Because dirigisme risks destroying the European Union
Are we sure that the excessive dirigisme by the European Union on the ecological and digital transitions does not risk producing disappointing economic results? Riccardo Puglisi's analysis for the Reformist
"A specter is haunting the pro-Europeans" (semicit.): we are sure that the excessive dirigisme by the European Union on the management of climate change, the protection of privacy and digitization does not risk producing disappointing economic results, and at the same time to crush the trust of those who appreciate the European federal plan?
From a geopolitical point of view, it is obvious that size matters, for which the European Union is comparable in size to the USA and China, while this is not true for individual European states, not even for Germany and France. So we understand the drive to act in a coordinated manner at the continental level, but this drive must start from an open political debate on the desired objectives and the means available. For example, where is it written that European politics must necessarily impose specific trajectories on technological and industrial innovation?
EUROPEAN DIRIGISM ON CLIMATE AND PRIVACY
One of the toughest issues is primarily represented by environmental policies . Although it is important to deal with climate change effectively, the obligation to transition to electric vehicles or the energy adaptation of buildings are precise, coercive choices, and in fact willing to impose specific technologies.
Even the European legislation on privacy stands out strongly for its rigidity. While the protection of personal data is a fundamental right, European legislation could be asphyxiating due to the burdens imposed on citizens and businesses, creating inefficiencies and hindering innovation in the sector. Let's face it: someone really hopes that the right competitive move for the European Union lies in setting itself up as the standard bearer of stricter regulation, when in reality the ill-concealed objective of industrial policy is another, namely that of bridling the large technology companies of the USA and China (Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple on one hand, Tencent, Baidu and Alibaba on the other) and to recover from a situation in which the European champion in the sector is Spotify, i.e. a company which occupies a rather narrow niche and which is it worth an order of magnitude lower than the Chinese and American samples?
THE EUROPEAN UNION DOES OFF POLITICS AS SCIENCE
As a pro-European liberal, I am annoyed by the snooty confidence with which European politicians pass off choices of economic regulation as scientifically incontrovertible, which in fact are political choices, i.e. they should arise from the debate and democratic decisions of citizens.
In my opinion, the European Union's willingness to position itself as a third global player should be based on a balance between wise regulation and the innovative capacity of businesses and citizens (without any preclusion for public companies, of course) but above all it should come from a mandate citizen politics. This is how things are done in a liberal democracy. Or do you have another state model in mind?
(Article taken from Il Riformista )
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/unione-europea-dirigismo/ on Sun, 18 Jun 2023 05:54:35 +0000.