Ours is a very strange country. After 60 years of debates there are still those who consider the presence of so many small companies on the peninsula to be harmful. And down to complaining about the difficulty of doing business by not failing to exhibit international rankings whose inconsistency should be demonstrated by the simple fact that the Chamber of Commerce registers showed over 6 million companies at the end of last March! With new registrations (births) of over 115 thousand units in 2013 (Unioncamere data). Even recently, in valuable television programs with large audiences, it happened to hear that our problems (moreover "historical") originate from the SMEs and from the lack of growth in their productivity. But how is it possible for non-competitive companies to take charge of "the whole" trade balance of our manufacturing?
I recently had the opportunity to present my considerations in two conferences, the first in Modena and the second in the Senate of the Republic. The reader will find the two presentations attached below to which I will add just a few firm points:
1) Manufacturing sees five major protagonists in Europe: in order of volumes, Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Spain. Each of them produces goods worth more than 100 billion euros every year; these are the countries that are useful in comparisons, since it is useless to refer to the "little ones" (for example the good Scandinavians). Having said that, as can be seen from the first slide projected in the Senate, it is very clear that in Europe the "ways" of producing differ above all in the prevailing size of the companies. In other words, it is possible to be "big" in manufacturing by working with large companies (see Switzerland, which however counts for little, and Germany, where moreover there is a large Mittelstand that is very similar to our Fourth Capitalism), or with small companies ( Italy and Spain); France is halfway.
2) Why are small businesses competitive in Italy (given that they have persisted in not dying for more than half a century)? It's the district effect, honey, one would say when commenting the financiers of Wall Street! The concentration of production in some places and the division of labor into connected phases in the supply chain allow economies "external to the company", but "internal to the place", which minimize costs exactly as happened in Henry Ford's old car factory; but today the Fordist enterprise itself has declined having learned from Toyota to integrate with suppliers to reduce financial needs. But our districts also have the social contexts that make the "places" authentic laboratories of innovation where new products and new ways of producing them are invented. Think of the Modenese area for engines, the Riviera del Brenta and the Ascoli-Macerata area for footwear, the Veronese area where the company of Dante Alighieri's son survives much improved, producing Amarone, one of the best national wines (see 2014 Report of the 'National Observatory of Italian districts).
3) Is it true that Italy is doing badly because it entered the Eurozone? To answer, statistics and above all international comparisons must be handled with care. Italy has long been penalized by inappropriate and in any case uneven GDP calculation techniques compared to other countries (refer to my essay on European Planning Studies last December for details). The best way to establish whether we are doing better or worse is to see ourselves "in relation" to the other main competitors (ie Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Spain). In the two attached reports there is a very indicative slide. In the first years of the euro, our manufacturing increased its weight and it could not have been otherwise. In a more fluid, more extensive and more accessible international market thanks to the progress of communications, our "small" businesses (or rather, our district and Fourth Capitalism systems) have reaped undeniable successes. We reached the maximum weight in 2009, just the first year after the great financial crisis. What happened after? The sovereign debt crisis has slowed down the development of many countries, with the aggravating circumstance of (wrong) restrictive policies imposed by EU Commissioners. Money has risen, but above all credit has become much scarcer. Banks rationed their customers without realizing that they were killing their real source of income and that is businesses; today they try to make amends by asking their shareholders for resources to rebuild the proportion of capital deteriorated by the same customer difficulties for which in many cases they are responsible. Crisis, layoffs, bankruptcies, many following requests for repayment dictated by a banking system (all aligned, including the central bank) unable to interpret the strengths and weaknesses of our production system have pushed us ever lower. We reached the low point in the third quarter of 2013 and today we are still at the bottom of the ravine, despite the "lights" outside the tunnel that some governments preceding Matteo Renzi's claimed to glimpse with some certainty.
4) Is it true that we are less productive than other countries? Comparisons must be made on a homogeneous basis. In the Fourth Capitalism (which together with the districts covers about three quarters of our manufacturing production) this is certainly not the case as the analyzes of the Mediobanca Research Department show. Not only do we have comparable productivity levels (obviously by measuring production "by value"), but we enjoy an advantage in terms of labor costs. Our margins (that is, our competitiveness) are even higher than those of Germany. And it could not have been otherwise if it is true that in 2013 the district areas broke the record for foreign trade surplus. But what are we missing to beat Germany? Our Fourth Capitalism successfully faces their Mittelstand. The disadvantage lies entirely in large companies: the real challenge for the current government is to get them back (since they have largely relocated) and attract investments from foreign multinationals. But first, referring to our "great" entrepreneurs, a profound cultural conversion is needed: the key to the success of an advanced country, such as ours must be, lies in focusing on competitiveness based on revenues and not on costs. It is the principle at the basis of the companies of the Fourth Capitalism (I refer to the econometric verification carried out with Daniela Venanzi which will be in the book "The new industrial districts" edited for the Mill by Marco Bellandi and Annalisa Caloffi).
5) Is it true that Italy is the victim of a delayed adjustment to globalisation? To respond appropriately, it is enough to look at the dynamics of the turnover of our industry: that towards the domestic market is falling or stagnating and that towards abroad is growing. Therefore, contrary to what many say, it is a great fortune that these small business systems of ours have been able to "adjust" to the best. And the Fourth Capitalism is not a phenomenon of "some" successful enterprise: it is the real novelty of the last twenty years, a precise evolution of district areas in the context of globalization itself. But many problems remain. Keynes showed us that an economy can remain in equilibrium even under conditions of underemployment (this is our case). It is therefore necessary to "push" it with appropriate policies if we want to restart it to give work to the many unemployed we have. With Lino Mastromarino we have developed a methodological proposal for active policy centered on a strategic plan (see Report in the Senate and the essay that will be published shortly following the 2014 Report on districts "Ideas, experiences and projects to strengthen or rebuild competitiveness of the territories). I would like to clarify that a methodology must be established: if there must be a relaunch, the "push" must apply to territories that remain promising, but which require restructuring and conversion. It is useless to disperse the incentives, for example through a tax credit issued to anyone. The rule must be that of the “smart entrepreneur”: don't waste scarce resources, focus on the most successful activities, carefully check the ex-post results (a practice that public administrations are unaware of). To conduct active policies, tools capable of supporting (and attracting) businesses and influencing local areas are needed. In this perspective, the role of the chambers of commerce should be strengthened and requalified.
I close with the title of this reflection: ours is essentially a problem of culture. All that remains is to hope that the decadence of our ruling class will finally stop.
