Putting the Special Case in Its Place: Switzerland and Small‐N Comparison in Policy Research

This research note presents a set of strategies to conduct small‐N comparisons in policy research including the Swiss case. Even though every country can be considered “special” to some extent, the Swiss political system is often viewed as a particularly difficult case for comparison because of the impact of its idiosyncratic institutional features (most notably direct democracy). In order to deal with this problem, our note sets out two possible strategies ‐ the use of functional equivalents and of counterfactual reasoning ‐ and explains how to implement them empirically through process tracing and the establishment of causal chains. As an illustration, these strategies are used for a comparison of the process of electricity market liberalisation in Switzerland and Belgium.     

Set‐theoretic Multimethod Research: The Role of Test Corridors and Conjunctions for Case Selection

Set‐theoretic multimethod research (SMMR) using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) formalizes the choice of cases based on a truth table analysis. We make three recommendations for improving SMMR. First, current standards can lead to faulty case selection if causal inference on a conjunction is the goal. Case selection needs to take into account that the non‐members of a conjunction might be empirically diverse and that only selected types of non‐members are ideal for causal inference. Second, we formally show that cases with similar fuzzy‐set memberships in a term and the outcome are the superior choice for process tracing. They minimize the expected membership in the mechanism and make it most difficult to pass a hypothesis test. Third, we propose formulas that comply with all SMMR principles and identify the best pairs of cases for analysis. We illustrate our arguments with a study of the effectiveness of sanctions against authoritarian regimes.