Karşı-Olgusal Analiz ve Gerek-Şart: Soğuk Savaş’ın Sona Ermesi ve Çernobil Nükleer Faciası

Öz

Karşı-olgusal yöntem, nitel araştırmada tekil tarihsel olayların nedenleri hakkında çıkarım yapmayı sağlar. Tarihsel araştırmada gerek-şart hipotezlerine dayalı karşı-olgusal çıkarımlar kuramsal açıklamaları geliştirme, netleştirme, karşılaştırma ve test etmede vaka-içi analizle birlikte kullanılır. ABD ve Sovyetler Birliği arasındaki iki kutupluluğun damgasını vurduğu Soğuk Savaş’ın barışçıl olarak sona ermesini açıklayan kuramlar farklı gerek-şartlar öne sürer. Realist açıklama Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişinin gerek-şartının ekonomik gerileme olduğunu, düşünsel açıklama ise Gorbaçov’un “yeni düşüncesi” olduğunu öne sürer. Bu makale, karşı-olgusal yöntemi ve küme kuramını Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişine dair bu rakip açıklamaları incelemek için kullanmaktadır. Önce, karşı-olgusal yöntemin uygulanmasında gözetilecek standartları ele almaktadır. Soğuk Savaş’ın sona ermesini küme kuramıyla ve karşı-olgusal yaklaşımla okuyarak, realist ve düşünsel açıklamaları karşılaştırmaktadır. Sonra, şu karşı-olgusal çıkarımın analizine odaklanmaktadır: “1986 Çernobil nükleer kazası olmasaydı, Soğuk Savaş sona ermezdi”. Son olarak, bu olayı rakip açıklamalara dahil ederek hipotez testleri geliştirmektedir. Farklı nedensel varsayımlar çerçevesinde gerek-şart açıklamalarının nasıl test edilebileceğini, dolayısıyla Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişine dair hipotezlerin nasıl geliştirilebileceğini veya yeniden düzenlenebileceğini göstermektedir. Çalışmanın amacı en iyi açıklamayı bulmak ya da Çernobil faciasını dahil eden vaka analiziyle yeni bir açıklama geliştirmek değildir. Makale, alternatif nedensel varsayımlar sunmaktadır ve her varsayım için, vaka-içi analizle teyit edilmesi halinde, yeni hipotezin ekonomik gerilemenin ve yeni düşüncenin nedensel statüsünü nasıl etkileyeceğini belirtmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• karşı-olgusal çıkarım
• küme kuramı
• hipotez testi
• Soğuk Savaş
• Çernobil Kazası

Counterfactual Analysis and Necessary Conditions: The Cold War’s End and the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

Öz

In qualitative research, counterfactual method is employed for making causal inferences about individual historical events. Necessary condition counterfactuals are utilized in historical research for developing, clarifying, comparing, and testing theoretical explanations through within-case analysis. Theories on the Cold War’s peaceful end marked by the end of bipolar struggle between the USA and the Soviet Union draw on different necessary conditions. The realist explanation rests on economic decline, while the ideational explanation rests on Gorbachev’s “new thinking”. This article uses set theory and counterfactual method to study these rival explanations on the Cold War’s end. Firstly, this study elaborates on the standards for the conduct of counterfactual inference. To compare explanations based on economic decline and the new thinking, it reads the end of the Cold War through set theory and counterfactual approach. Secondly, this study focuses on the analysis of the following counterfactual inference: “The Cold War would not have ended without the Chernobyl accident”. Finally, it develops hypotheses tests by incorporating the Chernobyl event into rival explanations. It shows how necessary condition hypotheses can be tested within the frame of different causal assumptions, thereby generating, or revising hypotheses on the Cold War’s end. This article neither finds the best explanation nor generates a novel case study explanation involving the Chernobyl disaster. It offers alternative causal assumptions and shows how each new hypothesis would have affected the causal status of economic decline and the new thinking, in case of validation through within-case analysis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• counterfactual inference
• set theory
• hypothesis testing
• Cold War
• Chernobyl Accident

Kaynakça

1. Ackerman, G. (2006). Interview with Gorbachev (26 Nisan 2006). The Green Cross Optimist Magazine.
2. Bennett, A. (2003). Trust Bursting All Over. W. C. Wohlforth (Ed.), Cold War Endgame: Oral History, Analysis, Debates (ss. 174–204). University Park, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
3. Bennett, A., ve Elman, C. (2006). Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence. Political Analysis, 14(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj020.
4. Blight, J. G., Lang, J. M., ve Welch, D. A. (2010). Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived. New York City: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
5. Braumoller, B. F., ve Goertz, G. (2000). The Methodology of Necessary Conditions. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669285.
6. Brooks, S. G., ve Wohlforth, W. C. (2000). Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas. International Security, 25, 5–53. DOI:10.1162/016228800560516.
7. Brooks, S. G., ve Wohlforth, W. C. (2003). Economic Constraints and the End of the Cold War. W. C. Wohlforth (Ed.), Cold War Endgame: Oral History, Analysis, Debates (ss. 273–309). University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
8. Brooks, S. G., ve Wohlforth, W. C. (2007). New versus Old Thinking in Qualitative Research. Gary Goertz ve J. Mahoney (Ed.), Explaining war and peace: Case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals (ss. 261–280). New York: Routledge.

9. Cantor, G. (1895). Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 46(4), 418–512. http://eudml.org/doc/157768. (Erişim tarihi: 10 Mayıs 2020)
10. Capoccia, G., ve Kelemen, D. R. (2007). The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism. World Politics, 59, 341–369. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020852.
11. Capoccia, G., ve Ziblatt, D. (2010). The historical turn in democratization studies: A new research agenda for Europe and beyond. Comparative Political Studies, 43 (8-9), 931-968. DOI:10.1177/0010414010370431.
12. Carr, E. H. (2018). Tarih Nedir? (Çev.Misket Gizem Gürtürk). Ankara: İletişim Yayınları.
13. Checkel, J. (1997). Ideas and international political change: Soviet/Russian behavior and the end of the Cold War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14. Crockatt, R. (2001). The End of the Cold War. J. Baylis ve S. Smith (Ed.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (ss. 92–110). New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Deluermoz, Q., ve Singaravélou, P. (2012). Exploring the Space of the Possible: Counterfactuals and Paths not Taken in History (Explorer le champ des possibles. Approches contrefactuelles et futurs non advenus en histoire). Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 59(3), 70–95. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-revue-d-histoire-moderne-et-contemporaine-2012-3-page-70.htm. (Erişim tarihi: 15 Kasım 2020)
16. Demandt, A. (1986). Ungeschehene Geschichte. Ein Traktat über die Frage: Was wäre geschehen, wenn...? Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
17. English, R. D. (2000). Russia and the idea of the West: Gorbachev, intellectuals, and the end of the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. English, R. D. (2003). The road(s) not taken: causality and contingency in analysis of the Cold War’s end. W. C. Wohlforth (Ed.), Cold War Endgame: Oral History, Analysis, Debates (ss. 243–272). University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Univ Press.
19. English, R. D. (2007). Perestroika without politics: How realism misunderstands the Cold War’s end. Gary Goertz ve J. S. Levy (Ed.), Explaining war and peace: Case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals (ss. 237–260). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
20. Ernst, F. (2015). Gedankenexperimente in historiographischer Funktion. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 38, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201501702.
21. Evangelista, M. (2015). Explaining the Cold War’s End: Process Tracing all the Way Down? Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (ss. 153–185). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22. Fearon, J. D. (1996). Causes and Counterfactuals in Social Science: Exploring an Analogy Between Cellular Automata and Historical Processes. P. E. Tetlock ve A. Belkin (Ed.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (ss. 39–67). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
23. Ferguson, N. (2011). The Kaiser’s European Union: What if Britain had “stood aside” in August 1914? N. Ferguson (Ed.), Virtual History : Alternatives and Counterfactuals içinde (ss. 228–280). Londra: Macmillan.
24. George, A. L., ve Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
25. Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
26. Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
27. Goertz, G., ve Levy, J. S. (2007a). Causal explanation, necessary conditions, and case studies. Goertz, G., ve J. S. Levy (Ed.), Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals (ss. 9-46). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
28. Goertz, G., ve Levy, J. S. (2007b). Explaining war and peace: Case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals. Londra ve New York: Routledge.
29. Goertz, G., ve Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
30. Gorbachev, M. (1987). Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World. New York: Harper and Row.
31. Gorbachev, M. (2020). 2011: Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 76(6), 428–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2020.1847523.
32. Holland, P.W. (1986). Statistics and Causal Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81 (396), 945-960. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289064.
33. Hume, D. (1748). Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications.
34. Hume, D., [1748] (1976). İnsanın Anlama Yetisi Üzerine Bir Soruşturma (Çev. Oruç Aruoba). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.
35. James Mahoney. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007113830879
36. Johais, E., Bayer, M., ve Lambach, D. (2020). How do states collapse? Towards a model of causal mechanisms. Global Change, Peace and Security, 32(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781158.2020.1780204
37. King, G., Keohane, R. O., ve Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
38. Kolasi, K. (2013). Soğuk Savaş’ın Barışçıl Olarak Sona Ermesi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 68(2), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder
39. Lebow, R. N. (2007). Contingency, Catalysts and Nonlinear Change. Gary Goertz ve J. S. Levy (Ed.), Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals (ss. 85–111). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
40. Lebow, R. N. (2010). Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton ve Oxford: Princeton University Press.
41. Lebow, R. N., ve Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. R. N. Lebow ve T. Risse-Kappen (Ed.), International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War (ss. 1–22). New York: Columbia University Press.
42. Levy, J. S. (2010). Counterfactuals and Case Studies. J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, ve D. Collier (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (ss. 627–644). Oxford University Press.
43. Levy, J. S. (2015). Counterfactuals, causal inference, and historical analysis. Security Studies, 24(3), 378–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1070602.
44. Lewis, D. (1986). Causation: Postscripts to Causation. Philosophical Papers (Vol. II, ss. 159–171). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45. Lindbladh, J. (2014). Chernobyl as the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Baltic Worlds, 7(1), 4–12. http://balticworlds.com/the-beginning-of-the-end/ (Erişim tarihi: 9 Ocak 2020)
46. Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245–64.
47. Mahoney, J. (2007). The Elaboration Model of Necessary Causes. Gary Goertz ve J. S. Levy (Ed.), Explaining war and peace: Case studies and necessary condition counterfactuals (ss. 281–306). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
48. Mahoney, J., ve Barrenechea, R. (2019). The logic of counterfactual analysis in case-study explanation. The British Journal of Sociology 2019, 7(1), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12340.
49. Mahoney, J., ve Vanderpoel, R. S. (2015). Set Diagrams and Qualitative Research. Comparative Political Studies, 48(1), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013519410.
50. Marples, D. (1993). Chernobyl’s Lengthening Shadow. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 49(7), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1993.11456385.
51. Medvedev, Z. A. (1979). Nuclear Disaster In The Urals. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
52. Medvedev, Z. A. (1992). The Legacy of Chernobyl. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
53. Morgan, S. L., ve Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. Müllner, N. (2019). Three Decades After Chernobyl: Technical or Human Causes. R. Haas, L. Mez, ve A. Ajanovic (Ed.), The Technological and Economic Future of Nuclear Power (ss. 323–340). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
55. Philip Tetlock, Lebow, R. N., ve Parker, N. G. (Ed.). (2006). Unmaking the West_ ''What-If" Scenarios That Rewrite World History. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
56. Pierson, P. (2011). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
57. Plokhy, S. (2018). Chernobyl: The History of a Nuclear Catastrophe. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
58. Poyarkov, V. (2018). Nükleer Tehlikeler Hakkında Temel Bilgiler: Çernobil ve Fukuşima’dan Alınan Dersler. Ankara.
59. Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
60. Sekhon, J. S. (2010). The Neyman-Rubin-Holland Model of Causal Inference and Estimation via Matching Methods. J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, ve D. Collier (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (ss. 271–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Schmid, S. D. (2021). From “Inherently Safe” to “Proliferation Resistant”: New Perspectives on Reactor Designs. Nuclear Technology, 207, 1312–1328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2020.1837584
62. Schmid, S. D. (2015). Producing Power: The Pre-Chernobyl History of the Soviet Nuclear Industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Shteynberg, N. (1991). Report by a Commission to the USSR State Committee for the Supervision of Safety in Industry and Nuclear Power 1 Causes and Circumstances of the Accident at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on 26 April 1986 (Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-7). INSAG International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, 1992. The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1: A Report By the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (Moskova). Viyana.
64. Söyler, M. (2021). Süreç Takibi Yöntemi: Nedensellik, Zamansallık, Kuram Geliştirme ve Kuram Testi. Liberal Düşünce, 26(101), 67–94. DOI: 36484/liberal. 871546.
65. Tetlock, P. E., ve Belkin, A. (1996). Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. P. E. Tetlock ve A. Belkin (Ed.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics (ss. 1–38). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
66. Weber, M. (1922). Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik (1906). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre içinde (ss. 215–290). Tübingen: Mohr. https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/50765. (Erişim tarihi: 9 Eylül 2020)
67. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
68. Wohlforth, W. C. (2003). Cold War Endgame. (W. C. Wohlforth, Ed.). University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Univ Press.