¹ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memorandum of the Greek Government on the Enlargement of the European Union,Google Scholar reprinted in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece in the European Union – Texts, Second Semester 1994, Athens, Livanis–Nea Synora, 1994 (in Greek).Google Scholar

² The Helsinki package deal comprised three components: first, an explicit EU commitment on the accession of Cyprus to the EU even without prior settlement of the island's inter-communal conflict; second, an undertaking to address the International Court of Justice within a reasonable timeframe for the settlement of the bilateral seabed dispute; and third, a concrete ‘roadmap’ for the Turkish accession to the EU.Google Scholar

³ See, for example, Rynhold, Jonathan, ‘Cultural Shift and Foreign Policy Change: Israel and the Making of the Oslo Accords’, Cooperation and Conflict, 42: 4 (2007), pp. 419–440;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Walsh, James, ‘Policy Failure and Policy Change: British Security Policy After the Cold War’, Comparative Political Studies, 39: 4 (2006), pp. 490–518;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gustavsson, Jakob, ‘How Should we Study Foreign Policy Change?’, Cooperation and Conflict, 34: 1 (1999), pp. 73–95;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Checkel, Jeffrey, Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior and the End of the Cold War, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1997;Google Scholar Checkel, Jeffrey, ‘Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy Revolution’, World Politics, 45: 2 (1993), pp. 271–300;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Rosati, Jerel, Hagan, Joe and Sampson, Martin (eds), Foreign Policy Restructuring. How Governments Respond to Global Change, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1994;Google Scholar Skidmore, David, ‘Carter and the Failure of Foreign Policy Reform’, Political Science Quarterly, 108: 4 (1994), pp. 699–729;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Carlsnaes, Walter, ‘On Analyzing the Dynamics of Foreign Policy Change: A Critique and Reconceptualization’, Cooperation and Conflict, 28: 1 (1993), pp. 5–30;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hermann, Charles, ‘Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 34: 1 (1990), pp. 3–21;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Goldmann, Kjell, Change and Stability in Foreign Policy: The Problems and Possibilities of Détente, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edn, New York, Longman, 1995.Google Scholar

⁵ Like the ‘two-level games’ metaphor put forward by. Putnam; see Putnam, Robert, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games’, International Organization, 42: 3 (1988), pp. 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Tsakonas, Panagiotis, The Incomplete Breakthrough in Greek–Turkish Relations: Grasping Greece's Socialization Strategy, London, Palgrave, 2010, pp. 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Although the concept of political entrepreneurship is more widely associated with the analysis of political actors outside the top executive nexus, Adam Sheingate, for example, applies the concept to the role of the US president in bringing about institutional change in the American political system. See Sheingate, Adam, ‘Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development’, Studies in American Political Development, 17: 2 (2003), pp. 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Mintrom, Michael, ‘Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation’, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 3 (1997), pp. 738–770;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mintrom, Michael and Vergari, Sandra, ‘Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change’, Policy Studies Journal, 24: 3 (1996), pp. 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ According to Joseph Schumpeter, economic entrepreneurs are the agents of change in the economy, reforming or revolutionizing existing patterns of production. See Schumpeter, Joseph, The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press (1934), 1980. Amplifying this perspective, the economic entrepreneur may not necessarily cause change but may take advantage of and respond to the opportunities that change may offer (in technology, social norms, consumption behaviour, etc.).Google Scholar See Drucker, Peter, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York, HarperCollins, 1985.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Kingdon, , Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

¹¹ Schneider, Mark and Teske, Paul, ‘Toward a Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government’, American Political Science Review, 86: 3 (1992), pp. 739–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² See, for example, Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1961, p. 6.Google Scholar

¹³ Miroff, Bruce, ‘Entrepreneurship and Leadership’, Studies in American Political Development, 17 (Fall 2003), pp. 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Dahl, , Who Governs? Google Scholar Sheingate, , ‘Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development’, p. 187.Google Scholar Other forms may comprise problem-solving leadership, positional leadership and directional leadership: Malnes, Raino, ‘ “Leader” and “Entrepreneur” in International Negotiations: A Conceptual Analysis’, European Journal of International Relations, 1: 1 (1995), pp. 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Underdal, Arild, ‘Leadership Theory: Rediscovering the Arts of Management’, in Zartman, William (ed.), International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 178–179.Google Scholar

¹⁶ According to its critics, this is one of the most significant limitations of political entrepreneurship identified in the relevant literature; see Miroff, , ‘Entrepreneurship and Leadership’, p. 204.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Teske, Paul and Schneider, Mark, ‘The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: The Case of City Managers’, Public Administration Review, 54: 4 (1994), pp. 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Sheingate, , ‘Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development’, pp. 198–199.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Schneider, and Teske, , ‘Toward a Theory of the Political Entrepreneur’, pp. 739–741.Google Scholar

²⁰ Byman, Daniel and Pollack, Kenneth, ‘Let us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In’, International Security, 25: 4 (2001), pp. 107–146;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hermann, Margaret, Preston, Thomas, Korany, Baghat and Shaw, Timothy, ‘Who Leads Matters: The Effect of Powerful Individuals’, International Studies Review, 3: 2 (2001), pp. 83–132;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Malnes, , ‘ “Leader” and “Entrepreneur” in International Negotiations’, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar

²¹ Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining’, in Evans, Peter, Jacobson, Harold and Putnam, Robert (eds), Double-edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993, p. 30;Google Scholar Hermann, Margaret, ‘Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders’, International Studies Quarterly, 24: 1 (1980), pp. 7–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Hagan, Joe, ‘Does Decision-Making Matter? Systemic Assumptions vs. Historical Reality in International Relations Theory’, International Studies Review, 3: 2 (2001), pp. 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Hermann, Margaret, ‘How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework’, International Studies Review, 3: 2 (2001), pp. 47–48, 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Welch, David, Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

²⁵ Boin, Arjen, t'Hart, Paul, Stern, Eric and Sundelius, Bengt, The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Keeler, John, ‘Opening the Window of Reform: Mandates, Crises, and Extraordinary Policy-making’, Comparative Political Studies, 25: 4 (1993), pp. 433–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Meydani, Assaf, Political Transformations and Political Entrepreneurs: Israel in Comparative Perspective, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Legro, Jeffrey, Great Power Strategies and International Order, Ithaca, NY, and London, Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

²⁸ Walsh, , ‘Policy Failure and Policy Change’, p. 491.Google Scholar

²⁹ Kavakas, Dimitrios, ‘Greece’, in Manners, Ian and Whitman, Richard (eds), The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000, pp. 150–151.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ioakimidis, Panagiotis, ‘The Model of Foreign Policy-making in Greece: Personalities Versus Institutions’, in Stavridis, Stelios, Couloumbis, Theodore, Veremis, Thanos and Waites, Neville (eds), The Foreign Policies of the EU's Mediterranean and Applicant Countries in the 1990s, London, Macmillan, 1999, p. 156.Google Scholar

³¹ Diamandouros, Nikiforos, ‘Greek Politics and Society in the 1990s’, in Allison, Graham and Nicolaïdis, Kalypso (eds), The Greek Paradox: Promise vs. Performance, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1997, p. 32.Google Scholar

³² Lyrintzis, Christos, ‘The Changing Party System: Stable Democracy, Contested Democratization’, West European Politics, 28: 2 (2005), p. 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Simitis, Costas, The Policy of Economic Stabilization, Athens, Gnossi, 1989; andGoogle Scholar Simitis, Costas, Growth and Modernization of the Greek Society, Athens, Gnossi, 1990 (both in Greek).Google Scholar

³⁴ Mitsos, Achilleas, ‘Maximising Contribution to the European Integration Process as a Prerequisite for the Maximisation of Gains’, in Mitsos, Achilleas and Mossialos, Elias (eds), Contemporary Greece and Europe, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000, p. 81.Google Scholar

³⁵ Moschonas, Gerasimos, ‘The Path of Modernization, PASOK and European Integration’, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 3: 1 (2001), p. 14.Google Scholar

³⁶ Featherstone, Kevin, ‘Greece and EMU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41: 5 (2003), pp. 923–927;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Featherstone, Kevin, ‘Europeanization and the Centre Periphery: The Case of Greece in the 1990s’, South European Society and Politics, 3: 1 (1998), pp. 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Quoted in Panagiotis Ioakimidis, ‘The Europeanization of Greece's Foreign Policy: Progress and Problems’, in Mitsos, and Mossialos, , Contemporary Greece and Europe, pp. 365–366.Google Scholar

³⁸ Economides, Spyros, ‘The Europeanisation of Greek Foreign Policy’, West European Politics, special issue on ‘The Challenge of Modernization: Politics and Policy in Greece’, 28: 2 (2005), pp. 481–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Melakopides, Costas, ‘On the Mediterranean “Fuzzy Edge” of the EU: The Candidacies of Malta, Cyprus and Turkey’, Journal of European Integration, 22: 3 (2000), pp. 299–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Rumelili, Bahar, ‘Liminality and Perpetuation of Conflicts: Turkish–Greek Relations in the Context of Community-Building by the EU’, European Journal of International Relations, 9: 2 (2003), pp. 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Interview with the then political adviser to Papandreou, G. A., February 2011.Google Scholar

⁴² Papandreou, George, ‘Speech at the 54th UN General Assembly’, 22 September 1999, available at: http://www.papandreou.gr/papandreou/content/Document.aspx?d=6&rd=7739474&f=1359&rf=1307755822&m=3090&rm=22066463&l=1.Google Scholar

⁴³ ‘Greece has any reason to open up the European perspective [of Turkey] … Turkey will confront not the obstacles that Greece will raise but the obligation to conform to European standards … [I am] in favour of the Turkish European vocation because this is to the benefit of the national interest’, Papandreou, George, interview in Vima, 5 September 1999.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Simitis, Costas, Politics for a Creative Greece, 1996–2004, Athens, Polis, 2005, pp. 72–99 (in Greek).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Heraclides, Alexis, The Greek–Turkish Conflict in the Aegean: Imagined Enemies, Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, pp. 144–151;Google Scholar Tsakonas, , The Incomplete Breakthrough in Greek–Turkish Relations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Prodromou, Elizabeth, ‘The Perception Paradox of Post-Cold War Security in Greece’, in Allison, and Nicolaïdis, , The Greek Paradox, p. 129.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Schimmelfennig, Frank, Egert, Stefan and Knobel, Heiko, ‘Costs, Commitment and Compliance: The Impact of EU Democratic Conditionality on Latvia, Slovakia and Turkey’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41: 3 (2003), pp. 495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Kranidiotis, Yannos and Kokkonis, Nikos, The Prospects for Cyprus's Accession to the European Community, Athens, EKEM, 1990 (in Greek).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this valuable comment.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For example, Ioakimidis, ‘The Europeanization of Greece's Foreign Policy’. For a more nuanced approach, see Tsardanidis, Charalambos and Stavridis, Stelios, ‘The Europeanization of Greek Foreign Policy: A Critical Appraisal’, Journal of European Integration, 27: 2 (2005), pp. 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Moumoutzis, Kyriakos, ‘Still Fashionable Yet Useless? Addressing Problems with Research on the Europeanization of Foreign Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 49: 3 (2011), pp. 615–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Tsakonas, , The Incomplete Breakthrough in Greek–Turkish Relations, pp. 65–72.Google Scholar

⁵³ Simitis, Costas, ‘Address to the Hellenic Parliament’, Parliamentary Minutes, May 1996, p. 5963.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Simitis, Costas, Politics for a Creative Greece, 1996–2004. Athens, Polis, 2005, pp. 168–172.Google Scholar