Abstract
The claim that small states have very little effective agency in their relationships with materially more powerful states is a widely shared perspective in the International Relations (IR) literature. Whether this perspective is an accurate one is less clear. This thesis investigates role of small state agency in an asymmetrical relationship and identifies a more complex picture for small state agency. Through the development of ‘normal’ rather than ‘abnormal’ asymmetrical relationships, small states can effectively manage their asymmetrical relationships. That said, this study demonstrates that the effectiveness of small states’ agency varies and depends on the degree to which effective agency is exercised. An Asymmetry-Agency framework is developed and used to explain this variation in small state policy. The effectiveness of small state agency is evaluated using three established criteria: consistency of agency, local participation, and mutual endorsement to understand its effects in an asymmetric relationship. In establishing this finding, this thesis draws on insights from, and seeks to make a contribution to, IR theories on asymmetry and small states. The thesis’s explanation is explored through a comparative analysis of Sri Lanka and Malaysia’s China policies in the context of their participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The examples used to illustrate the argument are Sri Lanka’s Port City project and Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project. Employing a qualitative, comparative case study and process tracing methodology, this study identifies two contrasting strategic actions employed by Sri Lanka and Malaysia to navigate their asymmetrical relationships. Sri Lanka’s ineffective agency has led to compromised autonomy, characterized by a bandwagoning policy towards China, resulting in an abnormal asymmetrical relationship. Conversely, Malaysia’s effective agency, which aligned BRI projects with national interests through a strategic hedging approach, reinforced its autonomy, leading to a more ‘normal’ asymmetrical relationship with China. Overall, this study highlights the crucial yet often underestimated role of small states in the global order, showing how they navigate asymmetrical power relations with (in)effective agency shaped by internal vulnerabilities and external pressures. It offers practical insights for policymakers and scholars to enhance the foreign policy agency of small states, particularly in a context marked by significant power disparities, such as the BRI.