Download 2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws

III. Varieties of Social Explanation:
An Introduction to the Philosophy
By Daniel Little
Causal Analysis:
1. The Meaning of Causal Claims
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
3. The Inductive-Regularity Criterion
4. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
6. Conclusion
Mi-Ae Wartenbee
1
Causal Analysis
 Introduction: Social Scientists are interested in
establishing causal relations among social
sciences, and make different sort of causal
claims.
 The variety of causal claims:
• Singular causal judgment
• Generic causal relations
• Causal relevance claims
• Probabilistic causal claims
2
Introduction: A variety of factors
function as either C or E in social analysis
■
Variables:
• Individual & Collective actions
• Social structures & relations
• State activity
• Forms of organization
• System of norms & values
• Cultural modes of representation
• Geographic & ecological features of an environment
– Why are bandits more common on the periphery of a
traditional society than in the core?
 Variety of causal claims and variables in SS 
impossible to provide a coherent analysis of social
causation?? But,
3
Introduction:
 A broad ranged of social explanation within
the variants will emerge, depending on
causal reasoning with certain qualifications:
 The causal assertions don’t depend on simple
generalizations across social properties—rarely depend
on a simple inductive generalization.
 These claims depend on an analysis of the specific
causal mechanisms that connect C & E.
 The mechanisms (of social causal explanation) involve
reference to the beliefs & wants, powers & constraints
that characterize the individuals’ action → influence the
social phenomenon.
4
1. The Meaning of Causal Claims
What does it mean that condition C is a cause of outcome E? SS seeks:
-- to identify the conditions that produced the explanandum or its distinctive features
-- to discover the conditions existing prior to the event that were sufficient for the event
 Three Ideas involving in causal reasoning:
■
Causal Mechanism (CM): the most fundamental
* C is a cause of E → a series of event Ci leading from C to E and the transition
from each Ci to Ci+1 is governed by one or more laws Li (connecting C & E)
■
The Inductive Regularity (IR)
* C is a cause of E → a regular association b/w C & E type events (the idea of a
correlation b/w 2 or more variables)
■
The Necessary & Sufficient Condition (NSC)
* C is a cause of E → C is a necessary &/or sufficient condition for the
occurrence of E
 The central task of a causal explanation is to discern
that causal mechanisms and the laws on which it
depends.
5
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
 What is a causal mechanism?
 a series of events (connecting C & E) governed by
law-like regularities that lead from the explanans to
the explanandum—a chain phenomenon: given the
properties of C & the laws that govern such events,
C1 occurred→C2 →C3….Cn, E occurred.
 described the causal mechanisms linking C to E
 demonstrated how the occurrence of C brought to E
 eg) a bolt is left loose on an automobile wheel
• Explanans:
• Explanandum:
–reconstruct to establish a finding (a loose bolt→ an accident)
6
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
 Are there causal mechanisms underlying social
phenomena?
 Depends on availability of law like regularities
 Eg-a mechamism) the extension of new trolley lines
into the outlying districts of a major city  the quality
of public schools in the city↓
• Accessible to jobs in the city
• Middle class workers → living in the outlying districts
exodus to the suburbs w/ resources & amenities
• An effect: the emergence of a greater stratification b/w city &
suburb → concentration of the poor & lack of resources for
ed. in the city
7
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
 Cont’d (the new trolley lines)
 Depended on a series of social events → each links
in this causal chain
 Described the mechanism connecting the new trolley
to the degradation of the city school system
 Pointed about causal reasoning in connection w/
social phenomena:
• the mechanisms that link C & E are grounded in the
meaningful, intentional behavior of individuals—eg. RCT &…
 Social phenomena are constituted by individuals
whose behavior is the result of their rational decisionmaking & non-rational psychological processes.
• Cf> distinguished from natural science
8
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
 What sorts of thing have causal properties
that affect social phenomena?
 Through the actions & beliefs of the
individuals who embody it:
 Actions of individuals & groups
 Features of individual character & motive structure
 Properties of social structures, institutions & orgs,
moral & ideological properties of groups &
communities
 New technological opportunities
 New cultural development
 …& more
9
2-1. Eg) Causes of the Taiping Rebellion by Kuhn:
an argument about the mechanisms that
mediated social causation
 Eg) a shift in the balance of power b/w the
Chinese central gov→ local elites
 Why did this occur?
1) Elites managed to wrestle control of local militarization from
the state bureaucracy and to create effective local militias.
2) Elites managed the orgs against the Taipings.
3) Elites managed the T. because the Qing regime was
administratively overextended and because Q military
arrangement was not well designed to control rebellion.
4)This local militarization led to a permanent weakening of the
center and an increase of local power and autonomy.
10
2-1 Cause of the Taiping Rebellion
(cont’d)
 Analysis
 Two causal connections:
• administrative weakness→ the creation of local militias
• The creation of local militias →a further weakening of the political
power of the imperial center
 1) & 2) =factual claims
• Established on the basis of appropriated historical research
 3)=a claim about the causes of 1) & 2)
• Presented a “how possible” question
 4)=a claim about 1)’s causal consequences
• Presented an analysis of the consequences of establishing effective
local military orgs—a permanent shift in the balance of power b/w
the state & local elites
 The strength of argument: the plausibility of the
mechanisms through which these changes occurred
as specified in historical narrative.
11
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
This account of causal mechanisms is
based on the idea of a law-like
regularity:
 Causal relations derive from the laws that
govern the behavior of the entities involved
 Hempel’s account of causal explanation:
• Causal explanation is a special type of deductive
nomological explanation
 because a certain event or (s) can be said to
have caused a specified “effect” only if there are
general laws connecting the former w/ the latter in
such a way…that the occurrence of the effect can
be deduced with the help of cases.
12
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
 Causal laws:
 Be deterministic: all objects without exception are governed by
the law –eg) the law of gravitation
 Be probabilistic: Mendel’s law of inheritance—eg) both parents
have one-half recessive gene (blue eyes)-25% of blue eyes
offspring
 Are there causal laws among social phenomena?
 Regularities underlying social phenomena that can be called
“causal”--reflect facts about individual agency.
• The fact that agents are prudent and calculating about their
interests produces by RCT (game theory, microeconomics, & social
choice theory)
• The fact that human beings conform to a loose set of psychological
laws permits to draw C & E relations b/w a given social environment
& a pattern of individual behavior
 Social causation depends on regularities that derive from the
properties of individual agents.
13
2. Mechanisms and Causal Laws
Implications of the findings:
 Social regularities are weaker and more
exception-laden than natural causation.
 Claims about social causation are more
tentative and probabilistic than claims about
natural causation.
 RCT-regularities-provide the ground for
causal relations among social phenomena.
No processes of social causation that
are autonomous from regularities of
individual action.
14
3. The Inductive-Regularity
Criterion (IRC)
 here, only the basics of inductive reasoning about
discrete variables (Vas.)
 The Humean notion: causal relations consist only in
patterns of regular association b/w Vas., classes of
events, & the like.
 A pair of Vas., C & E are causally related if & only if there is a
regularity conjoining events of type C & E
• Inflation vs. civil unrest
• A regular association b/w periods of inflation & subsequent periods
of civil unrest
 The idea of association b/w discrete Vas. E & C can be
expressed in terms of conditional probability (if & only if).
 Eg) Marital status → suicide rates
• E: the circumstances of ♀’s suicide
• C: the property of ♀’s being divorced
• P(E)≠P(E/C)
15
3. The Inductive-Regularity
Criterion (IRC)
 Eg) a social explanation that depends
explicitly on an inductive method
 Tong’s study of collective violence in the Ming dyns.:
 “condition-probability” analysis
 Let’s look at P. 23
 Findings:
 The most rebellions occur when the probability of
surviving hardship is lowest & survival as an outlaw is
greatest (1.79), and the fewest occur in the two cells
in the upper right (0.12).
 A correlation b/w the two independent vas. & the
incidence of banditry
 Infer that there is a causal relation b/w the probability
of survival as outlaw an the occurrence of banditry
16
3. The Inductive-Regularity
Criterion (IRC)
 The evaluation of the IRC
 Start with the discovery of an IR, connecting 2 or
more vas. & correlations—evidence of causal
relations.
 The IR claims that a causal relation can be reduced to
facts about correlation & conditional probabilities.
• Yet, two errors: false positives & false negatives:
 the best remedy:
 identifying the causal mechanisms that produce the observed
regularities & mediate C & E
• Forming a hypothesis about the mechanism at work in the
circumstances is the best way to avoid the a spurious
correlation b/w vas.
17
3. The Inductive-regularity
Criterion-Conclusion
 The IRC is a secondary to the CMC: there is
a causal relation b/w 2 vas. if & only if there
is the CM connecting them.
 The IR is useful for identifying possible
causal relations, yet needs investigation(s)
of underlying causal process before
concluding a causal relation exists.
 The IRC should be understood as a source of
causal hypotheses & a method to evaluate
them empirically—not as a definition of
causation.
18
4. Necessary & Sufficient
Conditions (NSC)
 Causal claims involve identifying the NSC for
the occurrence of an event.
 A causes B if & only if:
1. A is a necessary condition for the occurrence of B;
2. A belongs to a set of conditions C that are jointly sufficient to
give rise to B
 Yet, the account is unsatisfactory. Why?
 Eg) the presence of oxygen vs. the occurrence of
combustion
 A single condition is almost never a sufficient
condition for the occurrence of another event.
 Instead, the conjunction of a set of conditions (jointly)
is normally needed to supply for a sufficient condition.
19
4. Necessary & Sufficient
Conditions (NSC)
 Makie refines the concept of the NSC by
introducing the INUS condition:
 An “insufficient but necessary part of a condition
which is itself unnecessary but sufficient for the
result”—eg) combustion vs. dry paper/ a fire vs. a
short circuit
 There may be alternative sets of conditions, which are
sufficient to bring about the event.
• A is a cause of P if & only if it is a part of an INUS condition
of P:
• A is an INUS condition of a result P if & only if, for some X
and Y, (AX or Y) is necessary and sufficient condition of P.
• But, A is not a sufficient condition of P, & X is not a sufficient
condition of P.
20
4. Necessary & Sufficient
Conditions (NSC)
The defect of the analysis of causal
relations in terms of the NSC:
 Is tied to the fact that some causal relations
are probabilities rather than deterministic
 Eg) Poor communications among
superpowers during crisis increases the
likelihood of war.
• Is a probabilistic claim
• Defines a causal variable (poor communication)
• Asserts that this variable increases the probability
of a given outcome (war)
• But, cannot be translated into a claim about the
NSC for war
21
4. Necessary & Sufficient
Conditions (NSC)
 The INUS conditions holds in cases where
deterministic laws govern the relations among
events.
 In the case of social phenomenon, it is implausible to
suppose that the underlying regularities are
deterministic.
 But, there is alternative available, in the forms of the
concept of causal relevance—the NSC can be
generalized in terms of comparison of conditional
probabilities.
 If C is a necessary condition for E, then the probability of E in the
absence of C is zero (P(E-C)=o)
 If C is a sufficient condition for E, then the probability of E in the
presence of C is one (P (E/C)=1)
 C is enhancing causal factor in P(E/C)> P(E)
 C is inhibiting causal factor in P(E/C<P(E)
 Eg 2-3) Poverty & instability in Latin America, p.28 (2-3)
22
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
1) the Case-Study Method
 The investigator examines the history of the
event in detail to arrive at a set of causal
hypotheses about its course.
 Eg) the Chinese Revolution—why did it occur in the a
time and circumstances that it did and take the form
of a radical peasant revolution rather than an urban
liberal democratic movement?—a causal question
 The investigator’s goal--to discover circumstances in
the history of the event that are causally relevant
• Circumstances that had credible effects on the occurrence,
timing, or character of the event
 The central difficulty in this type of problem is to deal
with a unique series of events, all of which are
antecedent to later events in the historical process.
23
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
1) the Case-Study Method
 The most common way to support a causal
analysis—
 Is to provide an account of the particular causal
mechanisms linking various parts of the story
•
The purpose of historical narrative—to establish the series
of events that lead from C to E
 Two forms of inference to identify causal
mechanisms
1. A deductive approach--establishing causal
connections between social factors based on a
theory of the underlying processes
•
•
•
Singular event α is followed by event β
Eg.) Prices for cotton↓  Chinese peasant activism
Supported by theoretical analysis of peasant political
motivation, focusing on the connection between peasant
economic security & political behavior
24
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
1) the Case-Study Method
(cont’d)
2. An inductive approach,
• justifying the claim that a caused b on the ground
that events of type A are associated with events of
type B
• Depends on statistical correlations or on
comparative analysis
• The strength of the causal assertion depends on
the discovery of a regular association b/w event
types.
25
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
1) the Case-Study Method
The construction of a causal story
based on a particular case requires:
1. Detailed knowledge about the sequence of
events within the large historical process
2. Credible theoretical or inductive hypotheses
about various kinds of social causation
• Eg) a hypothesis: the depression increased the
likelihood that a revolutionary peasant movement
would succeed
• the hypothesis depends on several kinds of
knowledge
• Presuppositions:
26
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
1) the Case-Study Method
Conclusion
 Involves the detailed study of a particular
sequence of social events & processes
 Depends on identifying particular causal links
among historical events & circumstances
 Requires more than the knowledge of
temporal succession among the events
• Needs a theoretical or inductive basis for asserting
that a given historical circumstance affected the
occurrence & character of a subsequent
circumstances
• A several forms of reasoning-comparative method
& analysis of particular causal mechanisms
27
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
2) Comparative Method
Defines that embodies a range of
similar characteristics w/ certain
salient differences
 What explains different outcomes in
apparently similar circumstances?
 Eg) P.31
The investigator
 Identifies a small number of cases in which
the phenomenon of interest occurs in varying
degrees
 Attempts to isolate the causal processes that
lead to different outcomes
28
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
2) Comparative Method (eg. P.34-5)
 Requires the details of the cases & an effort
to develop hypotheses about the cases’
causal dynamics
 Looks at the details of a few cases to probe
the mechanisms of change, the details of
the processes, & the presence or absence of
specific factors
 Skocpol’s definition: the overriding intent is
to develop, test, & refine causal,
explanatory hypotheses about events or
structures integral to macro-units such as
nation-states.
 Ragin’s: Comparativists are interested in the
similarities & differences across macrosocial units.
29
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
3) Mill’s Methods (MMs)
John S. Mill (System of Logic): the
methods of agreement & difference
 Aim that identifying the cause of an event by
observing variations in antecedent conditions
for repeated occurrences of the event.
 Reason that if a given outcome is present in
the 1st case & absent in the other, there must
be a causal factor present in the 1st case that
is lacking in the latter.
30
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
3) Mill’s Methods
 Discover the cause of an event P in a
causal field of a range of relevant
factors (A, B,C, D, E), which should be
necessary & sufficient for the
occurrence of P. (P.36)
 P: the success of a union-organizing drives
and the causal factors are:
•
•
•
•
•
A: falling real wages
B: urban setting
C: skilled labor force
D: authoritarian management style
E: industrial company
31
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
3) Mill’s Methods
 Do the findings permit one to conclude that
A is a sufficient condition for P?
 Yes, only if one can assume that (A,B,D,D,& E) is an
exhaustive set of causal factors for the occurrence of
event P.
 Otherwise, it is possible that the covariance of A & P
is accidental—in the typical case, it will be an open
question whether there are other as yet unidentified
causal factors.
 If one is not sure about the exhaustiveness, one can
conclude that only A out of the set (A,B,C, D,&E) is
potentially necessary & sufficient cause of P, & only
A, B, & E are potentially necessary conditions for P.
32
5. Forms of Causal Reasoning
3) Mill’s Methods
 MMs can’t handle complex & probabilistic
causation:
 MMs are well designed only for cases where people
have single conditions that are necessary and
sufficient for the occurrence of the outcome
 MMs require demanding conditions for their
application:
• A complete list of relevant causal conditions
• A pair of observations in which P occurs and doesn’t occur
• Information about the occurrence or nonoccurrence of each
other relevant conditions
 Yet, MMs underlie much reasoning about
causation in the social science.
33
6. Conclusion
 The fundamental idea underlying causal reasoning in
social science(s) is that of a causal mechanisms.
 To claim that C caused E is to claim that there is a causal
mechanism leading from the occurrence of C to the occurr. of E:
 The concept → the basis for two other ideas about causation:
• Causal judgments correspond to inductive regularities
The discovery of an inductive regularities b/w variables is a reason
to expect a a causal connection b/w them.
• Causal judgments express claims about the NSC
The occurrence of C enhances the probability of the occur. of E.
 The central causal process underlying social change
derives from rational-intentional behavior on the part
of individuals an intimate connection b/w causal &
rational explanation (next chap.).
34