Explanation and causality

Throughout the introduction and especially in the discussion in chapter two, the twin issues of explanation and causality already appeared in between the lines. This is, of course, due to the fact that research of this study is part explanatory: to provide insight in possible causal relations between a changing institutional environment on the one hand and changing public values on the other. Explanation and causality are, however, neither straightforward nor self-evident in the type of research presented here (i.e., historical case studies) because of the contingency and contextuality of public values in the ever changing and highly complex institutional environ- ment of the Dutch Republic. Both concepts therefore warrant brief separate and explicit discussion in order to temper potential expectations as well as increase the clarity of – and to be honest about – this study’s aims and conclusions. After all, good comparative historical analysis, as Laslett (1980: 219) tells us, requires a good understanding of causality, explanation and generalization.

In short, explanation in the social sciences rests upon the interpretation of facts and presuppositions concerning any possible coherence among them. Historians of public administration for instance often speak of stages, patterns and mechanisms rather than universal or general laws. Explanation in this sense (and it is used in this way in this study) means establishing “meaningful relation(s) between observed (new, so far unknown) facts and known facts” (Raadschelders, 2000: 40) and the only way to do this is to abstract from reality and to select and interpret ‘facts’. Max Weber called this die Erfassung des Sinnzusammenhangs (cf. Raadschelders & Rutgers, 1989: 23). It is an approach that is for instance illustrated by Mahoney and Rüschemeyer who argue that good comparative historical analysis “is defined by a concern with causal analysis, an emphasis on processes over time, and the use of systematic and contextualized comparison” (2003a: 6-9; see also Thelen, 2002: 94). To Raadschelders (2000: 36-39) models and the use of theory likewise help interpret historical facts, help simplify complex past reality and bring us closer to why questions. They also help generate new questions and enable systematic comparison. At best, then, a cautious and more realistic understanding of explanation, generalization and causality in the social sciences (and history) leads to ‘middle-range theories’. These are “more modest and restrictive but intensely studied segments of reality” (Van Braam, 1989: 36; Raadschelders, 2000: 44).

Because of this more cautious and realistic approach to explanation and causality, this study does not aim to provide a general theory on public value change. Nor does it delineate a (fixed or general) set of factors that lead to public value change. This, in fact, would be impossible if only because there is still much uncertainty and disagreement on what public values actually are (see chapter one) and because the range of potential explanations seems endless. Rather, the study provides a range of potentially explanatory factors and/or mecha-

nisms of public value change that can be observed in the province of Holland between 1748 and 1813. Because they are inductively generated by means of empirical case studies, this range of explanatory factors will necessarily be somewhat eclectic. Furthermore, the direction of any causal relationship (whether theoretically or in practice) will often necessarily remain unclear. It is impossible, in my opinion, to answer the question whether bureaucratization leads to public value change or whether it was the other way around. I argue that such a ‘chicken and the egg’ problem is best solved by leaving the answer somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, the two are not separated variables. Instead, as I will show in the later case studies they coincide and often go hand in hand. However, this does not diminish the importance of the causal link itself. In the end, furthermore, an eclectic range with uncertain causal directions still provides material that substantiates, complements and/or corrects existing abstract and general theories of public value dynamics (cf. Beck Jørgensen & Vrangbæk, 2011) and political corruption (see chapter one). It helps us to observe meaningful relations as to how and why new public values are potentially added or how and why the content, meaning and interpretation of existing values potentially changed.

A final related question is whether and, if so how, isolated incidents and cases can also function as some sort of structural and/or diachronic representations for longer periods of time. Parts of this question were answered in chapter two (the focus on the explanatory power of administrative-historical work in general) and earlier in this chapter (on case selection and parameters). In addition, focusing on the validity provides a further answer and shows the explanatory power of a specific historical case study design such as provided in previous sections. Essentially I aim to draw evidence from single cases in order to illuminate features of a (potential?) broader set of cases (Gerring, 2007: 29). Such a method serves to gain under- standing of the whole by focusing on key parts and rests on in-depth knowledge of key cases through which general points are elucidated and evaluated. Furthermore, a focus on in-depth cases is able to preserve the texture and detail of individual cases. Mahoney and Rüschemeyer (2003a: 9) argue how “viewing cases and processes at a less abstract level enables us to derive lessons from past experiences that speak to the concern of the present. It yields more mean- ingful advice concerning contemporary choices and possibilities than studies that aim for the universal truths but cannot grasp critical historical details”. The somewhat low academic status of historical case studies (cf. Yin, 2009: 14-16; Gerring, 2007: 5-8) usually has to do with the view that single or a few case studies can not yield explanatory evidence. They are often not thought to be able to generate valid knowledge because cases are not randomly selected and there may not be enough statistical degrees of freedom to test all conceivable hypotheses critically.

However, much of the lack of appreciation for the case study method stems from it be- ing poorly understood and can easily be rebutted (cf. Gerring, 2007: 8; Reuschemeyer, 2003; Yin, 2009). Most importantly, a case study research design “exhibits characteristic strengths and weaknesses relative to its large-N cross-case cousin” (Gerring, 2007: 37) and is able to generate rather than test hypotheses. Case study designs are consequently often identified as ‘plausibility probes’ or ‘theory-building exercises’ and are thought to provide more internal rather than external validity. This means they are generally not highly representative (unless potentially on a theoretical level, see Yin, 2009: 41) because they include only a limited number of cases of some more general phenomenon. On the other hand high internal validity makes it easier “to establish the veracity of a causal relationship pertaining to a single case (or a small number of cases) than for a larger set of cases” (Gerring, 2007: 43). Case study designs also

provide causal insights into mechanisms (or pathways from x to y, see earlier in chapter two) rather than effects and, finally, have a deep rather than a broad scope of proposition. These (and other) benefits of a case study design mentioned in the above makes it relatively easy to see why this method is especially useful for the research presented in this study. It best suits a look at causal mechanisms related to public value change and taking a deep or ‘thick’ contex- tual perspective rather than a broad and ‘thin’ one. Since I am interested in broader societal processes that affect public value change a thick description is needed. This is, in other words, in line with Johnstonian as well as a historical institutional point of view. The benefits of a case study design for the present study become more apparent when we take into account Gerrings statement that “the significant feature of most case studies is that they look at periods of change, and these periods of change produce (or are regarded as producing) distinct observa- tions – classically “before” or “after” observations” (2007: 32). Similarly, the three case studies of this research are, as mentioned, cases on ‘planes of fracture’ in Dutch political- administrative history which allows a view on the ‘before and after’ or the ‘old and new’. Even more benefits of a historical case study design for the purposes of this study become visible when we consider specific writings on the use of case studies to explain historical dynamics in social or political structures. Raadschelders and Rutgers (1989: 26-29) state how a case study approach is useful to provide context and detail in (ideal typical) explanations. Similarly, Reuschemeyer (2003: 310-312) tresses how much can be learned from single ‘in-depth’ historical case studies because they are not just suitable to inspire new hypotheses and insights but can also test, reflect, modify and falsify them as long as one “makes an explicit link between theoretical imagination and empirical evidence”.