The concepts “small states” and “fragile states” seem to share unclear definition. The concept fragile state is a debated one. According to the OECD glossary of statistical terms, fragile states are “those failing to provide services to poor people because they are unwilling or unable to do so” (see http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7235). Many development agencies rely on similar definitions, despite the obvious difficulties in assessing particular countries’ “will” to serve their poor inhabitants. As a response, the focus is moving from fragile states to classifying situations of fragility, often quite varied situations, which are grouped into few categories. This has also been criticized on the grounds that interventions based on such misguided categorization can be hazardous. Many development agencies make their own lists; anyway these are often hard to come across. Countries do not appreciate being labeled as fragile states, no surprise considering that since late 1990s donors have circumvented such countries when it comes to allocation of aid. Despite some controversies on deciding what criteria should be used for classifying a country as a small state, the term most often refers to countries with less than one and a half million inhabitants. This paper aims to compare descriptions of small states, in particular so-called Small Island Developing States (SIDS), with those of fragile states, as well as examine the attention these countries are given by the international community. Countries found on both lists are few, and for instance of 38 countries alerted with red on the fifth annual Failed States Index, only Guinea-Bissau belongs also to countries invited to attend the 2010 small states forum.
