Were nineteenth century war outcomes the main determinant of state trajectories in Latin America? In this chapter I turn from examining whether and to which degree war outcomes affected comparative state capacity levels and try to determining whether war outcomes were the main factor affecting the relative position of Latin American countries in the regional state capacity ranking. Exploring the conditions that predict the rank ordering of Latin American state capacity c. 1900—which has remained virtually the same ever since—has become a standard approach in the literature. In this chapter I explore this comparative historical puzzle by replicating previously used techniques. I use qualitative comparative analysis to show that accumulated victory and defeat throughout the nineteenth century is almost a sufficient condition for states to be in the upper and lower end of a state capacity ranking, respectively. I then use simple correlations to evaluate how war outcomes were related to a broad set of state capacity indicators at the turn of the century. Finally, I discuss case-specific expectations in longitudinal data that will be explored in the case studies.

Once context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) have been refined through qualitative research, they can be tested using quantitative data. A variety of different analyses can be used to assess the validity of CMOCs. Overall, analyses will not assess CMOCs but are nonetheless still useful in determining overall effects. Mediation analyses assess whether any intervention effect on an outcome is explained by intervention effects on intermediate outcomes, and so can shed light on mechanisms. Moderation analyses see how intervention effects vary between subgroups defined in terms of baseline context (settings or populations) and so shed light on contextual differences. Moderated mediation analyses assess whether mediation is apparent in some context but not others, and so can shed light on which mechanisms appear to generate outcomes in which contexts. Qualitative comparative analyses can examine whether more complex combinations of markers of context and mechanism co-occur with markers of outcome. Together, this set of analyses can provide nuanced and rigorous information on which CMOCs appear most usefully to explain how intervention mechanisms interact with context to generate outcomes.

This chapter examines how context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) can be assessed within systematic reviews, again using the example of a review of school-based prevention of dating and other gender-based violence. Rather than testing CMOCs by assessing whether these align with the narratives reported by included studies, realistic systematic reviews assess and refine CMOCs by assessing how they compare with the statistical regularities reported by included studies. Overall meta-analyses indicate overall effects. Network meta-analyses shed light on how different intervention components might enable generation of outcomes. Narrative syntheses of mediation and moderation analyses and meta-regression suggest how mechanisms might work and how these may generate different outcomes in different contexts. Qualitative comparative analyses examine whether more complex combinations of markers of context and mechanism co-occur with markers of outcome. These analyses can provide nuanced and rigorous information on which CMOCs appear to explain how intervention mechanisms interact with context to generate outcomes. A limitation of assessing CMOCs in systematic reviews rather than primary intervention studies is that the analyst has less control over what empirical analyses are possible so analyses tend to be more inductive.

This chapter puts the two-logics theory under a thorough and systematic empirical test. It conducts a comprehensive macro-qualitative comparison of all autocratic regime episodes in East Asia since 1945. It argues that the stability of autocratic rule can be explained by logically reducing possible configurations to a small number of stability recipes. It singles out soft repression as the most crucial and polyvalent INUS condition for stabilizing autocratic rule and provides empirical support for the two logics of over-politicization and de-politicization. Particular emphasis is paid to contextualizing the empirical results. In methodical terms, it relies on Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) that is particularly capable of detecting conjunctural causation, making it the best-suited method for the book’s configurational argument.

Chapter 5 offers the first comprehensive analysis of supportive military interventions by African states. Supportive interventions are those that assist the target government, a phenomenon which

Chapter 1 provides the rationale and the context for the book while also highlighting the novelty of the study. Existing research in international relations and African politics has yet to provide a thorough analysis of military intervention into or within Africa. This initial chapter discusses the utility of studying the continent as a whole (rather than sub-Saharan Africa alone), defines terms, and offers basic data on intervention patterns in Africa. It then presents the book’s theoretical framework, which is built upon three components: diversionary theory (domestic level), rebel movement theory (transnational level), and role theory (international level). The chapter continues by outlining the three research methods used to explain intervention in Africa and to evaluate the utility of the theory: quantitative analysis, historical narrative, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). It explains the benefits of triangulation across the three methods and how this offers a more comprehensive understanding of African intervention. The chapter then analyzes a large N quantitative results that offer a foundation for more detailed historical and qualitative work in later chapters. As further preparation for the qualitative chapters to come, it provides details on the QCA approach before outlining the remaining chapters in the book.

States usually intervene in failed states for broader strategic or humanitarian motives. However, chapter 6 uses Somalia, the Democratic Repblic of Congo (DRC), and South Sudan to show that most African interveners lent their support to one side or the other in these lawless lands in the pursuit of their own interests. In the DRC, external interveners were primarily interested in looting rather than in Congo’s stability. In Somalia, Ethiopia switched from hostile to supportive military interventions in an attempt to dampen Islamist influence while also creating a weak transitional government it could easily manipulate. Kenya and Eritrea, in contrast, intervened in order to establish a strong Somali state capable of counterbalancing Ethiopia’s hegemonic aspirations in the horn of Africa. Unlike the first two cases, South Sudan did not experience multiple military interventions despite encountering similar conditions. This negative case is the result of Ethiopia’s restraint from taking any military action to support its kin, the Nuer, because it feared upsetting the ethnic balance in its eastern region. Results from qualitative comparative analysis show that most African interveners are motivated to dispatch their militaries to failed states by the presence of prominent roles, rebel sanctuaries, lootable resources, and domestic pressures.

Hostile military interventions have been common in postcolonial Africa. Chapter 4 begins with East Africa, the locale of the largest number of hostile military interventions. Central Africa, Southern Africa, North Africa, and West Africa follow. Many of these hostile interventions have targeted transnational rebels operating from neighboring states that pose a challenge to the incumbent regime. Ideological rivalry played a role in state sponsorship of rebel groups and interstate tensions during the Cold War, and local interstate rivalries have been present in the post-Cold War period. Although some regional differences emerged in the historical narrative, results from qualitative comparative analysis suggest that states with prominent foreign policy roles on the continent target rebels in neighboring states, but when rivalries or subsystemic crises are present states without prominent role status intervene as well. Domestic conditions may also pose a challenge to a government’s tenure and compel it to use hostile force, often against targets that represent a tangible threat to the ruling ethnic group. Negative economic growth and inflation are the domestic pressures that most frequently help to explain hostile military intervention in postcolonial Africa, demonstrating that when combined with other conditions the diversionary argument has purchase in this context.

Chapter 3 analyzes military intervention into Africa by former colonial powers and the European Union. It shows that their supportive and neutral interventions have been much more frequent than hostile interventions. Among these powers, France has remained the most interventionist state in Africa because close ties with Francophone governments have helped to provide successive French leaders with a global status and a mission beyond Europe. Consistent with quantitative and historical treatments, qualitative comparative analysis emphasizes the impact that capabilities and national roles have had on interventions by former colonial metropoles in Africa, while the European Union has intervened into Africa for humanitarian motives. Chapter 3 also demonstrates that supportive and neutral military interventions by former colonial powers into Africa correspond with high levels of mass unrest at home. As a result, this chapter contends that many French and other colonial military interventions failed to produce stability in African polities in part because the military actions were motivated by domestic concerns. Thus, some combination of national role, capabilities, and domestic political pressures help to explain many military interventions by former colonial powers, and none of these conditions seem likely to result in operations that put African populations’ interests at the forefront.