobson, G. (2004). The politics of congressional elections (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Lee, D. S., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the u. s. house*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.
Morton, R. B. (1999). Methods and models: A guide to the empirical analysis of formal models in political science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Onoma, A. K. (2010). The politics of property rights institutions in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J., & Bareinboim, E. (2014). External validity: From do-calculus to transportability across populations. Statistical Science, 29(4), 579–595.
Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. Political Science: The State of the Discipline, 3, 693–721.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Choice as an alternative to control in observational studies. Statistical Science, 14(3), 259–278.
Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331.
Schultz, K. A. (2001). Looking for audience costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 32–60.
Sekhon, J. S., & Titiunik, R. (2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 35–57.
Simpson, H. K. (2019). Justice for sale: Political crisis, fiscal exigency, and legal development. Working paper.
Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, V. M. (2007). Frontlash: Race and the development of punitive crime policy. Studies in American Political Development, 21(2), 230–265.
Acknowledgements
We thank Pat Egan, Catherine Hafer, Carlo Horz, Kris Kanthak, Dimitri Landa, Cyrus Samii, and participants at the USC Causal Inference and American Political Development Conference for valuable comments and clarifying discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gordon, S.C., Simpson, H.K. Causes, theories, and the past in political science. Public Choice 185, 315–333 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6