Setting the Stage: A Mixed Methods Research Design



Now that we have provided the backdrop of our study—the international climate change negotiations—and embedded our research in the broader aid allocation literature, we can turn to the core of our study: the empirical analysis. We want to understand how donors distribute their adaptation-relevant development assistance: who receives support for climate change adaptation, and why? We address this question using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. On the one hand, we need quantitative methods to detect patterns in adaptation aid giving across all oecd dac donors and recipients—we examine adaptation aid flows from 28 donors to 141 recipients. On the other hand, we also need qualitative methods to understand the decision-making processes that drive the patterns detected by our quantitative analysis. The mix of methods also helps to compensate the weaknesses of the different methods, such as data limitations in quantitative datasets. We hence combine statistical analysis of oecd aid data with qualitative case studies of three large climate donors: Germany, Sweden, and the UK. We selected these three donors using a very different systems design, as Sect. 3.1 explains. Although Germany, Sweden, and the UK are all rather generous supporters of climate change adaptation, they differ in many other regards, such as their size, economic structure, or colonial history.


  1. Adaptation Watch. 2015. Toward Mutual Accountability: The 2015 Adaptation Finance Transparency Gap Report. Policy Briefing. Available online at
  2. Adger, W.N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, and M. Hulme. 2003. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Developing World. Progress in Development Studies 3 (3): 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A. and D. Dollar. 2000. Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? Journal of Economic Growth 5: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alliansen. 2010, August. Jobbmanifestet: Alliansens Valmanifest 2010–2014. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  5. Anckar, C. 2008. On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and the Most Different Systems Design in Comparative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (5): 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anemüller, S., S. Monreal, and C. Bals. 2006. Global Climate Risk Index 2006. Weather Related Loss Events and Their Impact on Countries in 2004 and in a Long-Term Comparison. Available online at
  7. Barnett, J., S. Lambert, and I. Fry. 2008. The Hazards of Indicators: Insights from the Environmental Vulnerability Index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98 (1): 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. bmu and bmz. 2013. Together for a Common Cause: Germany’s Contribution to International Climate Financing. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit and Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. bmz. 2011, January. Klimawandel und Entwicklung. Information Brochure 1/2011 of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. bmz. 2013, May. 14. Entwicklungspolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung. Weißbuch zur Entwicklungspolitik. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (bmz), Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. bmz. 2015a. Charter for the Future: One World—Our Responsibility. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (bmz), Bonn.Google Scholar
  12. bmz. 2015b, April. Climate Action in Practice. The Contribution of German Development Policy. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (bmz), Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. Brooks, N., W.N. Adger, and P.M. Kelly. 2005. The Determinants of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity at the National Level and the Implications for Adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15: 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, J., N. Bird, and L. Schalatek. 2010, June. Climate Finance Additionality: Emerging Definitions and Their Implications. Climate Finance Policy Brief No. 2. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The Green Political Foundation. Available online at
  15. Cdu-csu Fraktion im Bundestag. 2013, April. Entwicklungspolitisches Positionspapier. Arbeitsgruppe Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Clist, P. 2011a. 25 Years of Aid Allocation Practice: Comparing Donors and Eras. Nottingham: Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham (Discussion Papers 9/2011).Google Scholar
  17. Clist, P. 2011b. 25 Years of Aid Allocation Practice: Whither Selectivity? World Development 39 (10): 1724–1734.Google Scholar
  18. Conservative Party. 2010, April. Invitation to Join the Government of Britain: The Conservative Manifesto 2010. London: Conservative Campaign Headquarters.Google Scholar
  19. Conservative Party. 2015. Strong Leadership: A Clear Economic Plan. A Brighter, More Secure Future. London: Conservative Campaign Headquarters.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, J.W. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. dfid. 2011a, March. Bilateral Aid Review: Technical Report. Department for International Development, London.Google Scholar
  22. dfid. 2011b, May. Business Plan 2011–2015, Department for International Development. Department for International Development, London.Google Scholar
  23. dfid. 2012, June. Supporting a Healthy Environment: A Fresh Approach to Our Work on the Environment. Department for International Development, London.Google Scholar
  24. dfid. 2015, July. Annual Report and Accounts 2014–2015. Department for International Development, London.Google Scholar
  25. Dollar, D., and V. Levin. 2006. The Increasing Selectivity of Foreign Aid, 1984–2003. World Development 34 (12): 2034–2046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donner, S.D., M. Kandlikar, and S. Webber. 2016. Measuring and Tracking the Flow of Climate Change Adaptation Aid to the Developing World. Environmental Research Letters 11 (5): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Engle, N.L. 2011. Adaptive Capacity and Its Assessment. Global Environmental Change 21: 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Francke Lund, H., C. Clapp, A. Torvanger, M.S. Jane Wilkinson, Barbara Buchner, F. Mazza, P. Oliver, and D. Abramskiehn. 2015. Background Report on Long-term Climate Finance prepared for the German G7 Presidency 2015. Technical Report, CICERO and Climate Policy Initiative, Eschborn.Google Scholar
  29. Galtung, J., and M.H. Ruge. 1965. The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. Journal of Peace Research 2 (1): 64–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Germanwatch (n.d.). Global Climate Risk Index. Available online at
  31. Gleditsch, K., and N. Weidmann. 2010. Mapping and Measuring Country Shapes: The Cshapes Package. R Journal 2 (1): 18–23.Google Scholar
  32. Government of Germany. 2009. Wachstum. Bildung. Zusammenhalt. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und FDP, 17. Legislaturperiode. Available online at
  33. Government of Germany. 2013. Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 18. Legislaturperiode. Available online at
  34. Government of Sweden. 2003, May. Shared Responsibility: Sweden’s Policy for Global Development. Government Bill 2002/03:122, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  35. Government of Sweden. 2010, October. Regeringsförklaringen 2010. Available online at, Stockholm.
  36. Government of Sweden. 2011, September. Regeringsförklaringen 2011. Available online at, Stockholm.
  37. Government of Sweden. 2012, September. Regeringsförklaringen 2012. Available online at, Stockholm.
  38. Government of Sweden. 2013, September. Regeringsförklaringen 2013. Available online at, Stockholm.
  39. Government of Sweden. 2014a, March. Aid Policy Framework – The Direction of Swedish Aid. Government Communication 2013/14:131.Google Scholar
  40. Government of Sweden. 2014b. Överenskommelse mellan Socialdemokraterna och Miljöpartiet de gröna. Available online at, Stockholm.
  41. Government of Sweden. 2014c, October. Regeringsförklaringen 2014. Available online at, Stockholm.
  42. Government of Sweden. 2015, September. Regeringsförklaringen 2015. Available online at, Stockholm.
  43. Government of Sweden. 2016, December. Policyramverk för svenskt utvecklingssamarbete och humanitärt bistånd. Regeringens skrivelse 2016/17:60, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  44. Government of the United Kingdom. 2010, May. The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. Freedom. Fairness. Responsibility. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  45. Government Offices of Sweden. 2010. Policy for Environmental and Climate Issues in Swedish Development Cooperation, 2010–2014. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sweden, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  46. Guillaumont, P., and C. Simonet. 2011, March. Designing an Index of Physical Vulnerability to Climate Change. Available online at Ferdi Policy Brief.
  47. Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S. Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma. 2010. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: A Method to Assess the Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of Society. Environmental Science & Policy 13 (6): 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hadenius, A., and J. Teorell. 2007. Pathways from Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18 (1): 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hinkel, J. 2011. Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity: Towards a Clarification of the Science–Policy Interface. Global Environmental Change 21: 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoeffler, A., and V. Outram. 2011. Need, Merit, or Self-Interest—What Determines the Allocation of Aid? Review of Development Economics 15 (2): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ipcc. 2013. Annex III: Glossary. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. T. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. Midgley, 1447–1466. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Junghans, L., and S. Harmeling. 2012. Different Tales from Different Countries: A First Assessment of the OECD ‘Adaptation Marker’. Germanwatch Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  53. Kaly, U., C. Pratt, and J. Mitchell. 2004. The Environmental Vulnerability Index (evi) 2004. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (sopac) Technical Report 384. Available online at
  54. Kaufmann, D., and A. Kraay. 2016. Worldwide Governance Indicators. Available online at
  55. Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2011. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (2): 220–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kreft, S., and D. Eckstein. 2014. Global Climate Risk Index 2014. Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2012 and 1993 to 2012. Germanwatch Briefing Paper. Available online at
  57. Kreft, S., D. Eckstein, L. Dorsch, and L. Fischer. 2016. Global Climate Risk Index 2016. Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2014 and 1995 to 2014. Available online at
  58. Liberal Democrats. 2010. Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010. Liberal Democrats, London.Google Scholar
  59. Liebold, R., and R. Trinczek. 2009. Experteninterview. In Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung: Quantitative und Qualitative Methoden, ed. S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, and A. Taffertshofer, 32–56. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lynch, J.F. 2013. Aligning Sampling Strategies with Analytic Goals. In Interview Research in Political Science, Chap. 1, ed. L. Mosley, 31–44. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Manning, W., N. Duan, and W. Rogers. 1987. Monte Carlo Evidence on the Choice Between Sample Selection and Two-Part Models. Journal of Econometrics 35 (1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martin, C.J. 2013. Crafting Interviews to Capture Cause and Effect. In Interview Research in Political Science, Chap. 5, ed. L. Mosley, 109–123. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Meuser, M., and U. Nagel. 2009. Das Experteninterview – konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft: neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen, ed. S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth, and D. Jahn, 465–579. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Michaelowa, A., and K. Michaelowa. 2011. Coding Error or Statistical Embellishment? The Political Economy of Reporting Climate Aid. World Development 39 (11): 2010–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. nd-gain. 2013, December. University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index Detailed Methodology Report. Available online at Last accessed 15 March 2017.
  66. nd-gain (n.d.). 2017. nd-gain: Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. Available online at Last accessed 15 March 2017.
  67. Neumayer, E. 2003a. The Pattern of Aid Giving: The Impact of Good Governance on Development Assistance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Neumayer, E. 2003b. The Determinants of Aid Allocation by Regional Multilateral Development Banks and United Nations Agencies. International Studies Quarterly 47 (1): 101–122.Google Scholar
  69. Newman, I., and C.R. Benz. 1998. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale: SIU Press.Google Scholar
  70. oecd. 2011. Handbook on the OECD-DAC Climate Markers. Available online at
  71. oecd. 2013. oecd Development Co-operation Peer Review: Sweden 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. oecd. 2014. oecd Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: United Kingdom 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. oecd. 2015. oecd Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Germany 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. oecd. 2016a. Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow Despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Available online at Accessed 29 November 2016.
  75. oecd. 2016b. OECD.Stat Extracts. Available online at
  76. Olivier, J., T. Leiter, and J. Linke. 2013, November. Adaptation Made to Measure. A Guidebook to the Design and Results-Based Monitoring of Climate Change Adaptation Projects. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit ( giz) GmbH, Eschborn.Google Scholar
  77. Olsen, G.R. 2001. European Public Opinion and Aid to Africa: Is There a Link? The Journal of Modern African Studies 39 (04): 645–674.Google Scholar
  78. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2015. International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. Chapter 12. Available online at
  79. Pickering, J., J. Skovgaard, S. Kim, J.T. Roberts, D. Rossati, M. Stadelmann, and H. Reich. 2015. Acting on Climate Finance Pledges: Inter-Agency Dynamics and Relationships with Aid in Contributor States. World Development 68: 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Raabe, S., B. Kofler, B. Hendricks, S. Rebmann, and K. Roth. 2013. Eine Welt, eine Zukunft: Für eine nachhaltige und fortschrittliche sozialdemokratische Entwicklungspolitik. Arbeitsgruppe für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Berlin.Google Scholar
  81. Richards, L. 2014. Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Roodman, D. 2007. The Anarchy of Numbers: Aid, Development, and Cross-country Empirics. Center for Global Development Working Paper Number 32.Google Scholar
  83. Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. sopac. 2004. Building Resilience in sids: The Environmental Vulnerability Index. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (sopac). Available online at
  85. Teorell, J., S. Dahlberg, S. Holmberg, B. Rothstein, F. Hartmann, and R. Svensson. 2015. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan15. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute,
  86. Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matsone, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsiphera, and A. Schiller. 2003. A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 8074–8079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. un Statistics Division. 2015. United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. Available online at
  88. unfccc. 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Addendum. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Fifteenth Session. Document FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.Google Scholar
  89. Voeten, E., A. Strezhnev, and M. Bailey. 2009. United Nations General Assembly Voting Data. Available online at
  90. Wasielewski Ahlfors, S. 2011. Adapting to a Changing Climate: The Swedish Government’s Special Climate Change Initiative 2009–2012. Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), Stockholm.Google Scholar
  91. Weiler, F., C. Betzold, and M. Dornan. 2017. Vulnerability or Donor Interests? The Allocation of Aid for Climate Change Adaptation. Paper presented at the Comparative Politics Seminars, 5 April 2017, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.Google Scholar
  92. World Bank. 2016. World Development Indicators. Available online at
  93. Younas, J. 2008. Motivations for Bilateral Aid Allocation: Altruism or Trade Benefits. European Journal of Political Economy 24: 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.The School of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations