Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This study underscores the effectiveness of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) when compared to conventional regression analysis (CRA) in the investigation of complex human systems. Utilizing historical secondary cross-national data from Lipset & Man (1960) spanning 18 countries, where CRA may be impractical, the research emphasizes the superior performance of QCA, specifically utilizing both crisp set QCA and fuzzy set QCA. The dataset includes variables such as democracy survival and its precursors, such as gross national product per capita, urbanization, literacy rate, and industrial labor force. In contrast to conventional regression results indicating an insignificant relationship between democracy survival and its antecedents, crisp set QCA identifies two distinct combinations of antecedents associated with high levels of democracy survival, albeit with limited solution coverage. Meanwhile, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) reveals five combinations of antecedents linked to robust democracy survival, providing adequate solution coverage and consistency. These findings suggest that fsQCA excels in capturing the intricacies of real-life scenarios in human complex systems, offering more robust empirical solutions compared to crisp set QCA and conventional regression. As a result, researchers may find value in integrating fsQCA into their new projects focused on human complex systems.
Xu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: