Back to Common Ground Archive



Air Date: June 25, 1996
Program 9626


ITALIAN ECONOMY; GLOBAL GOVERNANCE


Guests:

Various Italian citizens

Adele Simmons, President, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation

ITALIAN ECONOMY


FREDERICO GALDI: We have calculated up to 56 percent of income from the selling of
products taken by the government in one way or another.

JEFF MARTIN: This is Common Ground. In this edition of Common Ground the
Italian economy is struggling overall causing the emergence of issues with which Americans are
familiar—taxes and immigration.

LUCIO MANISCO: Italy together with other European countries are exploiting North African
countries. We create the reasons why people immigrate from these countries into Italy and to
other industrialized countries in Europe.

MARTIN: And then later in the program, seeking ways to manage a chaotic planet. The
report of the Commission on Global Governance.

ADELE SIMMONS: You have the United Nations. You have multiple-trade organizations. You
have international environmental organizations that may be outside the UN framework. So there are
many, many actors. And the question is, “How do they all interrelate and interconnect to create
some kind of coherent and more effective way of preventing violence, solving common problems, and
enabling the survival of the planet?”

MARTIN: Common Ground is a program on world affairs and the people who shape
events. It is produced by the Stanley Foundation. I’m Jeff Martin.

The Italian economy is in trouble. Slow annual growth and 11 percent unemployment mean that some
young people can’t get jobs until they are 26 years old. Far right-wing parties say immigrant
workers are the cause of unemployment, while left-wing parties call for a shorter work week to
spread the jobs around. Yet, in the northern regions of Italy, the economy is prospering.
Businesses are making good profits and providing virtually full employment. Correspondent Reese
Erlich traveled to various parts of Italy to bring back this report on the fascinating, and
sometimes contradictory, Italian economy.

REESE ERLICH: Some 50,000 people marched through the drizzling streets of Rome to demand
civil rights for immigrants. Far right-wing parties are blaming immigrants for Italy’s high
unemployment and other economic problems. So on this day Italians, Niceans, Senegalese, and other
foreigners joined hands to reject such views. They say immigrant workers are the victims of an
economy gone bad, not its cause. This Moroccan worker says he and other immigrants are forced to
take the lowest paid jobs and receive few of the benefits to which they are legally entitled.
They are subject to harassment and discrimination on the job.

MOROCCAN WORKER: All these people were immigrants without documents. We want the Italian
government to give us a right to work here and to give us documents.

ERLICH: The Italian government did pass a partial amnesty bill last year that allowed
illegal immigrant to regularize their status. But many employers ignore the law’s requirement to
pay for health care and disability insurance. Some foreign workers are afraid to come forward to
claim amnesty fearing retaliation by employers. Government critics say more fundamental changes
are needed. Lucio Manisco is a well-known TV journalist and now edits the left-wing daily,
Liberazione. He says most immigrants in Italy come from countries bordering the
Mediterranean Sea.

LUCIO MANISCO: We would like first of all to follow an economic policy of investment in
this country. We take the responsibility that Italy together with other European countries are
being exploited—North African countries and other countries of Africa and Asia. Therefore, we
create the reasons why people immigrate from these countries into Italy and to other
industrialized countries of Europe. So that policy of investments in those countries, creating
jobs there, obviously will limit this flow of immigrants. As far as immigrants in our country, we
would like to make them equal to Italian citizens. If there are jobs, there are jobs for
everybody. If there are jobs, they should not be discriminated against.

ERLICH: While the United States and other European countries have long wrestled with
immigration issues, it’s a relatively new problem in Italy. Until very recently, poverty forced
many Italians to emigrate out of the country to find work. Tom Benatolo is the leader of the
Catholic Church organization defending immigrant rights.

TOM BENATOLO: It’s sad to say, but many Italians also have relatives somewhere in the
world. More or less than 20 million Italians are around in this country. So if there are one of
three Italians in residence now, we are 60 million at the moment. It is very sad to see that
several people in Italy are against immigrants. The majority of these people have particular
guarantees, proper regulation of the system this term. I think they will accept the presence of
these immigrants.

ERLICH: The debate about immigration is symptomatic of a wider problem in Italy’s
economy. Business people say inefficient, state-owned industries and a bloated welfare state
stifle economic growth. They complain bitterly about high taxes. Federico Galdi is head of
international relations for Confindustria, Italy’s federation of industries.

GALDI: The tax burden in Italy is particularly strong on the producers, on industrial
companies. We have calculated up to 56 percent of income from the selling of products taken by
the government in one way or another. We have a very heavy social burden. In certain cases, more
than 106 percent of the salary is paid from the company to the state to cover social costs. Also,
the individual burden is perhaps one of the highest in Europe.

ERLICH: Confindustria would like to see lower taxes, reduced spending on social welfare,
and the selling off of many state-owned industries. That rubs Angelo Gennari the wrong way. He’s
head of research for the Italian Confederation of Worker Trade Unions. He says workers
desperately need to maintain the social benefits afforded by the welfare state. He has a proposal
for solving unemployment.

ANGELO GENNARI: Our answer to that, it is an answer which is probably not global. It is a
redistribution of working time. A redistribution of working time and a change in the approach
that we have to our working life, if you want. It does not say anywhere that you should always
work like you work today, eight hours a day for five days a week. These things are changed over
time. Every time they’ve changed, employers have hollered that it was going to destroy them, and
it never did. We passed from a 13-hour day to the 10-hour day and then to the 8-hour day. Now we
will have to go below that limit. Of course, there will be some wage sacrifices.

ERLICH: Gennari concedes such proposals won’t be easy to pass, because the nature of
work has changed drastically in the past 40 years.

GENNARI: Large industries are disappearing and have disappeared. The restructuring and
outsourcing and giving out work, Fiat was a place where hundreds and thousands of workers worked
together. It was easier to organize. If the Fiat decentralizes itself as it is doing and
decentralizes production as it is doing in many, many small firms, always Fiat-owned or at least
Fiat-licensed or whatever, it’s much more difficult to organize them. But that’s what we’re
trying to do.

ERLICH: Confindustria’s Galdi agrees that Italy is moving away from large industry
toward small and medium enterprises. He cites the highly successful textile and garment
industries that use small, but technologically advanced, factories.

GALDI: One of the secrets of the efficiency of Italian fashion system is that by
utilizing this kind of production rather than the big factory with 3,000 workers they are capable
of introducing, for instance, new collections in only two weeks. They have invented production of
sweaters in gray color. They put the color on only in the last two days.

ERLICH: There is another secret to the fashion industry, at least here in the Emilia
Romagna region south of Milan. Emilia Romagna has been run by the Communist party and its
successor organizations to the party of the Democratic Left since the late 1970s. Italians call
it “Red Emelia.” Ironically, the Reds have helped foster some of Italy’s most dynamic capitalism.
Inside a small textile factory owner Graziano Daviddi proudly shows off his high-tech equipment.
One of his textile weaving machines can produce enough cloth in a day to make 300 garments.
Upstairs Daviddi explains how his technicians scan a fashionable design into a computer.

GRAZIANO DAVIDDI: They copy the design into the computer—the computer-translated manual
language, which is called machine language—and after that they can insert the floppy [disk] into
the machine.

ERLICH: Daviddi says he and other entrepreneurs in the area benefit from local
government policies. The government doesn’t provide economic subsidies. It sets up three bureaus
to keep the garment and textile industries competitive.

DAVIDDI: Then we have the Quality Textile Analysis Laboratory. It’s allowed to control
the quality of the clothes and the final garment. The 45 companies that make up our consortium
have the opportunity, for a small fee, to analyze their products. That quality control allows
them to give the national/international customer a very high-quality product.

ERLICH: Local government policies not only benefit business people but workers as well.
The union movement is quite strong. Wages and working conditions are good. Rosetta works at
Daviddi’s textile factory folding cloth and checking quality. She’s a long-time union member.

ROSETTA: I feel much more comfortable than other places I have been working for. It’s
different mainly from the environment. Here the people are friendlier, and because I didn’t have
this kind of environment before.

ERLICH: Elsewhere in the world, when workers unionize and wages go up the employers flee
overseas. That’s certainly a problem for Italian workers as well. But far more companies stay
here, because the Italians have created a niche market not likely to be recreated in the mass
garment shops of Asia. Graziano Daviddi.

DAVIDDI: We try to provide a more imaginative, well-presented, and quality product than
Asian countries. We can provide specialized needs, because we have more high-tech machines than
in other parts of the world—unfortunately for them. We have another great advantage, our Italian
designers. They have a wonderful creativity superior to many other. The imagination of our
designers and high technology of our machinery makes a well-presented and quality product.
Something we are proud to say was made in Italy.

ERLICH: These companies succeed in part because the local administration is helpful,
stable, and honest. There have been no bribery scandals involving the garment industry in Red
Emelia, although there have been scandals in awarding construction contracts. However, union
official Angelo Gennari says everything isn’t rosy in Red Emelia.

ANGELO GENNARI: Local political authorities close their eyes to many irregular things.
Many of those small and medium enterprises don’t pay their taxes as they should. And that’s
tolerated. In any case, they create jobs. Even if they are jobs that we say in the black in the
formal economy, but they are still jobs. On the average, though, an Italian I believe would much
prefer to live in the Emilia Romagna region than in Sicily or even in the Lotrio region where we
are today. Because, at the same time, those local governments have given a lot of rather good,
functioning, effective social services, social infrastructures, to their region.

ERLICH: While other parts of the Italian economy are mired in difficulties, the small-
and medium-sized plants in Emelia Romagna are doing just fine. There’s virtual full employment
and an annual growth rate of 5 percent. Experts point to this region as a model for Italy, but
economic differences among the regions of Italy are so great that it will be many years before
the entire country enjoys the prosperity visible here. For Common Ground, I’m Reese
Erlich.

MARTIN: In a moment, Common Ground continues with a report on the work of the
Commission on Global Governance.

ADELE SIMMONS: I think the important thing is to move away from kind of every problem can
be decentralized, to figure out which problems are best managed at which level. So you’ve got to
figure out what the problem is, what you’re trying to accomplish, and then who can best do that.
And the lower the level at which the work can be done, the better.

MARTIN: Printed transcripts of Common Ground and audiocassettes of this program
are available. Listen at the end of the broadcast for details on ordering. Common Ground
is a service of the Stanley Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that conducts
varied programs and activities meant to provoke thought and encourage dialogue on world affairs.


GLOBAL GOVERNANCE



MARTIN: In 1992, former West German Chancellor Billy Brandt prompted the establishment of
the Commission on Global Governance in the hope that international conditions were favorable for
strengthening global cooperation. Common Ground producer Keith Porter recently spoke with
one of the Commission members and has this report.

KEITH PORTER: The Commission on Global Governance met with people all over the world
before issuing their findings last year. Their report, titled Our Global Neighborhood,
covers values, security, economic interdependence, UN reform, and the role of international law
as well as a call to action for the people in governments of the world. The 28 commission members
included former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias,
South African anti-apartheid leader Alan Boesak, former World Bank President Barber Conable,
former European Commission President Jacque Delors, United Nation’s High Commissioner for
Refugees Sadako Ogata, President of the International Peace Academy Olara Otunnu, and Earth
Summit organizer Maurice Strong. Another member of the Commission was Adele Simmons, president of
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in Chicago.

SIMMONS: All of us have been speaking worldwide to groups and organizations trying to
insure that the main ideas become a part of the international debate. Most important, 15
governments have issued a statement basically underlying all the recommendations of the
Commission they thought would further the Commission directly. But it’s very clear as these 15
governments got together around the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, they read the report
and basically as they said what needs to be done in the future, they drew directly on the
recommendations of the report.

PORTER: Is there some next step, some next report, or some next creation that will come
out?

SIMMONS: No. I think right now you have our report. You have the report of the Ford
Foundation-sponsored effort out of Yale on the reform of the United Nations. Much more
explicitly, you have a Carnegie Corporation Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict. The
work of all of these groups needs to be brought together. Our hope is that there will be a large
international summit along the lines of Cairo and Beijing, if you will, around the question of
global governance in 1998.

PORTER: What was your specific area of interest or participation in the Commission?

SIMMONS: My feeling was that we needed to understand and recognize the role of these
nonstate actors from the international corporations to the nongovernmental organizations that
have been working on issues such as nonproliferation, population, environment. Defining the role
and clarifying the role and recognizing the important role that these nonstate actors are going
to play. There’s going to be a very important part of rethinking global governance.

PORTER: People are often scared or turned off by the term “global governance.” The
summary of the Commission’s report says, “Global governance is the sum of the many ways in which
the international community manages its common affairs. Traditionally handled between states, it
must now include interaction between governments and intergovernmental institutions and others
including nongovernmental organizations, citizens’ movements, multinational corporations and the
global capital market. Interacting with all these forces is the mass media, whose global
influence continues to expand.”

SIMMONS: They get confused about governance, which is really some kind of international
system of sensible collaborative world management to government, and we’re not recommending in
any way global government. We’re recognizing that you have NGOs, you have citizens’ groups, you
have individual citizens, you have states, you have regional alliances, you have the United
Nations, you have multiple-trade organizations, and you have environmental organizations that are
international that may be outside the UN framework. So there are many, many actors. And the
question is how do they all interrelate and interconnect to create some kind of coherent and more
effective way of preventing violence, of solving common problems, and enabling the survival of
the planet?

PORTER: You mentioned the nonstate actors. Beyond that, how do you summarize the main
points or recommendations from the report?

SIMMONS: We did recommend reforms of the United Nations which I think are very important,
including a restructuring of the Security Council. We have recommended the establishment of an
international court to deal with basically individual criminal actions. We have recommended that
there be some place where groups or individuals whose rights are not respected or valued within
their own country have a place to appeal, a right of petition for these people. We have
recommended that we think about this question of security of people in addition to security of
states. I think we need to be careful that we not simply talk about the decline of the state. I
think states are enormously important, just look again at Algeria and Zaire. As the ability of
the state to manage basic things such as maintaining economic structures, police, etc. declines,
you have more violence and everything collapses. So we need states, but there are all these other
nonstate actors that connect with them and work around them and are a part of these systems.

PORTER: When you talk about security of people, do you think that leaders of states get
worried about that? Does that make them nervous when they hear people talking about security of
people rather than security of states?

SIMMONS: They may. It shouldn’t. I don’t think the state government in Nigeria is, in
fact, a very secure one because the people aren’t very secure. While the government may still be
in power today or tomorrow, I think most of us sitting around this table can be pretty sure that
one or two years from now there will be a new government in Nigeria.

PORTER: There’s a lot of talk in Washington about decentralizing or devolutions, sending
power out to state and local levels. Talk or action, I don’t know which. And also at the United
Nations, even in the most recent human development report there was talk about decentralizing
being a good thing. When we talk about global governance, and again it may be the confusion
between global governance and global government, is there room for decentralizing? I mean is that
recognized?

SIMMONS: Yes. I think the important thing is to move away from thinking every problem can
be decentralized, to figure out which problems are best managed at which level. If you’re looking
at the ozone question, that is a worldwide international problem. You need an international
convention and some kind of worldwide monitoring of ozone questions. If you’re talking about the
arms trade, that’s a combination of work at the state level, at the regional level and at the
international level. On human rights you need general international standards, but the monitoring
and the work have to be done at the local level. So you’ve got to figure out what the problem is,
what you’re trying to accomplish, and then who can best do that. The lower the level at which the
work can be done, the better.

PORTER: You talk about UN reform. Is the United Nations right now a good example of
global governance, a failed example, or somewhere in between?

SIMMONS: I don’t think the answer is that easy. There are parts of the United Nations
that are wonderful, that are working amazingly effectively. The work of the High Commission on
Refugees is doing under stress what is hard to imagine and no one ever anticipated. It’s terribly
important. The number of UN peacekeeping operations that are now in place and effective and
making a huge difference such as the troops along the Macedonian border which is relatively new,
or Cyprus, which is relatively long-standing. It’s something people don’t recognize. When one
peacekeeping or peacemaking mission fails, that attracts all the attention and no one pays any
attention to what’s working. So there are many pieces of it. If we didn’t have the United
Nations, we’d have to invent something like it. There are enormous inefficiencies in the
bureaucracy. We need to deal with those, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

PORTER: You mentioned also that the series of UN conferences—including Cairo, Beijing,
Vienna, Copenhagen, and others—one thing that has stuck me, and we’ve covered those on our
program, is the rise of the NGO forums and the role that the NGOs have played in those. Is this a
model that we think can continue, this co-meeting official site, nonofficial sites? Is it an
effective, efficient way of gathering world attention on those both NGO and governmental levels?

SIMMONS: It seems to be working. It is an approach that will probably run its course as
people will become exhausted by these summits or summited out to some extent. But to the extent
that there are still some huge topics that need to be addressed, I think it will continue to
attract attention. I think having the NGOs there is very important. But as the secretary-general
of the United Nations said to me at one point, “The NGOs are very important, but how do I deal
with 30,000 of them?” They need to find a way to organize so that those who are dealing with them
feel that there’s less chaos.

PORTER: You mentioned the possibility of another summit. Can you tell us anything more
about that?

SIMMONS: We need to do a lot of preparatory work, but I think this is where a discussion
of global governance can take place with a broader constituency than just 28 of our commissioners
sitting around the table, even though we did hold hearings and listening to people. I think there
needs to be a really serious discussion about UN reform and its relation to the broader kinds of
global governance that we talked about. I think there needs to be discussions about financial
markets and the ways in which capital flows without any regulation can destabilize governments.

PORTER: Right. Adele Simmons, do you have a continued role with the Commission?

SIMMONS: The Commission itself is basically moribund. But I think all of us who are
involved in it want to maintain the friendships that we developed and continue to promote the
work of the Commission.

PORTER: That is Adele Simmons, president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation in Chicago, Illinois. She’s also a member of the Commission on Global Governance. The
Commission report is titled Our Global Neighborhood. For Common Ground, I’m Keith
Porter.

MARTIN: Cassettes and transcripts of this program are available. Transcripts are free and
cassettes cost $5.00. To order or to share your comments, write to us at the Stanley Foundation,
216 Sycamore Street, Muscatine, Iowa 52761. Ask for Program No. 9626. To order by credit card,
call us at 319-264-1500. For Common Ground, I’m Jeff Martin.

B.J. Liederman created our theme music. Common Ground was produced and funded by the
Stanley Foundation.





Copyright © 1996,
The Stanley Foundation


[email protected]