Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Process Tracing: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with a Small Number of Cases

  • Chapter
Research Design in European Studies

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

The transposition and implementation of EU directives and regulations by EU member states is one pathway of Europeanization (Chapter 1 in this volume). Member states, in which a mismatch between EU law and domestic law occurs, need to adjust their legal acts within the transposition deadline. Instances of failed Europeanization, in which domestic legal rules and practices are not in line with EU law even after the transposition deadline expired, constitute non-compliance cases. Instances of non-compliance impair the power of EU law. Hence, in order to remedy problems associated with delayed Europeanization, the EU established an infringement system which encompasses a variety of different compliance instruments (bilateral negotiations, Court judgments, sanction threats or financial penalties). Yet, we observe that there is variation in the reaction to these instruments, which differs even on a case-bycase basis. Against this background, this chapter analyses the following research question: How and under which conditions do states that initially violated EU law catch up with Europeanization?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aberdeen Press (2002) ‘Farmers Fear High Cost of Clampdown on Nitrates’, Aberdeen Press (5 January 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. and George, A. (2006) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T.A., Hofmann, T. and Panke, D. (2009) Opinions, Referrals, and Judgments. Analyzing Longitudinal Patterns of Non-Compliance, Berlin Working Papers on European Integration, http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/international/europa/arbeitspapiere/2009–13_Boerzel_Hofman_Panke.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T.A., Hofmann, T. and Panke, D. (2009) Opinions, Referrals, and Judgments. Analyzing Longitudinal Patterns of Non-Compliance, Berlin Working Papers on European Integration, http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/international/europa/arbeitspapiere/2009–13_Boerzel_Hofman_Panke.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • The Daily Telegraph (2000) ‘EU Red Tape “Is Ruining Our Farmers” Task Force Blames “Over-Zealous” Britain’, The Daily Telegraph (15 November 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Daily Telegraph (2002) ‘Slurry Ban on Half of England’, The Daily Telegraph (28 June 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (2002a) News Release — Nitrate Controls to Spearhead Long-Term Strategy to Improve Water Quality, 27 June 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (2002b) Nitrates Directive Consultation. A Report Prepared by NOP Social & Political for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), April 2002/433602.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Justice (2000) Court Judgment of December 7th, 2000: The European Commission against the United Kingdom Regarding the Incomplete Application of Directive 91/676, C-69/99, Official Journal of the European Communities, I-10979.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Express (2001) ‘GBP 1BN Clean-Up Cost of Water Pollution by Farm Pesticides’, The Express (28 January 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmers Guardian (2000) ‘Revised Crop Input Recommendations’, Farmers Guardian (22 December 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmers Guardian (2002) ‘“Union to Challenge Flawed” Scientific Basis Behind the NVZ Directive?’, Farmers Guardian (5 July 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times (2002a) ‘Government to Implement EU Water Directive’, Financial Times (28 May 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times (2002b) ‘Nitrate Pollution Zones “Will Cover Only 55% of UK”’, Financial Times (28 June 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, B. (2003) Paradigms and Sand Castles (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian (2002) ‘Meacher Caves in on Farm Pollution’, The Guardian (28 June 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, A.T. (2002) A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law, California Law Review, 90, 1826–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, C. and Cutlip, A. (2002) Sanctioning Costs and Norm Enforcement, Rationality and Society, 14: 3, 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1994a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for7 February 1994, Hansard Debates, Column 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1994b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 June 1994 — Commons Written Answers, Hansard Debates.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1995) House of Commons Hansard Debates for14 March 1995, Hansard Debates, Column 807–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1996) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 October 1996, Hansard Debates, Column 814–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1997) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 July 1997, Hansard Debates, Column 924–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (1999) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 October 1999, Hansard Debates, Column 444–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2000a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for10 February 2000, Hansard Debates, Column 114–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2000b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 June 2000, Hansard Debates, Column 1043–1047.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2001)a House of Commons Hansard Debates for12 November 2001, Hansard Debates, Column 574–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2001b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 December 2001, Commons Written Answers.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2001c) House of Commons Hansard Debates for28 February 2001, Hansard Debates, Column 913–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 November 2002, Hansard Debates, Column 299–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002)b House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 December 2002, Hansard Debates, Column 410–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002)c House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 2002, Hansard Debates, Column 198–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002d) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 2002, Hansard Debates.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002e) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 January 2002, Commons Written Answers.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002f) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 January 2002, Commons Written Answers, Hansard Debates.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons (2002g) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 January 2002, Commons Written Answers, Hansard Debates.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2001) House of Lords Debates, Lords Written Answers, 20 December 2001, Hansard Debates.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2002) House of Lords Debates, 11 December 2002, Hansard Debates, Column 230–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-Y. (1996) Cheap Talk and Reputation in Repeated Pretrial Negotiation, Rand Journal of Economics, 27: 4, 787–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L.L. (1992) Coercive Cooperation — Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendrinou, M. (1996) Non-Compliance and the European Commission’s Role in Integration, Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, 3: 1, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. (2010a) The Effectiveness of the European Court of Justice. Why Reluctant States Comply (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. (2010b) Why Big States Cannot Do What They Want. International Courts and Compliance, International Politics, 47, 186–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satori, A.E. (2002) The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes, International Organization, 56: 1, 121–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002) Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Select Committee Report. Memorandum submitted by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Examination of Witnesses, 11 December 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Select Committee Report. Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence, 12 March 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunday Times (2002) ‘Scots Farmers Face Pollution Crackdown’, Sunday Times (13 January 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (1999) Making States Comply. The European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the Enforcement of the Internal Market (Lund: Studentlitteratur).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Diana Panke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2012 Diana Panke

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Panke, D. (2012). Process Tracing: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with a Small Number of Cases. In: Research Design in European Studies. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137005090_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation