Neoliberal traditions of small state studies Máté Szalai 04.11.2015.

Neoliberal traditions of small

state studiesMáté Szalai

04.11.2015.

Lack of material

resources

Disabilities and

weaknesses

Security deficit 1. Active

2. Passive3. Defensive

Alliance-policy

Lack of material

resources

Disabilities and

weakness

Security deficit

Comparing neorealism and neoliberalism

Similarities Differences

1. Smallness = weakness 1. Different aspects of security

2. Disabilities of small states 2. The international system is less conflictual, there is a room

for cooperation

3. The security deficit exists 3. Institutions matter

4. Small states have different and wider toolkit

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

1.2. Non-alignment

• Debate between Vital and Rothstein

Types of balance of

power

Frozen Dynamic 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

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

1.4. Nuclear weapons

• According to neorealism, nuclear weapons can be beneficial for small states

• Keohane: it is not

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

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

2. IO-policy of Lichtenstein

• Membership would mean a recognition of independence and statehood

• First attempt: League of Nations (failed). Reasons:• Questionable statehood

• Size

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

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

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

3. Katzenstein: comparison of small and big economies

Smallness Open economy

Sensitivity

Flexibility

3. Katzenstein: comparison of small and big economies

Big economies Small economies

Liberal/leftist economic policy

Hard to implement change

Culture of dominance Culture of bargaining and compensation

Easy to implement change

Corporatism and the need for accommodation

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”

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

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

Greece and Portugal

Spain

Italy

• 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

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

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

II. Fundamental assumptions of neoliberalism

• Foreign policy aims and optimal strategies

• The Security deficit

• Activity

• Limitations

• Main possibilities

II/1. Foreign Policy Aims and Means

• Sole aim: survival

• Optimal strategy: accession to international organizations, courts

II/2. Compensation for the security deficit

• Membership in international organizations

• Strengthening the norms of international security and peace

II/3. Activity

• Active in Ios and other legal entities

• Passive outside of them

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

III. Comparison

1. Find arguments for both schools of thought

2. Find historical examples which strengthen the argumentation of both sides