What is a small state? Why does it matter? Institut for Statskundskab What is a small state? Why does it matter? Anders Wivel Professor, PhD Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen

Structure of the session Institut for Statskundskab Structure of the session Non-stop writing and one-on-one dialogue: Defining small states Lecture: What is a small state? Why does it matter? Definitions of small states: pros and cons Small states and international relations theory

Non-stop writing and one-on-one dialogue Institut for Statskundskab Non-stop writing and one-on-one dialogue What defines a small state? What are examples of small states? Why? What are the most important differences between small states and great powers?

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Defined as states that are not great powers Defined in terms of capabilities, i.e. the possession of power in absolute or relative terms Defined by a combination of objective factors (the material, quantifiable aspects of power) and subjective factors (the perception of power) Defined as the exercise of power in a specific spatio-temporal context (relational definition)

Definitions of small states: pros and cons On the one hand the concept is regularly used in public discourse and in scholarly analyses of European and international relations. On the other hand, there is no consensus definition of small states and the borderlines between such categories as ‘micro state’, ‘small state’ and ‘middle power’ are usually blurred and arbitrary.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons The simplest way of defining small states is to see them as those states that are not great powers. Traditionally, small states and great powers played very different roles in international relations.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Seeing small states as ‘non-great powers’ may take us some way in an intuitive understanding of small states:

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons 19th century (1815-1914): those that were not part of the European Concert. Everyone but Austria, Prussia, Russia, the United Kingdom and France.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons 20th century (since 1945): those states that were not permanent members of the UN Security Council. Everyone but the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Today, neither ‘great power’, nor ‘small state’ is self-evident. By characterising small states as ‘not great powers’, we would evade the question rather than answer it. ‘Small states’ becomes a residual category. UN Security Council – problematic: The United States in a league of its own The United States and China in a league of their own Germany? India?

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Denmark as ‘shipping great power’, Norway as ‘oil great power‘, Sweden as ‘moral great power’

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Most attempts at defining small states have sought to answer the question in terms of capabilities, i.e. the possession of power resources in absolute or relative terms. Criteria include, e.g. population size, GDP, Military expenditure.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Defining small states using these criteria allows us to: Identify absolute and relative limitations to small states’ capacity to handle different types of challenges. Create a clear and easily applicable definition of small states, i.e. get a more clear-cut definition than when defining small states as ‘not great powers’. Draw on the comprehensive literature on power and security in international relations in order to identify why, when and how the security challenges of small states are distinct from those faced by great powers.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Kenneth Waltz, the pre-eminent scholar of relative capabilities, discusses the implications of power (and the lack of it) and notes that (Waltz 1979 : 194-195): ‘power provides the means of maintaining one’s autonomy in the face of force that others wield’ ‘greater power permits wider ranges of action, while leaving the outcome of action uncertain’ ‘the more powerful enjoy wider margins of safety in dealing with the less powerful and have more to say about which games will be played and how’ ‘great power gives its possessors a big stake in their system and the ability to act for its sake’.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons Following this discussion, it could be argued that small states: are not able by themselves to preserve their own autonomy in the face of force that others wield have a narrow range of action have little to say about which games are being played and how have only a small stake in the system and are unable to act for its sake. These four points correspond closely with a traditionalist view of small states in international relations.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons The Power possession definition has at least three limitations It leads us to a focus on the military dimension of security. The power possession definition is closely tied to the international relations of the old Europe – or more precisely the conditions for small state foreign policy in Europe in the 19th century, when the success of states was primarily measured in terms of their defence capacity and territorial foreign expansion. To be sure this is still important, but it cannot stand alone.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons It leads to a ranking of powers and understanding international relations in terms of a power hierarchy, which is of little use for identifying the real challenges and opportunities of small states Challenges to small states rarely systemic Security conflicts are typically the product of power as well as a number of other factors such as historical lessons learned by the political elites and the electorate, religion, ideology, the personality of decision-makers and political institutions.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons The power possession definition is based on the premise that we can quantify and measure power. Power is difficult to measure and its effects are almost impossible to distinguish from the calculations and perceptions of policy makers. The cut-off point between big and small states is rarely self-evident, and accordingly there is no consensus on what constitutes a small state in term of power possession.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons One potential solution to these problems would be to seek to combine objective factors (i.e. the material, quantifiable aspects of power) with subjective factors (i.e. the perception of power). This solves the problem of a security policy bias, but still leaves the problem of arbitrariness.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Alternatively, we might move to a relational definition of small states, i.e. shift the focus from the power that states possess to the power they exercise. Being a small state is seen as tied to a specific spatio-temporal context, not a general characteristic of the state: a state may be weak in one relation, but simultaneously powerful in another.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons The concept of small states as a ‘focusing device’ directing us towards interesting research puzzles stemming from ‘the experience of power disparity and the manner of coping with it’ (Knudsen 1996: 5) This brings to our attention a particular set of security problems and foreign policy dilemmas, allowing us – among other things - to distinguish between issue areas where the notion of small state is relevant, and issue areas where it is not.

Definitions of small states: pros and cons Institut for Statskundskab Definitions of small states: pros and cons What are the limitations of this relational understanding of small states? Please discuss for 5 minutes with the person sitting next to you.

Small states and international relations theory The relational definition of small states suggests that different contexts favour different variables. One way of exploring which variables may be relevant is to utilise the general insights of International Relations theory.

Small states and international relations theory By doing this we can identify at least three clusters of variables that merit further investigation. power politics (realism) economic interests (liberalism) identity construction (constructivism)

Small states and international relations theory The literature systematically applying the assumptions IR theory to explain the behaviour of small states in Europe is still relatively limited, and we cannot say if any of the three clusters is more useful than the others.

Small states and international relations theory So far, they have merely resulted in the construction of ‘first-cut theories’ presenting us with candidates solutions to the puzzle of heterogeneous small states behaviour, but all three of them have proven useful in particular studies and therefore merit further investigation.

Small states and international relations theory First, so-called realists points to the importance of power. This was essential in traditional small state studies, which originally took their point of departure in the puzzle that small states continued to survive despite their lack of power.

Small states and international relations theory Two types of explanations starting from realism: The direct impact of power The indirect impact of power

Small states and international relations theory Second, liberal theory points to the importance of domestic interest groups and how their costs and benefits are affected by participation in the integration process. Small states are expected to be more interested in developing regional institutions because they are more severely affected by the negative externalities of interdependence.

Small states and international relations theory Two types of explanations starting from liberalism: A country’s leading economic sectors The economic interests of the population

Small states and international relations theory Third, constructivists point to the importance of discourse. In general, the constructivist literature allows us to understand why some states are consistently more reluctant or positive than others towards various topics and modes of cooperation by pointing to the importance of compatibility of discourses.

Small states and international relations theory The strength of the different types of explanations may be tied to issues areas: power politics – traditional security policy economic interests – financial and economic security identity construction – sovereignty, national autonomy

Small states and international relations theory These variables are not necessarily mutually exclusive and they have been combined in order to give a more comprehensive explanation of small state behaviour than one of them can give alone.

Small states and international relations theory These studies have successfully produced new knowledge on the behaviour of small states, but they have left unanswered two challenges, which need to be met in the future.

Small states and international relations theory First, while combining insights from different theoretical perspectives might be fruitful; this is easier said than done at least if the ambition is to conduct a logically coherent analysis.

Small states and international relations theory Second, when analysing small states in Europe, the EU’s gradual development into a genuine political system necessitates the inclusion of different types of actors at multiple levels in the analysis if we are to understand the actions of small states.