Measuring the Modern Social Market Economy. Future Social Market Economy Policy Brief #2012/04

The “Index of Modern Social Market Economies” (MSME Index) defines and measures the features of a modern social market economy in international comparison. In contrast to other indices that measure economic performance, the MSME Index takes an institutional approach, outlining a system of essential institutions and measurable indicators for the construction and assessment of modern social market economies. Among other insights, the index could guide the European Union toward achieving the “highly competitive social market economy” that it defines in the Lisbon Treaty as its desired economic order.

A European Social Market Economy? - Index Results. Policy Brief #2013/03

The ‘highly competitive social market economy’ represents the targeted common economic order of the European Union as it is stated as a goal in the Lisbon Treaty. Yet, this endeavor requires a mutual understanding of which institutions constitute a modern social market economy. The results of the Index of Modern Social Market Economies (IMSME) show congruence around a liberal market economy, but great diversity in principles indispensible for a social market economy.

Social Rights in Post-Revolutionary Tunisia: Is a Consensus-driven Policy Still on The table? EUSpring Policy Brief/Citizenship Review No. 17, June 2016

The immolation of street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi and the demonstrations that followed in December 2010 triggered the Tunisian revolution. But there were more deep-seated issues at stake: unemployment, poverty and exclusion, coupled with a deep sense of injustice, humiliation and helplessness of the peripheries to influence the political centre. Five years after the revolution, the social and economic problems are still persistent and arguably worse. Many people believe Tunisians are facing a distorted revolution; political progress has not coincided with reforms leading to welfare.

Social Network Analysis and Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Their mutual benefit for the explanation of policy network structures

By switching the level of analysis and aggregating data from the micro-level of individual cases to the macro-level, quantitative data can be analysed within a more case-based approach. This paper presents such an approach in two steps: In a first step, it discusses the combination of Social Network Analysis (SNA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in a sequential mixed-methods research design. In such a design, quantitative social network data on individual cases and their relations at the micro-level are used to describe the structure of the network that these cases constitute at the macro-level. Different network structures can then be compared by QCA. This strategy allows adding an element of potential causal explanation to SNA, while SNA-indicators allow for a systematic description of the cases to be compared by QCA. Because mixing methods can be a promising, but also a risky endeavour, the methodological part also discusses the possibility that underlying assumptions of both methods could clash. In a second step, the research design presented beforehand is applied to an empirical study of policy network structures in Swiss politics. Through a comparison of 11 policy networks, causal paths that lead to a conflictual or consensual policy network structure are identified and discussed. The analysis reveals that different theoretical factors matter and that multiple conjunctural causation is at work. Based on both the methodological discussion and the empirical application, it appears that a combination of SNA and QCA can represent a helpful methodological design for social science research and a possibility of using quantitative data with a more case-based approach.