"The radical change of scenery of the nineties - in technology, in world trade, in international politics, and in the monetary regime of Europe with the creation of a single currency - found us with a completely inadequate. Our institutions have not been able to react adequately and this explains the arrest of development and then the crisis that has hit Italy much more deeply than other countries close to us”.
Alfredo Macchiati, professor of economic policy at Luiss, but previously with extensive experience in public administration, and especially in the various authorities (from the Bank of Italy to the Antitrust and Consob), and in public companies, has no doubts in identifying the underlying causes of the now over twenty-year decline of our country. “It is not a question of introducing only macroeconomic corrective measures, i.e. a little less austerity and a lot less taxes, to improve the fortunes of our country and put it back on a par with other European countries which, although they do not show great growth performances ”.
Alfredo Macchiati has just published an essay at Il Mulino, “Why Italy is growing slowly”, which will be presented and discussed on November 29 at the Luiss in Rome by Minister Padoan and Bassanini and Messori: in that book he demonstrates with an abundance of data and of intersectoral analyses, quoting economists but also political scientists and sociologists, that the problem of our country lies in the fact that, just as the need to adapt to the great changes in the world scenario was becoming evident, we ended up with a weaker state at the same time heavier, it would be better to say more cumbersome, which has not been able to reject particular pressures in the name of a general interest, but at the same time has hindered the functioning of the markets, effectively limiting competition. Here is the interview that Macchiati gave to FIRSTonline.
Professor Macchiati, many problems are ancient, and even date back to the first years of the formation of the unitary state, but others have accumulated more recently, in the so-called second Republic. How come no problem has been addressed in time?
“The Second Republic tried to tackle some reforms but was unable to complete them due to the opposition of social groups who felt threatened, and due to the intrinsic instability of the governments that followed one another in those twenty years. The governments, as it will be recalled, have been strongly opposed in their action by an often prejudicial opposition, and above all by a strong internal conflict in the coalitions that won the elections. The result was that during those twenty years neither the problems inherited from the past nor those that had arisen in the meantime were resolved. This explains the stagnation of a large part of that period and then the severe crisis that has particularly penalized us since 2008.”
So it is not true that weak governments favor the market and therefore the spontaneous development of businesses.
“By now there is a large literature, from Toniolo to Salvati, which demonstrates how growth requires governments capable of giving direction to society, providing essential services, such as justice, or security at contained costs, stimulating the best education of people to enable them to face the challenge of innovation. The bad quality of the institutions, on the other hand, does not facilitate change and indeed, on the contrary, ends up being dominated by the neo-corporate impulses that work for entrenchment in defense of vested interests."
Precisely this appears as a qualifying point. The book highlights how the weakness of politics has ended up favoring the tendency of the elites who lead the institutions and dominate the economic world, to increase the "extractive" pressure, i.e. the ability to extract income and wealth to the detriment of society.
“And that's the very main reason why our system crashed. A weak but omnipresent state, it has accentuated the appetites of all political and economic groups for the conquest of positions of power. This was then also favored by wrong reforms such as the one of 2001 which gave too many powers to the Regions without providing control tools, not even in the drafting of the budgets where each region had the right to choose its own accounting criteria”.
We are therefore in a very difficult situation. From the book it is clear that the arrangement of the institutions is a first step in trying to continue along the path of reforms.
“I certainly believe that with the Referendum we will be able to take a first step in the right direction. Above all, we will see if public opinion decides to take refuge in the existing (which, however, we know is nothing more than the prolongation of stagnation) or if it wants to send out a signal of wanting to try to stay in a world that is changing at a very fast pace, but which we could , if we know how to make the right choices, we can ride well with benefits for everyone”.
Perhaps the Italians are not yet convinced that defense alone (the return to the old lira, devaluation, public spending in deficit) could not save us from a progressive economic decline and from an increasingly serious psychological depression. Only change and an authoritative government that has the prospect of lasting a full term can give us the chance to curb the corporations. But it will still be a long road.
“Structural reforms certainly take time to bear the desired results. Think of the need to reform education and the university. However, the first students will be able to leave it in several years. I believe that while we will have to proceed with structural reforms, something should be done to speed things up. And I am thinking above all of two measures. On the one hand, a profound and courageous tax reform that will lighten the burden on work and businesses, and on the other, the possibility of tackling the public debt problem. Not with penalizing measures for savers, but with financial transactions which have also been studied at a European level and which could alleviate our burden. It amazes me that there is little talk about it even at an academic level. But it is clear that without addressing the debt issue as well, our efforts to get out of the quagmire would risk being too burdensome and therefore not gathering the necessary consensus from citizens".
Macchiati's message is clear. Without efficient institutions we will not have a policy capable of courageously addressing our structural problems. He would not mind a greater understanding between non-populist political forces - the lack of cohesion is another of the atavistic knots that the book underlines and documents - also to have the strength sufficient to overcome the resistance of those who, like the Judiciary and the PA are endowed with a strong veto power that, at least so far, has emerged victorious from all attempts by politicians to force change. Maybe so. But for the moment we are a long way from any feeling of mutual understanding between the traditional right and left. Now there is the referendum test, and it is from there that it is necessary to start to start a process of change of the institutions as advocated by the precise analysis of Professor Macchiati contained in his book.
