Cooperation problems and bureaucratic infighting in small states: Lack of planning and unclear rules?

This comparative study of the seven Nordic countries supports the assumption that
cooperation problems and bureaucratic infighting in small states during the early stages of the
COVID-19 pandemic were primarily the result of insufficient planning and unclear institutional
rules, rather than conflicts over scarce resources. In Norway, Sweden, and Finland, ambiguity
in legal mandates, overlapping agency responsibilities, and fragmented lines of authority
significantly impaired coordination. These three cases reflect well-known vulnerabilities in
small-state public administrations, where limited bureaucratic capacity and multi-role
institutional structures can make decision-making processes both slower and more prone to
miscommunication. The cases of Denmark and Iceland underscore how administrative
cohesion and leadership clarity can compensate for size-related vulnerabilities. In both cases,
informal coordination and trust-based decision-making – hallmarks of small-state governance
– were mobilized effectively to maintain coherence under pressure. The Faroe Islands and
Greenland present a different facet of small-state crisis management. Here, the main constraint
was not coordination failure but capacity fatigue. While their compact administrative structures
may have helped streamline decision-making, the chronic shortage of personnel and limited
logistical resources meant that sustained response efforts taxed their systems heavily. These
cases suggest that very small states may face a different kind of risk during protracted crises:
not fragmentation, but exhaustion.