Suchergebnisse

Scholars conducting small-N research often deploy ancillary or peripheral cases that are intended to evaluate the more general validity of the findings of their core case studies. Yet we lack a clear set of methodological guidelines for these ancillary cases.2 Drawing on scholarship in the comparative politics subfield for examples, I identify two broad approaches to ancillary cases—the case illustration and the shadow case study. The case illustration, which consists of showing that outcomes in additional cases match what we expect given theory generated from the core case and the values of independent variables in those additional cases, is widely used to evaluate the generality of findings. Part One of the paper argues that this common practice is not as analytically valuable as it could be. I show that the case illustration approach faces challenges to both external and internal validity and propose a larger-N alternative to assessing claims of generality instead.

Abstract: How did local authorities in nineteenth‐century England raise the money to finance the building of roads, sewers, gasworks, schools, and hospitals? The literature on local government and capital markets is silent on this question. This article reveals the size of the municipal capital market, how and why it developed, and how it performed. It shows that most of the capital came from private individuals and institutions, with central government having only a modest role. Avoiding defaults, protecting lenders, the move towards standardization, and the development of open markets were all important in improving the credibility of borrowers and reducing the cost of debt. The article also reveals that the municipal capital market shared many similarities with the wider capital market.

From Wiley via Jisc Publications Router ; History: received 2021-03-28, rev-recd 2021-09-28, accepted 2021-10-07, pub-electronic 2021-10-25 ; Article version: VoR ; Publication status: Published ; Funder: NIHR Policy Research Programme; Grant(s): PR‐R16‐0516‐22001 ; Abstract: Research has demonstrated that pilots contain multiple shifting purposes, not all of which relate to simple policy testing or refinement. Judging the success of policy pilots is therefore complex, requiring more than a simple judgment against declared goals. Marsh and McConnell provide a framework against which policy success can be judged, distinguishing program success from process and political success. We adapt Boven's modification of this framework and apply it to policy pilots, arguing that pilot process, outcomes and longer‐term effects can all be judged in both program and political terms. We test this new framework in a pilot program in the English National Health Service, the Vanguard program, showing how consideration of these different aspects of success sheds light on the program and its aftermath. We consider the implications of the framework for the comprehensive and multifaceted evaluation of policy pilots.