"Traffic jams are not only exasperating, they also cost dear
in terms of productivity. Bottlenecks and missing links in the
infrastructure fabric; lack of interoperability between modes
and systems; non-communication between too many closed and scattered
telecommunications circuits. Networks are the arteries of the
single market. They are the lifeblood of competitiveness, and
their malfunction is reflected in lost opportunities to create
new markets and hence in a level of job creation that falls short
of our potential.
The establishment of networks of the highest quality [...] is
a priority task. It will require a joint, massive and sustained
effort on the part of the authorities at all levels and of private
operators. The potential to create jobs is substantial, both directly
in the short term by initiating large-scale projects and through
the beneficial effect in the long term on production conditions".
These themes, summarised by Jacques Delors in the White Paper.
Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, are the focus
of the debate between the international experts invited to Milan to discuss the role of infrastructure in spurring
development while respecting environmental compatibility.
|
|
|
Fragmented Society and Globalization
|
Thursday 3 October 1996
|
|
Our current state of confusion is a consequence of two opposing trends that are simultaneously affecting society. The first is the accelerated elimination of a (now degraded) state that was once a force of intervention and mobilisation, the many forms of which dominated the post-war period. European social democracy has become neo-corporativist, while the national-populist regimes of Latin America have been overwhelmed by cronyism and corruption or revolutionary populism. Many of the social resistance movements that today profess to speak in the name of the people in fact defend acquired interests or even privileges that have become obstacles to both economic efficiency and social justice. Beginning with deregulation, the construction of Europe, which is dominated by a liberal vision, inevitably destroys economic and administrative protectionism.
However, the second trend clashes with the first. Not only do we not want triumphant liberalism to destroy the welfare state, which cannot in any way be reduced to corporativism or a policy of subsidies, we also oppose (in Europe as in many other parts of the world, from the United States to Latin America) the increase in inequality, unemployment and precariousness, social exclusion.
We must therefore destroy an old and decayed system of social control of the economy and at the same time construct a new one. There has never been and there will never be a purely liberal society; that is, an entirely self-regulating economy. Such a conception is nothing less than an extreme form of economic power wielded undemocratically. However, there are liberal transition periods, such as the one we have been going through for the last quarter of a century. It is now imperative that we emerge from this phase, as we stand on the verge of a post-liberal era. But can we begin this era if we still in large part belong to the pre-liberal age? The two conflicting trends of economic liberalisation and reconstruction of social and political control over the economy explain the instability of all forms of government but also define the priorities of any attempt to manage social change.
Such priorities must consist in increasing the participation of all countries in the technological change and trade that are spreading around the world. This opening is the only efficient way to overcome the resistance of lobbies and corporatisms that defend positions their competitiveness does not justify. The priorities must also involve resisting the growing domination of an international financial power that is increasingly removed from economic activity itself, by reinforcing the intervention of political power at the national or regional level (European Union, Nafta, Mercosur etc.). The idea of a "global" economy unrelated to the policies of national states has to be fought as vigorously as any form of command economy or corporatism.
|
|
|
