Within and Between-Case Analysis

I make use of both within-case analysis and between-case comparison in my qualitative analysis. Combining the tracing of precise causal mechanisms and the study of covariance with a comparative approach has widely been regarded as the most fruitful way to improve certainty on a causal story, as well as to derive generalizable conclusions from qualitative research (Bennett and Elman, 2006; Checkel, 2006; Checkel, 2008; George and Bennett, 2005).

as one of the most suitable analytical tools to investigate the underlying causal mechanisms between independent and dependent variables (Beach and Peder- sen, 2013; Collier, 2011). Two aspects make it a particularly helpful approach for the purpose of this dissertation. Firstly, process-tracing helps to alleviate some of the disadvantages of statistical analysis and in particular the above discussed internal validity threats to quantitative modeling, as it allows to systematically investigate the historical sequences that link my independent variables to sta- ble post-interim peace. It also allows me to test whether empirical evidence exists that each part of my hypothesized causal mechanisms is present in each case. Existing research has in that regard argued for the value of within-case analysis through process-tracing to empirically evaluate bargaining models, be- cause the central components of these models are nothing else but descriptions of “patterns in agents’ perceptions, decision-making and action” (Nome, 2013, p. 51). Thus, they are causal mechanisms that statistical studies are often inapt to trace (e.g. Jenne, 2004; Lake, 2010).47 _{Process-tracing therefore allows me} to counterbalance one problem in particular: an independent and a dependent variable may positively correlate with each other although no causal pathway between them can be detected. For instance, Nepal’s CPN (M) integrated its parallel People’s Courts and People’s Governments into the authority of the interim government, but this action may be unlinked to why the party decided to stick to peace following the interim period.

Secondly, within-case analysis through process-tracing helps me to alleviate some of the disadvantages of comparative between-case analysis in most similar system designs (Nome, 2013). This is because one of the central pitfall of such designs is that it is often “not possible to find cases similar in every respect but one” and that more than one independent variable may have causal impact (George and Bennett, 2005, p. 214) – see my note above on the role of democratic history and natural resource rents. Tracing causal processes and mapping the historical paths from X to Y is a suitable strategy to assess whether each of the variables can or cannot be ruled out has having causal significance, and helps to mitigate risks of obtaining spurious results.

My bargaining model for the role of interim governments in increasing the stability of peace already formulates explicit causal mechanisms by identifying a set of intervening steps and observable implications under which the theorized mechanisms should become visible (cf. Figure 3.3 on page 34). Consequently, if I can establish in my within-case analyses in Chapters 6, 7, and 8,

1. that each property of interim government correlates in the theoretically expected manner with the dependent variable;

2. that commitment problems were at play for a weaker-growing party in each of the cases, risking a remobilization for armed conflict;

47_{Having said that, arriving at a definitive test of all underlying assumptions of bargain-}

ing theory is often not possible through process-tracing, for instance when it comes to the rationality assumption of players in the bargaining situation (cf. Chapter 9, Kuehn, 2013).

3. that a specific property of interim government mitigated such commitment problems for the relevant parties (or, alternatively, that the absence of such property exacerbated commitment problems); and

4. that mitigated (exacerbated) commitment problems influenced the the- orized decision-making process of the warring parties in the bargaining situation to follow (or not) peaceful behavior ,

then confidence in my theoretical argument of Chapter 3 is greatly strengthened. My case studies of Chapters 6 to 8 are thus all structured as follows. Firstly, and in order to situate the rule of the respective interim government, each chapter begins with a brief historical overview of the countries. Each overview thereby (1) focuses in particular on the dynamics that led to the Nepalese, Angolan, and Cambodian civil wars; (2) introduces the warring parties of the respective civil wars; and (3) ends with a detailed description of the negotiation processes that culminated in the peace agreements in which the parties decided on the formation of the interim governments under analysis. Secondly, I then outline in detail the role of commitment problems during and after the rule of each interim government under analysis and discuss some of the merits and pitfalls of applying the bargaining theory argument to each of the cases. Thirdly, the main part of each within-case analysis will then be attending to each hypothesized property of interim government and analyzing whether the respective property set into motion the theorized process of steps and actions that led to post- interim peace or the absence thereof. In this analysis, I also attend to possible confounding mechanisms and variables, such as alternative and case-specific explanations. Fourthly, and not least in order to discern the relative explanatory power of each of my proposed causal mechanisms, each chapter ends with some main conclusions drawn from within-case analysis.

Three notes of caution with regard to my within-case analysis. Firstly, it is not enough to show that the relationship of X and Y changes via the theorized mechanism. For instance, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that integrating the Maoist People’s Governments into the authority of the Nepalese interim gov- ernment limited the possibilities for parallel taxation and thereby influenced the decision-making of the CPN (M) to remain at peace. I must also demonstrate in Chapters 6 to 8 that alternative or counterfactual causal paths and explanatory variables are not responsible for the change of Y (Checkel, 2008; Collier, 2011). Secondly, the scope of my case studies does not allow me to trace each and every underlying decision and micro process of all relevant actors, and thus I understand process-tracing in my case studies “merely as a conceptual approx- imation to the logic underlying such situations” (Kuehn, 2013, p. 59). Thirdly, while within-case analysis generates strong knowledge about the precise causal mechanisms at work in one or several cases, results from such analysis cannot be generalized. In other words, knowledge generated from process-tracing “im- proves the internal validity of causal claims, but does not enhance the robustness

of the inferences on the cross-case level” (Kuehn, 2013, p. 56). Also for that reason, combining within-case analysis with other qualitative and quantitative methods is fruitful; and thus Chapter 9 closes the empirical part of this disser- tation by scrutinizing the three cases in relation to each other to lend further evidence to my causal argument.