The seminar dealt with the issues of the Mezzogiorno from the viewpoint of the economic, social and institutional aspects of National Interest.
Moreover, the theme of Italy’s Mezzogiorno does not easily lend itself to any sort of sweeping analysis. There are increasing instances of areas of high economic and technological development in Southern Italy, where even local governments have shown signs of operating effectively.
In general, however, the seminar was an occasion to underscore first the failure of the extraordinary intervention in the Mezzogiorno and, then, the misuse of EU structural funds, dispersed in a multitude of minor initiatives throughout the area.
The discussion continued with criticism of the government’s misrepresentation of the situation. The public authorities do not perform the functions needed for civil and economic development: they do not guarantee adequate education, ensure law and order or make certain that justice is working properly. Moreover, the public powers also carry out an unsuitable role of economic-financial mediation and social assistance by allocating public resources for unproductive expenditures, such as those generated by top heavy bureaucracy more at the service of politics than of the population.
Centralization of decision-making power at the national level might make it possible to spend available resources more appropriately, as long as there is finally a strong political and administrative determination to concentrate initiatives on a few, basic infrastructure investments. However, as the case of Germany shows, even this might be useless if there is no corresponding development of the productive fabric combining a revival of industrial and manufacturing sectors with the ability to focus on technological innovation, tourism, and the profitability of cultural and landscape assets. For that reason, rebuilding the conditions for the recovery of private investments – partly through the availability of dedicated credit structures -is fundamental.
Another decisive issue is the deep, continuing gap in the rule of law between the North and the South. Over recent years, the state has managed to contain the bloodiest, most violent actions of organized crime. It has managed to fight usury and pizzo – protection money – partly thanks to the courageous protests of local businesses. And it has started recovering the goods and resources that criminal organization has amassed and returning them to the population. However, the state has not managed to eradicate the deep-rooted social and economic presence of organized crime. Criminal economy is perfectly integrated in the legal economy, extending its dominion from the transnational black markets of drugs and money laundering to the markets of public tender and construction. Given these developments the state’s ability to fight is still limited, partly due to shortages in the staff and instruments of the magistrate and the police.
Finally, the problems of Southern Italy are to be considered in the light of the challenges of Federalism. Italy will need to verify whether self-government and financial responsibilities worsen the situation or, vice-versa, generate virtuous incentives to revitalize the South without jeopardizing the stability of public funds and the goal of containing expenditures. In this regard, passing from a system of historic costs to one of standard costs for each function and public service might be decisive. That could finally highlight the deep gaps in efficiency between various parts of the country. It might also be an incentive for creating processes that reflect best practices. Increasing the sense of responsibility of local institutions must be consistent, and this should be done by practicing sanctions against entities that do not respect budget limitations. That is the only way to guarantee better use of cost equalization and advantageous taxation.