DO SMALL STATES BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY FROM BIG STATES? A CRITIQUE OF MAURICE EASTS ALTERNATIVE MODEL

This article provides a critical review of Maurice East's influential alternative model, which posits that small states exhibit fundamentally different foreign policy behaviors compared to big states. The study examines the core propositions of East's model, such as the assertions that small states are more likely to use multilateral diplomacy, have a lower level of participation in world affairs, and focus more on economic issues. The research evaluates these propositions against the empirical evidence of small state behavior in the international system. The paper argues that while East's model offers valuable insights, it can also lead to oversimplification and deterministic conclusions. The analysis concludes that while size is an important variable, the foreign policy behavior of any state is a complex product of its unique geopolitical context, leadership, and domestic structure, which cannot be reduced to a simple small-state/big-state dichotomy.

The question of whether small states behave differently from big states in international affairs is a classic debate in foreign policy analysis. This paper offers a detailed critique of one of the most prominent frameworks for addressing this question: Maurice East's alternative model. The analysis begins by outlining the key theoretical assumptions and hypotheses of East's model. This model suggests that the limited capacity and resources of small states lead them to adopt a distinct set of foreign policy behaviors, such as a higher propensity for multilateralism and a more restricted scope of international engagement. The core of the paper is a critical evaluation of these claims. It argues that while the model captures certain general tendencies, it fails to account for the significant diversity of foreign policy behaviors among small states themselves. The study uses a range of case studies to demonstrate that many small states have historically played highly active and influential roles in specific issue areas, defying the model's predictions of passivity. It also critiques the model for potentially underestimating the agency of small states and their ability to skillfully employ diplomatic tools to overcome their material limitations. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is required, one that treats "smallness" as a context that shapes but does not rigidly determine foreign policy, rather than as an all-encompassing explanatory variable.