Since before the oath, one of the great objectives of Mario Draghi’s government has been the project that is being approved these days. He was immediately certain that there would be very little time to do it. And one of the reasons for the fall of the government that preceded him, that of Giuseppe Conte, was in difficulty in developing that project. By 2026, Italy will be able to invest 204 billion in EU Next Generation funds, of which 191 in the investment system that is about to arrive in parliament as a National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Pnrr). Since that was one of the great watersheds that diverted the course of politics from Conte and Draghi, it is worth asking how the PNRR of the second is different – or similar – to the drafts of the first. Answer: There is a good deal of continuity in the skeleton and in most designs, while few notable discontinuities stand out.
–
The same officials wrote the two PNRRs, but the change of season is felt. How effective it will be will depend on the reform path in the coming months and years. The first news is in the language. A certain rhetoric disappears (“Building the European Union of the next generations the historical task to which we are called to be protagonists ”, began Conte’s PNRR). A realistic analysis takes over, as if to make Italians understand what is at stake. Draghi writes in the preface: “Between 1999 and 2019, the gross domestic product in Italy grew by a total of 7.9%. In the same period in Germany, France and Spain the increase was 30.2%, 32.4% and 43.6% ”.
–
And again, to show that the underlying problem is the productivity of the system: “In the last twenty years, from 1999 to 2019, GDP per hour worked in Italy increased by 4.2%, while in France and Germany it increased by 21% “. Without saying it, the PNRR is therefore presented as the last chance to correct evils that originated well before the pandemic. Conte had not been so transparent. There is a difference in the new plan: there are more additional investments than those that Italy had already planned before. In Conte’s plan they were worth about 120 billion. In Draghi’s plan, on the other hand, about 166 billion lire are worth, of which 31 are located in a “complementary fund” of all Italian (non-European) resources launched essentially to finance various projects presented by the ministries that failed to enter the Recovery.
–
A seasoned protagonist of these years compares the complementary fund “to the computer trash: there are items waiting to be eliminated”. But, even if it happens in part, Draghi’s new investments exceed those of Conte. The six major missions of Recovery remain the same, or nearly so, from digital to “inclusion and cohesion” and so on almost all 16 components. Clearly the new government built on the work of the old. But there is a greater level of detail – also recognized by the EU Commission – and important deviations are noted, in particular in the work of ministers Roberto Cingolani (Ecological transition) and Vittorio Colao (Innovation and digital).
–
Not just because the bulk of the additional investment increases – about twenty billion – go into their projects. Only the digital area, from broadband to cybersecurity, goes from six to 13 billion. But in reality, the green and technological areas also change on the merits. Colao has imposed a novelty in one of the most delicate matches: in the ultra-broadband, we go from a single national competition with a single winning company to various competitions (perhaps between ten and 15) for the different territories. the approach also followed in the United States. It allows for more competition, the formation of different consortia, more precise estimates of the feasibility and circumvents the problem of a blocking of the contract throughout the country in the event of disputes. There is also much more emphasis on space industry projects.
–
Cingolani also affects the sums a lot: the portfolio of “green” investments goes from 31% to 38% of the total, also because before for Brussels it was insufficient. There are also some changes on the merits. The budget for floating off-shore solar parks is reduced from four to 0.5 billion, to strengthen a project that should favor rural repopulation and greater creation of places: from “agri-voltaic” (solar panels on land agricultural), digitalization of parks, self-consumption on farms. A weak point of Draghi’s plans compared to Conte for the entry of many micro-projects that are sometimes questionable. There is a 100 million “hub for digital tourism” and there are 300 million for a public fund for start-ups which has already been well financed for some time.
–
