DEFINING SMALL STATES
OUTLINE OF LECTURE:
1. SOME APPROACHES TO THE SUBJECT OF DEFINITION:
VÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX
WIVEL’S CRITERIA
KNUDSEN’S DISTINCTION
CROWARDS CLUSTERS
2.DO WE NEED TO DEFINE SMALL STATES?
3.DEFINITIONS FOR A PURPOSE AND IN CONTEXT?
4. CONCLUSIONS
SOME APPROACHES TO DEFINITION
LOOK AT THE TWO ELEMENTS
THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF A STATE –
PLACE IT IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE
MODERN STATE SYSTEM
WHAT IS SMALL?
ABSOLUTE OR COMPARATIVE? OBJECTIVE
OR SUBJECTIVE?
VALUE JUDGEMENT? = WEAKNESS?
VÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX
– FOUR ELEMENTS USED TO RANK STATES:
ENDOGENOUS / EXOGENOUS
OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE
VÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX
ENDOGENOUS
OBJECTIVE
SUBJECTIVE
EXOGENOUS
Aggregate variables area, population,
GNP
Self-perception by own public, politicians
Amount/value of interactions
Perception of actors outside
WIVELS CRITERIA
ANDERS WIVEL LISTS 6 CRITERIA IN DEFINITIONS OF
SSs:
ABSOLUTE CRITERIA: land size, population, GNP.
Favoured in 1960s & 1970s.
RELATIVE CRITERIA: above factors seen in relative
terms – seen in Neo-realist texts. .
SITUATIONAL CRITERIA: states small in some contexts, not others. Followed by Olav Knudsen.
WIVELS CRITERIA
BEHAVIOUR CRITERIA: SSs behave in a special way.
PERCEPTION CRITERIA: if leaders see it as having marginal influence
FOCUSING DEVICE: emphasis on a number of problems such states have.
WIVELS CRITERIA
First three the most important
Note overlap with Väyrynen’s Matrix
Links criteria with various IR approaches
KNUDSEN’S DISTINCTIONS
Olav Knudsen (2002) makes the distinction between:
SMALL STATES AS ACTORS: typical of Realist approach – states as the main actors in IR. Of use in context of European integration?
SMALL STATES AS ARENAS FOR ACTORS: seen in Realism, Liberal internationalism and
Constructivism. Emphasis on state as a context for other actors (politicians, NGOs, MNCs, IOs).
CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS
Tom Crowards (2002a) takes a more quantitative approach to the definition of small states.
He uses 3 OBJECTIVE ENDOGENOUS criteria:
LAND AREA
POPULATION
GDP
CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS
To prevent problem of arbitrary cut-off, he uses clusters based around the above factors.
He identifies 5 groups of states:
Microstates
Small states
Medium small states
Medium large states
Large states
CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS
MICROSTATE
Pop. <0.5m;
Area <7,000km2;
GDP<$0.7bn
SMALL STATE
Pop. 0.5m-2.7m;
Area 7,000-40,000 km2;
GDP $0.7-2.5bn
CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS
MEDIUM SMALL STATE
Pop. 2.7-6.7m;
Area 40,000-125,000 km2;
GDP $2.5-7.0bn
MEDIUM LARGE STATE
Pop. 6.7-12m; Area 125,000-250,000 km2; GDP $7.0-19bn
LARGE STATE
Pop. >12m; Area >250,000 km2; GDP >$19bn
‘MICRO’
Malta
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Estonia
Iceland
‘SMALL’ ‘MEDUM-SIZED’
Austria Ireland (m-s) France
Belgium Netherlands Germany
Bulgaria (m-s) Norway Italy
Latvia Czech (m-s) Portugal
Lithuania Denmark Romania
Poland
Spain
‘LARGE’
Slovenia Finland Slovak Rep. (m-s) (Turkey)
Greece Switzerland UK
Hungary (m-s) Sweden
Croatia (m-s)
(m-s) denotes a state that is clearly ‘medium-small’, countries in bold are 2004+ new EU members countries in (brackets) are candidates for EU membership,countries in italics are neither members of the EU nor candidate countries, the remaining countries are ‘old’ EU member states,(From Crowards 2002b, Table 5)
CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS
Crowards (2002b) focuses on Europe:
Greater similarity between micro-state and small state.
The ‘Medium’ category had a distinct medium-small category in it
WHY DEFINE SMALL STATES?
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH: DEFINING
TERMS
LEGAL ASPECTS
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
WHY DEFINE SMALL STATES?
HOWEVER:
DEFINITION FOR A PURPOSE/CONTEXT
Suit the definition to a purpose (Knudsen 2002), i.e. to make it more particular (development,
European integration, alliances etc).
Suit definition to context (Wivel 2010): ‘a small state (is) the weak part in an asymmetric relationship’. State can be small in one context, large in another.
May have to use a number of definitions and argue case for some states being seen as small, others not.
SUMMARY
DEFINITION OF SMALL STATE IS PROBLEMATIC
BUT: MANY APPROACHES POSSIBLE
THINK OF ‘WHY’ YOU WANT TO TALK OF SS
BE AWARE OF CONSEQUENCES OF
EXCLUSION/INCLUSION
IS IT USEFUL FOR A PARTICULAR CONTEXT?
IS ‘SMALLNESS’ THE RIGHT VARIABLE?
Form into groups of 3 to 4 - Choose your state. Your own state; one you like; one you don’t like…
Is your chosen state small/medium/large in size? Using what criteria?
Does it matter? What are advantages or disadvantages of size?