Titolo

L'unità e la dis-unità d'Italia. Dialogo. (II)

1 commento (espandi tutti)

Vedo che alcuni dei degli studi che ho letto e citato vengono citati e riassunti dall'Economist nel rapporto speciale sull'Italia di giugno 2011, http://www.economist.com/node/18780831:

If this problem were only 30 years old it might be easier to fix, but the gap between the north and centre of the country and the south goes back much longer. If you know how any place in Italy was governed in the 14th century—as a self-governing commune, as part of the Papal states or by a monarchy in the south—you can predict with reasonable certainty what proportion of people there would come out to vote in a referendum tomorrow or donate blood. That is an awful lot of history to push against. And if you plot indicators of a successful society—from the ease of doing business to turnout in elections to educational attainment—on a map of Italy’s boot today, you get the same differentiation between north and south.

What has caused this strange predictability? Since the publication of Robert Putnam’s book “Making Democracy Work” in 1993, the main explanation put forward has been that the self-governing communes and city states that sprang up in the north of the country during the late Middle Ages built up reserves of social capital (or trust in fellow citizens) that have proved remarkably enduring. The south of the country, ruled by a monarchy and characterised by large landholdings worked by peasants, lacked this crucial resource. Three economists who studied this subject recently, Luigi Guiso of the European University Institute, Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago, found that at least half of the gap in social capital between the north and south is due to the absence of free city-states in the south.

Il giornalista dell'Economist non fa propria questa teoria, tuttavia non cita altri lavori scientifici su questo tema che contraddicano i due lavori di ricerca citati.