Pitfalls in inferring necessity from suffi ciency solution terms

h ere are two pitfalls related to the analysis of necessity: the disappearance of true necessary conditions and the appearance of false necessary conditions . We illustrate both fallacies using data from published QCA. As before in the book, we do not aim at reanalyzing the original studies but rather alter them in order to better demonstrate our methodological arguments.

Hidden necessary conditions

Hidden necessary conditions can occur due to two, mutually non-exclusive features of the data at hand. One reason consists in the kind of assumptions made on logical remainders. The other reason rests in the treatment of less-than-perfect set relations. In the following, we provide one example for each source. From these examples, we then derive the general conditions under which this phenomenon occurs.

Hidden necessary conditions due to incoherent counterfactuals

Stokke (2004) aims at identifying the conditions under which the strategy of shaming makes hitherto non-compliant countries observe international fishing rules (SUCCESS). He identifies five conditions: advice (A); commitment (C); shadow of the future (S); inconvenience (I); and reverberation (R). h e ten countries evenly split into five successful and five unsuccessful incidences of shaming. The cases fall into eight different truth table rows (four connected to success and four to the lack of success). Given a truth table with 25 conditions, there are 32 − 8 = 24 logical remainders (Table 9.1).