Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [172]
The author chose to focus on interactions in three issue areas: crisis management, economic relations, and arms control. These issue areas were chosen for several reasons, among them their high degree of salience in the overall relationship.
Part Two of the study employed structured, focused comparison to assess the ways in which U.S.-Soviet interactions in these three issue areas varied under different systemic conditions. To highlight the comparison, Caldwell selected cases from the first and third periods. This enabled the author to make a sharper assessment of the importance of the shift from acute Cold War to détente on their interaction in the three issue areas. (A number of other criteria also entered into case selection). After identifying all significant U.S.-Soviet interactions during these two periods, Caldwell selected one major case in each issue area for each of the two periods:
The comparison of matched cases enabled Caldwell to identify the extent to which U.S. and Soviet interaction differed in each issue area in each period and to develop plausible explanations for the contrasting outcomes. A variety of factors were considered in explaining outcomes.691 Caldwell gave particular attention to the development of procedures, rules, and new U.S.-Soviet institutions over the course of the entire period that led to at least a partial regime for each issue-area.692 A number of reasons for differences in U.S.-Soviet crisis management behavior in the Cuban Missile Crisis and October War cases are discussed.693 Following the onset of the Cold War, several important norms were developed for managing crises to prevent unwanted escalation.
Figure A.3. U.S.-Soviet Interactions Under Different Systemic Conditions
Since Caldwell was writing on recent, often controversial aspects of superpower relations, very little classified data was available. Therefore, he worked with a range of readily available sources and he interviewed former U.S. policymakers.694
THOMAS F. HOMER-DIXON, ENVIRONMENT, SCARCITY, AND VIOLENCE. PRINCETON, N.J.: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1999.
This book synthesizes the findings of a large number of research projects Homer-Dixon has directed since 1989 that involved more than one hundred experts from fifteen countries. These studies, together with research by other groups, reveal a clearer picture of the links between “environmental stress” and “violence” that the author presents in this most recent of his many publications. Homer-Dixon emphasizes the difficulty of identifying the causal role that environmental scarcity plays in social breakdown and violence. The picture he provides in this book is “still, in some ways, only a preliminary sketch,” though useful observations are presented in detail.
Homer-Dixon stresses that the research program did not aim to identify all the factors that cause violent conflict around the world; “rather it sought to determine whether a specific factor—environmental scarcity—can be an important cause of conflict.”695 This required careful clarification of key concepts and a focus on the possible causal roles of environmental scarcity. The author also found it advisable to narrow the scope of the problem in several ways. First, he moved from the very broad class of events identified as “environmental security,” which “encompasses an almost unmanageable array of sub-issues,” to a narrower focus on how environmental stress affects conflict rather than security. But this, he finds, still leaves the problem “too vast,” and he narrows it further by focusing only on “how environmental stress affects violent national and international conflict.”696 Therefore, Homer-Dixon follows the procedure of defining an important subclass of a larger phenomenon in order to undertake useful research.
Homer-Dixon relies on process-tracing