Migration policies and development doctrine in Greece

The interwar period was most important for the future of the Greek state, since during that period the foundation for a vigorous and flexible economy based on a healthy industry should have been laid. However, despite the enormous amount of capital entering the country up to 1932, no evident change in the nature character of the economy was achieved, since the Greeks themselves did not attempt to improve their economic activity. Industry did not cast off its characteristic torpor; it was developed only nominally and survived only thanks to extremely high duty tariffs. The 1929 economic crisis exacerbated the already bad situation, making evident how inadequate the politicians were to get the country out of its stagnancy and guide it on a course of development. In that context, when politicians’ lack of vision and inspiration were most apparent, the Greek people had to face a constantly increasing cost of living, receiving meagre wages and burdened with ever-increasing taxes. At the same time, the country’s leadership, living in the capital, was indifferent to encouraging the growth of the remainder of the country

During the last two decades, a new economic model emerges in Greece, one that relies on the principles of the free market, as well as on the unconditional growth of the tertiary sector of the economy. This model is fostered by policies emphasizing efficiency and regulation of distribution and is framed by a changing role of the State, as the latter is in need on the one hand, to rationalize the function of the economic system in the context of the Single European Market and E.M.U. and on the other hand, to legitimize its strategic decisions and choices towards globalization. The aim of the paper is to discuss these political-economic developments and also to assess and elaborate on the underlying rationality of the Greek state. Having done so, we support the view that today's "new economy" in Greece is the outcome of a cohesive, pragmatic and integrated national strategy to "open up" that unfolded in different areas of state intervention, but yet failed to take into account historical particularities and complexities of the domestic structures.

SSRN Electronic Journal

This paper reviews and interprets the history of the economy of modern Greece, from the eve of the war for independence in 1821 to the present day. It identifies three major historical cycles: First, the cycle of state and nation building, 1821-1898, second, the cycle of national expansion and consolidation, 1899-1949, and, third, the post-1950 cycle of economic and social development. During these two hundred years, the country and the economy have been radically transformed. Compared to the first Greek state, Greece managed to almost triple its national territory, to increase its population by almost 15 times and to increase its real GDP per capita by another 15 times. From the margins of southeastern Europe, it has moved to the core of today's European Union.The paper focuses on the main determinants of economic performance during these cycles, with particular emphasis on the role and interactions of social and economic conditions, ideas, institutions and geopolitics. During the first two cycles, the economy underperformed, as state building and the pursuit of the 'great idea' were the top national priorities. Despite the early introduction of appropriate economic institutions, fiscal and monetary instability prevailed in the context of a relatively stagnant economy, due to wars, internal conflicts and the international environment. The economy and the welfare state only became a top priority during the third cycle, when a number of domestic and international factors contributed to economic and social development. Greece seems to have largely achieved many of its national goals, having consolidated both its borders and democratic institutions and become a relatively prosperous country in the core of the European union, despite the alternation of triumphs and disasters and the frequent occurrence of wars and internal conflicts, debt crises, 'defaults' or economic depressions. Yet many problems remain and the challenge for the future is to focus on reforms that will ensure even higher security and prosperity for the future generations of Greeks.

Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2013

1990

The first part of the thesis examines the bourgeois and Marxist approaches to the General Conditions of Production (GCP) and infrastructure from both theoretical and applied perspectives. Utilising the modern Marxist discourse, the thesis proposes theoretical definitions of the concepts of material and ‘new infrastructures’ and GCP, and draws the distinctions between them and the Collective Means of Consumption and the General Conditions of the Reproduction of the Labour Force. Emphasis is placed upon the properties of GCP and infrastructure, their relation to the state, the role they play in the social process of production in relation to capitalist crises, and their relation to space. Particular attention is paid to the factors which can lead to an understanding of the recent trends of commodification, privatisation, and particularisation of the GCP, as processes related to the transitory stage towards post-fordist flexible accumulation regimes. It is suggested that these processes are particularly relevant to the case of the ‘new infrastructures’, especially telecommunications and information technology as part of the new entrepreneurial strategies of flexibility and economies of scope. The second, empirical, part of the thesis examines the post civil-war accumulation regimes in Greece. A quantitative and qualitative survey confirms a process of intensification of the accumulation regime and the existence of distinct periods which characterise it. The Greek regime of accumulation, which is now in crisis, is typified as having a construction and ‘old’ infrastructure ‘bias’. It is argued that this is because the bulk of investment (in terms of absolute magnitudes, growth rates, regional allocation, etc) during the post civil-war period was geared to infrastructure-related activities. This inclination was mediated both by the construction process which became the stimulating factor of the Greek economy, and by the state which proved to play a significant role in the reproduction of the ‘bias’. The state decentralisation and planning policies and practices are particularly examined and are found to have been simultaneously overcentralist, anarchic and superficial. Finally, it is revealed that the Greek social formation is not adequately prepared for the required transition to the stage of the ‘new infrastructures’ and that inadequacies in the public sector and the lack of appropriate industrial backing are major hindrances. It is demonstrated that as a consequence the adoption of advanced telecommunications and information technology despite the EEC assistance, has been delayed and exhibits space and use selectivity. Given the accentuated international competition, it is concluded that the hesitancy of these steps endangers the position of Greece in the international division of labour.

International Journal of Economics and Business Administration

Up until the 1970s, Greece was a paradigm of a vigorous economy with high growth rates, positive budgets and low borrowing. Even when the international economy experienced a recession in the 1970s on account of the oil crisis, the Greek economy continued to grow. In the 1980s an imprudent fiscal policy mix (involving higher pensions, higher salaries to civil servants, early retirements, overcrowding the civil service and loss-making state-owned enterprises trough new hires, etc.) produced large deficits which, in turn, lead to increased borrowing as the economy's growth rate slowed down. The rest of the story is pretty much known. As the country's creditworthiness declined it became harder to obtain the funds needed and Greece turned to its lenders of last resort (IMF, EU and ECD), referred to as the troika. Harsh steps were taken, which involved wage and pension cuts, which, in turn, adversely affected consumption, making the recession inevitable. It is a problem with a straightforward solution: Increase exports and investments. In this paper we demonstrate the beneficial impact of these two variables, exports and investments, on the economy, and present alternative scenarios regarding the evolution of these factors and their impact on the GDP.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION in Eastern Europe, Edited by Klaus Richter, Jasmin Nithammer, and Anca Mândru, 2025

This chapter builds on research on the regulatory but heterogeneous space of political strategies designed as a response to the Great Depression.1 It focuses on the application of westernizing economic models in Greece regarding the modernization efforts undertaken by the local political elites from the end of the 1920s to the early 1930s and on the impact of the Great Depression on this process of economic and social modernization. On this nonlinear economic surface, the Greek crisis of the early 1930s had a pivotal role as it diversified the interference of international institutions (i.e., the League of Nations and its advisory body, the Financial Committee) in the country during the 1920s.

Demokritos Scientific Journal , 2025

Greece's economic trajectory from 1967 to the present day offers a complex narrative, marked by periods of rapid development, institutional recognition, and subsequent fiscal volatility. Between 1971 and 1972, Greece received rare international commendation-including what were informally dubbed "Economic Oscars" from the Financial Times, as well as praise from the OECD, IMF, and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). These accolades highlighted Greece's strong macroeconomic growth, low inflation, industrial investment, and sharp increases in exports during a time when much of the world was entering a stagflationary period. Despite the contentious political context of the era, the economic data from this short window stand out as objectively strong across multiple indicators. This paper offers a data-driven reassessment of that period by integrating historical economic statistics and institutional reports with long-range public debt analysis extending from 1967 to projected figures in 2025. Special emphasis is placed on the structural transformation of Greece's economy in the early 1970s, followed by the post-1980s debt accumulation and external shocks that reshaped the country's fiscal landscape. Through a synthesis of verified archival references and visual macroeconomic modeling, this paper contextualizes Greece's early-1970s performance not as an anomaly, but as a historically significant phase that warrants critical reevaluation-distinct from, yet inevitably linked to, the political conditions of its time. The analysis also examines the long-term trajectory of debt, industrial investment, and export dependence to highlight the structural discontinuities and lessons applicable to contemporary policy frameworks.