DEFINING SMALL STATES

1. 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? • 4. CONCLUSIONS

2. 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?

3. VÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX • FOUR ELEMENTS USED TO RANK STATES: • ENDOGENOUS / EXOGENOUS • OBJECTIVE / SUBJECTIVE

4. VÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. WIVELS CRITERIA • First three the most important • Note overlap with Väyrynen’s Matrix • Links criteria with various IR approaches

8. 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).

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. WHY DEFINE SMALL STATES? • THE SOCIAL SCIENCE APPROACH: DEFINING TERMS • LEGAL ASPECTS • POLICY IMPLICATIONS

15. 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

16. DEFINITION FOR A PURPOSE • Suit the definition to a purpose (Knudsen 2002), i.e. to make it more contextual (development, European integration, alliances etc). • In this case, the context is that of European integration, especially the EU. • May have to use a number of definitions and argue case for some states being seen as small, others not. • Wivel challenges whether Small State behaviour can be seen in Europe

17. 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? • IS IT THE RIGHT VARIABLE?