Punching above their weight, but why? Explaining Denmark and Estonia in the transatlantic relationship

Abstract

This article asks why Denmark and Estonia have eagerly attempted to 'punch above their weight' in the transatlantic relationship since the end of the Cold War and shows how they differ in their strategies to do so. Using neoclassical realism as a theoretical point of departure, the article explains how a combination of changing constraints in the strategic environment and elite interpretations of how these changes affected national security resulted in 'super atlanticist' alliance policies in the two countries. Following this analysis, we discuss the future of super atlanticism.

Show them the flag: status ambitions and recognition in small state coalition warfare

“…We join the argument that "positive" motivations should also be considered. More in particular, positive motivations can shape the actual type of contribution to coalition warfare and help to explain why small states might "punch above their weight" (Wivel and Crandall 2019). Following recent tendencies in the small state literature, this article claims that small states are also motivated by potential rewards in the form of prestige and recognition, which they receive from the alliance hegemon for their engagement (Neumann andde Cavalho 2015, Jakobsen et al 2018).…”

“…Theoretically, we move away from the fear of abandonment motivation towards more positive status incitements, where an increase in status and reputation does not only count in the eye of the alliance hegemon, but also in the relation to other security dependent small states in the alliance. Empirically, we move beyond the usual Scandinavian suspects that have so far been the centre of attention in the small state literature (Oma and Petersson 2019, but also: Jakobsen and Rynning 2019, Pedersen 2018, Jakobsen et al 2018, Wivel and Crandall 2019. By analysing the case of Belgium's participation in the international coalition against ISIL, we intend to broaden the explanatory scope of the "bandwagon for status" hypothesis.…”

“…Drawing on recent trends in neo-classical realism (Jakobsen et al 2018, Jakobsen and Rynning 2019, Wivel and Crandall 2019 and constructivist alliance literature (Graeger 2015), we argue that it can be purposeful to adopt a broader understanding of the utilitarian motives behind small state alliance behaviour. In this way, some of the empirical and theoretical shortcomings which the modified threat hypothesis has encountered can be modified.…”

“…Liégeois & Glume 2008;Renard 2016;Thorhallsson & Wivel 2006). As mentioned, this case selection also comes with the benefit of broadening the potential empirical relevance of the status hypothesis outside the Scandinavian context (see Graeger 2015, Pedersen 2018, Jakobsen et al 2018, Jakobsen and Rynning 2019, Wivel and Crandall 2019.…”

“…So far, the small state literature has only cautiously begun to recognise the potential presence of status motives. There has recently been increased interest in, and empirical proof of status motivations in a number of (similar) Scandinavian cases (Graeger 2015, Pedersen 2018, Jakobsen et al 2018, Crandall and Varov 2016, Wivel and Crandall 2019, Oma and Petersson 2019, Jakobsen and Rynning 2019). Yet, while these studies offer support for the bandwagon for status hypothesis, their analyses have not yet shown how such motives actually guide small states military activism (see however Jakobsen et al 2018).…”