The Theory of Better Governance in Smaller States

The idea that smaller states are better governed rests upon the logic that compact populations and territories enable stronger accountability, efficiency, and cohesion. Aristotle argued that the ideal polis must be small enough for citizens to know one another (Politics, Book VII). Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), likewise suggested that republics flourish in smaller spaces where civic virtue is visible. In the modern era, Alesina and Spolaore (The Size of Nations, 2003) formalised this argument, claiming that smaller states can better reflect citizen preferences but struggle to provide certain public goods at scale.

Yet governance is multidimensional. Size conditions opportunities and constraints but does not predetermine outcomes. Comparative cases show the complexity.

Case Studies in Comparative Perspective

• Singapore versus Indonesia: Singapore’s compact size enables efficiency and policy innovation, but Indonesia’s vast scale poses coordination problems. Still, scale gives Indonesia resilience and strategic weight that Singapore cannot match.

  
  

• Denmark versus Germany: Both exemplify good governance despite differences in size. Denmark benefits from cohesion and trust; Germany from federalism and distributed authority.

  
  

• Iceland versus the United States: Iceland illustrates small-state fragility during financial crisis, while the United States shows how scale provides resilience but complicates consensus.

The lesson: institutions, culture, and history explain governance quality more than size itself.

Contemporary Challenges and the Small–Large State Debate

• Climate Change: Small states such as Denmark and Costa Rica innovate, but large states such as the United States, China, and India determine global outcomes.

  
  

• Digital Governance: Estonia and Singapore pioneer reforms, but large states control ecosystems and markets.

  
  

• Security and Defence: Small states depend on alliances; large states provide the backbone of global order.

Critique of the “Small Is Beautiful” Thesis

The small-state theory contains truth—small states can be nimble, transparent, and responsive. Yet fragility, dependence, and limited global influence constrain them. Large states are cumbersome but resilient, diverse, and decisive in global governance.

Ukraine: Between Small-State Vulnerability and Large-State Aspiration

Ukraine presents a fascinating intermediate case. With a population of around 37 million and vast territory—the largest entirely within Europe—she is neither a micro-state nor a global colossus. Her experience illustrates both the vulnerabilities of small states and the aspirations of larger ones.

1. Small-State Vulnerabilities

   
   

   • Security Dependence: Like the Baltic states, Ukraine relies heavily on alliances, particularly NATO members and the European Union, for military assistance. Russia’s invasion of 2022 exposed her inability to defend herself alone against a major power.

     
     

   • Economic Fragility: Ukraine’s economy remains vulnerable to external shocks, such as blockades on grain exports. Small-state characteristics of dependence and exposure are keenly felt.

   
   

2. Large-State Aspirations

   
   

   • Strategic Depth: Unlike small states, Ukraine has substantial demographic and territorial resources. She can field large armed forces, sustain prolonged resistance, and cultivate an arms industry with export potential. This differentiates her from truly small states, which must rely almost entirely on external protection.

     
     

   • Diverse Identity: As a medium-sized state, Ukraine faces the challenge of balancing pluralism—linguistic, regional, cultural—with cohesion. Her democratic resilience during wartime demonstrates that diversity need not preclude stability.

     
     

   • Regional Influence: Ukraine aspires to act as more than a passive recipient of security guarantees. Her efforts to position herself as a future member of the EU and NATO show an ambition to shape regional order, not merely survive within it.

   
   

3. The Hybrid Position

   
   

   Ukraine’s position underscores the limits of the small-state theory. She suffers vulnerabilities reminiscent of smaller states, yet she also demonstrates capacities beyond their reach. Her governance challenge is to adapt institutions capable of both nimble responsiveness and large-scale mobilisation. This is the dual burden of a state at Europe’s geopolitical hinge: to retain the agility of a small state while cultivating the resilience of a larger one.

Size as Context, Not Destiny

The theory that smaller states are better governed is only partly persuasive. Small states enjoy agility and responsiveness but face fragility and dependence. Large states are resilient and influential but risk gridlock and bureaucratic inertia. Ukraine exemplifies the middle ground. She demonstrates that governance is shaped less by size than by history, institutions, and the capacity to adapt to external pressures.

For Ukraine, the lesson is twofold: she must integrate into Western alliances, as small states do, for security and economic stability; but she must also cultivate the resilience and ambition of a large state, capable of shaping her own destiny. In this balance lies not only her survival but her claim to be a well-governed European democracy.