Cited by 77Qualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesWorld Systems and Global Transformations

Explaining the Great Reversal in Spanish America: Fuzzy-Set Analysis Versus Regression Analysis

Open access
Katz, Aaron, vom Hau, Matthias, Mahoney, James·2005·Sociological Methods & Research

Abstract

This article evaluates the relative strengths and weaknesses of fuzzy-set analysis and regression analysis for explaining the “great reversal” in Spanish America. From 1750 to 1900, the most marginal colonial territories often became the region’s wealthiest countries, whereas the most central colonial territories often became the region’s poorest countries. To explain this reversal, five competing hypotheses are tested using both regression and fuzzy-set methods. The fuzzy-set analysis reaches substantively important conclusions, finding that strong liberal factions are probabilistically necessary for economic development and that dense indigenous populations are probabilistically necessary for social underdevelopment. By contrast, the regression analysis generates findings that are not meaningful. The article concludes that fuzzy-set analysis and regression analysis operate in different “causal universes” and that greater attention should be granted to the causal universe occupied by fuzzy-set analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0049124104266002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • QCA and general linear regression approaches differ fundamentally in how they conceptualize causal relations.

    “the QCA and general linear regression approaches differ fundamentally in how they conceptualize causal relations (Katz, Vom Hau, & Mahoney, 2005; Ragin, 2006, 2013; Thiem et al., 2015).”

    From Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective (2017) · cites this paper as Katz, Vom Hau, & Mahoney, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katz, A., vom Hau, M., & Mahoney, J.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Brown University
Venue
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
2005-05
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
539-573
ISSN
  • 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8294
OpenAlex
W2007963802
Cited by
77
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0093754)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Culture, Economy, and Development Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › World Systems and Global Transformations
Keywords
Spanish America, colonial economic development, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, regression analysis, method comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review