Small states: concepts and theories

Abstract

Attempts to define small states can be largely distilled into three, ideal-type definitions: as non-great powers; as states with limited material capacity and capabilities; and as political constructs. After discussing these ideal-types, this chapter proposes a pragmatic working definition of small states: those characterized by the limited capacity of their political, economic and administrative systems, along with a position as weak actors in asymmetric relationships internationally. Consequently, small states tend to be price and policy takers. From this position, small states face three dilemmas: nationalism versus cosmopolitanism; democratization versus group think; and autonomy versus influence. The effects of these dilemmas are discussed, before moving on to review the organization, contents and major findings of the Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Three findings are highlighted: capacity and capabilities matter; institutions make a difference; and history creates a strong precedent.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.