If you can peg the size to 10,000tons then the possibilty of building more than one arises for most small navies. The problem comes when a small CV is proposed the temptation is to drive the size upwards, because all carriers (indeed all warship types) become arguably more effective the larger they are. This is a 'Quality over Quantity' argument, and in some cases 'more' (number of hulls) is better than 'superior' (size of hull). Put simplisticly, would a small navy be better off with one 20-30,000ton CV or two or three 10,000ton CVEs. In the latter case they will be able to keep air cover over their fleet close to 100% of the time, and surge a second or even third carrier shortly thereafter. In the USNs case, 16 such vessels would be an excellent idea, which is why it won't happen. It's the Sea Control Ship argument all over again, these vessels will be seen as a threat to continued CVN construction (which they aren't) and be cancelled in favour of a compromise, ie giving large deck amphibs a secondary sea control role (back to square one!). These 'CVEs' are not competing with larger carriers in role, but with Cruisers/large DDGs to provide air defence/ASW for the fleet and for convoy escort (still important even now) releasing larger more important units for more offensive roles.
