Abstract Many studies in fisheries and aquaculture begin with the premise that small is beautiful, while large is problematic. That is, large fishing vessels, large aquaculture farms, and large seafood companies as well as global markets undermine environmental, economic, and social sustainability in the seafood sector. However, there is limited evidence to support this sweeping generalization. In this paper, we look closer at the thesis that small is beautiful (and the complementary claim that large is not) using literature on economic and social status of fisheries and aquaculture primarily from the last three decades. We find that healthy fish stocks and environmental sustainability in general are independent of scale but highly dependent on governance. Our findings are similar with respect to economic and social sustainability, as different opportunities and resources are best utilized using suitable approaches with varying scales, and poor outcomes are associated with small as well as large sizes. As such, studies that start with a preference for any size are likely to overlook valuable perspectives and solutions.
Asche et al. (Fri,) studied this question.