Costis Hadjimichalis

I have known Ray Hudson since 1980 and we have kept regular academic contact, going to conferences together, undertaking joint research and publishing, plus family visits and vacations in Athens, Thessaloniki, Copenhagen, Naxos, Syros, Mytilene and Durham. A fruitful friendship and scientific collaboration started at this period and extended in different directions based on our common belief that Marxist political economy is the best entry point to study economic and political geography and to analyze the complicated relationships between policies, institutions and local societies.

The exploitation of land, but also of natural elements linked to it―such as water, forests, landscape, the subsurface and biodiversity―nowadays comprise investment targets for local and international speculative capital at some unprecedented extent, intensity and geographical spread. From 2009 on, Greece became a target country due to the current crisis which has decisively contributed to the de-valorisation/depreciation of the exchange-value of land, decreasing monetary values by 15–30%―depending on the area―when compared to 2005 prices. The special legal status imposed by the Troika as of 2010, forms a lucrative environment for speculators–investors, dramatically altering the legal, constitutional order and imposing something of a semi-protectorate status upon the country. This short paper explains how the crisis in Greece made public land via privatisations a major target for dispossession by global and local capital.

Hadjimichalis C. and Hudson R. Contemporary crisis across Europe and the crisis of regional development theories, Regional Studies. This paper explores the prima facie puzzling issue of why so much contemporary theory in economic geography and regional planning – specifically New Economic Geography (NEG) and New Regionalism (NR) – has so little to say about the causes of the current post-2007 crisis and its geography globally and in Europe. It is argued here that this reflects its obsession with the regional ‘success stories’ of the 1970s and 1980s, its failure to appreciate the onset of crisis and the reasons for it in these regions in the 1990s, and its failure to appreciate the nature of capitalism as a crisis prone social system of combined and uneven development. Thus, the current economic crisis pushed dominant regional development theories into a homologous deep theoretical crisis. It is concluded that the time is ripe for a paradigm shift in theory and that this should involve a reconsideration of earlier theoretical approaches that fell out of fashion for a variety of intellectual and political reasons and of current radical social movements.

The paper discusses certain issues of regional development theory in combination with long-forgotten conditions of uneven geographical development in the context of the current financial and debt crisis in the eurozone. The dominant explanations of the crisis are mainly macroeconomic and financial but this paper argues for its geographical components/foundations. After a short descriptive comment about the current debt crisis in the eurozone and particularly in Southern Europe as part of the wider global crisis of over-accumulation, an alternative interpretation is provided based on uneven geographical/regional development among Euro-regions, especially since the introduction of the euro. The paper also discusses the shift towards what we may call the neoliberal urban and regional development discourse, which is responsible for a de-politicized shift in regional theory and hence downplaying or simply overlooking questions of socio-spatial justice. The discussion about justice and solidarity goes beyond the controversial rescue plan introduced by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, which was supposedly designed to help one of the so-called – in a typical colonial way – PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain), namely Greece.

In the current debate on local and regional development and after several ‘turns’, dominant critical models have found some security in institutional, cultural and evolutionary approaches. Interest today centres on success and competitiveness and how they are reproduced in a few paradigmatic regions. A distinctive feature of these regions and places is the embeddedness of certain non‐economic factors such as social capital, trust and reciprocity based on familiarity, face‐to‐face exchange, cooperation, embedded routines, habits and norms, local conventions of communication and interaction, all of which contribute to a region’s particular success. Although these approaches may not deny the forces of the capitalist space economy, they do not explicitly acknowledge them or take them on board and so they tend to discuss non‐economic factors and institutions as autonomous forces shaping development. This essay provides a critique of these concepts based on their (1) inadequate theorization, (2) depoliticized view of politics and de‐economized use of economics and (3) reduction of space to territory. The essay concludes that we need a far more penetrating renewal of radical critique of the current space economy of capitalism. Old concepts such as uneven development, the social and spatial division of labour, the geographical transfer of value, accumulation and imperialism must be combined with cultural and institutional issues, with those non‐economic factors mentioned above.

The project of European integration has been profoundly affected, in adverse ways, by the interventions in Kosovo.