1. Neoliberal traditions of small state studies Máté Szalai 04.11.2015.

2. Lack of material resources Disabilities and weaknesses Security deficit 1. Active 2. Passive 3. Defensive Alliance-policy

3. Lack of material resources Disabilities and weakness Security deficit

4. Comparing neorealism and neoliberalism SimilaritiesDifferences 1. Smallness = weakness1. Different aspects of security 2. Disabilities of small states2. The international system is less conflictual, there is a room for cooperation 3. The security deficit exists3. Institutions matter 4. Small states have different and wider toolkit

5. General characteristics of the neoliberal tradition Defying the concept of small states Main argument: the post-WW2 era creates new possibilities for small states Focusing on the behavior of small states in international organizations Main literature consists of mainly critiques about neorealism

6. I. Fundamental writings 1. Robert O. Keohane: Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics (1969) 2. Jorri Duursma: Micro-states: The Principality of Liechtenstein (1996) 3. Peter J. Katzenstein: Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (1985) 4. Baldur Thorhallsson: The Role of Small States in the European Union (2000)

7. 1. Robert O. Keohane: Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics (1969) Critique of Rothstein and Vital The concept of small state is too vague ” a Small Power is a state which recognizes that it can not obtain security primarily by use of its own capabilities, and that it must rely fundamentally on the aid of other states, institutions, processes, or developments to do so” Nobody would call Great Britain or France small, but according to the definition, they are Psychological definition

8. Keohane’s critique 1. The concept of small states (Rothstein) 2. The role of non-alignment and neutrality (Vital) 3. Alliance policy 4. Nuclear weapons

9. 1.1. The concept of small states Rothstein: small states prefer international organizations because of three reasons Formal equality Safety deriving from membership The ability of IOs to limit the actions of great powers Reason: small states tend to focus solely on short-term survival

10. 1.1 The concept of small states Keohane: we should focus on the systematic role of states, not their size Four types of states System-determining System-influencing System-affecting System-ineffectual

11. 1.1 The concept of small states Small states are those who think that they cannot have an effect on the system alone That is why they like IOs

12. 1.2. Non-alignment Debate between Vital and Rothstein Types of balance of power FrozenDynamic and changing Bipolar The perspective of small states Safe but no room for maneuver Safety and room for maneuver Room for maneuver but only at the expense of security

13. 1.3. Alliance policy Every writer deals with this question Rothstein: theoretically bad but practically advantageous for small states Vital: Alliance is better than non-alignment, but alliances are fluid Keohane Small states prefer multilateral alliances which includes great and small powers as well The role of secondary powers is crucial (Japan, Great-Britain, France) International institutions are also important

14. 1.4. Nuclear weapons According to neorealism, nuclear weapons can be beneficial for small states Keohane: it is not

15. 2. Duursma, Jorri (2006): Micro-states: The Principality of Liechtenstein For very small states, membership in international organizations means independence and recognition Case study: Lichtenstein as the entrepreneur microstate

18. 2. Duursma, Jorri (2006): Micro-states: The Principality of Liechtenstein Aim: the maintenance and protection of its independence and its statehood Main public services are provided by Switzerland Communication Postal service Monetary policy

19. 2. IO-policy of Lichtenstein Membership would mean a recognition of independence and statehood First attempt: League of Nations (failed). Reasons: Questionable statehood Size

20. 2. IO-policy of Lichtenstein Helsinki-process: participation Council of Europe 1974: observer 1978: member One objection European integration EFTA (1991) United Nations Opt-out with Switzerland untill 1990

21. 2. The role of Licthenstein Pioneer role First microstate to participate in international organizations Changed the perception of great states and also the self-image of microstates

22. 3. Peter J. Katzenstein: Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (1985) Small states: political stability and economic flexibility are connected Democratic corporatism 1930-1940s Fear of the crisis, war and authoritarianism 1970-1980s: clear signs of competitiveness Challenges: oil crisis, competition from the Third World

23. 3. Katzenstein: comparison of small and big economies Smallness Open economy Sensitivity Flexibility

24. 3. Katzenstein: comparison of small and big economies Big economiesSmall economies Liberal/leftist economic policy Hard to implement change Culture of dominanceCulture of bargaining and compensation Easy to implement change Corporatism and the need for accommodation

25. 3. Katzenstein: lessons for big states Because of the oil crisis, big states face the same problems as small ones Need to create the culture of democratic corporatism The tale of the frog, the eagle and the snake „Small (…) states can continue to prosper – not because they found a solution to the problem of change but because they have found a way to live with change”

26. 4. Baldur Thorhallsson: The Role of Small States in the European Union Focus on the different behaviour of small and great powers in international organizations Katzenstein: the cause of this difference is the presence of the culture of democratic corporatism Thorhallsson and Hicks question the conclusions of Katzenstein

27. 4.Administrative size and characteristics Lack of resources 1.Less formalized decision making 2. Less bureaucracy 3. Officers have wider room for manoeuvre 4. More flexible EU-policy

28. Greece and Portugal SpainItaly Prioritization Do not care with unimportant questions Informal decision-making processes -> more flexibility Informal communication and work formats But: formal decision-making processes Stricter EU-policy Inflexible foreign policy but lack of administrative strength Cannot achieve big successes Default pro-EU

29. 4. Relationship between smaller states and the European Commission Great powers: bigger influence in the EC But small states can compensate for that Informal decision-making processes allow small states to establish strong personal relations in priority areas Great weakness: informational discrepancy between small and large states – smaller ones have to rely on the EC Need for deeper cooperation

30. 4. Conclusions Small states like International organizations because they have more possibilities Small states tend to conduct more flexible EU-policy Except for priority areas There is a strong alliance between the EC and small states

31. II. Fundamental assumptions of neoliberalism Foreign policy aims and optimal strategies The Security deficit Activity Limitations Main possibilities

32. II/1. Foreign Policy Aims and Means Sole aim: survival Optimal strategy: accession to international organizations, courts

33. II/2. Compensation for the security deficit Membership in international organizations Strengthening the norms of international security and peace

34. II/3. Activity Active in Ios and other legal entities Passive outside of them

35. II/4. Limitations Main limitations can be seen in Regional scope The set of foreign policy tools Administrative and institutional dimensions But: advantage in flexibility

36. III. Comparison 1. Find arguments for both schools of thought 2. Find historical examples which strengthen the argumentation of both sides