yani

Analysis of how size and wealth affect overreach, and what populations can do to correct it.

---

Size, Wealth, and Overreach

Does Country Size Matter?

There are theoretical reasons to expect smaller states to overreach less, and some empirical support—but the relationship is complex.

Arguments for Small State Advantage

• Exit costs lower: Citizens can more easily leave, disciplining government behavior. Luxembourg's residents can work in France, Germany, or Belgium without major disruption.
• Visibility: Harder for government to hide actions when population is small and interconnected. Everyone knows someone who knows someone.
• Homogeneity: More uniform preferences mean less scope for majority-minority overreach. Policies are more likely to match median voter.
• Scale of bureaucracy: Smaller administrative apparatus means fewer self-interested actors pushing expansion.
• Personal accountability: Officials more likely to face people affected by their decisions. The minister might be your cousin's neighbor.

Arguments Against Small State Immunity

• Capture risk: Small elites can more easily dominate. Oligarchy is a small-state failure mode.
• Capacity constraints: Small states may lack institutions for accountability (independent judiciary, professional civil service, investigative journalism).
• Vulnerability: External threats may justify genuine security measures that would be overreach in safer contexts.
• Sample bias: We notice successful small states (Switzerland, Singapore) but forget failed ones (various Caribbean and Pacific islands with dysfunction, coups, or kleptocracy).

Historical Examples

• Singapore: Small, wealthy, and by many measures well-governed—but also restricts speech, assembly, and political competition in ways that likely exceed population preferences if freely expressed.
• Turkmenistan: Small population (~6 million), extreme personality cult and repression. Size provided no protection.
• Iceland: 370,000 people. Jailed bankers after 2008 crisis, rewrote constitution through citizen process (though parliament didn't ratify). Small size enabled accountability.
• Equatorial Guinea: Small population, oil wealth, brutal dictatorship. Small size enabled elite capture rather than preventing overreach.

The Relationship Is Conditional

Small size helps constrain overreach when combined with: – Wealth (exit options, educated population) – Geographic factors (proximity to other states, not isolated) – Initial institutional quality – Absence of easily captured natural resources

Small size amplifies problems when: – Elite networks can dominate – Resource wealth creates prize worth capturing – Geographic isolation reduces exit options – Ethnic/tribal divisions create permanent minorities

Does Wealth Matter?

Wealth correlates with less overreach, but causation runs in multiple directions.

How Wealth Constrains Overreach

• Exit options: Wealthy citizens can emigrate, taking capital and skills. Governments must compete to retain them.
• Tax bargaining: When states need revenue from productive citizens rather than resource extraction, they must offer representation.
• Education: Wealthy societies have educated populations better able to monitor government and organize opposition.
• Civil society: Wealth enables independent institutions—media, universities, NGOs—that constrain state action.
• Opportunity cost: In wealthy societies, government jobs compete with private sector; less desperate patronage-seeking.
• Middle class: Large middle class has stake in stability and rule of law; resists both revolution and authoritarianism.

How Wealth Can Enable Overreach

• Surveillance capacity: Wealthy states can afford sophisticated monitoring (compare NSA budget to total GDP of many countries).
• Comfortable repression: Citizens may accept restrictions when materially comfortable. Singapore model: prosperity in exchange for political control.
• Regulatory capacity: Wealthy states can enforce complex regulations that poorer states cannot. More vectors for overreach.
• International impunity: Wealthy states face fewer external constraints. No one sanctions the United States.

Resource Wealth Is Different

Oil, minerals, and other extractable resources often correlate with more overreach:

• State doesn't need citizen productivity; can fund itself through extraction
• “Rentier state” dynamic: citizens become supplicants rather than taxpayers with leverage
• Resource wealth creates prize worth fighting for; raises stakes of political control
• Dutch disease crowds out sectors that would create independent middle class

Examples: Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Venezuela, Russia—all resource-wealthy, all with significant overreach despite (or because of) wealth.

The Nordic Puzzle

Nordic countries are wealthy with large government sectors (high taxes, extensive services). Is this overreach?

Arguments it isn't: – High voluntary compliance suggests population consents to tax levels – Strong democratic participation and accountability mechanisms – Services reflect actual preferences revealed through elections – Low corruption; taxes actually deliver services

Arguments it might be: – Historical path dependence—current preferences shaped by existing system – Those who would prefer lower taxes/services have emigrated (selection effect) – Consensus culture may suppress dissent – Difficult to distinguish genuine consent from adaptation to status quo

Are Small States More Immune? A Direct Assessment

The Evidence Is Mixed

Studies comparing government quality, corruption, and freedom indices across country sizes show:

• Small wealthy states cluster near the top (Nordics, Switzerland, New Zealand)
• Small poor states span the full range (some functional, many dysfunctional)
• Large states also span wide range (compare Canada to Russia, similar size)
• Population size explains less variance than wealth, institutions, and history

Small State Success Stories

• Estonia (1.3 million): Post-Soviet transition to functional democracy, digital governance innovation, low corruption
• Botswana (2.3 million): Avoided resource curse despite diamond wealth, maintained democracy since independence
• Uruguay (3.5 million): Stable democracy, progressive policies, low corruption in region of dysfunction
• Costa Rica (5 million): Abolished military 1948, invested in education and health, democratic stability

Small State Failures

• Eritrea (3.5 million): One of world's most repressive states, no elections since independence, indefinite conscription
• North Korea (26 million—not tiny, but smaller than neighbors): Extreme totalitarianism
• Belarus (9.5 million): Dictatorship despite European location and educated population
• Haiti (11 million): Chronic dysfunction, coups, foreign intervention

What Small Size Actually Provides

Small size is an enabling condition, not a guarantee. It:

• Lowers costs of exit, accountability, and collective action
• Raises visibility and personal stakes
• But can also enable capture, reduce institutional capacity, and isolate

The question “are small states more immune?” is less useful than “under what conditions does small size help?”

Correcting Overreach: What Populations Can Do

When governments exceed popular mandate, what options do citizens have? The toolkit varies by context, but patterns emerge from historical experience.

Within-System Mechanisms

Electoral Response

• Vote out overreaching officials
• Support candidates promising rollback
• Effectiveness: Requires overreach to be visible, salient, and attributable to specific officials
• Limitations: Bundled choices (can't vote on specific policies), rational ignorance, gerrymandering, incumbent advantages
• Examples: Post-Watergate reforms followed electoral punishment; UK Labour lost support over Iraq War

Litigation

• Challenge overreach in courts
• Seek constitutional or statutory limits enforced by judiciary
• Effectiveness: Depends on judicial independence and applicable legal frameworks
• Limitations: Slow, expensive, requires standing, courts may defer to government on security/emergency claims
• Examples: ACLU challenges to surveillance; Indian Supreme Court striking down Section 66A (internet speech restrictions)

Lobbying and Advocacy

• Organized pressure on legislators
• Public awareness campaigns
• Think tanks and policy research documenting problems
• Effectiveness: Can shift policy when overreach affects organized constituencies
• Limitations: Diffuse costs mean victims often less organized than beneficiaries of overreach
• Examples: Criminal justice reform coalitions; tech industry privacy advocacy

Transparency and Exposure

• Freedom of information requests
• Investigative journalism
• Whistleblowing (with legal protections where they exist)
• Effectiveness: Exposure can generate political pressure for reform
• Limitations: Classified information often exempt; retaliation against whistleblowers; public may not care
• Examples: Snowden disclosures shifted debate; Panama Papers exposed offshore finance

Outside-System Mechanisms

Civil Disobedience

• Deliberate, public violation of unjust laws
• Accepts legal consequences to demonstrate commitment and highlight injustice
• Effectiveness: Can shift public opinion and demonstrate depth of opposition
• Limitations: Requires sympathetic audience; can be ignored or crushed; may alienate potential supporters
• Examples: Civil rights movement lunch counter sit-ins; Gandhi's salt march; Hong Kong protests (ultimately unsuccessful)

Mass Protest

• Large-scale demonstrations showing breadth of opposition
• General strikes imposing economic costs
• Effectiveness: Can topple governments when participation is massive and sustained
• Limitations: Coordination challenges; state can wait out protests; repression; co-optation
• Examples: People Power (Philippines 1986); Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia 1989); Arab Spring (mixed outcomes)

Exit

• Emigration withdraws consent and imposes costs (brain drain, capital flight)
• “Voting with feet” especially powerful for mobile populations
• Effectiveness: Disciplines government if exit is visible and costly to state
• Limitations: Exit costs often high; most affected often least able to leave; may leave vulnerable populations behind
• Examples: East German emigration pressure before wall fell; Venezuelan exodus pressuring regime

Parallel Institutions

• Building alternatives that reduce dependence on state
• Mutual aid, alternative dispute resolution, private education, community defense
• Effectiveness: Reduces state leverage; demonstrates alternatives are possible
• Limitations: Limited scale; may be suppressed; can't address some overreach types
• Examples: Polish Solidarity's parallel social institutions; homeschooling movements; cryptocurrency as parallel finance

Non-Cooperation

• Tax resistance
• Refusal to comply with unjust laws
• Jury nullification
• Work-to-rule and bureaucratic slowdowns
• Effectiveness: Can impose costs and demonstrate illegitimacy
• Limitations: Individual resisters vulnerable; requires critical mass; can be dismissed as criminality
• Examples: Poll tax non-payment (UK 1990); draft resistance (multiple countries/eras)

What Actually Works?

Evidence from Successful Rollbacks

Studies of transitions from authoritarianism and successful reforms in democracies suggest:

1. Coalition breadth matters: Narrow opposition easily dismissed or crushed; broad coalitions harder to ignore
2. Elite defection is often decisive: When security forces, business elites, or regime insiders abandon government, change accelerates
3. Economic pressure amplifies political pressure: Sanctions, capital flight, and economic disruption raise stakes for elites
4. International attention provides some protection: External scrutiny raises costs of violent repression (though limited—see Syria)
5. Nonviolent resistance more likely to succeed: Studies show nonviolent campaigns achieve goals more often than violent ones, with more durable outcomes
6. Timing and triggers matter: Economic crises, succession moments, and external shocks create windows of opportunity

Why Correction Is Difficult

• Collective action problems: Each citizen bears costs of resistance while benefits are shared
• Information problems: Hard to know if others will join; preference falsification hides true opposition
• Asymmetric resources: States have organized coercive capacity; citizens must build organization from scratch
• Coordination problems: Opposition often fragmented; state can exploit divisions
• Fear: Repression creates rational fear that suppresses action even among those who would otherwise resist
• Adaptation: People adjust expectations to status quo; learned helplessness

Conditions Favoring Successful Correction

• Government depends on cooperation (can't run economy through coercion alone)
• International pressure or scrutiny
• Divisions within ruling elite
• Economic crisis raising stakes
• Communication technologies enabling coordination
• Historical memory of different arrangements
• Geographic concentration of opposition

Preventing Overreach vs. Correcting It

Prevention is generally easier than correction:

Institutional Design

• Separation of powers
• Federalism
• Sunset clauses requiring explicit renewal of emergency powers
• Supermajority requirements for certain actions
• Independent judiciary with life tenure
• Decentralized authority

Cultural Factors

• Traditions of limited government
• Vigilance about emergency justifications
• Distrust of concentrated power (across political spectrum)
• Free press norms

Structural Factors

• Economic structure requiring citizen cooperation rather than resource extraction
• Geographic factors enabling exit
• Absence of permanent emergencies justifying expansion

The Ratchet Problem

Government expansion tends to be stickier than contraction:

• Programs create constituencies that defend them
• Bureaucracies resist reduction
• Repealing laws harder than passing them
• Each crisis leaves residue of expanded powers
• “New normal” becomes baseline for next expansion

This asymmetry means preventing overreach is more effective than reversing it—but prevention requires constant vigilance against incremental expansion.