Is there a size premium for nations?

This paper examines whether there is a premium in country size. We study whether there are significant gains from being a small or a large country in terms of certain socioeconomic indicators and how large this premium is. Using panel data for 200 countries over 50 years, we estimate premia for various sizes of nations across a variety of key economic and socioeconomic performance indicators. We find that smaller countries are richer, have larger governments, and are more prudent in terms of fiscal policies than larger ones. On the other hand, smaller countries seem to be subject to higher absolute and per capita costs for the provision of essential public goods, which may lower their socioeconomic performance in terms of health and education. In terms of economic performance, small countries seem to do better than large countries, compensating for smallness by relying on foreign trade and foreign direct investment. The latter comes at the cost of higher vulnerability to external shocks, resulting in higher volatility of growth rates. This paper's findings offer essential guidance to policymakers, international organizations, and business researchers, especially those assessing a country's economic or socioeconomic performance or potential. The study implies that comparisons with medium-sized or large countries may be of little utility in predicting the performance of small countries.