QCA renders itself to comparative welfare state research because of the limited number of countries with welfare states that can meaningfully be compared, the use of elaborate theoretical frameworks in the form of welfare state typologies, the view of cases being configurations of different dimensions, the view of multiple conjunctural causation behind different welfare states, and the view of welfare state types having a differentiated impact on socio-economic groups. However, QCA studies within this field differ a lot with regard to their justifications for using QCA and how they actually do it. This paper deals with these topics and proceeds as follows. First, we provide a mapping of comparative welfare studies using QCA. Second, we summarize and discuss the justifications scholars have given for using QCA in this research field. Third, we argue that scholars using QCA may benefit from being more explicit about the logic of set-theoretic based analysis such as the emphasis on necessary and sufficient conditions and the view of multiple conjunctural causation. Fourth, we emphasize the need to return to the cases for interpreting the results. For all these issues, we draw on examples from the literature for illustrative purposes.
