Neoliberal traditions of small state studies - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Neoliberal traditions of small state studies

Máté Szalai

04.11.2015.Slide2

Lack of material resources

Disabilities and

weakness

es

Security deficit

1. Active

2. Passive3. Defensive

Alliance-policySlide3
Slide4

Comparing neorealism and neoliberalism

Similarities

Differences

1.

Smallness = weakness1. Different aspects of security

2. Disabilities of small states2. The international system is less conflictual, there is a room for cooperation

3. The security deficit exists3. Institutions matter

4. Small states have different

and wider toolkit Slide5

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 organizationsMain literature consists of mainly critiques

about neorealismSlide6

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)Slide7

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 definitionSlide8

Keohane’s critique

The concept of small states (Rothstein)

The role of non-alignment and neutrality (Vital)

Alliance policy

Nuclear weaponsSlide9

1.1. The concept

of

small states

Rothstein: small states prefer international organizations because of three reasonsFormal equalitySafety deriving from membershipThe ability of IOs to limit the actions of great powers

Reason: small states tend to focus solely on short-term survivalSlide10

1.1 The concept of small states

Keohane

:

we should focus on the systematic role of states, not their sizeFour

types of statesSystem-determiningSystem-influencingSystem-affectingSystem-ineffectualSlide11

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 IOsSlide12

1.2. Non-alignment

Debate between Vital and Rothstein

Types of balance of power

Frozen

Dynamic and changing

BipolarThe perspective of small states

Safe but no room for maneuverSafety and room for maneuverRoom for maneuver but only at the expense of securitySlide13

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 fluidKeohane

Small states prefer multilateral alliances which includes great and small powers as wellThe role of secondary powers is crucial (Japan, Great-Britain, France)International institutions are also importantSlide14

1.4. Nuclear weapons

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

Keohane

: it is notSlide15

2. Duursma

,

Jorri (2006): Micro-states: The Principality of Liechtenstein

For very small states, membership in international organizations means independence and recognitionCase study: Lichtenstein as the entrepreneur microstateSlide16
Slide17
Slide18

2. Duursma

,

Jorri (2006): Micro-states: The Principality of Liechtenstein

Aim: the maintenance and protection of its independence and its statehoodMain public services are provided by SwitzerlandCommunication

Postal serviceMonetary policySlide19

2. IO-policy of Lichtenstein

Membership would mean a recognition of independence and statehood

First attempt: League of Nations (failed). Reasons:

Questionable statehoodSizeSlide20

2. IO-policy of Lichtenstein

Helsinki-process: participation

Council of Europe

1974: observer1978: memberOne objection

European integrationEFTA (1991)United NationsOpt-out with Switzerland untill 1990Slide21

2. The role of Licthenstein

Pioneer

roleFirst microstate to participate in international organizationsChanged the perception of great states and also the self-image of microstatesSlide22

3. Peter

J.

Katzenstein: Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (1985)

Small states: political stability and economic flexibility are connectedDemocratic corporatism1930-1940s

Fear of the crisis, war and authoritarianism1970-1980s: clear signs of competitivenessChallenges: oil crisis, competition from the Third WorldSlide23

3.

Katzenstein

: comparison of small and big economies

Smallness

Open

economy

Sensitivity

FlexibilitySlide24

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 accommodationSlide25

3. Katzenstein

: lessons for big states

Because

of the oil crisis, big states face the same problems as small onesNeed to create the culture of democratic corporatismThe 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”Slide26

4. Baldur Thorhallsson

: The Role of Small States in the European

Union

Focus on the different behaviour of small and great powers in international organizationsKatzenstein: the cause of this difference is the presence of the culture of democratic corporatism

Thorhallsson and Hicks question the conclusions of Katzenstein Slide27

4.Administrative size and characteristics

Lack of resources

Less

formalized decision making

2. Less

bureaucracy

3. Officers

have wider room for manoeuvre

4. More flexible EU-policySlide28

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-EUSlide29

4. Relationship between smaller states and the Europe

a

n Commission

Great powers: bigger influence in the ECBut small states can compensate for thatInformal 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 ECNeed for deeper cooperationSlide30

4.

Conclusions

Small states like International organizations because they have more possibilities

Small states tend to conduct more flexible EU-policyExcept for priority areasThere is a strong alliance between the EC and small statesSlide31

II. Fundamental assumptions of neoliberalism

Foreign policy aims and optimal strategies

The Security deficit

Activity

Limitations

Main possibilitiesSlide32

II/1. Foreign Policy Aims and Means

Sole aim: survival

Optimal strategy: accession to international organizations, courtsSlide33

II/2. Compensation for the security deficit

Membership in international organizations

Strengthening the norms of international security and peaceSlide34

II/3. Activity

Active in

Ios

and other legal entitiesPassive outside of themSlide35

II/4. Limitations

Main limitations can be seen in

Regional scope

The set of foreign policy toolsAdministrative and institutional dimensionsBut: advantage in flexibilitySlide36

III. Comparison

Find arguments for both schools of thought

Find historical examples which strengthen the argumentation of both sides