The Prime Minister and the (well done) Minister of the Economy presented a national "plan" to facilitate the introduction of the so-called industry 4.0, i.e. that set of technologies which, by exploiting the successful digitization of production processes, will achieve the interconnection of factories and companies by automating all the actions necessary for manufacturing production. The plan seems robust enough, full of positive intentions and above all aimed at putting our industry in step with that of its main competitors; which are already ahead, being able to count on flows of private investments already made by companies autonomously. The most important positive fact is that of presenting a potentially strong boost to a system which, above all on the side of large companies, has stopped: due to our ridiculous bureaucracies, due to the incompetence of the great managers and due to the opportunism which pushed the shareholders to emigrate with their companies – whole or in pieces – for fear of paying taxes.
In my opinion, there are some critical points in the Government's commendable plan. Industry 4.0, as the official document rightly states, facilitates the production of small lots at large-scale costs and therefore in itself favors small sizes to the detriment of large ones. Indeed, I would say: the future will be medium-sized companies which ensure maximum flexibility combined with managerial organisations. If this consideration is correct, there is a great oversight in the analysis of the "Italian model" from which we want to start: instead of highlighting the role of the territories, therefore of the district areas as they have evolved so far with the growing presence of middle companies (the Fourth capitalism) in the pivot function, the presence of a few big players and a limited number of supply chain leaders is remembered, or perhaps complains again; but every medium-sized company is at the head of its supply chain/network! In my opinion, therefore, if the territories and their institutions are not involved, the effect of the plan risks being mild.
Another aspect that I don't see touched on concerns the consequences of industry 4.0: it's not about pushing the share of industry in GDP; this is destined to decrease because we move towards more flexible organizations that create value in networks and not within individual manufacturing companies. The services will benefit; for example education, research, network and supply chain models, consultancy services, everything that passes through the web, etc. etc. But these benefits will bring with them a major job shuffle. The introduction of these new technological assets and the repercussions on the organization will produce new unemployment in the first place. Since the Government measures will have an immediate effect, the greatest appeal for our industrialists will be that of being able to restructure their companies, in which, among other things, very little has been invested in recent years. The effect of induced investments, difficult to predict now, will instead be much later.
A final question, fundamental in my opinion, is the actual boost that will be given to private investment. John Maynard Keynes taught us that it is "the expectation of the future" that influences the present through the demand for capital goods. Let us therefore return to the great problem of our economy which does not lie in the size of the companies, nor in the presumed low innovative capacity of SMEs, but in the lack of internal demand and therefore of markets on which to place new products. Now it is as if we had a large Formula 1 track available, but empty, without champions ready to press the accelerator: there is low-cost finance, there are technologies that can be introduced with significant public support and massive tax reductions; there is a government that acts friendly; but we lack consumer demand expectation. In this context, the Government declares that it is renouncing a "dirigiste role" and therefore, I deduce, to experiment with active local development policies: a return to laissez faire? It would be Jurassic stuff, already rejected by history. With workers impoverished by the reform of contracts and massacred by unemployment, I find it difficult to hope that entrepreneurs will find the strength to give full gas on their own.
