1. Epistemology and Methods Model Building: Concepts, Arguments, and Hypotheses April 22 2008

2. Model Building Overview Part I Concepts Arguments / Explanation Hypotheses Part II A look at Counterfactuals

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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…)

6. 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

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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. Theorization of one process

11. 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...

12. 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

13. 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)?

14. 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)

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. Counterfactuals What could be a hypothesis you are interested in? Could a counterfactual strategy be used for an empirical test? How would you proceed?

21. 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)

22. 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..