Adding borderline cases

Now we will add the borderline cases of Palestine and Western Sahara to the dataset and see whether they make substantial differences to the analysis already undertaken. Here, we also take a look at different forms of analysis, as we did with the nine cases. Specifically, we will conduct three different analyses and compare them to what has already been done. These three differentiations are: the analysis of sufficiency and necessity; the analysis of the presence and absence of outcome; and the analysis with foreign economic conditions as a whole and separately. The latter is again expressed as the conjunction and disjunction of economic conditions respectively. We will not add any tables, but merely comment on the changes, if there are any, to the tables already presented.

3.2.3.1. Sufficient conditions

Starting with the presence of the outcome and economic conjunction (Table 9), the addition of two borderline cases alters all three solution terms. Starting with the complex one, there were three sufficient paths in the term but with borderline cases there are two. The path ‘~economy*~secession*patron

*~freedom’ has been lost. This also influences the intermediate solution term where instead of two paths only ‘freedom*patron’ survive. With the most parsimonious solution, ‘~secession’ is dropped and only ‘freedom’ remains.

The consistency and coverage scores are not altered much though and are very similar to the ones reported in Table 9.

The main implication that borderline cases have is the loss of relevance of the absence of secessionism. Even though both cases score high on the condition, i.e.

neither is considered to be secessionist; the different scores in the outcome con-dition mean that the consistency of ‘~secession’ decreases. Hence it is no longer an independent path in the most parsimonious solution term nor does it figure in the intermediate one. Otherwise the results are the same as with nine cases.

Turning to the analysis of no representations with economic conjunction there are no major differences to report. The most complex and intermediate solution terms are the same as with nine cases (Table 12), there are only very minor changes in consistency and coverage scores. This means that the analysis does not produce equifinal results, as all solution terms consist of one path. In the case of the most complex and intermediate solutions, conjunctural causation remains In case of the most parsimonious solution condition ‘secession’ has been added to the ‘~patron’ condition. The rise in the importance of secessionism can be attributed to the case of Palestine which is not secessionist

but does have representations on its soil. Here we see that in the case of no representations, the influence of added cases and their non-secessionist creation does not have the same effect as it did with the presence of representations. This can be explained by the larger number of de facto states not having representations so the additional cases have less influence.

Overall, when treating economic conditions as a conjunction i.e. combined using the logical AND operator, adding borderline cases does not alter the results much, even though there are some changes. The most noteworthy change is the decreased relevance of the absence of secessionism for representations because the added cases have different scores in the outcome. Otherwise, the sufficient combinations are not altered, although there are cosmetic changes to the consistency and coverage scores.

When we substitute the conjunction of economic conditions with a dis-junction, the changes are still small and irrelevant. Starting with the presence of the outcome, in comparison with the results presented in Table 15, there are no changes most complex and intermediate solution terms, par cosmetic changes in coverage scores. There are two substantial changes in the most parsimonious solution. First, again ‘patron’ is added to ‘~secession’. Second, and entire row is added consisting of ‘~secession’ and ‘economyor’. Of course, it could be the other way round with ‘economyor’ added and patron creating a new path.

Coming to the analysis of no representations, there are again no substantial changes to report. Most complex and intermediate solution terms are exactly the same as reported in Table 18 with only minor adjustments in coverage scores.

Still, there are several changes to the most parsimonious solution term. As we recall from Table 18, most parsimonious solution consisted of two paths, both themselves consisting of only one condition each. These paths were ‘~patron’

and ‘~economyor’. Adding borderline cases gives us four different paths:

‘secession*~patron’; ‘secession*~economyor’; ‘economyor*~patron’; and

‘~economyor*patron’. However, the unique coverage scores of these paths are extremely low. This is because they overlap quite extensively. This also brings down the scores of solution consistency and coverage. Hence we should not look too deeply into these results.

To sum up the analysis with the disjunction of economic conditions, the addition of two borderline cases does not influence results to any substantial effect. Indeed, the alterations are smaller than in the case of the conjunction of economy. And the changes are mostly in the most parsimonious solution terms.

Overall we can say that adding borderline cases does not have an influence on the sufficient conditions if foreign representations are analysed. It does give fewer options for the presence of outcome though. This could be due to the different nature of SADR and Palestine in terms of representations. Even though they are quite similar in the conditions and differ only in respect of having a patron, Palestine has foreign representations on its soil and Western Sahara does not.

Therefore we add two rather similar cases to the mix that have effect on both the presence and absence of outcome and therefore cancel each other out to an extent.

3.2.3.2. Necessary conditions

The changes in necessary conditions among all four types (presence and absence of outcome and conjunction and disjunction of economic conditions) are also mild. No new necessary conditions are introduced, although some have lost their consistency. In the case of the analysis of the presence of represen-tations and conjunction of economy (Table 10), the main change is the loss of relevance of ‘patron’. Otherwise there are only slight changes in scores.

Everything that was said earlier still applies and we still have a contradictory case in Somaliland. The lower consistency scores for ‘patron’ are down to Palestine having foreign representations but lacking a patron. The analysis of the absence of representations (Table 13) is slightly changed, as ‘secession’ is no longer a necessary condition. Non-secessionist Western Sahara contributes to this, while having a high score in the outcome ‘~representations’. On an XY-plot, this case would fall into the upper left corner, thus not only reducing the consistency score but being logically contradictory to the statement of necessity.

In the case of the disjunction of economic conditions and the presence of representations (Table 16), there are two changes. The first change is that

‘economyor’ is no longer a necessary condition. The reason for this is Palestine, which shows a high score in the outcome but a low score in the condition.

Palestine, as we said previously, is also behind of dropping ‘patron’ as a necessary condition. In the case of the no representations (Table 19), the con-dition ‘secession’ has lost its status as necessary, mainly due to Western Sahara being non-secessionist but still showing a high score in ‘~representations’.

Overall, the necessary conditions have been altered because of two factors.

First is the nature of the added borderline cases. Three aspects can be identified that could affect the results. First, neither of the new cases is secessionist;

second neither of them is economically active; and third, they differ in having a patron. Also, they have different scores in the outcome ‘representations,’ which complicates the analysis. However, the changes are not dramatic. The second factor is that the analysis with the disjunction of economic conditions is affected more than the analysis with the conjunction. This is because most of the cases show low scores in economy as a whole, but might have a high score in one of the three conditions. Adding two cases with also low score in the whole economy (conjunction) does not alter things much, but adding them to a more diverse disjunction does.

Even though there are some changes to necessary conditions, we can say that in terms of representations adding borderline cases makes no difference. In sufficient conditions the changes take place in most parsimonious solution term which itself is the most difficult to interpret. It does take into account logical reminders but does not follow any theoretical inputs. For necessary conditions we see the decrease in the role of powerful patron for the presence of representations mainly because of the influence of Palestine.