|
|
|
|
Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP!
You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
Social scientists increasingly exploit natural experiments in their research. Unlike true experiments, natural experiments are observational studies in which the researcher does not manipulate the political and social world to introduce a “treatment” and a “control.” However, unlike other observational studies, in a natural experiment the researcher claims that the assignment of subjects to treatment and control groups is random or “as if” random. This paper surveys recent applications in political science, with the goal both of illustrating the utility of natural experiments in a variety of substantive contexts and of delineating the sorts of inferential issues over which natural experiments may offer analysts less leverage. When treatment assignment is less than “as if” random, studies may be something less than natural experiments, and familiar threats to valid causal inference in observational settings can arise. Even in natural experiments that exploit a true randomizing device, the leverage provided by natural experiments can sometimes be limited by both internal and external validity concerns. These issues are quite common and, as I show, they may restrict the usefulness of the widespread practice of exploiting natural experiments as a source of instrumental variables in regression analyses. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
experi (123), natur (110), polit (102), lotteri (81), random (80), may (77), studi (71), incom (67), treatment (64), use (61), win (55), variabl (54), group (53), assign (52), attitud (51), snow (42), control (40), cholera (39), instrument (37), effect (36), exampl (36), |
Author's Keywords:
|
natural experiment, natural experiments, instrumental variables, qualitative methodology, quantitative methodology, methodology |
|
 | Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association
URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Dunning, Thad. "Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, Sep 01, 2005 <Not Available>. 2011-03-14 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41968_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Dunning, T. , 2005-09-01 "Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2011-03-14 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41968_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Social scientists increasingly exploit natural experiments in their research. Unlike true experiments, natural experiments are observational studies in which the researcher does not manipulate the political and social world to introduce a “treatment” and a “control.” However, unlike other observational studies, in a natural experiment the researcher claims that the assignment of subjects to treatment and control groups is random or “as if” random. This paper surveys recent applications in political science, with the goal both of illustrating the utility of natural experiments in a variety of substantive contexts and of delineating the sorts of inferential issues over which natural experiments may offer analysts less leverage. When treatment assignment is less than “as if” random, studies may be something less than natural experiments, and familiar threats to valid causal inference in observational settings can arise. Even in natural experiments that exploit a true randomizing device, the leverage provided by natural experiments can sometimes be limited by both internal and external validity concerns. These issues are quite common and, as I show, they may restrict the usefulness of the widespread practice of exploiting natural experiments as a source of instrumental variables in regression analyses. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
application/pdf |
| Page count: |
44 |
| Word count: |
12391 |
| Text sample: |
| Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments Thad Dunning Department of Political Science University of California Berkeley To be presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association Washington D.C. Aug. 31-September 5 2005. Abstract Social scientists increasingly exploit natural experiments in their research. Unlike true experiments natural experiments are observational studies in which the researcher does not manipulate the political and social world to introduce a “treatment” and a “control.” However unlike other observational |
| Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (2): 233-252. Sinclair Barbara. 1999. “Transformational Leader or Faithful Agent? Principal-Agent Theory and House Majority Party Leadership.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (3): 421-449. Snow John. 1855. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. Churchill London. Reprinted in Snow on Cholera London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press 1936. Stasavage David. 2003. “Transparency Democratic Accountability and the Economic Consequences of Monetary Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 389-402. Tedin Kent L. 1994. “Self-Interest Symbolic Values |
Similar Titles:
Risk Salience and Political Participation: The Effects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Voting Behavior of Parents, A Natural Experiment
The External Validity of Treatments: A Comparison of Natural and Survey Experiments
Randomization Inference with Natural Experiments: An Analysis of Ballot Effects in the 2003 California Recall Election
|
|
