I don't know of any particular study, but I think there are two things we need to keep in mind.
First of all, what is it we want out of focuses? We want to be able to say that this is what Canada's done. But what Canada does, what any aid program does, by definition is local development. You're not going to change a big or small country by any contribution from aid, but you're going to make people's lives better and you're going to make court cases better. I'm saying that because it's the projects: that's the PR and that's the good message. Whether it's big or small, it doesn't matter; it's the effectiveness at that level.
Second, with due respect, I think the analogy on scale is misplaced. Projects are projects, right? If Canada has a lot more going on in a country, that doesn't necessarily guarantee that there will be coordination or economies of scale simply because there will just be more projects. The economies of scale are writ large and go beyond any particular project. I think it's more important to focus on the impact, and that's why I emphasize expertise: what Canada can do well. It will solve a lot of the problems that need to be addressed by focusing on specific countries but in a more objective and more effective way. In the end, that will be the best way to image Canada in the world.