Small is successful?

[Carpe Diem]

I read or heard many times people saying that one of the reasons why Singapore has been successful is its size. I agree, indeed, that such a model probably would not be applicable to a large country.

I was thinking (see Sapphire, not only you ) about that tonight on my way back from Bangkok and was wondering how the world would look if we had only states of the size of Singapore?

No more super powers... Only small countries...

Any ideas?

[Bubbles]

Hmm, nice idea, but you know what'd happen? You'd get some megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur hopping around, trying to join states together to make 'more powerful' and bigger states. Then taking over as many little 'uns as he/she could.

Nice if it was true though.

[Mary Hatch Bailey]

I agree with Bubbs (welcome back!), it's not the physical size of the country, its the size of the ego of the person running it. There will always be tyranny as long as there are tyrants.

I also think if little country 'A' has, let's say, plenty of oil, but not enough clean water, then alliances will have to be made with country 'B' who has the water but no oil. In a world of fifedoms, the first superpower is born.

[tiki]

A small country usually dreams big.

[renter]

small means nimble. the country can move swiftly in policies compared to large countries.

but being small also has its demerits. No matter how developed it is, how big its dream is, it is still a small country.

[tiki]

I guess a donwside would be it's 'vulnerability' thus the need to foster healthy ties with the surrounding neighboring countries.

If this world were to be made up of small countries, I guess in a way we would all be island hopping, sorta.