In recent weeks, several commentators have hoped that Renzi would say something more about how Italy should deal with the serious problems afflicting it. They were satisfied: the mayor of Florence launched his ideas ("not a program") for the primaries (see here) with various proposals. I comment (of course it's mostly my opinions, for what they're worth, and not facts) only those relating to the economy (and not all of them).
“From the spending review to the spending view” (Chapter 03 Paragraph c – Point 2): a 20-25% reduction in investments and transfers to businesses is proposed. It is not clear whether he wants to cut public investments or not (in the previous lines he speaks of the strategic nature of public investments); the attackable basis for the cuts, estimated at 60-70 billion is therefore not well defined. Transfers to businesses, despite the difficulty of calculating them, amount to 10 billion. As a result, it is unclear how it funds the tax breaks it proposes for the lowest incomes. Unclear and weak in public finance. Point 3: proposes a productive reallocation of 50% of European funds: what would this "productive reallocation" be? Does that mean that European funds are misallocated? And on what evidence is this criticism based? Unclear.
“Support the purchasing power of Italians” (Chapter 05 Paragraph a – Point 2): the Authorities should investigate the evolution of tariffs and propose regulatory actions to align them with programmed inflation. And what have the Authorities (where there are) done up to now? And if the price of fuels (for energy) grows more than the programmed inflation? And if companies make investments (how they recover them). This is not good: tariff control mechanisms have other principles. Inaccurate on the functioning of the institutions and wrong.
"Disproving Longanesi: from great works to great results" (Chapter 05 Paragraph c - Point 2): choosing the great works that are really needed with an international and independent commission that evaluates costs and benefits. Very good (if he can beat the builders lobby….) . Point 3: modernization of the electricity grid and of the market to reduce the cost of the bill by promoting the development of distributed generation. Not good: the cost of the bill does not depend on the networks and the development of distributed generation poses problems for large plants built in recent years and which are not depreciated. Wrong and with risks for employment.
“Healthcare” (Chapter 06, Paragraph e – Point 2): financing of the various Regional Health Systems is proposed with local taxation and an equalization fund. The problem is that it is not specified how it intends to distribute taxation between local and central and therefore the issue of federalism is not dealt with. Elusive. Paragraph f- Pensions: The pension reform introduced by Elsa Fornero will not be questioned. Ottimo
“A fund for the reduction of the tax burden” (Chapter 07 Paragraph c): Renzi intends to recover 5 billion a year in 40 years. In the three-year period 2008-2010 we collected just under 9 (see here) Very ambitious, I would say unrealistic.
In conclusion, I would say that there is a certain "smokiness", partly expected since politicians must remain sufficiently generic in their programmes, and some imprecision. But a country with a very serious debt crisis and which hasn't grown for twenty years would need to clarify how the recovery is combined with public finance compatibility. And this is missing. It must also be said that politicians are not chosen only on the basis of programmes. In the first place because events (largely unpredictable) generally confront them with choices that upset their agenda and therefore the ability with which they face the unexpected, their character and courage count. And this is where Renzi seems well equipped.
