Research method

3.2.3.1 Case study

This is qualitative research, based on a single case study. The project that I have undertaken, which looks like a radical shift in Nepal’s food policy, is a contemporary phenomenon. My endeavour has been to investigate the reasons for the phenomenon and subsequent

48 endeavour. I have sought to explain the causal mechanism regarding Nepal’s adoption of the idea of food sovereignty, and how this has been translated into practice.

Another reason to undertake a single case study for my research is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms at play (Gerring 2004) in the adoption of the idea of food sovereignty by Nepal. As Gerring (2004, p. 349) states,

[T]he in-depth analysis of a single unit is useful in elucidating causal mechanisms because its characteristic style of evidence gathering—over time and within-unit variation—is likely to provide clues into what connects a purported X to a particular Y. Cross-unit variation, in contrast, is often mute with respect to causal mechanisms. I have chosen a single case also to determine whether the propositions of the theory I have chosen are correct or whether some alternative sets of explanations are called for (Yin 2003). A common concern, and hence a limitation, of case study research is its inability to generalise the findings. Although case studies are not generalisable to populations or universes, they can be generalisable to theoretical and/or analytical propositions (Yin 2010, 2018). This single case study will examine, and if required expand, the proposition in relation to the idea of food sovereignty as being a potential coalition magnet. Hence, it will examine the idea of food sovereignty from a policy perspective unlike most of the literature on food sovereignty that has analysed this idea from a social movement perspective. The analytical generalisations that can be derived from this single case could be used in other settings where the idea of food sovereignty has been adopted.

3.2.3.2 Process tracing

In my single case study, I have adopted the process tracing method as process tracing is an essential form of within-case analysis (George & Bennett 2005), and can contribute

decisively both to describing political and social phenomena and evaluating causal claims (Collier 2011). According to Gerring (2004, p. 349), “the investigation of causal mechanisms (including both process tracing and pattern-matching) is commonly associated with the case

49 study research design”. Further, Mahoney (2010, p. 124) states, “Process tracing contributes to causal inference primarily through the discovery of CPOs10_{”, and the information}

contained within a CPO reflects in-depth knowledge of one or more particular cases. Moreover, when it comes to studying ideas, process tracing is considered a “powerful

empirical approach for distinguishing between ideational and material effects” (Jacobs 2015, p. 41). In fact, the causal effects of ideas on policy change can best be studied through process tracing (Béland & Cox 2011b; Campbell 2002; Parsons 2002; Yee 1996).

Collier (2011) explains that process tracing is a qualitative method, although it sometimes relies on quantitative data for fine-grained description. Background knowledge is important, especially in the careful, analytically informed specification of hypotheses. Hypotheses are essential in selecting and interpreting evidence, and in weighing them against one another. There are four tests, namely “straw-in-the-wind”, “hoop”, “smoking-gun” and “doubly decisive” in process tracing, according to the necessary and/or sufficient conditions required to accept the inference (Table 3.1). Passing the “doubly decisive” test provides both

necessary and sufficient conditions to affirm a causal inference.

10 _{Collier, Brady and Seawright (2010) define a causal process observation (CPO) as “an insight or piece of data}

that provides information about context, process, or mechanism, and that contributes distinctive leverage in causal inference” (p. 2, footnote 3).

50 Table 3.1: Process tracing tests for causal inference

Sufficient for affirming causal inference

Necessary for affirming causal inference No Yes 1. Straw-in-the-wind 3. Smoking-gun No

a. Passing: Affirms relevance of hypothesis, but does not confirm it.

a. Passing: Confirms hypothesis.

b. Failing: Hypothesis is not eliminated, but is slightly weakened.

b. Failing: Hypothesis is not eliminated, but is somewhat weakened.

c. Implications for rival hypotheses:

Passing slightly weakens them. Failing slightly strengthens them.

c. Implications for rival hypotheses:

Passing substantially weakens them.

Failing somewhat strengthens them.

2. Hoop 4. Doubly decisive

Yes

a. Passing: Affirms relevance of hypothesis, but does not confirm it.

a. Passing: Confirms hypothesis and eliminates others.

b. Failing: Eliminates hypothesis. b. Failing: Eliminates hypothesis. c. Implications for rival

hypotheses:

Passing somewhat weakens them.

Failing somewhat strengthens them.

c. Implications for rival hypotheses:

Passing eliminates them. Failing substantially

strengthens. Source: Collier (2011).

As briefly discussed in the introduction chapter, a common explanation for the promotion and adoption of the idea of food sovereignty is the double movement. Therefore, in my case study, I examine whether there were conditions for the double movement in Nepal, and whether the double movement existed. If yes, this would largely inform the adoption of the

51 idea of food sovereignty by Nepal. The next step would be to investigate the process of the double movement and the translation of the idea of food sovereignty into the country’s constitution and other policy documents. If the double movement did not exist, this would provide strength to the coalition magnet thesis. But to confirm that the coalition magnet thesis explains the adoption of the idea of food sovereignty, we need to find that the idea of food sovereignty meets the three attributes of the coalition magnet.

I used these research methods to test my proposition. I will explain how I did this, in the data analysis section, later.

3.3

Why Nepal?

As we will see in later chapters, only a few countries in the world have institutionalised the idea of food sovereignty. Most of these countries are in Latin America, and there are some studies on food sovereignty covering these countries. Most of these studies explain that the institutionalisation of the idea of food sovereignty in Latin American countries is due to radical social movements and the rise of leftist leaders. The radical social movements, in turn, have been the outcomes of centuries of extreme inequality in land ownership and corporate control of the food and agriculture sector by foreign entities, among others.

Nepal is different. It is an agricultural country with two-thirds of its population dependent on the agriculture sector, but the sector contributes only around a third of the country’s gross domestic product. It is a net-food-importing least-developed country. There is some

inequality in land ownership in Nepal, but it is nowhere near comparable to Latin American countries. Also, there is no direct presence of large corporations owned by foreign entities in the food and agriculture sector in Nepal. Moreover, agricultural trade and commercialisation are not severely opposed in Nepal. In fact, commercialising agriculture and enhancing food and agricultural exports is a major agenda of all the major political parties.

52 The food sovereignty movement at the transnational level arose, inter alia, as an opposition to the inclusion of agriculture in the WTO. All the countries that have institutionalised food sovereignty in their constitutions are developing-country members of the WTO. Nepal is the only least-developed country (LDC) among them. As an LDC member, Nepal receives special and differential treatment, and its terms of WTO membership with regard to food and agriculture are said to be in Nepal’s favour (Pandey, Adhikari & Waglé 2014).

More importantly, for decades, Nepal has not had separately organised farmers’ groups. Rather, farmers have been organised by different political parties under their banners. There have not been visible social movements on food sovereignty on the ground. It could be that Nepal is a deviant case (Seawright & Gerring 2008).

As Seawright and Gerring (2008) explain, if a case, by reference to some general understanding of a topic, demonstrates a surprising value, then it is a deviant case. They further state that “the purpose of a deviant case analysis is usually to probe for new—but as yet unspecified—explanations”, and that it is an exploratory form of research (p. 302).

Hence, although I chose Nepal as the case country for this research for reasons I stated above, as a deviant case, it could also provide new insights.

3.4

Data

The two major sources of my data are: 1) documents and audio-video materials, and 2) in- depth interviews.