Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [221]
504
Andrew Bennett, Joseph Lepgold, and Danny Unger, “Burden-Sharing in the Persian Gulf War,” International Organization, Vol. 48, No.1 (Winter 1994), pp. 39-75.
505
Andrew Bennett, Joseph Lepgold, and Danny Unger, eds., Friends in Need: Burden-Sharing in the Persian Gulf War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997).
506
In brief, the theory’s explanation for why the coalition for the 2003 War against Iraq was much narrower than that of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War was that, in 2003, there was a much weaker consensus that removing the Iraqi regime was a public good; states were tempted to ride free and reduce the terrorist threat to themselves by not contributing; security dependence on the United States was much lower by 2003 because a resurgent Russian threat was less likely than in 1991; Iraq posed less of a conventional military threat to the region than in 1991; and the domestic politics in many countries made contributions less likely due to rising anti-Americanism.
507
Little, “Causal Explanation in the Social Sciences.”
508
A detailed assessment of early efforts to use case studies for developing policy-relevant materials was published over thirty years ago by Hugh Heclo, who noted “the great untapped potential in the use of case studies for policy analysis.” He pointed to important steps in this direction with publication of Robert Dahl, ed., Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961), Edward Banfield, Political Influence (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1962), and Glenn Paige, The Korean Decision (New York: Free Press, 1968). He also praised Raymond Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Dexter, American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963). See Hugh Heclo, “Review Article: Policy Analysis,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 2, No. 1 (January 1972), pp. 83-108. Meanwhile, research specialists within and outside the government have produced a great deal of policy evaluation research. We have not reviewed this work; much of it is highly specific, in the nature of applied policy research with little effort to contribute to the development of theory. An important example of rigorous policy evaluation research is the work of Robert Yin’s COSMOS organization. He has discussed methods for this type of research in Robert Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Second Edition (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994). The present chapter focuses on the development of theory on substantive policy problems. Another objective of policy research, not addressed in this chapter, is to illuminate and improve the policymaking process. The distinction between substantive theory and process theory is discussed in Alexander L. George, Bridging the Gap (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1993), pp. xxi-xxiii. A quite critical survey of efforts to develop policy process theory via large-N studies is provided by William Blomquist, “The Policy Process and Large-N Comparative Studies” in Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 201-230.
509
Atul Kohli in “Conclusion” to the symposium, “The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics: A Symposium,” World Politics, Vol. 48, No. 1 (October 1995), pp. 1-49. The other participants in the symposium were Peter Evans, Peter Katzenstein, Adam Przeworski, Susanne H. Rudolph, James C. Scott, and Theda Skocpol.
510
This point is also made by Stephen Walt, who decries the fact that much research is “‘method-driven’” rather than “‘problem-driven’ … on topics chosen not because they are important, but because they are amenable to analysis by the reigning méthode du jour.” Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999), pp. 5ff. Walt’s article triggered a spirited debate in International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999),