One of the typical characteristics of the Italian political debate has been that of not engaging in the concrete problems of updating the country's economic structure, arguing that the problem was "much different": the class struggle, the structure of Italian capitalism, democracy; thus missing the train of modernization on several occasions. The idea of passing for a "benaltrista" then gives goosebumps to those who have reformist sentiments. Nevertheless, in the face of the criticisms that are raised regarding the lack of liberalization in the government programme, one cannot help but note that the problem is really "much different".
Does the problem of liberalization in Italy really concern the sale of class C drugs in parapharmacies and taxis? Confusing over-the-counter drugs with those in class C (ie, not paid by the National Health Service) among which there are potentially equally toxic or in need of precaution as those in class A? And forgetting that taxis, to some degree should be such as to clash with the interest in an efficient service)?
This does not mean that there is no need to liberalise, but that true reform action requires greater reflection on both objectives and instruments.
On the objectives: it must be clear that liberalizations in the markets for goods and services not only serve to abolish privileges or marginally reduce costs for the consumer, but are an essential step in policies for growth, because they make it possible to reduce the constraints on entry and on the organization of business activities. Bearing in mind that the positive effects are generally not limited to the market concerned, but are transmitted through the production chain. A few examples: the liberalization of the retail trade, still implemented in a patchwork fashion due to the lack of preparation of plans by various regions, implies profound changes in logistics, production methods, quality control even in the upstream phases. The liberalization of road haulage, still characterized in fact by ministerial price controls, would facilitate the reorganization and rationalization of the system. And we could continue by recalling the situation of national air transport, in which the monopolization of traffic has even been authorized by law, and in which an opening to competition, perhaps through the entry of serious European operators, can have beneficial effects not only on ticket prices, but on the articulation of the service and hence on all the activities influenced by the convenience of transport, such as tourism.
On instruments: effective liberalization however requires an analysis of the markets in order to identify what are the actual constraints on the functioning of competition. Let's stay with the case of pharmacies: it doesn't really seem that the problem is that of class C drugs: instead, in our country there is a regulatory constraint on the opening of new pharmacies, since according to a national law, one pharmacy is allowed for every 5 inhabitants. When the Puglia region lowered the threshold to 3.500 inhabitants, the state appealed to the Constitutional Court, which declared state competence in the matter (the argument that local bodies should know the situation better is worthless). In our country, pharmacies can only be managed by pharmacists or by companies of pharmacists (however with the maximum limit of four). And each pharmacist can only have one pharmacy. This prevents the industrialization of the service, through the creation of chains of pharmacies, with consequent efficiencies, as well as any possibility of integration between drug distribution and resale. The pharmacists and their association argue that these forecasts have been attacked by the European Commission, but considered not to be in conflict with European legislation by the Court of Justice because in this matter each country can assert considerations relating to public health; but legitimate does not necessarily mean appropriate: certainly the defense of the criterion "one pharmacy, one pharmacist" clashes with an entrepreneurial management of drug distribution, which can allow a simplification in logistics, a reduction in margins for the distributor, and therefore a lower cost for the tax authorities and for consumers.
It is bold to think that comprehensive reforms of sectors such as pharmaceutical distribution, or commercial distribution or fuels or road haulage or professional orders could have been tackled in a few weeks by a newly installed government. And it is diminutive to think that taxis and band C represent or would have represented a turning point on the subject: they certainly represent it less than other measures which are also present in the decree, in particular, the provisions concerning timetables and restrictions on the opening of commercial establishments, though still at a largely principled level, e the new tasks entrusted to the Antitrust as regards the administrative restrictions on economic activity (a complex theme to which it will be good to return). Of course, the difficulty encountered by the government proposals shows the strength of the categories: but perhaps this was easier in the face of partial measures than an overall reflection on the functioning of the markets.
In short, the issue of liberalization is still largely to be developed. And it could not be otherwise, given the complexity of the issues to be addressed, in a context that, moreover more than that of choice for the consumer it should be that of opportunities for the competitive producer: it is from the evolution, modernization and growth of the production system that benefits for the consumer derive. Liberalisation must therefore become a piece, and not even the least important one, of the growth strategy it intends to set in the coming weeks.
