However the current political situation develops, the issue of relaunching infrastructure is at the top of the agendas of the Government and Parliament. According to the data from the Observatory on the Costs of Not Doing, 2010 was the worst year in terms of goals scored in the last five years. However, perhaps because affected by the disease of the optimism of the will (which is opposed to the "pessimism of reason" - Antonio Gramsci), I believe there are conditions for giving substance to a reform that allows the relaunch of investments in infrastructure in our country. The reasons are of various order and can be summarized in the following points.
A) Growing evidence of infrastructure needs.
As well highlighted in Governor Draghi's annual report in the chapter dedicated to infrastructure, environmental, economic, competitive and social needs add up to make evident a need that is difficult to postpone. The network infrastructures built in the last century, which have been known for some time to be modernized (or replaced), have further deteriorated if only due to the effect of the years and technological obsolescence. Think, for example, of the gas, electricity, water, motorway, railway networks, and also of the telecoms, whose construction dates back to the second post-war period, if not earlier.
Often, then, these same networks need to be completed even if, in general, these are not very large works since the coverage of the country is in any case wide. The infrastructural requirement also concerns plant engineering such as, for example, waste-to-energy plants, water supply, renewable energy plants, and more. Then there are innovative infrastructures for which the cost is relatively certain while the benefits are more complex to quantify. This is the case, for example, of ultra-broadband (100 Mbytes) whose estimated burden for the country is around €10 billion but whose benefits are not well quantifiable. In short, according to our estimates, in the next 15 years around €300 billion will have to be invested in the sectors mentioned here alone; the challenge is gigantic!
B) Focusing on the causes that block achievements.
But where does optimism come from? In recent years scholars and operators have highlighted the determinants of infrastructure delays and have also often indicated possible solutions. We ourselves, in the context of the Observatory on the Costs of Not Doing (see the various annual reports and in particular that of 2009), have distinguished various contributing causes which may also have a highly differentiated nature; it suffices to recall the intertwining of social opposition (Nimby), administrative blockades, legislative changes (often during construction) and decision-making incapacity, an interweaving that generates "risky" situations that slow down or block construction and alienate possible national and Not. Then there are structural elements pertaining to the country-system that play an important role, such as for example illegality of various kinds rather than a cumbersome and untimely judicial system, unable to guarantee rights. In short, the "enemy" to fight is well identified! On the other hand, in recent years we have also experienced cases where investments have been made and the modernization of the system has been witnessed.
Consider, for example, the almost total renewal of electricity production capacity or the extension of the transport network. It is a widespread opinion that a set of rules perceived as transparent, stable over time, fair and effectively applied, is essential to arouse the long-term interest of industrial and financial operators. But also rules, such as the so-called power plant release decree, which make it possible to give order and speed up the decision-making processes of public administrations, are essential elements for any recovery hypothesis. Finally, the focus on a clear and shared infrastructural development strategy for the country also appears to be significant, where the political system can find adequate convergence; but we will return to this shortly. The financial question does not end with the rearrangement of rules and procedures.
There are works that have an intrinsic capacity for self-financing in a short time, others require the search for public or semi-public sources of funding; the whole question of how to make up for the public finance crisis requires the development of innovative logics which should be supported by adequate legislative interventions. As Draghi points out several times, it is a question of developing adequate Cost-Benefit Analyzes, or even studies on the Costs of Not Doing, in order to direct the scarce resources, whether public or private, towards the uses that generate the greatest positive effects for community.
C) Current initiatives.
Alongside the aforementioned achievements of recent years, there are also regulatory projects and interventions that pursue the relaunch. I would like to point out the Logistics Project, promoted by the Ministry of Infrastructure which aims to address a critical issue, logistic costs, which place Italy in objectively disadvantaged conditions compared to international competition. The decision to create the Water Agency (envisaged by the Development Decree whose conversion into law will have to take place in the next few days) is also in the correct direction, even if the current formulation of the law does not appear satisfactory since it leaves too much room for the political system , such as for example by delegating the appointment of the director to the Council of Ministers, giving rise to a solution that is certainly not without risk.
The Development Decree itself could host other rules that address some specific issues. Worthy efforts include the commitment to find new forms of financing; the hypothesis of Eurobonds issued by the EU to finance infrastructure is a good example. Also the intervention on these pages by Franco Bassanini, President of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, shows how there are ideas and projects, some completed and others soon to be implemented.
D) Towards the construction of a framework law.
So, what are the guidelines for finding a definitive solution to the question? Useful references are the legislation of other countries, such as France and England, on which, however, there is no room for further study here. Without aiming to be exhaustive, therefore, the objective of focusing a regulation for infrastructural constructions should take into consideration at least the following aspects:
1) Identification of the reference perimeter by extending the application of the law to the widest possible spectrum of cases, perhaps even distinguishing different levels of strategic importance for the country on the basis of objective parameters.
2) Global review of the authorization procedures in order to seek simplification, to avoid duplication, to extend the logic of the service conference to the maximum, to guarantee certain times but also to favor the optimization of the quality of the decisions.
3) Review of the powers of local administrations for works with a high level of strategic importance for the country.
4) Establishment of the procedures for involving stakeholders with a view to maximizing the collection and implementation of points of view also against the work, but also with a view to favoring a clearer assumption of responsibility for the decisions taken (see ad example the French public debate).
5) Establishment of the methods for determining the compensatory disbursements, specifying the criteria for quantifying the maximum ceilings and the concrete methods, which, for example, should concern only the creation of development and territorial redevelopment works, avoiding cash payments.
6) Limitation of judicial appeals against the construction of the work, too often instrumental and opportunistic, possibly providing for penalizing forms in the event of a negative outcome of the appeal.
7) Institutionalization of constant monitoring of the implementation phases through a permanent "control room" which regulates and directs the process according to a logic of continuous participation of the main stakeholders 8) Concentration of all authorizations (Conference of Services, EIA Decree, acquisition of opinions and permits, etc.) in a single moment ensuring the representation of all the Administrations involved.
The Government is working in this direction. The Interparliamentary Group on the Costs of Not Doing, promoted by us and recently set up within the two branches of parliament, also represents a further opportunity to tackle a reform from a bipartisan and overall point of view that really gives breath to the relaunch of modernization through an all-round law that we will call, for convenience and also for superstition (given the substantial effectiveness of the Unblock-centrals), the "Unblock-infrastructures".
* professor at Bocconi University and director of the Observatory on the Costs of Not Doing.
