Thin Explanations of Cash Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Methodological Limits of Case Study and Comparative Research

Case and comparative studies are key methodological instruments in social policy research with undisputed merits. However, this paper argues that in some instances the selection of the case(s) to be studied is weakly justified, thus limiting the knowledge gained through the study. This becomes evident when looking at the literature on the political drivers of cash transfers in sub-Saharan Africa, a literature that is particularly interested in the influence of international donors and organizations and of national actors and their priorities. The methodological literature would suggest a theoretical informed case selection, but this is rarely done in practice. There is a strong bias towards bigger English-speaking countries, thus ignoring countries with a different colonial heritage, especially in terms of economic structure. A second strong bias is towards positive cases. One consequence is that what is supposed to explain a policy in the case(s) researched (e.g., donors and national actors with certain priorities) does not lead to the same policy in other cases not researched. Another consequence is that it does not become clear that there might be various explanations for similar policies. A similar problem arises regarding the selection of the social policy field. What is supposed to explain processes in one socio-political field (e.g., cash transfers) might not explain them in another socio-political field in the same country (e.g., health care policies). All this points to thin explanations that have one thing in common: the need for a more refined explanation. This paper does not argue against the use of case and comparative studies, on the contrary: it argues in favour of a careful selection of cases, which is informed by a broader understanding of the dissemination of certain actor constellations and policies.