Causal Models and Counterfactuals

Chapter

Abstract

This article compares statistical and set-theoretic approaches to causal analysis. Statistical researchers commonly use additive, linear causal models, whereas set-theoretic researchers typically use logic-based causal models. These models differ in many fundamental ways, including whether they assume symmetric or asymmetrical causal patterns, and whether they call attention to equifinality and combinatorial causation. The two approaches also differ in how they utilize counterfactuals and carry out counterfactual analysis. Statistical researchers use counterfactuals to illustrate their results, but they do not use counterfactual analysis for the goal of causal model estimation. By contrast, set-theoretic researchers use counterfactuals to estimate models by making explicit their assumptions about empty sectors in the vector space defined by the causal variables. The paper concludes by urging greater appreciation of the differences between the statistical and set-theoretic approaches to causal analysis.

References

  1. Bates, D. M., & Watts, D. G. (1988). Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braumoeller, B. (2003). Causal complexity and the study of politics. Political Analysis, 11, 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, J., Hall, N., & Paul, L. A., (Eds.) (2004). Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goertz, G., & Starr, H., (Eds.) (2003). Necessary conditions: theory, methodology, and applications. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Hicks, A., Misra, J., & Ng, T. N. (1995). The programmatic emergence of the social security state. American Sociological Review, 60, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackman, S. (2009). Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mahoney, J. (2010). Colonialism and postcolonial development: Spanish America in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore, Jr., B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and statistical strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Education Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin, D. B. (1990). Comment: Neyman and causal inference in experiments and observational studies. Statistical Science, 5, 472–480.Google Scholar
  21. Schneider, C., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schrodt, P. A. (2010). Seven deadly sins of contemporary statistical political analysis. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Stokke, O. S. (2007). Qualitative comparative analysis, shaming, and international regime effectiveness. Journal of Business Research, 60, 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vaisey, S. (2009). QCA 3.0: The Ragin Revolution Continues. Contemporary Sociology, 38, 308–312.Google Scholar
  25. Wickham-Crowley, T. (1992). Guerrillas and revolution in Latin America: A comparative study of insurgents and regimes since 1956. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Mahoney
    • 1
  • Gary Goertz
    • 2
  • Charles C. Ragin
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of Political Science and SociologyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Kroc Institute for International Peace StudiesUniversity of Notre DameSouth BendUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  4. 4.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations