Introduction

In the economics profession at large the use of case studies is not the norm. Case studies may be frowned upon as simply individual narratives and thus do not fit one of the criteria for good scientific research: generalization – the more general the result the better the theory. This still holds for case studies so the scholar needs to take care when selecting the case study to be aware of the “big picture.” Indeed, I advocate the use of case studies because it allows the analyst the ability to isolate the impact of a theoretical concept in a more detailed and potentially more compelling manner. Case studies are especially important for new institutional economics (NIE) because they enable us to analyze both the determinants and consequences of institutions and institutional change.

Case studies in NIE are also known as “analytical narratives.” The term “analytical” conveys the use of a theoretical framework or set of theoretical concepts and the term “narrative” conveys the use of historical qualitative evidence. Though narratives use historical evidence, including at times accounts by individuals, the style also endorses quantitative evidence, including the use of econometric tests. One of the differences between the use of quantitative evidence in case studies as opposed to many broader analyses is that the scholar typically has a very thorough understanding of the data used in the analysis and, in some cases, may have collected the data, as is typically the case for anthropologists as well as some development economists.