Political responsibility and private enterprise: reflecting on the economic boom and thinking about the future
Those were formidable years, the years of an economic boom so great that it was called a miracle. The long period from the end of the war to 1963, during which Italy’s GDP grew by an average of 5.9% a year, with a peak of 8.3% in 1961. A period marked by enterprise, by the desire to act and to grow, by the widespread hope of improving living and working conditions. A period to which thoughts and memories have been returning for some time, a certain rogue nostalgia, a desire, veiled in melancholy, to return to a time when things were worse and we were busy working, producing, inventing and changing.
Without succumbing to the sickly sweet aftertaste of nostalgia (only Fellini’s irony, mindful of Ennio Flaiano’s sharp critical intelligence, could have dealt with nostalgia in a way that made his film Amarcord a masterpiece), it is still worth thinking back to those years in order to reflect today on how to bring creative and productive energies back into play, to try to effectively face a period of radical and overwhelming economic, political and social changes.
To get an accurate idea of the scale of the issue, it is worth reading the work of Nicola Rossi, a bright economist with a solid political culture (he was a member of parliament for the Democratic Party and is now a member of the board of the Bruno Leoni Institute, a centre of the best liberal culture), in “Un miracolo non fa il santo – La distruzione creatrice nella società italiana, 1861-2021” (A miracle does not make a saint – Creative destruction in Italian society, 1861-2021), published by Ibl Libri.
On the basis of data, facts and a critical re-reading of our economic history, he illustrates how Italian growth in the 1950s and 1960s was determined not only by far-sighted international and domestic policies (the Marshall Plan, the opening up of the European market, Einaudi’s attention to the stability of the lira and the balance of public accounts, public investment in infrastructure and basic industries: energy, steel, etc.), but also by the considerable freedom given to the dynamism of private entrepreneurs, so much so that in a short time Italy became one of the great European industrial powers.
Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia cars, Eni and Montedison chemical products, Pirelli tyres, Piaggio Vespas and Innocenti scooters, Pesenti cement, Motta, Alemagna, Pavesi, Galbani, Barilla and Ferrero food products, household appliances, clothing, furniture, etc., are all examples of this (the company museums and archives preserve and promote their history).
“Creative destruction”, to be precise. “Animal spirits” of widespread capitalism. But Rossi argues that since the end of the 1960s these have been replaced by political choices that have seen Italy “return to protecting companies and wealth rather than creating them”, with ruling classes that have “restricted the space for economic freedom” and protected the strength and arrogance of electorally influential corporations rather than enterprise. In short, that economic miracle seems unrepeatable.
It’s still worth discussing, though. Not only, and not so much, for the sake of historical criticism and to examine the negative role of failed reforms and decisions to build a fragile and costly consensus with the casual instrument of increasing public debt (shifting the cost of contingent well-being onto new generations since the early 1980s). But above all, to try to understand, now, in times of radical transitions (environmental, technological, social) and profound geopolitical changes, which policies to adopt, which social actors to engage, in order to build beneficial paths of sustainable development. Socially sustainable, i.e. acceptable to democratic public opinion (without contradicting the need to protect the environment and maintain jobs and incomes). And sustainable over time, that is, capable of providing long-term beneficial paths of economic growth and improvements in living and working conditions.
In the 1950s and early 1960s there was confidence, thinking and working for a better time (despite acute social tensions and fears related to the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union). And so there was a clear willingness to invest, to save, to go into debt, to make sacrifices (to educate their children, to buy a house, to start a business, to expand their business, to start a magazine or a newspaper, to start a cooperative). An extraordinary spring of progress and a prudent and far-sighted use of progressive social capital.
So, today it is essential to rebuild trust and encourage the writing of a story for the future. Start thinking and writing again that, despite everything, there is room for hope. With a strong commitment to “optimism of the will” and to change. And to relaunching the values of democracy and business culture, to an open, well-regulated and competitive market.
It is no coincidence that hope, trust and respect are three of the most important words used by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, in his end-of-year address to Italians. He talked of an “urgency for peace”, but also a great need to mend the torn social fabric, to realign civil coexistence. A mild and civil patriotism (as the following sentence makes very clear: “It is the patriotism that comes from those who, although they come from other countries, love Italy, embrace its constitutional values and laws, live its daily life to the full and, with their work and their sensibility, become part of it, contributing to the enrichment of our community”.). And so it is an extraordinary sign for the future of a community that escapes the traps of selfishness and nationalism and knows how to bring strong social values to life in the daily lives of each one of us.
How? In such difficult times, we certainly need European-style industrial and fiscal policies, technically wise choices in relation to public finances (a guarantee for the new generations to be relieved of the burden of debt and reassured with the possibility of productive investment for better development) and practical responses to industrial sectors and social environments in crisis. But following Mattarella’s inspiration, our first step must be to look to the wider horizon.
It is worth rereading Aldo Moro‘s warning on the need for good politics that feed and guide public opinion: “This country will not be saved, the season of rights and freedoms will prove fleeting, unless a new sense of duty is born.” And we must understand that hope cannot be a generic word, but must be instilled with wise, responsible, far-sighted choices for a better future, firmly focussed on the new generations.
The horizon is Europe, its political and cultural tradition of reconciliation of liberal democracy, the market and welfare, between freedom of enterprise and responsibility for a common destiny. And now, when the EU seems fragile and barely visible in the midst of geopolitical tensions, threatened not only from outside but also from within by illiberal and populist doctrines and behaviours, it is necessary to return to its founding values: freedom and development, democracy and common destiny walking together. In short, Europe as hope.
For the new generations of Italians, such a choice means focusing on education, on quality schools, on scientific research, on innovation, on building a new and better sense of community. Strong values and the social capital of “participation” (this is another of the key words used by President Mattarella). Even if miracles cannot be repeated, the social and political decline of Europe and Italy is by no means an inevitable fate, far from it. What is needed is “good politics”, culture, critical knowledge, and trust in the values of common projects. Here too, certain experiences from the 1950s and 1960s, both public (i.e. political and cultural) and private (responsible business, capable of taking on quality work and development values), can still teach us something. Without succumbing to nostalgia.
(Photo Getty Images)
Those were formidable years, the years of an economic boom so great that it was called a miracle. The long period from the end of the war to 1963, during which Italy’s GDP grew by an average of 5.9% a year, with a peak of 8.3% in 1961. A period marked by enterprise, by the desire to act and to grow, by the widespread hope of improving living and working conditions. A period to which thoughts and memories have been returning for some time, a certain rogue nostalgia, a desire, veiled in melancholy, to return to a time when things were worse and we were busy working, producing, inventing and changing.
Without succumbing to the sickly sweet aftertaste of nostalgia (only Fellini’s irony, mindful of Ennio Flaiano’s sharp critical intelligence, could have dealt with nostalgia in a way that made his film Amarcord a masterpiece), it is still worth thinking back to those years in order to reflect today on how to bring creative and productive energies back into play, to try to effectively face a period of radical and overwhelming economic, political and social changes.
To get an accurate idea of the scale of the issue, it is worth reading the work of Nicola Rossi, a bright economist with a solid political culture (he was a member of parliament for the Democratic Party and is now a member of the board of the Bruno Leoni Institute, a centre of the best liberal culture), in “Un miracolo non fa il santo – La distruzione creatrice nella società italiana, 1861-2021” (A miracle does not make a saint – Creative destruction in Italian society, 1861-2021), published by Ibl Libri.
On the basis of data, facts and a critical re-reading of our economic history, he illustrates how Italian growth in the 1950s and 1960s was determined not only by far-sighted international and domestic policies (the Marshall Plan, the opening up of the European market, Einaudi’s attention to the stability of the lira and the balance of public accounts, public investment in infrastructure and basic industries: energy, steel, etc.), but also by the considerable freedom given to the dynamism of private entrepreneurs, so much so that in a short time Italy became one of the great European industrial powers.
Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia cars, Eni and Montedison chemical products, Pirelli tyres, Piaggio Vespas and Innocenti scooters, Pesenti cement, Motta, Alemagna, Pavesi, Galbani, Barilla and Ferrero food products, household appliances, clothing, furniture, etc., are all examples of this (the company museums and archives preserve and promote their history).
“Creative destruction”, to be precise. “Animal spirits” of widespread capitalism. But Rossi argues that since the end of the 1960s these have been replaced by political choices that have seen Italy “return to protecting companies and wealth rather than creating them”, with ruling classes that have “restricted the space for economic freedom” and protected the strength and arrogance of electorally influential corporations rather than enterprise. In short, that economic miracle seems unrepeatable.
It’s still worth discussing, though. Not only, and not so much, for the sake of historical criticism and to examine the negative role of failed reforms and decisions to build a fragile and costly consensus with the casual instrument of increasing public debt (shifting the cost of contingent well-being onto new generations since the early 1980s). But above all, to try to understand, now, in times of radical transitions (environmental, technological, social) and profound geopolitical changes, which policies to adopt, which social actors to engage, in order to build beneficial paths of sustainable development. Socially sustainable, i.e. acceptable to democratic public opinion (without contradicting the need to protect the environment and maintain jobs and incomes). And sustainable over time, that is, capable of providing long-term beneficial paths of economic growth and improvements in living and working conditions.
In the 1950s and early 1960s there was confidence, thinking and working for a better time (despite acute social tensions and fears related to the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union). And so there was a clear willingness to invest, to save, to go into debt, to make sacrifices (to educate their children, to buy a house, to start a business, to expand their business, to start a magazine or a newspaper, to start a cooperative). An extraordinary spring of progress and a prudent and far-sighted use of progressive social capital.
So, today it is essential to rebuild trust and encourage the writing of a story for the future. Start thinking and writing again that, despite everything, there is room for hope. With a strong commitment to “optimism of the will” and to change. And to relaunching the values of democracy and business culture, to an open, well-regulated and competitive market.
It is no coincidence that hope, trust and respect are three of the most important words used by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, in his end-of-year address to Italians. He talked of an “urgency for peace”, but also a great need to mend the torn social fabric, to realign civil coexistence. A mild and civil patriotism (as the following sentence makes very clear: “It is the patriotism that comes from those who, although they come from other countries, love Italy, embrace its constitutional values and laws, live its daily life to the full and, with their work and their sensibility, become part of it, contributing to the enrichment of our community”.). And so it is an extraordinary sign for the future of a community that escapes the traps of selfishness and nationalism and knows how to bring strong social values to life in the daily lives of each one of us.
How? In such difficult times, we certainly need European-style industrial and fiscal policies, technically wise choices in relation to public finances (a guarantee for the new generations to be relieved of the burden of debt and reassured with the possibility of productive investment for better development) and practical responses to industrial sectors and social environments in crisis. But following Mattarella’s inspiration, our first step must be to look to the wider horizon.
It is worth rereading Aldo Moro‘s warning on the need for good politics that feed and guide public opinion: “This country will not be saved, the season of rights and freedoms will prove fleeting, unless a new sense of duty is born.” And we must understand that hope cannot be a generic word, but must be instilled with wise, responsible, far-sighted choices for a better future, firmly focussed on the new generations.
The horizon is Europe, its political and cultural tradition of reconciliation of liberal democracy, the market and welfare, between freedom of enterprise and responsibility for a common destiny. And now, when the EU seems fragile and barely visible in the midst of geopolitical tensions, threatened not only from outside but also from within by illiberal and populist doctrines and behaviours, it is necessary to return to its founding values: freedom and development, democracy and common destiny walking together. In short, Europe as hope.
For the new generations of Italians, such a choice means focusing on education, on quality schools, on scientific research, on innovation, on building a new and better sense of community. Strong values and the social capital of “participation” (this is another of the key words used by President Mattarella). Even if miracles cannot be repeated, the social and political decline of Europe and Italy is by no means an inevitable fate, far from it. What is needed is “good politics”, culture, critical knowledge, and trust in the values of common projects. Here too, certain experiences from the 1950s and 1960s, both public (i.e. political and cultural) and private (responsible business, capable of taking on quality work and development values), can still teach us something. Without succumbing to nostalgia.
(Photo Getty Images)