The Italian coalition government, comprising the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right League party, made headlines recently for its new draft budget, which violates EU rules.
However, this hardly the first Italian government to make over-the-top promises and squander public money to pay for them. When all is said and done, Italy’s new populism is not new at all.
The government’s proposed budget promises to increase borrowing to finance a deficit of 2.4 percent of GDP next year and the following two years.
Illustration: Mountain People
While this would not cross the EU’s budget deficit ceiling of 3 percent of GDP, it is considerably more than the 1.6 percent that the Italian minister of finance informally agreed with the EU over the summer.
For Italy, which suffers from deep structural issues and chronically anemic growth, increasing the target for next year’s budget deficit is imprudent, to say the least. By worsening Italy’s already fragile fiscal position, the higher deficit would limit the scope for adjustment in the event of future shocks.
Italy’s sovereign debt already totals more than 130 percent of its GDP — the second-highest ratio in the EU after Greece. To put the nation on a path toward public-debt sustainability, it should be increasing its primary surplus (the difference between revenues and expenditures net of interest payments), to 3.5 to 4 percent of GDP, according to the Bank of Italy.
Instead, the primary surplus is due to drop to 1.3 percent of GDP next year, from the projected 1.9 percent this year, making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the planned debt reduction.
Long-term economic and social considerations almost inevitably collide with short-term political objectives, particularly for populists. Increasing spending today is the only way Italy’s coalition parties can deliver on their grand campaign promises.
Whereas M5S has pledged a form of “citizens’ income” for the poor and the League is committed to tax cuts, both want to repeal the 2011 pension reform that, among other things, raised the retirement age.
For the League, delivering on its electoral pledges is particularly urgent, as it is eager to cement its lead against its former center-right allies — notably, former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia — and even M5S before next year’s European Parliament elections.
To be sure, Italy’s ruling coalition is responding, at least partly, to real and serious concerns. The global financial crisis and ensuing eurozone crisis lowered many households’ living standards considerably, and about 5 million people live in absolute poverty.
Real disposable income per capita plunged from 2009 to 2012 and remains below pre-crisis levels, which were already below the prevailing levels prior to Italy’s adoption of the euro.
Moreover, with older households’ real income (and wealth) well above those levels, aggregate data do not capture how grim the situation has become for younger and middle-age households.
However, simply throwing 10 billion euros (US$11.5 billion) at the problem will not fix it.
M5S’s “citizen’s income” would not be sufficient to lift people out of poverty, and it could actually worsen their plight to the extent that it distracts attention from the fragmented and poorly targeted welfare system, not to mention the need for broader structural reforms.
As it stands, Italy lags behind other large European economies in terms of output, employment and income growth, with wages failing to keep up even with its abysmally low productivity gains.
Rather than offering Band-Aids, the ruling coalition should be working to boost Italy’s competitiveness, which has been undermined since the crisis by the weak recovery of real exports and low investment, which, at under 9 percent of GDP, remains significantly below the eurozone average.
Even the League’s own voters are unlikely to buy into the citizen’s income program, owing to the perception that it would feed a culture of dependency and entitlement that many of them oppose. Indeed, the coalition’s fissures are beginning to show.
For now, the League and M5S remain united by their determination to defend Italy’s sovereignty against EU efforts to undermine it. After spending weeks arguing with EU leaders about migration, the government is now challenging the Maastricht Treaty’s rules, all in an effort to maintain popular support.
However, here, again, short-term political interests are at odds with long-term economic imperatives.
In a world where capital flows across borders instantly, rigid notions of sovereignty are not only inappropriate, but also dangerous, not least because they stoke fears among international investors.
As Argentina’s experience starkly demonstrates, international investors’ mistrust of populist governments can result in upheaval: As they withdraw their funds, a sovereign-debt crisis becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Italy is not there yet, but since the end of May, yields on its 10-year sovereign bonds have increased by about 210 basis points, bringing the differential with the German bund to more than 270 basis points.
Moreover, all the ingredients for a crisis are there: a weak growth outlook, a poor and deteriorating fiscal position, a vulnerable banking sector with substantial sovereign-debt exposure, and no credible plan for needed structural reform.
If those in Italy’s government who advocate a departure from the eurozone get their way, the situation will become even more explosive, owing to widespread economic destabilization and the destruction of confidence.
After all, membership in the EU and the eurozone has been the main force pushing Italy away from irresponsible short-termism and toward greater fiscal discipline.
Historically, Italians trusted the EU more than their own governments, but that might no longer be true, meaning that the risks of a harder push toward the exit are mounting.
However, even if Italy remains in the eurozone, the ruling coalition is likely to behave much like its predecessors. The only novelty may be the extent of the damage it causes.
Paola Subacchi is a senior fellow at Chatham House.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Burger King Taiwan on Wednesday last week posted an update on Facebook advertising a new “Wuhan pneumonia” (武漢肺炎) home delivery meal, catering to customers hankering for a Whopper, but who wished to avoid visiting one of its outlets. “Wuhan pneumonia” is the term commonly used in Taiwan to describe COVID-19. Beijing has been waging an extensive propaganda campaign against the use of the words “Wuhan” or “China” in reference to the novel coronavirus, calling it racist and discriminatory. Meanwhile, Chinese officials have claimed that the coronavirus might have originated in the US. The intention is obvious: to distract attention from the Chinese Communist
Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early-warning aircraft and Shenyang J-11 fighters on March 16 conducted a nighttime exercise in the waters southwest of Taiwan and, in doing so, came close to the nation’s air defense identification zone. Three days later, the PLA Navy’s fleet for Gulf of Aden escort mission sailed north in the Pacific off Taiwan’s east coast via the Miyako Strait on its way home. Meanwhile, the US carried out freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and assembled the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group with the Expeditionary Strike Group to conduct
Italy, Spain, France, the UK and the US are all depending on social distancing to fight COVID-19 and have fallen into terrible situations, with mounting positive cases and many deaths. Social distancing might flatten the curve, so that the peak is not so high that hospitals are overwhelmed with patients, the problem is that the pandemic could extend further into the future, hurt the economy more and become unbearable for society. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Singapore have controlled the spread of COVID-19, and the main reason is that most Asians wear masks. It can be illustrated as follows: If someone contracts the
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on