The opening chapter provides a brief outline of the conventional division of labor between qualitative and quantitative methods in the social sciences. It sketches the main standards that govern case study research. It then offers an overview of subsequent chapters, which challenge some of these distinctions or deepen our understanding of what makes qualitative case studies useful for both causal inference and policy practice.

Sarah Glavery and her coauthors draw a distinction between explicit knowledge, which is easily identified and shared through databases and reports, and tacit knowledge, the less easily shared “know how” that comes with having carried out a task. The chapter explores ways to use case study preparation, as well as a case itself, as a vehicle for sharing “know how,” specifically with respect to program implementation. It considers the experiences of four different types of organizations that have used case studies as part of their decision-making as it pertains to development issues: a multilateral agency (the World Bank), a major bilateral agency (Germany’s GIZ), a leading think tank (Brookings), and a ministry of a large country (China’s Ministry of Finance), which are all linked through their involvement in the Global Delivery Initiative.

Woolcock focuses on the utility of qualitative case studies for addressing the decision-maker’s perennial external validity concern: What works there may not work here. He asks how to generate the facts that are important in determining whether an intervention can be scaled and replicated in a given setting. He focuses our attention on three categories: 1) causal density, 2) implementation capability, and 3) reasoned expectations about what can be achieved by when. Experiments are helpful for sorting out causally simple outcomes like the impact of deworming, but they are less insightful when there are many causal pathways, feedback loops, and exogenous influences. Nor do they help sort out the effect of mandate, management capacity, and supply chains, or the way results will materialize – whether some will materialize before others or increase or dissipate over time. Analytic case studies, Woolcock argues, are the main method available for assessing the generalizability of any given intervention.

INTRODUCTION

Myanmar has undergone significant reforms in recent years. A commonly accepted view is that, unlike many of the political shifts experienced elsewhere in the world in the twenty-first century, their impetus came not “from below” but from national elites, prompted by military decisions to open the country to the world and begin to democratize (Pederson 2012, Fink 2014). Much of the literature on Myanmar's transition thus focuses on national dynamics, seeking insights on what has changed, why, and how, by examining shifts among political elites, the business community, and the upper echelons of the Tatmadaw (see Pederson 2012; ICG 2012; Jones 2014). These changes emerged from a variety of elite-led processes, including the drafting of a new constitution in 2008, and accelerated under the Thein Sein-led government starting in 2011. Yet while analysing the motives and strategies of elites is vital for understanding the national impetus behind Myanmar's reforms, it leaves little space for assessing how the transition has played out among the broader populace, particularly in the rural villages where seventy per cent of Myanmar's people live. It also overlooks how the prevailing social institutions at the local level have responded to the various forms and sources of contention (actual and/or potential) inherently accompanying such major changes, and the associated implications for policy and practice in Myanmar.

This paper seeks to contribute to research on Myanmar's social transformation by analysing how governance reforms and changes in the life experiences of people in rural communities are altering the social contract at the village level. The paper argues that the nature and extent of the “social contract”—i.e., the terms on which citizens interact with one another, and the basis on which contending views of citizens’ core rights and responsibilities are negotiated with and legitimately upheld by the state—is being re-written in Myanmar. Three areas of change, especially since 2011, have affected how citizens in rural areas interact with the state: village governance, citizens’ expectations of the state, and connectivity. Responding to these challenges will require strategies informed by the best available evidence.