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).