Link to the article

Why is it important to know about this theory?

This article is a pioneering one, which completely revises the IR approach to small states by giving it a constructivist approach. Knowing about Small States theories is as important as knowing about larger states: they are also part of the international political system.

Academic framework

While in world politics, the size of a country is often linked to its capacity and influence, small states are usually ignored because of their size and expected to follow the framework set by large states. In this article, the author distances himself from the extensive literature on small states and the confusion of small states lacking power.

The author takes a constructivist approach by arguing that smallness and its meaning can be constructed differently in different identity narratives, which in turn will have different implications for state action. He then underpins his argument with a case study on Finland, arguing that in a European context, leaders’ emphasis on size does not correspond at all to the reality of influence in practice.

This article focuses on the narrative aspect of smallness in international relations, and how it can be used more positively in the construction of state identities.

What is a small state?

Mainstream literature

Realistic/neorealistic perspectives

For (neo)realists, the measure of smallness is power, defined as a state’s ability to influence outcomes. In general, that power is measurable in material terms (arms, GDP, population, etc.). Because of the lack of material power, the freedom of action of small states depends on the benevolence of the major powers, their mutual relations and/or the nature of the balance of power. Small is weak and therefore a security problem in a chaotic and anarchic self-help international system. In short, power is measured by the distribution of material resources in the balance of power (the system). This is the framework for rational state action. Small states are isolated in the sea of anarchy, virtually powerless against the waves of the international system.

But they still have a small amount of power to act upon. According to neo-realists, they have two contradictory positions. Small states tend towards equilibrium action because they want to compensate for structural changes in the balance of power between the major powers. The second position is that of bandwagoning, where the behaviour of small states is characterised by accommodating the demands of the more powerful party.

But the behaviour of small states can be predicted in another way. According to Mouritzen, it is the constellation that matters. The constellation is what the small state belongs to: it is the set of relations it has with the strong powers in its salient environment: it may be the satellite of a larger power, it may be between two powers or in a constellation of adaptability. According to Mouritzen, small countries will exhibit more dynamic behaviour in the latter constellation.  In an alliance constellation, small countries are more likely to choose balance, and small satellite countries have almost no power.

The problem with the (neo)realist approach is that small countries are seen as objects rather than subjects of the international political system, with little or no agency, which can only react to changes in the balance of power. Small countries are also categorised in a certain way, with their interests assigned according to a theoretical understanding of the logic of anarchy and balance of power. Their domestic politics are not important in the international system because they will not affect the balance of power because of their smallness: they will just accept it.

Liberal perspectives

Small states can be a major power in one area with significant influence in another, and small in another. This possibility is given to them by the institutions. This is also one reason why, because of the binding effect of norms on major powers in international multilateral institutions, small states have the ability to manoeuvre in these institutions and are enthusiastic about them.  This approach to small states gives a different narrative to the definition of small states and power.

While both (cognitive) approaches are materialistic and rationalistic, a discursive approach emphasises that it is equally, if not more, a matter of self-perception and subjective norms. While small states often recognise that they cannot guarantee their security with their own capabilities and must rely on others, they also see systemic change as a threat rather than an opportunity. Indeed, major powers may use a period of change to expand their sphere of influence, strengthen their regional hegemony, etc., thus changing the relationship with small states and altering their security, which is vital to their survival. But some small states may use these changes to assert their preferences. In fact, small countries may choose to define themselves as small as a strategy to have more influence on their environment, as these countries are often seen as more credible at the international level because they have less of a hidden agenda.

Case study Finland

Finland is considered a typical small state. It first concluded a friendship pact with the USSR in 1948. This can be seen as a political measure to ensure its survival. At the time, it did not have the identity of a small state because it wanted to liberate the Finns in their Norwegian, Swedish and Russian neighbours. So, for the Finns, it was not natural to consider themselves a small state. After the follow-up war with the USSR, the prime minister built a national identity in foreign policy by regarding Finland as a small state alongside a major power. In his view, the war had proved that Finland was a small state and that power politics prevailed over the authority of international law. Finland was therefore a largely passive country in the international system and could not exert great influence outside its immediate neighbourhood. It was therefore under the influence of the USSR. After Stalin’s death, the Nordic states gained more influence. Finland’s identity changed when it accepted membership of the Nordic Council and the UN. It became more militant. Thus, the Nordic states, along with Finland, became a meeting place between East and West, where special resources and benefits were at stake and where the moral stance was taken. After the Cold War, the question was no longer whether the country was big or small, but whether it was at the heart or on the periphery. Finland played an important role in helping shape the nature of European integration and European space and governance. In the context of the European Union, Finland has behaved as a fairly typical liberal-institutional small state by exploiting its small-state identity to favour the community method over intergovernmentalism. A new discourse on Finnish innovation, networking and globalisation is also on the agenda (think Nokia).