The battle against globalisation, the defence of protectionism, fighting illegal immigration and protecting the nation’s borders were the winning principles in Italy’s recent general election. Is the real criteria, deciding general elections, based on whether a party is for or against globalisation rather than a distinction between the Right and the Left? Is the same happening in America?
The issue of globalisation and the psychological phenomena arising from it go far beyond the old Left-Right classification that is now almost obsolete. This is quite a difficult concept for Italians to accept, but quite widespread in America. It is obvious that there are still social values identifiable as belonging to the “Left”, however, problems linked to resisting change, to attitudes involving mental openness or closure, fear of losing one’s job etc can be seen equally as left or right wing phenomena. This also applies to social movements or trade-unions with differing ideological origins, which in fact have conservative policies.
People however seem frightened by change, which in some way they perceive as linked to globalisation. Immigration, ferocious competition, uncertain employment and inflation, are these all phenomena people are fearful of also in the States?
One should of course bear in mind that in some ways globalisation has had an even greater effect in the United States. This because processes are more advanced there and above all because outsourcing affects not only jobs in industry, but also those in the service sector since there are no languages. In other words, while in Italy it is difficult to move services elsewhere since no one abroad speaks Italian, in the States instead many services can easily be provided by India (call centres, etc). Consequently, fear of globalisation affects far larger sectors of the population and is a phenomena that runs deeper in spite of the fact that America is a country more inclined to take risks and more comfortable participating fully in markets.
On the subject of markets, in Italy we have experienced a strange reversal with the Democratic Party defending – at least in theory – open markets and globalisation, while the Right almost openly assumed an anti-global attitude. Does the same apply to Democrats and Republicans?
No, in America there is still the classical format with the Left tempted by more populist positions on these subjects, because its frame of a reference is the traditional labour force of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which is experiencing problems in addressing the globalisation phenomena. Due to a series of coincidences instead, Republican candidate McCain, has in this case tended to adopt an agenda similar to those of Bush and Reagan due to his need to gain the approval of the conservative Right, although in the past he always implemented policies of agreement and dialogue with the Democrats, for example on fiscal issues.
In your opinion, can Obama’s success be explained on the basis of his protectionist agenda?
To tell the truth, I do not be believe at all that Obama is a protectionist, but I understand that one must address what he is saying at the moment. The fact remains, I might add, that in a recent interview, free-trade and globalisation expert Jagdish Bhagwati, author of the essay “In defence of globalisation” (translated into Italian as Contro il protezionismo [Against Protectionism] , Laterza, 2006) told me that he does not believe for a moment that Obama is a protectionist. He instead considers him to be in favour of free-trade, a man educated among the economists of the Chicago school. He also believes that as president his position would be totally different. Anyway, regardless of the agendas of presidential candidates, compared to Europe there is an indifference in the United States, as I was saying, regards to the Left-Right mechanisms.
The positions, however, expressed by the newly appointed Italian Minister for the Economy in his book La paura e la speranza [Hope and Fear], are quite opposed to globalisation. Do you believe it is possible to relate to, and hence control, such a vast phenomenon with a theory such as his?
Giulio Tremonti has understood better than others the changes taking place in public opinion. However, I do not believe that his solutions are farsighted. So, although I admire his social intuition, this does not mean that I judge favourably the solutions he proposes. Personally, I do not agree with his perspective; it is based excessively on a fear of novelty and on globalisation’s risks rather than the opportunities it provides. Hence this perspective would not take us very far, because on the basis of his reasoning one ends up considering that what has happened in contemporary economics is almost exclusively the result of the abolition of tariffs. Globalisation instead is above all the result of the internet’s popularity and the abolition of physical barriers as well as the instant availability of low-cost goods and services. Tremonti instead relies above all on demonising the WTO and free-market agreements. Secondly because I believe that although it is legitimate to criticise globalisation’s excesses – seeing that effectively and above all in the United States the Reagan administration imposed a laissez faire regime that paid very little attention to the needs of a market that has to be regulated in order to function – this is the kind of strategy to be applied in countries that have seen widespread or excessive liberalisation. It does not apply to Italy where liberalisation never took off, and where there is a very rigid system, with corporate-styled protection of every possible kind, as well as the objective barrier posed by the Italian language restricting access to foreign services. In short, Italy still experiences the reverse problem, that of liberalising the economy, and not of taking care of the wounds inflicted by liberalisation’s excesses.
Could the American lesson provide a warning that the transformation of capitalism into a system involving the supply of increasingly sophisticated goods and services, as you wrote in your book, is an opportunity for those having adequate instruments, while it risks leaving out large sectors of the population?
My book wasn’t really all that optimistic, because although it outlined the current scenario, it also pointed out that it is not without grey areas, and in fact may pave the way for forms of political radicalisation. I don’t think there are many other alternatives as far as growth is concerned, but I believe that there is a need for a sufficiently strong social net to protect those defeated by this process. I am, for example, thinking of jobs requiring low levels of specialisation and in competition with cheap labour in developing countries, that result in a drop in income, which is certainly negative. If one is incapable of being part of the aristocracy of knowledge, that is unlikely to involve more than a third of the active population, or professional competence maintaining a degree of innovative capability, then there is a problem destined to increase with globalisation. Once again there are no other possible solutions, and I would like to emphasise that iron and steel workers suffered a crisis even before the creation of the WTO. If anything, one needs to question whether this upsurge in demand for raw materials is not creating a new cycle revalorising a number of traditional production mechanisms, but this is a scenario for an even more distant future.
In conclusion, how do you think a political party can articulate a message about globalisation without simply assuming a position that is simply for or against? How can one address this fear (real fear) without proposing simple conservatism?
Unfortunately, by attempting to explain more complex policies, intervening in each individual sector, one risks these same policies becoming sterile and sending a message that voters either do not understand, mistrust or are not enthusiastic about. In election campaigns slogans work a lot better. When actually governing there are then a series of strategies that are part of a government’s daily routine. These concern matters such as supporting research, creating sectors involving integrated innovation following new models and replacing industrial districts, new ways of managing the private health sector that can attract patients from abroad, upgrading products made in Italy, tourism, as well as exploiting our areas of excellence such as nanotechnologies and biotechnologies. These however are all difficult ideas to explain using slogans.
Translation by Francesca Simmons