Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

It’s not the size, it’s the relationship: from ‘small states’ to asymmetry

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much time and enormous amount of academic effort has gone into defining small states and their position in world politics. This endeavor, sadly, has produced very little agreement. It is therefore time to reposition the discussion. I do so by arguing that the analysis of small states should move from a concentration on ‘smallness’ to looking in more detail at the relationships in which these states are engaged. IR scholars should therefore stop defining and re-defining the concept of ‘small state,’ quite literally setting it aside as an analytical category. This article advocates a whole-hearted embrace of a relational approach, replacing the analytical category of ‘small state’ with a new perspective and terminology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the opposition of hyper-power and hypo-power is appealing, the term ‘hyper-power,’ coming from the former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine’s hyperpuissance, has a strong connection with the USA as the world’s sole hyper-power.

  2. This mistake is made in the organization of the contributions to Hey (2003a, b, c), as well as in earlier works like Handel (1981).

References

  • Alesina, A., and E. Spolaore. 2003. The size of nations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G.T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little and Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, C., A.J. Bailes, and A. Wivel (eds.). 2014. Small states and international security: Europe and beyond. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall, M., and S. Reich. 2016. Who is Wile E. Coyote? Power, influence and the war on drugs. International Politics 53 (2): 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayoob, M. 2003. Inequality and theorizing in international relations: The case for subaltern realism. International Studies Review 4 (3): 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldacchino, G. 2009. Thucydides or Kissinger? A critical review of smaller state diplomacy. In The diplomacies of small states: Between vulnerability and resilience, ed. A.F. Cooper, and T.M. Shaw, 21–40. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D.A. 1980. Interdependence and power: A conceptual analysis. International Organization 34 (4): 471–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benwell, R. 2011. The canaries in the coalmine: Small states as climate change champions. The Round Table 100 (413): 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitar, S.E. 2015. US military bases, quasi-bases, and domestic politics in Latin America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A. 2008. Norm advocacy: A small state strategy to influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (1): 135–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braveboy-Wagner, J.A. 2010. Opportunities and limitations of the exercise of foreign policy power by a very small state: The case of Trinidad and Tobago. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (3): 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braveboy-Wagner, J.A., and M.T. Snarr. 2003. Assessing current conceptual and empirical approaches. In The foreign policies of the global south: Rethinking conceptual frameworks, ed. J.A. Braveboy-Wagner, 13–30. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briguglio, I., G. Cordina, and E.J. Kisanga. 2008. Building the economic resilience of small states. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, C.S. 2006. Small, smart and salient? Rethinking identity in the small states literature. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (4): 669–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burges, S.W. 2009. Brazilian foreign policy after the cold war. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, A.I. 2013. Anarchy and hierarchy in international relations: Examining South America’s War-Prone Decade, 1932–41. International Organization 67 (3): 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cason, J.W., and T.J. Power. 2009. Presidentialization, pluralization, and the rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining change in Brazilian foreign policy making in the Cardoso-Lula era. International Political Science Review 30 (2): 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A. 2010. Small state soft power strategies: Virtual enlargement in the cases of the Vatican City State and Singapore. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (2): 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, A., and M. Maass. 2010. Introduction: The foreign policy power of small states. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (2): 381–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. 2009. How hierarchical can international society be? International Relations 23 (3): 464–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P.C. 1992. The United States and Somoza, 1933–1956: A revisionist look. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth Secretariat. 1985. Vulnerability: Small states in the global society. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, A. 2014. Great games, local rules: The new great power contest in Central Asia. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, A., and D.H. Nexon. 2013. “The empire will compensate you”: The structural dynamics of the US overseas basing network. Perspectives on Politics 11 (4): 1034–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A., and T. Shaw. 2009. The diplomacies of small states: Between vulnerability and resilience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, M. 2014. Soft security threats and small states: The case of Estonia. Defence Studies 14 (1): 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnton, C. 2012. Asymmetry and agenda-setting in US-Latin American relations: Rethinking the origins of the Alliance for Progress. Journal of Cold War Studies 14 (4): 55–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitelhoff, N., and L. Wallbott. 2012. Beyond soft balancing: Small states and coalition-building in the ICC and climate negotiations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (3): 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desch, M.C. 1993. When the third world matters: Latin America and United States grand strategy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, J. 2006. Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society. European Journal of International Relations 12 (2): 139–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W., and A. Kraay. 2000. Small states, small problems? Income, growth, and volatility in small states. World Development 28 (11): 2013–2027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Anis, I. 2016. Explaining the behaviour of small states: An analysis of Jordan’s nuclear energy policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (2): 528–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escudé, C. 1997. Foreign policy theory in Menem’s Argentina. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemes, D., and S.E. Lobell. 2015. Contested leadership in international relations. International Politics 52 (2): 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flemes, D., and L. Wehner. 2015. Drivers of strategic contestation: The case of South America. International Politics 52 (2): 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, A.B. 1959. The power of small states: Diplomacy in World War II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.P., and T. Long. 2015. Soft balancing in the Americas: Latin American opposition to U.S. intervention, 1898–1936. International Security 40 (1): 120–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. 2012. Latin American foreign policy analysis: External influences and internal circumstances. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (4): 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleijeses, P. 1991. Shattered hope: The Guatemalan revolution and the United States, 1944–1954. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetschel, L.S.F. 1998. Small states inside and outside the European Union: Interests and policies. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grøn, C.H., and A. Wivel. 2011. Maximizing influence in the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty: From small state policy to smart state strategy. Journal of European Integration 33 (5): 523–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D.S. 2008. The Baltics: Still punching above their weight. Current History 107 (707): 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handel, M.I. 1981. Weak states in the international system. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J. 2016. Normative power in the EU and ASEAN: Why they diverge. International Studies Review 18 (1): 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.A.K. 1997. Three building blocks of a theory of Latin American foreign policy. Third World Quarterly 18 (4): 631–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.A.K. 2003a. Introducing small state foreign policy. In Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior, ed. J.A.K. Hey. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.A.K. 2003b. Luxembourg: Where small works (and wealthy doesn’t hurt). In Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior, ed. J.A.K. Hey, 75–94. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.A.K. 2003c. Small states in world politics: Explaining foreign policy behavior. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingebritsen, C. 2002. Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict 37 (1): 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingebritsen, C. 2006. Scandinavia in world politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaschik, K. 2014. Small states and international politics: Climate change, the Maldives and Tuvalu. International Politics 51 (2): 272–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jourde, C. 2007. The international relations of small neoauthoritarian states: Islamism, warlordism, and the framing of stability. International Studies Quarterly 51 (2): 481–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamrava, M. 2013. Qatar: Small state, big politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassimeris, C. 2009. The foreign policy of small powers. International Politics 46 (1): 84–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P. 1985. Small states in world markets. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. 1969. Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: Small states in international politics. International Organization 23 (2): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. 1971. The big influence of small allies. Foreign Policy 2: 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O., and J.S. Nye. 1977. Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J.W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, D., and B. Russett. 2002. Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. The Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1045–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 1996. Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations. International Organization 50: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 2009. Hierarchy in international relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobell, S.E., N.G. Jesse, and K.P. Williams. 2015. Why do secondary states choose to support, follow or challenge? International Politics 52 (2): 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, T. 2015. Latin America confronts the United States: Asymmetry and influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Long, T. 2016. Small states, great power? Gaining influence through intrinsic, derivative, and collective power. International Studies Review. doi:10.1093/isr/viw040.

  • Longley, K. 1997. The Sparrow and the Hawk: Costa Rica and the United States during the rise of José Figueres. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, M. 2009. The elusive definition of the small state. International Politics 46 (1): 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, M. 2014. Small states: Survival and proliferation. International Politics 51 (6): 709–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. 1989. Power, capabilities, and paradoxical conflict outcomes. World Politics 41 (2): 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mares, D.R. 1988. Middle powers under regional hegemony: To challenge or acquiesce in hegemonic enforcement. International Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J., and S.M. Walt. 2007. The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora, F.O., and J.A.K. Hey. 2003. Latin American and Caribbean foreign policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, J.D. 1991. Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science 35 (4): 904–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasra, S. 2011. Governance in EU foreign policy: Exploring small state influence. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (2): 164–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I., and S. Gstöhl. 2006. Lilliputians in Gulliver’s world? In Small states in international relations, ed. C. Ingebritsen, I. Neumann, S. Gstöhl, et al., 3–36. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ólafsson, B.G. 1998. Small states in the global system: Analysis and illustrations from the case of Iceland. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. 2010. Small states in the European Union: Coping with structural disadvantages. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. 2011. Small states in EU negotiations political dwarfs or power-brokers? Cooperation and Conflict 46 (2): 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, J. 2014. Rethinking weak state behavior: Mongolia’s foreign policy toward China. International Politics 51 (2): 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickli, J.-M. 2008. European small states’ military policies after the Cold War: From territorial to niche strategies. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21 (3): 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. Cooperation among democracies: The European influence on U.S. foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, R. 1968. Alliances and small powers. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L., and J. Jordan. 2015. Small states, strong ties? Qatar and its geopolitical environment. In International studies association 2015. New Orleans: La.

  • Russell, R., and J.G. Tokatlian. 2003. From antagonistic autonomy to relational autonomy: A theoretical reflection from the Southern Cone. Latin American Politics and Society 45 (1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R., and J.G. Tokatlian. 2009. Modelos de política exterior y opciones estratégicas: El caso de América Latina frente a Estados Unidos. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals 85–86: 211–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selee, A.D., and A. Díaz-Cayeros. 2013. The dynamics of US–Mexican relations. In Mexico & the United States: The politics of partnership, ed. P.H. Smith, and A.D. Selee, 37–60. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, G.-W., H. Izatt, and R.J. Moon. 2016. Asymmetry of power and attention in alliance politics: the US–Republic of Korea case. Australian Journal of International Affairs 70 (3): 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, C.C., and J.W. Spanier. 1984. Patron–client state relationships: Multilateral crises in the nuclear age. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, R., and A. Wivel (eds.). 2010. Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strakes, J.E. 2013. Situating the ‘balanced foreign policy’: The role of system structure in azerbaijan’s multi-vector diplomacy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 15 (1): 37–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. 1987. The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organization 41 (4): 551–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P.L. 2007. War aims and war outcomes: Why powerful states lose limited wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution 51 (3): 496–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B. 2010. Small states in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., and A. Wivel. 2006. Small states in the European Union: What do we know and what would we like to know? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (4): 651–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trager, R.F. 2015. Diplomatic signaling among multiple states. The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigevani, T., and G. Cepaluni. 2007. A política externa de Lula da Silva: A estratégia da autonomia pela diversificação. Contexto Internacional 29 (2): 273–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vital, D. 1967. The inequality of states: A study of the small power in international relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, B.E. 2010. Soft balancing among weak states? Evidence from Africa. International Affairs 86 (5): 1109–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. 2005. The security challenge of small EU member states: Interests, identity and the development of the EU as a security actor. Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (2): 393–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, A. 2010. From small state to smart state: Devising a strategy for influence in the European Union. In Small states in Europe: Challenges and opportunities, ed. R. Steinmetz, and A. Wivel, 15–30. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, B. 2001. How size matters: The United States, China and asymmetry. The Journal of Strategic Studies 24 (4): 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, B. 2016. Asymmetry and international relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AA, UK

    Tom Long

  2. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico City, Mexico

    Tom Long

Authors
  1. Tom Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Long.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Long, T. It’s not the size, it’s the relationship: from ‘small states’ to asymmetry. Int Polit 54, 144–160 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0028-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0028-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation