“A pact for productivity between the social partners with the support of the Monti government? It's a difficult path but it's right to try and open the construction site immediately, knowing that we could reap the benefits in the next legislature”. It is a prudent and realistic but not reluctant approach that of Alessandro Laterza, editor and vice president of Confindustria with responsibility for the South, to the project of a pact for programmed productivity illustrated last weekend on FIRSTonline by the economist Marcello Messori. Here is his interview.
FIRST online – Laterza, Confindustria has accepted President Monti's invitation to open a discussion with the trade unions on productivity, which in all international rankings sees Italy in the bottom positions, but his organization is convinced it can actually arrive at some concrete result? And how do you judge the proposal launched by Messori on the merits?
THE THIRD – Confindustria has always been interested in comparing productivity and the conceptual structure indicated by Professor Messori is certainly an excellent starting point. However, we need to find a formula that translates it into certain and concrete results. Otherwise let's just do a purely theoretical exercise. The logic of Messori's proposal well reflects the issues and problems of the scenario but realistically I observe that I still don't see any signs that give hope for a positive and rapid outcome.
FIRST online – Blame the unions?
THE THIRD – No, if basic problems are tackled with seriousness and commitment, the trade unions will certainly not shy away from the challenge. But the game is complex, very complex. To reach a real and not just a superficial agreement between the social partners on productivity, the Government's commitment to financial resources is needed and, above all, a commitment by the political forces that the state cannot see.
FIRST online – Let's go down to the merits of the questions raised by Messori's proposal for a planned productivity pact: what are, in your opinion, the most delicate points?
THE THIRD – Messori's proposal hypothesizes productivity growth based on the reorganization of all production factors and warns that, in the short term, this could lead to reductions in employment which it is realistically suggested to deal with with massive doses of universal social safety nets. Perfect, but do you have an idea of how much they cost? Everything can be done but very significant financial resources are needed. And just as many are needed to attack the other two points mentioned by Messori: the removal of negative externalities (from energy to justice, from infrastructures to bureaucracy, from training to research and innovation) and the need to lighten taxes on work and businesses.
FIRST online - The Giavazzi floor reduction or abolition of incentives and subsidies for businesses speaks of at least 10 billion euros that can be saved and put at the service of reforms: is Confindustria against it?
THE THIRD – No, President Squinzi has already clarified this when he said that of the 30 billion disbursed to businesses, only 3 really go to private individuals and that their remodulation can be discussed but on the condition that, for example, they bring home the archiving or sharp reduction in Irap. In short: fewer incentives in exchange for lower taxes for work and businesses. But the point is also another.
FIRST online - Which?
THE THIRD – The certainty of the figures is also under discussion. Personally I would like the calculations on the expenditure and income of the Giavazzi plan to be rigorously verified because the extent of the savings leaves me in doubt and seems overestimated. So much for resources, but then there's the political unknown to face.
FIRST online – Do you think about the elections that are approaching?
THE THIRD - Not only. I think that the productivity challenge is of great interest to Confindustria but it must openly call the government into question and that, however, this is not a given. So far Monti has told the social partners: the problem of productivity is very serious, face it. But without the active contribution of the Government and - I insist - of all the political forces it is difficult to go far. Secondly, I would like to humbly remind you that this confrontation is not only intertwined with the electoral season but also with that of contract renewals and that all of this cannot fail to affect issues of a general order.
FIRST online – In short, the pact is right but isn't it for today?
THE THIRD – No, I'm not saying that. It's right to try to the end but without fueling illusions and always keeping your feet on the ground. An agreement and above all the preconditions necessary for an agreement, in the present conditions, are difficult to identify: it is useless to deny it. But it's good to try. The productivity yard must be opened and fed immediately: in the worst case scenario we will have sown even if we will reap the fruits later.
