Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Ex Ante at the Data Level
Conclusions
References

Causality, Confounding, and Control

Profile image of M. MouchartM. Mouchart

2006

Abstract

In a previous paper, Russo et al.(2006), causality is considered in the framework of structural models, ie statistical models characterized by parameters that are stable over a large class of interventions or of environmental changes and that take into account background and contextual knowledge. From this statistical viewpoint, causality is defined in terms of exogeneity in a structural model. This approach allows us to attain a concept of causality that is internal or relative to the structural model itself. Thus our knowledge of causal relations ...

Related papers

Causality, Confounding, and Simpson’s Paradox
Asad Zaman

International Econometric Review

This is an introductory article which explains the importance of explicit consideration and modeling of causality, contrary to current econometric practice, in order to use data set for extraction of meaningful information. One of the easiest to understand approaches to causality is via Simpson's paradox. We will use this paradox, framed in different real-world contexts, to provide an introduction to basic concepts of causality.

View PDFchevron_right
Statistical Modelling and Causality in the Social Sciences
Guillaume Wunsch

2000

View PDFchevron_right
Statistical Modelling and Causality in the Social Science
M. Mouchart, Guillaume Wunsch

2000

View PDFchevron_right
Three Concepts of Causal Mechanism in the Social Sciences
Tuukka Kaidesoja

J. Erola, P. Naumanen, H. Kettunen & V-M. Paasivaara (eds.). 2021. Norms, Moral and and Policy Changes: Essays in honor of Hannu Ruonavaara. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. pp.81-101.

View PDFchevron_right
Explanation and causality: Some suggestions from econometrics
Maria Carla Galavotti

Topoi, 1990

View PDFchevron_right
Causality in Econometric Modeling. From Theory to Structural Causal Modeling
Guillaume Wunsch

SSRN Electronic Journal

This paper examines different approaches for assessing causality as typically followed in econometrics and proposes a constructive perspective for improving statistical models elaborated in view of causal analysis. Without attempting to be exhaustive, this paper examines some of these approaches. Traditional structural modeling is first discussed. A distinction is then drawn between model-based and designbased approaches. Some more recent developments are examined next, namely history-friendly simulation and information-theory based approaches. Finally, in a constructive perspective, structural causal modeling (SCM) is presented, based on the concepts of mechanism and sub-mechanisms, and of recursive decomposition of the joint distribution of variables. This modeling strategy endeavors at representing the structure of the underlying data generating process. It operationalizes the concept of causation through the ordering and role-function of the variables in each of the intelligible sub-mechanisms.

View PDFchevron_right
Causality: models, reasoning and inference
Mark Louise Pacis

2000

This book seeks to integrate research on cause and effect inference from cognitive science, econometrics, epidemiology, philosophy, and statistics+ It puts forward the work of its author, his collaborators, and others over the past two decades as a new account of cause and effect inference that can aid practical

View PDFchevron_right
Causality as validity: some implications for the social sciences
Rafael Antonio Rodriguez Moreno

Quality and Quantity, 2008

We analyse the concept of causality in the social sciences, whose development is insufficient and lesser than the methodology developed for its study. The nature of the causal process as the production of effects remains unclear and the relationships considered to be manifestations of that process cannot be taken for proof of its existence. Given these difficulties, we suggest that, aside from the inherited interpretations, the practice of the concept of causality makes reference to correctly specified relationships not confounded by others; characteristics identical to those which define validity. In that way, causality is equivalent to the validity of a relationship. Beyond merely re-understanding causality, this proposal permits the deduction that the temporal precedence of the cause is a necessary condition only for one type of causality, making it possible to consider other types, not admitted by the traditional notion, in which the cause is consequent or simultaneous to the variable to be explained. Examples and characteristics of these types of causality are presented and considered to be useful for the social sciences.

View PDFchevron_right
Higher‐Level, Downward and Specific Causation
Max Kistler

The Interventionist account of causation (Woodward 2003) seems to provide a rigorous framework for evaluating the possibility of downward causation. However, it has turned out 1) that only a modified version (Woodward 2014) of interventionism can be applied to situations of apparent downward causation and that 2) this model, though compatible with downward causation, makes it in principle impossible to find empirical support for downward causation (Baumgartner 2013). In this paper I show in which sense downward causation can be justified by using more fine-­‐grained notions of causation, such as stable, proportional and specific causation (Woodward 2010). In particular, the intervention on a higher-­‐level variable H(t) with respect to a lower-­‐level variable P(t*) (where t* is later than t) may be more proportional compared to the parallel intervention on lower-­‐level variable R(t) w.r.t. to P(t*), if R(t) is too determinate with respect to P(t*), i.e. if an intervention on R(t) is not necessary for manipulating P(t*).

View PDFchevron_right

References (49)

  1. Anderson S., Auquier A., Hauck W.W. , Oakes D., Vandaele W., and Weisberg H.I. (1980), Statistical Methods for Comparative Studies, Wiley, New York.
  2. Barndorff-Nielsen O. ( 1978), Information and Exponential Families in Statistical Theory, New York: John Wiley.
  3. Bartecchi C.E., Mackenzie T.D., Schreir R.W. (1995), The global tobacco epidemic, Sci- entific American, 272(5), 26-33.
  4. Bollen K.A. (1989 ), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Cartwright N. (1979), Causal laws and effective strategies, Nous, 13, 419-417.
  6. Coale A.J. (1973). The demographic transition reconsidered, Proceedings of the International Population Conference, Volume 1, IUSSP, Liége, 53-72.
  7. Courgeau D. (2002). Réflexions sur Régression et analyse géométrique des données, Henry Rouanet et al. , unpublished ( personal communication).
  8. Courgeau D. (2003), From the macro-micro opposition to multilevel analysis in demography, chapter 2 in D. Courgeau (Ed.), Methodology and Epistemology of Multilevel Analysis, METHODOS Series N 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 43-91.
  9. Cox D.R. and Wermuth N. (2004), Causality: a statistical view, International Statistical Re- view, 72(3), 285-305.
  10. Dawid A.P. (2002), Influence diagrams for modelling and inference, International Statistical Re- view, 70, 161-189.
  11. Ellett F. and Ericson D. (1983), The logic of causal methods in social science, Synthese, 57, 67-82.
  12. Elwood J.M. (1988), Causal Relationships in Medicine, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  13. Engle R.F., Hendry D.F. and Richard J.-F. (1983), Exogeneity, Econometrica, 51(2), 277- 304.
  14. Fisher R.A. (1957), Alleged dangers of cigarette smoking, British Medical Journal, II, 297-298.
  15. Fisher R.A. (1958), Lung cancer and cigarettes, Nature, 182, July 12, p. 108.
  16. Florens J.-P. and Mouchart M. (1985), Conditioning in Dynamic model, Journal of Times Series Analysis, 53 (1), 15-35.
  17. Florens J.-P., Mouchart M. and Rolin J.-M. (1990), Elements of Bayesian Statistics, New York: Marcel Dekker.
  18. Freedman D. (1999), From association to causation: some remarks on the history of statistics, Statistical Science, 14(3), 243-258.
  19. Gaumé C. and Wunsch G. (2003), Health and Death in the Baltic States, in I. E. Kotowska and J. Jozwiak (eds.), Population of Central and Eastern Europe. Challenges and Opportu- nities, Statistical Publishing Establishment, Warsaw, 301-325.
  20. Gérard H. (2006), Theory building in demography, chapter 129 in G. Caselli, J. Vallin, and G. Wunsch, Demography. Analysis and Synthesis, Volume 4, Academic Press, San Diego, 647-660.
  21. Greenland S. and Brumback B. (2002), An overview of relations among causal modelling methods, International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1030-1037.
  22. Hernán M.A., Hernández-Diaz N., Werler M.M., and Mitchell A.A. (2002), Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epi- demiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, 155(2), 176-184.
  23. Holland P.W. and Rubin D.B. (1988), Causal inference in retrospective studies, Evaluation Review, 12(3), 203-231.
  24. Hood Wm. C. and Tjalling C. Koopmans (editors) (1953), Studies in Econometric Methods, Cowles Foundation Monograph 14, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  25. Irzik G. (1986), Causal modelling and the statistical analysis of causation, PSA 1986, 12-23.
  26. Jenicek M. and Cléroux R. (1982), Epidémiologie, Maloine, Paris.
  27. Kesteloot H., Sans S., and Kromhout D. (2006), Dynamics of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in Western and Eastern Europe between 1970 and 2000, European Heart Journal, 27(1), 107-113.
  28. Khlat M. (1994), Use of case-control methods for indirect estimation in demography, Epidemio- logic Reviews, 16(1), 124-133.
  29. Lee M-J (2005), Micro-Econometrics for Policy, Program and Treatment Effects, Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford.
  30. Leridon H. and Toulemon L. (1997), Démographie. Approche statistique et dynamique des populations, Economica, Paris.
  31. Mackie J.L. (1974), The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  32. Mill J.S. (1889), A system of logic, Longmans, Green and Co., London.
  33. Mouchart M. and A. Oulhaj (2000), On Identification in Conditional Models, Discussion paper DP0015, Institut de statistique, UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve (B).
  34. Mouchart M. and Vandresse M. (2005), Bargaining Power and Market Segmentation in Freight Transport, to appear in Journal of Applied Econometrics.
  35. Oulhaj A. and M. Mouchart (2003), The Role of the Exogenous Randomness in the Identifi- cation of Conditional Models, to appear in Metron.
  36. Pearl J. (2000), Causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  37. Reichenbach H. (1956), The direction of Time, University of California Press. Reprinted (2000), Dover Publications, Mineole, N.Y.
  38. Robins J.M. (2001), Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference, Epidemiology, 11(3), 313-320.
  39. Rothman K.J. and Greenland S. (1998), Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edition, Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia.
  40. Rouanet H. (1985), Barouf á Bombach, Bulletin de Mthodologie Sociologique, 6, 3-27.
  41. Russo F., M. Mouchart, M. Ghins and G. Wunsch (2006), Statistical Modeling and Causality in Social Sciences, Working paper submitted for publication.
  42. Schlesselman J.J. (1982), Case-Control Studies -Design, Conduct, Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York.
  43. Spirtes P., C. Glymour and R. Scheines (2000), Causation, Prediction and Search, second edition, Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press.
  44. Suppes P. (1970), A Probabilistic Theory of Causality, Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
  45. Taylor R. (1966), Action and Purpose, Prentice-Hall., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  46. Vallin J., Caselli G., and Surault P. (2006), Behavior, lifestyles, and sociocultural factors of mortality, chapter 51 in G. Caselli, J. Vallin, and G. Wunsch, Demography. Analysis and Synthesis, Volume 2, Academic Press, San Diego, 143-170.
  47. Wunsch G. (2002), The life table: a demographic overview, in G. Wunsch, M. Mouchart, and J. Duchêne (Eds.), The Life Table. Modelling Survival and Death, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 13-31.
  48. Wunsch G. (2006), Confounding variables, standarization, and the problem of summary indices, chapter 15 in G. Caselli, J. Vallin, and G. Wunsch, Demography. Analysis and Synthesis, Volume 1, Academic Press, San Diego, 197-208.
  49. Wunsch H., Linde-Zwirble W.T., and Angus D.C. (2006), Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data, Journal of Critical Care, 21(1), 1-7.

Related papers

Confounding and Control in a Multivariate System : An issue in causal attribution
Michel Mouchart

RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2013

It is widely agreed that, in establishing whether variable X causes variable Y, a third variable Z may confound the relation and thus hinder causal assessment. The solution developed within the 'traditional' framework is to control for any third variable, susceptible of confounding the relation between X and Y. This paper examines complex systems of variables, characterised by multiple causes and multiple effects. The paper advances the view that in such contexts confounding is a moot issue, under a suitable specification of the causal model. When networks of causal relations are considered, possible confounders are included in the appropriate causal paths from the causes to the outcome. The challenge for the model builder then amounts to developing a structural model that specifies the role of variables in each path, rather than just controlling for possible confounders.

View PDFchevron_right
Structural Modelling, Exogeneity, and Causality
Michel Mouchart

The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis, 2009

This paper deals with causal analysis in the social sciences. We first present a conceptual framework according to which causal analysis is based on a rationale of variation and invariance, and not only on regularity. We then develop a formal framework for causal analysis by means of structural modelling. Within this framework we approach causality in terms of exogeneity in a structural conditional model based which is based on (i) congruence with background knowledge, (ii) invariance under a large variety of environmental changes, and (iii) model fit. We also tackle the issue of confounding and show how latent confounders can play havoc with exogeneity. This framework avoids making untestable metaphysical claims about causal relations and yet remains useful for cognitive and action-oriented goals.

View PDFchevron_right
Causality, structural modelling and exogeneity
Michel Mouchart

IAP Statistics Network, Institut de Statistique, 2007

This paper deals with causal analysis in the social sciences. We first present a conceptual framework according to which causal analysis is based on a rationale of variation and invariance, and not only on regularity. We then develop a formal framework for causal analysis by means of structural modelling. Within this framework we approach causality in terms of exogeneity in a structural conditional model based on (i) model fit,(ii) invariance under a large variety of environmental changes, and (iii) congruence with ...

View PDFchevron_right
Causality in the Social Sciences: a structural modelling framework
M. Mouchart

Quality & Quantity

There is no unified theory of causality in the sciences and in philosophy. In this paper, we focus on a particular framework, called structural causal modelling (SCM), as one possible perspective in quantitative social science research. We explain how this methodology provides a fruitful basis for causal analysis in social research, for hypothesising, modelling, and testing explanatory mechanisms. This framework is not based on a system of equations, but on an analysis of multivariate distributions. In particular, the modelling stage is essentially distribution-free. Adopting an SCM approach means endorsing a particular view on modelling in general (the hypothetico-deductive methodology), and a specific stance on exogeneity (namely as a condition of separability of inference), on the one hand, and in interpreting marginal-conditional decompositions (namely as mechanisms), on the other hand.

View PDFchevron_right
Causal Inference and Modeling
Tuukka Kaidesoja
View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved