1. DEFINING SMALL STATES zOUTLINE OF LECTURE: z1. SOME APPROACHES TO THE SUBJECT OF DEFINITION: zVÄYRYNEN’S MATRIX  WIVEL’S CRITERIA  KNUDSEN’S DISTINCTION  CROWARDS CLUSTERS z2.DO WE NEED TO DEFINE SMALL STATES? z3.DEFINITIONS FOR A PURPOSE AND IN CONTEXT? z4. CONCLUSIONS

2. SOME APPROACHES TO DEFINITION z LOOK AT THE TWO ELEMENTS z THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF A STATE – PLACE IT IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE MODERN STATE SYSTEM z 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 y ANDERS WIVEL LISTS 6 CRITERIA IN DEFINITIONS OF SSs: z ABSOLUTE CRITERIA: land size, population, GNP. Favoured in 1960s & 1970s.  RELATIVE CRITERIA: above factors seen in relative terms – seen in Neo-realist texts.. z SITUATIONAL CRITERIA: states small in some contexts, not others. Followed by Olav Knudsen.

6. WIVELS CRITERIA z BEHAVIOUR CRITERIA: SSs behave in a special way. z PERCEPTION CRITERIA: if leaders see it as having marginal influence z 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 yOlav 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? zSMALL 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 y Tom Crowards (2002a) takes a more quantitative approach to the definition of small states. z He uses 3 OBJECTIVE ENDOGENOUS criteria:  LAND AREA  POPULATION  GDP

10. CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS z To prevent problem of arbitrary cut-off, he uses clusters based around the above factors. z He identifies 5 groups of states: x Microstates x Small states x Medium small states x Medium large states x Large states

11. CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS  MICROSTATE z Pop. <0.5m; z Area <7,000km2; z GDP<$0.7bn  SMALL STATE z Pop. 0.5m-2.7m; z Area 7,000-40,000 km2; z GDP $0.7-2.5bn

12. CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS  MEDIUM SMALL STATE z Pop. 2.7-6.7m; z Area 40,000-125,000 km2; z GDP $2.5-7.0bn  MEDIUM LARGE STATE z Pop. 6.7-12m; Area 125,000-250,000 km2; GDP $7.0-19bn  LARGE STATE z Pop. >12m; Area >250,000 km2; GDP >$19bn

13. European states categorized by Crowards ‘MICRO’‘SMALL’ ‘MEDUM-SIZED’ ‘LARGE’ MaltaCyprus Austria Ireland (m-s) France LuxembourgEstonia 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) (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)

14. CROWARDS’ CLUSTERS z Crowards (2002b) focuses on Europe:  Greater similarity between micro-state and small state.  The ‘Medium’ category had a distinct medium-small category in it

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

16. WHY DEFINE SMALL STATES? zHOWEVER:  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

17. DEFINITION FOR A PURPOSE/CONTEXT zSuit the definition to a purpose (Knudsen 2002), i.e. to make it more particular (development, European integration, alliances etc). zSuit 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. zMay have to use a number of definitions and argue case for some states being seen as small, others not.

18. 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?

19. An Exercise zForm into groups of 3 to 4 - Choose your state. Your own state; one you like; one you don’t like… zIs your chosen state small/medium/large in size? Using what criteria? zDoes it matter? What are advantages or disadvantages of size?