Advertisement

Learning from each other: causal inference and American political development

  • Jeffery A. JenkinsEmail author
  • Nolan McCarty
  • Charles StewartIII
Article

Abstract

Within political science, a movement focused on increasing the credibility of causal inferences (CIs) has gained considerable traction in recent years. While CI has been incorporated extensively into most disciplinary subfields, it has not been applied often in the study of American political development (APD). This special issue considers ways in which scholars of CI and APD can engage in mutually beneficial ways to produce better overall research. As the contributions to the symposium demonstrate, clear scientific gains are to be had from greater CI–APD engagement.

Keywords

Causal inference American political development Gains from engagement 

JEL Classification

C18 N41 N42 

Notes

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman, D. A., & Teele, D. L. (2019). A developmental approach to historical causal inference. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00713-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder, S. (2019). How we (should?) study Congress and history. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00693-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cartwright, N. (2007). Are RCTs the gold standard? Biosocieties,2(1), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caughey, D., & Chatfield, S. (2019). Causal inference and American political development: Contrasts and complementarities. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00694-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, T. S. (2019). The Supreme Court: An analytical history of constitutional decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clinton, J. D. (2019). The effect of majority party agenda setting on roll call. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00706-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science and Medicine,210, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, P. B., Reuschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the state back in. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gailmard, S. (2019). Game theory and the study of American political development. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00705-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galvin, D. (2019). Let’s not conflate APD with political history, and other reflections on “causal inference and American political development”. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00695-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. (2013). Why ask why? Forward causal inference and reverse causal questions. National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper no. 19614.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, S. C., & Simpson, H. K. (2019). Causes, theories, and the past in political science. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00703-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grose, C. R., & Wood, A. K. (2019). Randomized experiments by government institutions and American political development. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00704-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey, A. (2019). Applying regression discontinuity designs to American political development. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00696-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association,81(396), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imbens, G. (2010). Better LATE than nothing: Some comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009). Journal of Economic Literature,48(2), 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, J. A., & Stewart, C. (2019). Causal inference and American political development: The case of the Gag rule. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00754-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McConnaughy, C. M. (2019). The inferential opportunity of specificity: How institutional and historical detail can enable causal explanations and inference in American political development. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00710-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2004). The search for American political development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating the causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology,66(5), 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment groups on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics,2(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rubin, D. B. (2006). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association,100(469), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schickler, E. (2016). Racial realignment: The transformation of American liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schickler, E. (2019). Causal inference and American political development: Common challenges and opportunities. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00690-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheingate, A. D. (2014). Institutional dynamics and American political development. Annual Review of Political Science,17(1), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wawro, G. J., & Katznelson, I. (2019). American political development and new challenges of causal inference. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00708-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Price School of Public PolicyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PoliticsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations