Small and Least-Developed Countries

  • Tony Heron
Part of the Palgrave Handbooks in IPE book series (PHIPE)


This chapter focusses on the status and role of small and least-developed countries (SLDC) in the International Political Economy against the backdrop of the structural changes associated with the rise of the Brazil, Russia, India, China (‘BRICs’) and other emerging economies. Although the dominant narrative of the changing global order is one of rapid change and transformation, I argue that the defining theme for SLDCs remains that of enduring vulnerability. In this context, I explore and critically assess different approaches to understanding SLDC agency. I illustrate two key strategies—‘internal’ and ‘external’ agency—which SLDCs have adopted, with varying degrees of success, to manage the vulnerabilities associated with global restructuring. I conclude by considering the overall position of SLDCs in the emergent global economic order.


  1. Bishop, M.L. 2012. The Political Economy of Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. Review of International Political Economy 19 (5): 942–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, W., and S. Harman, eds. 2013. African Agency in International Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1997. A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, A.F., and T.M. Shaw. 2009. The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doner, R.F., B.K. Ritchie, and D. Salter. 2005. Systemic Vulnerability and the Origins of Developmental States: Northeast and Southeast Asia in Comparative Perspective. International Organization 59 (2): 327–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodfellow, T. 2017. Taxing Property in a Neo-developmental State: The Politics of Urban Land Value Capture in Rwanda and Ethiopia. African Affairs 116 (465): 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hay, Colin. 2002. Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heron, T. 2011. Asymmetrical Bargaining and Development Trade-Offs in the CARIFORUM-European Union Economic Partnership Agreement. Review of International Political Economy 18 (3): 328–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heron, Tony. 2013. Pathways from Preferential Trade: The Politics of Trade Adjustment in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heron, T., and Murray-Evans. 2017. Limits to Market Power: Strategic Discourse and Institutional Path Dependence in the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements. European Journal of International Relations 32 (2): 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoekman, B., and C. Özden. (2005). Trade Preferences and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries: A Selective Survey, World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3566. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  12. Hudec, R. 1987. The Developing Countries in the GATT Legal System. London: Trade Policy Research Centre.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Joseph, J. 2013. Resilience as Embedded Neoliberalism: A Governmentality Approach. Resilience 1 (1): 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katzenstein, P.J. 1985. Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, D., and N.J. Smith. 2010. Small State Discourses in the International Political Economy. Third World Quarterly 31 (7): 1091–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murray-Evans, P. 2015. Regionalism and African Agency: Negotiating an Economic Partnership Agreement Between the European Union and SADC-Minus. Third World Quarterly 36 (10): 1845–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nyaga Munyi, E. 2015. Beyond Asymmetry: Substantive Beliefs in Preference Formation and Efficiency of Asymmetrical Negotiations. New Political Economy 21 (1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parsons, C. 2007. How to Map Arguments in Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Payne, T., and N. Phillips. 2010. Development. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Sandbrook, R. 2005. Origins of the Democratic State: Interrogating Mauritius. Canadian Journal of African Affairs 39 (3): 549–581.Google Scholar
  22. Siles-Brugge, G. 2014. Constructing European Union Trade Policy: A Global Idea of Europe. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trommer, S. 2013. Legal Opportunity in Trade Negotiations: International Law, Opportunity Structures and the Political Economy of Trade Agreements. New Political Economy 19 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony Heron
    • 1
  1. 1.University of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations