Download 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?
 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
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:
 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
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
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?