1,721,139 research outputs found
Introduction
No full textInequality has been one of the key topics during the past years, not only in academia but also in public discourse. The discourse is dominated by economists, even though inequality has formed the core of sociology ever since its emergence in the nineteenth century. The classics of sociology, from Marx and Durkheim to Weber and Bourdieu, wrote their most famous works on inequality. Up to this day, inequality is the most important sub-discipline of sociology in most countries of the world.
Economic thought has chosen a detour to arrive at the topic of inequality. First, the effort by the classics of economics has been devoted chiefly to develop paradigmatic models emphasizing the impact of distribution on crucial economic outcomes, such as growth and efficiency. Second, since income and wealth distribution have been considered among the main determinants of potential inequality in the economic realm, a deeper analysis of their impact on inequality has been left to the specialized interest and feelings of a few scholars in the application of their favored paradigmatic model. The majority of economists have remained disinterested in the topic of inequality.
However, in the past decade or two, inequality has become a key topic for economists as well. Economics is presenting us a broad and impressive account of inequality today. For instance, this is true not only for the Thomas Piketty book, Capital in the Twenty-first Century (2014), but also for the White Paper of David Autor and Lawrence Katz, Grand Challenges in the Study of Employment and Technological Change (2010), focusing on polarization, another way for tackling inequality. Piketty begins his book with the clarification that it can only shed light on some aspects of inequality, since other aspects have to be covered by sociology. However, according to him, the sociological literature that would be needed is missing.
How is this assessment possible, since inequality is the core topic of sociology? There are two main answers to this question. First, research on inequality is dominated by international organizations, such as the World Bank or UNDP, and these employ mainly economists and not sociologists. Furthermore, the economists do not read sociology. If Piketty had looked more closely, he would have found literature addressing exactly the points he brings up in his book. However, this lack of communication is not only due to individual shortcomings of some economists. It is a general phenomenon. And it is not only a flaw on the part of the economists. Sociologists have created their own jargon and seem to try very little to cross the boundaries of their discipline
Introduction
No full textThe pursuit of new paths for making real sustainable development together with the innovation and change that this imply is one of the main challenges for the economies of the global North and the global South, as well as for the European Union.
New and strong chances of growth are at stake when we are led even to envisage a fourth industrial revolution or to think about the development outlooks of the emerging powers. A European perspective would suggest new opportunities for a parallel recovery of our economies at the local, national and supranational level with an approach based on human development. This is why smart specialization strategy (S3) and smart city strategy (SCS) adopted by EU at the beginning of the present decade are important efforts in this direction.
At the same time both at the local, national and supra-national level the resistance against change is strong for several reasons. They range from the loss of confidence deriving from repeated crises and failures to the unwillingness to accept change and competition in groups, regions and countries starting from a high level of affluence, to the high economic and social costs of solidarity.
In our view, the effort to find new strategies of growth can be better rewarded and their successful application assisted if we engage in an attempt to deepen their scope and try to put them in relation to the different local and national backgrounds. In this volume we engage ourselves in this task, starting from the Italian experience. However, we deem that this analysis can be helpful also for other member countries of EU.
Our theoretical underpinning relies on the concept of smartness which is a winning example of semantic container that can be applied to many aspects of economic and social life and ends up in a variety of recipients applications. Moving from the need to reconcile competitiveness and sustainability in different contexts and perspectives, smartness has given origin to a multiplicity of multidimensional recipients and applications. Smart projects and policies can involve infrastructures, lifestyles, institutional processes, methods of analysis and so on.
The concept of smartness can be converted into the more definite paradigm of smart development. In this way it can be applied to both the demand and the supply-side of the markets, to static and dynamic features of growth that allow us to detect some recurring and identifiable common elements. In particular, the scrutiny of the paradigm of smart development identifies at least three common elements that underlie its different connotations. First, the centrality of technological innovation and, in particular, the growing potential of ICT. Second, the role of networks, which connect the ICT infrastructure with those intangible assets related to knowledge innovative services (KIS), the organization of knowledge, and cultural activities. Third, the importance of the economic organization of knowledge - in particular, of transferrable knowledge - and human capital - including soft skills - in fostering innovation. A fourth distinguishing characteristic of smart development concerns the bottom-up approach, which leverages on the vocation of each individual component of the system and the communities involved. The need for a bottom-up process is linked especially to the centrality of the phases of listening, participation, co-design, dissemination and exchange of information, and leads to the collaboration between the different agents. This requirement is interlocked with the theme of government and governance, viewed as a system consisting of a plurality of multi- agents based on the effectiveness of the adjustment, the large degree of freedom granted to individuals, on accountability of the actors involved.
On such bases we consider smart specialisation and smart cities applications as the two basic pillars of the paradigm of smart development, respectively on the supply side and the demand side of the markets, and interlock these two ideas through their complementarity in fostering smart development in smart communities. In particular, we focus on the importance of the structure of labour markets, human capital formation and utilization, human development and social capital strengthening in shaping smart development path and structural reform policies. On the other hand, two major recipients of the paradigm of smart development are represented by regional and urban systems. There, smartness underpins the need to reconcile competitiveness and sustainability (Herrschel, 2013) in the interventions aimed at promoting innovation and knowledge in the perspective of an inclusive economic development. The attractiveness of the paradigm thus derives from the underlying interlocking between innovation and knowledge, on the one hand, and sustainability and local specificities, on the other hand. A prominent case is the European 2020 strategy that combines smartness with the typical attributes of a balanced development process: sustainable and inclusive. These goals can generate delicate trade-off. A necessary rebalancing imposes to policy makers, the explanation of the strategies of smart development in relation to the evolution of knowledge and its organization as a lack of access to education and training leads to growing inequality based on different human capital. The focus on sustainability also implies the recognition of the crucial role of the local dimension, understood as a complex of socio-economic relations founded on relations among communities, private individuals and local authorities in policy development.
This introduction presents the meaning of the “smartness” label and its applications in order to draw the foundations and the distinguishing elements of this symbolic representation in their different fields of applications. This analysis is not only theoretically rewarding, but also practically helpful, since it contributes to avoid ambiguous and confounding uses of abstractions like, for instance, those of ‘innovation sectors’, ‘territory’ and ‘talent’, which are widely spread in contemporary pamphlets of smartness-related themes. In order to reach practical and effective recipes for each distinct topic, two levels of analysis are performed. First, as the allegory of smartness can be applied to both the demand and the supply-side of the markets, we clarify the relationships between smart specialization and smart city and emphasize their cross-fertilization in understanding the useful paradigm of smart development. Second, the paradigms of smart development and smart community, which express actors and objectives associated with smartness, are viewed as the relevant applications for building up a comprehensive synthesis of the concept of smartness.
This conceptual framework will be presented to the reader with a gradual composition of the puzzle which correspond to the different parts of the volume.
Foreword, Introduction and Conclusion are addressed to explain the general approach of the book and how it has been conceived and achieved by means of a strong interaction between academic and business culture. Moreover, suggestions about how its results can be practically useful and applied at a sectoral level will be offered.
Part I is devoted to the conceptualization of the idea of ‘smartness’ as a blending of smart specialization and smart city. The matching framework of analysis is found in the ‘smart development’ paradigm.
In section I.1. we explore the origins of the ‘smart specialization’ notion both in the grey literature of high-level consultants as well as in the scientific literature. Apart from the main answers of innovation theory, significant benchmarks are identified in the scientific research on variety in capitalism models and variety in industrial policy.
Afterwards, in section I.2., the origins of the ‘smart city’ notion are explored again both in the grey literature of high-level consultants as well as in the scientific literature. The main tenets of innovation theory are explored together with the interpretations of the scientific research on regional economics, human capital and the new geography of jobs.
The outcomes relevant within the paradigm of smart development are the derived in section I.3.
Part II is devoted to the measurement and application of the smart development paradigm, mainly, but not exclusively, to the Italian context. Smartness indicators are discussed and employed in an in-depth empirical study focused on the European urban framework. Weaknesses and opportunities linked to Southern Italy, as a test for backward regional specificities and perspectives, but also to Central and Northern Italy are explored. Moreover a wide and original international comparison is presented which points out the relevance of the public utilities sector in this domain.
Part III is devoted to the assessment of the implications of the previous essays and contemporary debate on the government of smart development. Government and governance at the different levels of administration are addressed to. Suggestions offered both by big private actors and public agencies and governing bodies are examined in order to map the policy agenda which is under implementation in Italy and Europe. Due to their particular relevance and the role played on the supply side of the smart development paradigm, a closer investigation is performed in the case of transport planning and with reference to the strategies of the public utilities’ sector.
Bibliographical references, Appendix, Author index and Subject index conclude the book and make it possible to consult it in a very easy way also for specialized reading.
The remaining part of the introduction can serve as a guide for the reader and is divided into six sections. Section 2 and 3 concisely review the notions of smart specialization and smart cities, respectively. Section 4 introduces the paradigm of smart development as an ideal interaction between smart city and smart specialization. This paradigm will be further discussed in the volume and it can be considered a novel contribution. Section 5 stresses the role of human capital in smart development. Section 6 deals on how the role of human capital and social capital can be enhanced through government and governance in fostering the paradigm of smart community, another ideal type that will be further discussed in the volume and it can be considered another novel contribution. Section 7 concludes
Inequality in income and wealth distribution, globalization and models of capitalism
No full textSince its origin the economic science has granted a lot of attention to income and wealth distribution which are assumed to be the main economic determinants of inequality. But this simple sentence has to be qualified taking into consideration the typical logic that economists traditionally are used to follow.
First, their effort has been devoted chiefly to develop paradigmatic models which have been mainly used to study the impact of distribution on crucial economic outcomes, such as growth and efficiency.
Second, since income and wealth distribution have been considered among the main determinants of potential inequality in the economic realm, a deeper analysis of their impact on inequality has been left to the specialized interest and feelings of a few scholars in the application of their favored paradigmatic model.
If we consider in retrospect the evolution that took place within this logic, we cannot be fully satisfied. Actually, this two-stage way of reasoning has encouraged the majority of economists to consider growth and efficiency neutral with respect to inequality.
Today, due also to the process of global integration of markets, the influence of several layers of government on the operation of each model and the importance attached to sustainable and inclusive development, it is much more difficult to deal with inequality as a second-step issue. A new vision emerges which has to be seriously taken into consideration also by economists.
Therefore, in introducing the subject of how income and wealth distribution theories have influenced the study of inequality we need to move forward dealing with four main points.
In the second paragraph the traditional theories of income and wealth distribution will be shortly reviewed, trying to clarify their implications in terms of the interpretation of inequality. This is not only relevant from a historical point of view, but can be rewarding also for contemporary studies on inequality. We will also outline some of the major bias affecting mainstream economics.
In the third paragraph the main changes in the reference framework induced by globalization and global crisis will be outlined, suggesting the view that the new globalized nature of inequality should be examined.
In the fourth paragraph the multidimensional nature of inequality is explored and other elements useful to deeper in the study of the new vision are collected.
In the fifth paragraph we will explore some of the reasons why the models of capitalism theory can be relevant for better studying globalized and multidimensional inequality.
These paragraphs together emphasize that inequality is a global, multidimensional and cumulative phenomenon and it should not be conceived only as the result of the processes of personal and functional distribution of income and wealth, which, by the way, are intrinsically multidimensional on their own. The basic idea is that institutions, the cobweb of relations among them and their interaction with the economic structure define the model of capitalism which characterizes a specific country and this, in turn, affects the level and the dynamics of inequality. This approach is consistent with the sociological approach of Rehbein and Souza (2014), based on the analytical framework developed by Pierre Bourdieu.
Concluding comments will suggest an agenda for further studies
Analisi dei mercati del lavoro tra ricerca e riforma delle istituzioni
No full textIl primo breve intervento che ci ha chiesto il Presidente riguarda la rilevanza dell'Aiel per la disciplina dell’economia del lavoro. Data la particolare sensibilità e possibilità di impiego di strumenti appropriati in questo campo che ha da sempre caratterizzato gli economisti del lavoro, proporrò alcune idee sul quadro nazionale ed europeo di valutazione della ricerca, della didattica e della terza missione. Credo che le associazioni scientifiche, coordinate tra loro, possano fornire un contributo importante alla’affermazione di un processo basato sulla peer review in tali ambiti. Il vincolo di tempo disponibile spinge alla schematicità, ma sarò lieto di poter fornire chiarimenti in fase di discussione.
Il rinnovo del Consiglio Direttivo dell’ANVUR ha fornito un’occasione di brainstorming che non va sottovalutata.
Nel mio percorso di studi ho appreso che la valutazione della ricerca non può raggiungere risultati soddisfacenti se non la si connette rigorosamente con la valutazione della didattica e con quella della terza missione. Ho appreso anche che la sensibilità e la capacità di valutare le tre tipologie di risultati e le loro interconnessioni reciproche sono favorite dall’apertura interdisciplinare e rappresentano oggi un requisito fondamentale per la professione universitaria, anche se spesso il sistema di incentivi rilevante per la nostra carriera non attribuisce sufficiente attenzione.
Al fine di renderle più dirette, articolerò gli errori da evitare nei quattro ambiti di funzioni del Consiglio Direttivo dell’Anvur.
Il secondo breve intervento riguarda la valutazione delle politiche del lavoro. Per motivi abbastanza ovvi, ho pensato di far riferimento al jobs act. Tuttavia 5 minuti sono davvero pochi ed allora per ragionare sullo scenario complessivo e sugli approfondimenti offerti dai colleghi che vi hanno contribuito, rinvio al numero 3 della rivista online Atlantide, dedicato al tema “Creazione e distruzione di posti di lavoro”, uscito nel gennaio 2015, che ho curato con Giorgio Vittadini.
Una solida legge in materia di posti di lavoro credo che dovrebbe avere come presupposto fondamentale una conoscenza di base su cosa sappiamo e cosa dovremmo sapere sui processi di creazione e distruzione dei posti di lavoro. Tale consapevolezza non mi sembra ci sia, per questo mi soffermo su tre quesiti che aiutano a capire la situazione
Smart development as a criss-crossed outcome of smart specialization and smart city strategies
No full textAs argued in Chapter I.2.3., the capability of a region of taking stock of its historical production path in trying to adapt to future trends heavily depends on two crucial steps. The second step refers to the ability of the different levels of government involved to take fully into consideration the real nature and characteristics of the goods and services playing a crucial role in the transformation paths pursued. This can become a substantial drive for change and enhance their competences in managing local development.
The first one, on which we will focus in this chapter, concerns the capacity of the different levels of government involved to run after and exploit the synergies between the two different strategies of governance we are concerned with in this part of the volume: the smart specialization strategy (S3), on the one side, and the smart city strategy (SCS), on the other.
In Part III we shall see that since non pure private goods are at the core of the transformation paths and given the fact that markets are efficient allocation mechanisms only for private goods, for a relevant part of the economy a coordination mechanisms of a different sort is strongly needed.
We will argue there that these can be implemented through the creation of “smart communities” which can make available two sorts of tools relevant for the overall equilibrium. On the one side, they can elaborate rules capable of attributing economic values to production processes and supply of goods and services with a social nature. These rules helps in regulating the system and ensuring its compliance. This leads to tackle the structure of value chains for social goods. On the other, smart communities can help in adapting the very objectives of individuals, households and organizations to the constraints posed by social values on the subjective behaviour in the consumption of private goods. This leads to modify the structure of value chains also for private goods. In this way another source of synergy can be derived bridging the joint lessons coming from the study of smart development and smart communities.
But, in the present chapter we are still focusing on the first source of synergy and, in order to set up our analysis in a more explicit way, it is better to state the plan of our presentation. First, the reasons for which it can be relevant to explore these strategies will be presented. Afterwards, the key research questions that is important to answer will be raised. In third place, the linkages between S3 and SCS leading to smart development as a synergic outcome will be discussed. In the conclusions the main results achieved are summed up, giving particular emphasis on the economic impact of development based on smart specialization and smart city
Smart cities, social goods and demand side outcomes in a regional policy perspective
No full textIn our lifetime the greater share of the world GDP is created within the boundaries of large towns and metropolitan areas. This share will very likely increase in the future through a particularly dynamic and competitive processes. Although variety in spatial location is a common feature for economic development, this implies that the main challenge for local and global development will be played in this kind of spatial setting, which turned out to be more able in fostering internationalization processes and more capable in breeding and attracting investments in human, real and financial capital.
For this reason, especially countries whose spatial location of economic activities has traditionally taken place following decentralized patterns have to take stock of their historical production paths and adapt them to the new and less new global trends.
What is more, we leave in a world strongly affected by the global crisis from which we are still suffering and, also before the crisis, repeated evidences where keeping showing that profound changes in the economic and social structure should take place in order to satisfy minimal requirements of economic, environmental and social sustainability.
The creeping perception that negative congestion, pollution and other externalities can transform services in disservices and goods in bads has grown more and more together with the evidence on high social costs imposed by the assortment of market and government failures. In parallel to the materialization of new preferences, feed also by the unboundling of supply chains in markets and societies, this has encouraged the search for new ways to increasing prosperity while reducing its dependence on natural and environmental resources and energy. In the meantime also the fundamentally social and economic origins of many environmental issues is being recognized and, in this perspective, suggestions have emerged to pay attention to the principles of the circular economy and sharing economy.
In order to cope with a so quick structural and social change strategic actions are required by well equipped (smart) governments, firms and households. Therefore, the capability of a country or region of taking stock of its ‘deviant’ production paths, which in certain instances has been persistent over centuries , depends heavily on their ability to mobilize both the demand and the supply potential of its economy and society in support of the new strategies
Scenari, metodi, prospettive di ricerca: una introduzione
No full textAl fine di realizzare questo numero di Atlantide, agli inizi del mese di ottobre ci siamo rivolti ad un certo numero di studiosi ed esperti con diversa esperienza, collocazione e genere, selezionati sulla base dell’attenzione professionale da essi dedicata negli anni allo studio dei diversi temi di analisi applicata dei mercati del lavoro. Differenziate sono anche le fonti statistiche su cui usano lavorare, e questo è rilevante al fine di poter documentare anche il potenziale di informazioni statistiche disponibili.
Abbiamo proposto ad essi una domanda secca: “cosa sappiamo e cosa dovremmo sapere su creazione e distruzione dei posti di lavoro in Italia per poter mettere in atto politiche economiche efficaci?”.
Naturalmente, siamo consapevoli che la domanda è troppo ambiziosa per poter trovare una risposta completa in un numero della rivista, per di più pubblicato solo dopo poco più di due mesi, ma pensiamo che essa, nella misura in cui è ben formulata, possa fornire una buona base di partenza per alcune prime risposte che vengono raccolte in questa sede e per l’attivazione di linee di ricerca teorica da approfondire in altre sedi, oltre che costituire un’occasione di riflessione e dibattito da proseguire su questa rivista.
La considerazione da cui abbiamo preso le mosse si può esprimere in modo schematico in poche parole. Soprattutto a partire dagli anni ’60 del secolo scorso , si può notare il formarsi di un progressivo “strabismo” nella teoria economica mainstream dei mercati del lavoro. Quando l’enfasi è posta sulla ricerca del fondamento dell’architettura dei mercati, essa assegna un compito simmetrico ad entrambi i lati del mercato ed attribuisce al lato domanda di lavoro il ruolo di stella polare nel modello teorico. Quando, invece, viene sviluppata l’analisi empirica, e quindi si accumulano banche-dati, informazioni ed esperienze applicate, essa si dedica prevalentemente allo studio del lato offerta di lavoro.
Siamo convinti che tale strabismo non aiuti soprattutto nelle fasi critiche di ripensamento e riforma delle istituzioni su cui si basa il funzionamento dei mercati del lavoro, perché rischia di far perdere di vista quesiti cruciali. Esso genera, infatti, asimmetria nel posizionamento della domanda e dell’offerta di lavoro nell’alveo della politica economica, finendo per privilegiare la seconda, mentre il fulcro delle politiche macro e meso-economiche, proprio quando è in gioco il rilancio di investimenti e produttività, dovrebbe ricondursi anche alla prima. Forse si spiega in questo modo pure il ruolo residuale attribuito agli aggiustamenti dei mercati del lavoro nelle strategie d’intervento sviluppatesi sia in Europa che in Italia fino ad ora.
Questo numero di Atlantide è dedicato ad riproporne alcuni che, a nostro parere, sono in grado di rendere il quadro di analisi più bilanciato, al fine di irrobustire la grammatura del dibattito in atto nel nostro Paese in questi mesi.
Tra i tanti stimoli che offrono i lavori pubblicati in questo numero, abbiamo deciso di concentrarci su quelli che si connettono a tale considerazione preliminare. Partendo da essa, abbiamo poi focalizzato l’attenzione su alcuni quesiti di ricerca che, da un lato, vengono variamente enfatizzati nei diversi contributi, dall’altro, riteniamo sia prioritario affrontare per poter dare risposta alle complesse criticità dei mercati del lavoro in Italia.
Su tali quesiti, dapprima forniamo chiarimenti e, successivamente, anticipiamo alcune basi interpretative funzionali ad una ricerca futura volta a consentire interpretazioni più robuste
Smart development, local production systems and related variety
No full textA fundamental element that emerged from the debate on smart specialisation strategy (S3) and smart development is related to its regional/local dimension. In particular, the EU cohesion policies made great reference to the so-called place based policies. This happened in spite of the stronger emphasis that the proponents of S3 policy put originally on sectoral types of policy, which are usually “by definition” space-neutral (see also Chapter I.1.1 for a deeper discussion).
From this new viewpoint, in fact, the concept of S3 is rapidly becoming an important tool to revise and readdress the European regional policies. For example, the flagship initiative, “Innovation Union”, developed within the 2020 European Strategy, represents an important example of how the EU deems important the concept of smart growth and smart development. They should be implemented by means policies stressing the differentiation between regions to maximise the the use of scarce resources through the creation of the necessary sinergies. In fact, “Regional Policy can unlock the growth potential of the EU by promoting innovation in all regions, while ensuring complementarity between EU, national and regional support for innovation, R&D, entrepreneurship and ICT. Indeed, Regional Policy is a key means of turning the priorities of the Innovation Union into practical action on the ground.” (European Commission, 2010, p. 2).
The concept of smartness however is not, strictly speaking, about advanced technologies, but rather about the smart utilisation of, even low, technologies. Either by using in a different way the technologies previously used, through a reorganisation of their processes, or by using low technologies together with the support of high technologies. In both cases, the idea of co-specialisation comes to the fore and becomes very relevant especially within contexts where previous technological specialisations already existed.
It is in the light of these elements that the relationships between smart development and regional economic growth take on a very important role in order to fully understand how the concept of smart development is to be developed and how new perspectives on regional policies can be brought about by following this route. Therefore, the present chapter aims at focusing and answering a research question that is very relevant when studying issues of local and industrial development in Italy and Europe. This question can be framed in two steps.
In a first step, we inquire whether, in the perspective of a smart development strategy , a redefinition of the relationships between cities and metropolitan areas, on the one side, and industrial districts, on the other, can help both in interpretation and policy.
In a second step, we ask ourselves if betting too much on industrial specialization in non urban manufacturing areas can be understood as one of the determinant of the long term decline in international competitiveness and productivity of the Italian economy.
First of all, these questions have an hermeneutic appeal, in that they comply with the interpretation of the decline in the last 25 years or so of an economy based on the predominance of industrial districts, and also with the strategic perspective more appropriate for fostering its growth in terms of higher competitiveness and value added creation in the next future. Moreover, their range of application is not only local or national, but, due to the task acquired in the economic literature by this sort of territorially diffused development as an alternative to more typical forms of industrial organization in capitalistic economies, it can be shown to be fruitful in several discourses focusing on the role of SMS firms in present economic development
Systemic failure and new standards for global economic development
No full textStarting from a perspective of study which is mainly focused on the understanding of the interaction between the dynamics of economic systems and the dynamics of institutions, in this paper I will address to three main research questions and, at least in a preliminary way, try to answer them.
The first research question is: after two years from the materialization of the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s, what do we know about its nature, determinants and exit guidelines?
The second research question reads: in the present economic debate a recurrent use of the notion of systemic risk/crisis/failure can be observed. Do we have and do we need a theory of systemic failure?
The third research question deals with solutions. “Legal global standards” are discussed in the international negotiations framework. Do they offer positive answers to one of the most worrying feature of the crisis, the governance deficit?
In my perspective the actual victim of the present crisis is the approach to the new global economy governance underway after the Berlin Wall fall in 1989, which paved the way to the transition process in East and Central Europe, German reunification and dramatic changes in global interdependencies still in evolution.
As emphasized also by Unctad (2009, p. iii), “The crisis dynamics reflect failures in national and international financial deregulation, persistent global imbalances , absence of an international monetary system, deep inconsistencies among global trading, financial and monetary policies.” And , in the last 20 years: “Financial deregulation created the build-up of huge risky positions whose unwinding has pushed the global economy into a debt deflation....”
- …
