Page 11 - Microsoft Word - CEU_MA_Thesis_ARDI_PRIKS_FINAL_v1.3.docx

preferences, their perceptions, the evaluation of alternatives, the information they possess, the expectations they form, the strategies they adopt, and the constraints that limit their actions” (Bates, et al. 1998, 11-12). The goal is to explain outcomes—how CAP reforms took place and why—by identifying and exploring the mechanisms that generate them. If the analytic narrative identifies actors, and establishes that their actions conform to what the theory predicts, the theory’s validity will be affirmed. If findings partially contradict the theory’s predictions and empirical puzzles remain, but these puzzles could be solved by improving the theory’s conceptualization or scope conditions, then the theory will be improved and affirmed, albeit with modifications. This result will be a call for further research to determine whether the improvements have an impact on the theory’s application in other cases. Finally, if the analytic narrative establishes that empirical evidence contradict what the theory would predict, and these contradictions cannot be overcome without the removal of the theory’s underlying assumptions or logic, then the case study will reject the theory’s validity. In this sense, the case study attempts to update the probability that Multi-Level Games heory remains valid. Hypothesis and the structure of the thesis Plausibility probing suggests the default hypothesis would be that Multi-Level Games theory remains valid even in the twenty-first century, but needs to be slightly updated to take into account changes in the EU’s decision making procedures, namely the introduction of QMV. It is argued that with this modification, MLTG will explain why seemingly rational actors have continually agreed to preserve CAP with its rent granting effects despite its numerous flaws. 11