* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download defining small states
Document related concepts
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?