Hello. E' on the recent emergence of Blog Beppe Grillo interview with the journalist and writer Pino Puglia in April on his new book, just released for PIEMME, entitled "Terroni". In the book - which I have not been able to read, so I just mention the contents of the interview - it is argued that, since 1861, the Piedmontese government has used "the weapons, politics, the economy, to create a gap between two parts of the country that did not exist when Unity. "
The interview is also available on YouTube here .
This thesis is already known and well-argued by many scholars: the Case of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies robbed to cover the substantial indebtedness of Savoy (the Bourbon Kingdom was at the time were among the most creditworthy of Europe) moving machinery and metallurgical sectors textiles from south to north, the "repentance" of many Southern intellectuals Proponents of unification, when they realized what it was, instead, to the colonial invasion, political assassinations, alliances with crime south of the Savoy, and so on.
All this, mind you, is absolutely true , as it is true that historians of the Unification of Italy deliberately removed these events from school textbooks - relegated to the academic works of some scholars - almost until today.
However, it is my opinion that such a book, however useful to clarify the key points, it could result in a boomerang effect far worse for the South of the benefits it produces.
In my opinion, the last What in the south of Italy needs - and I say that Southern, in fact, from guinea doc - is to find historical justification, where no real excuses for their condition of backwardness compared to much of the rest of ' Western Europe.
If we were to put it in the light of the lessons of the "Competitive Advantage of Nations" Michael Porter, the factors that determine the economic progress of a territory go far beyond the availability of wealth.
How to explain, otherwise, the reality of many countries which possess vast natural resources and environmental, of whom now hold full control for years, but still struggling to take off economically (eg, ad esempio, al Brasile o all'Argentina)?
E, per contro, come spiegare il progresso di Paesi del tutto privi di qualsiasi risorsa naturale, ma capaci di produrre ricchezza più che sufficiente ad alimentare il benessere delle loro società, come il Giappone, la Corea o i Paesi scandinavi?
Ancora, come spiegare il fenomeno del rapido sviluppo economico in corso in Slovenia, in Polonia, in Ungheria e nelle repubbliche baltiche, mentre l'Italia Meridionale, la Grecia, la Croazia, la Romania e l'Albania restano ferme (qualcuno, non sempre a torto, sostiene che stiano persino tornando indietro)?
Con buona pace degli storici meridionalisti, il problema dell'arretratezza del Sud d'Italia va ben oltre quel who made the Savoy after the unification.
for intellectual honesty, then we must not forget that alongside the atrocities described and documented in the book of April, the government of united Italy in 150 years has also given the extraordinary case for the South, the funds of earthquakes, the L.44/1986 (the "Act" De Vito "), the L.488/1992 and funds managed (badly) from Development Italy: a river of money, a real river in flood, in addition to funds managed from national and regional Operational Programmes (ROP and the different PON) and the funds of the various Ministries. And yet, the current account transfers, which go mainly to the South to finance the public administration and health costs ... And sorry if I stop, but I will not bore anyone with too long a list.
If the economic and social progress is measured by money transmission, Italy - all of Italy - would be the crown jewel of Europe, and that nation in decline and risk of bankruptcy, which include the Europeans as one of two "I" symbol PIIGS (pigs, or the countries "most unreliable" of Europe: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).
Therefore, we leave the Savoy in the history books: the reasons are quite different, and shelter capacity in an area that proves that you can highlight the good things and has to mitigate the disadvantages from which it is characterized. Michael
Porter speaks of "organizational culture" and "ability to design an overall strategy."
We'll just talk about mentality.
E 'this is the only, true and only key factor for regional competitive advantage in the long term.
And this is precisely what we lack.
Where in an area there is a widespread culture of respect for common rules, where there is the desire to improve and use to their advantage that the surrounding area, there - sooner or later - there's progress and welfare.
Take, for example, the tourism industry: my region, Puglia, has nearly 900 km of coastline, or 12% km of the Italian coast. We want to talk about how to use them or prefer to go on to complain that 150 years ago, the Piedmont have plundered the coffers of the Bourbon Kingdom? While southerners
beat their breasts crying the disappearance of the metallurgical century Neapolitan, I wonder why I prefer the summer tourism industry has arisen in Romagna, where the sea is notoriously "so so" , and not We in Apulia and Calabria.
And tell me that we did not have the resources now!
Rather than questioning the disappearance of the flourishing commercial fleet of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, I prefer to ask what the hell is that entrepreneurship si sia sviluppata nel Triveneto, fino ai primi Anni '70 una regione agricola ed arretrata, ma in cui hanno sfruttato - giustamente! - la contiguità con i ricchi mercati del Centro Europa e non, invece, in aree del Sud che, come ben esposto da Pino Aprile, depredati o no, una certa vocazione industriale avanzata ce l'avevano già!
E gli esempi potrebbero continuare a lungo, dimostrando ampiamente che solo la capacità e la voglia di pensare in un certo modo può produrre progresso durevole.
La mentalità, il "fattore intangibile" dello sviluppo economico, può risultare negli straordinari paradossi di Paesi leader mondiali nella lavorazione di materie prime che non possiedono, nel ribaltamento Almost paradoxically, the initial disadvantage with countries that lead the market in high technology, when only twenty years ago were basically agricultural, or countries leading the world in the production of food from intensive agriculture, which developed because ... did not have the land!
In all these things we should think, rather than continue to feel to play "victims of a plot of Piedmont." Other
that "the increase of the measures in respect of the ROP on Axis III": This policy makers, intellectuals, maîtres à penser southern social representations, should help to develop in the South of Italy, more than any else: the mentality.
If you really tenessero development of the South
But that's another story.
Regards,
(Rio)
