It is a long story that began back in the 1990s and that is still very much a part of the debate today. We are talking about the controversial and syncopated story of deregulation in Italy. People have been talking about it for over two decades, parliament has been drawing up various laws on it for the same length of time, and debate has raged over its impact and over the specific implications of each individual measure, yet the Italian system still appears to be quite a ways away from achieving the goal of a fully competitive market. This, at least, if by deregulation we mean society opening up to the possibility of every player being in a position to rise to the challenge and to have a chance to compete with his or her fellows on an even playing field in every walk of economic life in the country.
Seen from this standpoint, the story of deregulation in Italy reflects the coeval trajectory of competitiveness policy in Europe. In the context of that evolution, we may identify certain salient features, with timing heading the list, because deregulation is a process that develops on a phase-by-phase basis and it is still ongoing. As we said, the first phase was set in motion in the 1990s thanks to the strong pressure being applied, mostly by the Community institutions, toward the implementation of the single market. For Italy, that pressure translated overall into a positive development, leading to certain monopolies being smashed and to the opening up of areas that were in any case strategic to the national economy, from energy to telecommunications and from financial services to air transport. But as the power of that thrust toward deregulation gradually dwindled, with some people even arguing that it was excessive and “chaotic” in its practical implementation, the reform process in Italy began to lose its sparkle – also in that sense reflecting the dynamic in Brussels and the weakening of the demand for the full Europeanization of competition policy.
Finally, today, in the third phase of this story, we have no choice but to view any measure adopted in the field of deregulation against the backdrop of the international and European crisis and of the changing scenario wrought by the globalization process. This means, above all, that deregulation is in danger of ending up in the pot-pourri of economic restructuring measures that countries need to adopt in order to emerge from the sovereign debt crisis and from recession. So the impression one gets is that there is a move away from a Community context toward an intergovernmental context, almost as though the Union’s economies had to compete with one another in opening up their respective markets in order for them to become competitive again, rather than aiming for the full integration of their shared market; and this, in areas which at this juncture impact the very heart of the member states’ sovereignty.
However one judges this trend, it is clear that this change of perspective – which cannot be fully deciphered, of course, unless we look at it in the context of Europe’s crisis (including of its political crisis) – is accompanied in every forum by a broader debate on the link between growth and deregulation. In the public debate in Italy, the discussion appears to be influenced by a certain amount of confusion over terms; that is, between deregulation itself, competitiveness and market regulation. Above all – as we can see, in particular, from a substantiated analysis of individual national circumstances (with France and Germany heading the list) – Italians seem to be finding it difficult to shake off a certain number of truisms, such as the one whereby an increase in the number of competitors automatically leads to cheaper prices and to benefits for the consumer.
Yet above and beyond these and other difficulties of interpretation, what is certain is that the deregulation game – especially in Italy – is tightly bound, today more than ever before, to the broader issue of the country’s economic and industrial policy, with all that that entails in terms of the relationship between the state and the market and between politics and the economy. This, in terms of the national system’s openness and its powers of attraction, in terms of the planning and selection of the decisions proper to the sphere of public intervention, of the governance, regulation and proper functioning of the market itself, of cutting back on red tape and making such red tape as is inevitable at least more efficient, and of constructing a clearly defined legal framework.
From this standpoint – and against the backdrop of a rethink of the development paradigm applied to date, a rethink which can no longer be postponed – it is obvious that grafting the deregulation process in Italy onto a new base demands that we adopt an approach that is less improvised and dictated by the urgent requirements of the moment. What we need to adopt is a more selective approach, an approach targeted sector by sector. We must avoid the lure of omnium-gatherum laws (which are in danger of turning into propaganda operations unless their implementation is carefully monitored) and, above all, we must address the matter not as a standalone issue but as a single piece in the larger jigsaw puzzle of the country’s mission as a whole. This country absolutely needs to return to growth if it is to overcome the risk of decline that many still continue to prophesy as its inevitable future.