The image of Confindustria that emerges from the post-war Italian economic history is that of an institution that represents a social part, but is capable of directing its action and its proposals to objectives of general interest, mostly inspired by a vision liberal economy and society: the expression, in short, of the ability of the Italian entrepreneurial class to act as a reference force, also political, for the growth and development of the country.
This at least is the lesson to be drawn from Angelo Costa's Confindustria's support for the free trade choice and entry into the common market; from the positions in favor of the enterprise, the free market and competition in the face of the spread of public intervention in the 60s and 70s; from the denunciation of the dangers of inflation and the support to the Government for joining the euro in the 90s. In all these cases, the Confindustria summit was able to indicate to the country, but also to its base, not always unanimous, the opportunity for choices based on the needs of modernization and internationalization, positioning itself as a completely autonomous counterpart of the political system.
We could ask ourselves, at the turn of the century, whether this role of Confindustria was actually still needed: the end of the First Republic seemed to coincide with the full adhesion, by both sides of the political system, to a liberal vision of the market and of the economy. The major reforms that took place in the second half of the 90s gave rise to a substantial, albeit incomplete, process of privatisation, liberalisation, integration of the Italian market into the global one, within the broader Community process , culminating in the accession to the euro. Perhaps, it might have been thought, that commitment on general issues wasn't so necessary after all: instead attention to the issues of interest representation and bargaining became more urgent, with governments that seemed, in effect, more than in the past, sensitive to the themes proposed by the entrepreneurial side.
Unfortunately, this conclusion did not turn out to be valid. In the last ten years the drive for renewal seems to have run out. In the more difficult international context of the 2000s, the modernizing thrust coming from the European Union has slackened: particular thrusts and interests have prevailed, and in politics, on the right as on the left, the difficulty of developing strategies for the liberation of the huge resources that the country also has. This is testified by the substantial blockage of the liberalization and privatization processes in the last decade, but also by the news of recent weeks, characterized by proposals for a growing role of direct and indirect public intervention in the productive and financial sector, substantially protectionist and protection of existing positions of power, without any debate being activated between the political forces. And it's not just a question of who is in government: while the opposition passively undergoes government proposals on issues such as foreign investment, public intervention in strategic sectors and even the discipline of the takeover bid, which at the time was was designed to finally make the asphyxiated control system of Italian companies more open, it cannot escape trade union-conservative positions in addressing the issues of reform of the labor market, education and university and local public services .
In essence, the political system as a whole does not seem capable of devising and implementing the profound changes in the structure of markets, economic institutions and governance necessary to allow the country to emerge from the stagnation in which it has been stuck for a decade. Fortunately, a country is not just its political system: as in the not so distant past, the responsibility for proposing solutions, beyond the particular interest, seems to fall on the ruling class and on the representatives of the social forces available.
Of course, the interest representatives cannot and must not replace the political forces: but they can press them so that they do their job, that is, they elaborate and implement a policy, with a capital P, of growth, in the interest of the country. From this point of view, the entrepreneurial representatives are not lacking clarity of analyzes and proposals, elaborated in recent years both by Confindustria and by its cousin more dedicated to studies and less to politics, Assonime. Perhaps a sufficiently critical vision of the capacity of the interlocutors has been lacking in recent years. Unfortunately, the time has come to be critical, albeit with constructive aims, forcing political subjects to renew their ideas, analysis tools and proposals; thus once again asserting the role of exponent of one of the most vital components of the country that Confindustria has had and continues to have.
Read Giorgio Fossa's speech
Former Secretary General of the Antitrust Authority
Programme
