Epistemology and Methods

Model Building: Concepts, Arguments, and Hypotheses

April 22 2008

Model Building

Overview

Part I

• Concepts

• Arguments / Explanation

• Hypotheses

Part II

• A look at Counterfactuals

Concepts

• Define concepts• Good Governance, Sustainable Development,

Globalization, Power, War, Conflict, Integration, Human Rights

• Big concepts, how to disaggregate • Think early on about variance and measurement

Concepts

• Classification/Typologies• Typologies are theoretical constructs used when

variables are measured nominally...• Regimes: personalist, military, or single-party

(Geddes)• Political Systems: Presidential vs. Parliamentary

systems• Varieties of Capitalism (liberal vs. coordinated

market economies)• Developing Countries (e.g. OECD classification)

Constructing Arguments / Explanation

• Ask yourself questions to locate variables (pre-condition knowing the literature and theories)

• Example Geddes: Regime change• Intuition!• In order to explain regime change (DV), we try to

understand why groups concluded that the old regime had become intolerable and how they developed the organizational strength and popular support needed to overthrow it...(Puzzle…)

Constructing Arguments / Explanation

• The breakdown of an authoritarian regime need not lead to democratization, but when it does, the transition involves bargaining and negotiation (induction through observation)

• Bargaining over institutions is a central feature of regime change

Existing explanations

• Addressing important factors/variables• Political rivalries (internal/opposition)• Upper-class support• Risks of mass expressions of discontent• Ideology• Economic shocks• Geopolitical shocks

Theorization of one process

• Politics in Authoritarian Regimes• „Few authors have considered how characteristics of

dictatorship affect transitions“ (omitted variable)• Theory of politics within authoritarian regimes• Assumptions from democratic theory (survival strategies):

officials want to stay in office, best way to do so is to give constituents what they want

• Modifications– who are the constituents– what performance is necessary– But different interests of leaders in different regimes (e.g. personalist

regime)

Theorization of one process

• The military regime• Drawing on research of attitudes/preferences of

military officers• Logic of seizing power vs. returning to the barracks• Coordination game between military fractions (Battle

of Sexes)• Ultimate goal is survival of military• Solution: negotiations or credible first mover

Theorization of one process

Looking for implications

• As officers find themselves in battle-of-sexes game, military regimes break down more readily in response to internal splits (in comparison to other regimes)

• The costs for the military varies according to regime type after regime change...

• Military regimes last less long than other authoritarian regimes

• Economic crises having stronger disintegrating effect, etc...

Hypotheses from Implication

• Key argument: regime type affects the way transition occurs!

• Geddes looks at the causal mechanism, certain observations follow (that can be tested):

• Military regimes survive less long• Military regimes are more quickly destabilized by poor

economic performance• Military regimes are more likely to end in negotiations …

• Various form of hypotheses• Relational (longer, less long, more likely, etc…)• As A increases also B increases• A is a necessary / sufficient condition for B

Test questions to assess arguments / hypotheses

• Falsifiable?• Do hypotheses that form part of a „theory“

contradict each other?• Is there a problem of endogeneity? (e.g.

economic crises are correlated with regime type)

• Potentially omitted variables (ideology, external pressure)?

Test questions to assess arguments / hypotheses

• Case-selection– Has the outcome (DV) already

occurred...Transition to Democracy?– Large n necessary– DV selection (next session)

• Operationalization– How well can we operationalize and measure the

variables (next session)

Counterfactuals (Fearon)

• Counterfactuals are often present in research design (explicit or implicit)

• „Claims about events that did not actually occur“• „If it had been the case that C (or not C) it would

have been the case that E (or not E)“• Comparison with method of difference (comparison

of actual cases) / regression analysis• Are these though experiments valid tools?

Counterfactuals vs. Actual Case Comparison

• Hypotheses that can not be tested either by experimental control or by replication

• Example: International structural factors (rather than domestic political factors) explain x aspects of Soviet foreign policy

• Counterfactual (any regime would have conducted same policies)

• Case comparisons (cases of states with similar/dissimilar structural positions and foreign policy)

• Statistic problem of negative degree of freedom (number of cases minus number of explanatory factors minus one)

• Causal inference cannot be tested: need for adding cases...to allow for variation

Counterfactuals vs Actual Case Comparison

• Criticism: • How can we know what would have happened with

sufficient degree of confidence?• Are additional cases identical/ceteris paribus

assumption holds? (omitted variable, reverse causation, multi-collinearity (correlation among IV)– Example: Ratification of a trade treaty: f(GDP/capita +

participation in negotiations + trade integration + ideology)

Counterfactuals

• Support for causal hypothesis using counterfactual strategy relies on arguments.

• These are credible when– Based on general theories or laws– Based knowledge of historical facts relevant to

counterfactual scenario• Example: WWI „Cult of the Offensive“• „how would statesmen have behaved if they had

believed that defense had the advantage?“ (Van Evera)

• Based on rationality (how would statesmen have behaved rationally given another belief)

Counterfactuals

• Reliance on other theories make empirical testing of hypotheses indirect

• Confidence that other causes would not vary with the IVs depends on our confidence in our theory...

• And justification of relative effects will require proliferation of counterfactual cases...(with growing number of IVs)– A is more important than B in explaining Y

Counterfactuals

• What could be a hypothesis you are interested in?

• Could a counterfactual strategy be used for an empirical test?

• How would you proceed?

Counterfactuals

• Hypothesis: „9/11 was an important factor for launching the WTO Doha Round in 2001“– Explanation: US and others willingness to support

multilateralism• Comparative case-study (Seattle)• Ceteris paribus? (NGO participation, world economy,

PTAs?, the Club-argument)

Counterfactuals

• Counterfactual: „In the absence of 9/11 the Doha Trade Round would not have started in 2001“– Theories (Interest-based negotiation, BATNA,

rational expectations, holding out, etc)– IVs, etc..