Because of the difference in methodological tools we have serious obstacles if we try to compare arguments (conceptions) of rival (groups of) scholars. The qualitative approach or, saying precisely, case-study is the main methodology of critics of global integration. They usually develop their ideas on the basis of small and non-comparative empirical data sets. Despite some essential advantages[5], this approach has some potential weaknesses. Firstly, “the decline effect” (Lehrer, 2010) can be a reason of vulnerable results. Regularities, unique traits and/or bright insights that were revealed on the basis of a small number of observations sometimes disappear entirely with the growth of the number of cases. Secondly, non-comparative analysis does not allow to evaluate the “pure” effect of aid of international (or foreign) donors. Thirdly, a detailed description (that is usually defined as the key advantage of a qualitative approach) creates unintentionally some mess both with the analysis of association between variables and with the extraction of the key variables (characteristics) (Healy, 2015). Reinterpreting Heckathorn’s idea, we assert that a high level of descriptive accuracy that is achieved in a case-study has, nevertheless, a negative effect on analytical power of research (Heckathorn, 1984).