APXEION OIKONOMIKH™ I™TOPIA™ TfiÌÔ˜ XπV T‡¯Ô˜ 1 I·ÓÔ˘¿ÚÈÔ˜ - πÔ‡ÓÈÔ˜ 2002 ARCHIVES OF ECONOMIC HISTORY Volume ÃπV No 1 January - June 2002 ¶EPIEXOMENA - CONTENTS L.A. DUHS - IRMA ALONSO : Transitional problems in small Pacific and Caribbean Island States ...................................................................................9 AN. PANAGOPOULOS : A comparative analysis of the development of tourism in Ionian Islands and the rest of Greece (1900-1999)......................39 G. VLACHOS : Kyoto Protocol: Significance, implications and specified policies concerning the merchant marine sectors...............................................55 G. HALKOS - D. SALAMOURIS : Performance assessment of the hellenic banking sector: a non-parametric analysis .........................................................69 F. VOULGARI : Size and financial performance in the Greek manufacturing sector............................................................................................99 G. PAPANIKOLAOU - AP. KIOHOS - EV. THEODORATOS : Strategic alliances: the most popular strategies for enhancing the global competitiveness of firms...................................................................119 D. MAVRIDIS : Performance characteristics of Greek listed corporates on Athens Stock Exchange Market...................................................................137 TH. PAPAELIAS - V. PANAGOU : Theories of the rent of land during the period 1600-1820 ..............................................................................159 G. PAPANIKOLAOU - EV. THEODORATOS : The strategic role of human resource management in international companies ..........................171 P. KYRIAZOPOULOS : Creating an electronic commerce marketing strategy, for small and medium size firms with particularization to industrial firms...........................................................193 ∞¡. ¡∆∞¡√™ - ∫. ¶∞¡∞°πø∆√À : ∆Ô ÂÚ› ÂÛfi‰ˆÓ ‰ËÌÔÛÈÔÓÔÌÈÎfi ÚfiÙ˘Ô ÙÔ˘ •ÂÓÔÊÒÓÙ· ˆ˜ ÌÈ· ·¿ÓÙËÛË ÛÙȘ ·ÈÙÈ¿ÛÂȘ ÁÈ· ÙËÓ ·Ú¯·›· ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋ ÔÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋ ÛΤ„Ë Xenophon’s economic model of revenues as an answer to the criticism of Ancient Greek Economic Thought ...............................................................213 ST. DRAKOPOULOS : Homo Oeconomicus and Homo Politicus in ecological economics .....................................................................................229 ™∆. µ∞ƒµ∞ƒ∂™√™ - ª. ™ø∆∏ƒπ∞¢∏™ : £ÂÛÌÔıÂÙËÌÂÓ· fiÚÁ·Ó· ÙÔ˘ÚÈÛÙÈ΋˜ ‰ÈÔ›ÎËÛ˘ Î·È ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜: ™˘ÁÎÚÈÙÈ΋ ÌÂϤÙË °·ÏÏ›·˜-∂ÏÏ¿‰·˜ Tourism policy and administrative structures: Comparative study between France and Greece...............................................................................249 ∫∞§. ∆∑√À∞¡∞∫∏ - °. Ã∂π§∞™ - °. £∞¡√™ : ∫ÚÈÙÈ΋ ÚÔÛ¤ÁÁÈÛË Ù˘ ·Ó·Ù˘Íȷ΋˜ ‰È¿ÛÙ·Û˘ ÙÔ˘ ÊfiÚÔ˘ ÂÈÛÔ‰‹Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÓÔÌÈÎÒÓ ÚÔÛÒˆÓ Ì¤Û· ·fi ‰‡Ô ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈο ÓÔÌÔıÂÙ‹Ì·Ù· Ù˘ ÂÏÏËÓÈ΋˜ ÔÏÈÙÈ΋˜ ÂÂÓ‰˘ÙÈÎÒÓ ÎÈÓ‹ÙÚˆÓ (¡fiÌÔÈ 1262/82 Î·È 1892/90) A Critical Approach to the Development Dimension of Legal Entities’ Income Tax Through Two Important Law of the Greek Investment Incentives Policy (Laws 1262/1982 and 1892/1990) ........................................277 ∫. ∆ƒ∞Ã∞¡∞™ : ∏ Û˘ÓÂÚÁ·Û›· Î·È Ë ·Ó¿ÏË„Ë ÙÔ˘ management Ù˘ ∂Ï·˝˜ ·fi ÙËÓ Unilever The cooperation and the undertaking of Elais management by Unilever..........................................................................................................307 OBITUARY .............................................................................................................343 µπµ§π√∫ƒπ™π∞π - BOOK REVIEWS..................................................................347 §∏º£∂¡∆∞ µπµ§π∞, ¶∂ƒπ√¢π∫∞ ∫∞π ∞ƒ£ƒ∞ BOOKS, MAGAZINES AND ARTICLES RECEIVED......................................349 A£HNAI - ATHENS, 2002 3 M¤ÏË ™˘Ì‚Ô˘Ï¢ÙÈ΋˜ EÈÙÚÔ‹˜ - Associate Editors ñ Anna Pellanda ( Italy) ñ A.R. Leen (Netherlands) ñ A. Montesano (Italy) ñ F. Condis y Troiano (Belgium) ñ G. Viaggi (Italy) ñ Thierry Levy (France) ñ P. Barucci (Italy) ñ B. Yamey (England) ñ R. Coppi (Italy) ñ Sheila Dow (England) ñ A. Rugina (USA) ñ B. Pettman (England) ñ J. Tarascio (USA) ñ E. Fullbrook (England) ñ Ingrid Rima (USA) ñ I. Cristescu (Romania) ñ K. Thanawala (USA) ñ R. Petridis (Australia) ñ E. Ortiz (Mexico) ñ T. Riha (Australia) ñ O. Popescu (Argentina) ñ P.J. Gandhi (India) ñ H. Jenkis (Germany) ñ P. Gemtos (Greece) ñ U. Witt (Germany) ñ P. Kiochos (Greece) TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS IN SMALL PACIFIC AND CARIBBEAN ISLAND STATES L.A. DUHS IRMA ALONSO University of Queensland Florida International University 1. Introduction Common characteristics of small states include isolation, openness, vulnerability (both to natural disasters and to fluctuations in world markets), undiversified economies, poverty, and limited capacity. On the Commonwealth vulnerability index 26 of the 28 most vulnerable countries are small States –including six of the Pacific islands (Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu). Small states tend to be at a disadvantage in accessing foreign capital, and incur risk premia even when they implement sound policies. Significant differences nonetheless exist between and within groups of small island states. In the Pacific, for example, some are coral atolls (Kiribati, Tuvalu) while others have volcanic soils (Samoa). One thing the Pacific States have in common is poor economic performance. Over the last three decades their economic performance has been poor in absolute terms, as well as relative to island nations in the Caribbean and Africa. Several face problems of falling per capita incomes and consequent increases in social pressures (Chand, 1999). For the 1992-95 period, five Pacific Island countries recorded negative growth in per capita terms, while the rest –with the exception of Samoa and Fiji– recorded growth rates in 10 L. A. Duhs - Irma Alonso per capita GDP of less than 1 percent. In the years since 1995 political turmoil has furhter compounded problems in Fiji, the Solomon Islands and PNG. Many of the relevant indicators are at sub-Saharan African levels. The Caribbean case is different. The 13 small island States of the Caribbean have a significant head start over the 11 Pacific Island States in three respects: GDP per capita, HDI, and locational advantage given that they are in the geo-political backyard of the USA. With the exception of Haiti, the Caribbean countries may be classified as a well developing region with a GDP per capita of approximately $8,200, a literacy rate of 90 percent, and life expectancy over 73 years. In human development terms the achievements of these countries place 12 of them in the high and medium levels of human development (HDI), leaving Haiti as the only one with a low level of human development. These economies nonetheless need to pay attention to the changing macroeconomic structure, which has seen agriculture decline and the services sector become the main economic activity. Indeed many of the Caribbean states have experienced precipitate declines in their terms of trade in the last two decades and are themselves searching for alternatives to their reliance on traditional primary exports (Bardouille 2001). Accordingly, both groups of countries presently face significant transitional problems in the context of globalisation, altered trade and Aid arrangements, and the loss of reliance on traditional commodity exports. The Commonwealth Secretariat/World Band Joint Taskforce on Small States in fact concludes that “most small developing States face a risk of increased economic marginalisation in the context of trade liberalisation and globalisation.” (Taskforce 2000: 80). The Taskforce adds however that historically “On balance, there is no statistically significant difference in per capita incomes and in economic growth rates between large and small States, indicating that other factors have offset the inherent disadvantages of small States’ remoteness, small domestic markets, and public sector dominance of their economies” (Taskforce: 6). In this context a useful question to ask is how well does the Washington Consensus fit the circumstances of these states? Whereas the Washington Consensus emphasizes open markets, rapid privatization, stringent fiscal and monetary policy, extensive borrowing from foreign lenders, and a minimal role for the State in economic matters, Stiglitz and others criticise Aگ›ÔÓ OÈÎÔÓÔÌÈ΋˜ IÛÙÔÚ›·˜ / Archives of Economic History, XIV/1/2002 11 the “one size fits all” aspect of this Consensus for a failure to tailor policy reform to individual circumstance. While small states cannot divorce themselves from a changing world economy, they do have istitutional idiosyncrasies in many cases which make it unlikely that a “one size fits all” approach will be sufficient for them. Indeed Chand (1999) contends that the fact that several of the Pacific Island countries embarked on comprehensive public sector reforms in the recent past puts to the test the ‘Washington consensus’ on the role of the private sector in growth. To that extent, the much publicised coups in Fiji and in the Solomon Islands in 2000 provide a disappointing result for advocates of the “rationalist” approach of the Consensus, more especially since both these economies were apparently recovering well at the time political dissension derailed their economic policies and future prospects. In short, in contradistinction to orthodox theory and the Washington Consensus, institutionalists argue that at initial stages of transformation it is more important to first get the institutions or processes right than to get the prices