Economical
development, agriculture and agricultural policy
|
|
Franco Sotte – “La Questione Agraria”, n. 62, 1996 The objective of this account, almost three years after the premature death of Alessandro Bartola, is to remember the scientific contribution of some of his written works by rereading them. A complete review of the research work of a scientist who had such profound and large interests, as Sandro was, is obviously impossible, thus I imposed some limits to myself. The first limit is to concentrate on certain arguments which were permanently present in his thoughts ever after he met Giuseppe Orlando: the importance of agriculture in economical development in Italy and widespread regions like Marche, programming in agriculture, the relation between the market and agricultural policy. The second limit regards the sources from which biographical references have been acquired and quotations of the text: I have actually chosen to consider only the works Sandro signed himself (and some he signed with others), where he certainly expresses himself. The model of Italian development and the importance of agricultureThere is a sentence of Bartola which, according to me, reassumes at best his judgement about the lack of development of agriculture in our country after the war.” The two features […] of the Italian agricultural policy in the period preceding the institutionalisation of the Regions are inability to direct technological development according to the needs of "one hundred Italian agricultures" and the incapacity to integrate farms to resolve at a certain point the problems of management and the market” (Bartola, 1983a). I think I find in this phrase many judgements which were typical of him: the criticism of the core of the agricultural policy in Italy, the judgement of its passiveness, in the sense of its inability to “direct development” and to “support” the energies of farms, the necessity to break the isolation of farms, the affirmation of crucial roles in the market, especially if the competition among farms, is protected and guaranteed. The underestimation of the role of agriculture in the course of Italian economical development has many facets. In one of his first works Bartola gives a significant list of missing measures and mistakes of agricultural policy which, according to him, explained the backwardness of the countryside: ”The professional and business level of farmers, increased of decisions on typical productions of non marketing economy, was remarkably insufficient. A correct evaluation of this would have predisposed big programmes of professional instruction, of technical assistance, of experimenting and the spreading of information. “(Bartola, 1976). On the other hand, in the case of Italy, agriculture could not be faced with centralistic and generalized measures in regard to both the type and indirect dependence of revenue. It is necessary, he says, “ to refuse undifferentiated and general measures and consider with particular precaution the policy of support of prizes.”(Bartola, 1976). Only a non central policy based on an effective autonomy is able to face the problems of the “hundred agricultures” of our country; but this also requires a constant capability of coordination in order to propel towards development even the most problematic and most resistant areas and administrative situations. For Bartola, in fact, “the keeping of the system, in long terms, depends on solving the problem of difficult areas. […] The centre of the attention of the policy of Italian agriculture does not consist of plains, of overall limited dimensions which are able to develop autonomously, but of northern mountains, central hills and internal southern areas: here lie the difficulties and the problems of these regions are to be solved and they should be approached with scientific and systematic seriousness”. (Bartola, 1984). There is also the problem of aggregation of the farms to face the market: “landscape starting from an agriculture for own needs to an agriculture for the market, required complementary interventions in the areas which commercialise agricultural products and in departments which provide technical means and financing.” (Bartola, 1976). In this case, the criticism concentrates particularly on the occasional loss of the missing reform of the Federconsorzi after the war, after the bureaucratization of the twenty year period of fascism: “agriculture trusts, given back to control and to the participation of farmers, with their structures spread all over national territory, could have actually contributed in a determinate manner to the development of the projects of technical assistance, farm transformation, horizontal and vertical integration from the base.” (Bartola, 1976). A fundamental role should have been played by unconventional input. Among these, by research in the first place. In fact, in Italy, a country that is eminently agricultural, “the research should have been directed towards techniques which permit an increase in agricultural productiveness without asking for massive amounts of industrial capital.” This issue is inserted in a more general judgement about “technological flattening” registered in Italian agriculture. In regard to this, he observes that: “during the 60s, agricultural sector was structured on a combination of resources characterized by the formula: more work and less land, more capital circulating (intermediate factors) and less fixed capital. From such an organization a path for technological development could have been paved, which, evaluating the work as abundant resources, should have made productiveness grow per hectare through labour-intensive type investments. […] In fact, productive intensification was achieved by stimulating exclusively employment of consumption factors; agriculture […] reacted to structural inferiority (in terms of land per labourer) severely reducing the number of employees and carrying out an increase of profit with intensive usage of raw materials. Thus, a model of development, which we can define as “appropriate” both to the quantity and quality of available resources, was substituted with a model partly “external”(Bartola, Sgroi, 1989). Finally, Bartola reconsiders the topic of fund issue. Small Italian farms required a “decisive and large agriculture reform programme (which was supposed to resolve definitely even the antique sharecropping relationship) and an incisive programme of fund recomposing “ (Bartola, 1976). So there was a series of “endogenous conditions” which explained the backwardness of the countryside and the failure to reactivate efforts. But these worked in a more complex context. They actually happened in the same years of “variable exogenous”: in Italy, in the period immediately after the world war, “a process of industrialization by all means was imposed. Land resource and the development of the agricultural area were conditioned and kept functional by this process.” (Bartola, 1976). This action of subordination of agriculture showed to be realized through “the contents of the productiveness and therefore of profits of the farming sector […which was supposed to provide the major part of labour necessary for industrial development,[to guarantee] the contents of industrial wages.[…] The choice to neglect the influence of "internal affair" would have normally brought about the exchange between industrial exports and agriculture imports" (Bartola, 1976). A summary of internal and external causes, from which derives a guide and prevailing of tactical orientations without a strategic vision of development, is uncertain. The accusation that agriculture organisations are short sighted is not excluded either: "The public worker, conditioned by the economical power of capitalism on one side and by the political power of little farmers-owners and the left wing on the other side, has produced fragmentary interventions, contradictions, which follow the development, instead of directing it. Between agriculture with the farmer as a core and an agriculture based on farms with production relations of the capitalistic type, he always preferred formally the former, without letting that choice be defeated by necessary strategic actions. The agricultural reform, a ten year plan for the development of agriculture, the two "green plans", the blockage of contracts of sharecropping with relative loans guaranteed, are nothing else but the most important expressions of this formal choice." (Bartola, 1976). The criticism of "the lack of strategic vision" is present in Bartola even when he analyses the community agricultural policy. The European dimension is a continuous and constant reference for him, but even at that level he can not but remark: " the disappointing results of Cap do not only show that the used instruments are inadequate, but they also show that the perspective of the feasible economy policy is limited" (Bartola, Sgroi, 1984). Actually, " the free market agricultures of West Europe show a profound need for a change of current "centralised criteria" of community management and control, and a need to urgently develop an effective "decentralisation" based upon, first of all, abstract liberalism definitions, and above all on the development of technical and social fund structures." (Bartola, Sgroi, 1984). Joining Europe, on the other hand, imposes, with even more evidence, a problem of adaptation inside our country. Actually, it is the matter of making an effort of institutional, normative, social and economy adaptation, which really agrees to collocate Italian agriculture in Europe making up for the delay in the past. " The new Cap - he actually says - could also move the barycentre in favour of structure policy, maybe regionally organised and towards a price policy more equal and thus more favourable for Mediterranean production. This will not be useful for the production reorganisation if the Regions do not know how to organise institutes and highly qualified staff to manage the change actively and to maintain the flexibility of the response of productive structures. As long as bureaucratic structures are only capable to accompany spontaneous trends, the outcome of the competition process is totally granted: increasing agricultural areas will continue to proceed towards marginalization and the only "positive" effect is that the financial cost of marginalization will be shared with others. (Bartola, 1983a). To the origins of widespread developmentBartola’s contribution to the issue of widespread development and the importance of agriculture in it also belongs to the context of his so far mentioned reflections on Italian economical development. The reasons for this are also geographical: an agricultural economist of the region of Marche, from the 60s on, has seen a very quick transformation in respect of economy, society and territory, which fully envolves the region in which he lives. The character of this transformation is so original that economists needed a new terminology: “widespread development”, “production decentralization”, “district economy”, “black economy”. In other cases the geographical reference is relevant: “the third Italy”, “Nec” (North-east and centre), “the Adriatic path to development”, the ”Marche model”. The individualisation of this new reality of Italian economy conditioned the economists to form a superficial opinion, especially at the beginning, on both the historical and perspective importance of agriculture. In regard to this, when referring to the region of Marche, Sandro said: “ we should be very worried about the optimism in which are considered the consequences caused in the agricultural sector, particularly in our region, because it shows the lack of specific knowledge about the sector or the common thought which tends to put it in functional and subordinate position to industrial development. (Bartola, 1983b). On the other hand, “not always does urban-industrial mentality create the source of coherent suggestions for organizations of the productive agricultural processes.”(Bartola, 1983c). The euphoria about “spontaneous development” will occasionally lead to an under evaluation of the role of the State and of economical policy. Bartola’s contribution goes into two directions: interpretation of the origins of many agricultural experiences of the “widespread development” and the analysis of the necessary conditions in order to guarantee that the development lasts and does not produce any unbalance among production sectors and economy, environment and territory. “Any kind of analysis carried out on the production structure evolution of this region can not have other central reference but to deal with crop-sharing.”(Bartola, 1979). The crop-sharing contract (and the lack to overcome it with other contractual forms after the war), explains, in fact, the origin of both the agricultural crises of the region of Marche and of the regions of the central-north Italy where it was widespread, and the origin of the industrial development. The opinion needs to be articulated. In fact, historically “…crop-sharing institution itself, or actually the farm structure handed down for centuries in the state that it was at the end of 18th century, was a contract perfectly functional for the withdrawal of surplus product in the most fertile agricultural parts of the region” (Bartola, 1992). It is after the war that the situation changes in relation to the integration of crop-sharing economy on the market, in relation to availability of new technologies and to the rebalance of the relationship between work and the land. “ The way the leadership of the owner is reduced, increases the decisive power of the crop-sharer, the farm management becomes always more a compromise which mediates the two diverting objective functions: the crop-sharer, who considers work as labour, as a decrease of free time and as a reduction of extra-agricultural income, will try to carry out land system which reduces the work input, while the guarantor will try to save on capital and use labour to the extent of zero productivity” (Bartola, 1983b). Over a long period of time, the negativity of crop-sharing depends also on the fact that “while the owner-occupier, under the same conditions, can improve productivity through accumulation of profits and incomes, the share-farmer, giving a major part of those to the guarantor and not establishing the conditions that make investment in the farm profitable, tends to actually favour extra-agricultural usage of capital profits and land rent” (Bartola, 1983b). Due to lack of the reform, crop-sharing was substituted “spontaneously” by the management with salaries in the best areas (as the coastal line of Marche), and from farmers enterprise above the “line of zero profit”: “the transformation of crop-sharing into a farm with salaries in the plains brings about an increase of productivity per labourer, but this reduces productivity per hectare right in the best areas” (Bartola, 1983b). On the other hand, the transformation of crop-sharing with direct management, “which, generally speaking, could cause an increase of production, happening in less favourable areas, in conditions of poor capital, can not realize its positive effects, neither in the overall offer nor on the market of agricultural labour. […] The development, slowed down by the family farms, which occurred also outside a process of horizontal and vertical integration, thus preventing the increase of the offer and contribution to set the bases for the increase of the request of income integration of the activities, were carried out in other departments” (Bartola,1983b). The opinion on models of widespread industrialization cannot be positive. The integration among production departments, in any case, constitutes a concrete solution to the problems created by the development of the Country.” (Bartola,1981). In fact, there are many positive aspects even for agriculture. In particular: 1. “agriculture [could receive] a strong impulse from the innovation of technology both in respect of external employees (sometimes not official) who follow a sort of ‘know how management’, because they save from the increased family income and finance investments” (Bartola and others,1981); 2. the solution to widespread development is continuously present in “continuation with the past development [permitting] to fully use labour, capital and above all farm capacities expelled by agriculture”(Bartola and others, 1981); 3. finally, the primary sector, “is put in condition to use labour temporarily working in high-peak seasons of works [without reducing] the general offer when busy season workers find another work” (Bartola and others, 1981). And, actually, during widespread development, agriculture shows a capacity of extraordinary adaptation “in an open contrast with the historical picture to which reference is made only when presenting agriculture sector. The dynamics altogether does not appear to be a positive attribute on its own; an opinion on performances can not neglect an elaboration of reasons which caused it and on quantitative variables implied in the process” (Bartola,Sgroi, 1989).The list of possible negative effects of such a development is clear and precise in Bartola. “Agricultural production tends to set itself in an contracyclic positioning in respect to the industrial one and consequently changes profoundly the modality in which it is carried out. Farming operations […] tend to structure themselves in such a way that they can be easily reconverted in function of the external labour demand and give privilege to immediately productive work. It is accompanied by abbreviated cycles, a propelling of the liquidation of zootechnics, a process of mechanization carried out in the manner that working units could respond rapidly in high-peak seasons of works, or in alternative, by opening farms to all mechanical operations done by the so called tertiarists. Thus, the productivity of the average period of the territory is neglected, the farming operations of organization of territories, that in the past presented the basic element of hydrogeology balance, are put in the second place. Within a few years the land becomes poor, erosions and landslides multiply, and large areas of territory risk losing definition imposing very high investments in tamponage. […] Is it a true progress the one which involves a lot of work of machines and their usage of only 20/30%. What will happen then to agricultural territory when the contemporary generation of contractual deposits of techniques applied for using the land, which they allowed to freeze, disappears? “ (Bartola and others, 1981). And, in fact, referring to the case of Marche, Sandro observes how “agricultural transformations have been characterized by a very strong substitution of labour with machines, a strong increase of productivity of labour, but, nevertheless, the levels of agricultural profitability of Marche are inferior to those of other regions” (Bartola, 1985). On the basis of so far exposed analysis, Bartola concludes, drawing attention again to the necessity of an economic and agricultural policy to be more active and finalized, by assuming that the market is incapable to guarantee on its own the long term balance among departments. “The model and positive effects which could be produced on agricultural development are not challenged as much as the possibility for both the former and the latter to become mature automatic products behind the push forward of decentred decisions motivated by individual interests. […] The model [of widespread industrialization] is definitely fascinating, but could be applied only with a capacity of control and economy guide, which certainly is not usual. The risk taken in abandoning it to the realization of free forces of the market is not very reducible to the typical fractures of ‘destruction-creation’ of the competition, as much as it is, at least for agriculture, a much grater danger to lose irreproducible resources”(Bartola, 1983c). On the other hand – he asks himself in another article – “is there still hope for management to be formed partially through natural selection, particularly strong in the periods of crisis, or it is convenient to support different solutions? The associated farm forms constitute practical directions, but it is also noted that […] the path to be covered is particularly long. Other paths are not appropriate for agriculture […] and it is right here that the success of planning will be tested…” (Bartola and others, 1981). Programming requirementsReading backwards, since the 60s, his firm position about the necessity of programming (Orlando’s intuition and the emotional charge supported by his personality were decisive in this attitude), one cannot but recognize the distance, at that time in particular, from the facts. Bartola had clearly conscience of difficulties imposed above all by institutional backwardness and by passive vision of the agriculture policy in Italy. But this points out, according to me, the pioneering role of his ideas. It is especially important to remember Sandro’s point of view of the relation state-market and of the complementation of corresponding roles at the end of a balanced development in which all the departments (that of agriculture in particular) give, for resources at disposition, their own and active contribution. Bartola starts from assumption that “it is the mechanisms of distribution of resources and accumulation of the capital which are not corresponding to the necessity of a development and which cause expensive productive restructures. This very natural incapacity of the system of decentralized decisions raises the question of more urgent programming, which is relevant to the solution proposed as an opinion about the correspondence of the models of programming which are concretely made by the public worker. […] The programming in Italy [thus] has the historical function to recompose territorial and social balance” (Bartola, Sgroi, 1984). It is a function that, despite of delusive experiences of national and local attempts at trying to coordinate and rationalize public intervention in agriculture, actually improves its importance as well as the knowledge of interrelations that agriculture makes with the rest of economy (above all in agro-food sector) and then in a general relation with the environment and territory. Bartola actually says: “ we are moreover convinced that, faced with the continuous growth of the complexity of economy systems, practically it is an illusion to believe that free market can arrange everything on its own.” (Bartola, 1983c). “Today, in the agriculture of Europe, the security of provisions or the income level of farmers does not count any longer, but the autonomy of the very farm does. [ ] One more time we should ask ourselves which institutional body will be able to pursue that objective which is so much relevant; one more time it doesn’t seem relevant the mere reference to free market but it seems indispensable a consistent growth of the abilities to govern the economy.” (Bartola, 1989b). Thus the need for programming originates from this recognition of the necessity of the State to make the market function, otherwise the weakest sectors and subjects, among which is agriculture, would lose their autonomy. It also originates from the awareness of the increasing complexity of interrelations in which agriculture is inserted. What type of programming ?The concept of programming that Bartola assumes, when referring to the rationalization of actions of the State regarding economy, has been changed strongly by reading literature on this subject and that referring to industrial companies. We derive mutates mutandis, a series of precious suggestions for the behaviour of the policy maker, from the theory of farm management (Baumol, Hicks, Modigliani-Cohen) and from work on the control of provision of companies (Anthony). He particularly says in a passage:” if we observe the discussion on programming in action in industrial companies, some cues and suggestions, which are undoubtfully valid even in the public sphere, can be taken”(Bartola,1986). The “aim of planning is to individualize the first move as the best possible.” (Bartola, 1975). “directorial control” is put in the centre of rationalization of administrative actions, while “planning strategy” gets assigned the task to constitute a picture of long-term reference. This means to make the plans easier, getting away from the set up of the years of first experiences in Italy, when they were long studies (so called “the books of dreams”), often done with little attention paid to the possibility of realization of own suggestions (apart from variability of the outdoor environment). The suggestion is to concentrate on the effort of the continuous monitoring activity of the state of the system and finally to choose the “first step” in order to proceed with repetition later on with next “route corrections” according to a process of “regulation-activation” (Bartola, 1983a). A unique definition of programming does not exist. It is adapted to incidental situations and to the complexity of the problem that has to be solved. This approach is repeatedly underlined in the written works of Bartola. For example, he recognizes that “in difficult areas, […] capacities that rule the market are externally broken and only a zone vision, and very often an interzone vision of advantages and costs can make it possible to evaluate effective consistency of public investments. Nevertheless, in dynamic areas, the function of the public intervention is directed more towards the needs of rationalization of the market power and elimination of obstacles that are imposed on its effective function on the explanation of a really loyal competition among farms” (Bartola, 1986). In order to face all these issues, Sandro will invent the terms “programming-selfmanagement” and “programming-address” (Bartola and others, 1983). Naturally, the former implies two rules/types of difficulty that are added to the latter: “ operating difficulties because the political and bureaucratic bodies, formed professionally and culturally on the management of generalized financial stimulations, should require a profound change of mentality; [and political difficulties because] it requires a transfer of ‘actual power’ of the centre, both political and administrative, to the periphery and a sensible reduction of actual margins of discreetness in application of administrative and legal dispositions.” (Bartola, 1982). Programme contentsWhatever the model of the adopted programming, some common conditions are necessary for a successful public action. “The management of programming [independent from the specific one] will always require an analysis of the environment within which interventions should be made and the choice of aims and projects, a reference to projects of adequate financial flows, the technical-economical control of the effective results and the compensation on all levels of economical calculation should be done” (Bartola, 1983a). With particular reference to plans of agriculture zones (which constitute a resource necessary for realisation of development plans of a farm), these should: 1) foresee “ the modernization of the structure of services, in particular of conservation and the first transformation and [distribution]; modernization which, only if carried out at the same levels, could avoid the loss of value typical of commercial dimensions which are too limited” (Bartola, 1975); 2) carry out the coordination of productions not only at zone levels, but also primarily at regional and national level; 3)”prepare the part within which previsions become less uncertain, provide farms with the most precise points of actions, provide also the necessary elements to make farms get out of the situations of inefficiency, arranging with them courses of the most coherent actions with effective reaction of the environment” (Bartola, 1975); 4) modify [finally] the offer of goods and services upon the request of the group, on the whole, of the agriculture area interested in the plan, in order to bring it to the same level and standard of civil and urban area services”(Bartola, 1975). The fundamental base of programming at all levels, both farm and zone, regional or national, is the right information according to Bartola. “ The first presumption for good functioning of an adequate organization mechanism is a decisive system adequately supported by a suitable information base. Thus, when public system is in question, “the lack of knowledge inevitably prolongs the waiting period for the biggest regions, prolongs the time for generic choices, myopia, very often contradictory an thus dangerous. A decision of economy policy taken outside an adequate informative system risks not only to be ineffective, but also makes worse the bad situation it intends to improve. Our future will be more characterized by a significant growth of complexity of functioning of all the systems (from farm to economy on the whole). The growth of complexity will bring along an increase of uncertainty: decision-making error will always be more probable” (Bartola, 1987b). Bartola is even more precise in this case: “rational decision-making model should be […] dominated by three elements: multi-dimensionality of the evaluation system, sequence and uncertainty” (Bartola, 1985): the multi-dimensionality refers to multiplication of farm objectives or of the State; the sequence refers to the importance of the paths of development (static analysis deals only with balance that follows) and thus to the interdependence of decisions in time (“present decisions may influence the future ones […] and accordingly the former depend even on the latter in a substantial way”) (Bartola, 1975), but it is uncertainty which determines decisively the behaviours: uncertainty introduces the risk (and inclinations to the risk may be very different); it is in connection with dynamism of management (in time new information are acquired). On the other hand, since information cost, programming action has to be always inspired by the concept of importance: the variables that should be considered have to be limited to the tight necessity (there is also a temporarily important horizon). But the problem is not only how many information should be gathered. There is also the problem of their quality in respect to resources used in order to acquire them; this refers to the connection between private and public programmes. The case of agriculture accounting demonstrates it: “what happened in agriculture accounting in our country should give a severe warning: in case the central reference of this type of innovations is not constituted out of the necessity of the farm and adjusted to the management needs of the farmer, even the most valid instruments are bound to fail” (Bartola, 1989a). “If accounting is not suggested and experienced as management function, the whole of the apparatus that circles round it serves for nothing but to waste financial resources and human energy: it is of no use to farmers, of no use to researchers, to institutes, whose only aim is to produce statistics, nor to the policy maker” (Bartola, 1990). A disappointing experience in ItalyBartola warns very clearly that commitment towards programming in Italian agriculture forms a very complex challenge. He senses that “the most relevant obstacle interposed on the realization of a decisive turn regarding the management method of the public worker is made by contemporary organizational and institutional system [to whom] the process of adjustment will not be painless and, since it has to occur in not very long periods, could be faced only by a conducting class (political and administrative), which, apart from believing in the management and political value of programming, has necessary management capabilities.” (Bartola, 1986). Instead, being far from doing this task, which is certainly as irksome as necessary, public workers have, in general, “privileged political aspects neglecting almost completely institutional transformations which a concrete realization of programmed intervention would have required” (Bartola, 1983a). Consequently, “in the public sector in Italy ‘programming’ was […] synonymous to ‘preparation of documents’, to present first to social authorities for discussion and then to government bodies for approval, and all that with a minimum of warranty regarding ‘realization’” (Bartola, 1983a). Based on a former opinion Bartola notices that “more or less heterogeneous sums of support and provisions without limits which could not have been generically fund improvements, machine equipment and plant systems, often without a really associated base and which almost never bring companies to the increase of their economy vitality and their own autonomy, used to be called ‘plans’ “(Bartola, 1976). As a synthesis, it could be affirmed – concluded – that, beyond what has been written in documents and law acts, the public worker has always joined farms a company policy and, very often, welfare vision. The vision of problems on the whole was completely absent in the way interactions among farmers and other activity departments were neglected” (Bartola, 1983b). So, in 1983 he wrote, and this opinion is still relevant, “in the most part of the country (and especially in all of the south), the public worker, 40 years after the Second World War and 15 years after the formation of Regions according to the state Constitution, can only go along with the free initiative without being able to direct it towards any path of original development”(Bartola, 1983a). This also depends on the rare distinction of public roles from the private ones which originates from a corporative attitude from which political and syndicate powers seem not to be able to detach: “ typically ‘private functions become in fact governed by the public worker, on the other hand, typically public functions (technical assistance, experimenting, professional instructions) often become represented by organizations of category and thus theoretically controlled by farms. From this exchange of roles […] the farm can not gain any benefit and necessary stimulus in order to insert itself vitally into economical sphere of the Country”(Bartola and others, 1981). Bartola finds a proof that this opinion is true in the analysis of the taxation treatment of farmers: “the organizations of category, in which small and medium farmers prevail, should have the courage to impose the division of tax policy from the policy of income, which, on the whole, works in favour of farms that are big both in size and prices. […] In Italy, the land is considered to be a shelter goods even because of this taxation treatment. Invigorating consequences of elimination of such privilege are inevitable both regarding funds mobility and interests on tax structure”(Bartola, 1991). Final remarksBartola liked correcting systematically all his works (thesis texts, article drafts, etc.), which gave as a result the title of the last paragraph; “Conclusions”, with a more vague and less strong “Final remarks”. He actually said that, when economy is concerned, one is never authorized to “make conclusions”, but only to give the reader new cues for reflection always open for further contributions. In this case this little matter of credo principle is particularly valid. Let me make some personal references. I worked with Sandro for about twenty-five years taking part in most of his research works done in Ancona. Even today, after his death, it seems that I still do not know enough about his scientific contribution. So, when I was reading his lesson again, it seemed that discovered the relevance. I believed I would never discover it. At times when in the world a major space is devoted to the market even for agriculture products, there is an orientation towards CAP in which the generic guarantee tends to be replaced by policies specific for precise objectives (of structural transformation, of environment protection and valorisation, etc.). While all this is happening and relationships of integration increases and consequently the complexity grows, requiring a division in sectors and a regional intervention regarding agriculture, Bartola’s idea provides a significant quantity of cues, also because it could be extended to the topics (neglected here), of application of quantitative analysis methods on solutions of economy problems for which he was a real master. Will that phase of programming and the release of the role of the State to guarantee of balance (among sectors and regions) and market freedom, which is in the core of the research works of Bartola, be open? The answer to this question still depends, as far as we researchers are concerned, on the capability to acquire that knowledge and to continue making it fruitful. Biography
|