Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of Tables and Figures -- Life of Abbreviations -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction -- Introduction -- The basic argument -- The plan of the book -- The object of study - intergovernmental negotiations in the EU -- A note on leadership and influence -- Can EU institutions be treated as unitary actors? -- A note on the empirical material and sources -- 2 Why and When EU Institutions Matter -- Do EU institutions matter? -- Why is leadership necessary in international negotiations? -- Integration theory and leadership by EU institutions -- A leadership model for when EU institutions matter -- Leadership resources -- The impact of the negotiating context -- The choice ofleadership strategy -- Conclusion -- 3 Negotiating the Single European Act -- Introduction - the high-water mark of Commission influence -- The course of the negotiation of the 1985 IGC -- What did EU institutions want in the 1985 IGC? -- The leadership resources of the EU institutions -- The opportunities for leadership created by the negotiating context -- Leadership by EU institutions in the 1985 IGC -- Conclusion -- 4 Negotiating the Treaty of Maastricht -- Introduction - building the European Union -- The negotiation of the 1990-1 IGCs -- What did the EU institutions want in the 1990-1 IGC? -- Changes in the leadership resources of EU institutions since 1985 -- The opportunities for leadership created by the negotiating context -- Leadership by EU institutions in the 1990-1 IGCs -- Conclusion -- 5 Negotiating the Treaty of Amsterdam -- Introduction - Maastricht left-overs -- The course of the negotiation of the Treaty of Amsterdam -- What did the EU institutions want in the 1996-7 IGC? -- Changes in the leadership resources of EU institutions since 1991 -- The opportunities for leadership created by the negotiating context.

This article reviews recent attempts to develop multi-method social scientific frameworks. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying case studies and variance-based approaches, differentiating approaches into bottom-up, case-based and top-down, variance-based approaches. Case-based approaches aim to learn how a causal process works within a case, whereas variance-based approaches assess mean causal effects across a set of cases. However, because of the different fundamental assumptions, it is very difficult for in-depth studies of individual cases to communicate meaningfully with claims about mean causal effects across a large set of cases. The conclusions discuss the broader challenges this distinction has for the study of comparative politics more broadly.

AbstractThis article reviews recent attempts to develop multi-method social scientific frameworks. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying case studies and variance-based approaches, differentiating approaches into bottom-up, case-based and top-down, variance-based approaches. Case-based approaches aim to learn how a causal process works within a case, whereas variance-based approaches assess mean causal effects across a set of cases. However, because of the different fundamental assumptions, it is very difficult for in-depth studies of individual cases to communicate meaningfully with claims about mean causal effects across a large set of cases. The conclusions discuss the broader challenges this distinction has for the study of comparative politics more broadly.

"The Constitutional Treaty and European Union Politics" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article explores the practical challenges one faces when combining Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Process-tracing (PT) in a manner that is consistent with their underlying assumptions about the nature of causal relationships. While PT builds on a mechanism-based understanding of causation, QCA as a comparative method makes claims about counterfactual causal relationships. The consequence of this is that the analyst is forced to choose whether to be more in alignment with one or the other method. The article proceeds in four steps, exploring the challenges and opportunities resulting from two different understandings of causation underlying QCA and PT. The article first presents the research area used to explore the practical challenges of combining the two methods. I investigate the causes of congruence between what voters want and government positions in EU constitutional negotiations, part of the broader phenomenon of the representation of voter views in public policies. The section develops a range of potential causes for congruence from the existing literature. Second, using a QCA-first design I undertake a fsQCA analysis of sufficiency. Utilized in a theory-building fashion, I investigate whether the potential causes identified in the literature form conjunctions of conditions that are together sufficient to produce congruence between voter views and governmental positions. The article only finds one conjunction that is robust: the combination of PR systems and the EU being a highly salient issue in domestic politics (electoral connection). Third, the article engages in a PT case study of two positive cases of the electoral connection conjunction. At the theoretical level, gaming through a causal mechanism for the conjunction suggests that one of the two terms should better be understood as a scope instead of causal condition, providing a better theoretical understanding of the found conjunction. Issues of case selection are then discussed, finding that a restrictive policy in alignment with QCA tenets results in some promising potential cases being rejected. The actual case studies find some evidence for the presence of the hypothesized mechanism, although when we select a case where another conjunction is also present (referendum), there is stronger evidence for the referendum than electoral connection conjunction. Finally, the conclusion discusses the methodological lessons learned in practice, focusing on the need to justify case selection in terms of whether one is more in alignment with either QCA or PT, and the need to make conclusions that are consistent with the types of inferences made possible by PT case studies, i.e. a mechanism produced by a conjunction is either present or not in a case, with no claims made about its necessity or sufficiency.

"Referendums in the European Union" published on by Oxford University Press.

"Process Tracing Methods in the Social Sciences" published on by Oxford University Press.

The questions address the ontological and epistemological implications of taking the 'mechanismic' view of causal mechanisms seriously, suggesting that they are more than events or series of intervening variables. Peter Hall is asked his views on the nature of causal mechanisms, and the logics of inference that we can use to study them in within-case analysis. Adapted from the source document.