Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

How Rational Is the Greek Plan for Opening up Tourism?

Version 1 : Received: 11 June 2020 / Approved: 14 June 2020 / Online: 14 June 2020 (03:00:44 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 18 June 2020 / Approved: 21 June 2020 / Online: 21 June 2020 (16:15:24 CEST)

How to cite: Lazaridis, E.; Clark, E. How Rational Is the Greek Plan for Opening up Tourism?. Preprints 2020, 2020060156. Lazaridis, E.; Clark, E. How Rational Is the Greek Plan for Opening up Tourism?. Preprints 2020, 2020060156.


The issue of when and how to return to business following COVID-19 lockdown is occupying the minds of policymakers, C-Suite executives and managers the world over. We are concerned by the extent to which it appears that these decisions are being taken on a wing and a prayer, while being pitched to the public as though they shouldn’t be questioned. In this paper, we compare the likely impact of COVID-19 infections from travellers coming from the main countries that visit Greece, to the revenues they generate for the Greek economy. We find that arrivals from some countries should be excluded but aren't, while arrivals from other countries that are excluded perhaps shouldn't be. We show that a rational choice around limitations on the reopening of tourist markets depends on the demand for travel to Greece. We conclude that the current policy is largely economically rational, with some exceptions, but also speculate that Greece may not be ready to handle the resulting infection load.


Health economics; Greece; tourism; COVID-19


Business, Economics and Management, Econometrics and Statistics

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 21 June 2020
Commenter: Emmanuel Lazaridis
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: 1. References to SETE were incorrect. These are now corrected as references to INSETE, and the long name of the organisation has been changed accordingly.
2. The reference to the dashed line with a 10 next to it has been corrected ("on the left" to "on the right") on page 6 of version 1.
3. Page numbers have been added because, apparently, they are not inserted by the preprint server.
4. Two additions have been added to the acknowledgements.
5. The discussion of limitations in the Discussion and Conclusions section has been revised based on feedback from readers.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.