Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:05:37.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Anglo-American’ model, privatization and the transformation of private capitalism in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2016

Dermot McCann
Dermot McCann*
Affiliation:
London Guildhall University, Calcutta House, Old Castle Street, London E1 7NT. Telephone: 020 7320 1000; Fax: 020 7320 1157. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Italian capitalism has long been distinguished by the large size of the public enterprise sector and the power of large family firms, underpinned by powerful networks of inter-firm alliance orchestrated by the merchant bank, Mediobanca. This article seeks to analyse the extent to which the current programme of privatization is serving not only to shrink the size of, but to transform the structure of, power in the private sector. While some reformers have seen in privatization an instrument to encourage the adoption of Anglo-Saxon forms of corporate governance in Italy, it is argued here that the evidence of recent changes indicates the emergence of a more differentiated pattern of corporate governance rather than the triumph of any single model.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , May 2000 , pp. 47 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Association for the study of Modern Italy 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Machiatti, A., Privatizzazioni: tra economia e politica, Donzelli Editore, Roma, 1996, p. 27.Google Scholar

2. Marrelli, M. and Stroffolini, F., ‘Privatization in Italy: A tale of “capture”’, in Parker, D. (ed.), Privatization in the European Union: Theory and Policy Prospects, Routledge, London, 1998, p. 152.Google Scholar

3. These are variously charged with educational, social or artistic functions or with supporting particularly worthy clienteles, depending on their particular terms of reference. In all cases they are non-profit-making.Google Scholar

4. Cavazzuti, F., Privatizzazioni, imprenditori e mercati, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1996, p. 16.Google Scholar

5. Marrelli, and Stroffolini, , ‘Privatization in Italy’, p. 157.Google Scholar

6. This concern is widely reflected in the academic literature. See, for example, Macchiati, Privatizzazioni, Cavazzuti, Privatizzazioni and Giavazzi, F., ‘Privatizzazioni, liberalizzazione dei mercati e assetto proprietario delle imprese: alcuni falsi dilemmi’, Stato e Mercato, 47, August 1996, pp. 351–62. The views of Giavazzi are of particular importance as he was Director General of the Treasury between 1992 and 1994 while Cavazzuti was an Under Secretary at the same department in the Prodi government in 1996–8.Google Scholar

7. Mediobanca is a Milan-based merchant bank which for most of the last five decades was the only true Italian merchant bank. See de Cecco, M. and Ferri, G., Le banche d'affari in Italia, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1996.Google Scholar

8. See, for example, Barca, F. ‘Compromesso senza riforme nel capitalismo italiano’, in Barca, F. (ed.), Storia del Capitalismo Italiano: dal dopoguerra a oggi, Donzelli Editore, Rome, 1997. For a more polemical account, see Brangantini, S., Capitalismo all'italiana, Baldini & Castoldi, Milan, 1996.Google Scholar

9. Barca, F., On Corporate Governance in Italy: Issues, Facts and Agenda, Nota di Lavoro 10.96, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 1996, p. 17.Google Scholar

10. Woolcock, S., ‘Competition among Forms of Corporate Governance in the European Community: The Case of Britain’, in Berger, S. and Dore, R. (eds), National Diversity and Global Capitalism, Cornell University Press, Cornell, 1996, p. 183.Google Scholar

11. Schioppa, Tommaso Padoa, Director-General of Consob, the Milan stock exchange's regulator, for example, has observed that ‘financial markets are drawn by supply more than demand—Italy created a big debt market as it needed to fund the public sector deficit. Why should the programme of privatization not stimulate the bourse?’, interview in Financial Times, 24 March 1997.Google Scholar

12. See, for example, Bragantini, , Capitalismo all'italiana.Google Scholar

13. La Stampa, 17 January 1998.Google Scholar

14. See, for example the work of the research team leader, Barca, F., Imprese in Cerca di Padrone: Proprietà e controllo nel capitalismo italiano, Laterza, Bari, 1994.Google Scholar

15. Legge 58/98, Il Testo Unico della Finanza.Google Scholar

16. The analysis will draw on the publications which emerged from the Bank of Italy study of Italian corporate governance, official government sources and reports and interviews in the financial press.Google Scholar

17. Barca, , Imprese in Cerca di Padrone, p. 185.Google Scholar

18. Measured by capital share. See Bianco, M., Gola, C. and Signorini, L.F., Dealing with Separation Between Ownership and Control: State, Family, Coalitions and Pyramidal Groups in Italian Corporate Governance, Nota di Lavoro 5.96, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 1996, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

19. Barca, , On Corporate Governance, p. 17.Google Scholar

20. Bianchi, M. and Cassavola, P., Piercing the Corporate Veil, Nota di Lavoro 6.96, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 1996, p. 8.Google Scholar

21. Barca, , On Corporate Governance, p. 13.Google Scholar

22. Bianco, et al., Dealing with Separation, p. 13.Google Scholar

23. Bianco, et al., Dealing with Separation, p. 11.Google Scholar

24. Bianchi, and Casavola, , Piercing the Corporate Veil, p. 6.Google Scholar

25. Amatori, F. and Brioschi, F., ‘Le grandi imprese private: famiglie e coalizioni’, in Barca, F. (ed.), Storia del Capitalismo Italiano: dal dopoguerra a oggi, Donzelli Editore, Rome, 1997, p. 131.Google Scholar

26. Tamburini, F., Un Siciliano a Milano, Longanesi & C., Milan, 1992, pp. 126–8.Google Scholar

27. Law 218/90. The effect of the law was to create over 80 banking foundations.Google Scholar

28. The primary motivation in establishing them was the need to conform with new EU legislation concerning corporate ownership structures.Google Scholar

29. For the somewhat odd relationship which evolved between Mediobanco and its supposed owners, Comit and Credit, see Tamburini, F., Un Siciliano , and Turani, G., I Sogni del Grande Nord, il Mulino, Bologna, 1996.Google Scholar

30. The correspondence between Prodi and Cuccia was subsequently published in the national press, to loud controversy. Franco Levi, R., Il Professore Romano Prodi: dall'IRI all'Ulivo, un progetto per l'Italia, Arnaldo Mondadori, Milan, 1996, p. 199.Google Scholar

31. Siglienti, S., Una Privatizzazione molto privata. Stato, mercato e gruppi industriali: il caso Comit, Mondadori, Milan, 1996, p. 94.Google Scholar

32. The Italian banking system remains highly fragmented, with upwards of 1,800 banks still in existence at the beginning of privatization. This fragmentation is partly a product of the complex historical unfolding of Italian political integration and economic development. Important Germanic and Catholic influences are discernible in the origins of many national, regional and local banks.Google Scholar

33. La Repubblica, 28 April 1998. Significantly, Credito refused to agree Mediobanca's plans for the creation of a so-called ‘Superbin’: a merger between Comit, Credit and the Banco di Roma.Google Scholar

34. Financial Times, 10 June 1998.Google Scholar

35. See La Repubblica, 19 May 1998.Google Scholar

36. For an interesting elaboration of the complex shareholding links between banks and insurance companies, see La Repubblica’s ‘Supplemento di Economia, Investimenti e Management’, 2 February 1998.Google Scholar

37. Messori, M., ‘Note sul rapporto fra fondazioni e sistema bancario’, in Borzaga, C. and Cafaggi, F. (eds.), Le Fondazioni Bancarie, Meridiana, Catanzaro, 1999, p. 189.Google Scholar

38. Indeed the practice of the Bank of Italy of vetting any firm which seeks to take more than a 5 per cent stake in a bank actively encourages the alliance-building rather than the outright takeover approach. See Financial Times, 29 September 1998.Google Scholar

39. La Reppublica, 6 April 1998.Google Scholar

40. Debenedetti, F., ‘Protettori politici e cattive intenzioni ’, Il Sole 24 Ore, 28 July 1998.Google Scholar