Firms are important economic agents in regions, and their survival and prosperity in crisis periods is closely related to the evolution and welfare of the regions in which they are located. This ability of firms to respond to and recover from shocks is conceptualised by the notion of firm resilience. This paper studies the determinants of firm resilience in the regions of Eastern Europe during the period 2007–2011 using a novel, dynamic, spatial and broad conceptual framework aspect. The analysis shows through a variety of determinants that firms of Eastern EU countries have greater resilience, while it also highlights that the resilience of firms is defined, firstly, not only by current structural transformations but also by the initial conditions and, secondly, not only by the firms’ characteristics and capabilities but also by the spatial characteristics and irregularities of their broader environment.

The paper studies the role of path-dependence in the resilience of EU regions. Particularly, employing a nonparametric analysis, the paper demonstrates that historical adjustments of EU regions materialized by productivity improvements, primarily in the manufacturing sector and incidentally in the sectors of construction, financial and non-market services, during the period 1995–2008 secured high(er) levels of regional resilience during the economic crisis period 2008–2013. Such a finding provides implications not only for theory but also for policy. Policies aiming at boosting regional productivity and competitiveness, which through a positive regional performance of high growth rates is concealed, a well-structured and robust production restructuring, might affect regional resilience in a way that shields regional economies not only from current imbalances but also from any future downturns.

In this paper we aim to explore the conditioning effect of structural funds (SF) on regional growth in Greece for the period 1994–2006 by detecting if the ability of regions to convert any financial aid into welfare gains is related to certain region-specific characteristics. The analysis shows that, albeit that important financial aid has been channelled to the less-developed regions, the most advanced regions seem to have benefited more from it. Furthermore, we divide the SF into expenditure categories and conclude that the SF have a positive impact on growth only for those regions in which the regions’ endowments are related to the expenditure received. This interaction of the expenditure categories with the characteristics of the recipient region accentuates the role of the ‘identity’ of each region to the impact of SF on regional growth, thereby signifying valuable policy implications.

The paper explores the spatial dynamics in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) countries, in a period of significant transformations in their internal and external economic environment. Regional disparities are reported to be the net outcome of two opposite dynamics: a pro-cyclical pattern, on the one hand, with dynamic and developed regions growing faster in periods of expansion and slower in periods of recession, and a long-term spread effect, on the other, partly offsetting the cumulative impact of growth on space after some critical level of development. In this framework, expanding trade relations with the European Union advanced countries may be an additional source of spatially unbalanced growth and polarization for the ENP countries, as the costs and benefits of integration prove to be unevenly allocated in space. To the extent that growth and integration dynamics tend to polarize the ENP economic space, a set of critical policy questions arise.

Under the deep and protracted recession that plagues the Greek regions, exports have shown some positive signs of resilience. This paper explores through a spatial econometric analysis of SUR models, first, the changes that occurred in exports by the (NUTS 3 level) regions for the period 2008–2012 to offer resistance against the crisis and to stimulate growth, which entail expansion of export demand, improvement in the quality of agricultural products, deeper specialization in broad low‐technology sectors and simultaneous increases in the variety inside these sectors and second, the ability of exports to transfer their growth gains to the broader economy.