3. ANALYSIS PROPER
3.2. Representations
3.2.1. Analysis with the economy as a whole
3.2.1.2. What leads to no represenatations?
The analysis of the presence of representations confirmed two ideas tested in this study. First, there is equifinality, as there are two different causal paths that lead to the outcome. Secondly, there is conjunctural causation, as those paths are not single conditions but combinations of conditions. This section tries to test asymmetry. Does the analysis of no-representations yield results that are not merely complements of those achieved with the presence of the outcome?
P a t r o n
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
Representations
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
We will start with the truth table that is shown in Table 11:
Table 11: Truth table for the absence of outcome condition ‘representations’
eco-nomy
seces-sion
pat-ron
free-dom
num-ber
cases ~represen-tations
consistency 0 1 0 0 2 NKR; Somaliland 1 0.896970
0 1 1 0 4
PMR; Abkhazia;
South Ossetia;
Kosovo 0 0.662757
0 1 1 1 1 TRNC 0 0.494565
0 0 1 0 1 Taiwan 1980 0 0.297030 1 0 1 1 1 Taiwan 2010 0 0.278351 Two things must be noted in the truth table. First, the low consistency scores of the sufficient conditions. The truth table row that shows the presence of the outcome, the not-representations (which would, rather confusingly, be the presence of the absence of the outcome), has a consistency score of 0.897, therefore falling short of perfect subset-superset relations. This score also rules out any solution terms with a consistency score of higher than 0.899, which means that there can be no analysis with a threshold of one or even 0.9. Here, the 0.8 threshold is the only possible solution.
The second thing to be noted in the truth table is that the sufficient truth table row is fully in line with our theoretical expectations, where the presence of secession and the absence of all other conditions contribute to the de facto state not having foreign representations (‘~representations’). As we may recall from the analysis of the presence of representations, there was a truth table row that led to the outcome and possessed exactly opposite scores. Therefore, at least in the complex solution, there is symmetry in some cases but it is not complete.
There were other combinations that led to ‘representations’ that are not represented in their mirror image in the case of ‘~representations’. Because of this, we cannot speak about symmetry in results for the outcome and its complement; at least with results based on the truth table and the most complex solution term.
3.2.1.2.1 Sufficient conditions
The three different solution terms are presented in Table 12:
Table 12: Solution terms of sufficient conditions for the absence of representations Consistency and
Complex solution 0.368 0.897
~freedom*~patron*secession
*~economy 0.368 0.368 0.897
Parsimonious solution 0.386 0.752
~patron 0.386 0.386 0.752
Intermediate solution 0.368 0.897
~freedom*~patron*secession
*~economy 0.368 0.368 0.897 Notes: consistency threshold 0.8; ‘~’ indicates the absence of a condition
As one can observe, there are several things that differ here compared to Table 9 covering the sufficient conditions of the analysis focusing on the presence of representations. First, all of the solution terms share the same coverage score.
As each solution term consists of only one causal path, the raw and unique coverage of each path are exactly the same too. Second, which follows from this, there is no equifinality. When all solution terms express only one path, then there are no alternative ways of reaching the outcome; therefore, the solutions are not equifinal. Third, the most complex solution term and the most parsimonious solution term are the same. The reason for this is, as mentioned in the analysis of the truth table, that this particular causal path is fully in line with our directional expectations. And, as there is no equifinality, simplifying assumptions do not add to parsimony. Difficult counterfactuals, however, add to parsimony and reduce the causal path to a single condition: ~patron.
Before we look at the cases in intermediate and complex solution terms, there are a few important aspects to the most parsimonious solution that should be noted. We start with the consistency score, and at 0.752 it is well below the accepted minimum of 0.8. It is included because, at this threshold for the complex solution, there cannot be any more parsimonious solutions with higher consistency.
Secondly, ‘~patron’ might suggest that there is some symmetry in the conditions for presence and absence of representations, because ‘~patron’ also figures in conjunctures leading to the presence of the outcome. There are two clear objections to this. First of all, here ‘~patron’ is a sufficient condition, or at least would be if not for a consistency score that is too low. In the previous
analysis, ‘patron’ was, albeit debatably, a necessary condition. Second, the most parsimonious solution in the previous analysis was not, and did not include, the condition ‘patron’. As one may recall, the most parsimonious solution was
‘~secession’ OR ‘freedom’.
The intermediate and complex solution terms, being identical, are more consistent in their subset-superset relations with the outcome. Again, there are two aspects of importance with these solutions. First, the coverage score is as low as the most parsimonious solution, therefore neither of the solutions covers much of the outcome. Over 60 per cent is left for other explanations.
The second aspect is the cases that can be seen in Figure 10 below:
Figure 10: Cases of the path ‘~freedom*~patron*secession*~economy’ against the absence of representations from Table 12
There is one case that does not contribute to consistency and this is Somaliland.
Furthermore, it is a logically contradictory case, albeit only just. Somaliland has a score higher than 0.5 in the conjuncture but it just misses this score in the outcome. The score in the ‘~representations’ is 0.48.
Elsewhere the cases of Abkhazia, Ossetia and PMR share the top left data-point; followed by, from top to bottom: TRNC; Kosovo; and Taiwan in 1980 and 2010 (sharing the data-point). In the upper right corner is NKR.
Overall, there are problems with sufficiency in the case of ‘~represen-tations’. The consistency score indicates that the complex solution fits the bill, but its coverage score is low, leaving too much room for other explanations.
~ f r e e d o m A N D ~ p a t r o n A N D s e c e s s i o n A N D ~ e c o n o m y
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
~representations
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
There is also the problem of Somaliland, which is logically contradictory. So, compared to the analysis of the presence of representations, the analysis of their absence produces less clearly interpretable results.
3.2.1.2.2. Necessary conditions
The analysis of necessary conditions also contradicts the respective analysis for
‘representations’. The results are presented in Table 13, which shows that there are several conditions that pass the consistency threshold of 0.9.
Table 13: Necessary conditions for the outcome ‘~representations’
Condition Consistency Coverage
economy 0.082090 0.297297
~economy 1 0.509506
secession 1 0.595556
~secession 0.084577 0.151111
patron 0.659204 0.381844
~patron 0.385572 0.752427 freedom 0.310945 0.362319
~freedom 0.902985 0.654054 Notes: ‘~’ indicates the absence of the condition
The conditions of ‘~economy’, ‘secession’ and ‘~freedom’ can all be con-sidered necessary, the former two expressing a consistency score of one. This means that there is a perfect subset-superset relation between these conditions and the outcome. With necessary conditions, the outcome is the subset and the condition is the superset. When there are perfect subset-superset relations, one does not have to worry about contradictory cases. This worry remains with less-than-one consistency scores.
However, there is a problem with ‘~economy’ as a necessary condition. If we recall Table 10, we see that its consistency score in the analysis of the presence of representations was rather high at 0.84. Even though it is below the 0.9 threshold, and we did not consider ‘~economy’ to be necessary for
‘representations’, it is still reasonably high to cause contradictory statements.
This means that ‘~economy’ could be consistent with the statement of necessity in both cases, where there are representations and where there are not, and therefore we cannot strictly speak about necessity.
The results for ‘~freedom’ as a necessary condition are shown in Figure 11 below. To be fully consistent with the statement of necessity, all cases must have a score in the outcome that is higher or equal to the score in the condition.
This would lead to all cases being on or under the main diagonal. There are two cases above the main diagonal, though, which lower the consistency score.
These cases are TRNC on the left and Abkhazia on the right. TRNC shows scores of 0 and 0.36, and Abkhazia 0.65 and 0.73. Even though they reduce the consistency score, they are not logically contradictory cases. In the case of TRNC, both scores are under the 0.5 crossover point and for Abkhazia they are both above it. Therefore, the statement of necessity holds for ‘~freedom’.
The second parameter of fit, coverage, displays a lower number than consistency. The coverage score indicates whether the necessary condition is relevant or trivial. The higher the score, the more relevant the condition. The coverage score for ‘~economy’ and ‘secession’ is just over 0.5; for ‘~freedom,’
it is slightly higher at 0.65. As with ‘patron,’ when we analysed the presence of foreign representations, we can also talk about a necessary condition here.
Figure 11: Cases showing no freedom (~freedom) against no representations from Table 13
Overall, we can speak about three necessary conditions, although those that show high consistency can be interpreted as not especially relevant. Conditions that lack consistency are more relevant. Comparing the results with the analysis of ‘representations,’ we have a different solution, as we did with the sufficient conditions. Instead of one necessary condition with a logically contradictory case, we have three and no contradictions. The asymmetry is also retained, as the complement of ‘patron’ is not among the necessary conditions here. In fact, the consistency score of ‘~patron’ is very low at 0.39.
~ f r e e d o m
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
~representations
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1
Also, the economic condition has come into play as it was present neither in the intermediate solution term nor among the necessary conditions for
‘representations’. This shows that economic matters do have some importance in foreign relations of de facto states and in the acceptance of these entities.
3.2.2. Dismantling the economy –