IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v21y2013i02p193-216_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Much Is Minnesota Like Wisconsin? Assumptions and Counterfactuals in Causal Inference with Observational Data

Author

Listed:
  • Keele, Luke
  • Minozzi, William

Abstract

Political scientists are often interested in estimating causal effects. Identification of causal estimates with observational data invariably requires strong untestable assumptions. Here, we outline a number of the assumptions used in the extant empirical literature. We argue that these assumptions require careful evaluation within the context of specific applications. To that end, we present an empirical case study on the effect of Election Day Registration (EDR) on turnout. We show how different identification assumptions lead to different answers, and that many of the standard assumptions used are implausible. Specifically, we show that EDR likely had negligible effects in the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. We conclude with an argument for stronger research designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Keele, Luke & Minozzi, William, 2013. "How Much Is Minnesota Like Wisconsin? Assumptions and Counterfactuals in Causal Inference with Observational Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 193-216, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:21:y:2013:i:02:p:193-216_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013358/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Owens, 2021. "Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1349-1360, July.
    2. Scott Gates & Mogens K. Justesen, 2020. "Political Trust, Shocks, and Accountability: Quasi-experimental Evidence from a Rebel Attack," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(9), pages 1693-1723, October.
    3. Weiss, Amanda, 2024. "How Much Should We Trust Modern Difference-in-Differences Estimates?," OSF Preprints bqmws, Center for Open Science.
    4. Luis Ricardo Fraga & Ricardo Ramírez & Bernard L. Fraga, 2023. "American Democracy and Voter Suppression," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 227-242, July.
    5. Esterling, Kevin & Brady, David & Schwitzgebel, Eric, 2021. "The Necessity of Construct and External Validity for Generalized Causal Claims," OSF Preprints 2s8w5, Center for Open Science.
    6. Esterling, Kevin M. & Brady, David & Schwitzgebel, Eric, 2023. "The Necessity of Construct and External Validity for Generalized Causal Claims," I4R Discussion Paper Series 18, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    7. Charron, Nicholas & Rothstein, Bo, 2016. "Does education lead to higher generalized trust? The importance of quality of government," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 59-73.
    8. Jähnen, Stefanie & Helbig, Marcel, 2015. "Der Einfluss schulrechtlicher Reformen auf Bildungsungleichheiten zwischen den deutschen Bundesländern: eine quasi-experimentelle Untersuchung am Beispiel der Verbindlichkeit von Übergangsempfehlungen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 67(3), pages 539-571.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:21:y:2013:i:02:p:193-216_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.