Startups do not operate in a void and institutions in their direct environment impact them. This working paper is a first in depth field research of a single accelerator in Greece, a country that is relatively lacking in international rankings for innovation and competitiveness. We chose to focus on MIT Enterprise Forum Greece (MITEF Greece, 2015-2022), the only accelerator in the country to be linked to an international university. We used a mixed qualitative and descriptive statistics methodology. Our main findings are that its accelerated startups and their founders stood out in the startup ecosystem in the following ways: founders were a mosaic of local and Diaspora Greeks as well as non-Greeks, startups had a global reach, with a presence in 20 countries and an impressive share in deep tech processes and sectors, thus enhancing substantially the geoeconomic reach of the Greek startup community. Indicatively among the top sectors medicine- life sciences, environment-energy, and technical solutions-robotics stood out from the beginning although this sectoral composition was not usual among startups in the Greek ecosystem especially before 2019. In a nutshell, MITEF Greece accelerated startuppers stood at the cutting edge of the nexus of innovation and internationalization in the Greek startup ecosystem.
How was this made possible? We put forward the hypothesis that this outcome was attained as a result of the following multiple factors: the dedication; high expertise; open mindset; heritage of a culture of trust, reciprocity and strong sense of community (“μαζί”) of the Greek MIT graduates (local, brain drain and Diaspora), who were running MITEF Greece; the careful selection process of startups accepted in acceleration programs; the ample business and technological know-how resources available to MITEF Greece by the vast global MIT entrepreneurship community and its enthusiastic pool of Diaspora Greeks in the USA who were involved in the accelerator and its offspring The Hellenic Innovation Network.
Although the case of MITEF Greece cannot be exactly replicated, we believe that it offers useful insights for minimizing the disintegration and lack of communication between support organizations and policies for the startup ecosystem. It is an extraordinary example of actively enhancing internationalization of innovation through commercialization of research results, an important GIFT for Greece at a time of rising deglobalization and global economic fragmentation. This is the ultimate lesson derived from this case study.
Read here in pdf the study by Ioanna Sapfo Pepelasis, Professor Emerita, Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB);
Senior Research Fellow at ELIAMEP; Jenny Vidali, MA, College of Europe; Athanasios Kolokythas, PhD student, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE). Research assistance was provided by: Tigran Ghalümyan,Grant Thornton and George Themelis, Senior year undergraduate student, Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB).
Click here to view a visual representation of the main findings, presented through tables and infographics.
The global development architecture is under the spotlight. This refers to the broad architecture of actors, norms, instruments and institutions that mobilise and coordinate resources, knowledge and political support for development goals. Within this system, Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a core financial instrument, primarily provided by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) DAC (Development Assistance Committee) members. It functions alongside other modalities such as South–South cooperation, climate finance, philanthropic aid and private-sector engagement.
The global development architecture is under the spotlight. This refers to the broad architecture of actors, norms, instruments and institutions that mobilise and coordinate resources, knowledge and political support for development goals. Within this system, Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a core financial instrument, primarily provided by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) DAC (Development Assistance Committee) members. It functions alongside other modalities such as South–South cooperation, climate finance, philanthropic aid and private-sector engagement.
The global development architecture is under the spotlight. This refers to the broad architecture of actors, norms, instruments and institutions that mobilise and coordinate resources, knowledge and political support for development goals. Within this system, Official Development Assistance (ODA) is a core financial instrument, primarily provided by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) DAC (Development Assistance Committee) members. It functions alongside other modalities such as South–South cooperation, climate finance, philanthropic aid and private-sector engagement.
We argue that following the rise of new partners such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kenya’s problem is no longer access to finance, but rather the governance of finance. In other words, the question is not simply how much money the country can borrow or from whom, but whether its institutions are capable of turning loans into productive investments rather than patronage networks. As the debt burden mounts, Kenya’s ability to prevent growing options for economic partnerships from undermining domestic accountability will determine whether its infrastructure boom becomes a foundation for long-term development or a monument to short-term political ambition.
We argue that following the rise of new partners such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kenya’s problem is no longer access to finance, but rather the governance of finance. In other words, the question is not simply how much money the country can borrow or from whom, but whether its institutions are capable of turning loans into productive investments rather than patronage networks. As the debt burden mounts, Kenya’s ability to prevent growing options for economic partnerships from undermining domestic accountability will determine whether its infrastructure boom becomes a foundation for long-term development or a monument to short-term political ambition.
We argue that following the rise of new partners such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kenya’s problem is no longer access to finance, but rather the governance of finance. In other words, the question is not simply how much money the country can borrow or from whom, but whether its institutions are capable of turning loans into productive investments rather than patronage networks. As the debt burden mounts, Kenya’s ability to prevent growing options for economic partnerships from undermining domestic accountability will determine whether its infrastructure boom becomes a foundation for long-term development or a monument to short-term political ambition.
This research explores how epistemological dissonance shapes agrarian sustainabilities in Mbeya, Tanzania. Through a case study of smallholder farmers navigating both market-driven and eco-cultural paradigms of sustainability, the research explores how plural epistemologies shape local sensemaking and agricultural decision-making. It demonstrates how farmers reconcile divergent sustainability logics, those rooted in market interpretations of sustainability with those rooted in relational ethics, ecological stewardship, and cultural continuity within agrarian landscapes. Employing hybrid strategies, farmers compartmentalize production, input intensive, market-targeting monocultures co-exist alongside primarily subsistence agroecological systems. These spatial divisions mirror deeper ontological tensions, as farmers articulate pride in market breakthroughs while expressing anxiety about environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and the loss of intergenerational practices. Building on plural sustainabilities literature and epistemologies of the South theories, the paper adds to scholarship reinterpreting sustainability not as a universal, singular paradigm, but a contested, contextually negotiated process. The case of Mbeya illustrates how epistemological dissonance becomes embodied through emotional and cognitive labor, and how hybrid sensemaking enables farmers to navigate conflicting knowledge systems. Rather than viewing hybridity as incoherence, the paper interprets these strategies as acts of situated resilience, adaptation, and resistance. The analysis contributes to political ecology and sustainability studies by foregrounding the ontological multiplicity at play in agrarian transitions and calls for institutional recognition of knowledge pluralism. Ultimately, the paper proposes a shift toward pluriversal sustainability frameworks that integrate both empirical and relational epistemologies, acknowledging that sustainable futures are as much about values and worldviews as they are about technologies and yields.