RIGHTSIZING NATIONS

A mathematician examines the ideal sizes for nations and the consequences of becoming too large.

“For nations,” this nonfiction book begins, “size matters.” Large nations, it argues, can spend more on militaries, manipulate economies, and spread the costs of public services across an extensive group of taxpayers. While these benefits are ubiquitous across huge, successful nations, there are a number of counterexamples throughout history of countries that became too big, as the more people a land encompasses, “the more potential for conflict.” To Lockwood, given the societal tensions that have plagued America for the past two decades, the United States may be on that path. A former faculty member of the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, he is the author of multiple books that examine complex social phenomena through mathematical analysis. This study follows that tradition. In dissecting post–World War II case studies, it examines categories such as the cost of national defense, free trade, and income inequality to quantify the ideal size for a nation. Drawing on examples of “rightsizing” from European empires that decolonized or nations that partitioned (such as India and Pakistan), Lockwood explores “the trade-offs between size and consensus.” He evaluates the various “rightsizing” strategies, such as partition, annexation, and decentralization. As painful as these options may be, the author argues, they are superior to the alternative approach whereby the central government takes a more authoritarian turn in defending national wealth (models pursued, for instance, by Russia and China). Backed by impressive research that includes a 12-page bibliography and more than 280 endnotes, this book makes an effective abstract case for the idyllic size of a theoretical nation. Lockwood breaks down a complex analysis into accessible prose designed for a general readership. Yet when this formula is applied to the U.S., the volume’s preference for a “peaceful divorce” over a “forced union” will make many readers uncomfortable in its echoing of far-right fringe rhetoric. Decentralization is one thing, but a national divorce opens a myriad of logistical impracticalities that are left unaddressed in the work’s assessment.

A well-written and intriguing, if not always convincing, exploration of America’s political future.