The growth of the Italian economy, after the very serious crisis of 2008-2009, seems nailed to around 1 percent, more decimal, less decimal. This happens while others are running: all the "emerging countries", old and new, which now represent a much wider and more varied set than the famous Bric (we have, to stay with Goldman Sachs, the "Next-11" and then those that 'Economist has called the "new emerging countries", themselves divided into "neglected" and "frontier").
And closer to us, as is widely known, runs Germany, an economy linked to the Italian one by a dense network of relationships between companies which are, at the same time, one of cooperation and competition.
The new edition of Scenari industriali of the Confindustria Study Center (CSC, n. 2, June 2011) – just published – helps to shed light on the new «global manufacturing map». Well, between 2007 and 2010 in the shares of world industrial production «Italy dropped from 4,5% to 3,4%», passing «from 5th to 7th place in the world; it remains second in Europe behind Germany». It is also noted that Italy is "the eighth world exporter of goods, the fourth in Europe". Lastly, it should be recalled that Italian industrial specialization has «continued to veer towards the manufacture of goods not directly attributable to the whole made up of fashion-clothing-furniture»: machinery prevails in exports and the incidence of chemistry-pharmaceuticals has increased.
Naturally, the CSC report – edited by Luca Paolazzi and Fabrizio Traù – highlights a whole series of negative aspects of our industrial structure (loss of competitiveness, low profitability, and so on), which make the picture anything but rosy.
And yet, first of all reflecting on who we are (largely in the top ten countries in the world for industrial production and exports) should help steer decisions in the right direction. The decisions of companies – whether small, medium or large – are usually called «strategies», and the Confindustria report itself gives an account of them thanks to the Focus Groups created by the CSC: innovation is now perceived as a categorical imperative.
But the time has come to put other decisions into practice: not those of private operators (the wind of global competition has induced them to act), but those of policy-makers; which, to remain in the domain of competences we are talking about, means that the time has come for the country to give itself a new industrial policy. Never was a policy area more criticized - better to say, despised - in the years of the absolute domination of the "single thought"; of course, also due to the mistakes that were made in the management of the (old) industrial policy. But are we really so sure that, in denying any usefulness to this policy, there was not also an intellectual prejudice?
Be that as it may, I believe that today a modern approach must refer, on the one hand, to the work (and experience in Brussels alongside President Delors) of the late Alexis Jacquemin and, on the other, to the more recent teachings of Dani Rodrik of the JFK School of Government. In previous works on the pages of "il Mulino" (magazine: n. 1/2011; online edition: 21/7/2010) I had the opportunity to dwell on this approach, which for simplicity we can call a' la Jacquemin-Rodrik .
That the attempt for a new industrial policy, after the positive but unfortunately very short season of Industria 2015, has been abandoned by what remains the second largest manufacturing country in Europe (and 7th in the world) is incredible.
There is a pedagogy that emerges from the crash of 2008 and from the very difficult years that followed; this: prosperity – unlike the diamonds of advertising – is not forever. On the contrary, it must be cultivated with patience and foresight. And the exercise is best done by those nations that base their wealth on the real economy, and manufacturing in the first place. The merit of the CSC report, in addition to the many data offered for common reflection, is to remember this simple truth; that is, that industry plays a "vital role."
It is not by accident of history, we believe, that business strategies (as prefigured by the entrepreneurs themselves) and new industrial policies (if correctly implemented) converge above all on one point: the need to increase investment in knowledge. A small example that comes to us from Bologna can help illustrate this point. A few days ago, on the occasion of the event for the handover between the outgoing president of Confindustria Emilia-Romagna, Anna Maria Artoni, and the new president, Gaetano Maccaferri, the CSC presented its Industrial Scenarios and a group of entrepreneurs discussed the main themes evoked there. Among them, Nerio Alessandri – founder of Technogym in Cesena – indicated the fundamental strategy being pursued in the increase in R&D expenses from 5% to 7% of turnover. Andrea Chiesi, of Chiesi Farmaceutici from Parma, gave an account of the imminent inauguration of the new research center, which means an investment of over 70 million euros for a Group that annually invests 14-15% of its turnover in R&D. Both, Technogym and Chiesi Farmaceutici, significantly belong to non-traditional sectors for the Italian and Emilia-Romagna industry.
Let's think about what Italy would be like if the new industrial policy moved in the same direction as the strategies of companies that know how to look to the future, giving them the appropriate support for research, innovation and the formation of quality human capital. In a word, let's think about what Italy would be if instead of dispersing the (few) resources in the thousands of streams of ad hoc laws, various concessions, regional (or worse, local) initiatives, it concentrated them in a large initiative modeled on the model of the Fraunhofer Institute, which fortunately is much debated in the country today. Before building the new Institute, spreading it – like the German original – on the territory, it would be necessary to have the courage to close the old things. But this is the authentic task of Politics, this time written without adjectives.
The modest growth mentioned at the beginning should not be seen as a natural destiny. On the other hand, a recipe with many ingredients is required to grow again; however, we can say, to stay with the metaphor, that yeast – today more than yesterday – is certainly made up of scientific research (basic and applied) and the transfer of new knowledge to the world of production.
