Pierre Chiartano interview Sergio Romano by Stiglitz in Fukuyama, the concept of state and globalization. From these themes was made into a paragraph from the book "Defending the West '(ed. Liberal) with a preface by Renzo Foa
We wanted to seek advice from Sergio Romano, one of the sharpest analysts of international politics from the extensive diplomatic experience , professor, columnist and tireless author of dozens of publications on the history of our country and the relationship between Italy and the rest of the world.
Fukuyama is right when he says that it has been emphasized uncritically as the abandonment of the role of the state was taking shape within the strong dynamics of globalization. The reduction of areas was accompanied a more effective role?
I have the impression that there has been, in the nineties, a trend, a trend ideological orthodoxy proclaimed that the progressive decline of the state in favor of the spontaneous organization of society, market economy. Like all trends, like all fashions can also bring positive results, create the climate within which certain reforms that are necessary and which are thus better met. Please note however, that the ideological trend has never been fully realized. It is true that the State has ceased to perform his duties simply because a growing number of intellectuals and ideologues he proclaimed the decline. The state has continued to perform his duties while on the one hand and deregulated, as we had suggested to Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan, not a day passed without the other would introduce new regulations. Do not forget that the European single market, one of the most positive results of this prevailing trend, has been implemented with strokes of rules, guidelines, laws because otherwise he would never be realized. Should therefore always make a distinction between the ideas prevalent in a certain period of history, interesting, and can also have positive effects, and the reality is something else entirely. It is true what he says Fukuyama, that the tendency to regard the state as an artichoke that needed to remove one leaf at a time, now is not proclaimed as genuine and heartfelt. We find fewer people who says "less state, more companies," perhaps because the pendulum is swinging the other way. Compared to these ideological tendencies should exhibit a certain detachment because it tends not to subvert the status quo ever.
The crisis and economic stagnation increases the uncertainty and the need to feel protected
course, because these trends are influenced by moods, by the psychology of society at a given time. The fact that the economies Western things are not going very well in recent years has had the effect of revaluing the role of the state.
But the perception of citizens with the disappearance of an identification process established as one of the nation, tempered by the values \u200b\u200bof democracy, failed or something intangible economic needs are to dominate?
Undoubtedly the time when the economic situation is positive and the market does not automatically produce the well-being that instead it was thought he was capable of producing citizens turned in on itself on the institutions which are more familiar and unfamiliar, thinking have some advantage.
It is an image reproduced for all European countries?
The individual EU states, even those were, somehow, re-evaluated in terms of functions over the years. Why not in a good economic situation, in a time when the modernization threatens the privileges, the social conditions of a number of groups, each wrapped around what has further ensured in the past. This is what happened with the re-nationalization in the EU, to the extent possible, the economic policies. But I do not think it's a lasting trend over time, if I look I see a detached historical European states, apart from these fluctuations pendulum, continue to lose the sovereignty that remains the great trend of history. The national character of the state is a process that had its maximum brightness between 1848 and 1918, is not included in the tables of the law of universal history.
Stiglitz in his analysis, in essence, says that economic models should be flexible with respect to the genius loci of the countries on which they affect. Less graphics and more parameters and cultural mediation?
Stiglitz is a very fine and intelligent. I think this is the finding that certain ideologies of the market as the supreme regulator of human fortunes were destined to collide, perhaps, over time, with situations that do not confirm its validity. Globalization, which is a long-term phenomenon and that, in itself, is a positive phenomenon, has questioned the prosperity of some social groups that, for better or worse, within the national state had managed to live. In other words, the Italian textile and suffering, of course, ask the State to be helped because they see their fate in jeopardy. This leads to putting in place measures that delay the decline of certain social groups. In all European societies there is a certain fear of modernization and globalization, is part of the ups and downs of life of a nation. Some people took advantage
and rides with the modernization courage and some people do not. In the end who must disappear, disappears. We arrive at the problem
China, a giant that someone has already seen as the star of a new bipolar competition with the American-led West. Developing a middle class to force the hand of the Communist Party of China, on a course of reform, there appears to give the desired results. Taking into account the complexity of the situation what is the key to understanding of the Middle Empire for the next year?
The problem is that China is growing very dynamically in terms of social underdevelopment, this allows her to capture the market with products compete with many European industries. Fine, but at the same time China is becoming, in turn, a market. If you are Italian and can not sell planes to China, feel much the crisis in textiles, but if you are German or French and can sell air in Beijing will not hear this crisis. It is our problem, not China. We are somewhat lazy in the last twenty years, leaving the industries that would help us to seize the opportunity that the Chinese market offers us. We are on the losing side. Other countries are both losers and winners in some areas altri.Sul problem for the development of democracy the country is a totally new model. It had never happened in the world that an authoritarian system, totalitarian least nominally, with a single party and a strong control over the company at the ideological level, he was able to leave the great energy with the country's economic growth rates that we all know. In general we had been taught to think that, when formed of dynamic economic classes that reinforce and develop, they create conditions for democracy. Because at some point, these classes will want to influence the legislative framework, seek assurances and greater authority. We always thought that this Chinese system was not designed to last indefinitely, because it contains within it an incompatibility between the authority and rigidity the political system and the extraordinary flexibility of the economy. I still think that way, it can not last forever. But what matters in politics is the forecast, I might be right but if I had fifty years that would be the point?
Pessimistic?
I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If the person is doing business with China should not listen to those who make these considerations, is mistaken, because in the meantime could develop good business, and if the system would rule for another ten years would also repay the investment. The system should be designed to last because it is a contradiction, but this is only because we say we have not seen anything like it in history. And if this was the first time?
http://difesadelloccidente.blogspot.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment