比较政策分析中的因果关系:JCPA特刊导论

G. Fontaine, I. Geva‐May
{"title":"比较政策分析中的因果关系:JCPA特刊导论","authors":"G. Fontaine, I. Geva‐May","doi":"10.1080/13876988.2021.2013715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The problem raised by causality in comparative policy analysis is twofold. First, how can we be sure there is actually a causal relationship between two variables, factors or events? Second, what do we really know about the causal forces, the individual motivations and the institutions at work between the alleged explanandum and the explanans (and vice versa)? The answer to these questions depends on whether we intend to predict what can or will happen if the same cause is present at different points in time or space, or whether we are willing to explain a causal process linking a trigger (i.e. a cause, a factor or a determinant) to an outcome, a result or an effect. To contribute to the discussion, we build on a typology of models of causation, coined as “regularity” (if causality is about generalizations based on constant variations), “necessity” (if it is about causal powers at work in contingent situations), “ideal-type” (if it is about historical patterns or chains of events), and “social construction” (if it is about actors’ frames and values). Each model fulfills a different purpose when addressing causality. The article explains how these models work and command the selection and utilization of the methods. This introduction discusses the contribution to the discussion made by the four articles included in this special issue, which are organized by model of causation.","PeriodicalId":15486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","volume":"14 1","pages":"1 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causality in Comparative Policy Analysis: Introduction to a Special Issue of the JCPA\",\"authors\":\"G. Fontaine, I. Geva‐May\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13876988.2021.2013715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The problem raised by causality in comparative policy analysis is twofold. First, how can we be sure there is actually a causal relationship between two variables, factors or events? Second, what do we really know about the causal forces, the individual motivations and the institutions at work between the alleged explanandum and the explanans (and vice versa)? The answer to these questions depends on whether we intend to predict what can or will happen if the same cause is present at different points in time or space, or whether we are willing to explain a causal process linking a trigger (i.e. a cause, a factor or a determinant) to an outcome, a result or an effect. To contribute to the discussion, we build on a typology of models of causation, coined as “regularity” (if causality is about generalizations based on constant variations), “necessity” (if it is about causal powers at work in contingent situations), “ideal-type” (if it is about historical patterns or chains of events), and “social construction” (if it is about actors’ frames and values). Each model fulfills a different purpose when addressing causality. The article explains how these models work and command the selection and utilization of the methods. This introduction discusses the contribution to the discussion made by the four articles included in this special issue, which are organized by model of causation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.2013715\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2021.2013715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

比较政策分析中的因果关系问题是双重的。首先,我们如何确定两个变量、因素或事件之间确实存在因果关系?其次,我们对所谓的解释者和被解释者之间的因果力量、个人动机和起作用的制度(反之亦然)到底了解多少?这些问题的答案取决于我们是否打算预测如果同一原因在不同的时间或空间出现会发生什么,或者我们是否愿意解释将触发因素(即原因、因素或决定因素)与结果、结果或效果联系起来的因果过程。为了促进讨论,我们建立了因果关系模型的类型学,创造了“规律性”(如果因果关系是基于不断变化的概括),“必要性”(如果它是关于偶然情况下的因果力量),“理想类型”(如果它是关于历史模式或事件链)和“社会构建”(如果它是关于演员的框架和价值观)。在处理因果关系时,每个模型都有不同的目的。本文阐述了这些模型的工作原理,并指导了方法的选择和使用。这篇引言讨论了本期特刊中包含的四篇文章对讨论的贡献,这些文章是按因果关系模型组织的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Causality in Comparative Policy Analysis: Introduction to a Special Issue of the JCPA
Abstract The problem raised by causality in comparative policy analysis is twofold. First, how can we be sure there is actually a causal relationship between two variables, factors or events? Second, what do we really know about the causal forces, the individual motivations and the institutions at work between the alleged explanandum and the explanans (and vice versa)? The answer to these questions depends on whether we intend to predict what can or will happen if the same cause is present at different points in time or space, or whether we are willing to explain a causal process linking a trigger (i.e. a cause, a factor or a determinant) to an outcome, a result or an effect. To contribute to the discussion, we build on a typology of models of causation, coined as “regularity” (if causality is about generalizations based on constant variations), “necessity” (if it is about causal powers at work in contingent situations), “ideal-type” (if it is about historical patterns or chains of events), and “social construction” (if it is about actors’ frames and values). Each model fulfills a different purpose when addressing causality. The article explains how these models work and command the selection and utilization of the methods. This introduction discusses the contribution to the discussion made by the four articles included in this special issue, which are organized by model of causation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lending Overlap in Europe’s Financial Architecture: A Comparative Analysis Comparing Policy Feedback Effects in Federal Systems: The Case of Provincial Indigenous Consultation Policies in Canada Tackling the Digital Divide? A Comparative Policy Analysis of International Organizations’ Varying Approaches to the Digitalization of Education Qualitative Comparative Policy Studies: An Introduction from the Special Section Editors An Indicator-Based Approach to Comparative Policy Analysis: Measuring Regional Governance of Migrant Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1