To mark its 175th anniversary “The Economist” issued in 2018 a booklet with a revealing title: A Manifesto for renewing liberalism. Not a surprise considering that it has since birth convincingly supported the free-market paradigm. Not a surprise either was to me reading an editorial appeared in the “Corriere della Sera” exhorting the Italian Left to make that Manifesto its political programme. Indeed, long before I had come to think that after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) the Italian Left had slowly but resolutely morphed into a neoliberal political organisation – and the Corriere della Sera played a key role in supporting its ideological conversion.
One of the central tenets of the Manifesto is that land use ought to be handed over to free market. Lessening regulations and marginalising urban planning – understood as a hindrance to investment and economic growth – is therefore proposed as a key item of liberal democracies’ policy agenda.
Against the background of the Manifesto for renewing liberalism, Milan – since 2011 ruled by a leftist coalition – is a perfect example of a city governed according to the canons of the neoliberal paradigm. Whereas Britain – ruled by the Socialist party, which won the general election held on 4 July 2024 – seems to be a perfect example of a country governed following the canons of the neoliberal paradigm. In both cases, the weakening of land use regulations – with the implication of downgrading urban planning – is one of the main items in the policy agenda.
To substitute free market for planning in the governance of land use has invariably the effect of skyrocketing inequalities in the distribution of income, wealth, social costs, and social benefits. It also has the effect of entrusting free market with the production of cities’ physical morphology. The Manifesto for renewing liberalism helps to understand that the impatience with urban planning should not be considered a random or contingent disposition, but rather a manifestation of the neoliberal credo of the ruling elite.
One may question the endeavour of lessening land use regulations on different grounds – as many academics and experts are doing right now in Italy hoping to avoid the final approval of a law that greatly weakens the scope of urban planning. Yet one should not forget that it is an ideological conflict the one that is unfolding. Neoliberals regard the unfair social effects of urban transformation projects as side effects that can be ignored. Either because they are negligible or because market negotiations will deal effectively with them. Neoliberals are not willing to address these issues on empirical or moral grounds.
Yet there is a question that goes beyond moral values and ideology in this policy sphere. Is boasting the level of activity of the building sector a sound economic strategy? Or is it just a tactic decided out of despair?