Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What should we control for? Or, some 5ps on your essay
WK 4 Andrea Ruggeri Q Step , Year 2
Main Goals
• (re)thinking about confounders • How can we decide about other Xs? • How to tackle essays and exams • DemocraJc Peace!!! • Some thoughts on ComGov and PolSoc
Bivariate to mulJvariate, why? • Chocolate consumpJon and noble prize = + – Controlling for GDP and Geography !
• Pipe smoking >CigareTe Smoking = death rate – Controlling for age
Confounding variable • A great strategy for essays or exam quesJons in which you assess evidence is to think about confounding variables.
Two strategies for thinking of confounding variables: (a) think of things that affect y but are not in the regression [this is basically what Kellstedt and WhiTen say to do] and then ask yourself whether it might be related to x. (b) think of things that affect x (or things that are related to and precede x) but are not in the regression and then ask yourself whether it might affect y .
What makes a control variable important?
• Does the variable have a causal effect on Y? • Is the variable correlated with those variables whose effects are the focus of the study?
• Absence of control variables à Spurious correlaJon and omiTed variable bias
Allison, Paul D. Mul$ple regression: A primer. Pine Forge Press, 1999.
Eggers
WK 7, Poli5cal Analysis Year 1
Prof. Eggers
Essay: Past & Future
Past • A lot of bivariate regressions and scaTer plots • Less mulJvariate!!!
– AlternaJve hypothesis? – CompeJng explanaJons? – Factors influencing X?
Future: Your 2nd year essay should focus on these challenges • Spurious? • How do we idenJfy confounders? • How do we control for them?
IR 214 Syllabus 2015-‐2016, page 15
Topic 3: Global Governance and Security
• Ques$on Two: Does the democraJc peace theory represent a challenge to Realism? OR The greater number of democraJc states in the world has made it a more peaceful place. Do you agree?
**Readings **Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark (eds.), Democracy, Liberalism and War: Rethinking the Democra$c Peace Debate (2001) **Brown, Michael, Lynn-‐Jones, Sean and Miller, Steven (eds.), Deba$ng the Democra$c Peace (Cambridge, MA, 1996) **Doyle, Michael, ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vols. 12, 3 and 4 (Summer and Fall 1983) **Kant, Perpetual Peace (1795) in Hans Reiss (ed.), Kant’s Poli$cal Wri$ngs (1991) **Layne, Christopher, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of DemocraJc Peace’, Interna$onal Security 19 (1994), 5-‐ 49 **Mansfield, Edward D. and Snyder, Jack, ‘DemocraJzaJon and the Danger of War’, Interna$onal Security (1995), 20, 5-‐38 **Owen, John, “DemocraJc Peace Research: Whence and Whither?” Interna$onal Poli$cs (2004), 605-‐17 **Rosato, SebasJan, ‘The Flawed Logic of DemocraJc Peace Theory’, American Poli$cal Science Review 97 (2003), 585-‐602
Democra5c Peace Prelims and IR paper
• Monadic DP “democracies more peaceful” • Dyadic DP “democracies don’t fight each others” • Structural DP “more democracies stabilize internaJonal system” Cross-‐secJon Sample = N
Times-‐Series =T TSCS= N*T Dyad-‐Years=((N(N-‐1))/2)*T
DP as EvoluJon of Behavioral/AnalyJcal Study of IR
• Kant's Zum ewigen Frieden
• The classical studies of war – Richardson, Sorokin, Wright
• Babst (1964, 1972)
• Singer & Small (1976), Correlates of War Project
• Rummel (1983), Doyle (1983, 1986)
• Maoz & RusseT (1992, 1993), RusseT (1993)
Democra5c Peace Prelims and IR paper
• Monadic DP “democracies more peaceful” • Dyadic DP “democracies don’t fight each others” • Structural DP “more democracies stabilize internaJonal system”
What is the unit of analysis?
• Dyad-‐year. This means it looks at pairs of states over Jme. Dyadic research design has the benefit of shiying the focus onto the interacJon that exists between two states
• it’s not state A’s level of democracy that maTers, but the relaJonship between state A and state B’s level of democracy.
Empirical PaTern vs ExplanaJon
“Democracies don’t fight each others”
• Why? – NormaJve (Maoz & RusseT 1993) – Structural (Maoz & RusseT 1993) – Signals/InformaJon (Fearon 1994) – Common Interests (Gartzke 1998)
Realists aTack DemocraJc Peace
• It is about alliances (DEM s.s. àomizng an X)
• It is about Cold War period (Jme/sample)
• It is about capabiliJes(DEM s.s. àomizng an X)
• It is about geography DEM s.s. à omizng an X
Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce RusseT. "Alliance, conJguity, wealth, and poliJcal stability: Is the lack of conflict among democracies a sta5s5cal ar5fact?.” Interna9onal Interac9ons 17.3 (1992): 245-‐267.
“Here we use simple bivariate con$ngency tables to analyze the hypotheses”. (page 251)
1) Wealth≠Democracy à cost/befit war 2) Economic Growth ≠Democracy à losing possible benefits 3) Common Alliance≠Democracy à same countries
Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce RusseT. "NormaJve and Structural Causes of DemocraJc Peace, 1946–1986." American Poli9cal Science Review 87.03 (1993): 624-‐638.
KanJan Tripod
• Democracy • Interdependence • Interna$onal Organiza$on
Oneal, John, and Bruce RusseT. "TriangulaJng peace.". New York,: Norton (2001).
CriJcisms the causes of war and of militarized disputes are different. à Different Xs for Different Ys; Y’s opera$onaliza$on
effect of economic interdependence, depend upon a par5cular, complex specificaJon that is inappropriate. à Other Xs results indicate that the effects of the liberal (and realist) variables in their model differ when esJmated with informaJon from 5me series rather than cross sec5onal varia5on. à Sample varia$on
The pacific benefits of democracy and interdependence are spurious and their conflict-‐reducing effects are probably aMributable to economic development à Omi[ed X Oneal, John R., and Bruce RusseT. "Rule of three, let it be?
When more really is beTer." Conflict Management and Peace Science 22.4 (2005): 293-‐310.
Trade Peace
ConJguity
“Enemy Within!!!”
• It is not about democracy is about capitalism!
Democracy Peace
Capital(ist) Flows
Capitalist Peace
Gartzke, Erik. "The capitalist peace." American Journal of Poli9cal Science 51.1 (2007): 166-‐191.
Islam & Authoritarianism
Fish, M. Steven. "Islam and authoritarianism." World poli$cs 55.01 (2002): 4-‐37.
Donno, Daniela, and Bruce RusseT. "Islam, Authoritarianism, and Female Empowerment: What Are the Linkages?." World Poli$cs 56.04 (2004): 582-‐607.
Do Women Need Women RepresentaJves?
What should we control for? • Theory on data generaJng process of Y (War/Peace) – AlternaJve theories ( knowing literature!) • Realism versus democraJc peace • Liberal peace / DemocraJc Peace/ Capitalist Peace
– BeTer measurement/proxy of alternaJve theory • Trade/ Democracy / Financial flows
• Theory on data generaJng process of X (Democracy)
Some other important aspect to consider
• On Unit of analysis – What theory assumes?
• Individuals, groups, state, dyad • On Sample – Geographic Sample – Temporal Sample
• On OperaJonalizaJon – Measurement of Y
• War vs Militarized Disputes – Measurement of X
• LinguisJc FracJonalizaJon vs Horizontal InequaliJes
Ethnicity & Civil War
Fearon, James D., and David D. LaiJn. "Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war." American poli$cal science review 97.01 (2003): 75-‐90.
Re-‐operaJonalizing an X
Cederman, Lars-‐Erik, Nils B. Weidmann, and KrisJan Skrede Gleditsch. "Horizontal inequaliJes and ethnonaJonalist civil war: A global comparison." American Poli9cal Science Review 105.03 (2011): 478-‐495.
Spurious CorrelaJons are Dangerous!!!
Next Weeks à Dave Kirk
• 5. Randomized experiments • 6. AlternaJves to randomized experiments • 7. Threats to internal and external validity • 8. EvaluaJng research and evidence
