Italy in a European Context

Italian monetary policy formally became independent in 1981 after the well-known “divorce” between the Bank of Italy and the Treasury. The policy then adopted the implicit goal of low inflation and at the same time moderating cyclical fluctuations of the economy (Clarida et al., 1998). It is also entrenched the idea that before the divorce, namely before 1979, Italian monetary policy had assumed the target of control of aggregate demand in both a countercyclical and pro-cyclical perspective through the management of domestic credit.

As stressed by Boswell and Geddes (2011), two approaches can be followed to analyze immigration policies in the European Union (EU) context. The first approach is the so-called “policy failure,” and it highlights the limited success of immigration policies in regulating and controlling migration (e.g., Bhagwati, 2003; Castles, 2004a, b; Cornelius, 2005). According to this approach, states are not able to perfectly define the migration outcomes and to limit migration for several reasons. First, immigration policies cannot influence structural factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, labor market shortages, and political conflicts in origin countries (Czaika and de Haas, 2013). Second, while migration is a long-term and “self-sustaining process” (Castles, 2004b: 222), immigration policies are often shortterm rules with limited and populist goals and clear-cut targets. Third, liberal states have moral obligations towards migration since they have to respect international laws and human rights, such as the right of family reunification and the right of asylum (Joppke, 1998; Weiner, 1996). Finally, governments often need to conciliate the natives’ feelings of rejection towards migrants, declaring zero immigration, with economic interests (Freeman, 1995), such as the employment of lowskilled and low-wage workers. This can produce paradoxes (Geddes, 2008) and unintended consequences, such as irregular migration. From this perspective, immigration policies can be considered, to a certain extent, unintentionally permissive toward migrants. Failing in their objective of affecting migration inflows, immigration policies foster movements of people across borders.

Recently, the economic literature has been increasingly concerned with the inequality in income and in the standard of living both for individuals and households.¹ Empirical evidence has proved that in most countries, during the last two or three decades, incomes have become more dispersed and also more and more concentrated in the hands of small and privileged segments of the society (the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent; Atkinson et al., 2011). The pace at which such developments have taken place has not been the same in all countries but, because of such developments, inequality is very high in several countries. Italy is one of them.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are recognized as a key factor in socioeconomic development and societal evolution. According to the European Commission, “the ICT sector is directly responsible for 5 percent of European GDP, with a market value of € 660 billion annually, but it contributes far more to overall productivity growth (20 percent directly from the ICT sector and 30 percent from ICT investments). … The development of high-speed networks today is having the same revolutionary impact as the development of electricity and transportation networks had a century ago.”¹ “The digital economy is growing at seven times the rate of the rest of the economy.”² The pervasiveness of the ICT is changing the system of production and consumption, leading to the so-called information society. In this framework, the European Commission launched the Digital Agenda for Europe as one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy to exit the crisis.³ Moreover, the Internet is recognized as an important tool for increasing transparency, accessing information, and facilitating the active participation of citizens in the building of democratic societies “by acting as a catalyst for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Internet facilitates the realization of a range of other human rights”.⁴ For this reason, “everyone should have the right to participate in the Information Society and States have a responsibility to ensure that citizen’s access to the Internet is guaranteed.”⁵

The counterfeiting phenomenon, i.e., all those instances when a violation of intellectual property rights (IPRs), either trademarks, copyrights or patents occurs, has reached truly remarkable dimensions. The 2011 BASCAP report (ICC, 2011)¹ indicated that by 2015 the value of counterfeiting would reach $1.7 trillion dollars globally, inclusive of internationally traded, internally produced and consumed counterfeits as well as digitally pirated products. As Loredana Gulino, General Director for the fight against Counterfeiting of the Italian Patent and Trademark Office argues: “There is no way to fully contrast the counterfeiting phenomenon if it isn’t deeply understood, both quantitatively and qualitatively.” Europe is very much affected by the phenomenon, since it is a privileged destination market for counterfeits. As a European Commission Report (2014)² highlights, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and France are the European countries most hit by the phenomenon in terms of numbers of cases and number of articles intercepted. The fake products crossing Europe are coming mainly from China (that alone accounts for 66.12 percent of the total), Hong Kong, Greece, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. In addition, in 2013 the EU customs agencies opened almost 87,000 cases for a total of almost 36 million illicit goods whose domestic retail value (i.e., the price at which they would have been sold on the national market if they had been genuine) was worth almost 768 million euros. The most affected industries (in terms of lost equivalent domestic retail value) were the fashion and luxury goods industries that between accessories (watches, sunglasses, bags, wallet, purses) and clothing comprised 53.05 percent of the total (Figure 5.1).

In financial theory, there are several models that study the risk-return relationship. However, the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) still remains the most popular among financial analysts and firms (Bernardo et al., 2007; Graham and Harvey, 2001; Jagannathan and Meier, 2002).

My analysis takes as a starting point the somewhat provocative theory of Jared Diamond as outlined in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, in which the scholar proffers a key to a long-term assessment of the differences between the various parts of the world.¹ According to Diamond, what happened after the end of the last Ice Age (about 11,000 B.C.) is of paramount importance, particularly after the “invention” of agriculture around 8,500 B.C. For this was actually the first great socioeconomic revolution in the history of mankind because we passed from the world of nomadic hunter-gatherers to that of permanent settlements. It was the huge increase in available food resources made possible by farming and animal husbandry that permitted an innovation that changed the course of history — the birth of the cities.²

Often today there is so much talk about green economy, not only in political and economic contexts but also among entrepreneurs as a deep change in the ways of designing and producing. Green economy is considered as increasingly as the main way to go out of the global economic crisis of recent years. Talking about the green economy means, in other words, to speak of a process where the growth should be driven by private or public investments that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and pollution, improve energy and resources use efficiency and prevent the lost of biodiversity. The concept of “green economy” not replaces the concept of sustainable development, but has a greater awareness that the achievement of sustainability should be based both on the obtainment of a compatibility (e.g., social or environmental) but also on obtaining an economic advantage. The green economy therefore proposes eco-innovation of production in each sector, new consumption patterns and new styles of life for all. It has an economic value because is a means to exit the crisis of recent years, has a social value because it would create new jobs and improves the quality of the well-being of all and also has an environmental value because it protects and enhances the value of the natural capital.

The harsh impacts of climate change and its related hazards are increasingly being felt across the world. A large consensus has emerged among natural scientists about the nature and the impact of climate change. It is recognized that climate change is largely anthropogenic and that, in turn, a continuous worsening of environmental conditions has strong impacts on populations’ and individuals’ well-being (Lutz, 2010).