english version
nationalization was an introductory element for starting a process of structural reforms of the italian system, which was to take shape through "programming," that is to say, government intervention to pilot the entire economic system.
dustry, a Christian Democrat, Emilio Colombo; the Budget Minister, Ugo la Malfa, a Republican; and the Treasury Minister, Tremelloni, a Social Democrat: all members of the previous centrist government, with the conspicuous absence of the Italian Liberal Party, hostile to nationalization. The presentation of the bill in question was not peaceful. Opposing forces were operating both within the signatory political parties, especially among the Christian Democrats, and in the economic-financial sector. Fier-
ce attacks were carried out in the press controlled by the economic power, starting with “Il Sole 24 Ore” and “Il Globo,” and by the political right, the side which the electricity trust supported, led especially by Giorgio Valerio of the electricity company, Edison. The aim of nationalization was subjected to a real attack. The operation had begun earlier, under the auspices of a committee for the defense of stock and bond savings that, behind the smokescreen of wanting to defend the “small savers,” was actually the operational arm of the cartel of the
large power companies. In May of 1962, and therefore before the presentation of the government bill, in a pamphlet entitled Nationalization – Myth and Reality, the committee had collected a series of actions by economists and prominent figures, all of whom were opposed to nationalization. The presentation of the collection declared, "It is known by now that nationalization interventions have obtained bad results, which have been identified in the bureaucratization of the service, the loss of financial autonomy and the creation of centers of power that are difficult for Parliament to control. The best response to the failure of these experiments of the public control of key sectors is that, for many years now, only a few minor dictators of underdeveloped countries have resorted to such, as a quick means to consolidate their power against their political opponents.” An audacious and disparaging judgment, if one takes into account the connotations and political history of the forces involved in the change that had always militated against dictatorships. There are no surprises when looking over the list of the actions compiled by the committee, whereas the importance of the names that do appear is striking. The publication opened with an essay by Luigi Einaudi, published in the newspaper “Il Resto del Carlino”on April 4, 1962. “The structural reforms,” stated the former President of the Republic, “are mostly requested by those who want to go toward the left. […] managing public enterprises, just like private ones, with economic criteria that is agile, alien to the bureaucratic delays and tiresome controls by accountants and the court of auditors is folly.” It must be said here that subsequent events, not so much and not only those related to the management of Enel, but the universe of public companies in general, will eventually prove that the old liberal professor was right on more than one count. Another economist, then quite renowned, Caesar Turrone Bresciani, in the newspaper “Il Corriere della Sera” on April 8, 1962, saw
| oxygen
government intervention to be an “expropriation of the shareholders” contrary to the principles of the Constitution. He denied clear evidence, the exploitation of a monopolistic situation by the electricity companies, as he absurdly argued that for some years, thanks to these companies, the consumption of electricity in the central and southern regions had increased more than in northern ones, forgetting that far more candles were lit than light bulbs in those regions. Great journalists of the time could not pass up the chance to beat their drums, such as Mario Missiroli, writing in the magazine “Epoca,” in April of 1962, who gave exaggerated lessons in industrial economy and finance. Starting from the premise that the demand for energy doubles every 10 years, Missiroli said that “electricity power plants are worth 3.5 trillion,” so that one had to wonder if the State were "in any condition to take on this financial burden, in addition to the one arising from the compensation for the expropriated plants.” Nor did the newspapers “La Stampa” and “Il Giornale d’Italia” want to be left out. The newspaper of Fiat, which remained at the window detachedly watching an event that did not concern it directly, added its voice to the chorus, stressing that “Western Europe has overcome the tendency of nationalization.” The Roman newspaper, having lost prestige with the end of the monarchy and siding with the right, incontrovertibly declared that “reality says no” to nationalization. Concerns were also expressed among the Christian Democrats and not at all timidly, to the point that their official magazine, “La Discussione,” in its issue number 412 of November 12, 1961, highlighted “the difficulty, in some cases, the harmfulness of the use of public enterprises for certain economic purposes,” as evidenced by French and English experiences. The fear, vivid within the right-wing Christian Democrats, showed a contradiction in terms of overlooking the “seizure of power” that the party exercised in no uncertain terms on state-owned public enterprises,
137