Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T20:05:18.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Please, open the windows!

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2020

Claude Ménard*
Affiliation:
Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, Université de Paris (Panthéon-Sorbonne), Paris, France
*
*Corresponding author. Email: claude.menard@univ-paris1.fr

Abstract

This comment concurs with Skarbek's paper that much more room should be made for qualitative evidence in economics. However, it raises questions about the modalities through which case studies could carry general lessons when it comes to broad institutional issues. It also suggests the need to extend the set of qualitative evidence beyond case studies and to complement them with formal approaches as well as with quantitative analysis. Persuading economists to open windows to alternative methods is at stake

Type
Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aoki, M. (2001), Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, R.H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J. L. and Weingast, B. R. (1998), Analytic Narratives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Coppedge, M. (1999), ‘Thickening Thin Concepts and Theories: Combining Large N and Small in Comparative Politics’, Comparative Politics, 31(4): 465476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greif, A. (2006), Institutions and the Path to Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siggelkow, N. (2007), ‘Persuasion with Case Studies’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar