ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the nature and extent of governance-related traps in small states, using data drawn from the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) project (https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429061356/06b9f66d-02f4-4550-adc7-d43c293533bb/content/www.carleton.ca/cifp">www.carleton.ca/cifp). We argue that on average a majority of small states do not suffer from the same kinds of structural problems that larger states do. To understand why some small states are vulnerable and others are not, both large-sample and case study comparisons are conducted. First, using large sample techniques, the chapter highlights the weaknesses of small states by comparing them in terms of three different types of governance-related traps (legitimacy, capacity and conflict) against a larger sample of fragile states. We surmise that in comparison to larger fragile states where problems tend to be complex and multifaceted in nature, few small states have experienced problems in all areas listed above (with a few notable exceptions). Where the fragile small states are likely to be weakest is in terms of capacity and legitimacy traps, which speak directly to problems of governance. The chapter then puts forward a deeper explanation of how and why some small states avoid specific traps while others do not by comparing two contrasting cases – Mauritius and Comoros.
