"Naples: I believe that, paradoxical as it may at first sound, the present situation could perhaps also constitute an opportunity."

 

 

As it is known, Naples and other areas of the Campania region in southern Italy are literally submerged by rubbish. Tons of waste are being abandoned in the middle of the roads every day and are not being collected.

 

The damage produced by this situation is immense, and it has short-term as well as long-term effects. Discomfort to the citizens, the economic effects on tourism and exports (such as the diary products), the costs in terms of image, the risks in terms of health, are only some of the direct consequences of the accumulation of rubbish on the streets.

 

I believe that, paradoxical as it may at first sound, the present situation could perhaps also constitute an opportunity.

 

The causes of this phenomenon are complex and long-term, and they certainly are also related to the “Camorra” (the regional mafia) and to the interests protected by the public agencies. One of the main causes of the present situation, however, is the opposition of the citizens resident in the areas designated as possible waste disposal sites, to their construction.

 

This opposition is easily understandable: it is nothing more than the obvious reaction to a massive, non-compensated negative externality which the majority is willing to impose on some minorities. As such, not only is it understandable, but even healthy.

 

The government’s answer to this situation consisted in identifying unilaterally ten waste disposal sites, in having them protected by the army and in enacting a “law” forbidding any attempt to contrast (protest against?) their construction with a punishment up to one year in jail (five years for those who have organizational roles in this opposition/protest).

 

This answer given by the government follows the usual, not particularly creative, pattern: as soon as there is a problem, prohibit by “making” a new, usually more severe, “law”. This approach is transversal; that is, it applies to both right wing and left wing governments. Left wing governments, for example, to contrast unemployment prohibit to dismiss employees, to increase safety at work they enhance the punishment for the enterprises not complying to the new, more restrictive, safety rules, and so on.

 

I am wondering whether, in substitution, or even in addition, to these purely restrictive measures, some inverse measures, that is some freedom-enhancing measures, could not give a contribution to both the short-term and the long-term solution of the problem.

 

In particular, in the case of waste disposal under consideration, I am wondering whether the introduction of a very low flat tax (say, 10%) for a long period (say, 50 years) of the individuals and businesses resident in those districts could contribute to create a favourable structure of incentives with a relatively modest cost to the administration and, on the other hand, with new opportunities.

 

Personally, I would see advantages in at least four respects: 1) (leaving aside the ethical problems of progressive taxation as well as those of excessive taxation) this measure would be a form of compensation for a negative externality which is being imposed by the majority on some minorities, and as such (provided it is substantial), it would be justified on ethical grounds; 2) in the short-run, it could diminish the opposition of local residents to the construction of such sites, especially because 3) this may attract the investments of businesses from all over Italy and indeed Europe; 4) in the long-run, the job opportunities (and more in general the development) that this measure would generate could be the best way to contrast the mafia and to set an example of the good effects of low (and non discriminatory) taxation for the rest of the country.

 

Given that those districts are relatively poor, in the short run the financial loss for the administration would be very limited (even though I have no data, I would dare to say even negligible), while in the long-run the may be significant gains.

 

This measure would still not be properly democratic, as it would still be based on imposition, discrimination, and use of centralized knowledge of the few, rather than dispersed knowledge of the many. A properly democratic measure would rely, in addition to this, for example, on a form of compensation directly to the individuals (not to the municipalities) which would be the object of negotiations between the municipalities and the regional administration. This would create some of the conditions for a competition to have the waste disposal sites, rather than the current NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) attitude. And it would be democratic as long as discrimination of minorities would be reduced, in this way or another, as much as possible.

 

However, given the objective emergency of the situation (an emergency created in 15 years of lax administration), such an alternative, even if thinkable, would probably not be a viable option at the present moment.

 

Even though not properly democratic, at least the proposed measure may be less incompatible with democracy than the current one (which is called “law”) and more capable of unleashing the creative and spontaneous powers of freedom intended as minimum possible level of coercion of some by others.

© Institut Hayek, 2008