Content uploaded by Charis M. Vlados
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charis M. Vlados on Apr 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
This is the “Author accepted manuscript” (AAM, also known as “Post-print”). The definitive published version of
this extract may be found at https://books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/Entrepreneurship-Institutional-Framework-
and-Support-Mechanisms-in-the-EU/?k=9781839099830.
Entrepreneurship enhancement policies and the competitiveness web: The
case of the European South
Vlados Charis
1
, Koutroukis Theodore
2
, Chatzinikolaou Dimos
3
, & Demertzis Michail
4
Abstract
This chapter aims to conceptualize the general framework of policies to support entrepreneurship and
competitiveness by indicating a move from a dispersive comprehension of competitiveness towards an
integrated macro-meso-micro perspective, by taking as a case study the European South. First, it presents
theoretical contributions to entrepreneurship enhancement policies, which mostly suggest that intervention
can be effective in a fragmentary and relatively incoherent way. Then, it counter-proposes the
“competitiveness web” approach, which gives an integrated policy framework for the competitive
strengthening and evolution of a socioeconomic system. In the framework of competitiveness web, we
analyze and propose a meso-micro level policy via the Institutes of Local Development and Innovation
(ILDI), which is a policy for empowering the local and regional business ecosystems through the
enhancement of business innovation. Finally, by using the competitiveness web filter, we propose the
structuration of a mechanism that could identify the level at which the socioeconomic entities in different
spatial levels can articulate their policies for entrepreneurship enhancement in the macro-meso-micro
integrated approach.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship enhancement policies, Competitiveness Web, Institutes of Local
Development and Innovation (ILDI), Macro-meso-micro analysis, European South
Introduction
The role of entrepreneurship in the current phase of crisis and restructuring of globalization is critical to
the competitiveness of all socioeconomic systems, whether at local, national, or international level. From an
evolutionary perspective, the innovative action of the firms transforms the hosting socioeconomic systems in
their structural elements since the introduction of any innovation disrupts the preexisting equilibrium
(Vlados, Deniozos and Chatzinikolaou, 2018; Vlados, Deniozos, Chatzinikolaou and Demertzis, 2018). In
broad terms and from a neo-Schumpeterian perspective (Pacheco, Manhães and Maldonado, 2017), the
contemporary phase of the crisis of globalization reveals that capitalism is still an ongoing phenomenon of
creative destruction at all levels (economic, social, political, cultural and ideological).
This restructuring of globalization means that the previous regime of relative balance is heading towards
the exhaustion of its developmental limits progressively and that a new, sustainable and totalizing model on a
global scale is required. From the perspective of the French School of Regulation, which debated mostly the
development of nation-centered socioeconomic systems, the qualitative and quantitative accumulation
regime of globalization is incapable of sustaining further socioeconomic progress and, therefore, the world
economy goes through a transitory phase in which a new, overall mode of regulation is gradually formulated
(Aglietta, 1997; Boyer, 2013; Orléan, 2009).
Both in the past phase of globalization and emerging one, entrepreneurship and the deriving innovation
lie at the center of this global accumulation status quo. The entrepreneurial innovation constitutes a dynamic
phenomenon that reshapes the socioeconomic reality constantly, especially now when all spatial systems and
socioeconomic organizations are being increasingly bound together. In today’s age of the fourth industrial
revolution (Schwab, 2016), knowledge is being understood as the crucial factor for socioeconomic
1
A) Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100, Komotini, Greece, cvlados@econ.duth.gr
B) School of Business, University of Nicosia, 24005, Nicosia, Cyprus
2
Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100, Komotini, Greece, tkoutro@econ.duth.gr
3
Department of Economics, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100, Komotini, Greece, dimchatz@econ.duth.gr
4
School of Law, Democritus University of Thrace, 69100, Komotini, Greece, michaildemertzis@gmail.com
2
development. To this end, the academic debate and policy practice seem to acknowledge progressively that
robust and knowledge creating entrepreneurship strengthening policies are catalytic for the growth of the
firms and, therefore, of the socioeconomic system as a whole (Apostolopoulos, Al-Dajani, Holt, Jones and
Newbery, 2018; Bosma, Content, Sanders and Stam, 2018). In other words, entrepreneurship support
mechanisms can favor institutional development if perceived as a structural pillar of modern economic
policy (Liargovas, Apostolopoulos, Pappas and Kakouris, 2017).
Concerning the institutional environment, one approach that seems capable of interpreting the evolution
of the qualitative characteristics of different economic policies is the analysis of different ontological levels
(Serpa and Ferreira, 2019). This analysis considers the micro-level of individuals and firms, the meso-level
of localities and agglomerations of firms, the macro-level of economic aggregations, and the macro-level of
social changes. With this multilevel approach, this chapter attempts to propose a conceptual framework for
fostering entrepreneurship in the form of a multilevel “competitiveness web.” We aim to identify whether
there are converging or divergent policy practices to strengthen entrepreneurship under this multilevel
perspective, exploring the economies of the European South (Pal, 2005).
In particular, the European South constitutes a special case of “a multi-speed Europe,” where different
groups of member-states differ in institutional and developmental terms (Apostolopoulos and Liargovas,
2018). More precisely, this “variable geometry” at the European level is a condition of differentiated
integration in the EU, which is, of course, not a new phenomenon (Pisani-Ferry, Sapir and Wolff, 2012;
Stubb, 1996). For example, since its inception, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) constituted a
differentiated integration in terms of the Monetary Union (member-states belonging in the Eurozone and
member-states under divergence).
In terms of methodology, we will proceed with a general overview of the literature by aiming to construct
and suggest a new conceptual framework. We will attempt to compose the different perspectives by creating
a new theoretical filter and present examples from the practical experience by using this analytical prism.
The following steps of the paper reflect the research design:
1. Initially, we will explore recent theoretical approaches to the issue of entrepreneurship support
policies.
2. Then, we will present an integrated concept of entrepreneurship and competitiveness policy in the
form of a “competitiveness web” that takes into account all the macro, meso and micro levels of
the socioeconomic space.
3. Subsequently, we will analyze recent developments in the field of entrepreneurship support
policies of the countries of the European South under the macro-meso-micro perspective by
trying to determine whether these countries and different socioeconomic spaces have structural
competitive weaknesses.
4. Finally, we will conclude by discussing the implications and future research directions.
Literature review: Entrepreneurship enhancement policy and an integrated macro-meso-micro
analytical counterproposal
Entrepreneurship enhancement policy includes measures that can increase the innovativeness of
entrepreneurial activity and create an environment that encourages people to become entrepreneurs
(Lundström and Stevenson, 2005). These set of policies include the aspect of individuality since
entrepreneurship strengthening policy can provide the necessary background to turn a “simple man” into an
entrepreneur, by fostering an environment favorable of new knowledge (Link, 2007). According to
Audretsch and Beckmann (2007), entrepreneurship enhancement policies create a favorable framework for
the commercialization of new ideas.
Entrepreneurship support policies also take on different structural dimensions and characteristics,
depending on the country that implements them. For example, entrepreneurship policies include measures
that aim at the micro-level, incentivizing entrepreneurial culture through the training and management skills
of entrepreneurs, or may have a more horizontal macro-origin by providing state aid for general usage
innovations and a more general improvement of the regulatory framework (Castaño-Martínez, Méndez-
Picazo and Galindo-Martín, 2015). At the macro-level of government policy, governments must build an
overall development vision, plan strategies, mobilize players and provide resources, in a way similar to
policies targeting the micro-level of the firm (Kantis, Ishida and Komori, 2002).
From a synthesizing and multilevel perspective, the strategies, “players” and entrepreneurial resources
can belong to different socioeconomic levels, while the “meso-environment” is an analytical category
3
between the macro and the micro-levels of policy analysis (Cornia, Jolly and Stewart, 1987). According to
Zezza and Llambı́ (2002), the meso-level is an integrated view of market mechanisms and administrative
procedures that affect the micro-macro levels back and forth. Most public policy programs result from a
macro-level design that converts ultimately into various goals and values by individuals at the micro-level.
However, the local meso-level, where local actors and innovations affect the activities of the macro-micro
level, is mostly absent (Virtanen and Uusikylä, 2004). According to Autio (2016), a government can engage
in the meso-micro level in fostering entrepreneurship by promoting networking activities between different
firms and investors, providing low-cost office space, training and consulting services, tax breaks and
privileged access to government contracts, and enhancing the capacities of new ventures to innovate through
direct interventions.
Mirzanti, Simatupang and Larso (2015) understand entrepreneurship strengthening policies on three
distinct levels. The macro-level includes entrepreneurship education, infrastructure relating to
entrepreneurship such as loan services or access to the internet, and entrepreneurial culture. The meso-level
deals with administrative burden including all programs related to registration systems, entry/exit barriers,
export/import regulations, investment and business procedures, incentives for specific groups relating to
technology transfer, technology commercialization, and entrepreneurial incentives that include all programs
related to labor market regulation, business taxes, and fiscal incentives. Lastly, the policy content at the
micro-level includes entrepreneurship skills (such as training programs), opportunities through access to
finance or programs related to market access, and motivation that can be caused by programs related to
accelerators or incubators or mentorship.
In an integrated macro-meso-micro competitiveness and entrepreneurship policy framework, the
socioeconomic system is being understood to unfold in an evolutionary multilevel process. That is, in the
evolutionary interpretation, the historical background that incubated the particular manifestation at present is
always a significant determinant creating specific developmental trajectories for the different factors of
action (Nelson et al., 2018). From a converging perspective (Vlados and Katimertzopoulos, 2018), the
micro-level corresponds to the stimulation of the locally operating business entities, the meso-level to the
local productive socioeconomic “grid” and the macro-level to the overall attractiveness of the socioeconomic
space that host new investments. The synthesis of the three levels corresponds to a multi-level
competitiveness and entrepreneurship enhancement policy. According to Vlados (2019b), the multilevel
socioeconomic system resembles a “competitiveness web” where all subsystems interact with each other
dynamically (Figure 1). [Figure 1 about here]
Figure 1: The competitiveness web.
4
Global endo-systemic and
exo-systemic flows
Macro –
social
Macro –
economic
Firm dynamics
Industrial-regional-local
dynamics
Technological and
Knowledge dynamics
Cultural dynamics
Meso –
economic
Micro -
economic
Demographic and
environmental dynamics
Economic dynamics
Α) Entrepreneurial dynamics
B) Political intervention dynamics
C) Institutional dynamics
In the multilevel synthesis of the competitiveness web, all levels of space are in a structural correlation
(Dopfer, 2011; Peneder, 2017). Any change in the macro-meso-micro web affects and transforms all levels
since they are interconnected. The three structural spheres of the system are always the dynamics of
entrepreneurship and the profit incentive that governs business operations, the political intervention that
regulates different levels of social symbiosis and economic relationships, and the institutional dynamics that
indicate the relative stability of specific rules and norms in the progress of a socioeconomic system. These
three dynamic dimensions interact and co-evolve as active agents of readjustment of each socioeconomic
system at every level of spatial analysis. Finally, global endo-systemic and exo-systemic flows, such as
globalized sectors of economic activity, give the competitiveness web a character of “permanent disruption.”
This competitiveness web is, in fact, an attempt to capture the entire socioeconomic system and the
interactions between its partial elements. A vital feature of this formation is that all levels of space are in a
constant “co-opetitive” relationship—competition and cooperation at the same time (Brandenburger and
Nalebuff, 1996). At the level of articulating entrepreneurship strengthening policies, these usually start at the
meso-micro firm level of training, education, mentoring and consulting. Many policies today aim at creating
innovative business agglomerations, mainly in the form of clusters, which include local firms that share
common characteristics, particularly in terms of their industrial focus (Lazzeretti, Sedita and Caloffi, 2014).
Moreover, these policies may target more inter-sectoral forms, such as business ecosystems that constitute
value networks built around mostly some “keystone species” (Iansiti and Levien, 2004). In any case, the
advancement of innovation at the meso-micro level requires, besides a conducive business environment,
targeted political intervention in the “cellular” innovation created in the internal “organs” of the firm (Abell,
Felin and Foss, 2008). One such meso-micro policy is the Institutes of Local Development and Innovation
(Figure 2). [Figure 2 about here]
5
Figure 2: An Institute of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI), according to Vlados (2016)
Diagnosis of the firm’s
innovative potential
System of environmental diagnosis
Information
analysis and
synthesis
Local diffusion of
know-how
Creation of innovation
Upgrade of action
Monitor of
development results
Local and regional dynamics, and the
Institutes of Local Development and Innovation (ILDI)
Process of partnership,
networking and
coordination, decision-
making and evaluating
investment opportunities
Center of local development
and know-how:
•Business forum
•Processes of electronic
networking
•Processes of educational
interventions
Process of providing
business consulting services
Process of collection,
systematization and
diffusion of data relating
to the continuing
development monitoring
Process of field research on
firms focused locally or at
specific sector: a development
observatory
The space of the locally
established firm
Macro-economic and
macro-social
environment
Micro-meso
environment
Global system dynamic
According to Vlados (2016), who focuses on the case of Greece, this local mechanism can be a policy
that fosters entrepreneurship at the meso-micro level. This mechanism could begin by diagnosing the firm’s
innovative potential that lies at the center of the local-regional system and then could operate in a cycle of six
consecutive steps. This cycle includes a system of environmental diagnosis, followed by information analysis
and synthesis, local diffusion of expertise, creation of innovation, upgrade of action, and monitoring of
development results. Beyond its centrally designed mechanism, this intermediate organization should aim to
interconnect any actors capable of enhancing the prospects of innovation of the local system.
A multilevel political intervention to boost entrepreneurship that, most often, is “diagonal” rather than
just vertical or horizontal, must not aim at subsidizing “national champions” in specific industries (European
Commission, 2011), but should encourage and support change management and innovation at all levels
(Torfing, Peters, Pierre and Sørensen, 2012; Vlados and Chatzinikolaou, 2019). Elements of such a
comprehensive policy can exist at both the macro-economic and macro-social levels. That is, at the macro-
level are those policies that shape the so-called business environment or climate and are usually a priority for
ministries other than those for development or innovation national ministries. Usually, the Ministry of
Finance is responsible for macro-economic policies on taxation and interest rates, while any other policy
indirectly touching the business environment is one of the macro-social factors. Macro-social policies can
include regulations such as the legislation of the natural environmental management context, the framework
of education and training, and the cultural subsystem empowerment, renovation, and valorization put
forward by different ministries, such as the “Ministry of Education,” the “Ministry of Energy,” or the
“Ministry of Culture.”
Overall, the issue of development/underdevelopment crosses the entrepreneurship of socioeconomic
systems transversely. In this context, the three macro-meso-micro levels are, in fact, an attempt to develop an
understanding of the different levels involved in socioeconomic development, both individually and in
composition (Dopfer, Foster and Potts, 2004). However, to what extent are there entrepreneurship
enhancement policies implemented at a micro-level? What meso-micro and macro-economic and macro-
social policies exist mostly? Do developed countries implement an integrated macro-meso-micro policy
framework to support entrepreneurship? The next section attempts to answer these questions by taking as a
case study entrepreneurship support policies in countries of the European South, which are experiencing
structural issues of competitiveness.
6
Recent policy practices to support entrepreneurship in the European South: A macro-meso-micro
theoretical evaluation
European South countries have not yet recovered in terms of economic growth following the shock of
2008-2009 (Andreou, Andrikopoulos and Nastopoulos, 2017; Elert, Henrekson and Sanders, 2019; McCann
and Ortega-Argilés, 2016). According to the European Commission (2018), Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy
and Portugal are experiencing significant growth retardation in the value-added and employment of small
and medium-sized enterprises, although between 2013 and 2017 value-added and employment of SMEs in
EU-28 increased by 15.1% and 7.1% respectively.
Another issue that seems to affect these countries—mainly Greece and Italy and, to a lesser extent, Spain
and Portugal—concerns the implementation of the legislation and, more generally, the rule of law (Elert,
Henrekson and Stenkula, 2017). More profoundly, both the business culture and the value that societies of
these countries attach to entrepreneurship appear to be problematic compared to other EU member-states
(Fernández-Serrano, Berbegal, Velasco and Expósito, 2018).
One study outlining policies to strengthen the business environment, mainly from a “horizontal”
perspective (Warwick, 2013), is the “Doing Business” report by the World Bank. The categories or policy
areas that World Bank uses to classify and rate the different environments are the following: paying taxes,
employing workers/labor market regulation, registering property, resolving insolvency, dealing across
construction permits, enforcing contracts, getting electricity, getting credit, protecting minority investors, and
starting a business. Doing Business focuses mainly on the macro-economic and macro-social levels, meaning
that it does not take into account meso-micro-level elements. Table 1 presents the reforms that European
South countries implemented recently by identifying the available data for these countries from the last three
Doing Business reports.
Table 1: Recent reforms to improve the business environment in the countries of the European South
Croatia
Protecting minority investors: “Croatia strengthened minority investor protections by requiring detailed
internal disclosure of conflicts of interest by directors.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 174)
Registering property: “Croatia made it less costly to transfer property by lowering the real estate transfer
tax.” (World Bank, 2018, p. 129)
Registering property: “Croatia made transferring property more efficient by digitizing its land registry.”
(World Bank, 2019, p. 137)
Cyprus
Starting a business: “Cyprus made starting a business easier by merging the procedures to register for taxes
and VAT, and making company name search and reservation faster.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 174)
Paying taxes: “Cyprus made paying taxes easier by introducing improvements to its internal processes and
to the electronic tax filing system. Cyprus also made paying taxes less costly by increasing the discount rate
applied on immovable property tax.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 174)
Employing workers: “Cyprus amended its legislation to allow shops and supermarkets to operate seven
days a week.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 174)
Protecting minority investors: “Cyprus strengthened minority investor protections by increasing disclosure
of related-party transactions and strengthening shareholders’ rights and role in major corporate
decisions.” (World Bank, 2019, p. 138)
Paying taxes: “Cyprus made paying taxes easier by abolishing the immovable property tax, discontinuing
the special contribution for private sector employees, private sector pensioners and self-employed
individuals, introducing an online system for filing value added tax returns and value added tax refund
claims and reducing the sewerage duty tax rates.” (World Bank, 2019, p. 138)
Greece
Enforcing contracts: “Greece made enforcing contracts easier by amending its rules of civil procedure to
introduce tighter rules on adjournments, impose deadlines for key court events and limit the recourses that
can be lodged during enforcement proceedings.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 175)
Starting a business: “Greece made starting a business easier by creating a unified social security
institution.” (World Bank, 2018, p. 131)
Dealing with construction permits: “Greece streamlined its construction permitting process as building
owners must now use their in-house engineer for the intermediate inspection, as opposed to the
municipality.” (World Bank, 2019, p. 140)
Italy
Paying taxes: “Italy made paying taxes easier by allowing full cost of labor to be deductible for regional tax
on productive activities (IRAP) purposes, as well as updating coefficients used for calculation of tax on real
estate (IMU) and municipal service tax (TASI). Furthermore, the electronic system for preparing and
paying labor taxes was improved.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 177)
Getting electricity: “Italy made getting electricity easier by streamlining the application process and
reducing the time for the external works and meter installation.” (World Bank, 2018, p. 132)
7
Paying taxes: “Italy made paying taxes less costly by temporarily exempting employers from social security
contributions. Italy also made paying taxes easier by abolishing the Comunicazione dati IVA (value added
tax communication form).” (World Bank, 2018, p. 132)
Portugal
Getting electricity: “Portugal made getting an electricity connection faster by reducing the time required to
approve electrical connection requests.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 182)
Paying taxes: “Portugal made paying taxes easier and less costly by using better accounting software and
enhancing the online filing system of taxes and decreasing the corporate income tax rate.” (World Bank,
2017, p. 182)
Labor market regulation: “Portugal reduced the maximum duration of fixed-term contracts.” (World Bank,
2017, p. 182)
Spain
Paying taxes: “Spain made paying taxes less costly by reducing the property tax rate, vehicle tax rate, tax
on property transfer, and abolishing the environmental fee. Spain made paying taxes easier by introducing
a new electronic system for filing social security contributions.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 184)
Enforcing contracts: “Spain made enforcing contracts easier by introducing a mandatory electronic filing
system for court users.” (World Bank, 2017, p. 184)
Enforcing contracts: “Spain made enforcing contracts easier by reducing court fees for filing a claim.”
(World Bank, 2018, p. 138)
There seem to be a plethora of mostly macro-economic and macro-social reforms in the countries of the
European South. Moreover, these examples of horizontal “macro-reforms” confirm the approach that
different ministries can participate equally in articulating entrepreneurship and competitiveness policies by
implementing different regulations starting from specific labor, construction and other laws. To what extent,
however, do meso-micro-level policies emerge in the European South to promote innovation at the center of
the socioeconomic system?
One study for identifying the level of entrepreneurship development is the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM). GEM classifies different countries according to “entrepreneurial framework conditions” by
using “national experts” surveys. It names these factors “entrepreneurial framework conditions” and
classifies them from insufficient (one point) to sufficient (five points). These entrepreneurial framework
conditions are the following: entrepreneurial finance, governmental policies: support and relevance,
governmental policies: taxes and bureaucracy, government entrepreneurship programs, entrepreneurial
education at school stage, entrepreneurial education at the post-school stage, R&D transfer, commercial and
legal infrastructure, internal market dynamics, internal market burdens or entry regulation, physical
infrastructure, cultural and social norms (Bosma and Kelley, 2019).
Although it does not classify the level of entrepreneurship and competitiveness of different countries in an
explicit macro-meso-micro socioeconomic way, the conclusions of the study are useful under this macro-
meso-micro methodological “filter.” Table 2 presents some of the general directions that European South
countries have been pursuing recently to support their entrepreneurship by using recent studies by the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Table 2: Entrepreneurship in the European South through recent studies
Croatia
“In 2018, the government introduced vouchers which will support collaboration between businesses and
research institutions. New regulatory changes prepared in 2018 will decrease the burden for entering the
market for different products and services in the future.” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 75)
Cyprus
Cyprus “recently passed enhanced tax incentives for innovative small and medium-sized enterprises as
well as for startups are expected to attract multinational entrepreneurs seeking to be in the European,
Middle-East and Africa region.” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 76)
Greece
In August 2018, “an eight-year cycle of three successive programs of economic support and adjustment
programs completed. A significant amount of adjustment and rebalancing in the economy has been
achieved, exports and investments have also increased, although domestic financing conditions remain
very weak.” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 80)
Italy
Italy has a “generous welfare system. This is expected to become even more generous with the
introduction of the citizenship income plan, proposed by the Five Star Movement, the populist political
party that won the latest polls.” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 87)
Portugal
National experts consider national culture in Portugal as poorly oriented towards entrepreneurship and
notice a lack of stimulating individual success. However, the existence of science parks, technology, and
business incubators and various support programs available to new companies is a favorable point in
Portugal’s development. Moreover, national experts consider the availability of government subsidies as
the main factor for promoting entrepreneurial activity in terms of financing (Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, 2013).
8
Spain
“On average, jobs created in the last 12 months by new firms have increased by 118%. Likewise, jobs
generated by established firms have increased by 70% despite stagnant entrepreneurial activity, the
impact of entrepreneurship on job creation and its contribution to the recovery of the economy is
increasing.” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 104)
To a large extent, these policies (or the general business climate) in the European South should be moving
probably in an analogous direction to meso-micro-level policies that Croatia and Cyprus seem to implement
with partnerships between firms and research institutes and provisions of tax incentives for innovative small
and medium-sized enterprises. Concerning Greece, this country appears to be in a transitional phase,
Portugal supports some significant innovation infrastructures such as science parks, while Spain is also
gradually moving to improve the competitiveness of its economy.
To see what a meso-micro-level approach to enhancing “cellular” innovation and entrepreneurship might
look like, the conclusions of the latest GEM report on Germany are useful. In particular, “governments at
each level (federal, federal states, local) have ‘discovered’ new firms started by young people as an
important target group of their regional, educational, technology, economic and innovation policies. This
may have contributed to a considerable improvement of the entrepreneurial climate, particularly among
young citizens” (Bosma and Kelley, 2019, p. 79). Therefore, significant differences in the level of policy
conception at the meso-micro level exist, mainly between the more competitive Germany as compared to the
European South. Strengthening the meso-micro level seems to lead to innovation in the overall
socioeconomic system. This juxtaposition between Germany and the European South reinforces the
interpretative power of the macro-meso-micro entrepreneurship enhancement policy scheme, given that
Germany is today one of the leading countries in institutional and economic terms (Schoeller, 2019).
Countries of the European South demonstrate, as it seems, competitiveness insufficiencies not created
solely by some dependence relations of the Center upon the South where, allegedly, in a neo-Marxist
perspective (Vlados, 2019a), the influence of the center is so significant that it does not allow the dependent
countries to develop. Today, the articulation of meso-micro-level policies seems to be a priority for a
growing number of socioeconomic systems, regardless of dependency relationships or previous structural
underdevelopment, that is, even for developing countries all around the world (Altaf, Hassan and Batool,
2019).
Undoubtedly, macro-social factors, such as business culture in the countries of the European South, seem
to play a decisive role, although meso-micro-level political practices are indeed a priority for the most
competitive countries nowadays. In the ongoing fourth industrial revolution, the flows between different
socioeconomic organizations and systems are increasingly subversive. Therefore, successful firms develop
their human resources through continuing and systematic training to improve the skills of their employees by
nurturing the elements of initiative and creativity. In this context, innovative success or failure also
determines the developmental prospects of their hosting socioeconomic systems.
A new entrepreneurship strengthening policy should be undoubtedly multilevel, as all the macro-meso-
micro levels of the socioeconomic system constitute mutual developmental forces. Most of the time,
however, both at the level of countries with actual developmental and competitiveness insufficiencies (such
as the countries of the European South) and at the level of conceptualizing the impact of these policies (see,
for example, the GEM and Doing Business reports), an integrated macro-meso-micro perspective seems to
be absent. To this end, the policy framework proposed in this chapter in the form of a multilevel
“competitiveness web” that takes into account all levels of the socio-economic space by focusing on meso-
micro-level policies seems to be a new concept of policy practice that can be incorporated at different
socioeconomic systems.
Concluding remarks
This chapter attempted a repositioning of the contemporary discourse on the issue of policies to support
entrepreneurship. It presented entrepreneurship and innovation as the most critical developmental factors for
all socioeconomic systems, while noted that—especially at a time when the global economy is going through
a phase of profound crisis and restructuring—policies to boost entrepreneurship can turn a country more or
less competitive.
By focusing on examples of policies in the countries of the European South, we concluded that a reason
for their relative developmental hysteresis is their fragmentary approach to the issue of strengthening their
entrepreneurship potential. As a result, we found that an integrated macro-meso-micro perspective is mostly
absent from the articulation of entrepreneurship enhancement policies in these countries.
9
The context of competitiveness web, in which the structured parts of the socioeconomic system are
composed, is a theoretical filter that could be used as a future research direction. Since the competitiveness
web framework explores which policies correspond to the different levels where the socioeconomic actors
compete (macro, meso, or micro), then this could be a diagnostic mechanism to investigate and determine the
competitiveness conditions and dynamics of the entire socioeconomic system through the assembly of a
competitiveness index. This index could measure and correlate the number of entrepreneurship support
policies at each level by also taking into account quantitative and qualitative comparative data for different
socioeconomic spheres and spaces. In this way, it could serve as a tool for ameliorating the interventional
practices for strengthening entrepreneurship in a benchmarking logic.
Acknowledgment
We warmly thank Dr. Andreas Andrikopoulos, Associate Professor at the Department of Business
Administration of the University of the Aegean, who offered valuable comments on this manuscript’s last
version.
References
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro‐foundations for the routines, capabilities, and
performance links. Managerial and decision economics, 29(6), 489-502. doi:10.1002/mde.1413
Aglietta, M. (1997). Régulation et Crises du Capitalisme. Odile Jacob, Paris.
Altaf, A., e Hassan, I., & Batool, S. (2019). The role of ORIC in the evolution of the triple helix culture of
innovation: The case of Pakistan. Technology in Society, 56, 157-166.
doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.09.014
Liargovas, P., Apostolopoulos, N., Pappas, I., & Kakouris, A. (2017). SMEs and green growth: The
effectiveness of support mechanisms and initiatives matters. In Renko, S., & Pestek, A. (Eds.),
Green Economy in the Western Balkans: Towards a Sustainable Future (pp. 79-108). Emerald
Publishing, Bingley, UK.
Andreou, A., Andrikopoulos, A., & Nastopoulos, C. (2017). Chapter 1 - Debt markets, financial crises, and
public finance in the Eurozone: Action, structure, and experience in Greece. In Economou, F.,
Gavriilidis, K., Gregoriou, G.N., & Kallinterakis, V. (Eds.), Handbook of Investors’ Behavior
During Financial Crises (pp. 3-28). Academic Press, London, UK.
Apostolopoulos, N., & Liargovas, P. (2018). Unlock local forces and improve legitimacy: A decision making
scheme in the European Union towards environmental change. European Policy Analysis, 4(1), 146-
165. doi:10.1002/epa2.1036
Apostolopoulos, N., Al-Dajani, H., Holt, D., Jones, P., & Newbery, R. (2018). Entrepreneurship and the
sustainable development goals. In Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 1-
7). Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S2040-724620180000008005
Audretsch, D. B., & Beckmann, I. A. M. (2007). From small business to entrepreneurship policy. In
Audretsch, D. B., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship
Policy (pp. 36-53). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.
Autio, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship Support in Europe: Trends and Challenges for EU Policy. Report for EU
DG Growth. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1857.1762
Bosma N., & Kelley, D. (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2018/2019 Global Report. Retrieved from
https://www.c4e.org.cy/reports/2019/Global_GEM_Report_2018_2019.pdf
Bosma, N., Content, J., Sanders, M., & Stam, E. (2018). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth
in Europe. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 483-499. doi:10.1007/s11187-018-0012-x
Boyer, R. (2013). The present crisis. A trump for a renewed political economy. Review of Political Economy,
25(1), 1–38. doi:10.1080/09538259.2013.736262
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition
and Cooperation. Doubleday, New York.
Castaño-Martínez, M.-S., Méndez-Picazo, M.-T., & Galindo-Martín, M.-Á. (2015). Policies to promote
entrepreneurial activity and economic performance. Management Decision, 53(9), 2073-2087.
doi:10.1108/MD-06-2014-0393
Cornia, G. A., Jolly, R., & Stewart, F. (Eds.) (1987). Adjustment with a Human Face. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
10
Dopfer, K. (2011). The origins of meso economics: Schumpeter’s legacy and beyond. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, 22(1), 133–160. doi:10.1007/s00191-011-0218-4
Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3),
263–279. doi:10.1007/s00191-004-0193-0
Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The Entrepreneurial Society: A Reform Strategy for the
European Union. Springer, Berlin.
Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Stenkula, M. (2017). Institutional Reform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship:
An Agenda for Europe. Springer International Publishing, New York.
European Commission (2011). A Policy for Industrial Champions from Picking Winners to Fostering
Excellence and the Growth of Firms. DG Enterprise and Industry. Dictus Publishing, Saarbrücken.
European Commission (2018). 2018 SBA Fact Sheet & Scoreboard. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/32581/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
Fernández-Serrano, J., Berbegal, V., Velasco, F., & Expósito, A. (2018). Efficient entrepreneurial culture: a
cross-country analysis of developed countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 14(1), 105-127. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0440-0
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2013). GEM PORTUGAL 2013| 2004-2013: Uma Década de
Empreendedorismo em Portugal. Retrieved from https://repositorio.iscte-
iul.pt/bitstream/10071/8058/1/GEM%20Portugal%202013_Final.pdf
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems
Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kantis, H., Ishida, M., & Komori, M. (2002). Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: The Creation and
Development of New Firms in Latin America and East Asia. Retrieved from
https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Entrepreneurship-in-Emerging-
Economies-The-Creation-and-Development-of-New-Firms-in-Latin-America-and-East-Asia.pdf
Lazzeretti, L., Sedita, S. R., & Caloffi, A. (2014). Founders and disseminators of cluster research. Journal of
Economic Geography, 14(1), 21–43. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs053
Liargovas, P., Apostolopoulos, N., Pappas, I., & Kakouris, A. (2017). SMEs and green growth: The
effectiveness of support mechanisms and initiatives matters. In Green Economy in the Western
Balkans: Towards a Sustainable Future (pp. 79-108). Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK.
Link, A. N. (2007). Public policy and entrepreneurship. In Audretsch, D. B., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy (pp. 130-139). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,
Northampton, MA, USA.
Lundström, A., & Stevenson, L. (2005). Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practices. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, New York.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2016). Smart specialisation, entrepreneurship and SMEs: issues and
challenges for a results-oriented EU regional policy. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 537-552.
doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9707-z
Mirzanti, I. R., Simatupang, T. M., & Larso, D. (2015). Entrepreneurship policy implementation model in
Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 26(4), 399–415.
doi:10.1504/IJESB.2015.072765
Nelson, R., Dosi, G., Helfat, C., Winter, S., Pyka, A., Saviotti,… Malerba, F. (2018). Modern Evolutionary
Economics: An Overview. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Orléan, A. (2009). De l’Euphorie à la Panique: Penser la Crise Financière. Éd. Rue d’Ulm, Paris.
Pacheco, R. C. S., Manhães, M., & Maldonado, M. U. (2017). Innovation, interdisciplinarity, and creative
destruction. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Second Edition,
Vol. 1, pp. 303–318). Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.25
Pal, L. A. (2005). Case study method and policy analysis. In Geva-May, I. (Ed.), Thinking Like a Policy
Analyst: Policy Analysis as a Clinical Profession (pp. 227-257). Palgrave Macmillan US, New York.
Peneder, M. (2017). Competitiveness and industrial policy: From rationalities of failure towards the ability to
evolve. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), 829-858. doi:10.1093/cje/bew025
Pisani-Ferry, J., Sapir, A., & Wolff, G. B. (2012). The Messy Rebuilding of Europe. Policy Briefs Working
Paper No. 719. Retrieved from https://www.bruegel.org/wp-
content/uploads/imported/publications/pb_2011-06_1_.pdf
11
Schoeller, M. G. (2019). Leadership in the Eurozone: The role of Germany and EU institutions. Springer,
Cham, Switzerland.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Business, New York.
Serpa, S., & Ferreira, C. M. (2019). Micro, meso and macro levels of social analysis. International Journal
of Social Science Studies, 7(3), 120–124. doi:10.11114/ijsss.v7i3.4223
Stubb, A. C.-G. (1996). A categorization of differentiated integration. Journal of Common Market Studies,
34(2), 283–295. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1996.tb00573.x
Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Horizontal, Vertical, and Diagonal Governance.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Virtanen, P., & Uusikylä, P. (2004). Exploring the missing links between cause and effect: A conceptual
framework for understanding micro–macro conversions in programme evaluation. Evaluation, 10(1),
77–91. doi:10.1177/1356389004043136
Vlados, Ch. (2016). The Local Development and Innovation Institutes (ILDIs). In Vlados, C., Strategy of
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Conditions of Crisis: The Stra.Tech.Man Approach (pp.
516-520). Kritiki Publications, Athens. [Chapter published in Greek under the title “Τα Ινστιτούτα
Τοπικής Ανάπτυξης και Καινοτομίας (ΙΤΑΚ), in the book published in Greek under the title
“Στρατηγική Μικρομεσαίων Επιχειρήσεων Σε Συνθήκες Κρίσης: Η Προσέγγιση Stra.Tech.Man”]
Vlados, Ch. (2019a). Notes on the main analytical insufficiencies of the Marxist theoretical tradition for the
comprehension of the contemporary global economy. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 6(3),
132–155. doi:10.1453/jest.v6i3.1942
Vlados, Ch. (2019b). Porter’s diamond approaches and the competitiveness web. International Journal of
Business Administration, 10(5), 33–52. doi:10.5430/ijba.v10n5p33
Vlados, Ch., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2019). Crisis, institutional innovation and change management:
Thoughts from the Greek case. Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 6(1), 58–77.
doi:10.1453/jepe.v6i1.1854
Vlados, Ch., & Katimertzopoulos, F. (2018). Assessing meso and micro-competitiveness boosting policies,
in Stra.Tech.Man terms. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 8(9), 1–15.
doi:10.18533/ijbsr.v8i9.1127
Vlados, Ch., Deniozos, N., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2018). Global crisis, innovation and change management:
Towards a new systemic perception of the current globalization restructuring. International Business
Research, 11(8), 9–29. doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n8p9
Vlados, Ch., 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.
doi:10.5430/rwe.v9n1p15
Warwick, K. (2013). Beyond Industrial Policy: Emerging Issues and New Trends. OECD science,
technology and industry policy papers No. 2. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5k4869clw0xp-en
World Bank (2017). Doing Business 2017: Equal Opportunity for All. Retrieved from
https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB17-
Report.pdf
World Bank (2018). Doing Business 2018: Reforming to Create Jobs. Retrieved from
https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2018-
Full-Report.pdf
World Bank (2019). Doing Business 2019: Training for Reform. Retrieved from
https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2019-
report_web-version.pdf
Zezza, A., & Llambı́, L. (2002). Meso-economic filters along the policy chain: Understanding the links
between policy reforms and rural poverty in Latin America. World Development, 30(11), 1865–
1884. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00113-4
