ABSTRACT
As was pointed out in the preceding chapter, case studies are useful because they raise questions that might be missed in a solely quantitative study and facilitate in the construction of generalizable hypotheses. In addition, case studies convey a richness of detail and provide a feel for the actual give-and-take that occurs in setting policy. This greater texture is particularly important in a study such as this, where much of what has occurred is not amenable to aggregate data analysis. The size of the undertaking and absence of reliable records made the quantification of some important aspects of the policymaking process impractical. For example, the private negotiations of individual actors are not conducive to quantitative analysis. But these sorts of questions are an important part of the creation of a fully co-institutional view of policymaking over time.
