A courageous act” “

Economic processes are proceeding rapidly, financial markets are being globalized. If economic policy intends to play a regulatory and guiding role, it must get organized accordingly, and furnish responses able to transcend national frontiers. “Economic integration is not just a technical option, but also a courageous political act”, explains economist Franco Mosconi , professor at the University of Parma, where he holds the Jean Monnet Chair. Chosen as the site of the EU Agency for Food Safety, Parma is a city in which a debate has been begun on “the future of Europe”, and the university is its nerve centre. Mosconi has just published a book on “The new industrial policies in the enlarged Europe (published by university press MUP). We interviewed him. An original defect is often imputed to continental integration: that of being founded on important economic interests rather than on “values” or “culture” or the solidarity between peoples. Do you share this objection? “No I don’t. If we consider the historical perspective, integration took its first steps shortly after the end of the Second World War with a principal and urgent objective: peace. A consequence of this was the great political intuition of the ‘founding fathers’. This was translated into institutional decisions to bring closer together the individual countries that up to a few years previously had been at daggers drawn. The process of European union then took the concrete way of economic integration, which progressively assumed the role of the driving force of Community Europe: we may think of the removal of customs barriers, the free circulation of workers, goods and capital, and the construction of the single market right down to the introduction of the single currency. We could say that the economy was both essential and predominant in launching and reinforcing the construction of the ‘common home’. But an essential question remains: are economic interests a means of arriving at political integration or do they exhaust our closer solidarity?”. What’s your view of that? “In my view, during the half century that separates us from the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, a great deal of progress has also been made on the political and institutional fronts. And yet a political union does not yet exist: there are too many ‘gaps’ in the legal, institutional, and cultural fields, and a single foreign policy is lacking. The economy has helped to boost prosperity. It has been a factor of development and pacification. But that’s not enough: today we need new inspiration; we need to return to the original project of integration. I would also like a Union able to act on the international scene. The Constitutional Treaty is moving in this direction: it’s not perfect, but it undoubtedly represents a new goal”. But to recur to the economy: what are the results achieved or not achieved? “As usual, we can describe the glass as either half full or half empty. On the positive side we have two great ideas, which have been transformed into success: the internal market and the birth of the euro. In response to an economy that is becoming globalized, we now have at our disposal a larger and more competitive playing field: we have greater cohesion between industrial sectors and a stronger currency to tackle the challenges posed by the USA, by the colossi of Asia, by South America… The single currency, besides, is the natural culmination of the single market. The euro is not only a technical factor: it represents in turn a clear political act; it is the tangible sign of the shared will to proceed together”. What about the half-empty glass? “On the negative side I would point out the sectors in which the internal market is not yet complete: I would cite only the organization of the professions, public contracts, financial services and tax regimes. The individual states have retained many of the barriers that impede free competition. An overall coordination of economic policies is also lacking. Something in this sense has been done for the common agricultural policy (though we spend ten times more on that than we do on research): however, even for the CAP itself, a maquillage is not enough, especially if it to become a factor of cohesion to harmonise the economies of the Western and those of the Eastern countries of the EU”. How do you see the future of the Twenty-Five? “I am convinced we are faced by a long transition, which will not be painless. The inclusion of the new member countries will require time and many investments. Moreover, the EU will have to decide to invest in human resources and in research. We will perhaps have to plan a division of roles and greater specialization in the economic and productive field between East and West. The Lisbon Strategy is essential to this end: its recent reform has limited its objectives, adjusting them to the present context of recession. What’s important is not to lose sight of the twin principles on which it is based: competitiveness and social cohesion. The European economy has a need to gamble on the new, while remaining the fulcrum of the Union’s political and social integration”.