For God'sake! Lift the embargo to Spain

Intorno alla metà degli anni trenta la Spagna diventò il centro dell’attenzione del mondo e tutte le grandi potenze internazionali, vecchie e nuove, vennero coinvolte, in misura diversa, nella guerra civile. Già nell’agosto del 1936, un mese dopo l’esplosione del conflitto, tutti gli Stati più rappresentativi caldeggiavano l’ipotesi di una politica comune di “non intervento”. Il ruolo guida in tal senso venne assunto dal governo inglese, capace di dissuadere, in tempi estremamente rapidi, il governo frontista francese di Leon Blum dall’intento di sostenere economicamente e militarmente il legittimo governo repubblicano spagnolo. La preoccupazione che il conflitto potesse degenerare in uno scontro più generale fu quindi la ragione principale per la quale qualche settimana dopo nacque il “Comitato di Non Intervento”, cui aderirono ben ventisette nazioni europee tra cui Francia, Inghilterra, URSS, Italia, Germania e Portogallo. Il mio progetto di ricerca dottorale esamina il ruolo, le scelte ed i relativi dibattiti in merito all’unica grande potenza, gli Stati Uniti d’America, che, pur scegliendo di rimanere neutrale, si astenne dal partecipare al suddetto Comitato. In ambito statunitense particolare rilievo assumono due aspetti del dibattito politico sulla Spagna: il primo maturato in seno all’Amministrazione Roosevelt, il secondo elaborato dalla componente Liberal della coalizione del New Deal attraverso i settimanali, “The Nation” e “The New Republic”. Il confronto pubblico acceso dalla guerra civile spagnola fu infatti l’occasione per la società civile americana per dibattere apertamente e francamente circa l’opportunità e la capacità della nazione di assumere o meno un ruolo internazionale corrispondente al prestigio socio-economico in via di acquisizione a livello mondiale. Approfondire ed esaminare il dibattito sulla guerra civile spagnola negli USA significa dunque andare alla ricerca delle radici culturali di quello che sarà uno dei più vasti ed articolati confronti politici e teorici del ventesimo secolo: l’internazionalismo americano.

Regulating State Aid: Inter-jurisdictional competition, public choice, and corporate governance

Depending on the regulatory regime they are subject to, governments may or may not be allowed to hand out state aid to private firms. The economic justification for state aid can address several issues present in the competition for capital and the competition for transfers from the state. First, there are principal-agent problems involved at several stages. Self-interested politicians might enter state aid deals that are the result of extensive rent-seeking activities of organized interest groups. Thus the institutional design of political systems will have an effect on the propensity of a jurisdiction to award state aid. Secondly, fierce competition for firm locations can lead to over-spending. This effect is stronger if the politicians do not take into account the entirety of the costs created by their participation in the firm location race. Thirdly, state aid deals can be incomplete and not in the interest of the citizens. This applies if there are no sanctions if firms do not meet their obligations from receiving aid, such as creating a certain number of jobs or not relocating again for a certain amount of time. The separation of ownership and control in modern corporations leads to principal-agent problems on the side of the aid recipient as well. Managers might receive personal benefits from subsidies, the use of which is sometimes less monitored than private finance. This can eventually be to the detriment of the shareholders. Overall, it can be concluded that state aid control should also serve the purpose of regulating the contracting between governments and firms. An extended mandate for supervision by the European Commission could include requirements to disincentive the misuse of state aid. The Commission should also focus on the corporate governance regime in place in the jurisdiction that awards the aid as well as in the recipient firm.

Linking rural tourism to agriculture. Evidences from comparative case studies in Kosovo, Italy and Spain

Rural tourism has been widely promoted in the European Union as an effective measure counteracting economic and social challenges facing rural areas especially those with declining agriculture economies. Particularly its role is seen in provision and maintenance of public goods which are more and more demanded by the public and considered in the policymaking. In Kosovo, rural tourism has been developed through the support of the international organizations and private sector initiatives, with primary aim to generate additional income for rural households and sustainable management of natural and cultural resources. Anyhow, it could be stated that the use of territorial capital to enhance the quality of the tourist offer and undertake promotion at wider circles of people has not been well explored so far, particularly possible links with agriculture that would satisfy visitors demand. In this regard this research study analyzes involvement of local stakeholders and use of territorial capital to develop tourist offer in rural areas of Kosovo. Beside, study applies comparative approach with other two areas of the European Union, Appennino Bolognese in Italy and Alpujara in Spain, to understand and compare the process of rural tourism development and demand characteristics between Kosovo and these areas. A survey has been conducted in all three study areas with rural tourism visitors to understand their preferences for public and private goods and services when visiting rural areas and the role of agriculture in sustaining rural tourism. Results show that there is a potential to link rural tourism with agriculture in Kosovo, which would help in sustaining agriculture and add additional value to local food products, which in return would enhance the tourist offer and make it more attractive for the visitors but also for the farmers as an additional revenue generating sector.