Homogeneity and Smallness: Dahl and Tufte Revisited

Abstract

In their well‐known volume on ‘Size and Democracy’ (1973), Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte argue that small units are likely to be more homogeneous, whereas larger units are likely to exhibit more diversity. This study of the microstates of the world and of selected control groups of states supports this view only in part. In terms of attitudinal diversity, smaller units are indeed more homogeneous. In terms of ethnic and religious diversity, however, no significant differences emerge between small states and large states. This suggests that categoric differences are transformed in larger units to a greater extent into attitudinal differences. Bearing in mind that most microstates are island states, the capacity of microstates to manage ethnic diversity may in several cases be due to the intimacy of island communities which binds members together in mutual solidarity.

Small Polities: Tyrannized by Majorities?

“…Among these areas are: citizen participation (more effective participation), security and order (more voluntary compliance, less coercion), unity and diversity (homogeneity), common interest (easier to perceive a relation between self-interest and general interest), loyalties (more loyalty to a single integrated community), emotional life (civic relationship invested with high levels of affect, stronger pressures for conformity to collective norms), and rationality (greater speed and accuracy of communication, more opportunities for gaining knowledge, etc.). All these assertions are not unproblematic; the homogeneity assumption, to take one example, has been proved questionable and in need of qualification (D. Anckar, 1999). The point to be made here, however, is that most of these areas hold promises for citizen involvement, accountability and power-shifting.…”

Paradise Islands? Island States and Environmental Performance

“…The leaders may also more easily acquire information about the preferences and needs of their citizens, leading to greater government efficiency and potentially a higher quality of government [12]. Anckar also argues that while small units may be as categorically heterogeneous as larger polities, their citizens tend to develop uniformity in attitudes and values [38]. This line of reasoning fleshes out Etro's claim that the inhabitants of small countries tend to more easily agree on a higher provision of public goods [39].…”

“…For example, smallness implies that there are more opportunities for interactions between the ruler and the ruled and such accessibility to the political system is generally perceived as encouraging citizen participation. Smallness per definition implies that there are fewer layers of political organization, and this, in turn, is expected to facilitate transparency and open channels of communication, which have positive effects on accountability and responsiveness on the part of governments [38]. The leaders may also more easily acquire information about the preferences and needs of their citizens, leading to greater government efficiency and potentially a higher quality of government [12].…”

“…In sum, smallness is, according to this logic, expected to foster "highly personalized and transparent societies" [37], (pp. [38][39]. However, a small geographical area and a small population size not only affect the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, but they also facilitate interaction within the populace.…”

“…Remoteness, peripherality, and isolation are, hence, expected to play a unifying role as inhabitants of remote locations face special problems, shared by all members of the community, which are thought to result in a shared frame of reference; cf. [12,38]. Remoteness and isolation thus facilitate homogeneity and cooperation since the links between self-interest and the interests of the nation are more obvious [31].…”