The UK’s European university

Lecture 3:
Causation and Correlation

PO326: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

Erik Gahner Larsen
 Context

1. Introduction: Politics and political science

2. Research Question and Theories in Political Science
3. Causation and Correlation
4. Evidence: Matching Observations to Questions and Collecting Evidence
5. (Independent Study Week)
6. Experiments and Ethics
7. Observational (Comparative) Methods
8. Numerical Evidence: Surveys and Other Quantitative Data
9. Quantitative Methods: Evidence and Analysis
10. Qualitative Methods: Evidence and Analysis
11. Objectivity and Values
12. Recapitulation and Reflections

Page 2
 Today

• Causality and correlations

• Causality and theories
• Induction and deduction

• Causal arguments made in politics

• Identify the causal claims in political discussion

Page 3
Page 4
 Causal arguments: the mechanism

XY
• X: Cause, independent variable

• Y: Outcome, dependent variable

• : Causal mechanism
• The process linking X to Y

Page 5
 Causal arguments: example
Dependent
variable

Independent
Page 6
variable
 Problem: We only have one universe

Page 7
 The fundamental problem of causal inference

• When X happens in the world, we do not have access to a

world, where X is not happening.
• Example:

• X (election of Trump)  Y (Anti-muslim hate crimes)

• What we need to talk about causality: World with no
election of Trump

Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
 Correlation

• The relationship between X and Y

• Examples:
Positive correlation No correlation Negative correlation

Page 11
 Why talk about causality?

• Why not say correlation = causation?

• Correlation: When we see specific values of X, we
can predict the values of Y

• Causation: The change in X shapes the change in Y

• The problem: A lot of things can correlate

without being causally related
• Coincidences
• Confounders

• Policy implications: What are the effects of

democracy?
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
 Why talk about causality?

• Potential problems with correlations:

• Spurious relationship
– Confounding variables: X  Z  Y

• Reverse causation: X  Y

• What can we do?

• The topic in lecture 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
• Different methods to substantiate causal
relationships

Page 16
 Example: Education and income

• What is the effect of educational attainment on

income?
• Will you earn more by having a degree?

• What are the causal mechanisms linking

education to income?
• Human capital (knowledge, skills)
– You get smarter by studying

• Personal connections
– You get a network that will help you get a good job

• Signalling
– You get a title showing that you are smart
Page 17
 Example: Education and income

• Challenge with confounders!

• Example:

Page 18
 Theories and causality

Induction Deduction
Theory Theory

Tentative hypothesis Hypothesis

Pattern Observation

Observation Test

Page 19
 Deduction: Climate aid provision

• Starting point: theoretical argument

• Theory: Aid goes to those countries most in
need (e.g. Berthélemy 2006; Clist 2011)
• The more poor a country is  More development aid
• What is “need” in terms of climate aid?
– Vulnerability to climate change impacts

 Hypothesis: More vulnerable countries receive

more climate aid

• We speak of the hypothetico-deductive model

• Theory from development aid  climate aid

Page 20
 Summary of this theory/hypothesis

Vulnerability to climate
Climate related aid
change impacts
(Dependent variable)
(Independent variable)
Financial need to fight
effects of climate
change
(Causal mechanism)

Page 21
 Less vulnerable countries
The causal argument might also frame themselves
as vulnerable to get more aid

Higher
Higher needs
vulnerability to
for investment Higher needs? Do
climate change
donors actually react
to this?

What if donors
don’t care?
Donor countries
prioritize aid

There might be many other

reasons for donors to give aid.
For instance self-interest, good More aid received
governance, colonial ties, etc.

Page 22
 Checking the evidence: data

Page 23
 What’s the causal claim?

As an explanation of the 2011 London riots, one

commentator noted:
“The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles
and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make
them susceptible to guilt or shame. Most have no jobs to go to or
exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for
most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from
which he has decamped. They are illiterate and innumerate..."
(Max Hastings, Daily Mail 2011)
• Identify the causal claim(s)
• Frame each cause you’ve identified as a
counterfactual:
‘If _______________, they would not have rioted’
Page 24
 What’s the causal mechanism?

“A U.S. drone strike hit a vehicle in central Yemen… [just after]

Yemen’s U.S.-backed government collapsed… But what if the drones
themselves are part of the problem? It’s not unreasonable to ask
whether U.S. attacks in the past six years, and particularly the civilian
casualties they have caused, helped to hasten the Yemeni
government’s fall, contributing to the headache now confronting U.S.
counterterrorism efforts.”
(Joshua Keating, Slate Magazine, 2015)

• Identify the causal mechanism(s) – explicit and implicit:

Drone Fall of Yemeni

strikes ? ? government

Page 25
 Conclusion

• Difference between causality and correlation

• “Correlation does not imply causation”

• Important to identify causal claims

• What are the assumptions?

• Important to identify causal mechanisms

• Theories should describe causal mechanisms
• We need methods to test theories (more later)

Page 26
 Open Forum

• Open Forum: a weekly meeting in which staff and

students of all levels (i.e. BA, MA, PhD) come
together for a range of activities.

• Today:
• Is conspiracy theory a key feature of post-truth
politics?
Dr Tim Aistrope
• 12.00-13.00, Rutherford Lecture Theatre 1

• Full programme:
https://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/news-events/open-f
orum.html
Page 27