Is state size a statistically significant influence on political democratization or political instability? Using a data set composed of 237 nations, with data for the years 1973-1995, this portion of the study explores the hypotheses developed in Chapter 4, including whether the relationship between state size and political democracy can be shown to exist on a macro level and over time. As discussed in Chapter 4, various hypotheses relating to the impact of smallness on political life were tested to examine the effect of smallness on measurable outcomes such as democracy or political violence. In addition, the relationship between state size and two political protest variables, RIOTS (the number of political riots per year) and DEATHSPV (number of deaths as a result of political violence per year) is explored. This examination of the statistical relationship between state size, democracy and political protest was motivated by the conflict within the literature on small states between those who view state size as a limiting factor and thus see small states as vulnerable to a variety of ills including instability and coups d’état (Harden 1985), and economic disadvantage (Robinson, 1960), and those who argue that state size may be beneficial because it brings feelings of political efficacy and participation (Dahl & Tufte 1973), less political protest (Powell 1982), and better elite communication (Lijphart 1977). Case study research on two small countries, The Gambia and Trinidad (presented in Chapter 6) supports the conclusion that state size may be a mitigating force in political interaction. This section of the analysis attempts to provide empirical support for the argument that small 110state size should be associated with the formation and maintenance of political democracy and with a lack of political protest, irrespective of income. Additionally, if small size has a demonstrable effect on political interaction within a state by making it more cooperative as Lijphart (1977) argues, one would also expect to find that small states are not only more democratic, but also less vulnerable to political violence, due to the relationships between elites themselves and between elites and the population within the social systems of small countries.