Omitted Variables, Intent, And Counterfactuals: A Response to Michael H. Nelson‪.‬

I have written elsewhere: "Where there exists a critical mass of scholars working on similar sets of questions--critiquing and building on one another's work--knowledge accumulation is more likely to occur." (1) It is with this statement in mind that I proceed with my response to Michael Nelson's thoughtful critique on my previous article (see Allen Hicken, "Party Fabrication: Constitutional Reform and the Rise of Thai Rack Thai," Journal of East Asian Studies 6, no. 3 [2006]: 381-407). Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal, I will focus on three of the most interesting and challenging of Nelson's theoretical critiques. The first substantive issue concerns the charge of omitted variable bias--specifically, in reference to the omission of local political groups from a macro-institutional account. The second and third criticisms are more methodological. First, can we or should we ascribe motives to political actors? Second, how can we use counterfactuals to solve problems of observational equivalence? Omitted Variables--What About "X"?