Advertisement

Researching Customization: The Data, the Methods, and the Cases

  • Eva Thomann
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the data, methods and cases that form the basis of the empirical study. The research presented here was originally a comparative research project that provided advice to the Swiss federal government about ensuring legal equivalence with community law. In order to explore the patterns, causes and consequences of customization, I employ a nested comparative case study design using innovative set-theoretic methodologies. Veterinary drug policies regulate important aspects of food safety in the EU single market. I compare their customization in four older member states—Austria, France, Germany and the United Kingdom—and the differentially integrated non-member, Switzerland. These countries are comparable in their regulatory contexts, but each of them displays distinct patterns of differentiated implementation.

Keywords

Customization Comparative research design Set-theoretic methods 

Supplementary material

432312_1_En_3_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (269 kb)
FVO report Austria (PDF 287 kb) (PDF 268 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (316 kb)
FVO report France (PDF 832 kb) (PDF 315 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (237 kb)
FVO report Germany (PDF 4090 kb) (PDF 237 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (288 kb)
FVO report Switzerland (PDF 604 kb) (PDF 287 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (832 kb)
FVO report UK (PDF 268 kb) (PDF 832 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (4 mb)
Sager et al 2011pdf (PDF 315 kb) (PDF 4090 kb)
432312_1_En_3_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (604 kb)
Thomann 2018_United in diversity_supplementary online appendix (PDF 237 kb) (PDF 604 kb)

References

  1. Angelova, M., Dannwolf, T., & König, T. (2012). How robust are compliance findings? A research synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 19, 1269–1291 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.705051
  2. Baumgartner, M., & Thiem, A. (2015). Model ambiguities in configurational comparative research. Sociological Methods & Research, 46, 954–987 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115610351
  3. Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455–476 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918
  4. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research (1st ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daugbjerg, C. (2012). Globalization and internal policy dynamics in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy-making state? Policy dynamics in the EU (1st ed., pp. 88–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Lucia, L., & Kronsell, A. (2010). The willing, the unwilling and the unable: Explaining implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive. Journal of European Public Policy, 17, 545–563 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501761003673559
  7. Duşa, A. (2018). QCA with R. A comprehensive resource. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Elman, C. (2005). Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization, 59, 293–326 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050101
  9. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states (Themes in European governance). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Figuié, M. (2014). Towards a global governance of risks: International health organisations and the surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. Journal of Risk Research, 17, 469–483 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.761277
  11. Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection for case-study analysis: Qualitative and quantitative techniques. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 645–684). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gerrits, L. M., & Verweij, S. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis as a method for evaluating complex cases: An overview of literature and a stepwise guide with empirical application. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 15(1), 7–22.Google Scholar
  13. Goertz, G., & Starr, H. (2002). Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 473–493 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut037
  15. Hartlapp, M., & Falkner, G. (2009). Problems of operationalization and data in EU compliance research. European Union Politics, 10, 281–304 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116509103370
  16. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Schakel, A. H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Jans, J. H., Squintani, L., Aragão, A., Macrory, R., & Wegener, B. W. (2009). ‘Gold plating’ of European Environmental Measures? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 6, 417–435 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1163/161372709X12608898676797
  18. Knill, C., Schulze, K., & Tosun, J. (2012). Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation & Governance, 6, 427–444 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01150.x
  19. Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435–452 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762
  20. Linder, W. (2011). Europe and Switzerland: Europeanization without EU membership. In C. Trampusch & A. Mach (Eds.), Switzerland in Europe: Continuity and change in the Swiss political economy (pp. 43–60, Routledge advances in European politics, Vol. 72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Maggetti, M., Afonso, A., & Fontana, M.-C. (2011). The more it changes, the more it stays the same? Swiss liberalization and regulatory policies in comparative perspective. In C. Trampusch & A. Mach (Eds.), Switzerland in Europe: Continuity and change in the Swiss political economy (pp. 205–223). Abingdon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Mahoney, J., & Vanderpoel, R. S. (2015). Set diagrams and qualitative research. Comparative Political Studies, 48(1), 65–100 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013519410
  23. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52, 943–969 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550699
  24. Mastenbroek, E., van Voorst, S., & Meuwese, A. (2016). Closing the regulatory cycle? A meta evaluation of ex-post legislative evaluations by the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 23, 1329–1348 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1076874
  25. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145–174 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242
  26. Medzihorsky, J., Oana, I., Quaranta, M. & Schneider, C. Q. (2017). SetMethods: A Package Companion to “Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences”. R Package Version 2.1. http://cran.rproject.org/package=SetMethods.
  27. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2015). Explanatory typologies as a nested strategy of inquiry: Combining cross-case and within-case analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 46, 1018–1048 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115613778
  28. Morris, R. K. A. (2011). The application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or gold plating? Land Use Policy, 28, 361–369 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.005
  29. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Implementing multilateral environmental agreements: An analysis of EU directives: An analysis of EU directives. Global Environmental Politics, 7, 13–41 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2007.7.3.13
  30. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2006). Implementing public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 89–107, Vol. 125). Boca Raton: crc Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Radaelli, C. M., & Wagemann, C. (2018). What did I leave out? Omitted variables in regression and qualitative comparative analysis. European Political Science, 15, 69 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0142-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2014). fs/QCA. Irvine, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  36. Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (Applied social research methods series, Vol. 51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  37. Rihoux, B., Rezsöhazy, I., & Bol, D. (2011). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in public policy analysis: An extensive review. German Policy Studies, 7(3), 9–82.Google Scholar
  38. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48 (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003846
  39. Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8, 538–560 (1980).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x
  40. Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., & Mavrot, C. (2011). Tierarzneimittelregulierung in Europa. Study mandated by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Bern, Center of Competence for Public Management.Google Scholar
  41. Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., & Mavrot, C. (2014). Confronting theories of European integration: A comparative congruence analysis of veterinary drug regulations in five countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 457–474 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.960244
  42. Sartori, G. (1991). Comparing and miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(3), 243–257 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692891003003001
  43. Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 559–597 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113481341
  44. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steunenberg, B. (2007). A policy solution to the European Union’s transposition puzzle: Interaction of interests in different domestic arenas. West European Politics, 30(1), 23–49 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019639
  46. Thomann, E. (2015a). Customizing Europe: Transposition as bottom-up implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 1368–1387 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008554
  47. Thomann, E. (2015b). Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93, 177–194 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12130
  48. Thomann, E. (2018). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as a tool for street-level bureaucracy research. In P. L. Hupe (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Thomann, E., & Maggetti, M. (2017). Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 66, 1–31 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700
  50. Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017). Hybridity in action: Accountability dilemmas of public and for-profit food safety inspectors in Switzerland. In P. Verbruggen & H. Havinga (Eds.), Hybridization of food governance: Trends, types and results (pp. 100–120). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toshkov, D. (2012). Compliance with EU law in Central and Eastern Europe. L’Europe en Formation, 364, 91–109 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3917/eufor.364.0091
  52. Tosun, J. (2012). Risk regulation in Europe: Assessing the application of the precautionary principle (Springer briefs in political science). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance.  https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2014-1
  54. Ugland, T., & Veggeland, F. (2006). Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 607–624 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00637.x
  55. Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters. Enforcement and Compliance of European Directives in Four Member States. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  56. Winter, S. (2012). Implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 151–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  57. Zhelyazkova, A., Kaya, C., & Schrama, R. (2016). Decoupling practical and legal compliance: Analysis of member states’ implementation of EU policy. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 827–846 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12154

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Thomann
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations