Abstract
This study ties into the debate about the effect of the EU on its member states. Most studies do not include non-EU cases in their investigations. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the (isolated) causal effect or relative importance of the EU. Moreover, studies with an exclusive focus on EU cases tend to be biased towards EU-level explanations, at the expense of domestic or global explanations. The article examines three strategies to demonstrate the causal importance of the EU. It points to the limits of process tracing and counterfactual reasoning and advocates the comparison of EU member states with non-members or, if research is restricted to EU countries, cases where the source of an EU effect is present with cases where the source is absent.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Karen Anderson, Peter Bursens, Antoaneta Dimitrova, David Levi-Faur, David Lowery, Peter Mair, Ellen Mastenbroek, Mark Rhinard, Bertjan Verbeek, and the anonymous referees for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
Notes
1. Note, however, that Norway (and Iceland and Liechtenstein) are part of the European Economic Area, and Switzerland has engaged in bilateral treaties with the EU. As far as issues are concerned that fall under the scope of such agreements, the respective country cannot be regarded as non-EU case (Sciarini et al. Citation2004; Sverdrup Citation1998). Moreover, countries that seek membership of the EU, i.e. candidate countries, cannot be regarded as control cases either, as it is quite likely that the EU has already had an effect there.
2. I would like to thank Peter Mair for pointing me to the potential opportunities arising from the historical dimension of the integration process and from its current flexibility.
3. In addition, one has to make sure that these countries do not adapt to the EU in order to ‘keep the door open’.
4. In the remainder of the paper I will use the term ‘sections’ as a general label for all units of comparison except countries, e.g. policy fields, economic sectors, institutions, elites, interest organisations.