I. Introduction

A. Paper discussion

1. Identifying theories for your paper requires following up on citations and footnotes – for example, Hasenclever book says "Young and Osherenko (1993a: 8-20) distinguished power-based, interest-based, and knowledge-based hypotheses regarding the formation of regimes" (Hasenclever et al., 6). Use this to find book and read it and identify factors that Young and Osherenko say cause regimes to form.

2. Value of reading footnotes (and of citing properly in your own writing) is it tells you where to find additional information on a topic that may be of interest to you.

B. Causal analysis

C. Factors already coming out, especially in Hasenclever book and in Martin/Simmons article

1. Structure of problem being faced – coordination vs. collaboration

2. Domestic political sources of form and desire for regimes – why and when do domestic policy actors choose to shift policy making "out of their hands" to the international level?

3. Problem with Martin/Simmons article is that there are citations without a reference list!

D. Questions for this week’s class:

1. Is all the definitional discussion in chapter 2 of the Hasenclever book merely intellectualized but meaningless debate? What is the value of the different potential definitions discussed here? Which ones do you think are most useful and why? Be prepared to discuss institutions, regimes, organizations and how they differ. Also think about formal vs. informal institutions and regimes. Also think about norms, rules, principles, and decision-making procedures. How do all these matter to our understanding of international regimes generally?

2. What are the types of factors that the authors you read so far think cause and shape regime formation and regime effectiveness?

3. What seem to be some of the key research questions that these authors say are important to study in international regime research today? Which of these would you like to do your research paper on?

II. Causal analysis and how to do it

A. All theories are explanations of causal relationships.

1. Have all sorts of theories floating around in our heads, even when we don’t think we do.

2. Theories that we will be interested in are causal theories of the form A causes B.

a) "A" causes "B" implies "not A" causes "not B".

b) To evaluate theories of this form need to meet four criteria

(1) Observe different values of independent variable

(2) Observe covariation, i.e., variation in dependent variable associated with variation in independent variable

(3) Observe proper causal direction, i.e., dependent variable is not the cause ("free trade promotes peace" case)

(4) Observe nonspuriousness, i.e., make sure that other independent variables are not the real cause of the variation in the dependent variable.

3. Social science theories influence world in ways different than "hard science" theories do. What we believe is true about the social/political world influences what we do in the social/political world and hence influences and changes what is true in the social/political world.

B. Theories are answers to "why" questions.

1. WHY so can repeat success or avoid repeating failure.

2. Can’t always control things but can know how will turn out so prepared.

3. Real problem is not "no theories" but "theories we trust that just ain’t true."

4. Basic goal: test theories against facts to increase accuracy of theories to better reflect real causal relationships in world.

C. Three types of causal questions we tend to ask: Why does a given thing vary? What are effects of variation in one thing? What are effects of one thing on another?

1. What is a variable? What is a dependent variable? What is a value of a dependent variable?

a) Variable is some thing that we are interested in which can vary. That is, some thing which can have at least two values.

b) Dependent variable = effect. Its what comes second or after. Sun comes up and then earth gets warm, not the other way around.

c) Independent variable = cause. It comes first and causes variation in dependent variable.

d) Sometimes not always clear which direction causality runs. Does economic growth encourage environmental degradation or does environmental degradation lead to economic growth or both?

2. Focus on specific DV: What causes something to vary? What are the causes of a given phenomena?

a) Some environmental problems are addressed, others are not. Why?

b) Some nations treat environment better than others. Why?

c) Seeking to explain causes of a dependent variable. I.e., interested in any independent variables responsible for value of specified dependent variable.

3. Focus on specific IV: What are effects of variation in something?

a) What are effects of international regimes? On action, policy, knowledge, views.

b) What are effects of NGOs? On beliefs, policy, environmental protection, media?

c) Particular cause but not clear about what effects are or want to investigate all?

4. Focus on specific IV and specific DV: What are the effects of variation in one thing on another?

a) Do international treaties effect state behavior?

b) Does a country’s type of government effect its treatment of the environment?

c) Does free trade help or harm the environment?

d) Particular causes and their effects. Independent variables of interest and trying to identify how they effect certain dependent variables.

D. Simple, one IV version of theory

1. Theoretical claim: Free trade ("more open economies") harms the environment.

2. Counterfactual component of theoretical claim: Protectionism ("more closed economies") helps the environment.

(the counterfactual is usually an implicit part of the theoretical claim)

3. One observable implication of theoretical claim (there could be others): Since the implementation of NAFTA (or EU or Mercosur), the environment of the US, Canada, and Mexico have all been degraded more quickly than they would have been if NAFTA had not been implemented.

a) What are other observable implications of this theory?

4. Counterfactual observable implication: Had NAFTA (or EU or Mercosur) not been implemented, the environment of the US, Canada, and Mexico would have been in better shape than it has been with NAFTA implemented.

F. Great complexity dealt with by Homer-Dixon, arguing can’t use these methods.

III. Steps to a convincing causal argument (from Mitchell and Bernauer, Jnl of Environment and Dev 7:1 March 1998)

A. Identifying an important theoretical question: Innovative causal analyses of IEP frame questions or empirical puzzles so that they address existing theoretical debates in the field, are targeted at causal relationships, and relate to current policy concerns. A particularly productive way to frame research involves evaluating the explanatory power of competing hypotheses or theories against evidence from relatively few cases.

B. Developing hypotheses and identifying variables: Translate general research questions or puzzles into explicit hypotheses with independent, dependent, and control variables. The analyst should identify the possible values of each variable and the evidence that could falsify her hypotheses. Studies making a single causal claim and concentrating on particular explanatory variables often produce more valid and reliable results than those making numerous claims.

C. Selecting cases: The most productive causal research focuses on theory first (tasks one and two) and selects empirical cases later. As with quantitative studies, valid inferences in qualitative research require more cases than explanatory variables. Cases are a phenomena for which we observe a single value for each variable in a hypothesis. Careful case selection seeks to approximate experimental conditions by holding specific exogenous (control) variables constant. The analyst can strengthen her causal claims by selecting "hard cases" in which the values of control variables make it unlikely that the explanatory variable will produce the theoretically-predicted value of the dependent variable.

1. Cases in which all variables are working against the finding you are looking for. Healthy skepticism.

2. Make sure other variables are controlled for by "knowing that all sets of observations have been exposed to the same values of third variables, even though we cannot control these variables" (Stinchcombe, 37).

D. Linking data to propositions: The analyst should operationalize variables to facilitate valid and reliable measurement. The methods of the research process should be transparent to, and reliably replicable by, other researchers. Measurement will ideally be based on several different, but complementary operationalizations of the variables.

E. Examining correlations and causal pathways: The analyst should systematically assess whether explanatory and dependent variables correlate as predicted by theory and investigate whether identified correlations reflect causal relationships. Causal analysis must be based on evaluating the predicted and observed values of the DV, the corresponding causal narratives, and potential rival hypotheses.

F. Generalizing to other cases: Closing the research cycle requires relating findings back to the broader theoretical questions that motivated the research. The researcher should critically assess how far the findings generalize to other cases. Since internal validity is a necessary precondition for external validity, and since the researcher often must trade-off these two goals, internal validity should take precedence over external validity. Careful case selection facilitates generalizing findings accurately across a larger set of conditions.

IV. Completing causal theory

A. All theory involves "radical simplifications" of the real world (69) as a way to sort through the complexities of the world to come up with a causal understanding of what we observe. Theory seeks to identify which factors are more important than others, to distinguish general from unique causes.

B. Key to be able to distinguish:

1. Variables from values

2. Independent variables from dependent variables.

3. Good cases from bad.

C. Correlation or causation?

1. Dave Barry: correlation between ozone hole and rap music

2. Two types of correlation

a) Obviously wrong – Barry’s ozone case, stork case

b) Correlated by underlying factor - institutions case

D. General rule:

1. DV and IV must covary, otherwise IV cannot have caused variation in DV in these cases. Though IV could still generally cause variation in DV.

2. If DV varies while IV is constant, then IV can’t be a real cause (though may be permissive cause). Example: theory that corporate greed (IV) prevents international agreement (DV), but corporate greed is unlikely to vary, but agreements get signed. Lack of greed may make agreement easier but doesn’t explain why were able to get agreement in this case, since greed didn’t change.

3. If DV is constant while IV varies, then IV can’t be a real cause either. Example: theory that improved knowledge about environmental harm (IV) causes more environmentally benign behavior (DV), but if in comparing two cases find that new information does not change behavior, then new behavior wasn’t a cause in this case, e.g., television power usage article.

V. Summary of lecture part of class

A. What is causation?

B. What are variables, IVs, DVs, CVs?

C. How do you test theories?

VI. Basic elements of regime theory

A. Power – realism

B. Interests – neoliberalism

C. Ideas and identity – constructivism

D. Notice how Kratochwil and Ruggie show that realism and neoliberalism are both rationalist – i.e., they are both based on notions that states attempt to pursue their interests in power and wealth. Important to understanding of how theories are formed and revised in response to other theories.

E. Better to think in terms of variables rather than theories

1. Variables work together or are in competition but they are shared by competing theories – e.g., institutionalists do NOT think that power or ideas don’t matter

F. Thinking about definition of regimes

1. Behavioral definition – if its only a regime if at least some actors comply than what are treaties that are ignored? Isn’t it analytically valuable to have regimes that "don’t work?" Doesn’t this help separate causes from effects rather than entangling them definitionally?

2. Explicit or implicit rules

G. Questions for this week’s class:

1. Is all the definitional discussion in chapter 2 of the Hasenclever book merely intellectualized but meaningless debate? What is the value of the different potential definitions discussed here? Which ones do you think are most useful and why? Be prepared to discuss institutions, regimes, organizations and how they differ. Also think about formal vs. informal institutions and regimes. Also think about norms, rules, principles, and decision-making procedures. How do all these matter to our understanding of international regimes generally?

2. What are the types of factors that the authors you read so far think cause and shape regime formation and regime effectiveness?

3. What seem to be some of the key research questions that these authors say are important to study in international regime research today? Which of these would you like to do your research paper on?

VII. How do regimes form? Necessity is not the mother of invention, so how can they arise?

A. Problems regimes arise to resolve

1. General source of regime: one or more states see status quo as suboptimal and believe that contingent behavior coordinated with other states will lead them better off

2. At least three basic types of problems regimes arise to respond to:

a) Coordination

b) Collaboration:

c) Asymmetric externalities

B. Hegemonic provision: powerful states can help states overcome the collective action problem, since they receive enough benefits to make it worthwhile to provide the regime

1. Benevolent variant

2. Malevolent variant

C. Collective action – despite difficulty can work sometime

D. Political and normative entrepreneurs

1. Suggest a regime that no one expects to work at first

2. Gains power over time

E. Organic development from tacit or informal regimes

1. Law of the sea and 6 then 12 mile territorial seas based on length of canon shots

VIII. What do regimes do? Functions of regimes: because regimes provide means of doing these things better than could accomplish independently, states willing to invest in them.

A. Generally, attempt to make it more likely that others behave as you desire and less likely that they don’t.

1. Increase costs of noncompliance

2. Increase benefits of compliance

3. Clarify what is expected.

B. Manage complexity: reduce decisions to be made, e.g., tariff levels, environmental legislation

C. Increase reciprocity: specific (arms control, tariff levels) and diffuse (human rights)

1. Increase iteration: single behavior seen as part of larger game, e.g., political dissidents

2. Formalize linkages: financial mechanisms in ozone treaty

3. Reciprocity through operation of norms

D. Reduce transaction costs: easier to negotiate single multilateral trade or environment treaty, rather than multitude of bilateral ones. One long agreement within single forum (e.g., oil pollution regulation) rather than string of separate agreements.. GATT/WTO is perfect example

E. Changes legitimacy of actions: need to justify certain actions in different ways

F. Improve information: joint information has more credibility, can’t collect information individually. Reduces misperception and miscommunication

G. Establish normative expectations and increase costs of certain rhetorical strategies relative to others

IX. Why do regimes succeed? Sources of regime success

A. How do we define success? Different types of regimes to accomplish different goals

1. Regulatory: establish set rules and induce compliance. Oil pollution

2. Programmatic: establish ongoing programs for things that don’t exist otherwise. International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

3. Procedural: ongoing process for making complex and interdependent decisions. Scientific research regimes. International whaling commission or fisheries treaty

B. Defining effectiveness: different definitions

1. Variety of definitions for any regime – what would it mean in a given regime?

a) What’s the proper definition of success of NAFTA?

2. Behavior-changing: compliance with rules, but can be broader.

3. Problem-solving: have you resolved problem that motivated creation of regime?

a) Behavior change not always sufficient. Too late, too little, too hard problem.

b) Can’t solve some problems. Can only manage them.

4. Goal achievement vs. Counterfactual definition of effectiveness

a) Did regime lead to achievement of goals?

b) Did regime lead to outcomes that were different than would have been otherwise?

c) Glass is half empty, Glass is half full: often regimes fail at goal achievement effectiveness but succeed at counterfactual effectiveness. E.g., whaling, endangered species, tariffs (not yet zero)