Small States in International Relations

Annotated Bibliography

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY JESSICA BEYER Ahnlid, A. (1992). “Free Riders or Forced Riders? Small States in the International Political Economy: The Example of Sweden.” Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 27(3): 241–276. This article analyzes the trade policies of small industrialized states using the example of Sweden. Ahnlid argues that, against the expectations of hegemonic stability theory, small states are not free riding (i.e., implementing protection at home, while enjoying free trade abroad) but are forced to pursue liberal policies mainly by systemic constraints. Small developed states contribute to an open international economic order, while larger actors and developing countries—at least before the establishment of the World Trade Organization—could sometimes act against the trade regime. Alapuro, R., M. Alestalo, E. Haavio-Mannila, R. Väyrynen, eds. (1985). Small States in Comparative Perspectives: Essays for Erik Allardt. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. This volume is a tribute to Erik Allardt, a Finnish sociologist. To that end, it is an eclectic collection, roughly grouped in the three categories of “Comparing States in Europe,” “Inter-Nordic Comparisons,” and “Finland in Comparative Perspective.” The chapters cover a wide range of topics, including issues aªecting the daily lives of Finns, inter-Nordic diªerences in corporatiststructures ,center-peripheryrelations,andsmallEuropeanstates.Chapters largely focus on Scandinavia and are generally comparative. Further, many deal withstate-societyrelations.Contributorsinclude:DagAnckar,ShmuelN.Eisenstadt , Robert Erikson, Peter Flora, Johan Galtung, Ilkka Heiskanen, Voitto Helander, Ulf Himmelstrand, Pekka Kosonen, Rita Liljeström, Pertti Pesonen, Seppo Pöntinen, Onni Rantala, Paavo Seppänen, Magdalena Sokolowska, Veronica Stolte-Heiskanen, Hannu Uusitalo, Tapani Valkonen. Amstrup, N. (1976). “The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Eªorts.” Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 11(3): 163–182. Amstrup oªers a survey of research on small states, with a particular focus on defining a small state. He breaks small state literature into six diªerent approaches. First, scholars such as Annette Baker Fox and David Vital avoid the problem of definition, often considering it irrelevant . Second, scholars such as R. P. Barston link “smallness” to a measurable characteristic, such as population size. Third, Amstrup presents the argument 293 that the relationship between large and small states cannot be explained by size alone, but is dependent on other variables, such as the structure of the international system, states’ geographical positions, and domestic political systems. Scholarsinthisareawouldfurtherarguethatsizeisrelativeandrelational;therefore , what counts as a small state depends on the question being asked. Fourth, scholars such as Robert Rothstein and Wilhelm Christmas-Møller consider size to be best defined by self-perception. In other words, states that think they are small are small. Fifth, some scholars analyze small state behavior by looking at specific situations, which are selected because they show essential characteristics of small state behavior. Sixth, scholars such as Raimo Väyrynen argue that it is necessary to diªerentiate size. Väyrynen suggests a five-piece definition that includes rank, degree of external penetration, type of behavior, interests incompetition,anddecision-makersconceptualizationof theroleof theirstates. Amstrup concludes by arguing that there are two large issues in the small state literature. The first is the lack of an accumulation of research eªorts. He says that studies on small states largely ignore each other. The second is the elusiveness of the concept of small states. Archer, C., N. Nugent (2002). “Introduction: Small States and the European Union.” Current Politics and Economics of Europe 11(1): 1–10. In the introduction to a special issue of Current Politics and Economics of Europe titled “Small States and the European Union,” Archer and Nugent frame the special journal issue by examining di‹culties in defining small states. They also discuss the contributions of small states to the Europeanization project and oªer suggestions for future research. Armstrong, H. W., R. Read (1995). “Western European Microstates and European Union Autonomous Regions: The Advantage of Size and Sovereignty.” World Development 23(7): 1229–1245. Armstrong and Read examine the economic success of microstates and some European regions with high levels of autonomy. By comparing GDP per capita and unemployment, they find that success seems to be highly related to activity in the financial services sector, tourism, and, at times, natural resources. They find that microstates and regions within Europe do better than regions adjacent to the EU, which is contrary to literature that stresses the disadvantages of microstates. However, they are unable to explain...