Search

The last decade has witnessed resurgence in the interest in studying the causal mechanisms linking causes and effects. This article games through the methodological consequences that adopting a systems understanding of mechanisms has for what types of cases we should select when using in-depth case study methods like process tracing. The article proceeds in three steps. We first expose the assumptions that underpin the study of causal mechanisms as systems that have methodological implications for case selection. In particular, we take as our point of departure the case-based position, where: causation is viewed in deterministic and asymmetric terms, the focus is ensuring causal homogeneity in case-based research to enable cross-case inferences to be made, and finally where mechanisms are understood as more than just intervening variables but instead a system of interacting parts that transfers causal forces from causes to outcomes. We then develop a set of case selection guidelines that are in methodological alignment with these underlying assumptions. We then develop guidelines for research where the mechanism is the primary focus, contending that only typical cases where both X, Y, and the requisite contextual conditions are present should be selected. We compare our guidelines with the existing, finding that practices like selecting most/least-likely cases are not compatible with the underlying assumptions of tracing mechanisms. We then present guidelines for deviant cases, focusing on tracing mechanisms until they breakdown as a tool to shed light on omitted contextual and/or causal conditions.

The article discusses the European Union's response to the Inflation Reduction Act and the shift towards a more interventionist industrial and economic policy. The European Council system, particularly the European Council (EUCO), played a central role in addressing major policy challenges post-crisis. The article examines the impact of the EUCO-centered crisis management system in a post-crisis environment, highlighting the challenges faced in steering major policy developments without the urgency of a crisis. The analysis reveals the continued dependence on the Commission for policy formulation and the need for inter-institutional coordination in a post-crisis setting. [Extracted from the article]

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. Given the need to ensure alignment between the ontological understandings of causation that underlie a method and methodological practice, the different ontological foundations result in methodological guidelines that contradict each other, forcing the analyst to choose whether to be more in alignment with one or the other method. This article explores the implications of contrasting guidelines in a practical case study, where a QCA for sufficiency is followed by two PT case studies of positive cases.

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the combination of two methods on the basis of set theory. In our introduction and this special issue, we focus on two variants of cross-case set-theoretic methods--"qualitative comparative analysis" (QCA) and typological theory (TT)--and their combination with process tracing (PT). Our goal is to broaden and deepen set-theoretic empirical research and equip scholars with guidance on how to implement it in multimethod research (MMR). At first glance, set-theoretic cross-case methods and PT seem to be highly compatible when causal relationships are conceptualized in terms of set theory. However, multiple issues have not so far been thoroughly addressed. Our article builds on the emerging MMR literature and seeks to enhance it in four ways. First, we offer a comprehensive and coherent elaboration of the two sequences in which case studies can be combined with a cross-case method. Second, we expand the perspective and discuss QCA and TT as two alternative methods for the cross-case analysis. Third, based on the idea of analytical priority, we introduce the distinction between a "condition-centered" and a "mechanism-centered" variant of set-theoretic MMR. Fourth, we point attention to the challenges of theorizing and analyzing arrangements of conditions and mechanisms associated with sufficient conjunctions.

This article reconstructs the coming about of the 750 billion EU Covid Recovery Fund. We provide an embedded process‐tracing analysis of the dynamics from mid‐March 2020, when the idea of 'Corona‐bonds' was parachuted onto the Heads' Agenda, up until the 'historic' deal on the Multiannual Financial Framework and Recovery Fund of 21 July. Where most media accounts and scholarly assessments focus on the high‐level deal making between political leaders, we trace the proceedings inside the EU's institutional machinery, which produced the solutions and laid out the groundwork for a deal. The reconstruction assesses the role and influence of the EU institutions – the European Commission in particular – in producing this major step. We show that the process was characterized by a handicapped European Council, which hampered the ability of member states to oversee and control developments. The conclusions discuss the implications of our findings for our understanding of (institutional) leadership and policy making during crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]