Большие успехи малых стран

Sep 19, 2014 Michael O’Sullivan , Stefano Natella

ЦЮРИХ – Голосование Шотландии за независимость от Соединенного Королевства стимулировало широкомасштабные дебаты о сецессии малых государств, таких как Словения и Хорватия в 1991 году, или идущая сегодня к независимости Испанская автономная область Каталония. Но ни узкая направленность на политические и экономические последствия для Шотландии и Великобритании - ни, если на то пошло, решающий про-союзный исход референдума - должны отодвинуть на второй план обширные уроки одной из более обойденных вниманием геополитических тенденции нашего времени: подъем малых стран.

Примерно 75% сегодняшних малых стран были сформированы за последние 70 лет, в основном в результате более широких демократических преобразований и в тандеме с ростом торговли и глобализации. Их успехи и неудачи являются более уместными в нынешних дискуссиях, чем, скажем, бюджетно-финансовые последствия шотландской независимости.

Уроки, которые нужно извлечь из этих случаев полезны не только для новых и потенциально новых малых стран. Относительно молодые маленькие страны Африки, Карибского бассейна и Ближнего Востока также могут извлечь выгоду от изучения секретов успеха Сингапура, причин и последствии пузыря недвижимости Ирландии, и решения Дании создать сильные возможности по борьбе с терроризмом, несмотря на относительную безопасность. Действительно, такие соображения могут помочь им, наметить путь к экономическому процветанию и социальной сплоченности.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Michael O’Sullivan

Writing for PS since 2013
4 Commentaries

Michael O’Sullivan is Chief Investment Officer in the International Wealth Management Division at Credit Suisse.

Stefano Natella

Writing for PS since 2014
1 Commentary

Stefano Natella is a member of the Credit Suisse Research Institute.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 in all 5 Comments on this article

Shadad Kissinger Sep 23, 2014

Yemen First
In addition to the geopolitical flashlight there is simpler rules and basics of physics

Physics clearly indicates that small-sized objects ""countries or any other objects"" moves faster with greater momentum, fly higher with better attitude and speed, propagate and navigate smoother and timing, but according to physics too: small-sized objects or countries are vulnerable to risks, or clashes, insecure if external force swept over, dangerously high rate of elasticity to disasters and environment fluctuations.
In other words the small size or the large scale could be examined under the flashes of physics. Probably it is zero sum game
Fast but vulnerable high but risky etc....

The age was addressed in the article but forward with no attempt to push it backward... small countries make progress within few decades, this is their lifetime. Small countries often don't last longer thru centuries with few exceptions like Israel for example. So 4 decades in the life of small country equal 2 or 4 hundreds years in the age of large scale countries whom were formed maybe thousands years ago not "70 years" ; 75 percent were formed 70 years ago: sure they don't last for long due to their vulnerability, insecurities, risks, light bodies. There were many small-sized countries in previous centuries but most of them could not make it ti the 21th or 20th centuries. They were swallowed, colonized, annexed, destroyed, split between larger countries...

That is not very attractive options...
Denmark is small country by border and population but it has larger community who share common geography linked by sea, similar history, interstate communication through familiar languages , and similar economies. In her history shows great ability to form greater union "" Sweden, and Norway"" shelters against risks and attacks. Economically the Scandinavians wellbeing is rooted in different reasons other than size.

Croatia, and Slovenia didn't become richer because they are smaller, actually they first became so richer and that is why they decided to become smaller. ( I might add that there was miscalculation by the legend president Tito who had some concerns about his country after he is gone. He thought that the Soviet Union and Europe won't allow breakup in Yugoslavia so Tito created a presidency council and assigned one politician from all Republics to manage Yugoslavia affairs democratically. His calculations were wrong because the Soviet blasted before Yugoslavia, and the 5 presidents every one wanted to slip way especially the richest Croatia and Slovenia, Germany backed them up; again Tito miscalculated this too)

Not only Croatia and Slovenia become smaller. Bosnia, Herzegovina Serbia became smaller countries but that didn't make them happier or richer??? Size is not an economic indicator

Singapore got independence by scissor of a doctor and scalpel of surgeon not like the Bulkan where separations and independence happened by cleaver of butcher.
Singapore main success depends on information technology not only usage but integrating information technology strategies with the highest levels of national strategy making... it is amazing. However the whole world nations, corporations, businesses, and entrepreneurs every where are marching to the heart of the digital age... Small-sized objects arebfaster but they don't last longer and large-scale move slowly but their way is safers and their steps are solid... the advantage of Singapore and similar countries whom employ all nations capabilities to advance on a single road and direction will give such advantage away and make space for others running towards the digital age
Small countries on single road with one tired vehicle if a stake is put into the wheels the result is fatal

Good Evening
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shadad Kissinger Sep 23, 2014

Yemen First
The geopolitical flashlight was appropriately present in the article but with no attempt to turn it on, it was off unfortunately all along. As manifested in the article the majority of the small-sized countries were formed within 70 years: the international world order 70 years ago is easily recalled ""Back then the sun of England empire was setting, and France was behind it trying to hang on. The colonial era and its masters faded to the past; however the dawn of American empire was looming on the horizon, and the Soviet were behind trying to catch up, freedom age was rising and new masters were going up the ladder but to be frozen in the cold war shortly later"" The most important indication of such shift from one age to an other is Eisenhour warning and disapproval of England-France-Israel tripartite attack on Egypt mainly to regain control over Suez canal. With the withdrawal of European super powers the new independence was embraced enthusiastically in every continents in the world; however the geopolitical strategies remained behind and so did the small countries "some of them were associated formerly with the European empires directly or indirectly" some of these small countries could be removed and others can't and actually should not be removed essentially because of their fundamental role in wider strategies to maintain peace, security, and order in the regions.

For example consider Napoleon geopolitical strategies to achieve his empirical aims, solve European problems, end the suffering of people who have been so crushed by men and history and their horrors from the Holocaust to the Pogrom, fulfill the prophecy in scripts, blockade and cut off the maritime transport of British, and finally start the process of inheritance of the sick man" ottoman empire".
What a hell of strategist, he is one of the most important figures in the last centuries of all time .Napoleon achieved all the above by one action. He recalled Jews to come back to Palestine their legitimate land. Small-sized but by nature should be the most powerful and preempts in all fields of national security. Israel is powerful not because it is small evidently because this the geopolitical settings and necessities.
"" I don't want to deliberately explain Napoleon strategy but shortly Israel was planted by religious, myths, practical, etstrategic , and even cultural to bring the West progressiveness into the East ...etc Israel play its roles in very sensitive strategic location in the angle that disconnects or connects Syria and Egypt.. With Israel Syria and Egypt can't be militarily united, Egypt will be isolated behind Sina desert, and Syria without Egypt maybe sometime not peaceful but it can never be aggressive. That is how the Southern shores of Mediterranean is controlled. However Iraq behind Syria could act like bridge that connects Syria to Yemen going thru the Arab gulf. Some families who were unpopular like Shref Hussain couldn't find country to rule in the gulf so they left that area and his son Abdullah stopped at Jordan which was simply one small village, but he planned to use the Jewish agency to share with them Palestine specifically West Bank. Later on his newly invented country would be an axis to complete an overall strategy in the region. Israel must ensure the Mediterranean and secure ways to Tiran straits to the Atlantic ocean, and militarily separates between Egypt and Syria,, while Jordan must guarantee the Red Sea and secure way to Bab El Mandab to the Aden gulf and to the Pacific ocean, and separates politically between Syria and Iraq. Finslly act as surveillance in the Red Sea... that is why you find goals means roles laws rules etc in small countries are running smoothly because usually thery are part of larger arrangements, greater strategies, and different interests so accordingly they accumulate extra sources, work with multiple parties, and share experiences with others.
This is one way to study small-sized countries by turning the geopolitical flashlight on and using the middle east as simulation model for other regions in the world.
The world superpowers, the regional ambitious actors play very significant role in the survival and continuity of these small countries as external dimensions. The internal dimensions is characterised by the fact that large number of the population in small countries ""in addition to the small numbers of natives who were originally there"" have spilled over from neighbouring countries during wars or from poverty. When they left their main society and resided in small countries between larger countries they got rid of all social values norms, local culture, memories, historic consciousness, , political ambition, everything in their former societies, they focus merely on making living, and they have no zeal for politics, instability... etc. Thst is why they seem like wonderful island of peace and progress... but is that resl on the long term?

Small countries after being stripped off their main societies sought better geographic location like commercial outpost between the large countries or natural resources like access to water or port. Like " Kuwait" for example whose name actually was Kut which means port in Arabic
Let's just to understand difference between small-sized countries and large-sized ones.
Kuwait was very wealthy country who thought it can buy anything even western progress. Kuwait whose population centered to do fishing and do some commerce, population that spilled over fron Mecca and Mediana and who ran away from Iraq. This Kuwait topped UN numbers in various measures for wellbeing and civilian welfare was within few hours out of history... it took Suddsm Hussain few hours in one night to oust the rulers and control Kuwait was ut not for Bush the first snd the operation of desert storm...

In the other hand you can examine Iraq large-sized country Iraq has been in violent wars from 1978 till the ends of 1980s: Iraq Iran war" followed by 1990 gulf war followed by sanctions, to 2003 and it is still going on with criminals of ISIS. unlike Kuwait Iraq can emerge again as powerful important countries..

Kuwait might be happier but it is less independent practically, more vulnerable, with very high rate of elasticity to global and regional changes. For example if the USA decides suddenly to withdraw from the world the next day Kuwait will be removed from the map...
There are different fate for small countries 1- countries which were formed based on empirical grand master strategy. Such countries can't and should not be removed, Israel is an example
2-small countries could not be removed easily and they are important for regional arrangements and equations. Jordan who has some military power, rely strategically on Israel, and finally positioning itself between contradictions of Iraq and Syria
3-small-countries which can be easily removed from the map which was formed on basics like natural opportunities and commercial posts and economics.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 21, 2014

It's unclear how Stefano Natella and Michael O’Sullivan measure the size of a country - by area or by population? There is a general feeling that success can't always be replicated. Apart from political stability, much depends on a country's institutions and people, whether an economy can take off or not.
They claim: "Roughly 75% of today’s small countries were formed in the last 70 years, mostly as a result of broader democratic transitions and in tandem with trade growth and globalization". Natella and O'Sullivan shouldn't generalise! Post World War Two saw the independence of many - large and small - countries across the globe, some of whom were former colonies. Power was handed over to stooges chosen by their colonial masters, before the Europeans left the region. One can hardly call this "democratic transitions" of power. There are plenty of such countries in Africa and in the Middle East and their history is marked by coups and autocratic rule!
It's true that "relatively young small countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Middle East" can learn from Singapore, Ireland and Denmark etc. Singapore gained independence in 1959! The wealthy city-state is known for the conservatism of its leaders and its strict social controls. Although Singapore has a multi-party system, the People's Action Party (PAP) has been the dominant force since independence, regularly winning well over 60% of the vote, which cements its hold on power. Similar to Switzerland, Singapore's success has been driven by existentialism and ambition.
Since its birth as an independent state in 1919 and since its membership in the European Community in 1973 Ireland became one of Europe's economic success stories toward the end of the twentieth century, transforming from a largely agricultural society into a modern, high-technology economy. This is no doubt a success story for a modern state to emulate.
Denmark and its Nordic siblings have a history going back to even before the Viking era. Although they have small populations, they are relatively big countries by area. Their "deeply entrenched social, legal, and political characteristics that are not easy to transfer to their developing-country counterparts".
No doubt a young country needs to focus on nation-building and economy lags behind subsequently. Libya's economy suffers, despite its oil-wealth, because the country lacks institutions and is in a state of anarchy. So "age may well be the most important factor in small-country performance." Before to "consider exhortations to emulate countries" there are many factors one has to bear in mind. It's always easier to compare a country with its less disparate counterparts in order to get maximum results.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Seamus O'Brien Sep 20, 2014

Thanks for writing this. Advocates for the status quo (presumably for large counties) used the mantra throughout the scottish debate that Scotland would be too small to be economically viable. Who'd have to be moron to believe that, counter examples are every where: Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dubai, Estonia... Maybe the real key to success is running your country well. Something large countries like Russia, and Pakistan may want to learn, and the U.S. needs to think about before it gets too far off track.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan W Sep 20, 2014

I agree on many counts that "age" makes sense.

But many small countries of Africa were drawn almost arbitrarily, and thus all the reasons for "age" to matter will only apply with difficulty.

I think, however, that many of these nations, aware of historical antagonisms between ethnic groups, are in many cases actually quite approving. For example, many national constitutions forbid any politics on the basis of religion or ethnic identity. But the scope for cultural expression is still enormous, so there is no sense of any sort of cultural imperialism.

But that shared/common cultural tie, which makes it easier to develop political and administrative systems which are generally acceptable to a large share of the population may be more difficult to find. Will they ultimately agree that a great number of ideas in the administration of state and areas of public activity can be transplanted with only minor variation for local peculiarities? Perhaps. I hope so. I think many of the concerned countries hope so too: even if it means giving up a little of their past, it offers greater hope for a more peaceful and prosperous future.

That's to say, that I think the concept of "age" is important to think through explicitly. What does it mean, why does it mean it, how do these things potentially impact and/or interact with the cultural/social milieu within which the "variable" is considered. For empirical analysis, this may be convenient. But almost certainly it will interact heavily with the historical arbitrariness of many Africa borders and the presence of great cultural diversity, regardless of whether you can find a statistical instrument that will help to pinpoint this.

I completely agree with the main prescriptions, however.

Small countries will have challenges for the same reason that a country with a population of 5 million people doesn't win many gold medals at the Olympics. They cannot fully replicate the entire administrative apparatus of China or USA without giving up on quality. In my opinion, they should be willing to sacrifice completely some areas of analytical activity rather than pretending that they know what they are doing. For example, the central bank will have a smaller population from which to find qualified and competent economists, and public health responses must be planned by smaller teams. Cooperation with neighbours will be instrumental in their ability to meet such challenges effectively and efficiently.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/KQsHSMiru

Cookies and Privacy

Большие успехи малых стран

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Большие успехи малых стран

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification