18
a common denominator. Almost consistently across the two methods, egalitarianism holds
one of the explanatory keys to the Left Socialist parties. Hence, the expectations are broadly
confirmed. QCA picks up more complexity in the Finnish case while logistic regression picks
up more complexity in the Swedish case. The two methods unearth identical simple
conditions for the Left Socialist party in Denmark.
Third, rejection of hierarchy is the single necessary QCA condition for support of
liberal parties. The more the voters repudiate procedural equality, the better the electoral
prospects of the party of social liberalism. The results confirm the expectations as to the
rejection of hierarchy but not endorsement of individulism. Apart from the overlap in
rejection of hierarchy, logistic regression does not follow suit as to the complexity found by
QCA for the Danish Liberal party. The Liberal party in Finland is one of the two parties for
which no overlap in QCA or logistic regression conditions exists.
The four party families across which no consistent condition could be identified have
the following outcomes. First, except for Iceland, QCA identifies agreement with
egalitarianism as one of the necessary conditions for the support for the Social Democratic
parties. Except for Finland, logistic regression finds that rejection of individualism is
conducive to support for said party. The expectation that the Social Democratic parties should
be conditioned primarily by a combination of hierarchy and egalitarianism has only in part
been met.
Second, the environmental party in Finland is jointly predicted by QCA and logistic
regression to be augmented by rejection of hierarchy and fatalism. In addition, QCA
conditions are rejection of individualism and support for egalitarianism. The causal
configuration of the Finnish party resembles those of the socialist left parties (as was
hypothesized). The expectations are only confirmed in part.
Third, only the Progressive party in Norway passes the threshold of statistical
significance. QCA and logistic regression both identify support for individualism as the
condition under which the progressive party prospers. In addition, logistic regression also
identifies support for fatalism whereas QCA identifies a total of three sets of conditions all
under which the progress party may prosper. Only the expectations of support for
individualism has been confirmed.
Finally, the causal conditions for the Danish agrarian party stand out as the most
complex for both QCA and logistic regression. The single identifiable condition under both
methods is rejection of egalitarianism. Complexity was expected. The consistency of
Convention