Process tracing and judicial resistance to democratic backsliding

Process tracing helps to make causal inferences

Impact evaluations are the gold-standard for inferring if an intervention affected outcomes, but they are not always possible. A seminal research design article describes how researchers can use process tracing to make causal inferences based on qualitative and quantitative data. Process tracing (1) identifies plausible hypotheses about how an outcome occurred, (2) gathers evidence about the events that led to that outcome, and (3) analyzes the evidence to understand how different factors interacted to produce the observed outcome. Pieces of evidence are interpreted as necessary or sufficient to accept a hypothesis. If we lack necessary evidence for a hypothesis, that hypothesis is eliminated. If we have sufficient evidence for a hypothesis, that hypothesis is confirmed. The strongest evidence will both confirm one hypothesis and eliminate rival hypotheses. This research shows how process tracing can complement impact evaluations and provide an alternative when impact evaluations are not possible.

Process tracing helps uncover the conditions under which courts resist backsliding

A recent paper used process tracing to understand when courts in hybrid regimes rule against the incumbent in electoral disputes. Using evidence from Kenya, it finds that courts are more likely to rule against the ruling party when institutional reforms (1) reinforce de jure court independence and (2) mobilize judicial support networks to engage in strategic and repeated litigation. The enactment of provisions seeking to foster de jure independence coupled with the intense scrutiny of the opposition creates an environment where courts can have more to lose when siding with the incumbent. This research demonstrates how institutional reform can foster or undermine democratization.

Do you have a study we should share for a future Facty Friday? Send an email to drg.el@usaid.gov!