Origins of Embedded Orthodoxy: International Cooperation and Political Unity in Greece

Abstract

International organisations have considered national unity a necessary prerequisite to maintaining political stability and restoring economic growth in countries facing severe economic crisis. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund promoted such unity in Greece when making stabilisation packages available during the country's sovereign debt crisis in 2011-2012. Focused on the conditions under which diverse political groups can credibly coordinate their economic and political strategies, this article examines domestic and international factors that impact the prospect of political unity in Greece and small European economies. Anchored in the historical institutionalism tradition, it finds that political unity in small European economies has been consolidated during periods of economic growth and when complementary international institutions existed, but has regularly been undermined in countries experiencing the opposite conditions, including Greece. National unity in Greece over the long term requires domestic reforms, but such reforms will not be sustainable without external economic growth and a multilateral architecture that incentivises economic groups to share the benefits and costs of structural reform. Since the latter conditions are not ones that a small country itself can produce, sustained political unity rests as much with the actions of big economies as it does with Greece overcoming the historic legacies of its particular model of capitalism.

Theory of international relations

“…That said, Fioretos (2013), although he does not contest the importance of national unity, cooperation and corporatism as assets for political unity and economic success, suggests that the linkage between vulnerability and social/political unity is not as direct and strong as the Small State literature usually suggests. Using Greek crisis as an example, he shows that even when Greeks faced high levels of vulnerability, broad societal or political cooperation did not emerge, apart from the cases of short-lived caretaker governments.…”

“…Moreover, the end of the Cold War and the EU's enlargement and further integration stimulated the research on Small States and added new states under the lens of the Small State scholars. The recent economic crisis sparked a new interest in the study of Small States (Thorhallsson and Kirby, 2012;Thorhallsson and Kattel, 2013;Jones, 2013;Fioretos, 2013;Verdun, 2013).…”

“…Moreover, Gilpin asserts that "[T]he character of a society is critical to its response to the opportunities gain made possible by favorable environmental changes and shifts in the international distribution of power" (p. 96); and elsewhere he notes that "a society cannot grow in wealth and power unless its social organization is efficient" to add that "[T]he rise and decline of social classes, the shifting coalitions of domestic interest groups, and secular economic-demographic changes, as well as other developments, can lead to far-ranging changes in the objectives of foreign policy and the capacities of states to pursue foreign-policy goals" (p. 97). In my view such approaches are not far from argument concerning the special identity of Scandinavia which permitted Scandinavian states and prominent figures to seize opportunities and change the system through acting as norm entrepreneurs; or her earlier work on the impact on organized economic interests upon the choices of different European small states with regard to membership in the EU (Ingebritsen, 1998); while social organization constitutes a central issue for all those Small State scholars who perceive corporatism and unity as necessary components of Small State success (Katzenstein, 1985;Thorhallsson and Kattel 2013;Fioretos, 2013). Of course, Gilpin refers to Great Powers and their ability to provoke changes in the system.…”

“…Apart from the foreign policy and security areas, Small State scholars have also examined the position of the Smaller Member States in relation to: new Treaties and institutional changes (Larsen, 1993;Zbinden, 1998;Galloway, 2002;Bunse, Nicolaidis and Magnette, 2005;Schure and Verdun, 2008;Bunse, 2009;Ojanen, 2009;Grøn and Wivel, 2011); enlargements, with a particular focus initially on the issue of neutrality and the need for adaptation with regard to Austria, Finland and Sweden (Luif, 1995;Gstöhl, 2002;Ferreira-Perreira, 2006;Ojanen, 2008;Wedin, 2008) and later to the Baltic states, mainly with regard to the ESDP and their relationships with the Nordics and Russia (Archer, 1999;Galbreath, 2006;Lamoreaux, and Galbreath, 2008;Männik, 2002;Miniotaite, 2008;Ozalina, 2008;Pastore, 2013). More recently, the economic crisis and the potential of using the EU as a shelter have also received the attention of Small State scholars (Thorhallsson and Kirby, 2012;Bailes and Thorhallsson, 2013;Verdun, 2013;Jones, 2013;Fioretos, 2013). Looking into how the literature on Small States and the EU has evolved one can identify four underlying assumptions.…”