Abstract

The demonstration of causal relationships among variables has been central to the social sciences for their entire existence, but there has been an upsurge of concern about causal inference over at least the past decade This increased interest in causation has coincided with the increased use of experimental methods, in all the social sciences, and especially in political science and economics. These two trends are wedded because, at least in part, the advocates of experimental methods argue that they are the best, if not the only way, to demonstrate causation. The argument of this paper is that although experimentation is an important weapon in the armamentarium of scholars, it should (like any technique) be considered with some skepticism. Skepticism about any method is always warranted, but this study is particularly concerned with the difficulties in demonstrating causation through experiments – or any other method – in comparative policy analysis. Hence, the title of this paper asks whether we have been too casual in thinking that our research problems are solved by selecting this technique, although the same can be said for advocates of studying causation through regression-based methods. In short, we need to be very cautious, rather than casual, when making claims about causation.

摘要

变量之间因果关系的证明一直是社会科学的核心，但至少在过去十年中，对因果推理的关注激增。对因果关系的兴趣增加与实验方法使用的增加相吻合，在所有社会科学领域，尤其是在政治学和经济学领域。这两种趋势是结合在一起的，至少部分原因是，实验方法的倡导者认为，如果不是唯一的方法，它们是证明因果关系的最佳方法。本文的论点是，尽管实验是学者们武器库中的重要武器，但它（像任何技术一样）应该以某种怀疑的态度来考虑。对任何方法的怀疑总是有道理的，但这项研究特别关注在比较政策分析中通过实验或任何其他方法证明因果关系的困难。因此，本文的标题询问我们是否过于随意地认为我们的研究问题是通过选择这种技术来解决的，尽管对于通过基于回归的方法研究因果关系的倡导者来说也是如此。简而言之，在提出因果关系时，我们需要非常谨慎，而不是随意。尽管对于通过基于回归的方法研究因果关系的倡导者来说也是如此。简而言之，在提出因果关系时，我们需要非常谨慎，而不是随意。尽管对于通过基于回归的方法研究因果关系的倡导者来说也是如此。简而言之，在提出因果关系时，我们需要非常谨慎，而不是随意。