I. Introduction

A. Lecture on causality, causal thinking, and theory testing.

B. MAJOR POINT OF TODAY'S LECTURE AND MUCH OF REST OF COURSE:

1. We can have confidence that "A" caused something in the world if we can find evidence and build a compelling argument that things in the world turned out differently with A in the world than they would have otherwise.

2. As an example, we can have confidence that a treaty caused environmental improvement if we can find evidence and build a compelling argument that the environment was in better shape than the environment would have been if the treaty had not been negotiated.

3. This is a very difficult concept to grasp but taking time to really figure out what this means will help you understand the course and its major points much better.

C. How to get ideas for your research paper -

1. Find THEORETICAL and CAUSAL questions that are of interest to the field, not just to you. Remember, goal is to produce new knowledge rather than regurgitate existing knowledge

2. Questions would be not only "did this treaty work?" but what aspect of the treaty explains why it worked. This is best addressed by such strategies as:

a) comparing one treaty with some feature and one without it,

b) examining a treaty that adopted a feature (sanctions, rewards) after the treaty had been around a while, or

c) comparing how two different types of countries responded to a treaty - this would go to whether developed countries are more (or less) responsive to the rules of a treaty, perhaps shedding light on issues of capacity as a prerequisite for compliance.

d) Many other options we can discuss

3. Do NOT think about issues or environmental problems that interest you as the place to start – that is not likely to be a successful strategy. Re-read the Mitchell/Bernauer piece and think about it.

II. Causality

A. Some questions we might ask about international environmental politics?

1. Factual/descriptive – saying what the state of play is.

2. Normative – making judgments about where things are or how things should be.

3. Prescriptive – suggesting what should happen.

4. This class is about causal questions – what causes one thing to happen. Causes and effects.

5. Examples of causal questions from class.

B. Why these questions matter.

1. Here is an example from the NYTimes (8/31/2004) of "when good intentions (but no causal analysis) goes wrong":

a) "Monkey Preserve Backfires: How do you protect a critically endangered species? A common way is to create reserves that are off limits to development or hunting. But in northern Vietnam, efforts to protect a rare monkey species, Delacour's langur, from poachers by creating reserves have backfired. The problem, says the group Conservation International, is that the reserves are more densely forested than nonreserve areas. Poachers favor the reserves because they can go undetected. As a result, the group reported at a meeting of the International Primatological Society in Italy last week, the monkeys are nearing extinction. Their numbers have declined about 50 percent during the past decade, to 300. Efforts to save about 120 of these are being stepped up. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E5DC1731F932A0575BC0A9629C8B63

2. Food aid to Sudan causes continuation of the war

3. Don’t ask, don’t tell caused worse treatment of gays in the military

4. Economic proposals to aid eastern Europe made things worse except in Poland and Slovenia

5. Common theme: how do we propose policies on some basis other than "lets hope that it works"

C. Theories are answers to "why" questions.

1. WHY so can repeat success or avoid repeating failure.

2. Can’t always control things but can know how will turn out so prepared.

3. Real problem is not "no theories" but "theories we trust that just ain’t true."

4. Basic goal: test theories against facts to increase accuracy of theories to better reflect real causal relationships in world.

D. All theories are explanations of causal relationships.

1. Have all sorts of theories floating around in our heads, even when we don’t think we do.

2. Theories that we will be interested in are causal theories of the form A causes B.

a) "A" causes "B" implies "not A" causes "not B".

b) To evaluate theories of this form need to meet four criteria

(1) Observe different values of independent variable

(2) Observe covariation, i.e., variation in dependent variable associated with variation in independent variable

(3) Observe proper causal direction, i.e., dependent variable is not the cause ("free trade promotes peace" case)

(4) Observe nonspuriousness, i.e., make sure that other independent variables are not the real cause of the variation in the dependent variable.

3. Social science theories influence world in ways different than "hard science" theories do. What we believe is true about the social/political world influences what we do in the social/political world and hence influences and changes what is true in the social/political world.

E. To say X caused Y is, more accurately, to say:

1. The presence or occurrence of X caused the difference between outcome O+Y (an outcome in which Y was present or occurred) and some specified alternative outcome O (an outcome in which Y was not present or did not occur) if, under a set of conditions which were similar in all other respects, X had not been present or occurred, outcome O would have occurred but Y would not have been present or occurred.

2. We can also think of this in probabilistic terms: The presence or occurrence of X can be said to have increased the likelihood of a difference between outcome O+Y (an outcome in which Y was present or occurred) and some specified alternative outcome O (an outcome in which Y was not present or did not occur) if, under a set of conditions which were similar in all other respects, X had not been present or occurred, outcome O would have occurred but Y would have been less likely to have been present or occurred.

3. Several key distinctions

a) Causes of differences in outcomes, not whole outcomes: X is not a cause of the whole outcome but only the difference between the observed outcome and some specified alternative outcome. The alternative outcome is often implicit and underspecified.

b) Very few causes are sufficient causes: X is almost never the cause of Y under all conditions but only under a set of specific conditions (i.e., when a set of control variables take on a particular set of values). Thus, "reducing temperature to 0o C causes water to freeze" is true only under condition that water is pure and at sea level. Many conditions under which "0o C causes water to freeze" is not true (e.g., salt water, water under pressure).

c) Very few causes are necessary causes: To say X is a cause of Y does not imply that B cannot also be a cause of Y. That is, if B is also a potential cause of Y, then under identical conditions to those specified above, had B (which was not present in the original case) actually been present and X had not been present, outcome O+Y would have occurred.

F. Three types of causal questions we tend to ask: Why does a given thing vary? What are effects of variation in one thing? What are effects of one thing on another?

1. What is a variable? What is a dependent variable? What is a value of a dependent variable?

a) Variable is some thing that we are interested in which can vary. That is, some thing which can have at least two values.

b) Dependent variable = effect. Its what comes second or after. Sun comes up and then earth gets warm, not the other way around.

c) Independent variable = cause. It comes first and causes variation in dependent variable.

d) Sometimes not always clear which direction causality runs. Does economic growth encourage environmental degradation or does environmental degradation lead to economic growth or both?

2. Focus on specific DV: What causes something to vary? What are the causes of a given phenomena?

a) Some environmental problems are addressed, others are not. Why?

b) Some nations treat environment better than others. Why?

c) Seeking to explain causes of a dependent variable. I.e., interested in any independent variables responsible for value of specified dependent variable.

3. Focus on specific IV: What are effects of variation in something?

a) What are effects of international regimes? On action, policy, knowledge, views.

b) What are effects of NGOs? On beliefs, policy, environmental protection, media?

c) Particular cause but not clear about what effects are or want to investigate all?

4. Focus on specific IV and specific DV: What are the effects of variation in one thing on another?

a) Do international treaties effect state behavior?

b) Does a country’s type of government effect its treatment of the environment?

c) Does free trade help or harm the environment?

d) Particular causes and their effects. Independent variables of interest and trying to identify how they effect certain dependent variables.

G. Simple, one IV version of theory

1. Theoretical claim: Free trade ("more open economies") harms the environment.

2. Counterfactual component of theoretical claim: Protectionism ("more closed economies") helps the environment. (the counterfactual is often only an implicit part of the theoretical claim)

3. One observable implication of theoretical claim (there could be others): Since the implementation of NAFTA (or EU or Mercosur), the environment of the US, Canada, and Mexico have all been degraded more quickly than they would have been if NAFTA had not been implemented.

a) What are other observable implications of this theory?

4. Counterfactual observable implication: Had NAFTA (or EU or Mercosur) not been implemented, the environment of the US, Canada, and Mexico would have been in better shape than it has been with NAFTA implemented.