The book of the economist and academic from Lincei Alexander Roncaglia "The power. A reformist perspective”, published by Laterza, is a complex book, like the topic it deals with. If we were to calculate the frequency of words used, “complexity” would probably be the main result.
There is, precisely for this aspect, a high level of interdisciplinarity in the themes and approaches covered, which make this book almost a smallencyclopedia of knowledge”, full of bibliographical references, illustrations with examples taken from history, but also many from current events. We are dragged into a sea of problems, questions and cautions, but with a sure compass that guides the direction, the one indicated in the subtitle "a reformist perspective". A separate discussion would require the imposing apparatus of notes, almost a parallel book, full of news, clarifications and additions to the main text. As they say, a real mine of facts and ideas.
The relationship between neo-liberalism and power
In my commentary, necessarily limited and brief, I will start from a point that also appears in the initial part of the book, but which is addressed more fully in the final chapters, namely the relationship between neo-liberalism and power. Here appears what might appear to be a paradox; the liberal thought in its various forms it presents itself as one defense of the individual against any power that limits its possibilities of choice and action and as a demonstration of the market's ability to self-regulate in an optimal manner.
The maxim of neo-liberalism, Roncaglia summarizes well, is that "the presence of the State in the economy, considered both inefficient and a violation of individual freedoms, must therefore be reduced to a minimum".
Now the book's treatment shows how the state power is one of the many aspects in which power is exercised in society, so the elimination of the State is by no means a guarantee of the limitation of power over individuals.
When neo-liberalism without rules strengthens other forms of power: a danger for society
But the point I want to focus on is that of role of neo-liberalism in strengthening the weight of other forms of power, which they certainly are damage and danger for the company. In a paragraph Roncaglia recalls some of them. The measurements of financial liberalization supported by neo-liberalism and adopted in all major countries have favored the financialization of the economy and financial globalization with negative effects: a) on the stability of the economy (see financial crisis of 2007-2008 and subsequent euro crises); b) on the sustainability of national taxation systems, encouraging avoidance and distorting the progressivity of taxation, c) on environmental and health or workplace safety regulations; d) on the spaces available for the welfare state; e) on environmental policies.
So in terms of that broad and complex definition of power referred to several times in the book, not only neo-liberalism he didn't keep his promises to give greater freedom to individuals and not by interfering in their actions, but in some cases and in some areas it created new pockets di power with distorting effects precisely on the functioning of the markets, which neo-liberalism claims to defend. The consolidated power of large companies is not undermined, the drive towards monopolies is not stopped, fiscal immunity is favored to the advantage of those who know how to take advantage of it, those most responsible for the environmental disaster are given "freedom" to pollute.
The "shooting corrections" in economic thought
The second aspect on which I would like to focus concerns some "shooting corrections” that Roncaglia offers us in the interpretation of some of the great classics of economic thinking. The first concerns Adam Smith, whose relevance lies in the discussion offered on different motivations for human action, in which he made an important contribution in highlighting the connection between the pursuit of individual interest and moral rules, those which in Smith's vision - unlike the precepts of neo-liberalism - are necessary for the proper functioning of common life in society.
The prerequisite – vital for the functioning of a market economy – is that of a society founded on the general acceptance of moral principle of sympathy and equipped with the administrative and legal institutions necessary to deal with cases where common morality is violated. The founder of liberal thought is the one who highlighted the complexity of human action, not its simplification in the idea that the pursuit of individual interest is the main reason for action, which instead must be tempered by the idea of social coexistence .
The second concerns Hayek, who opposed the idea that it is possible and appropriate to build social institutions from above, according to precepts of an impersonal and objective reason, because this would have a potential for development in the direction of authoritarianism, which is by definition the maximum coagulation of candies. This book - through the proposals of a structural reform strategy - aims to demonstrate exactly the opposite, which is only through targeted interventions, perhaps partial and limited, but aimed at limiting the imperfections of the functioning of the market, are possible reduce inequalities generated in the absence of correction mechanisms of the spontaneity of the market.
A reasonable utopia that proposed by Roncaglia, because he is aware of the impossibility of completely eliminating power and the inequalities that derive from it; in good company, as well as A. Smith, of JM Keynes, who argued that reason - motivated by passions as well as interests - is the guide to orient human action towards more acceptable social objectives. In fact, the third "shooting correction" concerns the interpretation of Keynes as a theorist of reasonable action, on the basis ofinformation and knowledge, which can counteract evils of human action not governed by rules. Trust in market regulation, not in its replacement with a dominant role of the State.
According to Keynes, the behavior of consumers, entrepreneurs or speculators in a context of uncertainty cannot be traced back to the optimizing rational choice of the utilitarian tradition. Every economic decision requires the evaluation of information; this is often contradictory or at least not unambiguous and often insufficient to allow us to predict the future. So we have to weigh it with our knowledge and our experience.
However, the decision under conditions of uncertainty must not be interpreted as a renunciation of the possibility of choosing according to reason, even if not "rational" in the sense of traditional theory. It is a reasonableness that takes into account the complexity of consequences and the implications of the action on the overall situation. Keynes' reformism, like that of Roncaglia, is based on the trust in reformative action not in the utopian mirage of a distant future, in which everything finds a solution, but in a project firmly anchored to the possible and achievable not in the long term but in a near horizon.
