The interesting editorial that Francesco Giavazzi, full professor at Bocconi and leading columnist for Corriere della Sera, writes today in the newspaper directed by Ferruccio de Bortoli with the title "Growth held back by too many monopolies" and with the buttonhole that he explains: “Lobbies and special interests”.
Giavazzi mainly maintains three things: 1) that Marchionne was right to leave Confindustria; 2) that for economic growth the move by the head of Fiat is worth more than what the Government does; 3) that Confindustria, as conceived in Italy, no longer exists in the most advanced countries and does not serve to support development and defend small businesses.
“So far for growth – begins Giavazzi's editorial – Sergio Marchionne has done more, announcing the exit of Fiat from Confindustria, of the Government which is betting on a new high-speed line from Lecce to Trieste. Because it is not the lack of infrastructure that prevents us from growing - at least not in the first place - but the thousand special interests that have been preventing reforms for decades. And Confindustria is one of these”.
Giavazzi then recalls that a Confindustria like ours no longer exists in the US and in Great Britain and argues: "It is one thing to have freedom of association, to propose, to lobby, the transparent promotion of specific interests, it is another to sit down at the table with the government to "agre the laws, negotiating "do ut des" with the claim to have a monopoly on the interests of all companies".
Giavazzi then points out that today in Confindustria the large public and private monopolies are in charge and raises two questions: how are their interests reconciled with those of small and medium-sized enterprises and with what credibility can Confindustria fight for privatization and liberalization? "The story of article 8 of the recent financial maneuver is symptomatic" adds Giavazzi according to whom Confindustria has sided with the unions "because an industrial association is justified only if there are equally powerful national unions".
Naturally one can object to the individual points of Giavazzi's editorial but the unconventional substance of his speech is of great interest and deserves to be carefully discussed.
