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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past