We experience a time when scenarios change with great speed. In the space of a few years, we have gone from the spread of globalisation and the opening of international markets, to the re-emergence of protectionism and the reassertion of national sovereignty. This is the consequence of an accelerated and uneven process that has not been properly regulated. Populist and sovereignist opinion movements, aiming at a return to the old rules, have a good game and find a large part of the population to welcome them. Change when it does not generate development, but a lower distribution of wealth and opportunities, produces resistance. This happens in almost all of the Old Continent (and not only), but in our country it finds a particular intensity: the social lift has essentially stalled and hopes for mobility have largely diminished. The slowness, then, with which we are emerging from a long period of recession further burdens the perception of living in a country that does not offer opportunities for development and growth. Thus, some young people decide to move abroad, some companies relocate their decision-making and sometimes production centres to more dynamic parts of the world. If we add to all this the fact that Italy remains a country with a high rate of corporatisation, where the intertwining of interests is so viscous as to slow down - if not block - any attempt at reform; where change is demanded, but this must concern others first; where the culture of 'rights regardless' prevails over that of 'responsibility', we can understand how the 'zero-point syndrome' constitutes a social and cultural mechanism, even before being an economic one: we fear change because it could worsen conditions rather than improve them.
So, better to make micro-adjustments or even stand still. Of course, it is misleading to cage the entire population within such a perimeter. On the contrary, substantial parts are the bearers of instances of renewal, of a different way of conceiving the country's development prospects. Nevertheless, within this articulation of orientations, positions prevail that express a resistance to innovation, a fear of trying to emerge from the crisis in new ways. The research polled the Italian population on how best to act to get out of the continuing difficult situation, whether to leverage free initiative (market), the resources of civil society (subsidiarity) or public intervention (state).
Free competition in the different spheres of society and the economy is an aspect that divides the orientations sharply. For 49.1 per cent, it is the best way out of the crisis and into development, but for the other half (50.9 per cent) it would be a harbinger of increased inequality. Competition seems to be associated more with the dimension of 'loss' than with the possibility of rewarding 'merit'. The idea of the strongest crushing the weakest prevails, as opposed to a perspective where talents are compared and, in the challenge, call for progressive improvement. Could it be otherwise when reading the daily chronicles of the entanglements of interests, the corruptions of public figures (more or less conscious) or of entrepreneurs and professionals? When the prevailing mood is that access to prominent positions (and more) requires recommendations rather than actual merit? Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that those who associate competition with an increase in inequalities are precisely the employees, while those who advocate greater freedom of action are supported by those outside the labour market (the very young and over 65, pensioners and housewives), the inhabitants of the North East.
All official data, however, show that in Italy - unlike the rest of Europe - poverty and inequality have increased. How would it be best to act in order to diminish such phenomena? As many as two thirds of Italians (65.3%) believe that the State should intervene by increasing public policies. This orientation is particularly supported by younger people, students and the unemployed, i.e. those on the margins of the labour market. On the other hand, only one third (34.7%) consider it positive to mobilise the resources of civil society, in a subsidiary perspective, through collaboration between citizens, in particular between entrepreneurs and those living in the North East of the country.
The combination of these answers helps to identify four orientations of Italians between the prevalence of the market, the state or society in helping the country out of the crisis. The most conspicuous group is that of the 'statist' (39.1%), which is particularly widespread among 30-year-olds, blue collar workers and those living in the South: they believe competition brings inequalities and in order to fight it, it is necessary to increase state intervention. This is followed by the group of 'reformists' (26.3%), made up of those who see increased competition as the best way out of the crisis, but balanced by state intervention to reduce inequalities. The third group is represented by the 'liberalists' (22.9%): free competition and collaboration among citizens are the main resources to restart the country. Finally, the 'subsidiaryists' (11.7%): they fear competition because of the inequalities it can generate, but they consider the mobilisation of civil society the best answer to reduce them.
So, it is not a majority, but the prevailing direction on how to lift the country's fortunes and improve people's conditions is the call for a stronger presence of state intervention. Understandably, in the uncertainty and difficulties, it is reassuring to use the patterns of the past. But a question remains. With the crisis of public resources, it would mean increasing taxation: who pays?
Daniele Marini
Methodological note
Community Media Research, in collaboration with Intesa Sanpaolo for La Stampa, carried out the LaST (Laboratory on Society and Territory) survey, which was conducted nationwide from 18 October to 4 November 2016 on a representative sample of the population resident in Italy, aged 18 and over. The methodological aspects and the survey were carried out by Questlab. The total number of respondents was 1,566 (out of 12,785 contacts). The data analysis was reproportioned on the basis of gender, territory, age group, occupational status and educational qualification. The margin of error is +/-2.5%. The survey was carried out with a visual survey through the main social networks and with a random sample that could be reached with the CAWI and CATI systems. Full document on www.agcom.it e www.communitymediaresearch.it.
