Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Greenland’s population of about 60,000 make it as about the same size as Bismarck, North Dakota. It is
blessed with natural resources such as rich deposits of minerals, and oil and gas reserves are believed to lie
below its ice cap. It is protective of both its fishing industry and its long tradition of killing appealing marine
mammals. Greenlandic, an Eskimo-Aleut language, is spoken by few outside its borders.
On 1 May 1979, this miniscule country began its move toward autonomy when the Danish parliament
granted Greenland home rule. Greenland swiftly distanced itself from Europe by exiting the EU in 1985 –
the only country ever to have done so. The goal was to avoid the EU’s Common Fishery Policy (the ban on
seal skin products also played a role). Greenlanders approved a referendum on greater autonomy on 25
November 2008 and on 21 Jun 2009 Greenland expanded its sovereignty by assuming authority over its
judiciary, policing, and natural resources, leaving only finances and foreign affairs in Danish hands. The
Danish queen attended a celebration at the parliament in Nuuk, and Greenlandic became the country’s
official language.
The answer to these questions is relevant not only for Iceland and Greenland but also other tiny countries
that have gained sovereignty in recent decades; since 1990, 33 new countries have been formed and, as seen
in Figure 1, many are very small.1
While many small economies have grown rapidly, the existing empirical literature finds that the effect of
country size on growth is inconclusive. Easterly and Kraay (1999) find that, after controlling for location,
small states are wealthier than large states but do not have significantly different growth rates. This may be
because country size has an insignificant effect on growth or it may be due to limited data; there is a lack of
consistent data sets that include a large number of small countries. See Armstrong and Read (2002) for a
discussion of this literature.
Smaller countries have more volatile output
The recent experience of Iceland suggests that, while there is no clear evidence that small countries
experience higher average growth rates, they do have more volatile growth rates. As shown in Figure 2
below, Iceland’s output growth is less smooth than that of either the UK or the US. The reason for this seems
clear. As a small country, Iceland is far less diversified in endowments and production than the much larger
UK or US. A shock in the aluminium, fishing, or banking sector has a major effect on Icelandic output;
shocks to different sectors in much larger economies tend to average out.
If shocks to a country’s output were purely transitory, a country could use its current account to smooth its
consumption – borrowing in states where output is low and lending in states where it is high. Unfortunately,
from the point-of-view of smoothing consumption, most shocks appear to have a large permanent
component. Thus, it seems likely that a country with relatively variable output will have relatively variable
consumption as well.
In a study of 56 countries over the period 1950 – 1985, Head (1995) finds that the variances of both output
growth and consumption growth are indeed negatively correlated with population size. Moreover, this effect
is especially pronounced in high-income countries. Figure 3 shows the relationship between population size
and (detrended) consumption volatility for 20 relatively high-income countries. While some small countries
have very low consumption volatility (Norway, Luxembourg), many have very high volatility (New
Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, and Iceland).2
Countries included: US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium,
Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Trinidad & Tobago, Luxembourg,
Iceland; detrended annual data for 1950-1985. Source: Head (1995).
I have focused on costs associated with small populations, but there is also an important cost associated with
small geographical size. Many countries are vulnerable to natural disasters and environmental damage and
self-insurance against these sorts of shocks is easier for larger countries. If an American city is damaged by a
hurricane, residents can move to another American city. If global warming causes sea levels to rise
sufficiently, the consequences for the residents of Tuvalu are likely to be less favourable.
In addition to Oddson’s apparent acquiescence in the face of looming disaster, neither the prime minister,
nor the finance minister or financial regulator seems to have made any serious attempt to stem the growth of
the Icelandic banks. This suggests that a significant cost of small size is the burden that it places on senior
government officials.
Despite its miniscule size, Iceland has ministries of business affairs, communications, science and culture,
environment, finance, fisheries and agriculture, foreign affairs, health, industry and tourism, justice and
ecclesiastical affairs, social affairs, and social security. This causes two problems. First, it is difficult for
such a small country to find enough talented civil servants, and second, each civil servant is forced to play
more roles than he would in a more populous society. Such multi-tasking can be demanding and makes it
difficult to build up expertise in a particular area.
In an interesting article, Farrugia (1993) suggests that very small countries may also suffer because of their
high degree of interpersonal relations. In a tiny nation, everyone knows everyone. This can facilitate things
getting done quickly, but it has its costs. Farrugia comments that, “Many necessary decisions and actions can
be modified, adjusted and sometimes totally neutralised by personal interventions and community pressures.
In extreme cases, close personal and family connections lead to nepotism and corruption.”
In Iceland, it has been alleged that personal animosity may have played a role in the central bank denying
Glitnir a loan in October 2008 and that the Independence Party played an unseemly role in the privatisation
of Landsbanki with agreements made to offer plum executive positions to Independence Party members.
Even if such suspicions are untrue, the widely held belief that they might be is damaging to social cohesion
and the state’s legitimacy.3
A sensible policy solution to the problem of filling sufficiently important posts when there is limited local
talent or to filling a politically sensitive post where the independence and impartiality that is required cannot
be found at home is to hire foreigners. Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has already adopted this
strategy by hiring a Norwegian expert to be the acting central bank governor and a Norwegian-born French
magistrate to investigate the possibility of criminal activities by Icelandic banks. In the long run, if
supervising the banking system requires more expertise than can be acquired locally, Iceland should hire
supervisors from abroad – the banks can be taxed to fund them.
Footnotes
1 At least Pitcairn Island – with its 48 inhabitants – remains a non-self-governing territory.
2 A caveat is that the extreme variances for some small countries in the sample make matters seem
somewhat worse than they are as the consumption data includes durable goods.
3 Gylfason (2009) comments that, “Iceland is a clan-based society more heavily permeated by politics than
any other in Northern or Western Europe.”
References
Armstrong, Harvey and Robert Read, “The Phantom of Liberty?: Economic Growth and the Vulnerability of
Small States,” Journal of International Development 14, 2002, 435-458.
Danielsson, Joh, “Iceland applies for EU Membership, the Outcome is Uncertain,” VoxEU.org, 21 July
2009.
Easterly, William and Aart Kray, “Small States, Small Problems?” Policy Research Paper 2139, The World
Bank, 1999.
Easterly, William and Ross Levine, “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics 112, 1997, 1203-1250.
Easterly, William and Sergio Rebelo, “Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: and Empirical Investigation,”
Journal of Monetary Economics 32, 1993, 417-57.
Farrugia, Charles, “The Special Working Environment of Senior Administrators in Small States,” World
Development 21, 1993, 221-226.
Head, Allen C., “Country Size, Aggregate Fluctuations, and International Risk Sharing,” Canadian Journal
of Economics 28, 1995, 1096-1119.
United Nations, Human Development Report, published for the United Nations Human Development
Programme, 2007/2008.
This article may be reproduced with appropriate attribution. See Copyright (below).