4 Small state challenges to tackling corruption in access to education: the experience of Vanuatu

As the current international system is leaning towards multipolarity, small states face the danger of their influence being diminished and their interests being ignored. Small states in Europe and within the European Union might find themselves in such a predicament. In order to overcome it, they are in need of effective strategies. Literature on the international relations of small states suggests that, despite their limitations, small states are able to pursue their goals and succeed in the international system. Small state studies employ the ‘small but smart state’ concept for a small state that can maximize its influence. Despite being widely used, the latter lacks analytical value and remains a cliché. The objective of this article is to pin down the ‘small but smart’ state strategy and based on that to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis and the design of effective small state strategies. We suggest that the ‘small but smart’ state strategy shares many elements with the entrepreneurial action, as the latter is extended from its business origins to include a specific strategy. We draw on the field of entrepreneurship to explore the ways it can enhance our understanding of the international relations of small states and we introduce a framework for the ‘small and entrepreneurial state’ strategy. The notion of the ‘small and entrepreneurial state’ adds more depth and rigor into our small state analyses as well as reinvigorates a fragmented and repetitive literature. Last but not least, our ‘small and entrepreneurial state’ approach can be of use for both small state scholars and policy makers.

Defense Date: 27/03/2009

Recent developments in the European Union have created new opportunities and challenges for small member states, increasing the demand from policy-makers and diplomats for coherent and accessible analyses of the conditions and potential strategies of small states in the EU. Unfortunately, the academic literature on small states in the EU appears both diverse and fragmented: there is no agreement on how we should define a small state, what similarities we would expect to find in their foreign policies, or how they influence international relations. However, if we are to understand the challenges and possibilities currently faced by small EU member states, we need to systematise what we already know and to identify what we need to know. This article makes a modest contribution towards this goal by answering three simple questions: What is a small state in the European Union? How can we explain the behaviour of small EU member states? How do small states influence the European Union?

1. Small societies and small states Interest in small states as a separate field of study is still at an early stage of development, although the first studies were carried out in the 1950s and 1960s (Fox 1959, Robinson 1960, Benedict 1966). Researchers disagree on how best to distinguish between large and small states. Population size is usually taken as the main criterion, although common alternative or supplementary indicators are surface area and the size of the economy. The cut-off has often been set between 1 and 2 million people, although some scholars (e.g. Bray and Packer 1993) suggest that it would be more appropriate to examine issues along a continuum of size. 49 states out of 188 member states of the United Nations had populations below 2 million in 1999. Countries with population less than 100,000 are often called microstates, which can be distinguished by more specific characteristics. Within Europe, states with the population between 100,000 and 2 million include Cyprus, Estonia, Iceland, Luxembourg and Malta, with Latvia and Slovenia reaching only slightly over 2 million. It is important to distinguish between the size of a state and the size of a society in the development of small state theories. The majority of contemporary studies of small states refer to Benedict (1966), who has noted that the main criteria of size for 'territories' ('states') are area and population, whereas the criteria of size for 'societies' are the number and quality of role-relationships. He pointed out that small societies do not exist only in small states, for they may also exist in large states that have high degrees of segmentation (including, for example, minority groups, islands and other relatively isolated and/or closed labor markets or communities within larger states). Benedict (ibid.) claims further that, just as it is possible to have a small-scale society in a large state, it is also possible to have part of a large-scale society in a small state. He presents Luxembourg and Monaco as two examples of states, which are closely related to neighboring states and thus are not considered as small societies by him. Consequently, although the theories of small states refer to certain 'states', the same characteristics may apply to small 'societies' within large states, and may not apply to small states which are parts of larger societies. For the same reason, small states may be defined differently in the study of economics and political science (going up to 20 million of population), whereas the study of public administration (and also sociology) has more implications from the notion of small societies, where the cut-off line between small and large states is substantially lower. In this article, the term of 'small states' refers to 'small societies' which have less than 2 million inhabitants. Previous studies suggest that small countries are not simply smaller versions of large countries. Differences between large and small states are not merely quantitative--essential qualitative differences can also be found. Benedict (1966) has shown in his study of the social anthropology of small societies, that people in small societies grow up within an interdependent network, where each person plays several roles; thus nearly every social relationship serves many interests. In a small society individuals interact with each other over and over again in a wide range of social situations. In such conditions the decisions and choices of individuals are influenced by their relationships with other individuals in many contexts. Consequently, relationships in small societies seldom concentrate on a single act or specific function, but tend instead to be functionally diffuse and to last for a long time, though their specific content changes over the course of life. Talcott Parsons (1939, 1951) has characterized such role-relationships as 'particularistic', where role-relationships extend over a considerable time-span and the roles involved are usually ascriptive. …

The aim of this chapter is to show what small state literature has to offer policy-makers in small states in their attempt to survive and prosper in an uncertain world. It provides a framework on the practical literature, as well as a case study, Iceland, which demonstrates how policy-makers in small states can evaluate their policy options in the new security and economic environment. Initially, small states were seen as domestically and internationally weak. Many of these hypotheses have been proven wrong, with small states now being seen as economically and administratively smart, salient, resilient, and more fit to adjust to global competition and other challenges. However, in the light of the latest financial crisis and the changing security environment, small state studies analysis has returned to its core concepts, with an increased focus by many scholars on the importance for small states to form alliances with larger states. They argue that small states must seek political, economic, and societal shelter which is provided by larger states and multilateral organizations. The chapter argues that the case of Iceland, and the experience of small EU member states and New Zealand, indicates that a protection by a single power is less reliable than shelter provided by a multilateral framework.

With a multicentric world forming and stratification of resource potential taking place, as well as with more small states in Europe and the world and emerging big multinationals here, small states receive more and more researchers’ attention: there appear papers analyzing activities of small states in Europe in the international arena in general and in international negotiations in particular. This article answers the following research question: What strategies and tactics allow small European states to strengthen their positions in negotiations (based on the case of the Benelux countries)? The strategies used by small countries in negotiations to compensate for limited resources is of scientific and practical interest as it can be applied by other states, namely Russia. Theoretically, the study is based on constructivist methodology as negotiation tactics effectively (re)formulate the issue, changing it through the use of a different context and/or lexical units, as well as on structural invariants of activity in negotiations. Discourse analysis and case study are used as research methods. The analysis identified the limitations that small European states, in particular the Benelux countries, face at each stage of international negotiations. The authors conclude that the types of behavior small European states demonstrate in international negotiations can be divided into those (1) aimed at increasing the “weight” of the state (e.g., interaction within international institutions, with NGOs and lobbies, organizing side events, etc.) and (2) focused on influencing the course of negotiations: tactics within the bargaining strategy (coalition-building, bargaining, etc.) and tactics based on persuasion ((re)framing, appealing to one’s own “example”, etc.). For small European countries, namely the Benelux countries, persuasion tactics are most typical, although other tactics are also used.

The multipolar world of present day, with one dominant state and a couple of contender states, is comprised of small, mid-size and large states. Small states comprise between half and two-thirds of the world's states depending on the criteria used for classification. However, their influence is diametrically opposite to their number. The contemporary transnational developments have changed the role and position of small states, giving them new opportunities for international action, albeit concurrently making them more vulnerable to external economic and environmental influences, such as overexposure to one economic activity and the consequences of the climate change. Small states, despite their relatively small importance for the transnational developments, deserve the attention of scholars and the general public, as well as the civil society. Large states could learn from successful small states and be more concerned for the fate of small states. The difficulties of small vulnerable states are predictors of the world's vulnerability.

Conventional wisdom suggests that small states’ foreign policies are constrained in several ways. These may be confined to size, material resources, geopolitical positioning and limited participation in inter-state affairs. Yet, despite their diminutiveness, small Caribbean states appeared to have acted with surprising dynamism in seeking to promote and uphold relations with China in an unlikely period, the bipolar era. Drawing from official records of their interactions and other documentary sources, these states showed themselves to be quite willing to transcend their various limitations and become rather active participants on issues aligning with their interests in the international sphere. This paper examines how policy-making between the Caribbean region and China unfolded and why it evolved the way it did. It argues that acting through the more ideational context of the Cold War era, policymakers within the Caribbean region implemented strategies and policies premised on shared ideals of Third World solidarity to further relations with China. In embarking on this analysis, two main contributions are envisaged. First, the paper addresses the knowledge gap on small Caribbean states’ foreign policy decision-making vis-à-vis China in the Cold War era. Second, interrogating the dynamic provides a unique opportunity to challenge the received wisdom on small states’ foreign policy behavior in line with an emphasis on small states agency amidst internal and international constraints.

In recent years, there has been growing recognition within international studies that big (normally synonymous with “power”) is not always best. In contrast to the traditional IR focus on great powers, a number of authors have highlighted the need to “take small states seriously” in international studies and challenged Kenneth Waltz’s claim that the “story of international relations is written in terms of the great powers.” In part, this shift in emphasis reflects the mounting interest in small states amongst policy-making communities themselves. This is evident, for instance, in current debates in the World Trade Organization (WTO) about the status of small island states and within the European Union (EU) about the impact of the small enlargement states on European governance, economy and society. The remarkable economic success of small countries such as the Irish Republic has also led to increased awareness of the lessons that can be learnt from smaller states. Not surprisingly, this move towards an appreciation of small states has been accompanied by growing interest in issues of state size. This is not least evident in discussions about how “smallness” might be defined. As Iver Neumann and Sieglinde Gstohl perceptively note, traditional International Relations (IR) theory has sidestepped this issue somewhat by effectively conceiving small states in terms of what they are not: they …

(2003). How, Where and When does Discourse Matter in Small States' Welfare State Adjustment? New Political Economy: Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 127-146.

This study addresses the challenges and opportunities that small European states face when weighing their defence industrial policy options. The article builds on a technology–based small state industry governance model by adding a defence industry–specific layer. This model is used to analyse how defence industries of small states could contribute to the European Union common defence industrial policy, and how the latter could likewise be beneficial to small member states. The paper discusses defence industrial policy challenges and opportunities both from the wider European Union and small state perspective. Global and regional geopolitical trends are explored among other specific topics, as are aspects of regional and domestic governance like the market structure, procurement, and R&D. The article concludes that small European states could both win and lose with the establishment of a common defence market, depending on the market design. Ideally, it should be combined with the simultaneous creation of an EU defence industrial policy that enables smaller, and especially less developed, member states to maintain and advance their own industries, preferably participating within the value chains of defence industries of the larger countries.

Among the 52 member states of the Commonwealth, 28 have populations below two million. Small states thus comprise over half of the total. Within the group, most are at the lower end of the population scale: 22 have populations below one million, and 13 have populations below 250,000. The Commonwealth gives special attention to small states, and the Commonwealth Secretariat has taken a leadership role in identifying their distinctive features. At the same time, contexts and modalities have changed significantly over the decades. Most obvious have been the opportunities and challenges of globalisation. The internet has significantly reduced the isolation of small states, and has given opportunities to access expertise that could not previously have been imagined. Technological advances have facilitated forms of collaboration, such as the Virtual University for the Small States of the Commonwealth. The cross-national interconnectedness in this era of globalisation also brings challenges. Many small states are well advanced on the Education for All objectives and the Millennium Development Goals, but others have some distance to go. There is value in collaboration within the Commonwealth, both among small states as a group and between small states and larger entities. The Commonwealth experience can inspire learning among small and larger states that are not members of the Commonwealth. The main issues covered in this paper include migration, planning higher education, and issues of co-ordination, integration and regulation. This ongoing study welcomes feedback and will build on the present analysis to identify further strategic priorities for educational planning and research in small states.

One of the most researched topics regarding small states in the EU concerns small member states and the Union’s security and defence policy. This should not come as a surprise as in these areas the interests and amount of power of small member states can diverge considerably from those of bigger EU member states, as well as their strategies do. Given the unprecedented progress that has been achieved by the Juncker Commission in the areas of security and defence integration, the goal of this chapter is to identify the new challenges and opportunities with which small EU member states have to deal. To this aim, it takes stock of previous research on small EU member states in ESDP/CSDP and also explores primary resources. The first part of the chapter discusses the developments concerning security and defence integration in the EU. The second part analyses the main debates in the literature on small EU member states in ESDP/CSDP. The third part builds upon the previous two in order to present the new challenges and opportunities that small member states confront in these areas.

One of the primary responsibilities of any state is the development of a political-military strategy which meets the circumstances in which that state finds itself, the manner in which the state perceives its own position in its international relations, and the level of its ambitions in this. In the context of this volume the term 'small states' denotes those states that viewed themselves as such and that did not play an active role in the powerpolitical controversies of the European great powers. Th e present volume shows that a comparative approach can considerably increase our understanding of the neutrality policy of the small European states and the importance of the armed forces in this in the early decades of the previous century. At the end of the nineteenth century it was a useful, respected and not too problematical instrument for ensuring national security. Keywords: European; military strategy; political strategy; powerpolitical controversies; small states

Large states with big populations and territories, such as the US, China and Russia, would normally be viewed as influential by realist International Relations (IR) theory. But they have proven to be among the most challenged by the COVID-19 outbreak, struggling to deal with the pandemic and suffering ever-growing human and economic losses. In contrast, some small states with a small geographical area and population, but with a strong economy and a high degree of state capacity, appear to have the ability to successfully address their national security concerns caused by the pandemic. They have even, surprisingly, been able to diversify their financial resources by providing foreign aid globally. Why have some GCC small states, such as the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, been more able to maintain their national security and at the same time have a global reach during such globally insecure times? The differential impact of COVID-19 raises questions about the neo-realist tradition which considers small territories with small populations as 'weak'. During this global pandemic, such small countries can be 'strong', if the situation leads to economic advantages. For example, due to their small population, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait have been able to distribute their resources and protect their citizens from the pandemic. These small GCC states' advantages are related with high state capacity and control by their leadership over their citizens, borders and territories, as a result of total surveillance and resources. At the same time, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait have provided significant foreign aid, a litmus test of influence in world politics. An alternative IR literature which focuses on small states and alternative sources of power is more helpful in understanding these small state states' foreign aid initiatives as an effective response to the pandemic. Overall, the pandemic – through the lens of foreign aid – has underlined the emergence of small GCC states, especially the UAE, on the global stage as potentially 'strong' states.