Meaningful comparisons: Different explanatory approaches in case study research and the analysis of political reforms

How can political reforms be meaningfully analysed in a comparative setting? In this article, I argue that the combination of three different explanatory approaches in case study research can be used as an alternative to small to medium N quantitative approaches of political reforms. First, a co-variation design can be used to assess whether different values of a given independent variable lead to different outcomes. Just like quantitative approaches, co-variation designs rely on the analysis of between-case variation and allow for contingent generalization of the findings to a population of cases that are similar in respect to all control variables. However, unlike quantitative approaches, they allow for the usage of indicators in a more context-sensitive way than more formalized approaches. Second, a causal-process tracing design can be used to identify the causal mechanisms that lead to a specific outcome. Causal-process tracing designs allow for the identification of the configurations of conditions that are necessary and together sufficient for the outcome. Finally, a congruence analysis design can be used to compare the explanatory merits of the different theoretical explanations proposed in the literature. The congruence method follows a deductive logic in the sense that theories are used to formulate observable implications that are subsequently tested against empirical evidence. In this article, I demonstrate the benefits but also the limitations of combining these three explanatory approaches in case study research using the example of the historical development of job security regulations in Western Europe.