Development policies and partnerships in Greece: experiences from Thessaloniki
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-07-2013-0027 |
| Published date | 17 August 2015 |
| Pages | 209-233 |
| Date | 17 August 2015 |
| Author | Theodore Metaxas,Marie Noelle Duquenne |
| Subject Matter | Strategy,Entrepreneurship,Business climate/policy |
Development policies and
partnerships in Greece:
experiences from Thessaloniki
Theodore Metaxas
Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, and
Marie Noelle Duquenne
Department of Planning and Regional Development,
University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the importance of specific local development
policies and partnerships for SME enterprises in Thessaloniki one of the metropolis of south Europe.
The two main research questions are: first, what are the most important development policies for firms’
development? and second, in what level these policies receive different significance from firms
belonging in different production sectors?
Design/methodology/approach –In order to achieve the aims of the paper and answer the research
questions, the study uses an extensive use of bibliography, and field research that has been
implemented by administering questionnaires on a representative sample of 227 enterprises. The study
comes up to valuable conclusions for the firms and the city through the use of exploratory factor
analysis, reliability analysis and clustering.
Findings –The present research brings on important issues and questions about local economic
development because it presents directly the estimations and views of a large number of local
enterprises that reflect the image of local economy. Finally, this research gives a satisfactory overview
of the inner growth of Thessaloniki and further the results could lead to an evaluation, planning,
implementation, rejection or reconstruction of specific actions and policies locally.
Research limitations/implications –The analysis is constrained by weakness since the sample
of enterprises is rather small and the results concern only the enterprises located in Thessaloniki.
Based on this fact, general conclusions can be drawed for other regions as well as for the whole Greece.
This is subjected to more analysis.
Practical implications –The added value of this research is essential since there are only few
similar researches in South-East Europe and in Greece. Especially, the relationship between local
development policies and firms’development competitiveness has not been studied enough in the area
under consideration.
Social implications –Enterprises understand and designate the importance of specific policies
that affect their development while at the same time through their evaluations they outline the
character and dynamics of these policies in a unique dynamic, geographical and productive city like
this of Thessaloniki.
Originality/value –The analysis showed that enterprises recognize as positive factor the effort of
the local authorities to set the area as a business pole in favour of enterprises and the broader area
but policy problems of organization and planning arise that concern mainly the operation and support
of local enterprises and specific those from the tourist and service sector. This image raises issues
of competence on planning and organization of development polices by the local authorities focusing
on specific productive sectors so as the effect of these policies to be effective with positive results
for enterprises.
Keywords Greece, Empirical research, Cluster analysis, EFA, Local development policies,
Local enterprises, Thessaloniki
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Public Policy
Vol. 4 No. 2, 2015
pp. 209-233
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
2045-2101
DOI 10.1108/JEPP-07-2013-0027
Received 8 July 2013
Revised 17 January 2014
4 March 2014
Accepted 17 March 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2045-2101.htm
JEL Classification —R38, R50, R58, R59
209
Policies and
partnerships
in Greece
1. Introduction
The entrepreneurial orientation of local authorities is considered to be ofhigh importance
for the materialization of local development policies (van den Berg and Braun, 1999;
Leeming, 2002; Turner and Martin, 2005; Cartwright, 1997; Metaxas, 2011), especially with
regards to the planning and implementation of local initiatives, promotion strategies and
the city’s international image (Peck and Tickell, 1995; Hubbard, 1995; Strange, 1997;
McCarthy, 1998; Neill, 2001; Peel and Lloyd, 2005; Crossa, 2009). Moreover, a number of
recent studies stress the significance of organizing capacity as an important factor on
local development process (Kresl, 1995; Kresl and Singh, 1999; Polidano, 2000; van den
Berg et al., 1997). Cheshire and Magrini (1999, 2001) and Cheshire et al. (2000), also examine
the role of local policies and their influence on region development and conclude that the
ability of effective development policies on a local level is not a random procedure. It is
rather, related to a number of factors the most common of which is the structure of the
local authority –or the administrative ability.
Following Meyer-Stamer (2004), the public sector supports firms’development.
Sustaining the firms’operation, it offers supporting services to them, especially on
fields that demand collective action such as education and training; it supp orts
employment projects development and provides motives for new firms establishment
and investments (i.e. Campbell, 1990; McBride, 1993; Kmetz, 2000; Bateman, 2000;
Canzanelli, 2010, 2011). Finally, a number of older and more recent studies, award the
significance of the development of partnerships between the public and private sector
(Sellgren, 1990; Smallbone, 1991; Dicken et al., 1994; Dekker and van Kempen, 2004).
More particularly, Bennett and Krebs (1991, p. 22) support that the base of the planning
and implementation of economic development actions on a local level is “partnership”
which is an intermediate level between actions which are developed by firms
individually and actions which take place under the auspices of local self-government,
as well as actions on a higher governmental level.
The most important issue is the ability of local authorities to plan and implement
development policies with the local and regional community so that the development
procedure is guaranteed and controlled. This research raises the importance of specific
development policies in a metropolitan city of South Europe and Greece, Thessaloniki.
The added value of this work is noteworthy due to the fact that there is a lack of similar
studies on a local level in this unique region, the second economic pole of the country
which occupies a central place in the relations of Greece with the Balkan countries.
The main conclusions of the present work highlight that beyond the necessity to
implement specific development policies, it is first of all essential to resolve the existing
deficiencies as regards both their design and the organization capacity of local actors.
Owing to the fact that Thessaloniki is an important and dynamic city of Greece and
that the sample of firms in the present survey is a representative one, we can consider
that our findings are well reflecting the common and clear attitude of the Greek
firms as a whole. Another contribution of this work has to do with the fact that
the results are exclusively derived from primary data concerning the evaluation of the
relationship –EU development and cooperation –by the firms themselves and their
perception concerning the importance and effectiveness of such policies. This is a
particularly important area of research with limited existing relevant empirical study,
especially in Greece. Nevertheless, similar studies are those of Javier Santos-Cumplido
and Linan (2007) on enterprises and business men of Seville in Spain and of
Metaxas and Kallioras (2007) on enterprises of the urban dipole Larisa-Volos and
on enterprises of other cities in Balkans (Tirana, Sofia, Thessaloniki) (RIMED, 2005).
210
JEPP
4,2
To continue reading
Request your trial