We return to talk about industrial policy. Finally, one might say. But as always, between saying and doing… The reality is decades of nothing, of ramshackle laissez faire, of a lack of politics and of a backward industry.
Instead of debating whether industrial policy is useful (or even if it exists), perhaps it would be more useful to list the problems, share them as widely as possible and outline the times, ways and resources for solving them. It is not out of a "practical spirit" that I formulate this proposal, but to make sense of the words and avoid the risk of a "summer" discussion.
The "industrial" issues that "politics" must address are the result of those already addressed throughout the past century; the solutions identified then are in crisis and in many cases already collapsed. They were important choices for Italy and for an entire continent. The ruling classes took paths that allowed for a growth that is now exhausted. In some countries new paths have already been taken, not yet in our country.
With these references in mind, I recall four arguments plus one which represents the indispensable outline.
1. THE NORTH-SOUTH ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL GAP IS GROWING.
The solutions identified at the time for the industrial growth of the South are in crisis (for reasons that are not always identical). Just think of the great development poles of basic industry: iron and steel, chemicals, cement, among others. In those areas there is often only the economic desert and social disintegration; think of Sardinia, Campania, Sicily, some areas of Lazio and Puglia.
We need new ideas and new projects when, unfortunately, "conservative laziness" prevails; we insist on re-proposing what has gone into crisis not because of a cynical and cheating fate, but because the conditions of 60/80 years ago no longer exist and can only be reconstructed at costs without any economic or even social sense.
Of the South, of systemic crisis, of obsolete industrial poles we no longer speak or in any case not enough. A question then: can industrial policy be implemented without tackling this first issue? The question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious.
2. THE CRISIS OF THE LARGE SECTORS LABOR INTENSIVE
It began in the 80s with the basic textile sector (spinning, weaving, ...), gradually involving civil electronics, components and TLC equipment, motorcycles, furnishings and now it's the turn of the household appliance. On the other hand, the automotive industry in the broadest sense (not just cars) deserves a separate discussion.
Sectors with a high labor content have characterized the development of Italy, have allowed the growth of employment and income using the "workforce pool" of the South with and without migratory processes. Today they are sectors attacked "from below" by Eastern European or Asian competitors and "from above" by German competitors who occupy niches with high added value and high symbolic impact.
What to do? Without ideas and without interventions, the answer is obvious, but there are already some virtuous examples (think of the furniture industry in Lombardy and the Marches) and it must be followed on a wider scale. Investments in research and in the qualification of the markets have made the change possible. It leveraged the culture of the production of durable goods to present itself as a world leader in high quality products. A shrewd industrial policy must leverage the accumulated culture; the skills are there, the companies are still alive and joint public-private work in research on materials, in product innovation, in automation and in the systemic integration of products, in actions towards international markets, can bear important results. Is there time for all this? NO. You have to hurry so as not to waste your assets.
3. THE SMALL ROLE OF THE LARGE PUBLIC ENTERPRISE.
Our large "public" companies are all listed (with the exception of Fincantieri); they operate in the market exactly like other joint-stock companies and this choice is not in question. But they are also guided by a management which, albeit within certain limits, responds to the guidelines of the majority shareholder (ie of the country system).
However, for a long time we have not witnessed a "system" action which in other countries is an indisputable rule, whether carried out by central structures or by territorial structures, as in Germany.
Creating a system does not mean that publicly controlled companies should acquire companies in crisis or even without a future (as I hear in recent weeks). It would be silly. Instead, I think that Finmeccanica, Enel, Eni, ST Microelectronics, Fincantieri, each in their own sphere, can have repercussions on many contiguous or functional sectors both through spontaneous actions and through oriented actions. The general interest must prevail over specific profit, otherwise why not sell the residual quota and let everything work according to abstract market rules? In short, it must no longer be possible for a Chinese company to win a tender for having made the largest discount and an Italian company (qualitatively identical) to go bankrupt. The economic (and social) cost for the country is well above the benefit of a single "public" company.
Creating a system, using the levers that already exist: it is a piece of industrial policy that must be rediscovered and pursued with strength and conviction.
4. ABSENCE OF BIG COUNTRY-PROJECTS.
We talk about it and will talk about it all the time, but almost never something has been done. There are now very precise and impactful deadlines; I am thinking of the Digital Agenda which will also see the light in Italy in the autumn and the announced preparation of the National Energy Plan.
If they are not lost in the maze of the Public Administration, they could be (especially the projects envisaged in the Digital Agenda) not only a great opportunity for modernization, but a high-impact industrial policy tool. It is no coincidence that the telecommunications and information technology industry and, more generally, those involved in innovation look at those projects with great interest and hope. Research, innovation, training are the prerequisites, but equipment, networks, systems will be the fallout in terms of products and services that will improve everyone's life and give great job opportunities.
But the systemic approach must become a cultural premise and a constant foundation of industrial policy. For at least 40 years there have been no country-projects, there is no systemic approach to the problems of innovation and development. There will be no recovery in Italy if general indications, guidelines, general objectives of high strategic value are not given at this stage, to be achieved together.
5. OVERALL PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY.
It is the last point, but the most important, of the concrete industrial policy agenda that I have outlined.
I am referring to the structural shortcomings of our industrial system which have steadily worsened over the last decade: productivity deficits, modest investments in R&D also as a result of the reduced average size of our companies, unnerving bureaucratic procedures and the presence of crime in the economic process.
On these matters, the gap will not close to zero in a short time, but this is no excuse. Important signals can be given immediately. First of all by the social forces which, in a relationship of close collaboration with the Government action (which we will call whatever we like: co-determination, concertation, cooperation), can make a "development pact" that is immediately operational and verifiable every six months to correct distortions.
Trade unions and Confindustria are active players in every industrial policy: today it is a question of understanding whether this activity of theirs translates into shared choices, defined objectives, concrete action, or whether they remain the daily briefs which, concretely, have contributed to the deterioration of a unsustainable reality.
The question to answer is simple: is it possible to put productivity growth, employment growth, investment growth, professional training growth, industrial growth in the South, growth in the efficiency of the PA, growth in general on the table?
Everyone must put their availability, their "sacrifices" on that table and seek an understanding seriously and with conviction.
It would be the best framework for an industrial policy for Italy.
