You may remember that a bridge collapsed in Italy, near Genoa, in 2018. The bridge was managed by a private company, Autostrade per l’Italia. An investigation to ascertain who is responsible is now going on (the company clearly has its fair share of guilt, but managing such an infrastructure is a highly regulated and controlled business, so the controllers may have done wrong, too). Yet the Italian government, instead of waiting to find out who deserves blame for the bridge collapse, started a crusade against the controlling shareholder to oust them from the company.
In this piece for the Wall Street Journal, I argue that such a “campaign is reminiscent of Latin American eat-the-rich regimes”. Not so much for the goal, but for the method:
In January, Italy’s parliament enacted so-called Milleproroghe legislation, introducing unilateral amendments to motorway contracts. Changes included new rules for terminating the concession and new criteria for compensation if the contract was terminated early. These moves would be met by universal Western opprobrium if undertaken by, say, Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
Such a blatantly discretionary action was of course made possible by the circumstances of the bridge collapse. But I see more coming, as our government firmly believes in the vision of an “entrepreneurial state” and its patience with the idiosyncratic features and the leisurely pace of the rule of law is at a minimum.
READER COMMENTS
Alberto Isoardo
Jul 28 2020 at 7:58am
I’m very surprised to read on Econlib a so poor approach to a fact that caused 43 deaths. Besides is astonishing me the fact that the author is Italian and is a professor.
The law will determine penal responsabilities of those managing Autostrade but, nevertheless, the Company’s beheaviour before the fact and also after requires to have someonelse in charge of the service.
it is not a problem of the State that wants to do everything, this is used by those defending the private settore in an aprioristic way. In a joke, are those more monarchical than the King.
Prof. Mingardi seems to forget that Italian higways have the most expensive ticket in Europe and a quite miserable service with queues e very day and in every season. Austrade made a fortune with Italian highways and, Tallinn of a public service, this does not make se se at all.
The fact that the Italian public sector does not work properly it is not a good reason to give it away with out checking the money plaid to shareholders and the money involver in the maintenance.
Being a public and exclusive service it should be handled by a non profit company that, instead of paying dividends, would reinvest the money in the Company.
The law will take its time, as you know it is not short, but to compare the Italian legal system with Latin America, forgie me, it is really silly!. Italy has legal guarantees often checked by The European Court of Justice. I would say that those who signed the concession “forgot” to put safeguard clauses to defend Italian citizen and this is an extra fault in the previous negotiation.
The law will take its time but it is not acceptable that those Who allowed this travisato fact to happen, remain in charge of the highway system. Austrade’s image is not different and there are too many negative considerations on the company to keep on with its handling.
In the end I want to make clear that I have nothing to do with M5S, Who is currently requesting the concession cross out. Simply anyone Who cares the public interest would like to see a deep change In the highway system.
It would be actually a Venezuelan approach to allow lawyers to decide if those 43 deaths could ha been avoided.
Comments are closed.