Footnote 3, Chapter 5, Page 117:

There is additional information regarding the construction of data representing executives for certain countries, provided online in the second half of the section labeled, “Footnote 45, Chapter 4, Page 98.” Of the countries listed above as possessing highly inclusive coalitions, only Czechoslovakia and the Netherlands were identified as not employing segmental autonomy. This finding regarding the Netherlands may reflect the dramatically decreased pervasiveness and “sharpness” of “the social cleavages between the blocs” there, which Lijphart observed in one of his first publications regarding consociation. Three countries which have been identified by Lijphart as using consociation at some stage but did not use these coalitions, Austria, Canada, and India, have experienced segmental autonomy as it is defined for this study. Some caveats should be kept in mind regarding the representation of consociation by the data used here. For instance, a country could theoretically have a proportional representation electoral system that never translates into executive representation for a permanently excluded group and minority veto power that only appears to exist in constitutions but cannot actually be exerted. If a permanently excluded group was somehow overlooked by the Minorities at Risk project or if only an unrepresentative element of it is included in a coalition, its country’s achievement of a positive score indicating inclusive coalitions might not constitute a genuine grand coalition. Even the inclusion of some element of such a group in a coalition also does not render this body representative of all potentially antagonistic elements. Therefore, this situation would not fulfill Lijphart’s strictest definition of grand coalition, as including all potentially antagonistic groups. Fortunately, for the purposes of this study, it was possible to construct data for segmental autonomy which avoid conflation with repressive segregation. The ability to voluntarily restrict one’s contact to only members of one’s group is thus counted as segmental autonomy, while involuntary restrictions of this sort are not. This was accomplished by coding each year of a country’s experience with moderate to high restrictions on cultural organizations as indicative of an absence of segmental autonomy.