Reviewed by: Geopolitical and Economic Changes in Balkan Countries Nikolaos Zahariadis Nicholas V. Gianaris, Geopolitical and Economic Changes in Balkan Countries. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger. 1996. Pp. xii + 227. $65.00. The purpose of the book is to introduce ten Balkan countries to the reader and to identify areas and trends of closer cooperation among them. The countries include Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Romania, and all the states that were once the constituent republics of Yugoslavia. However, the author fails to accomplish his goals despite the book’s wealth of detail. To be sure, writing a book on the Balkans is not an easy task. There is just too much diversity and too much history packed into this small area. So it is best to approach the subject from a regional perspective as opposed to a strictly national one. In this way, an author can gloss over some details but capture the more interesting commonalities that bind the countries together into a single region. Indeed, this is what Professor Gianaris suggests as the main impetus behind writing this monograph (10). Yet the bulk of the book—roughly 110 pages—is unfortunately devoted to studies of individual countries. If other books on individual countries cover this material well, as they do by the author’s admission, what is the point of reiterating the same details? A better alternative would have been to identify the main problems that currently divide the countries under scrutiny, to analyze the origin and implications of these problems in individual comparative chapters, and to conclude by constructing a framework designed to overcome the problems and to lead toward greater cooperation. Such approaches do appear in the book to some degree, but they are far too dispersed and hidden. The unfortunate result is that the book’s value is considerably diluted. The main problem is that the book lacks a unifying theme. Nor is there any theory to add substance to the empirical details. For example, a historical chapter is complemented by historical sections on individual countries. Other than offering interesting details (and considerable duplication), what is the point of telling us so much that has already been said elsewhere and in greater detail? How do the details, selective by necessity, inform the main argument? What is the point of beginning the analysis with the Dorian invasion if the book’s essence centers on the contemporary period? In addition, there is no continuity between chapters and no concluding section to give overall direction to the [End Page 166] study. So it is up to the reader to determine what the main argument is. I suspect that Professor Gianaris wished to write an introduction to the Balkan peninsula that would be more comprehensive and factually accurate than, say, Robert D. Kaplan’s widely but unjustifiably praised Balkan Ghosts (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993). He succeeds in this, but the problem is that neither he nor Kaplan has a purpose. Comparisons without a purpose are irrelevant and ineffective. The author is at his best when discussing economic issues and policies. But he fails to mention the fundamental problem plaguing all Balkan countries: creating viable democratic institutions. There are interesting insights into the view that a possible Balkan customs union is problematic owing to economic rather than political reasons. With the partial exception of Greece and possibly Turkey, all Balkan countries compete in producing primary, price-competitive products. A customs union would intensify such competition with adverse social consequences. There are also good, pragmatic recommendations in the book, such as the need to exploit Thessaloniki’s potential further but not at the expense of the environment. This information, contained in the last two chapters, is substantial but incomplete. As the author mentions, institutions are essential for a free-market economy. But political institutions—and, more specifically, democratic ones—are vital ingredients of a country’s long-term viability, as the case of Albania has made abundantly clear. What is the Balkan experience in this area? How can current institutions be strengthened or refocused? Professor Gianaris is right in arguing that there is a lack of good regional analyses of the Balkans. Unfortunately, comprehensive surveys tend to be superficial...