A Qualitative Approach to Self-Employment and Social Protection: The Greek Case Within a Transforming World of Work and an Emerging Policy Paradigm

Abstract

Following the 2008–2009 economic crisis, the issue of self-employed individuals’ access to social protection has gained increasing prominence at both supranational and national levels, often in relation to the rise of ‘bogus’ or economically dependent self-employment and its broader implications. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic further exposed persistent gaps in the social protection of the self-employed, contributing to their comparatively more precarious position vis-à-vis wage earners. Against this backdrop, and drawing on a literature review alongside findings from a series of semi-structured interviews, this article uses Greece—a country where self-employment constitutes a structural feature of a highly fragmented labour market, and which records the highest self-employment rate in the EU-27 (and among the highest in the OECD)—as a case study to examine self-employment and access to social protection. This article contributes to the growing literature on the social protection of non-standard workers in a context marked by ongoing transformations in employment relations and the world of work. It illustrates, inter alia, the relative weakness of trade union representation for the self-employed, and how limited trust in state institutions among this group shapes their perceptions of social protection, thereby undermining the system’s sustainability.

1. Introduction

Despite the relative ambiguity of the term, as reflected in differences across national legislative frameworks, self-employment is frequently associated with entrepreneurship, autonomy, and greater professional risk, compared to ‘traditional’ dependent employment (see, e.g., [1,2]). Furthermore, it is often portrayed as the diametrical opposite of salaried employment. However, it is widely acknowledged that in the post-industrial era, boundaries between the two have become increasingly fluid. Self-employment is undergoing a continuous transformation, as evidenced by the growing diversity among the self-employed in a rapidly evolving labour market. This includes, for example, the increase in the number of self-employed individuals without employees and the growing incidence of ‘bogus’, ‘false’, or ‘dependent’ self-employment, according to which individuals are formally regarded as self-employed, but work under employee-like conditions (see, e.g., [3]). This trend is driven by various factors, such as the expansion of non-standard employment in the gig economy and digital workplace platforms, and reinforced by the long-standing dichotomy in social protection systems between wage earners and the self-employed. In many countries, social protection is more comprehensive, automatic, and affordable for the former, incentivising employers—especially during economic crises—to transfer labour costs and social insurance responsibilities to workers, by misclassifying them as self-employed [4].

Amid profound changes in the world of work1, the COVID-19 pandemic further exposed gaps in the coverage and adequacy of social provisions for the self-employed. These limitations contributed to the self-employed often facing more precarious conditions than wage earners [5,6]. In 2021, the most common gaps at the EU level involved unemployment benefits (over half of the approximately 28 million self-employed, that is 16.8 million, lacked access), followed by sickness benefits (5.3 million without access) and workplace accident and occupational disease benefits (4.2 million lacked access) [2]. Broadly speaking, systems for the self-employed are classified as ‘universal’, in which eligibility and benefits apply to all workers; ‘general’, which are exclusively designed for the self-employed; and ‘categorical’, targeting specific subgroups of self-employed individuals. Yet even in ‘universal’ systems, the self-employed face more gaps than wage earners, due to eligibility criteria modelled on salaried employment and the under-insurance of self-employed workers, which is often linked to low reported income [7].

For those concerned with the implications of labour market transformation, expanding social protection to inadequately covered groups appears to be the only viable path forward (see, e.g., [8]). Additionally, access to social protection is increasingly recognised as a core element of ‘job quality’2, a key subject in current academic and policy debates [2]. The growing focus on self-employed workers’ access to social protection is also driven by the need to ensure the sustainability of welfare systems in the midst of mounting demographic pressures. These developments intersect with broader shifts in employment relations, human resource management, and the changing role of trade unions, particularly in light of rising individualism and diminished employee voice (see, e.g., [9]).

Prior to the 2008–2009 financial crisis—which, together with the concurrent rise of ‘bogus’ self-employment, constituted a critical juncture in prompting greater attention from both supranational and national policy actors to the issue of self-employed individuals’ access to social protection—this category of workers was largely excluded from EU legislative initiatives concerning non-standard forms of employment (see, e.g., [10,11]). Yet, instead, self-employment was primarily viewed at the EU level as a tool to promote labour market flexibility and reduce labour costs [12]. A notable instance of more recent EU-level engagement is the approval, on 8 November 2019, of the Council Recommendation on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed3. While acknowledging the EU’s limited competence in this area, the Recommendation calls for formal, effective, adequate, and transparent access to social protection, and for establishing minimum standards for all workers, including the self-employed. It aligns with Principle 12 of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), which states that ‘regardless of the type and duration of their employment relationship, workers, and, under comparable conditions, the self-employed, have the right to adequate social protection’4. In paragraph 19 of the Recommendation, Member States were invited to submit national implementation plans by mid-May 2021. Expanding access to social protection for the self-employed remains moreover a key message in the EU’s annual review of the social situation and policy developments across Member States [13,14]. This agenda also increasingly involves multi-stakeholder partnership approaches that reflect the complexity of modern labour markets shaped by the ‘so-called’ Fourth Industrial Revolution (see, e.g., [15,16]).

Alongside growing concerns regarding the expansion of non-standard forms of employment and the imperative to enhance the long-term sustainability of welfare systems—particularly in the context of demographic ageing—renewed attention to the social protection of the self-employed should be viewed in connection with the prevailing influence of social investment theory in contemporary academic and policy discourse (see, e.g., [17]). This theory broadly articulates a welfare state model that prioritises ‘preparing’ individuals to participate effectively in the economy through strategic ‘investments’ in human capital and individual capabilities. Within this conceptual framework, the promotion of self-employment—especially amid the proliferation of gig work, digital platforms, and the erosion of clearly defined employment categories—is increasingly conceptualised as a form of ‘social investment’, expected to generate returns in the form of reduced unemployment and enhanced economic activity. The growing application of social investment theory as a tool for interpreting welfare state reform has contributed to the discursive reframing of self-employment as a legitimate and desirable pathway to labour market integration. While policies inspired by social investment principles may facilitate self-employment by equipping individuals with the requisite skills, knowledge, and resources, the inclusiveness and overall effectiveness of this approach ultimately depend, however, on the systematic ‘recalibration’ of social protection systems to reflect the growing diversity of employment arrangements. This recalibration is directly tied to the broader imperative of extending and improving social protection coverage for the self-employed.

In summary, social investment theory offers a valuable analytical perspective for interpreting and reinforcing the relationship between self-employment and social protection. It posits that empowering individuals through education, skills development, and tailored support mechanisms can help render self-employment a viable and sustainable labour market trajectory. At the same time, the effective application of this framework requires the full and meaningful inclusion of self-employed individuals in social protection systems, with such inclusion treated as a long-term investment in sustainable careers and poverty prevention. The evolving nexus between social investment and self-employment thus exemplifies a shifting welfare paradigm, one that must remain adaptable to ensure that labour market flexibility and innovation do not come at the expense of social cohesion and security.

Against this backdrop, the present article uses Greece as a case study to contribute to the growing literature on self-employment and social protection in the EU and beyond. As detailed in Section 3, the analysis draws on 15 semi-structured interviews with self-employed individuals. According to Eurostat data for 2023, Greece recorded the highest self-employment rate amongst EU-27 Member States, with self-employed individuals aged 18–64, regardless of sex and household composition, comprising 26.2% of total employment, nearly double the EU-27 average of 13%. At the other end of the spectrum, Germany reported the lowest self-employment rate, at just 7.5%5. OECD data for 2022 similarly confirm that Greece significantly exceeds the OECD self-employment benchmark of 15.5% [18].

Specifically, the article is guided by the following research objectives: first, to investigate how self-employed individuals in Greece perceive the adequacy and fairness of existing social protection provisions, thereby exposing tensions between institutional frameworks and everyday lived experiences; and second, to consider the broader implications of these perceptions for ongoing debates on welfare state reform whilst also shedding light on mechanisms and challenges that may be present elsewhere, albeit in less pronounced or visible forms. Many of the challenges identified in the Greek context, such as administrative fragmentation, restricted access to income replacement benefits, and pervasive institutional mistrust, are mirrored, for example, to varying extents, in other Southern and Eastern European countries (see, e.g., [2,19]). Understanding how Greece addresses these challenges, alongside the views of self-employed individuals elicited in the interviews, may provide valuable insights for countries experiencing similar transitions. Moreover, given the high incidence of precarious and non-standard forms of employment in Greece, the country’s distinct status as both a European and global outlier holds broader relevance for other contexts, where traditional full-time employment is in decline and flexible work arrangements are increasingly prevalent. As welfare systems across Europe are increasingly compelled to respond to the challenges of digitalisation, demographic ageing, and labour market fragmentation, studies such as this can meaningfully contribute to broader debates on inclusive and sustainable reform. The Greek case thus serves not only as an empirical point of reference but also as an analytical lens through which wider dilemmas surrounding self-employment and social protection may be critically interrogated. These elements constitute the article’s added value, providing insight into the broader transformations that are reshaping employment and welfare systems on a global scale.

Following this introduction, the article is structured into three main parts. Section 2 provides an overview of self-employment and access to social protection in Greece, including key benefits. Section 3 outlines the data and the methodology used, while Section 4 presents the research findings. Section 5 discusses the results and their broader relevance for the EU and other European countries, within a context marked by profound changes in the world of work and welfare across Europe and beyond.

2. Self-Employment and Access to Social Protection in Greece: An Overview

Self-employment in Greece began to be systematically recorded in 1961, a period marked by a shift among members of the petite bourgeoisie—often with agrarian roots as descendants of small-scale farmers—towards self-employment. In the post-Civil War context, self-employment served as a refuge for citizens excluded from employment, particularly in the public sector, due to political beliefs. The regime established by the victors of the Civil War played a central role in this shift, as many salaried workers faced persecution. Self-employment became an alternative to migration and a means of survival [20]. Over time, it has often been described moreover as a ‘forced’ choice, serving to absorb unemployment during economic crises. This trend is also associated with the weakness of Greece’s industrial base, limited proletarianisation, and a relatively small share of salaried workers compared to other European countries [4,21].

Despite fluctuations in rates and occupational structure, self-employment in Greece has proven resilient and is seen as a quasi-endogenous feature of the fragmented labour market [22,23]. Though sometimes blamed for developmental lag and economic dysfunctions, it is also viewed, often supported by family businesses, as a key pillar of Greece’s middle strata, alongside education and homeownership [24,25]. The growing literature on self-employment in the country has explored a range of issues related to self-employment, as illustrated by the following: employment status (e.g., the degree of economic and organisational dependence), and working and living conditions, including income [26,27,28]; bogus self-employment [29]; and, quite frequently, factors explaining participation in self-employment in Greece [30,31,32,33].

Research on self-employed individuals’ access to social protection in Greece, on the other hand, remains limited, reflecting the historically reduced coverage of this group compared to wage earners, for whom these systems were designed for. Access is primarily addressed in policy documents by supranational organisations with an EU focus [13,14,34]. The literature highlights both the fragmentation and limited cohesion of provisions targeting the self-employed, alongside ongoing reform efforts. Although efforts have been made to equalise coverage, Greece is frequently cited as continuing to provide uneven levels of protection across occupational categories [35]. Some scholars also question the feasibility of expanding access, despite EU-level intentions [36].

Greece exhibits similarities with other Southern European welfare states in terms of self-employment and social protection. Furthermore, reforms aimed at strengthening protection for the self-employed have been linked to Ferrera’s thesis on welfare regime ‘recalibration’ [7,37]. In Greece, these issues are often examined in broader analyses of the social insurance system, typically from a legal perspective [4,38,39,40], whilst focus on specific provisions such as maternity or unemployment benefits is limited [41,42]. This strand of bibliography should, however, be considered alongside recent research that explores the experiences and perspectives of workers in Greece—particularly those engaged in emerging forms of employment, such as gig workers, individuals in digital workplaces or the ‘economically dependent self-employed’—and which often adopts a qualitative methodological approach, as is also the case in this article, highlighting problematic access to social protection (see, e.g., [43,44]).

The term ‘self-employed’ was first defined in 19926. In addition, social insurance coverage for the self-employed is mandatory in Greece—unlike in some other European countries. The Greek legislation rarely differentiates moreover between self-employed individuals with and without employees. Historically, social protection followed a segmented model, with numerous occupation-specific funds. The system was largely modelled on the German structure, reinforcing fund pluralism [4]. This fragmented system, marked by uneven access and high transaction costs, posed sustainability challenges [38]. Reform efforts were nevertheless delayed or resisted, perpetuating inequalities. The establishment of the Social Insurance Organisation for the Self-Employed (OAEE) in 1999 began the consolidation process7. A more comprehensive rationalisation came, however, with the creation of the Unified Social Security Fund (EFKA), which aimed at reducing disparities across insured groups and started operating in 20178. The establishment of a broader insurance institution—potentially more resilient during crises—must be considered alongside the issue of social security contributions, a frequent topic in public discourse.

Although linking contributions to income might promote solidarity, in practice, this is complicated by widespread tax evasion and unreliable declarations among a highly heterogeneous group. Until 2020, contributions were connected to contributory capacity, which was determined either by a presumed insurance category or by income earned in the previous year. The year 2020 marked nevertheless the introduction of major structural reforms9, including a new scale of fixed social insurance contributions decoupled from declared income, as well as the restructuring of the supplementary pension10 and lump-sum benefit11 schemes. Six insurance categories were established, each associated with a fixed contribution for pension and healthcare coverage12 [45]. Individuals may select a category based on their financial capacity; though most opt for the lowest category, with direct implications for future pensions. Reduced contribution rates were also introduced for newly insured individuals.

Key milestones in extending social protection include moreover the introduction of an unemployment benefit13, a maternity allowance14 and a special maternity protection benefit15. While the unemployment benefit was a welcome step, it did not offset the post-crisis drop in beneficiaries, due to tightened eligibility criteria that excluded many, including the self-employed [46]. These criteria are also seen as undermining the contributory nature of the benefit, aligning it more with social assistance [39]. The maternity allowance for self-employed women was introduced in 2012, following the transposition of Directive 2010/41/EU16 into national legislation. It provides support for a minimum of 14 weeks. A newer special maternity protection benefit, which is administered by the Public Employment Service (DYPA), offers nine months of support and includes same-sex spouses who adopt a child. Eligibility applies to children acquired after 24 September 2023 and begins after the maternity allowance, which is provided by e-EFKA, ends. This provision extends support and brings entitlements closer to those of salaried employees, arguably signalling a broader commitment to social protection and gender equality.

These developments should be viewed in conjunction with the ongoing expansion of digital services, such as the November 2024 activation of new payment methods for employer contributions and overdue liabilities. Nonetheless, significant gaps remain, as a large share of self-employed individuals continues to be excluded from benefits related to illness and workplace accidents.

3. Data and Methods

This article draws on qualitative data obtained through 15 semi-structured interviews with self-employed individuals, which were conducted in Greece between December 2024 and May 2025. The interviews form part of an ongoing qualitative study, contributing to a book project on self-employment and access to social protection currently in progress. Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews strike a balance between the flexibility of open-ended conversation and the structure provided by an interview guide. This format allows participants to articulate their views and experiences freely, while ensuring that key topics are systematically addressed. It also facilitates the in-depth exploration of individual narratives and enables comparability across interviews, thereby supporting rigorous analysis (see, e.g., [47]). The selection of interviewees—some of whom are also involved in social partner organisations representing the self-employed—was based on a purposive sampling technique, a widely used method in qualitative research for identifying and selecting information-rich cases relevant to the phenomena under study. All interviewees have personal experience with the issues examined and are therefore considered to be ‘experts’, capable of offering informed insights (see, e.g., [48,49]).

Most interviewees reside in Athens and Thessaloniki, the two largest cities in Greece, with one participant based on the island of Rhodes. While efforts were made to include individuals from various sectors, a more minimalist research perspective was ultimately adopted, so as to mitigate, at least partially, the challenges posed by the substantial heterogeneity within the self-employed population. Specifically, this study focused on self-employed individuals whose professional activity and identity align more closely with the concept of ‘entrepreneurship’, as represented in Greece primarily by the Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen, and Merchants (GSEVEE). As such, the research does not, at this stage, include major subsets of the self-employed, such as members of the liberal professions (e.g., doctors, lawyers, and engineers), merchants, or farmers. The sample includes both women and men, self-employed individuals with and without employees, and one participant of foreign ethnic background. The interviews were not designed nevertheless to explore in depth the effects of variables such as gender or ethnicity on perceptions of the social protection system, nor sectoral differences—dimensions that remain outside the scope of this research. These limitations, along with the focus on more technical occupations, restrict the generalisability of the findings, which will be addressed, however, in subsequent phases of the author’s research.

All participants were informed about the objectives of the research and assured that their anonymity would be strictly preserved. Consequently, only general information regarding their gender, age, and professional activity is presented.

Table 1. Demographic profile of research participants.

Age	Gender	Employment Status	Sector
59	Male	With employees	Technical repairs and construction
46	Female	With employees	Jewellery design, manufacturing, and sales
54	Male	With employees	Florist
50	Male	Without employees	Silversmith and goldsmith artisan
57	Female	With employees	Hairdressing
53	Male	With employees	Café-bar owner
31	Male	Without employees	House painter
57	Male	Without employees	Shoemaker (Armenian descent)
39	Female	With employees	Nail technician/manicurist
55	Female	With employees	Aesthetician
57	Male	Without employees	Electrician
58	Female	Without employees	Dry-cleaning business owner
49	Male	Without employees	Refrigeration technician
40	Female	With employees	Café-bar owner
47	Male	Without employees	Carpenter

outlines the demographic profile of the 15 interviewees.

The interview guide consisted of questions grouped under three broad categories: social protection as a factor in the decision to pursue self-employment; strengths and weaknesses of the social protection system for the self-employed; and suggestions for improvement. Indicative questions included the following: How did your access to social protection influence (if at all) your decision to enter self-employment? What is your main concern or challenge regarding access to social protection (e.g., is this access adequate, effective, or clearly regulated)? How would you evaluate the social protection offered to the self-employed in Greece in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements? The questions were tailored to the interviewees’ professional roles, with minor adjustments as necessary.

The data analysis followed the principles of qualitative thematic analysis, aiming to identify patterns and organise them into themes that collectively provided a coherent understanding of the phenomena under study. The analysis revealed that the findings centred on the following main themes: self-employment as a distinctive feature of the Greek labour market; main reasons for entering self-employment; self-employment versus salaried employment; expanding social protection as a step forward; weaknesses of the social protection system; barriers to accessing social protection; private insurance as a strategy for social protection; factors explaining the relative underdevelopment of social protection for the self-employed; concerns about the future; and recommendations for change. Section 4 that follows is structured according to these themes.

4. Findings

4.1. Self-Employment as a Distinctive Feature of the Greek Labour Market

Some interviewees described self-employment as a quasi-inherent characteristic of the Greek labour market, distinguishing the country from other European contexts. The exceptionally high proportion of self-employed individuals in Greece aligns with the country’s prevailing entrepreneurial model, which is characterised by small, often family-owned enterprises with few employees. As one interviewee remarked, ‘Entrepreneurship is embedded in the DNA of Greeks’, adding that it is ‘at least laughable and problematic to discuss today the need to preserve professions and industries with thousands of years of history, deeply connected with Greek heritage, such as silversmithing and goldsmithing’. This conceptualisation of self-employment as a culturally embedded practice underscores the significance of path dependency and historically contingent labour market trajectories. The family environment also plays a significant role in fostering this form of entrepreneurship, as illustrated by the high proportion of so-called ‘assisting family members’, which estimated by one interviewee to comprise 60–70% of those working in small and medium-sized enterprises in Greece. Such informal family-labour relations underscore the blurred boundaries between household and economic activity, a characteristic often underexplored in prevailing social protection frameworks.

Interviewees emphasised the importance of considering these features alongside the close relationships that often develop between clients and self-employed professionals, particularly in technical occupations, which represent the majority of those practised by interviewees. As one participant noted, ‘They give us the keys to their homes, as if we were part of their family, so we can come and go to complete the tasks they’ve assigned to us. I have about twenty sets of house keys in my car’. These trust-based interactions shape a distinctive work culture for the self-employed in Greece, differing substantially from Central Europe. This culturally specific form of relational embeddedness may help explain the resilience of small-scale self-employment in Greece, even in the face of structural and institutional challenges.

4.2. Main Reasons for Entering Self-Employment

Although a few interviewees noted that providing insurance coverage for their spouse and children is one of the system’s positive aspects, access to social protection did not influence their decision to enter self-employment. As one interviewee stated, ‘At a young age, when career choices are typically made, it is uncommon for someone to be influenced by whether or not they will have access to social benefits’. This suggests that social protection is perceived more as a retrospective consideration than a strategic factor in labour market entry, particularly among younger cohorts. The interviews indicated that family tradition is the primary factor explaining entry into self-employment. Additional reasons include viewing self-employment as a route out of unemployment and/or a means of securing a satisfactory income. For some, it represented a professional ‘way out’ when finding employment related to their tertiary education was challenging. Others mentioned that self-employment once provided a relatively high income, something less common in recent years. As one interviewee explained, ‘In the past, clients had access to more financial resources, allowing the self-employed to hire more staff, among other things’. This reinforces the role of self-employment as a fallback strategy in segmented labour markets where standard employment opportunities are scarce or mismatched with qualifications. Some interviewees pointed to autonomy as a motivating factor for starting their own business. However, as one interviewee said, ‘Not everyone is capable of running their own business… not everyone can handle all the responsibilities that come with it’. This tension between the ideal of autonomy and the burdens of individualised risk is central to current critiques of entrepreneurialism within social investment frameworks.

4.3. Self-Employment Versus Salaried Employment

All interviewees emphasised the exhausting working hours associated with self-employment—often 12 h or more per day—as a disincentive, contrasting this with the shorter hours typical of salaried employment. A few noted that if salaried work provided a relatively satisfactory income, they might consider transitioning, as it would allow greater personal time, which was described by one interviewee as a ‘luxury’ in self-employment. As another interviewee observed, a significant share of small-scale self-employed individuals, earning only slightly more than a ‘regular salary’ (approximately EUR 1500, in his view), while working over ten hours daily, would ‘gladly’ choose salaried employment. Another said, ‘In recent years, I’ve thought salaried work would offer more peace of mind… there’s no incentive anymore for anyone in Greece to be self-employed. Self-employed individuals are heroes who have endured a decade of crisis, contributing to preserving jobs during high unemployment. I’m tired of hearing about bad entrepreneurs who cheat the state. On the contrary, self-employed individuals keep the state running and ensure economic liquidity’. This narrative highlights the ethical and cultural underpinnings of self-employment in Greece, where economic hardship is arguably intertwined with a strong sense of civic responsibility and personal sacrifice.

Most interviewees noted that, although they had considered waged employment, they now prefer the freedom and independence self-employment affords. As one stated, ‘Only a dramatic reduction in my income would motivate me to go back to salaried work’. He also argued that EUR 1500 net monthly income is low for self-employed people in Greece. However, he emphasised that ‘the risk of this amount being zero the next month must be considered, as well as the extent of tax evasion’. This comment underscores the volatility and uncertainty inherent in self-employment, reinforcing its precarious character despite the often-emphasised narrative of autonomy. He further contended that the primary issue faced by the self-employed is the unfair tax system, which, in his view, favours salaried workers and treats the self-employed as ‘thieves’, pushing many towards tax evasion. As he explained, ‘The differences in the way the tax system treats salaried workers and the self-employed fade and become negligible only at higher income levels’. He acknowledged nevertheless the reality of tax evasion, stating, ‘Even before the 2008–2009 crisis however, many declared almost nothing. I find this unacceptable; there should be a limit to this behaviour’. The tension between perceived injustice and actual misconduct reflects a nuanced interplay between institutional mistrust and everyday coping mechanisms, which must be carefully considered in any attempt to reform the fiscal treatment of the self-employed.

4.4. Expanding Social Protection as a Step Forward

All interviewees viewed the expansion of access to social protection for the self-employed positively. Among the reasons cited were its importance for the emotional security and overall well-being of self-employed individuals, as well as its potential to increase entry into self-employment, thereby generating multiplier effects for the Greek economy and society. This perspective implicitly frames social protection not only as a safety net but also as an enabling condition for inclusive economic participation, aligning with key tenets of social investment theory. Expanding social protection is widely regarded as the appropriate course of action for the Greek state, despite the broader context of what one interviewee described as the current ‘devaluation’ of the country’s social security system. As he explained, ‘The very low level of pensions acts as a deterrent for self-employed individuals to pay contributions, further fuelling the growth of undeclared entrepreneurial activity, which is estimated to be at significantly high levels in Greece’. This highlights a vicious cycle of low trust, weak incentives, and informality, underscoring the structural barriers to policy effectiveness in the field of social protection. The interviews also highlighted that one of the main challenges in expanding social provisions for the self-employed is economic in nature, reinforcing the need for more effective resource management. The tension between fiscal constraints and social policy goals reflects broader dilemmas facing welfare states in the post-crisis era, particularly those with high public debt and persistent informal economies. Finally, all interviewees acknowledged that they attempt to manage their income in such a way that they will not have to rely exclusively on the social protection system for financial support in the future. This emphasis on self-reliance reveals both a pragmatic response to institutional shortcomings and an embedded cultural norm, but it also points to the limits of current systems in providing real security for the self-employed.

4.5. Weaknesses of the Social Protection System

Most interviewees questioned the adequacy of the social protection available to the self-employed in Greece. A central concern was that pensions do not correspond ‘proportionally’ to contributions and certainly do not function as a ‘savings fund’ for retirement. One interviewee referred to her father, who, after years of self-employment and consistently paying contributions at the highest insurance tier, received only EUR 1192 per month as a pension. Another interviewee stated that, ‘The benefits provided to uninsured individuals are comparable to those received by law-abiding self-employed individuals’. This perceived lack of reward for compliance undermines the contributory logic of the system and discourages formalisation. This situation has been argued to act as a disincentive for insured individuals to continue paying their contributions.

Nearly all interviewees argued that the amounts paid for healthcare services in Greece are not governed by ‘proportionality’. All expressed moreover concern about the current state of public healthcare services, highlighting issues like underfunding and understaffing, which affect the broader population. The healthcare system is underperforming, as evidenced by prolonged waiting times in public hospitals. Many reported paying out of pocket for services, often turning to private providers to avoid delays. The interviews also underscored the critical importance of time for the self-employed and their efforts to avoid time-consuming inefficiencies. These experiences illustrate how structural deficiencies in public provision disproportionately disadvantage the self-employed, who encounter distinct opportunity costs and frequently lack compensatory mechanisms.

Additionally, the interviews highlighted specific problems associated with self-employment, as illustrated by one participant: ‘Years ago I broke my arm and could not take time off from work, and there was no compensation to offset the income loss. A self-employed individual does not have the option to request sick leave’. Another issue is the lack of coverage for work-related accidents. When self-employed individuals stop working, due to illness, pregnancy, or other reasons, it often results in the accumulation of surcharges, exacerbating financial insecurity. This lack of income protection in the face of predictable life-course risks reflects the persistent and deep asymmetry between salaried and self-employed workers in terms of social protection. As far as the unemployment benefit for the self-employed is concerned, interviewees highlighted the role of GSEVEE in its establishment, pointing however to strict eligibility criteria, which exclude those experiencing financial difficulties but reporting income above the threshold. This example highlights the scheme’s underlying rather punitive logic, which inadvertently disadvantages individuals with unstable yet not insubstantial incomes.

Against this backdrop, all interviewees emphasised that many self-employed individuals opt for the lowest insurance tier. This choice is linked to a lack of trust in institutions and the Greek state, which was driven by concerns that the rules may change and that they may receive only a minimal pension. As some pointed out, even those paying the minimum often struggle to meet payment obligations. The preference for minimal contributions may thus be interpreted not only as a financial constraint but also as a ‘rational’ response to perceived institutional unpredictability. More broadly, many argued that the current social protection system in Greece, combined with what they described as unjust taxation, pushes individuals away from self-employment. This trend is reinforced, in their opinion, by European policies that seem to promote salaried work over self-employment. This perception further underscores the tension between EU-level labour market strategies and entrenched national policy legacies, particularly in contexts where self-employment constitutes a structural component of the labour market rather than a marginal employment form.

4.6. Barriers to Accessing the Social Protection System

The weaknesses of the social protection system are further compounded by the absence of effective control mechanisms, which, according to several interviewees, reflects the broader lack of administrative organisation within the Greek state. One frequently cited example was the poor communication between EFKA and the tax authorities, which often leads to administrative errors. As one interviewee described, this has resulted, for instance, in ‘the unjust reduction in maternity benefits for eligible women’. The interviews revealed that EFKA’s system is not fully updated regarding tax compliance, leading to the termination of benefits, even in cases involving minor outstanding debts by self-employed individuals. These findings underscore how institutional fragmentation and limited digital integration undermine both the efficiency and legitimacy of social protection delivery.

These issues should be considered alongside the information gaps highlighted by several interviewees, which help explain why many self-employed individuals remain unaware of their rights. Most appear to rely primarily on their accountants for information regarding entitlements, as well as social provisions and programmes targeted at the self-employed. This excessive dependence on intermediaries indicates a lack of direct engagement between public institutions and citizens, which may reinforce disengagement and mistrust. As one interviewee explained, reflecting on the challenges he encountered when deciding to become self-employed, the combination of ‘bureaucratic difficulties’, information gaps, and the lack of organisational coherence among the relevant authorities creates significant confusion about the rules governing social protection. In his view, the system is particularly complex for young people seeking to enter self-employment. This complexity may act as a structural deterrent to formal entrepreneurial activity, particularly among younger cohorts, thereby reproducing exclusion and informalisation.

4.7. Private Insurance as a Strategy for Social Protection

As one interviewee noted, ‘Approximately one-third of the self-employed individuals represented by GSEVEE are estimated to have opted for private insurance’. The interviews overall suggest that, while financial constraints limit access to quality private insurance to only a small segment of the self-employed—also considering that premiums rise significantly with age—private insurance is nevertheless widely used as a strategy for social protection. This reliance on private coverage reflects both a pragmatic adaptation to public system deficiencies and a broader individualisation of social risk. This trend reflects broader concerns and scepticism among self-employed individuals regarding the adequacy of state-provided benefits. One interviewee stated, ‘I believe that the majority of those with some kind of financial ‘flexibility’ have opted for private insurance… we cannot lose time, due to gaps, for example, in the public healthcare system’. Another interviewee mentioned entering into a separate retirement contract to feel a greater sense of ‘security’. She noted that she rarely uses public healthcare services and, when she does, observes significant problems and deficiencies. Reflecting on changes over time, she remarked, ‘In the 1980s and 1990s, it was quite unusual in Greece to have private insurance, but those who got insured early now have access to more affordable rates… private insurance is more effective and has a different level of responsiveness to the needs of the insured’. These comments reflect a growing perception that adequate protection must be secured through market-based mechanisms, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities in access—particularly along lines of income and age.

Some interviewees reported, however, negative personal experiences with private insurance providers. Lastly, one interviewee described the idea of relying on private insurance as ‘catastrophic’, expressing strong scepticism about its long-term viability. He argued that the private sector cannot bear ‘the weight of an entire country’ in the event of a collapse of public insurance funds—adding that this is precisely why the self-employed must support the public system. This critique points to the limits of market-based protection and reaffirms the normative role of public welfare institutions in ensuring social cohesion and collective risk-sharing.

4.8. Factors Explaining the Relative Underdevelopment of Social Protection for the Self-Employed

One key factor mentioned by interviewees as explaining the relative underdevelopment of social protection for the self-employed is the limited pressure historically exerted on state authorities in this regard. As several interviewees noted, prior to the 2008–2009 economic crisis, the self-employed generally enjoyed greater economic stability and were therefore less concerned about broader access to social protection. However, following the onset of the memoranda period, the economic situation of the self-employed deteriorated. According to some participants, small-scale self-employed individuals now find themselves on the same financial footing as salaried employees—essentially, as one interviewee put it, ‘working for a daily wage’. This shift signals a convergence of risks with those traditionally borne by wage earners.

These observations should be considered alongside the view, which was expressed by several interviewees, that trade union representation for the self-employed in Greece is relatively weak. As one participant stated, ‘Social dialogue in Greece is not strong… collective bodies, unlike in other European countries, do not participate in the construction of institutions. Social partners and professional chambers, for example, not only fail to contribute to institution-building, but are also largely excluded from state structures and governance systems, in stark contrast to practices observed in other European countries. Institutions are predominantly built top-down rather than bottom-up, thereby undermining the policies that are adopted and implemented’. This lack of institutional embeddedness weakens the capacity of the self-employed to articulate collective interests and influence welfare design, limiting bottom-up accountability and policy responsiveness. Furthermore, according to some interviewees, representatives of the self-employed often focus more on reducing labour costs and increasing business profits by minimising social security contributions for employees, rather than advocating for stronger social protection. Such a strategic orientation reflects the persistent ambivalence between employer and worker identities within the self-employed category, complicating efforts to articulate solidarity-based demands. At the same time, policymakers are often seen as lacking an accurate understanding—or, worse, holding a distorted perception—of the needs and challenges faced by the self-employed. Lastly, the ‘individualistic’ orientation of the Greek education system was highlighted as another factor contributing to the underdevelopment of social protection for this group. This educational culture may reinforce fragmented attitudes towards collective action and public responsibility, thereby inhibiting demand for institutional reform.

4.9. Concerns About the Future

Many interviewees expressed a deep sense of mistrust towards the state. As one participant observed, ‘Trust is something that is built over time, and it is the state that bears the greatest responsibility for establishing and consolidating this trust… in Greece, this does not seem to be a priority’. These concerns were accompanied by worry that the legislation governing social protection—particularly retirement age limits—may change again, to the detriment of the self-employed. Interviewees also voiced concern about the future state of public hospitals, which, in their view, are already showing signs of deterioration. Such reservations point to a deeper perception of institutional fragility and underscore how legal and administrative unpredictability erodes trust and impedes long-term planning.

The interviews revealed a profound erosion of trust between the self-employed and state institutions. This mistrust is seen as a significant barrier to expanding social protection, partly because not all individuals possess the necessary ‘social reflexes’ to recognise what would benefit both themselves and society as a whole. The lack of a trust-based social contract undermines collective engagement and diminishes the perceived legitimacy of redistributive mechanisms. A few interviewees explicitly expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability of the broader social protection system in Greece, acknowledging the influence of additional challenges such as demographic change. As one interviewee suggested, concerns about the future of pensions should be considered alongside the consequences of inadequate coverage for the self-employed. In his words, ‘In cases where both partners in a couple are self-employed, the lack of social security coverage can exacerbate the so-called demographic issue in the country, as many couples may choose not to have children’. This comment underscores the interdependence between welfare design and demographic behaviour, illustrating how inadequate protection may have broader socio-economic repercussions beyond the labour market.

Only one interviewee acknowledged however the responsibility of the self-employed to contribute more through higher social security payments in support of the broader social protection system, which he characterised as ‘collapsing’. In his view, the key issue the state must address is that ‘some self-employed hide their income, while others do not’, a problem largely—though not exclusively—linked to the unequal tax treatment of self-employed individuals compared to salaried employees. This highlights the distributive disparities within the self-employed population, revealing how perceptions of fairness shape both compliance and the potential for solidarity. Additionally, some interviewees expressed concern about what they perceived as a deliberate effort by the government to promote private insurance. This trend, they argued, should be understood in the context of the ongoing devaluation of public health and education in Greece. Such comments highlight fears of welfare dualisation, where access to adequate services increasingly depends on private means, undermining a more universalistic understanding of social protection.

4.10. Recommendations for Change

The interviews revealed a series of recommendations aimed at improving the social protection of self-employed individuals in Greece, which should be considered in conjunction with related suggestions, such as reforming the taxation framework applicable to this category of workers. Interviewees stressed the need for formal consultation processes involving social partners who represent the self-employed, to ensure that the relevant policies will reflect their specific needs and realities. This call for inclusive policy design reflects a broader demand for participatory governance and bottom-up institutional responsiveness. Several participants also recommended that Greece draw inspiration from countries like Germany. As one interviewee noted, ‘Although I acknowledge that the financial cost of being self-employed in Germany, a country where most workers are salaried employees, is very high, if I knew there was a clear connection between the contributions I pay and an adequate and effective healthcare system, for instance, as is the case in Germany, I would certainly be willing to pay a high percentage of contributions on a monthly basis’. This statement illustrates how perceived reciprocity and institutional credibility shape willingness to contribute, reinforcing the centrality of trust in sustaining contributory welfare systems. Another interviewee highlighted the importance, at the European level, of promoting higher taxation on wealth as a strategy for safeguarding the sustainability of social security systems. Conversely, some interviewees argued that the way European institutions currently conceptualise self-employment influences the Greek state’s ‘unjust’ treatment of the self-employed—a dynamic they believe must change. Several participants felt that the preservation of small and medium-sized enterprises is not being prioritised. As one interviewee put it, ‘While these businesses may still endure in Greece, they have now buckled under the pressure… the plan is to encourage a shift towards salaried employment and turn the self-employed into waged employees’. This perceived policy direction reflects wider concerns about the marginalisation of small-scale entrepreneurship within dominant economic strategies that favour waged employment.

All interviewees emphasised the need to establish incentives that would encourage the self-employed to comply with their social security obligations. Central to this is the principle of strengthening ‘reciprocity’ between the contributions paid and the benefits received. As one interviewee noted, ‘The creation of a fully contributory system would help strengthen trust in institutions and cultivate social reflexes and interest in solidarity and supporting the broader social protection system, which are currently missing’. This comment highlights the normative role of reciprocity in reinforcing social cohesion and the legitimacy of welfare institutions. The introduction of a levy on the total income or turnover of self-employed individuals was proposed as a way to support this objective, while also bolstering the financial sustainability of the social security system. Some interviewees further stressed the importance of designing a more flexible system, particularly regarding retirement age, as the physical demands of certain manual occupations render them unsustainable beyond a certain point in the life course. The significant heterogeneity within the self-employed population was highlighted as a factor that must be considered in the design of any future reforms, underscoring the importance of further research in this area. This recognition of diversity challenges one-size-fits-all approaches and calls for a more differentiated and occupationally sensitive welfare design. Additionally, participants called for simplifying access to social benefits (e.g., by eliminating bureaucratic obstacles), as well as for improving the dissemination of information to the self-employed regarding the benefits to which they are entitled to. Such administrative and informational improvements are critical in rebuilding institutional trust and enhancing take-up.

The access of the self-employed to social protection was also described as inextricably linked to the problem of the shadow economy, a complex and multifaceted challenge that, according to interviewees, encounters resistance rooted in broader cultural norms. To address this issue, several measures were proposed. These included establishing tax incentives for consumers and members of occupational categories frequently associated with tax evasion—for example, by promoting receipt collection as a means of tax reduction. Interviewees also recommended strengthening control mechanisms through the broader use of digital tools. One such proposal involved requiring property owners or the companies/teams executing construction/renovation works to digitally record the nature of the work performed, along with the details of the professionals involved. Furthermore, they suggested strengthening the oversight role of professional chambers, enabling them to engage more systematically in monitoring the activities of different categories of self-employed individuals. These suggestions reflect a pragmatic understanding of enforcement limitations and a willingness to balance compliance mechanisms with institutional reform.

All interviewees expressed strong criticism of the current taxation framework for the self-employed, which they argued reflects a prevailing narrative that portrays self-employed individuals as ‘thieves’. As one interviewee put it, ‘Self-employed individuals cannot be expected to pay off all the debts of the Greek state… while banks and profits from card transaction fees, for example, are not adequately taxed. By contrast, from every EUR 100 of income earned by a self-employed individual, EUR 69 goes to the Greek state. As a result, we work for the Greek state rather than for ourselves’. This striking illustration of fiscal injustice reflects broader perceptions of inequity in how burdens and benefits are distributed within the tax-benefit system. Finally, several interviewees highlighted the role of education in cultivating a culture of responsibility and discouraging social anomy. As one participant stated, ‘The state is not something intangible… state authorities have the ultimate responsibility for designing policies… yet, the state is also all of us’. This illustrates a nuanced conception of co-responsibility, whereby institutional trust must be complemented by civic engagement and reinforced through mechanisms of public accountability.

5. Conclusions

Drawing primarily on findings from a series of semi-structured interviews with self-employed individuals in Greece, this article examined the social protection landscape for this category of workers, with a particular focus on their perceptions of the relevant provisions. While limitations remain in terms of the generalisability of the findings—due to the focus on individuals in more technical occupations, and the lack of emphasis on variable-related dimensions such as sector, gender, or income—this article offers new insights into a highly under-researched topic. Its relevance is further underscored by Greece’s status as an EU and global outlier in terms of high self-employment rates, within a context increasingly shaped by shifts in employment relations and the rise of the digital workplace. By placing individual narratives within this broader structural and institutional context, the analysis offers a window into how macro-level reforms are experienced on the ground.

The empirical findings reveal that, aside from concerns expressed by some interviewees, primarily regarding pensions, access to social protection did not play a decisive role in their entry into self-employment. This contrasts with findings in the broader literature suggesting otherwise (see, e.g., [50,51]). The interviews also corroborate the weaknesses and overall underdevelopment of the social provisions targeting the self-employed in Greece, as emphasised in the relevant literature (see, e.g., [7,12]). It is worth noting that ‘replacement rates’ have declined since the 2008–2009 crisis, with the contributory (‘reciprocal’) pension now amounting to 51% of an individual’s insurable income over a 40-year period. This is supplemented nevertheless by a ‘national’ pension, designed to provide a basic level of income in retirement, regardless of the individual’s earnings history. That being said, several interviewees do not seem to use in a proper way terms like ‘reciprocity’, which may arguably reflect the broader information gap also highlighted during the interviews. This disconnect between policy language and lay understanding illustrates the communicative and educational failures that accompany technocratic reforms.

Additional issues identified in the interviews include the use of private insurance as a strategy for social protection, the relatively weak collective representation of the self-employed as a factor contributing to existing gaps, and the view that high taxation fosters tax evasion and impedes the development of effective protection mechanisms. However, perhaps the most critical issue emerging from the interviews is the pervasive problem of distrust and its implications for social protection. All interviewees agreed that the ‘trust deficit’ between the self-employed and state authorities in Greece is profound, presenting a significant barrier to the expansion—and ultimately the sustainability—of the social protection system. The self-employed widely believe that the Greek state treats them in an unjust and unpredictable manner and perceives them as more likely than salaried employees to engage in fraudulent behaviour. This widespread distrust is further exacerbated by the decline of employee voice and the limited role of trade unions in representing self-employed workers in contemporary policy discourse. These findings highlight that trust is not simply an attitudinal variable, but a structural precondition for the functioning of contributory welfare models.

The interviews also yielded a range of suggestions aimed at improving the social protection of the self-employed, particularly regarding access to the system. Unsurprisingly, given the interconnection between taxation and social protection—and the fact that high taxation emerged as a key concern—several of the recommendations focused primarily on the tax system, as exemplified by a proposal to reduce taxes as a means of incentivising the self-employed to contribute more to social insurance. This linkage reveals the extent to which fiscal and welfare policy must be considered jointly, rather than in isolation, particularly in systems with high informality and low institutional trust.

Overall, the findings from the interviews should also be situated within the broader European and international debate on self-employment, which frequently links this form of work to social investment theory and the enabling state model of the welfare state. In this context, self-employment is often framed as a strategy to promote self-sufficiency, enhance labour market flexibility, and respond to ongoing transformations in employment relations and the world of work (see, e.g., [17]). Similarly, expanding welfare coverage for the self-employed is widely viewed as a necessary adjustment to these transformations, while also contributing to the long-term sustainability of social protection systems, particularly in the face of mounting demographic pressures. These debates are further shaped by broader shifts associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, such as the increasing individualisation of work and the resulting need for organisational adaptation among socio-economic actors, enterprises, and trade unions included. This encompasses the emergence of platform-mediated self-employment, which disrupts conventional distinctions between autonomy and dependence while introducing novel forms of precariousness that warrant deeper conceptual integration into welfare state discourse. By situating micro-level perceptions within these broader structural shifts, the article highlights how self-employment is interconnected with the ongoing transformations of the welfare state.

Although not all interviewees explicitly linked developments in self-employment and access to social protection in Greece with EU-level policies or the broader impact of Europeanisation, some expressed clear dissatisfaction with EU initiatives in these fields. A number of interviewees voiced concerns about what they perceived as an EU-driven agenda aimed at reducing the share of self-employed individuals in Greece, in favour of promoting salaried employment and increasing the prevalence of large enterprises. While the strengthening of social protection is generally viewed as a positive and pragmatic step, reflecting adaptations to the changing world of work, several interviewees suggested that this progress is overshadowed by the state’s use of other instruments, particularly taxation, to exert pressure on the self-employed and steer them towards dependent forms of employment. Moreover, the interviews highlighted concerns that reforms implemented in the aftermath of the 2008–2009 economic crisis—most notably the establishment of EFKA and the shift towards a unified treatment of the self-employed for pension purposes—were primarily driven by fiscal considerations. These reforms, despite introducing uniform rules, do not necessarily respond to the diverse needs of the highly heterogeneous self-employed population. This observation is consistent with critical perspectives on the so-called ‘recalibration’ of the Southern European welfare regime –partly under the influence of social investment theory –, which is not universally viewed as beneficial (see, e.g., [52]). It also raises important questions regarding the extent to which externally imposed or fiscally driven reforms can adequately accommodate the heterogeneity and complexity of self-employment.

Furthermore, although most interviewees may not be acquainted with the specific tenets of social investment theory or its relevance to self-employment and social protection, their concerns resonate strongly with ongoing academic and policy debates regarding its significance. For social investment to be genuinely effective and inclusive, it is imperative to improve and expand access to social protection for the self-employed. In the absence of adequate and effective coverage—particularly for low-income self-employed individuals—the foundational promise of social investment risks being eroded. This risk becomes particularly acute when welfare states actively promote self-employment without simultaneously safeguarding individuals against life-course contingencies such as illness, income volatility, or old age. In such cases, the principle of inclusive support may be supplanted by a logic of individualised risk.

Given the persistent gaps in the social protection of the self-employed well beyond the borders of Greece, the findings—though rooted in the Greek context—bear significant relevance for broader international discussions. Many of the concerns articulated by Greek interviewees, such as low institutional trust, the complexity of accessing benefits, and the increasing reliance on private insurance, echo dynamics observed, for example, across several Southern and Eastern European welfare states. These issues are particularly salient in contexts where self-employment is actively promoted (e.g., through start-up subsidies or the systematic expansion of platform-based work) without parallel efforts to strengthen social protection mechanisms. In this respect, the Greek case provides a valuable lens through which to examine how broader welfare state recalibrations impact precarious groups of workers, while also highlighting the pressing need to reinforce social protection systems and reduce welfare state fragmentation.

In addition, the findings on the effects of the trust deficit between state authorities and the self-employed underscore the need to foster a greater sense of security and fairness, and to rebuild trust in public institutions. To this end, frequent policy changes should be avoided, and the intrinsic link between the tax and social protection systems must be explicitly acknowledged and integrated into policy design. A system that is not perceived as fair risks losing its legitimacy and, ultimately, its sustainability. Aligned with ongoing EU-level initiatives, greater efforts are also needed to develop user-friendly and transparent digital tools, along with one-stop information platforms that can address the persistent gaps in awareness regarding social protection entitlements among the self-employed. Such tools must also be adapted to the realities of the digital workplace and designed to support more inclusive governance models.

Finally, given the significant heterogeneity of the self-employed population, there is a pressing need for more targeted data collection and analysis at both the national and supranational levels. Future research might explore, for example, how platformisation intersects with institutional trust, taxation strategies, and benefit design, especially in contexts where regulatory ambiguity further compounds vulnerability. The collection and analysis of such data would offer a solid empirical basis for the development of policies that move beyond the prevailing ‘one-size-fits-all’ paradigm, enabling a more nuanced response to the heterogeneous realities of self-employment, particularly within a policy landscape shaped by the legacy of COVID-19, ongoing labour market transformations, and the dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.