As we wait for Harris to begin giving us signals about what her approach to economic policy might be – and whether it will differ from Joe Biden’s – JD Vance’s speech to the Republican convention to accept the nomination for vice president gave us an indication of what US economic policy might look like if Donald Trump wins the US elections next November.
It could certainly be a radical change from the current one. However, it would not be a leap in the dark towards an unknown and unexplored future, but rather a return to the past that finds its roots in the very formation of what is now the United States of America. Protectionism and isolationism, commercial and political, were in fact the doctrine with which the United States started, also and above all with the aim of becoming fully independent. Until that time, in fact, the economy of the United States, as was typical for the colonies, was centered on the extraction and production of raw materials and the import of processed products.
In order not to fall into a sterile ideology, it is therefore important to note that protectionism or, better, an adequate balance between protectionism and globalization, can, in certain historical situations, be the best way forward, for example when one wants to industrialize or reindustrialize a country. It is no coincidence that China, after all, has always kept trade barriers raised towards the United States and Europe. The isolationist and protectionist doctrine was then changed by the United States about 70 years ago when, following the victory in the Second World War, and a technological and industrial primacy, also achieved thanks to European scientists, the United States became, at that point, the advocates of an open and globalized world, in which they were the ones acquiring raw materials and selling processed products. Globalization, together with the bureaucratization of advanced economies, aimed at increasing social and environmental standards, have brought so much wealth and well-being to the United States and Europe, but also growing inequality and dependence on the rest of the world.
The discomfort not so much of the excluded (those who have never enjoyed well-being), but of the expelled (those who had experienced well-being but have now lost it) has reached such a point that all of this is now experienced and described, by JD Vance and the Trump faction, as a betrayal of the elites towards the American working class, which has weakened the United States of America itself.
This vision, if actually implemented, could lead to an economic strategy antithetical to the one advocated and adopted by Europe, with the abandonment of bureaucratic-dirigiste policies similar to those of Europe on the environment (green deal) or artificial intelligence (privacy), and the raising of trade barriers not only towards Asia, but also towards us.
Europe therefore risks finding itself alone in defending the free international market and in continuing to progressively raise social and environmental standards. The consequence would be a further acceleration of the deindustrialization underway.
Italy, as a net exporter, is particularly exposed to this scenario. We are a country with few raw materials, processors and traders. In a closed world we suffer.
It is therefore important that Europe, and Italy, prepare to face such a scenario, starting a proactive and non-ideological debate on what is the best balance between openness and protection for our continent. Some recent actions of the European Commission, for example the duties on electric cars and Chinese biofuels, are perhaps signaling that even in Brussels they have realized that the music is or has already changed. It is necessary, however, that this new strategy stops being reactive, a mere response to the actions of others, and takes on the characteristics of a more solid and shared organic framework, aimed at a concrete European strategic autonomy and the defense of our manufacturing capacity.
