Abstract
This paper draws attention to the problem of matching abstract theory and specific hypotheses within welfare state research, which reinforces the dependent variable problem and entails methodological difficulties. We show that matching theory and hypotheses is a ubiquitous problem in the literature. We further elaborate and illustrate the argument with an empirical example from our research on structural welfare state reform. We observe two methodological problems: 1) the risk of drawing conclusions about one level of analysis using evidence from another; 2) the problem of translating causal mechanisms formulated at a high level of abstraction to a lower level.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
