The economic policy decisions of the coming weeks are articulated on two fronts: the European one and the domestic one. It is clear that what is decided in Europe will have a great impact on the political and economic scenario but the important choices that fall within the exclusive responsibility of the Italian government must not be overlooked. And here it would be useful to distinguish the interventions aimed at tackling the emergency – where it needs to be strengthened direct help to families and self-employed workers and supported the liquidity and solvency of businesses – from those that need to be quickly put in place for recovery.
The interventions of the government with the decree of 25 March and with the forthcoming one mainly fall within the first group of policies (emergency). But if you want to avoid a U-shaped recession, and even a U with a long horizontal leg, we must think of what Romano Prodi defined a few days ago as "reconstruction". And perhaps here we need to focus on medium-term microeconomic policies since monetary and fiscal policies are not useful.
At least they can be indicated three fields of intervention: avoid – or minimize – relapses sensitive to the epidemic phenomenon that block the production system again; lighten the burden of bureaucracy to speed up the recovery of investment; stimulate innovation technology through public demand.
On the first front, the goal should be to make the right to work and the right to health compatible. Two tools seem to be available, albeit both with some weaknesses: license for the immunized (which, however, requires serological tests that do not seem entirely reliable at the moment) e behavior monitoring (in this case the problems of respecting privacy seem to be solved through digital identity). In any case, it is not yet clear how the government will want to proceed. And since any system takes time to be operational, it would be useful to clarify the objectives and start discussing how to proceed.
On the excessive weight of bureaucratic burdens, some proposals have already been indicated. Firstly, the excessive burden of liability on officials must be lightened (for example by providing that they are liable only in cases of willful misconduct and not gross negligence). Then it could be clarified the full and direct applicability for the next two years of the rule (which already exists in the procurement code) which gives the contracting authorities the possibility, in cases of extreme urgency - and which should not be limited to sanitary equipment - to proceed to assignment through a procedure without publication of the call for tenders (possibility reiterated in recent days by a communication from the Commission). And lastly. the exceptions that are granted to the Civil Protection should be extended to the larger contracting authorities.
Finally, it is clear that the epidemic requires a leap in the diffusion of technologies: on the health front in the first place but also to make more distant lifestyles and work possible. Digital communication will be the architrave of social relations and, much more than yesterday, of the productive organization, especially in services. And here we suffer from a strong delay of our country: in the public administration (as demonstrated by the INPS case) but also in the private sector which hesitates on decisions of strategic importance as demonstrated by the case of broadband. It is therefore urgent resume the computerization plan of the country, support infrastructure and choose between competition and monopoly in the network.
The program is vast, as they say. And perhaps it would be useful if the emergency/reconstruction difference also found within the government distinct places of elaboration and legislative instruments. Bringing everything to the same table and at the same times risks increasing confusion and this is already not felt at all right now.
