Content uploaded by Dimos Chatzinikolaou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimos Chatzinikolaou on Jun 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Entrepreneurship and crisis mutation in Greece: A neo-
Schumpeterian approach
Dimos Chatzinikolaou
Department of Economics,
Democritus University of Thrace,
Komotini, Greece
Email: dimchatz@econ.duth.gr
Charis Vlados
Department of Economics,
Democritus University of Thrace,
Komotini, Greece
Email: cvlados@econ.duth.gr
Abstract
This article attempts an analysis of entrepreneurship by taking into account the
socio-economic development/crisis dipole under the prism of the experience of the
Greek crisis. After presenting a neo-Schumpeterian and evolutionary perception of
development, it discusses the present crisis of entrepreneurship in Greece. Based on
the “Stra.Tech.Man approach” (strategy-technology-management synthesis) it
distinguishes the central “physiological” types of the firms operating in Greece. After
identifying the “monad-centered” type as the “dominant” and idiosyncratic type of
entrepreneurship in Greece, it discusses the implications. This type of firm bases its
strategy on a peculiar “business instinct,” uses technological options in a sporadically
way, and implements managerial decisions based solely on its practical experience.
This discussion also lays the ground for possible policy implications. The “Institutes
of Local Development and Innovation” are a policy proposal aiming at boosting the
physiological mutation of the locally active firms and enhancing the innovative local
entrepreneurial potential in Greece.
Keywords
Entrepreneurship and innovation; Development-crisis dipole; Greek socio-
economic crisis; Firm physiology; Stra.Tech.Man approach; Institutes of Local
Development and Innovation.
JEL codes: L26, O1
1. Introduction
Koronis and Vlados (2019) suggest studying how firm innovation can initiate
socio-economic development in today’s Greece, which seems to enter a new
trajectory of development after a deep structural crisis and readjustment. Even though
the Greek economy seems to be slightly improving in terms of human capital and
entrepreneurship, it still deals with structural problems (European Commission,
2019).
For several years, a “narrow-sighted” approach to institutional reforms prevailed in
Greece, and weak entrepreneurship and a relative insufficiency of the overall
competitiveness of the national socio-economic system played a significant role in
this direction (Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2019b). In this relatively underdeveloped
and maladaptive institutional background, most firms in Greece (in particular, the
SMEs) must probably need to readjust the way they operate and articulate their
1
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
strategy, technology, and management towards more efficient ways (Vlados et al.,
2019).
This paper aims first to point out the significance of entrepreneurship in the
development and crisis of the Greek socio-economic system. Second, it analyzes how
the stimulation of innovative entrepreneurship can drive the Greek economy to
improve its competitiveness in overall terms and, therefore, it draws possible policy
implications.
The next section introduces the discussion of evolutionary crisis and development
as related phenomena from a Schumpeterian perspective and explores on this basis the
structural deficiencies of entrepreneurship in Greece. The subsequent section presents
the structural morphology of the Greek entrepreneurial ecosystem, and the last section
points to a policy proposal of enhancing entrepreneurship, in particular at the local
level.
2. Neo-Schumpeterian development/crisis dipole and uncompetitive
entrepreneurship in Greece
Schumpeter was one of the first economists to notice the structural relationship
between innovative entrepreneurship and overall socio-economic development.
Schumpeter (1942, pp. 82–83) argued that the capitalist enterprise is the primary
impetus that drives the motor of capitalism because it introduces new products and
methods of production.
Innovation, in particular, produces incessantly and unavoidably structural changes
in capitalism, which cannot be stationary (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 31): the inherent
revolution in capitalism results from the motivated entrepreneur, who seeks for
profits. Schumpeter (1939, p. 223) also emphasized the dialectic relationship between
historical cycles of crisis and development in capitalism, in the form of “waves.” The
force of “creative destruction” signified for Schumpeter (1942, pp. 81–86) the
“natural” replacement of previous norms, which lays the ground for new conditions to
appear and establish their position in the socio-economic system.
From these initial evolutionary observations, some economists who view
themselves as neo-Schumpeterians started to emerge by emphasizing the role of the
evolution of the primary agent of capitalism, that is, the capitalist firm. According to
Nelson and Winter (1982, p. 205), the firm is not an “automatic” transformer of inputs
into outputs, which the standard neoclassical maximization rationale suggests. To this
end, the firm resembles more to a biological “organism” that behaves according to
specific routines and capabilities.
Today, this stream of neo-Schumpeterianism presents similar implications, which
stem from the evolutionary direction of the firm. For example, Nooteboom (2008)
argues that firms evolve through emergence rather than the rational neoclassical
design. This biological interpretation of the firm means that we can discuss its
particular “life cycle” and its “neo-Darwinian” survival (Coad, 2010; Etemad, 2017).
The neo-Schumpeterian view of the socio-economic system as a multi-layer
system of “organisms” means that the overall capitalist evolution is a dialectical and
infinite “elevating cycle” of crisis and development (Figure 1). To this end, despite
earlier relatively simplistic predictions (Fukuyama, 1992; Ohmae, 1999),
globalization nowadays seems far from being a finalized process (Vlados et al., 2018).
2
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Figure 1: Crisis/development dialectics and dynamics of knowledge and innovation
In this context of perpetual turbulence and continual readjustment—and within
also the present phase of crisis and restructuring of globalization—the Greek socio-
economic system appears to be facing a deep structural crisis. A significant number of
economists insist on the aspects of competitiveness and the lack of innovation that
hinder socio-economic development in Greece. The Greek economy is not
innovation-intensive since the majority of its firms are small, relatively weak in
overall competitiveness terms, and cannot favor high industrial growth (Herrmann &
Kritikos, 2013). The SMEs in Greece are mostly family-owned enterprises that face
human capital development issues, complemented by a highly bureaucratic
institutional background and unstable fiscal conditions (Vassiliadis & Vassiliadis,
2014). This institutional deficiency of the Greek economy as a whole (Williams &
Vorley, 2015) also intensifies inherent managerial problems within the majority of the
Greek SMEs (Giannacourou et al., 2015; Sainis et al., 2016).
Greece also faces one of the most significant tax disparities in contrast with other
developed economies, which suggests a deliberate tax evasion on the part of SMEs
(Kaplanoglou et al., 2016). Mostly from direct necessity, several firms relocated
during the crisis years to “cheapest” neighboring countries (Kapitsinis, 2019),
something indicative of the relative underdevelopment of the Greek firms in terms of
high skills and orientation towards specialized knowledge (Christopoulou &
Monastiriotis, 2016; Panagiotakopoulos, 2015). At the same time, it becomes apparent
that this is a structural crisis that also creates demographic and societal problems, such
as the “brain drain” phenomenon (Ifanti et al., 2014; Labrianidis & Vogiatzis, 2013).
To this end, a growth- and export-oriented entrepreneurship seems crucial nowadays
for the exit from the crisis, although the immediate fiscal crisis seems to be over, and
GDP has been rising for several quarters (Giotopoulos et al., 2017; Giotopoulos &
Vettas, 2018).
These observations help to enrich the analysis of the Greek crisis into the micro-
competitiveness of the firm and the meso-level of the agglomeration of local firms
(Figure 2).
3
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Figure 2: Multi-level competitiveness of the socio-economic system
In this perspective, the overall competitiveness of a socio-economic system is an
evolutionary micro-meso-macro synthesis (Esser et al., 2013; Peneder, 2017). In the
process of globalized capitalism, all socio-economic agents replicate their
“correlative” competitive strengths and weaknesses, in the sense that development is a
comparative rather than an “absolute” process (Vlados, 2019). The competitiveness of
every socio-economic “organism” (Balkytė & Tvaronavičienė, 2010) means the
ability to adapt (and eventually change) to the conditions of the external environment
(Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2019c).
Therefore, the Greek socio-economic system’s crisis is essentially a crisis of
competitiveness, the substance of which lies primarily at the micro-level of the firm.
Especially in Greece, most firms seem to be subject to structural shortcomings,
mainly due to their low competitiveness and innovation performances. The next
segment explores the issue of the structural idiosyncrasies and morphology of the
Greek socio-economic business environment.
3. The morphology of the entrepreneurial environment in Greece
According to Vlados (2004, 2012), the Greek business ecosystem hosts firms of
different entrepreneurial “species.” The enterprises in Greece have distinct
“Stra.Tech.Man physiologies,” in the sense that they develop the internal dialectical
domains of their strategy, technology, and management differently. Three questions
of “Stra.Tech.Man” origin govern all socio-economic “organisms”: strategy is “where
am I, where am I going, how do I go there and why?” Technology is “how do I draw,
create, synthesize, spread, and reproduce the means of my work and know-how and
why?” Management is “how do I use my available resources and why?” (Figure 3)
4
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Figure 3: The Stra.Tech.Man dynamics of the firm
The manners in which the socio-economic “organisms” synthesize the three
Stra.Tech.Man areas, besides their innovative potential, define the overall
development and crisis capacity of the socio-economic system. According to the
“physiological” typology suggested by Vlados (2004), three primary categories of
entrepreneurial development exist in Greece: the “monad-centered,” the “massive,”
and the “flexible” entrepreneurship.
In this perspective, the competitiveness of the Greek socio-economic system is still
low because the vast majority of the firms are “monad-centered” (Vlados &
Chatzinikolaou, 2019a). These firms “harness” an instinctive strategy, they pick
technological resources sporadically and in a shortsighted manner, and the everyday
business practice and experience prevail at the overall management sphere. Tables 1-3
present the three types of firms in terms of strategy, technology, and management.
Table 1: How the three Stra.Tech.Man physiological types of firms view their strategy
“Monad-centered” “Massive” “Flexible”
The strategy is instinctive and
there is no strategic systematization.
There is a pursuit of a “narrow”
profit and avoidance of risk-taking.
Business planning is informal.
The business owner is the sole
responsible.
The monitoring of the
external/internal environment is
superficial.
The overall strategic concept is a
peculiar mixture of “opportunism”
and “conservatism.”
Strive for mechanistic
effectiveness and achievement of
quantifiable projects.
The business plan is “strictly
systematic” and “bureaucratic.”
The internal environment analysis
follows a measurement and control
of the operational efficiency and the
respective external a recording of
the existing situation.
The top executives are responsible
for the strategic analysis, which is
“introverted” and rarely “escapes”
the boundaries of the corporation.
The strategy is an evolutionary
conceptualization.
The business plan composes socio-
economic dimensions and analyzes
their historical development.
The environmental analysis is
“organic” since the firm is a co-creator
of developments.
The strategic analysis is multilevel
and “cross-departmental.”
The bold socio-economic vision
exceeds any short- or long-term
profitability aspirations.
Table 2: How the three Stra.Tech.Man physiological types of firms view their technology
“Monad-centered” “Massive” “Flexible”
There is sporadic exploitation of
technological opportunities.
This firm exercises linear
exploitation of already used
There is networking
conceptualization based on interactive
5
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Better standardization is
“synonym” to technology creation.
Technology adoption is an
obstacle to overcome while the
business owner is responsible for
technological diffusion and
implementation.
There are technological projects
of low benefit and limited effort to
evaluate the technological effort.
technologies in the internal value
chain.
The technology acquisition of
quantifiable steps and measurable
efficiency are the criteria for
technology creation.
There is a mechanistic
technological adoption and diffusion
on specific departments, while the
senior executive in the hierarchy is
responsible for the implementation.
Technological evaluation is a
“rally” of quantitative
improvements.
technological data and dynamic
technological acquirements.
It strives for sophisticated
technological adoption that targets a
continuous qualitative upgrade.
There is a simultaneous and
integrated understanding of
technology between individuals and
groups.
Cross-departmental technological
diffusion and implementation since
the creativity of a department can spill
over to the others.
The overall technological efficiency
and integration of most qualitative
dimensions are the evaluation criteria.
Table 3: How the three Stra.Tech.Man physiological types of firms view their management
“Monad-centered” “Massive” “Flexible”
The practical experience is the
central logic.
There is no organizational chart
and to overcome pressing problems
is the process of “management.”
The practical experience in the
field is the recruitment criterion, and
human resources are unnecessary
since the business must survive in
the pressing competitive conditions.
Motivation derives from a
peculiar pattern of “paternalism”
that makes the employees trust the
sole responsibility of the “boss.”
The control is a matter of
“fluctuating strictness” by the boss,
who usually communicates the
problem after its manifestation in the
business.
The strict specialization across the
hierarchy is the central logic.
Management planning follows
monthly or yearly quantitative goals,
based on a detailed organization
chart.
Human resources development
means the recruitment of qualified
specialists in specific functional
areas.
The motivation is quantitatively
predetermined, while leadership
follows rigorous routines and rules.
Control is a matter of formal
reports, and communication is
usually top-down and linear.
There is a participatory rationale.
Management planning focuses on
qualitative upgrade through merging
decentralized forces under the socio-
economic vision of the organization.
Human resources development is a
matter of finding a hardworking
partner that can be creative in all the
organizational aspects.
Motivation is mostly an idealistic
aspiration, while openness and
consensus in leadership are the
primary forces.
There is decentralization in control,
which derives from the self-evaluation
of the employee and the inspection of
partial projects.
Coordination and communication
are diagonal and happen in interactive
networks.
The three forms of “Stra.Tech.Man physiology” means that some firms (as socio-
economic organizations or “organisms”) have structural and “physiological”
differences. In that sense, the environment hosting them and—in this case, a relatively
weak Greek socio-economic system—absorbs the effects of their innovative capacity
or incapacity. The fact that “monad-centered” firms are the majority in Greece
signifies a “dominant” less formal way of doing business, not including many
components of modern capitalist productivity and efficiency. Despite lagging in
productivity, the reason they continue to survive in the current crisis and restructuring
conditions of globalization is that the relatively “chaotic” Greek socio-economic
system still favors them.
For Greek entrepreneurship, the problem is how to deal with today’s increasingly
globalized competition. The physiological analysis suggests that the “monad-
centered” type of firm has to “hybridize” into more systematic forms of
entrepreneurship by improving its strategic, technological, and managerial innovative
capacity (Ghosh & Ray, 2017; McMullen, 2018). This direction would improve the
potential for innovation and competitiveness of the Greek socio-economic system as a
whole.
4. Final remarks
6
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
This article illustrated that entrepreneurship is the most critical determinant of
general socio-economic development. It identified the “physiological” typology of the
Greek firms based on their internal structure in the fields of strategy, technology, and
management (Stra.Tech.Man approach), and acknowledged their impact on the
continuing structural crisis in Greece.
The Greek socio-economic system favors an idiosyncratic type of entrepreneurial
physiology (“monad-centered” type), in which most firms express their strategy based
on instinctive decisions, technology follows a sporadic perception and
implementation, and practical experience is the primary “manifestation” of
management. Therefore, the improvement of competitiveness, especially for small,
medium-sized, and family-focused enterprises, seems a priority for a new
competitiveness policy. According to Vlados and Chatzinikolaou (2019c), the
Institutions of Local Development and Innovation (ILDIs) constitute such a policy
that the Greek government could implement (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Local Development and Innovation Institutes in the context of the Greek socio-economic
system
The scope of these institutes is to connect uncoordinated actors at the local level,
such as local government, universities, and local businesses (see the “triple helix
theory”; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998). The goal is to foster local entrepreneurship
by diagnosing the Stra.Tech.Man potential of innovation.
This mechanism of ILDI, which could operate in the Greek regions, follows six
steps:
First, it proceeds with an environmental diagnosis.
Second, it analyzes and composes the available information.
Third, it diffuses the expertise at the local level.
Fourth and fifth, it aims at creating innovation and upgrading the action of
the locally established firm.
Sixth, it builds a monitoring mechanism to evaluate the results and start
over.
7
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Andreas Andrikopoulos, Associate
Professor at the Department of Business Administration of the University of the
Aegean, who provided useful comments during the writing of this manuscript.
References
Balkytė, A., & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2010). Perception of Competitiveness in the
Context of Sustainable Development: Facets of “sustainable
Competitiveness.” Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2),
341–365. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.17
Christopoulou, R., & Monastiriotis, V. (2016). Public-private wage duality during the
Greek crisis. Oxford Economic Papers, 68(1), 174–196.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpv054
Coad, A. (2010). Neoclassical vs evolutionary theories of financial constraints:
Critique and prospectus. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21(3),
206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2010.05.003
Esser, K., Hillebrand, W., Messner, D., & Meyer-Stamer, J. (2013). Systemic
competitiveness: New governance patterns for industrial development.
Routledge.
Etemad, H. (2017). Towards an emerging evolutionary life-cycle theory of
internationalized entrepreneurial firms: From born globals to borderless firms?
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15(2), 111–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-017-0204-5
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A “Triple Helix” of
University-Industry-Government relations: Introduction. Minerva, 36(3), 203–
208.
European Commission. (2019). Country Report Greece 2019: Including an In-Depth
Review on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2019
8
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
European Semester: Assessment of Progress on Structural Reforms,
Prevention and Correction of Macroeconomic Imbalances, and Results of in-
Depth Reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011) [Commission staff
working document]. European Commission.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. The Free Press.
Ghosh, A., & Ray, S. (2017). Theorizing “Strategic Transition Towards
Organizational Hybridism”: Action Research With CINI India. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 15024.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.139
Giannacourou, M., Kantaraki, M., & Christopoulou, V. (2015). The Perception of
Crisis by Greek SMEs and its Impact on Managerial Practices. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 546–551.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1235
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., & Tsakanikas, A. (2017). Antecedents of growth-
oriented entrepreneurship before and during the Greek economic crisis.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 528–544.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2017-0003
Giotopoulos, I., & Vettas, N. (2018). Economic crisis and export-oriented
entrepreneurship: Evidence from Greece. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 39(8), 872–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2976
Herrmann, B., & Kritikos, A. S. (2013). Growing out of the crisis: Hidden assets to
Greece’s transition to an innovation economy. IZA Journal of European Labor
Studies, 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9012-2-14
Ifanti, A. A., Argyriou, A. A., Kalofonou, F. H., & Kalofonos, H. P. (2014).
Physicians’ brain drain in Greece: A perspective on the reasons why and how
9
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
to address it. Health Policy, 117(2), 210–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.03.014
Kapitsinis, N. (2019). The impact of economic crisis on firm relocation: Greek SME
movement to Bulgaria and its effects on business performance. GeoJournal,
84(2), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9863-6
Kaplanoglou, G., Rapanos, V. T., & Daskalakis, N. (2016). Tax compliance
behaviour during the crisis: The case of Greek SMEs. European Journal of
Law and Economics, 42(3), 405–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-
9547-y
Koronis, E., & Vlados, C. (2019, November 10). Companies that can bring real
development [Οι εταιρείες που θα φέρουν την πραγματική ανάπτυξη].
Liberal.gr. https://www.liberal.gr/economy/oi-etaireies-pou-tha-feroun-tin-
pragmatiki-anaptuxi/273588
Labrianidis, L., & Vogiatzis, N. (2013). Highly skilled migration: What differentiates
the ‘brains’ who are drained from those who return in the case of Greece?
Population, Space and Place, 19(5), 472–486.
https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1726
McMullen, J. S. (2018). Organizational Hybrids as Biological Hybrids: Insights for
Research on the Relationship Between Social Enterprise and the
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 575–590.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.06.001
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
10
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
Nooteboom, B. (2008). In what sense do firms evolve? (No. 2008–12; Papers on
Economics and Evolution). Philipps University Marburg, Department of
Geography. https://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/evopap/2008-12.html
Ohmae, K. (1999). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked
economy (Rev. ed). HarperBusiness.
Panagiotakopoulos, A. (2015). Creating a high-skills society during recession: Issues
for policy makers. International Journal of Training and Development, 19(4),
253–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12061
Peneder, M. (2017). Competitiveness and industrial policy: From rationalities of
failure towards the ability to evolve. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3),
829–858. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bew025
Sainis, G., Haritos, G., Kriemadis, A., & Fowler, M. (2016). The willingness of ISO
certified Greek SMEs to continue their quality journey to TQM under crisis
conditions: A systemic approach. International Journal of Applied Systemic
Studies, 6(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASS.2016.082168
Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical
analysis of the capitalist process. McGraw-Hill.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (Edition published in the
Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003). Harper & Brothers.
Vassiliadis, S., & Vassiliadis, A. (2014). The Greek Family Businesses and the
Succession Problem. Procedia Economics and Finance, 9, 242–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00025-2
Vlados, C. (2004). La dynamique du triangle stratégie, technologie et management:
L’insertion des entreprises grecques dans la globalisation [Thèse de doctorat
11
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
de Sciences Économiques, Université de Paris X-Nanterre].
http://www.theses.fr/2004PA100022
Vlados, C. (2012). The search of competitiveness and the entrepreneurial evolution in
a global environment: Toward a new approach of development dynamics
based on the case of Greek productive system. Journal of Management
Sciences and Regional Development, 8, 91–116.
Vlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of
Strategy and Management, 12(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-02-
2019-0026
Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019a). Business ecosystems policy in
Stra.Tech.Man terms: The case of the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region.
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(3), 163–197.
Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019b). Crisis, institutional innovation and change
management: Thoughts from the Greek case. Journal of Economics and
Political Economy, 6(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1453/jepe.v6i1.1854
Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019c). Methodological redirections for an
evolutionary approach of the external business environment. Journal of
Management and Sustainability, 9(2), 25–46.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v9n2p25
Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019d). Developments on helix theory: Exploring a
micro-evolutionary repositioning in Stra.Tech.Man terms. International
Journal of World Policy and Development Studies, 5(10), 87–99.
https://doi.org/10.32861/ijwpds.510.87.99
Vlados, C., Chatzinikolaou, D., & Demertzis, M. (2019). Development,
competitiveness and institutional modernisation: Towards a new approach to
12
This is a preprint version of the article presented at the International Conference on
Business & Economics of the Hellenic Open University 2020 at June 27, 2020
the Greek crisis. International Journal of Competitiveness, 1(4), 293–318.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJC.2019.102839
Vlados, C., Deniozos, N., Chatzinikolaou, D., & Demertzis, M. (2018). Towards an
evolutionary understanding of the current global socio-economic crisis and
restructuring: From a conjunctural to a structural and evolutionary perspective.
Research in World Economy, 9(1), 15–33.
https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v9n1p15
Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2015). The impact of institutional change on
entrepreneurship in a crisis-hit economy: The case of Greece.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(1–2), 28–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.995723
13