Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 223 items :

  • Regional Economics x
  • Environment x
Clear All
You do not have access to this content

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

We explain and demonstrate how the selected cases have to be prepared for the actual comparison. This involves a serious effort with regard to the interpretation of the case materials. In QCA, this process of interpreting data is guided by calibration, where raw (qualitative) case data are transformed into quantitative values. Calibration is important because it systematizes interpretation and makes it transparent. There are three principle types of calibration in QCA: crisp-set QCA, fuzzy-set QCA, and multi-value QCA. We explain and demonstrate the different types of calibration using real examples. We also discuss good practices that will help the researcher in making sound decisions when calibrating. The calibration results in a calibrated data matrix, which forms the input for the formal comparison in QCA. Having completed this chapter, the researcher will be able to start the comparison.

You do not have access to this content

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

We explain why it is important to research specific cases and how exactly cases are to be understood and studied using QCA. Cases allow the researcher to account for the heterogeneity, uniqueness, and contextuality of projects. Whereas the term ‘case’ is often used indiscriminately, in QCA it is a clearly defined and important building block. In QCA, cases are conceptualized as configurations of conditions. This configurational nature highlights the complexity of the case. Cases can be researched in two principal ways: case-driven and theory-driven. The case-driven route is decidedly grounded in empirical material, with the boundaries and aspects of cases being constructed during the empirical research process. In the more theory-driven route, the boundaries and aspects of cases are defined by prior theories. Both routes constitute dialogues between data and theory. The chapter explains the concrete research steps involved in both routes.

You do not have access to this content

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

We explain and demonstrate how the researcher can identify recurring patterns across cases on the basis of the calibrated data matrix, in a systematic and transparent way. The comparative process in QCA consists of three main steps. First, the calibrated data matrix needs to be transformed into a truth table. In the truth table, the cases are sorted across the logically possible configurations of conditions. Second, the truth table has to be minimized. This is done through the pairwise comparison of truth table rows that are considered to agree on the outcome and differ in their score in but one of the conditions. The result of the minimization is a solution formula. Third, the solution formula needs to be interpreted. Two common issues in the truth table minimization are limited diversity and logical contradictions. We present various strategies for dealing with these issues.

You do not have access to this content

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

In this concluding chapter, some of the main issues concerning the evaluation of complex infrastructure projects with QCA are revisited. First, QCA’s capacity to truly capture and study the complexity of the development of infrastructure projects is discussed. QCA’s take on complex causality is relatively static because it does not explicitly integrate the time dimension. Various strategies to integrate time in QCA are discussed, including Temporal QCA (TQCA) and Time-Series QCA (TS/QCA). The different strategies have their strengths and weaknesses and they relate to different research steps (i.e., the case, the calibration, and the comparison) involved in QCA. Second, the deployment of QCA in real-world evaluations and various issues evaluators may run into are discussed. These issues include learning and political accountability, the presentation and visualization of results, and the transfer of lessons learned.

You do not have access to this content

The Evaluation of Complex Infrastructure Projects

A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

Infrastructure projects are notoriously hard to manage so it is important that society learns from the successes and mistakes made over time. However, most evaluation methods run into a conundrum: either they cover a large number of projects but have little to say about their details, or they focus on detailed single-case studies with little in terms of applicability elsewhere. This book presents Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an alternative evaluation method that solves the conundrum to enhance learning.
This content is available to you

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

We argue that infrastructure projects are complex and that evaluations of such projects need to do justice to that complexity. The three principal aspects discussed here are heterogeneity, uniqueness, and context. Evaluations that are serious about incorporating the complexity of projects need to address these aspects. Often, evaluations rely on single case studies. Such studies are useful because they allow researchers to focus on the heterogeneous, unique, and contextual nature of projects. However, their relevance for explaining other (future) projects is limited. Larger-n studies allow for the comparison of cases, but they come with the important downside that their relevance for explaining single projects is limited because they cannot incorporate heterogeneity, uniqueness, and context sufficiently. The method Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) presents a promising solution to this conundrum. This book offers a guide to using QCA when evaluating infrastructure projects.

This content is available to you

Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij

This content is available to you

Edited by Thijs ten Raa

You do not have access to this content

José M. Rueda-Cantuche

It is not easy to transform the input and output tables "produced" by statistical offices into matrices of input-output coefficients. There are commodity-by-commodity and industry-by-industry input-output matrices and each of them can be constructed using different models. This chapter provides a unifying framework for all these alternatives and discusses the theoretical and practical pros and cons of the alternatives in a way that consolidates the vast literature. The chapter is authored by an expert who combines statistical office experience and academic contributions to the interface of input-output statistics and economic-environmental modeling.

You do not have access to this content

Yasuhide Okuyama

In dynamic input-output analysis investment meets the capital requirements of output growth. The model is linear and the proportionality between type i capital requirements and output j is represented by a capital coefficient. This chapter presents the dynamic input-output model, its solution, and two main issues, namely singularity of the matrix of capital coefficients and causal indeterminacy. Singularity is a mathematical problem that has been solved. Causal indeterminacy is the incompatibility between non-negative output solutions and arbitrary initial conditions, an issue related to the instability of the model. Alternative modifications of the model address the issue. The dynamic input-output model revives in three areas. Human capital formation is modeled to explain endogenous growth. Environmental accounts are added to analyze the depletion of nonrenewable resources. And lagged production and expenditure models are employed in disaster impact analysis.