Transcript defining small states

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
OBJECTIVE
SUBJECTIVE
ENDOGENOUS
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
 Pop. 2.7-6.7m;
 Area 40,000-125,000
 GDP $2.5-7.0bn


STATE
km2;
 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
European states
categorized by Crowards
‘MICRO’
Malta
Luxembourg
‘SMALL’
‘MEDUM-SIZED’
‘LARGE’
Cyprus
Austria Ireland(m-s)
France
Estonia
Belgium Netherlands
Germany
Iceland
Bulgaria(m-s) Norway
Italy
Latvia
Czech (m-s) Portugal
Poland
Lithuania Denmark Romania
Spain
Slovenia Finland Slovak Rep.(m-s) (Turkey)
Greece Switzerland
UK
Hungary(m-s) Sweden
Croatia(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)
(m-s)
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?
SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH: DEFINING
 THE
TERMS
 LEGAL ASPECTS
 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
WHY DEFINE SMALL STATES?
HOWEVER:
 Real problem with small states
 HEY (2003): ‘I know one when I
see one.’ Oh really?
 Are we using the right variable?
Often smallness really means lack
of resources
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?
An Exercise
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?