Advertisement

A Realist Approach to Policy Design

  • Guillaume FontaineEmail author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
  • Iván Narváez
Chapter
  • 56 Downloads
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

This chapter presents the realist approach that provided our analytical framework. It defines the causal mechanism of a policy outcome from a realist methodology, then it displays a method of cross-case comparison for policy design, including the case selection, and it unpacks the causal mechanism linking resource nationalism to a deficit of public accountability. Section 2 is dedicated to unpack the causal mechanism of a policy outcome in policy design. It starts with defining causality as necessity and causal mechanisms as causal forces, then it proceeds with optimizing case selection for small-n comparison. Section 3 explains how to conduct a cross-case comparison of this causal mechanism. It starts presenting the basics of set-theoretic research design, then it explains how the Bayesian logic of likelihood can be utilized to assess empirical evidence, and it proposes a template for comparative policy design.

Keywords

Critical realism Multi-methods Comparative policy analysis Bayes Resource nationalism Public accountability 

References

  1. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R. Collier, A., Lawson, T., and Norrie, A. (Eds.) (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  2. Astbury, B., and Leeuw, F. (2010), “Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation”. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3):363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, D. (2013). “Taking mechanisms seriously?”. European Political Science, 12: 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beach, D. (2016). “It’s all about mechanisms: What process tracing case studies should be tracing”. New Political Economy, 21:5, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beach, D. (2018). “Multi-method research in the social sciences—A review of recent frameworks and a way forward”. ms 29 p.Google Scholar
  6. Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. (Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. B. (2016). Causal case study methods: Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching and tracing. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beach, D., and Rohlfing, I. (2015). “Integrating cross-case analyses and process tracing in set-theoretic research: Strategies and parameters of debate”. Sociological Methods and Research, 47(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, A. (2010). “Process tracing and causal inference”. In: Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Edited by H. Brady and D. Collier. (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 207–220.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, A. (2015). “Appendix: Disciplining our conjectures: Systematizing process tracing with bayesian analysis”. In: Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Edited by A. Bennett and J. Checkel. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 276–298.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, A., and Checkel, J. (2015). “Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practices”. In: Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Edited by A. Bennett and J. Checkel. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
  12. Bennett, A., and Eldman, C. (2006). “Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods”. Annual Review of Political Science, 9: 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2012). Mixed methods in comparative politics: Principles and applications. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhaskar Roy (2008/1978). A realist theory of science. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  15. Blatter, J., and Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bobrow, D., and Dryzek, J. (1987). Policy analysis by design. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
  17. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., and Goodin, R. (2014). “Public accountability”. In: The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Edited by M. Bovens, T. Schillemans, and R. Goodin. (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  18. Bowles, N., Hamilton, J., and Levy, D. (2013). “Introduction”. In: Transparency in politics and the media: Accountability and open government. Edited by N. Bowles, J. Hamilton, and D. Levy. (Oxford: Tauris), pp. XI–XXIII.Google Scholar
  19. Brady, H., Collier, D., and Seawright, J. (2010). “Refocusing the discussion of methodology”. In: Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Edited by H. Brady Henry, and D. Collier, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
  20. Calland, R., and Bentley, K. (2013). “The impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives: Freedom of information”. Development Policy Review, 31(1): 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Capoccia, G. and Kelemen, R. D. (2007). “The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism”. World Politics 59(3): 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlitz, R. (2013). “Improving transparency and accountability in the budget process: An assessment of recent initiatives”. Development Policy Review, 31(1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Collier, D. (2011). “Understanding process tracing”. Political Science and Politics, 44(4): 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crasnow, S. (2017). “Process tracing in political science: What’s the story?”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 62: 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dowding, K. (2016). The philosophy and methods of political science. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dowdle, M. (2006). “Public accountability: Conceptual, historial and epistemic mappings”. In: Public accountability: Designs, dilemmas and experiences. Edited by M. Dowdle. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  27. EIA (Energy Information Agency) (2018). Country reports. https://www.eia.gov
  28. EITI (Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) (2018). Country reports. https://eiti.org
  29. Erkkilä, T., Peters, B. G., and Piironen, O. (2016). “Global governance indices as policy instruments: Actionability, transparency and comparative policy analysis”. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 18(4): 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fairfield, T., and Charman, A. (2017). “Explicit Bayesian analysis for process tracing: Guidelines, opportunities, and caveats”. Political Analysis 25(3): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Falleti, T. (2010). “Infiltrating the State: The evolution of health care reforms in Brazil 1964–1988”. In: Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power. Edited by J. Mahoney, and K. Thelen. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 38–62.Google Scholar
  32. Falleti, T. (2016). “Process tracing of extensive and intensive processes”. New Political Economy, online version available at:  https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1135550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Falleti, T., and Lynch, J. (2009). “Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis”. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9): 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fontaine, G. (2017). “Comparative public policy”. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.134
  36. Fox, J. (2007). “The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability”. Development in Practice, 17(4/5):663–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. George, A., and Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  39. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  40. Gillies, A. (2010). “Reputational concerns and the emergence of oil sector transparency as an international norm”. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1): 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goertz, G., Mahoney, J., (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goertz, G., and Starr, H. (2003). Necessary conditions: Theory, methodology, and applications. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Hall, P. (1993). “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain”. Comparative Politics, 25(3): 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hall, P. (2012). “Tracing the progress of process tracing”. European Political Science, 12: 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haslam, P., and Heidrich, P. (Eds.) (2016a). The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  46. Haslam, P., and Heidrich, P. (2016b). “From neoliberalism to resource nationalism: States, firms and development”. In: The political economy of natural resources and development: From neoliberalism to resource nationalism. Edited by P. Haslam and P. Heidrich. (London: Routledge), pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haufler, V. (2010). “Disclosure as governance: The extractive industries transparency initiative and resource management in the developing world”. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hedström, P., and Swedberg, R. (Eds.) (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  49. Hedström, P., and Ylikoski, P. (2010). “Causal mechanisms in the social sciences”. Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. (London: Macmillan Press Ltd).Google Scholar
  51. Hood, C., and Heald, D. (Eds.) (2006). Transparency: The key to better governance? (Oxford, New York and Auckland: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  52. Howlett, M., and Rayner, J. (2006). “Understanding the historical turn in the policy sciences: A critique of stochastic, narrative, path dependency and process-sequencing models of policy-making over time”. Policy Sciences 39: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Humphreys, M., and Jacobs, A. (2015). “Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach”. American Political Science Review, 109(4): 654–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. IDB (Interamerican Development Bank). (2018). On-line database. https://www.iadb.org/en
  55. Jackson, P. T. (2016). The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. (London: Routledge). (2nd edition).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Mastruzzi, M. (2010). “The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues”. Policy Research Working Paper, 5430. Washington: The World Bank Development Research Group Macroeconomics.Google Scholar
  57. Kay, A. (2005). “A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies”. Public Administration, 83(3):553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keck, M., and Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists without borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. (New York: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  59. Kern, F., Kuzemko, C., and Mitchell, C. (2014). “Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: The case of UK energy policy”. Policy and Politics, 42 (4): 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. King, G., Keohane, R., and Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. López Ayllón, S. (2007). “Transparency and accountability: Multiple paths to constructing public space in Mexico”. In: Evaluating accountability and transparency in Mexico: National, local and comparative perspectives. Edited by A. Ríos Cázares, and D. Shirk. (San Diego: University Readers), pp. 197–209.Google Scholar
  62. Lorentzen, P., Fravel, T., and Paine, J. (2017). “Qualitative investigation of theoretical models: The value of process tracing”. Journal of Theoretical politics, 29(3): 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mabillard, V., and Zumofen, R. (2016). “The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks”. Public Policy and Administration, on-line version.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716653651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Machamer, P. (2004). “Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18(1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mahoney, J. (2001). Path dependence and political regimes in Central America. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  66. Mahoney, J. (2012). “The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences”. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4): 570–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mahoney, J. (2016). “Mechanisms, bayesianism, and process tracing”. New Political Economy, 21(5), On-line version, June, 2016, 7 p.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2016.1201803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mainwaring, S. (2003). “Introduction: Democratic accountability in Latin America”. In: Democratic accountability in Latin America. Edited by S. Mainwaring, and C. Welna. (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marchionni, C., and Reijula, S. (2018). “What is mechanistic evidence, and why do we need it for evidence-based policy?”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. On-line version available [October 12, 2018] at:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mares, D. (2010). “Resource nationalism and energy security in Latin America: Implications for global oil supplies”. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Working Paper, 42 p.Google Scholar
  71. Marsh, D., and Furlong, P. (2010). “A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in political science”. In: Theory and methods in political science. Edited by G. Stoker and D. Marsh. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 184–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McKay Illari, P. (2011). “Mechanistic evidence: Disambiguating the Russo-Williamson thesis”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(2): 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mejía Acosta, A. (2013). “The impact and effectiveness of accountability and transparency initiatives: The governance of natural resources”. Development Policy Review, 31(1): 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Michener, G. (2011). “FOI laws around the world”. Journal of Democracy 22(2): 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Öge, K. (2016). “Which transparency matters? Compliance with anti-corruption efforts in extractive industries”. Resources Policy, 49: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. OGP (Open Government Partnership). (2018). Annual reports. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/ogp-annual-reports/
  77. Ostrom, E. (2011). “Background on the institutional analysis and development framework”. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Paquet, M., and Broschek, J. (2017). “This is not a turn: Canadian political science and social mechanisms”. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 50(1): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Parsons, C. (2010). “Constructivism and interpretive theory”. In: Theory and methods in political science. Edited by G. Stoker, and D. Marsh. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pawson, R. (2016). “The ersatz realism of critical realism: A reply to Porter”. Evaluation, 22(1): 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Paz, B., and Fontaine, G. (2018). “A causal mechanism of policy innovation: The reform of Colombia’s oil-rents management system”. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 63: 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Peters, B. G. (2013). Strategies for comparative research in political science. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pierre, J., Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. (London: Macmillan Press).Google Scholar
  85. Porto, O. (2017). International policy diffusion and participatory budgeting: Ambassadors of participation, international institutions and transnational networks. (London: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Riddell, P. (2013). “Impact of transparency on accountability”. In: Transparency in politics and the media: Accountability and open government. Edited by N. Bowles, J. Hamilton, and D. Levy. (Oxford: Tauris), pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  87. Rohlfing, I. (2014). “Comparative hypothesis testing via process tracing”. Sociological Methods and Research, 43(4): 606–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rohlfing, I., and Schneider, C. (2016). “A unifying framework for causal analysis in set-theoretic multimethod research”. Sociological Methods and Research. 47(1): 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ruback, T. (2010). “‘Let me tell the story straight on’: Middlemarch, process-tracing methods and the politics of narrative”. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12: 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Russo, F., and Williamson, J. (2007). “Interpreting causality in the health sciences”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2):157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. (London: Routledge). (2nd edition).Google Scholar
  92. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. (London: Sage).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schneider, A., and Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).Google Scholar
  94. Schneider, C., and Rohlfing, I. (2013). “Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research”. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(4): 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Seawright, J. (2016). Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools (Strategies for social inquiry). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Seawright, J., and Gerring, J. (2008). “Case selection techniques in case study research”. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stinchcombe, A. (1991). “The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science”. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21(3): 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. (New York: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  99. Weintraub, S., Hester, A., and Prado, V. (2007). Energy cooperation in the Western Hemisphere: Benefits and impediments. (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies).Google Scholar
  100. WGI (World Governance Indicators). (2019). Online database. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Fontaine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cecilia Medrano Caviedes
    • 2
  • Iván Narváez
    • 1
  1. 1.Latin American Faculty for Social SciencesQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Center for International StudiesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations