The Role of Small States in the European Union

Baldur Thorhallsson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138378247
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351882521
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: National Security
• Index: Politics & International Relations

A fully documented text which addresses a key issue of EU decision-making which is surfacing again in proposed institutional reforms. It looks at the role of smaller states, deals with the important criteria of distribution and redistribution of EU budgetary expenditures in the key areas of agriculture and structural funds and explains how smaller states promote their interest more effectively than larger states. It focuses on the administrations of small states, their relations with the Commission and their negotiation tactics in the Council. This is the first attempt to empirically test Peter Katzenstein's thesis on the role of smaller states in international relations by making important recommendations on how the core assumptions of Katzenstein need to be modified, especially when applied to the EU context. This work is a good supplementary text book for courses on European studies, comparative politics and international relations. It is particularly suitable for advanced undergraduates and graduate students.

1 Introduction

This study will argue that size is a significant variable in explaining the behaviour of smaller states in the decision-making process of the European Union (EU) in the areas of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Regional Policy. This research determines the size of states according to their population size, geographical size, the size of their economy and their Gross Domestic Product (GDP).¹ Peter J. Katzenstein argues that size facilitates particular political outcomes and should be dealt with as a variable rather than a constant.² He states that ‘size affects, in particular, both economic openness and the characteristics of the political regime’.³ Each state has, of course, its own characteristics, i.e. historical, geographic, cultural and institutional, but small states have some common problems.⁴ It is very important to pay attention to these problems. It is also important to look closely at the situations of smaller states, their positions and strategies.⁵ Smaller states are supposed to have various characteristics in common which influences their behaviour.⁶ If these characteristics of the smaller states can be differentiated from the characteristics of larger states, as Katzenstein argues, it can be expected that these characteristics will influence the behaviour of smaller states in the decision-making process of the EU. It is, therefore, very important to focus on the interaction of the smaller states within the EU. This is made additionally important by the fact that all new potential member states, except for Poland, can be regarded as begin smaller states. Therefore, proportionally the number of smaller states in the EU can only increase. As a consequences insight into the present behaviour of smaller states in the EU will give us an important indication of how the other smaller states may interact in the decisionmaking process of the EU in the near future.

The Main Hypothesis

The approach of Peter J. Katzenstein who has done some pioneer work on the characteristics and behaviour of smaller states in international relations⁷ will be applied to the smaller states in the EU, in order to develop hypotheses to explain their behaviour in the decision-making process. Katzenstein argues that there are three distinctive characteristics of the smaller states in Western Europe. Firstly, smaller European states can be distinguished from the larger states in their economic openness which reinforces their corporatist arrangements. Secondly, the corporatist difference is evident in the three defining characteristics of corporatism: ‘an ideology of social partnership, a centralized and concentrated system of economic interest groups, an uninterrupted process of bargaining among all of the major political actors across different sectors of policy’.⁸ Thirdly, corporatism also results from the distinctive party systems of the small states in Europe. ‘Political opponents tend to share power and jointly influence policy’.⁹ This is because the political parties of the right are divided and proportional representation encourages a system of coalition or minority governments.

The interesting question, from our point of view in this analysis, is whether a broader conclusion about the behaviour of smaller states in the EU can be drawn from Katzenstein’s findings on the characteristics of smaller states: do the distinctive characteristics of the smaller states in Western-Europe impact upon their behaviour in the European Union? Is the behaviour of smaller states in the decision-making process of the EU different from that of larger states?

According to Katzenstein, the domestic policy-making of smaller states differs from larger states: ‘corporatist arrangements set the small European states apart from the large industrial states … one can distinguish the strong corporatism of the small European states from the weak corporatism of the large industrial states’.¹⁰ The coordination of domestic policy-making of the smaller states and their approach to policy-making can be differentiated from that of the larger states. As a result these features are very likely to impact upon the behaviour of smaller states and we should, therefore, be able to distinguish between their behaviour and the behaviour of the larger states.

The main hypothesis is drawn from the argument of Katzenstein that the smaller states have specific characteristics which differ from those of larger states. This hypothesis states:

the distinctive characteristics of the smaller states influences their behaviour in the decision-making process of the EU so that their behaviour can be distinguished from that of the larger states.

This main hypothesis is followed by five working hypotheses in order to specify what impact the characteristics of smaller states have on their approach to the decision-making process of the EU. The hypotheses are specified in the second chapter concerning the conceptual framework and in each of the following chapters.

The Research Framework

This is a case study and the research will analyse the behaviour of smaller states in the decision-making process of the EU in the areas of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Regional Policy. The behaviour of smaller states will be compared with the behaviour of the larger states. The research spans nine years from 1986, when Spain and Portugal entered the EU to 1994, which was before Austria, Finland and Sweden joined. This time frame was chosen so as to include Spain and Portugal in the research but to exclude Sweden, Austria and Finland as it was felt to be too early to include their behaviour in the analysis.

Seven member states can be defined as smaller EU states during this period, ranging from Luxembourg with just over 400 thousand inhabitants to the Netherlands with 15 million inhabitants. The other small states are Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Portugal and Greece. The behaviour of these seven smaller states is compared to the behaviour of the larger states of the EU: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy. Thus 12 member states are included in the research. The smaller states are, of course, not identical but they have some common characteristics which distinguish them from the five larger states: their populations are much smaller, their administrations are considerably smaller, as is their geographical size, the scale of their economies and their GDP.

The two policy areas have been chosen in order to give as clear an indication as possible of the behaviour of member states in the oldest and probably most developed policy area of the Union, the CAP, and a relatively new policy area, Regional Policy. Also, these two policy areas have differences in the degree of interests shown to them by member states. All member states can be regarded as having vested interest in the CAP, because of the importance of agriculture and the scope of its policy within the EU. In contrast some member states clearly have more interest in the Regional Policy than others do. As a result, the research focuses on one policy area in which all the smaller states are regarded as having considerable interest and on another policy area in which only some have vested interest. This is done in order to make the comparison as accurate as possible within the scope of this kind of research.

Table 1.1 Indicators of the size of member states of the European Union¹¹

Country	Number of inhabitants (x1000) 1995	Total area of land (1000 km^2)	GDP at current prices (bn ECU) 1994
Luxembourg	407	3	11.6
Ireland	3,577	70	44.5
Denmark	5,216	43	123.7
Portugal	9,912	92	73.9
Belgium	10,131	31	192.2
Greece	10,442	132	80.3
Netherlands	15,423	42	278.5
Spain	39,170	506	407.1
Italy	57,248	301	863.2
France	58,027	544	1,121.9
UK	58,276*	244	856.6
Germany	81,553	357	1,724.8
Total	349,382	2,365	5,778.3

*1.1.1994

Other Measurements for Determining the Size of States and the Common Characteristics of Smaller States

Scholars have either attempted to define a small state by using a quantitative approach or by measuring their potential influence, which also uses to some extend quantitative measurements.¹² Robert Keohane, for instance, distinguishes between large and small powers by focusing on whether their leaders think their states have a decisive impact on the international system.¹³ Others have defined a small state as being a state that is unable to exercise its political will, or protect its interests, by power politics¹⁴ or does not have the capabilities to guarantee its own security.¹⁵ Several scholars have argued that it is not possible to arrive at a specific definition. However they have recognized that it is possible to study the challenges that confront smaller states and their behaviour in solving them.¹⁶ Some of the literature also argues that ‘the idea of small power is meaningless unless used relative to other states’.¹⁷ This is exactly what this study does as it compares seven smaller states of the European Union to the five larger states.

The existing relevant literature has put forward certain economic and political characteristics that dist...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Conceptual Framework
• 3 The Range of Interests of Smaller States
• 4 The Prioritization of Smaller States in the Common Agricultural Policy and the Regional Policy
• 5 The Administrative Working Procedures of Member States
• 6 The Relationship between Member States and the European Commission
• 7 The Flexible and Inflexible Negotiation Approaches
• 8 Conclusion
• Bibliography