European Commission
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
IN RURAL AREAS
Final Report
Annex I
Country Studies
country:
ITALY
authors:
Paola Bertolini,
Elena Pisano,
Silvia Sivini and
Sara Scaramuzzi
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
2. Main characteristics of rurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
3. Main characteristics of rural poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4. Rural poverty and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5. Poverty and groups at risk:
case studies on significant groups at risk . . . . . . . 224
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Annex
EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
This study is supported for under the European Community action programme to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion (2002-2006). This programme is managed by
the Directorate-General for Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities of the European
Commission.
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held
responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication.
http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi
Contractor: Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini
Contact person: Marilena Sacchetta
www.fondazionebrodolini.it
Authors of the Final Study: Paola Bertolini, Marco Montanari, Vito Peragine.
National Corrispondents: Lilia Abadjieva (Bulgaria), Luc Behaghel (France), Paola Bertolini (Italy),
Nikolaos Bouzas (Greece), Ruta Braziene (Lithuania), Patrick Commins (Ireland), Philomena De Lima
(UK), Oana Gherghinescu (Romania), Elvira Gonzalez (Spain), Florindo Ramos (Portugal), Karen
Refsgaard (Norway), Mateja Sedmak, Blaz Lenarcic (Slovenia), Elzbieta Tarkowska (Poland), Achim
Vanselow, Claudia Weinkopf, Thorsten Kalina (Germany), Gabriella Vukovich (Hungary).
Scientific Committee: Philomena De Lima, Marcello Gorgoni, Sabrina Lucatelli, Enzo Mingione,
Karen Refsgaard, Annamaria Simonazzi, Francesca Utili
© European Communities, 2008
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
198
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Executive Summary
In Italy rural areas have followed highly differentiated paths resulting in many kinds of rurality: the great variety
of social conditions has had implications on the quality of life, which ranges from rural “paradises” (like in
Tuscany) to very disadvantaged areas.
There is no single official definition of rural areas at the national level. Much discussed in the literature, a definition of rural areas does in fact appear in official documents – in the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development
and the Regional Plan for Rural Development – but it finds no place in the programming documents regarding
social inclusion policies.
The Italian Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006-2008 makes no reference to rural
areas, nor is any action contemplated for such areas. The indicators taken into consideration to measure levels of
poverty apply at the regional level (NUTS 2), and the only territorial differentiation observed is the gap between
North and South Italy.
The Italian Statistical Institute (ISTAT) does not distinguish between rural and urban poverty. The most significant
cleavage as regards the risk of poverty is found to be between Northern and Southern regions; this is confirmed by
various indicators of deprivation, such as the general conditions of housing or access to services (hospitals, nursery).
With regard to the labour market, rural areas appear to perform worse than urban ones according to many indicators (such as the employment rate, youth unemployment ratio and long-term unemployment). Concerning socioeconomic features of rural households, housing conditions and demographic indicators do not display any significant difference between rural and urban areas.
In Italy, the devolution of many tasks to regional authorities implied a decentralised management of community programmes for rural areas, with a consequent significant fragmentation and a regional diversification of policy strategies.
Concerning the evaluation of the past experience, the high fragmentation of rural policy has pointed out several shortcomings for the Italian programming system, in terms of: 1) national co-ordination; 2) weaknesses in regional bargaining power; 3) lack of coordination among different programmes, particularly in the case of Objective 1 regions.
Most of the rural development policies still keep a marked sectoral connotation, and they hardly toil to become
transversal and territorial based policies. Most of the interventions in rural areas are incentives for farms, while
other important actors such as wage agricultural workers - more exposed to the risk of poverty than farm households - have marginally benefited from these policies.
With regard to specific risks of poverty and social exclusion, three main features characterise rural areas in Italy:
aging population, difficulties in accessing services, and gender inequalities in entering the labour market.
The elderly are becoming a dominant feature of the population, especially in more remote rural areas. Problems in
access to services are the other common feature of more peripheral rural areas.
Concentration of the main services in urban location can impact on the quality of life of groups already at risk of
social exclusion: health services for elderly or disabled, child care facilities for female workers. The accessibility
of schools is another important question for pupils.
Lack of opportunities of jobs and career, that is particularly severe for women and young people, often compels to
choose between migrating or remaining unemployed/underemployed.
199
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
1. Overview
In Italy rural areas have followed highly differentiated paths resulting in many kinds of ruralities: the great variety
of social conditions has had implications on the quality of life, which ranges from rural “paradises” (like in
Tuscany) to very difficult areas. Italy shares with other developed countries three main features that characterise
rural areas: aging population, difficulties in accessing services, and gender inequalities in entering the labour market. The elderly are becoming a dominant feature of the population, especially in more remote rural areas. Lack of
opportunities of jobs and career, that is particularly severe for women and young people, often compels to choose
between migrating or remaining unemployed / underemployed. Problems in access to services is the other common feature of more peripheral rural areas: concentration of the main services in urban location can impact on the
quality of life of groups already at risk of social exclusion: health services for elderly or disabled, child care facilities for female workers.
The general features of the economic and social systems can also affect the characteristics of the rural areas: it is
the case for instance of the black economy, which permeates large segments of the Italian economy and results in
high rates of underground labour, in both urban and rural areas, affecting especially, though not exclusively, immigrants. The most significant cleavage as regards the risk of poverty is between Northern and Southern regions; this
is confirmed by various indicators of deprivation, such as the general conditions of housing or access to services
(hospitals, nursery). All these aspects influence also household’s perception of poverty, which is higher in Southern
Italy than in the other parts of the country.
200
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
2. The definition of rural areas in Italy
There is no single official definition of rural areas at the national level. Much discussed in the literature, a definition of rural areas does in fact appear in official documents – in the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development
and the Regional Plan for Rural Development – but it finds no place in the programmatic documents regarding
social inclusion policies.
In particular, the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (NSP) 2007-2013 distinguishes between four
macro-typologies of areas: a) Urban conglomerations; b) Intensively farmed rural areas; c) Intermediate rural
areas; d) Rural areas with general development problems. These areas were identified with some modification of
the OECD methodology for the classification of areas in urban and rural contexts, which did not allow for sufficient differentiation within the provinces. In Italy the provinces generally show significant differences across the
country. (See Figure 1).
The NSP does, however, provide the possibility for every Region (NUTS 2 level) to adopt within the Regional
Development Plan (RDP) a further level of area subdivision using additional indicators in order to identify the
typologies most appropriate to the particular conditions in the regions. The RDPs are now being drawn up and,
generally speaking, the technical-administrative drafts are available, although subject to further modification; for
the time being, therefore, there is no knowing which of the Regions will use additional indicators.
Figure 1. Italy’s rural areas
Urban Conglomeration
Conglomeration
Urban
Intensively
farmedrural
ruralareas
areas
Intensively farmed
Intermediaterural
ruralareas
areas
Intermediate
Rural areas
areaswith
withgeneral
generaldevelopment
development
Rural
probl
problems
Source: RDP 2007- 2013.
The methodology followed in classification of rural areas in the context of the NSP basically consists of 5 stages:
1. selection is made of the major provincial centres of over 150 inhabitants/sq. km. This group of municipalities represents the strictly defined urban areas at the national level, and was excluded from the subsequent processing.
2. the OECD methodology was applied to the remaining communes (municipalities), distinguishing between
the areas prevalently urban (population rural communes < 15% total population), significantly rural (popu-
201
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
lation rural communes > 15% and < 50% total population) and prevalently rural (population rural communes
> 50% total population), not at the provincial level (OECD methodology), but making distinction among the
communes within each province according to altimetric area and calculating, for each of the three types
(plain, hill and mountain), the incidence of communes classified as rural in the total population.
3. the prevalently urban category was disaggregated in two groups since it shows marked differentiation
between the group of communes more closely resembling provincial capitals (for example, communes outlying major Italian cities and/or certain coastal communes showing marked urban development) and the
group of densely populated communes characterised by profuse, intensive farming (such as the plain lands
of northern Italy). To distinguish between these two groups, reclassification was made within the prevalently urban areas on the basis of density (150 inhabitants/sq. km.) and the proportion of total farm area in the
territory. Thus were identified all the communes that could be defined as “urbanised rural”, characterised by
high population density but also a considerable proportion of agriculture (over 2/3 of the total area).
Finally, again applying analysis at the level of altimetric area, a further area category was obtained, defined
as “highly urbanised rural”, in that the rural communes are proportionately significant (over 15% total pop.)
and the urbanised rural a prevalent share (over 50% of the rural pop.).
4. Crossing the revised OECD areas with the three altimetric categories and the three major divisions of Italy
(North, Centre and South) 36 area types were obtained (plus one for provincial capitals).
5. In order to obtain a broader classification serving to identify priorities for rural development policies across
the country, the areas had to be re-aggregated. Thus four macro-typologies were distinguished (Urban conglomerations; Intensively farmed rural areas; Intermediate rural areas; Rural areas with general development problems). For this last stage the following procedure was applied:
- verification of the classification obtained on the basis of the OECD for altimetric area with the Regions
and Autonomous Provinces;
- aggregation, on the basis of further facts and figures supplied essentially by the Regions and Autonomous
Provinces, of the individual areas within the four macro-areas.
There is no common technical definition of rural areas: indeed, the concept of what is rural has taken on different
nuances and meanings over time with progressive changes in the country’s social and economic situation.
By and large it is recognised that the various processes of transformation of the economic and socio-cultural structure of the rural areas have called for revision of the concept of rural, the rural area no longer being identified solely as farmland (Brunori 1994, Distaso 1995), while the essentially bipolar (urban-rural) approach can no longer be
considered satisfactory. Nowadays, the tendency in defining is to take a multidimensional approach, involving the
adoption of a set of economic and social indicators. Relevant here is the recent study by Anania and Tenuta (2006),
proposing a model for the classification of rural areas (See Figure 2) consisting of three stages:
1. for each Italian commune a rurality/urbanity index was estimated on the basis of six variables1 descriptive
of a distinctive aspect of what it means for an area to be urban or rural;
2. on the basis of five variables an indicator was constructed at the commune level of the per capita rate of
income and consumption2;
3. the Italian communes were analysed taking the two indicators jointly into account3.
It can be seen from the literature just how difficult it is to hit on a univocal definition of what exactly is rural, in
part also because in rural areas development processes have followed highly differentiated paths at the territorial
and organisational level.
The Italian Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006-2008 makes no reference to rural
areas, nor is any action contemplated for such areas. The indicators taken into consideration to measure levels of
poverty apply at the regional level (NUTS 2), and the only territorial differentiation observed is the gap between
North and South Italy. As already seen with NAP 2003- 2005 inclusion monitoring, the regional gap is one of the
most critical stumbling blocks in the field of social inclusion processes at the Italian countrywide level. As we have
seen, poverty, unemployment and shortcomings in services favouring inclusion of the weaker brackets are concentrated mainly in the southern part of the country. At the same time, the strategy adopted to promote inclusion fails
to take account of the degree of rurality of an area, which represents a serious limitation to the Italian Plan.
Again, the Italian Plan for Innovation, Growth and Employment (PICO), drawn up to relaunch the Lisbon Strategy
in 2005, makes reference to territorial disparity at the regional level, indicating in Italy’s South the area where
202
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Figure 2. Distribution of Italian communes on the basis of the degree of rurality/urbanity
Source: Anania and Tenuta (2006).
action is needed to close the gap, but offers no definition of rural area, nor does it provide for any specific intervention in such areas.
Notes
1 The six variables are: demographic density (number of inhabitants / surface area of the commune in sq. km., 2004; Ancitel); proportion of the population active in agriculture (resident population active in agriculture / resident population over the age of 14, 2001; ISTAT,
Census of Population and Dwellings); proportion of the population active in the sector of public services (resident population active in Public
Administration / resident population over the age of 14, 2001; ISTAT, Census of Population and Dwellings); urbanisation of the area (urban
surface area in sq. km / total area in sq. km, 2001; Ancitel/Ministry for Internal Affairs; ISTAT, Census of Population and Dwellings); dispersion of the population (population resident in scattered units1 / resident population, 2001; ISTAT, Census of Population and Dwellings); availability of living space (surface in sq. metres of the dwellings occupied by residents / resident population, 2001; Ancitel; ISTAT, Census of
Population and Dwellings). (Anania and Tenuta, 2007).
2 The five variables are: female employment in non-agricultural activities (resident female population active in the non-agricultural sectors / resident female population over the age of 14, 2001; ISTAT, Census of Population and Dwellings); rate of unemployment (active population not employed / workforce, 2001; ISTAT, Census of Population and Dwellings); cars with powerful engines registered (cars registered
with capacity over 2000 cc belonging to residents per thousand inhabitants, 2005; Ancitel/ACI); electric energy consumption consumer (electric energy consumption for family and general purposes (kwh) / consumers, 1999; Ancitel/ENEL and Municipalised Companies); per capita income with respect to IRPEF (income assessable for income tax purposes (Euros) / resident population, 2002; Ancitel).
3 A further interesting (non administrative) territorial classification, mainly related to the commuting phenomenon, is represented by the
Local Labour Systems (ISTAT,2001). It maps regions basing on daily commuting (for work reasons only) towards a “gravitational centre” in
each geographical area. A LLS is defined as an area in which almost 75% of the labour demand matches supply in the same region. Although
it groups municipalities in greater territorial units basing on a social and economic criterion (it distinguishes regions on different typologies
of economic activities), it does not catch rural dimension.
203
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
3. Main characteristics of rural poverty in Ireland
3.1 Measurement of poverty in Italy
In statistical formulations the condition of poverty is typically defined by counting the numbers of families or individuals that have economic resources below a certain threshold, making reference to an “absolute” or “relative”
living standard. In the case of absolute poverty the threshold is defined in terms of the possibility to consume a
certain basket of goods. Between 1997 and 2002 ISTAT (the Italian Statistical Institute) assessed absolute poverty
on the basis of a “socially acceptable” standard determined in monetary terms and annually updated referring to
the general index of consumer prices. For the time being, pending revision of the basket, it has suspended survey
in this area. At the EU level there are at present no projects to obtain comparable measurements of absolute poverty (Rapporto di Monitoraggio del Piano d’Azione Nazionale per l’Inclusione Sociale 2003-2005, 2005).
In the case of relative poverty the threshold is given by the average or median of families’ consumption expenditure or disposable incomes. Thus the threshold represents the prevalent living standard of the population at a certain moment. Variation can occur not only in the variable measured (consumption or incomes) and the selected statistical index (average or median), but also in the “level” of the threshold (e.g., 50% or 60% of the average or median) and the equivalence scale. In any case, behind the reference to consumer spending and/or incomes there is the
assumption that prices faced by families do not change according to conditions of the family (or prevailing in the
area). Naturally, the choice of how to calculate the threshold leads to various different results, as can be seen in the
case of Italy.
The official ISTAT definition makes reference to consumer spending: a two-person family whose consumption
expenditure is below the national per capita average is defined as poor4.
In 2006, the last year for which data are available, the relative poverty threshold for a two-person family calculated on the basis of family spending ascertained with the annual consumption survey[3]5 stood at 970,34 euros per
month (+3,6 % than 2005 poverty line). For families of different sizes the poverty threshold is obtained applying
an equivalence scale – known as Carbonaro scale – which takes account of the economies of scale that can be
achieved with increase in the number of components of the family6.
The National Plan of Action for Social Inclusion Monitoring Report 2003-2005 points out that the EU poverty
indicator is rather different from the Italian indicator, since:
• it is based on incomes instead of consumption (implying conceptual differences and different problems in
statistical measurement);
• it uses a different equivalence scale, known as the modified OECD scale, which, unlike the Carbonaro scale,
differentiates the weights according to the age of the members of the household, but without any reduction
in the weight with increasing size of the household (1 to the first adult, 0.5 to the others, 0.3 to children
under 14);
•
it uses a different system to calculate the threshold, placing it at 60% of the median of equivalent family
incomes – and not 60% of the mean per capita consumption (for a one-person family) as it is the case with
the national methodology.
Table 1. National versus EU poverty definition
National
EU
Consumption
Income
Poverty threshold
60% Per-capita average
60% equivalence median
Equivalence scale
Carbonaro
Modified OCSE
13.1% (11.1 households)
19%
Variable
Value in 2005
Given these differences, in order to implement the EU definitions of poverty the National Plan of Action for Social
Inclusion Monitoring Report 2003-2005 takes reference from an alternative source, updated as to 2002, namely the
Survey of Italian family budgets carried out by the Bank of Italy. The survey is conducted every two years and gath204
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
ers information on household microeconomic behaviour, social and demographic characteristics of household members, their incomes and consumption expenditure (since 1980). Estimates of households’ tangible assets are also
available but they are not regular. The sample size is about 8,000 families (24,000 persons), with responses collected in personal interviews; participation is voluntary and not remunerated and, as a result, non-response is high.
A quick look at the poverty figures shows that Italy is definitely split in two parts: in fact, poverty appears to be a
serious issue mainly in the South (Mezzogiorno). This is the reason why a “regional mainstreaming” approach in
spite of a urban-rural decomposition has been adopted for all the indicators: the national poverty statistics, in fact,
make no distinction between urban and rural areas but take account of territorial differences at the NUTS 2
regional level and by macro-areas (North, Centre, South) (Figure 4, 5 and Table 2).
As already mentioned, poverty in Italy shows a striking territorial characterization: in the North and Centre, in
2006, 5,2% and 6,99% of the families respectively proved poor, while the figure soared to 22,6% in the South. The
larger diffusion of poverty in the south is coupled with a deeper severity in the intensity7 (22.5% in spite of 17.8%
and 16.9% in the North and in the Centre respectively) (Figure3).
Figure 3. Poverty intensity by geographical area. 2006
North
Centre
South
Italy
y
Source: ISTAT (2007), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
Taking the overall figures, no fewer than 70% of the poor families in Italy live in the South: poverty incidence is
generally higher than national average in the whole South. The situation being particularly serious in Calabria
(increased from 23,3 in 2005 to 27,8 in 2006) and in Sicily (even if it decreased from 2005 to 2006, it remains the
region with the highest poverty incidence, 28,9 %) (Table2).
Figure 4. Incidence of relative poverty of families (national definition based on consumption) by
regions, 2003
g
,
Source: ISTAT (2004), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2003.
205
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 2. Relative poverty incidence, sampling error and confidence interval by regions and
geographical area (as percentage). 2005-2006
2005
Incidence (%)
Error (%)
2006
Confidence interval
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Incidence (%) Error (%)
Confidence interval
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
ITALY
11.1
2.4
10.6
11.6
11,1
2,56
10,5
11,7
Piemonte
7.1
9.6
5.7
8.4
6,4
13,0
4,8
8,0
Valle d’Aosta
6.8
16.2
4.6
9.0
8,5
17,4
5,6
11,4
Lombardia
3.7
11.5
2.9
4.5
4,7
12,8
3,5
5,9
Trentino-Alto Adige
5.1
15.1
3.6
6.6
6,2
13,5
4,6
7,8
Trento
6.1
20.8
3.6
8.5
5,3
21,7
3,0
7,6
Bolzano
4.0
20.5
2.4
5.6
7,1
17,0
4,7
9,5
Veneto
4.5
14.0
3.2
5.7
5,0
14,0
3,6
6,4
Friuli-Venezia
7.2
11.9
5.5
8.9
8,2
10,9
6,4
10,0
Liguria
5.2
15.1
3.7
6.7
6,1
14,0
4,4
7,8
Emilia-Romagna
2.5
17.3
1.7
3.3
3,9
23,5
2,1
5,7
NORTH
4.5
5.2
4.1
5.0
5,2
6,2
4,6
5,8
Toscana
4.6
13.4
3.4
5.9
6,8
12,2
5,2
8,4
Umbria
7.3
18.0
4.7
9.8
7,3
14,7
5,2
9,4
Marche
5.4
12.4
4.1
6.7
5,9
14,9
4,2
7,6
Lazio
6.8
10.2
5.5
8.2
7,0
11,8
5,4
8,6
CENTRE
6.0
6.8
5.2
6.7
6,9
7,2
5,9
7,9
Abruzzo
11.8
13.9
8.6
15.0
12,2
14,6
8,7
15,7
Molise
21.5
12.7
16.1
26.8
18,6
8,9
15,3
21,9
Campania
27.0
6.1
23.8
30.2
21,2
7,5
18,1
24,3
Puglia
19.4
8.3
16.3
22.6
19,8
7,6
16,8
22,8
Basilicata
24.5
10.5
19.5
29.5
23,0
9,2
18,9
27,1
Calabria
23.3
5.2
20.9
25.7
27,8
7,5
23,7
31,9
Sicilia
30.8
5.1
27.7
33.9
28,9
4,8
26,2
31,6
Sardegna
15.9
11.3
12.4
19.4
16,9
8,5
14,1
19,7
SOUTH
24.0
2.9
22.7
25.4
22,6
3,0
21,3
23,9
Source: ISTAT (2007), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
Figure 5. Relative poverty incidence by year and geographical area (as percentage).
Source: ISTAT (2007), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
206
4
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
3
ITALY
Figure 6. Incidence of relative poverty2 of families (national definition based on consumption) by
macroareas,1997-2003 (percentage values)
1
5
0
Italy
North
Centre
South
Source: ISTAT (2004), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2003.
In an overall perspective, families living in conditions of relative poverty in 2006 were, according to ISTAT, 2 million 623 thousand, accounting for 11.1% of the families resident in Italy. The value that would be obtained observing the entire population comes, with a 95% probability, between 10.5% and 11.7%.
The methodological differences between the national and the EU indicators mentioned above entail appreciable
variations in assessments of the phenomenon. Over the period 2003-2005, “the population on low incomes according to the EU definition ranges between 20 and 21%, the population judged poor according to the national definition between 12 and 14%8” (National Plan of Action for Social Inclusion Monitoring Report 2003-2005, 2005).
The downward trend of poverty indicated by consumption data as from 2000 does not emerge on assessing
incomes, the population on low incomes having remained fairly constant between 2000 and 2002, at around 20%9.
However, with the exception of the elderly, a similar territorial distribution of poverty is observed, with concentration confirmed in the South of Italy. (Table 310).
Table 3. Incidence of population on low incomes (poverty risk according to the EU definition) – by
sex, age class and area distribution: 1998, 2000 and 2002 – (percentage values)
Source: National Plan of Action for Social Inclusion Monitoring 2003-2005 on Bank of Italy microdata, Survey on Italian
family budgets
Finally, over a third of the low-income population (Figure7) comes close to the standard threshold, which stood at
8.106 euros in 2002. However, about 8% of the overall population comes under 40% of the standard threshold,
with an equivalent family income of less than 5,400 euros. The essential stability of the low-income population
between 2000 and 2002 emerges with various threshold levels.
207
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Figure 7. Dispersion of low-income population (poverty risk according to EU definition) around the
base threshold (40%, 50% and 70% of the median equivalent income available; base threshold at
60%. 1998, 2000 and 2002
Source: National Plan of Action for Social Inclusion Monitoring 2003-2005 on Bank of Italy microdata. Survey on Italian
family budgets
This stability is due to the fact that median income increased in real terms throughout the period observed, unlike
the median consumption, which showed a negative real growth rate between 2000 and 2003. If the threshold identifying the low-income population had grown from 1998 to 2002 at the same rate as inflation, a reduction would
also have been observed in the number of persons risking poverty taking incomes into consideration, and the divergences from the ISTAT indicator trend would have lessened appreciably (Figure8).
A similar poverty classification has been developed by ISTAT in order to analyse distribution of population around
the poverty line. This classification recognizes families on the basis of 4 typologies, with reference to the conventional threshold: 1. families decidedly not poor, showing levels of consumer spending exceeding the standard value
line by at least 20%; 2. families almost poor, with monthly expenditure is over the 10% the standard line. 3. families barely poor, with expenditure falling below the standard line by no more than 20%; 4. decidedly poor families, with expenditure coming below 20% of the standard line.
Figure 8. Incidence of the low-income population
(poverty risk according to EU definition)
calculated with threshold fixed at 1998 and
adjusted for inflation. 1998, 2000 e 2002
Figure 9. Distribution of population around the
poverty line. – (percentage values) – Year 2006.
4
3
2
1
5
0
effective poverty risk
risk of poverty with adjusted threshold
Source: National Plan of Action for Social Inclusion
Monitoring 2003-2005 on Bank of Italy microdata. Survey on
Italian family budgets.
208
Source: ISTAT (2007), La povertà relativa in Italia nel
2006
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
In 2006, 1 million and 142 thousand of families (about 4,8% of total number of families resident in Italy) fall in
the last category. Three quarters of them live in the Mezzogiorno. The 11,1% of families accrues instead to the
almost poor category, while people which is not poor but is at risk to fall under the poverty line represents 8,1%
of the all families (this share reaches 17% in the South. The decidedly not poor families account for 80,8% of the
total but vary between 89,6% in the North, 86,1% in the Centre and 64,2% in the South.
3.2. Rural poverty in Italy
As mentioned in the previous section, the Italian Statistical Institute (ISTAT) does not distinguish between rural
and urban poverty, since poverty has a regional feature rather than a marked rural-urban connotation11.
In particular, as seen in the descriptive analysis of poverty in Italy, it has a striking North-South dimension, irrespective of the urban or rural location. Together with the lack of data, this is the main reason why few studies in
academic literature have been conducted in this field in Italy.
However, Bank of Italy SHIW (Survey of Household Incomes and Wealth) provides some information on these
features allowing for a distinction between rural and urban households.
Two definitions of “agricultural household” can be found in literature: the narrower one defines as agricultural the
households whose reference person draws most of its income from independent agricultural activity (net of capital consumption); the broad one allows a household to be “agricultural” if it just receives some income from agricultural independent activities no matter if accruing to household head or other family’s member, both definitions
referring to self-employed traditional “farm household”12 (OECD, 2003). However a minor, but still noteworthy
group beyond the farm households is represented by wage dependent workers in the agricultural sector13 and rural
non agricultural workers14 (Table 4).
Table 4. Households and individuals by household type.
l i
i
d
l illi
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli, 2005.
The only outstanding reference on distribution and poverty among rural household in Italy is given by Salvioni and
Colazilli (2005). Basing on SHIW four waves (1995, 1998, 2000, 2002), they find, surprisingly, farm households
being better off than average Italian households, having equivalent income and consumption15 levels in line with
those of self-employed non agricultural households – though more variable, due to seasonality unpredictable
weather-related risk strictly linked to agricultural activity16) and wealth substantially higher than the average
household17 (probably due to ownership of physical assets such as land etc…) and than the general self-employed
household. Moreover they have a lower consumption-income ratio hence a saving rate higher than the rest of
households. On the opposite, as expected, agricultural dependent workers are found to be the most disadvantaged
group relative the others18 (Figure 10).
The analysis of poverty shows instead a similar poverty incidence among various types of rural households (except
for agricultural dependent households), with an increasing trend all over the period. In particular, farm households
have a poverty incidence substantially higher than the Italian average household. There is moreover a clear connection with the trend of income levels: the jump in poverty rate19 in 2000 (reaching the 23.4) is rather consistent
with the decline in income levels (due to the bad weather which has affected the agricultural production).
Agricultural dependent workers are found again the more vulnerable group, with a poverty rate twice as high as
the rest of the households (Figure 11), while rural non agricultural households experience a lower and further
decreasing poverty rate.
209
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Figure 10. Equivalent income, consumption and wealth by family type.
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli, 2005.
Figure 11. Poverty incidence among households.
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli, 2005.
Concerning the poverty intensity20, evidence shows a wide variation along the period considered, with a convergence trend in consumption and income based poverty gaps.
Figure 12. Poverty gap by type of households
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli, 2005.
210
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
It has be noticed, however, the great role of wealth in farm households in softening shocks on income in order to
achieve consumption smoothing. Following the joint distribution of wealth and income21, it can be seen that the
share of farm households poor both in terms of income and wealth is relatively lower than the one based on income
only, supporting the idea that just “a very small portion of farm households does not have wealth enough to contrast the effects of a loss of income and to sustain consumption” (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2005).
Figure 13. Farm households’ joint income-wealth distribution
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli, 2005.
This last remark seems to suggest that the traditional “farm problem” has been partially overcome; however, evidence on wage agricultural work households shows that the low income issue is still alive in some agricultural
regions, especially in the south, where it is often associated with underdevelopment and social exclusion problems.
In addition to this evidence, the increasing importance of the exploitation of seasonal irregular immigrant workers
makes the situation of farm labourers even worse.
3.3. Multidimensional analysis of poverty and social exclusion in Italy
Although at EU level the most frequently used common indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion are
based on a monetary approach (which is relative), since the last decade the focus has moved toward an idea of multidimensionality of poverty (Eurispes, 2005).
Other individual resources matter in determining individual living condition (e.g. assets/debts, previous labour
positions or non-cash transfers)22, supporting the idea that income is not sufficient in itself to represent an individual or household poverty condition. In this case, the joint analysis of relative income poverty measures and deprivation indicators can be useful.
The debate, often related to survey and studies carried out with different approaches and in different geographical
areas of the country, has underlined a set of possible aspects related to a condition of deprivation as: a) lack of
essential basic goods; b) the lack of basic structures and services (housing, hot water, heating, healthcare); c) lack
of education and skills (which are crucial to cope with the changing labour market conditions).
The intensity of deprivation allows identifying different typologies of poverty, depending on the degree and the number of lacking items related to the different dimensions. Following the work of Amartya Sen (1980, 1985) a concept
of capability is emerging, according to which poverty is linked not only to individual characteristics but, rejecting
the ethical individualism principle, also to the environment where a person lives as it is related to the possibility in
an effective or potential accomplishing of functionings that are expression of a positive idea of freedom23.
In order to follow a multidimensional approach, without providing a synthetic measure of deprivation, a set of
“overarching indicators” has been proposed to assess the various dimensions of poverty according the NUTS
regions OECD and DG REGIO classification of rural/urban areas24:
1. Employment rate (M/F) 15-64
2. Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
211
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
3. Employment rate 55/64
4. Long term unemployment rate
5. Housing quality
6. Life expectancy at birth
7. Demographic labour pressure: 15/24 as a share of 55/64
8. Adult (25-64) with low education
9. Education of head of household
10.Households composition (more generations families)
We can group them in two sets: labour market conditions and socio-demographic features.
Labour market indicators
Table 5. Indicator 1: Employment rate (15-64 y.o.) NUTS3 – 2005. OECD classification.
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
Total
54.0
55.3
59.8
57.6
Male
67.5
67.9
71.6
69.9
Female 40.6
42.8
48.1
45.3
Table 6. Indicator 1: Employment rate (15-64 y.o.) - Total - NUTS3 – 2005. DG Regio classification
Total
PR_R
PR_C
IR_R
IR_C
PU
COUNTRY
52.8
54.6
46.9
55.9
59.8
57.6
Starting with the labour market indicators, by observing the employment rate by regions type, a clear division
between urban and rural areas emerges: as it can be noticed, in fact, the employment rate increases with the degree
of “urbanity”, the rural regions employment rate being rather low compared to the country average, and nearly 6
percentage points below the employment rate in predominantly urban areas. However, according to the DG Regio
decomposition, it can be noticed that the harshest problems in employment and youth unemployment (Table 7Indicator 2) are concentrated in intermediate rural remote regions (41.4% in youth unemployment rate) and in predominantly rural remote regions, meaning that remoteness from main cities matters in terms of economic attainments more than rurality.
Looking at the gender desegregation then, the female employment rate is significantly low at country level (it is
one of the lowest in Europe) and even worse in predominantly rural regions, where it is found to be substantially
lower (more than 25%) than the male figure (higher than the country level).
Table 7. Indicator 2: Youth unemployment ratio (% labour force 15-24 y.o) - Total - NUTS2 – 2005.
OECD classification
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
Total
9.4
8.4
7.4
8.0
Male
9.2
8.7
7.3
8.1
Female 9.1
7.9
7.4
7.8
Table 8. Indicator 2: Youth unemployment rate (% labour force 15-24 y.o) - Total - NUTS3 – 2005. DG
Regio classification
Italy
PR_R
PR_C
IR_R
IR_C
PU
COUNTRY
29.9
29.5
41.4
26.3
20.5
24.0
212
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
As already mentioned, a similar pattern can be observed looking at youth unemployment rate: the rate in rural
regions is 6 points above the country average and one third higher than in urban regions; moreover, the phenomenon is amplified considering the female rate of unemployment. Thus, both the employment and unemployment rate
(youth and global) seems to reflect a gender effect, probably related also to a social and cultural rural environment
where the “traditional” separation of roles still survives25.
Moreover, the higher reported unemployment might be partly due to a higher rate of informal (undeclared) employment or underemployment in rural areas, a serious issue in the South, concerning particularly seasonal agricultural dependant workers.
Table 9. Indicator 3. Employment rate (%) of older workers (55-64 y.o.) - NUTS2 level – 2005. OECD
classification
Total
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
33.0
31.9
30.7
31.4
Table 10. Indicator 4. Long-term unemployment rate (as a % of total unemployment rate) - NUTS2
level- 2005. OECD classification
Total
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
52.7
51.1
48.6
50.2
As for global unemployment, the long term unemployment rate is higher in predominantly rural regions signalling
a persistence feature of unemployment in these regions; however, the employment rate among older workers is
slightly higher than the country average and than in urban areas.
Socio-demographic features26
Table 11. Indicator 5. Housing quality: % of occupied dwellings with heating and drinkable water NUTS3 – 2001. OECD classification
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
90.7
96.8
94.4
Drinkable water 98.5
98.4
99.6
Heating 97.4
99.0
Table 12. Indicator 6. Life expectancy at birth (number of years) - Male - NUTS2 – 2005. OECD
classification
Total
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
77.2
77.5
76.8
77.2
Concerning socio-economic features of rural households, housing conditions and demographic indicators do not display
any significant difference among region typologies. This seems to suggest that living standards are rather similar among
rural and urban dwellings and that traditional problem of rural/farm poverty in terms of deprivation seems to be overcome (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2005). In line with what expected, life expectancy is higher in the predominantly rural areas
than in urban areas due to the better quality of environment and life while surprisingly, figures on the share of two-ormore families households do not suggest significant differences in the family structure between rural and urban regions.
Table 13. Indicator 7. Demographic labour pressure: ratio of people aged 15-24 to people aged 55-64
- NUTS3 – 2005. OECD classification
Total
PR
IN
PU
COUNTRY
0.94
0.92
0.81
0.87
213
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 14. Indicator 7. Demographic labour pressure: ratio of people aged 15-24 to people aged 55-64
- NUTS3 – 2005. DG Regio classification
Total
PR_R
PR_C
IR_R
IR_C
PU
COUNTRY
0.97
0.93
1.12
0.91
0.81
0.87
The demographic labour pressure denotes, in Italy, a lower share of people who are going to enter the labour market then those who are going to retire. This phenomenon is less acute in rural regions in which people aged 15-24
are a larger share of the population. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that a large share of young people tends to
move from rural areas after schooling age, thus probably after the 15-24 spell.
Table 15. Indicator 8. % of adults (25-64 year old) with low educational attainment (ISCED 0-2) NUTS 2 – 2004. OECD classification
PR
IR
PU
COUNTRY
Total
53.6
52.3
48.7
50.7
Table 16. Indicator 10. Two or more family households (as a % of total number of private
households) - NUTS3 level 2001. OECD classification
Total
PR
IR
PU
COUNTRY
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
Table 17. Indicator 10. Two or more family households (as a % of total number of private
households) - NUTS3 level – 2001. DG Regio
Italy
PR_R
PR_C
IR_R
IR_C
PU
COUNTRY
1.0
1.7
0.8
1.5
1.2
1.4
However, the higher rate of adult poor educational attainment in intermediate and especially in predominantly rural
regions seems rather indicating a more serious risk of underdevelopment and social exclusion in these areas which
could further encourage out migration of young people along a vicious circle of progressive cultural and social
impoverishment and isolation.
Other indicators
Finally, few other indicators can be observed in order to assess the rural poverty and social exclusion. Among these,
population change shows a substantially lower - though still positive - increase in the population living in rural
areas compared to the urban increase.
Table 18. Population change 1996-2004 - NUTS3 (%)
Total
PR
IR
PU
COUNTRY
0.9
1.7
3.0
2.3
Table 19. Private households with more than 5 members (% of total private households) - NUTS3 - 2001
Total
PR
IR
PU
COUNTRY
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.7
Table 20. % of farm holders with other gainful activities - District level - 2003
Total
PR
IR
PU
COUNTRY
25
29.9
27.4
28.3
214
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Despite the fact that a clear-cut difference in the household structure does not appear between different regional
typologies, looking at other indicators (Table 19), a higher average number of members is recorded for rural households compared to urban areas, probably due to a higher fertility rate in rural areas.
Finally, predominantly rural areas show a lower share of farm holders with other gainful activities, indicating a low
diversification of economic activities and higher dependence on agriculture in these areas. In conclusion, it seems that
some of the weaknesses of the Italian labour market and some social problems are particularly serious in rural areas.
Notes
4 The relative poverty line varies from year to year on account
of variations in both consumer prices and in families’ consumer
spending in real terms, and thus in their consumption behaviours.
Accounting for the inflation effect only, i.e. adjusting the 2004 poverty line with the CPI (Consumer price index), one obtains a value for
the 2005 poverty line just 1 euro above the standard line. The rise in
the poverty line in 2005 appears therefore mainly attributable to an
increase in prices, poor families in 2005 being then those who did not
reach the standard line in 2004 adjusted in order to account for the
price dynamics (ISTAT, 2005).
5 ISTAT, Statistica in breve “I consumi delle famiglie Anno
2006” of 5 July 2007. The sample of this survey is composed of 28000
families drawn randomly from population. However, it has to be
reminded that estimation can be biased by sampling errors, hence differences in observed shares of poverty are not necessarily statistically
significant due to the sample nature of the survey. For this purpose a
confidence interval around the precise estimation has to be built.
6 For example, the poverty threshold for a four-person family
is 1.63 times that for a two-person family (1,581.65 euros), while the
threshold for a six-person family stands at 2.16 times (2,095.93
euros) (ISTAT, 2007).
7 Poverty intensity measures how much poor families consumption expenditure falls below the poverty threshold (in percentage). It indicates hence how deep is the poverty on average.
8 At the EU level incidences are calculated in terms of individuals, whereas in Italy figures are in terms of resident families.
9 This is because the poverty threshold has grown with incomes
more than inflation, unlike the case of consumptions.
10 In tables 3 the incidences are all calculated in terms of individuals to comply with the EU definition.
11 In Italy, a definition of “rural municipality” has been adopted in the regional indicators for the assessment of the development
policies, which establishes that a area is rural if population density is
lower than 100 inhabitants per squared km and the share of agricultural employment is higher than 12,4%, that is two times the EU
average (Istat, 2002). Last official classification of Italian municipalities was based on 13 socio-demographic indicators (share of working population employed in agriculture, demographic density access
to drinkable water and hygienic facilities in the house etc…) taken
from 1981 Census (Istat, 1986). See Istat (1963) for the previous
classification and Somogyi (1959), Barberi (1960), Vitali (1980,
1983, 1992) and Merlini (1991, 1992) for a discussion on alternative
statistical method.
12 In Italy, they still represent the majority of the farms (almost
95%, Salvioni, Colazilli, 2005).
13 Dependent workers account for 40% of total agricultural
employment (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2005).
14 Rural non agricultural households are intended as the ones
residing in municipalities with a population density less than 20000
inhabitants and/or living in “scattered houses or agricultural areas”.
Globally, farm households cover a bit more than 3% of the observed
population, while rural non-agricultural workers account for about 25%.
15 The equivalent income and consumption levels are calculated using OECD equivalence scale (adult=1, individual aged 14 and
over=0.5, individual under 14=0.3), assuming intra-household distribution being egalitarian.
16 The negative trend recorded between 2000 and 1995 in
incomes and consumption, shows the crisis in the agricultural sector
occurred at the end of 1990s. On the opposite, between 2000 and
2002 all the indicators display a substantial recover which leads to a
improvement in the condition of these families relative to the average (Salvioni, Colazillli, 2004).
17 Yet, 1995 they owned twice as much as the average Italian
family wealth and three times in the 2002 (Salvioni, Colazilli 2004).
18 They do relatively worse than the average Italian household.
Moreover, further comparison with the whole totality of wageworkers confirms their relative disadvantaged conditions. For these families as well, the first period (1995-2000) is characterized by a negative trend while in 2002 there is a slight recover (more modest than
the one recorded for farm households) (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2004).
19 Poverty rate is measured using headcount index, that is the
share of population falling below the poverty line which, in this
study, following the Bank of Italy rule is set at 50% of median equivalent income. Setting the poverty line at 60% of median equivalent
income as in the EU definition would produce even greater estimates
of poverty.
20 Poverty intensity measures the severity in the deprivation
condition. It is usually estimated by poverty gap – difference between
income of the poor and poverty line averaged over all households –
or squared poverty gap, which gives a higher weight to those further
below the poverty line (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2005).
21 Mishra et al. (2002).
22 In addition, it is not always possible to measure income
accurately, especially for some groups of the population like the selfemployed or for people working in the grey economy.
23 In this case poverty is not only related to static lack of individual availability of some good, but also to the collective and
dynamic capacity of an area of producing income, wealth and in general well-being. In other words, this concept involves the idea of a
cumulative effect of individual and collective potentials so that
poverty as well as risk of social exclusion are analysed in relation to
the environment where he or she lives.
24 The OECD regional typology is based on three criteria. The
first criterion identifies rural communities according to population
density. A community, normally corresponding at Eurostat LAU2
level (Local Administrative Units corresponding to communes,
municipalities and similar) is defined as rural if its population density is below 150 inhabitants per square kilometre. The second criterion classifies regions according to the percentage of population living
in rural communities. Thus, a region is classified as: 1)
Predominantly urban (PU), if less than 15% of the population lives
in rural communities; 2) Intermediate Rural (IR), if the share of population living in rural communities is between 15% and 50%; 3)
Predominantly rural (PR), if more than 50% of its population lives in
rural communities.
The DG-regio classification takes the OECD typology
(Predominantly Urban, Intermediate Rural and Predominantly Rural
regions) as a starting point. Then it divides both Intermediate Rural
regions and Predominantly Rural regions into 2 subcategories, according to the following criterion: 1) Regions close to a city = at least 50%
of the region’s population lives at less than 1 hour travel by road to a
city of at least 100,000 inhabitants; 2) Remote regions = otherwise.
Five categories are then identified: 1) Predominantly Urban
(PU) regions; 2) Intermediate Rural, close to a city (IR_C) regions;
3) Intermediate Rural, remote (IR_R) regions; 4) Predominantly
Rural, close to a city (PR_C) regions; 5) Predominantly Rural,
remote (PR_R) regions.
25 Women can be employed in household production, resulting
then out of the labour force or unemployed.
26 Indicator 9 “Households with low educated (ISCED 0_2)
head” (% of total private households) - NUTS3- 2001 is not available
for Italy at OECD desegregation level.
215
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
4. Rural poverty and policies
Since the 1999 reform of EU structural and rural development policy (started with Agenda 2000), the policy programming instruments for rural development measures have been involved in a “unification process” joining structural measures coming from separate legislative acts under a single document, the Regulation on rural
Development (Reg. no. 1257/99).
The incorporation of the new rural development policy as a second pillar in the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), on the one hand preserves the traditional goals of Community structural policy (improvements in productive structures and enhancing quality output, reconversion and re-channelling of agricultural output, introduction
of new technology), and, on the other hand, reflects concern for an integrated approach to territory in pursuing sustainable rural development (diversification of activity, strengthening the social fabric of rural areas, promotion of
sustainable agriculture that observes environmental criteria, promotion of equal opportunities by gender)
(Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
Recent stages in the EU Rural Development policies (Fischler reform and Second European Conference on Rural
Development in Salzburg: “Planting seeds for rural futures”) established a new procedure in designing and financing measures for rural development, which will be achieved, out of the cohesion policies, through ad hoc regional and/or national programmes, its delivery being based on a single programming, financing and control system
and on a single Fund27.
In Italy, the devolution of many tasks to regional authorities implied a decentralized management of community
programmes for rural areas, with a consequent significant fragmentation and a regional diversification of policy
strategies.
The Regions in the Centre-North of Italy apply rural measures as part of a comprehensive Rural Development Plan
(RDP) for the whole region, cofinanced by EAGGF- Guaranty section. Concerning the objective 1 Regions, RDPs
contain accompanying measures only while compensation benefits are integrated in Regional Operational Programme
(Structural Funds programming) and cofinanced by EAGGF- Guidance section (Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
The recent regulation 1698/2005 promotes a strategic approach to programming and implementation of measures
implying the adoption of an EU and a national strategic plan for 2007-2013 within the three following objectives,
each of them having a specific minimum expenditure threshold:
• Competitiveness of agricultural and forestry sector (25%)
• Environment implementation (10%)
• Economic diversification of rural areas and improvement of quality of life (10%).
The main documents to analyze rural development policies in Italy are the NSRs and the Rural Development Plans.
The Stakeholders who took part in the cross-consultations for the drafting of the National Rural Development Plan
included both institutional figures and representatives of the economic, social and environmental partnership. The
former represented:
• the autonomous Regions and Provinces concerned with planning for rural development;
• the Ministries directly or indirectly concerned with such planning (e.g. the Ministries of Economy and
Finance, and of the Environment);
• AGEA (Agency for supplies in agriculture) and ISTAT, as well INEA (National agrarian economy institute)
and ISMEA (Agriculture market services institute), which provide the necessary technical assistance.
The latter represented:
• professional and cooperative organisations, in both the agricultural and forest sectors;
• the major environmental associations;
• the Young agricultural entrepreneurs watch-station (OIGA), and the organisation for women entrepreneurs
in agriculture (ONILFA);
• national associations representing the local action groups (LAGs) implementing the Leader + EU initiative;
• sub-regional territorial bodies (ANCI – National Association of Italian Communes, UNCEM – the National
216
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Union of Mountain Municipalities, and UPI – the Union of Italian Provinces);
• the major union organisations;
• consumer associations;
• various other bodies in the industrial and agro-industrial sector, trade, crafts and banks, as well as the professional association of agronomists.
The PIC LEADER (EU initiative for rural development) has been implemented in Italy as from the first plan
launched in the early 1980s. Under way at present is the LEADER +. Each Region (NUTS2) has drawn up a
LEADER Regional Plan indicating the areas in the region involved in the programme, together with the broad
strategy pursued and the catalysing points of the Local Development Plans drawn up by the LAGs. The relative
freedom granted the LAGs in the choice of actions to work on implied at the national level a range of lines, of
which only a minority focused on points directly involved in the fight against poverty (Campennì, 2006). Although
not explicitly addressed, the aim of fighting poverty is indirectly pursued. Action is taken to promote economic
development in the designated areas with activities in support of the local firms, training included.
Moreover, in compliance with the EU indications, in granting financing priority has gone to initiatives of the young
and women. Furthermore, one of the catalysing points in the LEADER + programme is “Enhancement of the quality of life”. In this respect a number of LAGs have launched pilot projects to fight exclusion.
The direct CAP payments represent a form of support for the income of Italian farmers which may seem to help
fight poverty. In fact, analysing the available data for the year 2000, it appears that the contributions have to a great
extent gone to the big farmers: while three quarters of the farmers “received direct aid for less than 1250 euros; by
contrast, three percent of them were assigned forty percent of the total sum distributed in Italy28” (Sivini G., 2006).
Structural funds were used in Italy in 2000-2006 planning through the Single Programme Documents (SPDs), the
Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) and the National Operational Programmes (NOPs). The latter are managed by the Ministries concerned and find application throughout all the southern areas.
The SPDs were drawn up on the basis of cross-consultation at the local level by the Regions whose areas come
within the scope of Objective 2 – in Italy the regions of the Centre-North. The ROPs were drawn up, again on the
basis of cross-consultation at the local level, by the Objective 1 Regions – in Italy the Southern regions, where, as
already seen, there is a notable concentration of poor families. The ROPs are multifund programmes (ERDF, ESF,
EAGGF and FIFG29) and provide for interventions, (also at the level of EAGGF Guidance), specifically involving rural areas, while the Regional Rural Development Plan (RDP) stands as the EAGGF Guarantee implementational document (Figure 14).
Figure 14. EAGGF planning, 2000-2006
Objective 1
Regions
Diversification and
modernization measures
ROP
Ex accompanying measures and
compensation allowances
RDP
Programming complement
Out of Objective
1 regions
Source: Gaudio P., 2006
217
Diversification and
modernization measures
Ex accompanying measures
and compensation allowances
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Figure 15. Planning 2007-2013
Cohesion Funds,
ESF,ERDF
EARDF ( European
Agriculture and Rural
Development fund)
EFF ( European Fisheries
Fund)
EU Strategic Guidance
EU Strategic Guidance
EU Strategic Guidance
National strategic
Framework
National strategic
Framework
National strategic
Framework
Regional Strategic
document
Regional Strategic
document
National operational plan
Regional operational plan
Regional rural
development plan
Regional operational plan
Integration
Source:INEA, (2004).
Some ROPs, as in the case of Calabria, have adopted as possible model for implementation of the measures on
expenditure provided for by the ROP that of integrated planning. This has led to the creation of RAIPs (Rural Areas
Integrated Projects) and IFPs (Integrated Filière Projects) which provide for the constitution of local mixed public-private partnerships working, in the former case, on projects to enhance the quality of life of rural populations,
and in the latter case plans to promote an agricultural or agro-industrial filière.
The ROPs are structured in priority intervention axes:
• Natural resources;
• Cultural resources;
• Human resources;
• Local development systems;
• Cities;
• Service networks and nodes;
• Technical assistance.
Interventions qualifying for EAGGF co-funding come within Axis 1 and Axis 4. Here we have 22 measures
concerning:
• modernisation of structures (investment in farms; placement of young farmers; training; transformation and
marketing of agricultural produce; early retirement; estate reorganisation; certain forestry measures);
• environmental objectives (agro-environmental measures; afforestation of agricultural areas; protection of
the environment; estate enhancement; further forestry measures; restoration of the agricultural heritage damaged by natural disasters);
• direct income support (indemnities);
• business and economic diversification (marketing of quality product; incentives for tourist and craft activities; diversification of activities in the agricultural sector; renovation of villages and protection of the rural
heritage);
218
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Figure 16. Planning rural development in Italy
2000-2006
2007-2013
Regions of the Centre-North
1 Strategic Document
European Commission
14 Rural development
Plans – EAGGF G
14 Regional Leader Plans
Plans EAGGF O
of
the
14 planning
Complements
1 National Strategic Plan
(MIPAF)
Regions objective 1
1 EU Support Framework (ERDF,FSE,FIFG and
EAGGF O)
7 regional operational
Programmes EAGGF G
7 planning
Complements
21 Rural Development Programmes
FEASR
7 Rural Development Plans
EAGGF O
7 Regional Leader
Programmes EAGGF O
7 plannig
Complements
Source: INEA, 2004.
• infrastructures and services (management of water resources in agriculture; enhancement of rural infrastructures; management substitution and assistance services; services essential to the economy and the rural population; financial engineering).
In the coming 2007-2013 programme, in accordance with EU indications, the programme documents will follow
a different system of division (Figure 15).
Apart from the utilisation of structural funds, the programme documents also provide national co-funding through
the UAF (Underutilised Areas Fund).
The ERDF and ESF funds will be used for implementation of the National Strategic Framework (officially consigned to the Commission in March this year for final approval). The NSF determines a strategy designed to purse
4 Macro-objectives:
1. Developing knowledge circuits;
2. Improving the quality of life, security and social inclusion in the areas;
3. Enhancing the productive filières, services and competition;
4. Internationalising and modernising.
The NSF will be implemented at the regional level through the Mono-fund regional operational programmes (one
for the ERDF and one for the ESF) in the “Competitiveness and employment” and “Convergence” objectives areas.
The Regions are at present working in cross-consultation with local institutions and bodies on the final version of
the ROPs to be approved by the European Commission.
There are also some National operational programmes, run by the Ministries at the central level and operative solely in the “Convergence” objective areas. These programmes have to do with: Education, Research and
Competitiveness, Security, Mobility networks, Governance and system actions (only the latter also working in the
“Competitiveness and employment” objective areas). Schematically, the variations in the rural development programme in Italy (Figure 16) point up the attempt to simplify procedures with a single National Strategic Plan coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and 21 RDPs drawn up at the regional level.
219
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
The major novelties in the new rural development policy can be summed up thus:
• Specific and single fund for rural development30 (FEASR)
• Single planning system (only one programme)
• Elimination of the planning complements
• Single control and management system
• Automatic disengagement rule (n+2 )
• Equilibrium between priority axes (financial management for Axes)
• LEADER approach integrated with the axes.
The National Strategic Plan for Rural Development applies to all of Italy’s rural areas and has three broad objectives:
• to increase competitiveness in the sectors of agriculture and forestry through innovation, filiére integration,
increasing human capital and developing material and immaterial infrastructure (ICT) and improving the
quality of products);
• to enhance the environment and rural areas through management of the territory;
• to create job opportunity and to improve the quality of life in the rural areas and favour the diversification
of economic activities.
It is organised in 4 Axes:
Axis 1 – Increasing competitiveness in the sectors of agriculture and forestry;
Axis 2 – Enhancing the environment and rural areas;
Axis 3 – Improving the quality of life in rural areas and favouring diversification in the rural economy;
Axis 4- LEADER.
Each axis has priority objectives. In particular, it is Axis 3 that explicitly provides for certain actions to fight exclusion, and in fact its priority objectives are:
• Maintenance and/or creation of employment and income opportunities in rural areas;
• Enhancement of the attractiveness of rural areas for entrepreneurs and populations
In fact, the actions proposed include the creation of a network of services for the population. Among the targeted
groups it is suggested that particular attention should be paid to young, women and aged, as well as seasonal and
non-EU workers and persons in situations of distress and exclusion. With regard to the latter category, productive
firms are considered worth promoting and supporting, also in the area of agriculture, and services working in the
field of social agriculture (use of the farm to satisfy social needs such as rehabilitation and inclusion of the disadvantaged, didactic activities for schools, etc.).
The National Strategic Plan was consigned to the EU in December 2006 and declared acceptable: negotiation is in
progress for definitive approval. A further 10 Regional Rural Development Plans have been notified, of which 7
have been declared acceptable. The other RDPs are now being drawn up.
Summing up, concerning the evaluation of the past experience, the high fragmentation of rural policy has pointed
out several weaknesses for the Italian programming system, in terms of:
• national co-ordination. In Italy, the Agricultural and Forestry Policies Ministry (MiPAF) is not a Managing
Authority (does not have expenditure power), but has a co-ordination responsibility of all rural programmes.
It is evident the difficulty of co-ordinating 21 Administrations; moreover, besides RDPs there are 7
Objective 1 ROPs and the 21 Leader + Programmes. Furthermore, in Objective 1 MiPAF is the Reference
Authority for rural development interventions, co-ordinating sectorial administrative bodies, which are in
turn coordinated, at regional level, by the administrative bodies in charge for the Managing of the programme (Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
• weaknesses in regional bargaining power: the chance of flexible interpretation of community regulations has
rarely been exploited due to lack of negotiation capacity; more restrictive interpretation has prevailed, especially in the case of innovative actions.
220
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
• lack of coordination among different programmes, particularly in the case of Objective 1 regions, which
would have needed a better integration between ROPs and RDPs.
Finally, even if a “proper” assessment of rural policy in Italy is still lacking, data on distribution of financial
endowment by category of measures (Figure 17) show how community rural development policies still present a
strong “sectorial bias”. In fact, “the funding allocation for diversification measures likeliest to promote balanced
growth, whether sectorial, territorial or social, is minimal (4% of total) compared to that for sectorial modernisation measures (34%) or that for interventions such as accompanying measures (34%), which in simple terms are
little more than handouts to farmers” (Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
Figure 17. The programming in Italy: Financial endowment by category of intervention, 2004
Source: INEA based on AGEA and IGRUE
Concerning the distribution of spending among categories of interventions, environmental measures are the fastest
spending ones. It has to be noticed the strong predominance of previous “accompanying measures” contributed significantly in its positive performance. In fact, “the total spending on accompanying measures covers almost 70%
of the programmed resources and 80% of such spending attains at previous commitments” (Monteleone, Storti,
2004).
The implementation of diversification measures is delayed and “expenditure for this section amounts at 1% of total
spending for rural development in Italy, which accounts for only 17% of the total budget devoted to such measures” (Figure 18) (Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
Figure 18. The implementation of rural policy in Italy: public spending by category of intervention, 2004
Source: INEA based on AGEA and IGRUE
The picture emerging shows that speed of payment has been a priority; in fact, in the 2000-2003 implementation
focused on fast spending measures (handouts and awarding measures for farmers) and semiautomatic selection
procedures (open selection and simplified modalities of access to aid). This evidence indicates a concrete risk of
insufficient attention on the achievement of outcomes (Monteleone, Storti, 2004).
Focusing on the funding distribution of EAGGF-financed measures in the Objective 1 regions, distribution of
resources displays interventions aimed at increasing the competitiveness in the “filière”, (modernisation and
221
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
accompanying measures) are prevailing, absorbing 64% of the planned contributions, compared to the rural development policies (including the environmental ones) whose share settles around 36%.
Total public funding available for EAGGF fund in Objective 1 regions for the NSP 2000-2006 is € 5,592 millions.
Decomposition of EAGGF by specific objectives shows an unbalanced picture, expenditure on development and
aid to rural areas being one third less than the amount destined to competitiveness, and a financial implementation
progress rather modest (24% of payments were accomplished at the end of 2004), (INEA, 2004).
A slightly different picture is recorded for environmental measures, which, despite the modest weight covering in
terms of resources, show a quite fast financial implementation both in terms of commitments (61%) and in terms
of payments (41%) (Table 21). Southern regions (objective 1 regions) show a highly heterogeneous picture concerning priorities and implementation forms, with Campania and Molise scoring best in terms of payment progress
and balance among the three objectives (43% competitiveness, 31% rural development, 25% environment in
Campania).
Table 21. Financial implementation of EAGGF financed measures by specific objectives
(commitment and payment in M. euro) in objective 1 regions, 31/12/2004
Total contribution
Commitments
Payments
(B)/A)
(C)/(A)
Total (A)
%
Total (B)
%
Total (C)
%
%
%
Competitiveness
3513
62.8
1695
63.4
1092
63.2
48.2
31.1
Rural development
1335
23.9
522
19.6
328
19.0
39.2
24.6
Environment
743
13.3
455
17.0
307
17.8
61.3
41.4
Total
5592
100
2673
100
1728
100
47.8
100
Source: CSF updating, 2006.
Figure 19. Financial (commitment versus payment) implementation of EAGGF financed measures as
% in Objective 1 regions, 31/12/2004
a. Financial implementation
b. Financial implementation competitiveness
Payment implementation
Payment implementation
c. Financial implementation rural areas
d. Financial implementation environment
Payments implementation
Payments implementation
p
p
Source: CSF updating, 2006.
222
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Obviously, ex post monitoring reports on the 2000-2006 programmes are not available yet, and assessment of the
real impact of these projects on rural areas turns out to be difficult. Although communitarian policies affecting rural
areas were not aimed specifically at fighting social exclusion and poverty, they can however produce significant
indirect effects in terms of improving living standards in rural areas. However, as already mentioned, if on the one
hand the massive amount of resources destined to agricultural farms could have had a positive effects on rural
areas, the heterogeneity of effects among different farms (by dimension and productive activity) has had a rather
different impact on rural areas, with a sort of “discrimination” of less favoured areas, usually characterized by a
prevalence of small-medium enterprises, generally less productive, and/or activities scarcely protected by the
CAP31 (Bertolini et al., 2005; Camaioni, 2007).Moreover, these policies concern mainly farmers, while agricultural wageworkers – which, as seen in section 2.2 are the most disadvantaged category – being marginally touched
by these policies.
The rural development policy (contained in the RDPs) has not a sectoral feature being instead expressly aimed at
promoting an improvement in the living conditions of rural population. However, an overall evaluation of the activity in this field has shown a prevalence of infrastructural interventions (electrification, viability, irrigation etc…)
while a small room was reserved to innovative measures such as the diversification of economic and business
activities (crafts, tourism, transformation of typical products). A limited integration between the various measures
financed with the different Structural Funds in all the areas (North, Centre, South) has been recorded.
In addition, poor results are recorded from measures for less developed areas, turning out to be insufficient in filling the gaps with other areas in terms of productivity and income (Solustri, Finocchio, 2006). Globally, then,
effects on the access to services and therefore on quality of living in rural areas have been unsatisfactory
(Raimondo, Lucatelli, 2007).
In conclusion, most of the rural development policies still keep a marked sectoral connotation, and they hardly toil
to become transversal and territorial based policies. Most of the interventions in rural areas are incentives for
farms, while other important actors such as wage agricultural workers, (more exposed to the risk of poverty than
farm households) have marginally benefited from this policy. As already mentioned, coordination among standard
policies (above all social policies, school, health, transport etc…) and local regional and rural policies would be
crucial in promoting rural development.
Notes
27 This creation of a rural specific found reflects the principle “one fund, one programme”, and was established by the EU Reg.
n.1698/2005.
28 The Italian farmers receiving direct aid in 2000 number nearly one million six hundred thousand, the total sum standing at 2.8 billion euros.
29 The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) finances actions to remedy imbalance between European regions, to make up
the gap for regions lagging in development, due to a preponderance of agricultural activities, addressing industrial conversion and structural
underemployment; the European Social Fund (ESF) addresses the development of human resources with training and professional re-qualification activities; the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), instituted by the Reg. CE n. 729/70, now coming under Regulation CE 1257/99, subdivided in Guidance and Guarantee sections, aims at promoting economic – but also social – development, in rural areas, in accordance with the community agricultural policy (CAP); as from 2007 it is to be regulated by Reg. CE n. 1685/99
and will be called EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development); the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)
funds projects for improvements in the sector of fisheries, aquaculture and the transformation and marketing of fish products. As from 2007
it is to be termed EFF (European Fisheries Fund).
30 It has to be noticed that separation of rural development policy from cohesion policy and its autonomous financing can produce an
isolation of rural policies from other structural measures that could reduce its effectiveness, fully contrasting the prevailing literature on this
topic, which suggests a coordination among territorial policies is crucial for promotion of rural areas (OECD, 2006). The emphasis on the
need of a strong integration between regional policy and rural development policies in the NSF is then explained (Raimondo, Lucatelli, 2007).
31 In Italy, 94% of beneficiaries receive 32% of payments in benefits less than 10000 euros; among these, the 69.3% receive less than
1250 euros (10.2% of the total expenditure); just 110 firms absorb more than 107 millions euros, while nearly 1 million beneficiaries take just
337 millions euros.
223
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
5. Poverty and groups at risk:
case studies on significant groups at risk
As already mentioned in section 3.3, poverty is a multi-dimensional issue and the need to account for the different
facets of this phenomenon has been widely recognized by academic literature, international institutions and statistical offices, which have recently started to compute statistical multi-dimensional indicators of poverty and social
exclusion.
An interesting systematization of the multidimensional approach has been proposed by Eurostat (2005). This
approach is aimed at integrating the information provided by common indicators with information on people’s living standards by looking at the “absolute” material deprivation. This measure is based on different dimensions
(“economic strain”), being defined as an “enforced lack” of a set of items depicting material living conditions (such
as housing conditions, possession of durables, capacity to afford basic requirements etc…). All these dimensions
are then grouped in a single composite multidimensional indicator32(Eurostat 2006). According to this approach a
person is “deprived” in a dimension if he/she lacks at least two items (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Deprivation dimension structure
Source: Eurostat, Statistics in focus, 2005
Following Eurostat outline, ISTAT has computed a set of material deprivation indicators (Survey on Income and
Living Conditions). As for other traditional poverty measures, these indicators do not follow a rural vs urban classification but are broken-down by regions (NUTS 2 level), geographical macro-areas, household typologies, classes of age, commune typologies, etc… allowing for a better analysis of households’ living standards and, especially, of features of the most vulnerable groups. Although they do not make a distinction between rural and urban
areas, their classification by regions and population provide a chance for a break-down among families living in
urban and “rural intensive” regions (i.e. regions with a high incidence of rural areas such as the South or less densely populated communes).
In particular, three groups at risk of poverty and social exclusion will be focused on:
• households,
• elderly,
• long-term unemployed.
224
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
5.1 Poor households
A joint interpretation of income-based and other non-monetary indicators of economic disadvantage and material
deprivation seems to show income poverty and deprivation as being strongly associated.
Looking both at poverty incidence and material deprivation indicators (Tables 22 and 23), households experiencing poverty and bad living conditions are in both cases mainly given by families with a high number of components, with dependent children, or then ones including elderly, and those composed of lone people. In particular
the highest incidence of income poverty is recorded among households composed of five or more members: 24,3%
of these families live in poverty in Italy, but this value increases to 37.5% considering the Southern regions of the
country (which have also the highest incidence of rural areas). The relative poverty incidence among couples with
at least 3 children in 2006 amounted to 25,6% (38,0% in the South), while a significant share is found also among
lone parents (25,0% in the South), which being higher than in previous years (from 13,4% to 13,8%).
Table 22. Relative poverty incidence (%) by width, household typology, number of dependent
children, geographical areas. (2005, 2006).
North
Centre
South
Italy
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
1 member
3,7
4,8
4.8
4,3
17.7
17,1
7.9
8,1
2 members
4.2
5,4
6.0
7,5
25.2
20,3
10.1
9,9
3 members
4.1
4,4
5.1
7,1
21.9
20,9
9.8
10,0
Household components
4 members
5.9
6,2
5.8
7,2
25.1
26,1
14.0
14,8
10.7
8,1
15.5
15,4
39.2
37,5
26.2
24,3
Couple with 1 child
3.9
3,2
4.9
6,0
19.9
19,4
8.8
8,6
Couple with 2 children
5.4
6,2
6.1
7,0
24.4
25,5
13.6
14,5
Couple with at least 3 children
8.9
8,3
*
*
35.4
38,0
24.5
25,6
lone parent
5.8
8,1
*
7,7
26.4
25,0
13.4
13,8
1 underage child
4.8
3,9
5.4
5,4
19.6
22,0
10.1
10,3
2 underage children
7.2
8,4
8.7
10,6
29.9
28,7
17.2
17,2
*
8,2
*
*
42.7
48,99
27.8
30,2
6.3
5,7
7.3
8,3
26.1
27,3
14.1
14,4
At least 5 members
Household typology
Households with dependent children
at least 3 underage children
at least 1 underage child
Source: Istat(2007),La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
By looking at indicators of deprivation, it can be noticed that households with dependent children and those composed of lone parents with dependent children appear the most exposed to the risk of suffering condition of economic disadvantage (Table 23). In fact, 10.1% of them have faced periods without sufficient resources for food,
17.6% have coped with health diseases, while more than 20% have experienced periods of scarce income resources
to afford transports (19%), schooling (20.3%), taxes (23.4%) and basic clothes (29%) expenditures. Moreover,
almost 20% of these families experienced periods with insufficient resources to pay their bills (Table 24).
Moreover, as expected, availability of economic resources, number of income recipients and sources of disposable
of income, coupled with the professional position, educational attainments and age of the main income perceiver
are significantly relevant in determining households living standards.
Looking at a set of economic unease indicators representing a temporary status of poverty (Table 23), a particularly acute disadvantaged situation is recorded for Southern households: these indicators show a widespread deprivation in many of the basic dimensions in the South and in the Islands which, as already mentioned, are - coupled
with the mountainous areas (Alps and Apennines) - the most rural regions.
225
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 23. Households declaring not sufficient resources in some spell of the year for non-durable
goods by household typology – Year 2004 (%)
Food
Disease
Basic clothes
School
Transport
Tax
1 member
6.1
14.0
18.4
0.9
6.1
12.4
2 members
4.7
12.2
14.6
1.6
6.7
11.2
3 members
4.9
10.8
16.2
5.1
8.6
12.8
4 members
5.1
10.3
19.3
10.0
10.0
15.2
At least 5 members
6.4
15.0
26.6
15.7
14.8
21.3
Household members
Household typology
Couple with at least one underage child
4,6
9,8
19,0
10,1
10,3
15,1
Couple with adult children
5,3
11,2
16,0
4,3
8,3
13,3
10,1
17,6
29,0
20,3
19,5
23,4
6,5
13,3
19,4
3,3
9,6
13,8
5.3
12.7
16.4
1.8
6.7
12.1
1 underage child
5.1
10.1
19.0
9.1
10.5
13.9
2 underage children
4.8
11.3
20.8
12.4
11.3
17.0
at least 3 underage children
8.5
15.7
29.2
20.6
17.6
26.8
North-west
4,1
7,0
11,7
2,5
5,3
6,8
North-east
4,4
8,0
12,2
2,1
5,3
6,9
Center
4,6
9,7
14,3
3,3
6,2
9,8
South
7.7
21.4
28.2
8.6
13.4
25.1
Islands
6.4
20.2
27.6
7.8
12.5
24.3
Italy
5.3
12.2
17.6
4.5
8.0
13.2
Single parents with at least one underage child
Single parents with adult children
Households with dependent children
None underage children
Geographical areas
Municipality population-based typologies
Center of metropolitan area
5.5
13.2
19.4
3.9
7.8
12.3
Suburbs of metropolitan area
6.4
12.4
19.4
6.4
10.1
13.5
Until 2.000 inhabitants
4.3
9.9
14.4
3.8
6.7
13.0
from 2.001 to 10.000 inhabitants
5.0
10.7
15.1
3.7
7.1
11.6
From 10.001 to 50.000 inhabitants
5.1
13.5
19.3
5.2
8.8
16.2
At least 50.001 inhabitants
5.5
12.8
17.3
4.1
7.6
11.9
Italy
5.3
12.2
17.6
4.5
8.0
13.2
Source: Istat, Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
These data are also confirmed by income based measures as poverty incidence figures: in 2005, in fact, about one
third of Italian household lived in the South but nearly 70% of poor Italian households were concentrated there.
Finally, looking at the commune typology, the most serious problems of disadvantaged living conditions seems to
lie in the metropolitan areas or suburbs rather than in less populated communes. However, it has to be remarked
that this kind of desegregation cannot be considered a good proxy for measuring the degree of rurality since it does
not consider population density (OECD classification) and/or distance from the main centre (DG Regio classification) but just population.
226
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 24. Households declaring to have outstanding expenses by items, households and main
recipient typologies - Year 2004 (%)
Bills
Rent or Loan (b)
Other Debts (c)
1 member
7,9
4,2
17,7
2 members
6,2
2,2
12,2
3 members
9,2
4,3
12,5
4 members
11.9
3.9
13.1
At least 5 members
18.2
7.7
23.2
Couple with at least one underage child
12,6
5,3
14,2
Couple with adult children
7,8
2,5
11,3
Single parents with at least one underage child
19,9
9,7
21,7
Single parents with adult children
9,6
3,7
20,0 (d)
None
7.2
3.0
13.5
One
12.1
5.7
12.5
Two
13.3
4.9
15.8
At least three
23.9
11.6 (d)
31.1 (d)
Wage income
10.1
4.9
12.5
Self-employed income
9.8
4.8
18.1
public transfers
6.9
1.9
16.8
North-west
5,2
4,0
10,2
North-east
5,1
2,4
8,7
Centre
8,0
2,8
13,8
South
15.3
5.0
21,2
Islands
15.8
5.6
22,9
Italy
9.0
3.8
14,4
Household members
Household typologies
Number of dependent children
Main income source
Geographical areas
(d) Estimation from a sample included between 20 and 49 units
Source: Istat Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
Concerning basic needs, then, households with three or more dependent children and those with lone parent and
underage children are again the more likely family typologies at risk of deprivation in essential facilities: more than
10% of these households cannot manage to pay for an adequate feeding and more than 14% cannot meet the
expense of keeping home adequately warm, while nearly a half of these households cannot afford one week holyday a year. In line with what expected, households with one income recipient have a risk of deprivation twice as
much as other households.
Confirming the association with the monetary dimension of poverty, deprivation conditions result particularly
widespread in the Mezzogiorno (Table 25), where 13.5% of households living in the South and about 12% of those
living in the islands declare not to be able to afford an adequate meal every second day. Into these two macro-areas,
in particular in the islands, the share of houses without heating system is not negligible: more than 21% of resident
households can not keep their home sufficiently warm and more than 58% states not being able to afford one week
holiday a year.
227
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 25. Households which can not afford some basic necessities, by household typologies and
geographical areas - Year 2004 (%)
Afford a meal with
meat, chicken or fish
every second day
Afford to keep
home adequately
warm
One week annual
holyday away
from home
1 member
9,9
13,7
43,2
2 members
6,7
9,1
36,7
3 members
6,4
9,0
34,1
4 members
5,6
9,7
36,9
At least 5 members
10,0
16,0
49,1
Couple with at least one underage child
5,4
9,4
35,2
Couple with adult children
6,4
9,3
36,2
Single parents with at least one underage child
10,4
14,5
49,1
Single parents with adult children
9,0
12,5
39,4
None underage children
8.0
11.1
39.3
1 underage child
5.2
9.1
35.4
2 underage children
6.9
11.0
37.5
at least 3 underage children
11.7
16.1
51.0
North-west
4.5
3.6
23.8
North-east
5.4
6.0
29.6
Centre
5.2
7.6
36.9
South
13.5
21.9
58.2
Island
11.8
23.1
59.9
Italy
7.5
10.9
38.8
Household components
Household typology
Households with dependent children
Geographical areas
Source: Istat Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
Finally, given the numerous limits of longitudinal data on income, lack of essential durables or difficulties in payments can provide an interesting proxy of persistent poverty, since it indicates a scarcity of (permanent) resources
rather than of an “adequate” level of current income.
For these items33 as well, the gap between Mezzogiorno and the rest of Italy in poverty incidence is confirmed in
terms of material deprivation, since households living in the South and in the islands show the highest percentage
of inability to afford these kinds of expenditures (Table 26).
Italy is at the bottom of European ranking in term of social spending for family support. In fact, public expenditure aimed at supporting family burden, contrasting households’ poverty, for care functions, and for reconciliation
between care and job responsibilities are scarce and below the European average34 (Istat 2006). Considering tax
allowances, cheques and other allowances, families receive cash transfers for just 20 billion euros, 1.5 points of
GDP, while the social expenditure provided by municipalities, amounted in 2004 to 5.4 billion euros, about 2%
more than the previous year (ISTAT, 2004). Moreover, no special interventions are set for rural households in these
fields. On the opposite verge, considering the in-kind social expenditure component, an extremely heterogeneous
picture is recorded among Italian regions: households living in the more rural Mezzogiorno are less supported than
those living in the northern part of the country35.
228
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 26. Households declaring not being able to afford some durable goods, by good typology, by
geographical areas and commune typology - Year 2004 (%)
Car
Telephone
Videotape
Personal
computer
Washing
machine
Internet
Parabolic
aerial
Videocamera
North-west
3.3
2.9
3.6
5.6
5.9
5.3
5.9
7.5
North-east
2.5
2.4
2.7
5.1
5.2
4.4
5.5
6.5
Centre
2.9
2.0
4.0
5.9
6.9
5.7
7.3
8.2
South
6.6
7.1
10.3
13.8
19.3
14.3
18.2
18.0
Island
5.2
9.9
11.2
16.3
20.0
17.0
19.5
20.2
Italy
4.0
4.3
5.8
8.5
10.4
8.4
10.2
11.1
Center of metropolitan area
7.7
4.1
6.3
8.1
11.3
7.8
10.2
10.7
Suburbs of metropolitan area
3.9
4.9
3.9
8.8
10.5
7.9
9.4
10.1
Geographical areas
Comune typology
Until 2.000 inhabitants
2.9 (a)
3.0
6.3
9.2
10.1
8.9
10.9
12.1
From 2.001 to 10.000 inhabitants
2.4
3.4
4.8
7.4
8.7
7.0
8.9
9.4
From 10.001 to 50.000 inhabitants
3.8
5.5
7.6
10.6
12.5
11.4
13.3
14.5
At least 50.001 inhabitants
3.8
4.3
4.9
6.9
9.0
6.8
8.0
9.1
Italy
4.0
4.3
5.8
8.5
10.4
8.4
10.2
11.1
Source: Istat Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
5.2 Elderly
The problem of ageing is significantly marked. Italy is in fact the second country in the world in term of ageing
population. According to ISTAT, in 2018 average life duration will reach in Italy 78.8 years for male and 84.3 for
women, while individuals older than 60 years would represent 28.9% of population, the ageing index reaching then
a value of 184 (Table 27).
Table 27. Old age population (as % of the total) and ageing indicators.
1958
1988
1998
2018
2028
Population over 60
13,1
19,4
23,0
28,9
34,4
Population over 80
1,3
2,8
4,2
6,8
7,6
Share of over 80 on total elderly
9,6
14,4
18,2
23,4
22,1
Indicators
Ageing index (a)
36
77
117
184
225
Old age dependency rate (b)
24
35
41
54
69
(a) (population over 65/population with age 0-14) x 100 (b) (population over 60/population 20-59) x 100
Source: ISTAT (2004).
The increase in life expectancy among over 80-years-old people is a particularly significant phenomenon and represents a complex challenge for the social system in the next decades. Although aging can be considered a general trend in Italy, in certain areas it has become a chronic tendency. A highly heterogeneous pattern is recorded
across regions, where significant differences emerge both in term of levels and “speed” of the ageing process, slower in Southern regions - thanks to a higher birth rate – and relatively quick in central and northern regions.
Ageing process appears to be markedly pronounced especially in the more remote areas, probably due to recent
and widespread out-migration which has lead to a move of young people towards less remote locations and the
ensuing depopulation of whole areas. Comparing rural to average Italian households (Figure 21), a marked aging
process emerges among farm households36, whose percentage weight in 51-65 class is particularly high as compared to the Italian average households37 (Salvioni, Colazilli, 2004).
229
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
8
Figure 21. Italian families
by household head age.
7
45
6
40
5
35
4
30
25
3
20
2
15
1
10
0
5
0
Up to 30 years
f ino a
d
From 31 to 40
From 41 to 50
From 51
to 65
6
Italian households
Farm households
Wage dependent households
Rural non agricultural households
65
and over
ltre
Source: Salvioni and Colazilli (2004).
A striking feature of poverty in Italy is the higher incidence among households with elderly people (13.8%, significantly above the national average), which, as already mentioned, are mainly concentrated in the South where ageing is faster. Infact, looking at relative poverty incidence by age, a substantially higher share is recorded among the
over 65 in the Mezzogiorno (25.4 % in 2006).
Moreover, in recent years the condition of the elderly seems worse as already emerged looking at the evidence on
consumption: their poverty incidence has increased over time, in particular for families with almost one over-65years old component (from 13.6% to 13,8) and for families with two elderly components (from 15,2 to 15.3%)
(Table 28). The evidence from the national definition of poverty is however in contrast with the one merging from
the EU income-based measure: in terms of income, in fact, the elderly appear relatively less poor38 (15% incidence), except for those living alone.
This last remark is further confirmed by figures on deprivation on some non durable goods (Table 29), which display
a less severe picture for the elderly in some items (clothes, food, bills, etc…) while, given their specific needs, a worse
situation is registered for them in the “disease” item. This evidence is strongly related with the issue of supply and
access to health and social services, which becomes particularly important in rural areas. Moreover, the higher poverty incidence among lone aged people39 is associated with problems in affording some basic necessities, suggesting
that low living standards and marginalization of the elderly are serious issues requiring social inclusion interventions.
Table 28. Relative poverty incidence by household typology, age classes and geographical areas.
Year 2006.
North
2005
Centre
2006
2005
Mezzogiorno
2006
2005
2006
Italy
2005
2006
Household typology
lone person less than 65
*
*
*
*
9,4
8,8
3,5
3,3
lone person at least 65
5,8
8,2
7,9
6.9
23,5
22,9
11.7
12,6
couple h.h. less then 65
2,0
2,6
*
*
14,8
12,3
4,8
4,9
couple h.h. at least 65
5,9
7,0
7,3
8,7
29,7
24,5
12,9
12.5
Up to 34
4.8
4,1
*
6,7
24.9
20,0
11.1
9,5
from 35 to 44
4.4
4,8
5.8
6,2
23.8
24,8
10.9
11,5
from 45 to 54
3.1
3,5
5.1
5,2
19.8
22,1
9.1
10,1
from 55 to 64
3.0
3,0
2.8
4,4
19.9
16,4
8.2
7,5
At least 65
6.2
7,9
8.2
9,4
28.4
25,4
13.8
13,8
1 elderly
6.0
7,9
7,3
8,0
26,0
23,8
12,9
13,0
at lest 2 elderly
7,0
7,8
9,2
11,9
33,2
29,3
15,2
15,3
at lest 1 elderly
6,3
7,9
8,0
9,3
28,2
25,5
13,6
13,8
Age
Households with elderly
* value statistically non significant due to small sample. Source: (2007) Istat, La Povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
230
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 29. Households declaring not sufficient resources in some spell of the year for non-durable
goods and reporting outstanding expenses by household typology, age and number of elderly in
the households, 2004 (%)
Food
Disease
Basic clothes
Bills
Rent or Loan
Other Debts
Lone person under 65
6,1
11,1
18,8
10,7
6,4
17,9
Lone person over 65
6,1
16,8
18,1
5,1
2,0 (d)
..
Couple without dependent children
and h.h. under 65 (a)
4,2
9,7
12,9
5,9
2,4
10,7
Couple without dependent children
and h.h. over 65
3,7
15,0
13,6
3,9
..
..
No elderly
5,4
10,7
18,4
10,9
5,1
14,4
One elderly
5,7
15,2
17,3
6,3
2,1
15,3
Two or more elderly
3,7
14,7
13,8
4,2
..
..
Less then 35
6,3
11,5
19,4
12,5
7,6
13,6
35 - 44
4,4
9,3
17,8
11,4
5,4
14,7
45 - 54
5,2
10,0
17,8
9,8
3,8
14,3
55 - 64
5,7
12,4
16,6
7,8
2,4
15,5
65 or more
5,2
16,0
16,8
5,6
1,5
14,5
Household typology
Number of elderly in the households
Age classes
Source: Istat Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
Table 30. Households which can not afford some basic necessities, by household typology, number
of elderly in the household, and age Year 2004 (%)
Afford a meal with
meat, chicken or fish
every second day
Afford to keep
home adequately
warm
One week annual
holyday away
from home
Lone person under 65
8,9
12,4
33,3
Lone person over 65
10,9
15,0
53,0
Couple without dependent children
and under 65
5,4
7,9
29,2
Couple without dependent children
and over 65
7,2
8,5
44,2
No elderly
6,7
10,2
34,5
One elderly
9,6
13,4
47,7
Two or more elderly
7,7
9,5
44,2
Less then 35
7,8
11,0
36,8
35 - 44
5,7
9,5
32,7
45 - 54
6,1
9,4
33,3
55 - 64
7,1
10,5
35,7
65 or more
9,7
12,9
49,0
Household typology
Number of elderly in the households
Age classes
Source: Istat Survey on income and living conditions (2005).
231
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Focusing on rural areas, the issue of the access to services has been recently discussed in an interesting work by
Lucatelli et al. (2006). Although focusing on one region in the centre of Italy (Umbria), this study represents one
of the few territorial analyses of policies, whose methodology and findings can be partially extended to some other
rural areas. The territorial analysis conducted has been used to assess the ex ante demand, the supply of health and
social services and their accessibility in a “spatial” perspective.
One of the main findings of this study is that, although per-capita public health investment is in line with the Italian
average, regional health policy in recent years applied to all areas indistinctly, even the more remote ones.
However, remoteness seems still to matter in the accessibility to health services, especially with regard to old people and hospitals. Only one third of total service delivery points serving rural areas offer a full set of basic services (Lucatelli et al., 2006). Moreover, although Umbrian regional policy provides several social interventions, a specific strategy for social policies in rural areas does not exist, while rural policies still have a sectorial connotation.
These findings are likely to be common to many other regions in Italy, (especially in the South) where the situation can be worse because of income poverty and inefficiency in the provision of health and social benefits. Such
problems magnify in in remote areas in the Mezzogiorno where they are usually coupled with underdevelopment
and social exclusion.
Welfare systems flaws have contributed to deepen disadvantage and marginalization of some areas and of some
groups through the lack of targeted and effective policies specifically aimed at fighting social exclusion and deprivation. In particular, if on the one hand the unbalanced weight on pension in welfare expenditure has prevented
and limited income poverty among elderly (although it is still high), on the other hand cash transfers do not prove
to be sufficient to contrast marginalization and to cope with the specific problems now outlined.
Few “shy” interventions in the direction of tackling the ageing problems have been accomplished with the law
238/2000 which introduces the chance for Regions to issue vouchers to elderly for purchasing social and health
services from authorized bodies and individuals. More recently, the budget law 296/2006 has provided the setting
up of a national fund for non self-sufficient people, which represents a first step in gaining awareness of the
increasing and widespread difficulties in accessing heath and social service among the elderly. However, probably
due also to the lack of territorial analysis, specific health and social interventions for the elderly living in rural areas
are still missing.
5.3 Long-term unemployed
Despite the slight improvement in term of employment recently recorded by the country as a whole, Italy still presents one of the lowest employment rates in Europe, with a highly heterogeneous picture across regions and areas
as well as by gender. Coupled with the low employment rate, unemployment is still one of the most debated and
socially sensitive problems, particularly in the South.
This issue is also strictly related to poverty, unemployment being one of the main determinants of poverty: almost
one third of families whose head is unemployed (31.4%) is also poor. 83% of them live in the Mezzogiorno where
the incidence reaches the 43.3%. This evidence supports the importance of labour market participation in determining poverty (ISTAT 2005). In this field, the most alarming concern in Italy, and in particular in southern
regions, is represented by “long term unemployment”40. (Table 31)
The dimension of the phenomenon is particularly marked in Italy, where the long term unemployment rate is above
8%, while European average share is lower than 5%. The ratio between long term and total unemployment is
49.7% in 2006, but differences among macro-areas are rather noticeable. In 2006 an incidence equal to 57.6% is
recorded in Mezzogiorno where it displays also an upward trend in the last three years, the two most affected
regions being Sicily and Campania (60% and 59.1%). In addition, this phenomenon is even more severe for women
(51.3% in Italy and 60.1% in the Mezzogiorno in 2006).
The aforementioned increase in life expectancy may have played a role in causing long term unemployment. The
so-called “active aging” phenomenon had in fact a significant influence on employment and labour markets, persons with long work experience, middle-aged or older, being more likely exposed to a risk of marginalisation and
social exclusion if persisting in a status of unemployment for a long time.
Adult unemployment rates have increased during the past decade and the beginning of this decade, showing a predominantly long term connotation. “The increase of adult unemployment has been associated with a rise in the proportion of no-job households. The role of family in providing a safety net […] is declining and temporary workers
often do not have access to social insurance against the risk of job loss” (Boeri et al. 2000). Despite the recent
reforms aimed at reducing unemployment through the flexibilization of labour markets, a non negligible share of
young long-term unemployed41 is recorded.
232
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Table 31. Incidence of long-term unemployment as a share of people looking for employment for at
least 12 months on total people looking for employment (%)
Geographical macro-areas
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
North-West
34,4
33,3
31,4
38,0
38,6
36,6
39,1
North- East
19,5
19,0
17,0
24,3
27,9
30,9
31,8
Center
49,9
47,6
44,2
44,1
43,5
44,2
46,5
Center-North
37,2
35,7
32,9
37,4
37,9
38,1
40,3
South
57,8
58,0
55,7
56,9
54,8
56,1
57,6
Italy
49,7
49,4
46,9
49,3
47,7
48,3
49,7
Programming Cicle 2007-2013
Ob. CONV
57,2
58,0
55,7
57,4
55,8
56,9
58,6
Ob. CONV (without Basilicata)
57,2
57,8
55,6
57,3
55,8
57,0
58,6
Ob. CRO
41,1
39,3
36,6
40,0
39,5
40,0
41,7
Ob. CRO (without Sardinia)
39,1
37,3
34,9
38,3
38,4
38,6
40,7
Source: Istat, Rilevazione continua sulle forze di lavoro.
Strictly related to this topic, then, it has to be reminded that labour market and social policies may play a significant role in determining this scenario: in particular, social security cushions (ammortizzatori sociali) are not effective in fostering a reintegration in the labour market, while on the opposite sometimes inducing self-exclusion; concerning labour market flexibility, recently realized reforms (Treu reform, 1997, Biagi law, 2003) have partially produced a shift of labour demand toward young not toward older workers; moreover, the collective bargaining system is still rather centralized. Therefore, it is unfit to account for differences in the labour market framework among
areas and to balance asymmetric disequilibria.
In addition, rurality does not seem to be per se an obstacle able to preventsjob creation. In fact, a pleasant natural
and cultural environment, with lower level of congestion, if well connected to main economic centres can attract
investments and economic activities. The most severe occupational problems affect, besides urban suburbs, the
remote rural areas usually scarcely populated and situated far from urban centres. This areas, often characterized
by a mountainous landscape, typically present a more aged population, lack in infrastructures and services, low
per-capita income, unskilled labour, prevalence of subsistence agricultural activities and less job opportunities.
Given the lack of rural-specific analyses about long term unemployment in rural areas, a recent work implemented in the district of Bari (Apulia) by IPRES, Italia Lavoro and Collocare (2005) provides some interesting findings
about the phenomenon of long-term unemployment among adult workers by considering social and normative as
well as economic factors which represent the labour market as a complex system in which different kind of forces
interact. Concerning the supply side, the Authors note that most of adult long term unemployed persons in that area
seem not willing either to move or to accept vertical career mobility. In addition, the propensity to undertake training programmes is not low, but many would undergo them only “under given condition”. Moreover, favoured channels for job searching are “informal” and a direct correspondence between active job searching and reception of
job offers does not appear either42.
On the demand side, firms (small and agricultural firms are not considered ) declare to be willing to hire adult longterm unemployed only if these last are highly skilled and/or expert administrative personnel and trained. Moreover,
they would be willing to offer typical and permanent contracts to this typology rather than ‘flexible’ contractual
solution. This is evidence of the existence of a mismatch between demand and supply. This dichotomy could be
overcome through ad-hoc training programs for which firms are not often willing to pay and workers to attend.
A deeper mismatch would be created by the difference in selection procedures of firms and informal channels of
job searching used by unemployed people. Therefore the low matching between demand and supply could depend
also on the low efficiency of official matching services (Servizi per l’impiego) and the lack of information about
firms actually willing to hire and people willing to supply labour43. Finally, nearly all of the firms declare to be
favourably disposed to hire adult unemployed under the condition of benefiting of relieves on social security contributions. Law 448/98 and law 448/01 have already recognized a reduction of social security contributions for
employers hiring a long term unemployed; however, effects on employment have been mainly transitory.
A further measure, which was partially aimed at relieving long-term unemployed, has been the Reddito Minimo di
233
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Inserimento (means tested cash transfer), originally introduced in an experimental form with the general purpose
of tackling poverty and social exclusion (DLgs 237/98). This test lasted two year and involved 39 communes, 24
of which in the South, 34000 families and 85000 individuals. It was given a form of a sort of negative tax recognizing a 75% deduction to families with a maximum labour income equal to 358 euros. The base unit for eligibility was the family and one of the requirements to access the benefit was the registration in the list of unemployed
and the compulsory participation to local reintegration schemes and training activities.
RMI was originally aimed at substituting and summarizing the multitude of social benefits characterizing the
Italian social safety net; unfortunately, despite the encouraging results recorded in many areas, the actual implementation of this programme has been interrupted in 2001 by Centre-right government, probably fearing discouraging effect of this measure on labour supply.
Notes
32 It has to be noticed that the proposed indicators are not indices of social exclusion that take account of all the dimensions of the phenomenon (i.e., access to the labour market, health, education, social participation, etc) (Eurostat, 2005).
33 These indicators capture partly the availability of economic resources and partly preferences and consumption patterns. The survey
try to net out the preference component, but given a certain level of reserve by people in admitting acute economic problems, the level of deprivation can result underestimated (ISTAT, 2004).
34 Moreover, reclassifying data on social protection according to the criteria adopted by the Onofri Commission, from 1997 to 2006
social spending directly supporting family has not changed its weight in the total social expenditure, rather it has decreased from 3.5% to 3%
of GDP. However, this fall has been partly offset by the increase in tax allowances on personal income taxation (IRPEF) and by transfers to
families, confirming once again the basic structure of social spending to households, more cash-transfers oriented rather than in-kind interventions.
35 The per capita social expenditure on households in 2004 was about 147 euros in Emilia-Romagna, but just 27 euros in Calabria
(Ministero della Famiglia, 2007).
36 For the definition of rural households see section 2.2.
37 The sample includes just working population and retired persons. These individuals are included in the total of Italian and rural households implying an undersized percentage weight for the class over 65.
38 Relative poverty incidence among old people could be overestimated due to consumption based definition adopted by ISTAT. In fact
old people tend to have a lower level of consumption compared to younger people.
39 This phenomenon of loneliness is particularly widespread among women due to the higher average life duration.
40 Usually, a long term unemployed is defined as a person looking for a job for at least 12 months.
41 Especially for this group “the divide between unemployment and inactivity is rather tenuous. Youngsters stay for long in their households who provide their income while they search for a job corresponding to their aspiration” (Boeri et al. 2000).
42 These findings seems implying a significant rigidity in labour supply for this group in line with the insider-outsider theory.
43 Perhaps firms did not answer genuinely, informal “signaling” being still important in these areas but probably a more meritocratic
and direct selective criterion is emerging.
234
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
6. Conclusions
Rural areas appear to perform worse than urban ones according to many indicators, especially with regard to the
labour market (such as the employment rate, youth unemployment ratio and long-term unemployment).
Concerning socio-economic features of rural households, housing conditions and demographic indicators do not
display any significant difference between rural and urban areas.
The devolution of many tasks to regional authorities implied a decentralised management of community programmes for rural areas, with a consequent significant fragmentation and a regional diversification of policy strategies.
Concerning the evaluation of the past experience, the high fragmentation of rural policy has pointed out several
shortcomings for the Italian programming system, in terms of: 1) national co-ordination; 2) weaknesses in regional bargaining power; 3) lack of coordination among different programmes, particularly in the case of Objective 1
regions.
Most of the rural development policies still keep a marked sectoral connotation, and they hardly toil to become
transversal and territorial based policies. Most of the interventions in rural areas are incentives for farms, while
other important actors such as wage agricultural workers - more exposed to the risk of poverty than farm households - have marginally benefited from these policies.
235
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
7. References
Anania e Tenuta (2006), “Ruralità, urbanità e ricchezza nelle Italie contemporanee”in AgriRegioni Europa, numero 7,
anno 2, pp.17-21.
Boeri, T., Layard, R. and Nickell, S. (2000), “Welfare-to-Work and the Fight Against Long-term Unemployment”,
Department for Education and Employment, Research Report, 206.
Bosi, P., (2007), “Famiglia e welfare”, paper presented at Conferenza Nazionale della Famiglia, Firenze, May 24th-26th
2007.
Brandolini, A., Cipollone, P. (2003) “Urban Poverty in Developed Countries” In Y. Amiel and J. A. Bishop (eds.),
Inequality, Welfare and Poverty: Theory and Measurement, Volume 9, pp. 309-343. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 2003
Brunori G. (1994), “Spazio rurale e processi globali: alcune considerazioni teoriche”, in Panattoni A., ed., La sfida della
moderna ruralità, CNR-RAISA, Pisa.
Camaioni, B. (2007), “Dove vanno gli aiuti diretti della PAC. Una grande fetta per pochi”, In Agriregionieuropa, Numero
9, Anno 3.
Camaioni, B., Ripanti, R. (2007), “Sviluppo rurale: a che punto siamo?” In Agriregionieuropa, Numero 9, Anno 3.
Campennì A. (2006), “Sviluppo rurale integrato ed esclusione sociale”, in Cavazzani A., Gaudio P.,
Sivini S., eds, Politiche, governance e innovazione per le aree rurali, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2006, pp.
463-490.
Chelli, F. (2006), “I lavori della commissione Istat sulle “metodologie per la classificazione del territorio” in
Agriregionieuropa Numero 4, Anno 2.
Colazilli, G., Salvioni, G. (2004) “Redditi, consumi e ricchezza delle famiglie agricole e rurali italiane” XLI Convegno
SIDEA “Diritto all’alimentazione, agricoltura e sviluppo” Roma, 16 - 18 settembre 2004.
Colazilli, G., Salvioni, G. (2005) “How’s the agricultural family doing?”, paper presented at 11st International Congress
of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Denmark, August 2005.
Commissione di indagine sull’esclusione sociale (2004), Rapporto sulle politiche contro la povertà e l’esclusione sociale,
Anno 2004.
Distaso M. (1995), “Rapporti tra agricoltura, industria e artigianato”, in SIDEA, Lo sviluppo del mondo rurale, Bologna,
Il Mulino, pp. 247-286.
EAPN (2006), “The 2006-8 National strategy reports on social protection and social inclusion: What do they deliver for
people in poverty?”.
European Commission, (2007), “Growing regions, growing Europe”, Fourth report on economic and social cohesion,
May 2007.
European Commission (2006), “Employment in Rural Areas: closing the jobs gap”, Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, December 2006.
European Commission, (2006), “Rural development in the European Union, statistical and economic information”
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
European Commission (2007), “Rural development programmes 2000-2006”, Country profile, Italy, Agricultural and
Rural Development Commission.
EUROSTAT (2005) “Income poverty and Social exclusion in the EU-15”, Statistics in Focus, Population and Living
Condition 13/2005.
EUROSTAT (2005) “Social protection expenditure and receipt 1996-2004”, Eurostat Statistical Book.
EUROSTAT, (2005), Material deprivation in the EU, Statistics in focus, population and social condition, 21/2005
Gaudio G. (2007), La politica UE di sviluppo rurale: evoluzione, compiti e principi, seminario presso il Dipartimento di
Sociologia e Scienza Politica, Università della Calabria, 6-7 marzo 2007.
INEA (2004), “Politiche agricole nell’Unione Europea. Rapporto 2004-2005”.
IPRES, Italia lavoro e Collocare, (2005), Rilevazione ed analisi del fenomeno della disoccupazione di lunga durata ai fini
di implementare politiche curative, Progetto IDEA Terra di Bari.
IRS, Fondazione Zancan e CLES (2001), “Valutazione della sperimentazione dell’istituto del Reddito Minimo di
Inserimento, analisi e valutazioni tematiche della sperimentazione”, Roma, maggio.
ISTAT (2004), Statistiche in breve. La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2003, 13 ottobre 2004.
ISTAT (2007), Statistiche in breve. La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2006.
ISTAT (2006), Statistiche in breve. I consumi delle famiglie Anno 2005, 28 luglio 2006.
ISTAT (2006), Statistiche in breve. I consumi delle famiglie Anno 2006, 5 luglio 2007.
ISTAT, (2006), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2005, Statistiche in breve.
ISTAT, (2007), La povertà relativa in Italia nel 2005, Statistiche in breve.
ISTAT, (2006), Reddito e condizioni di vita. Indagine sulle condizioni di vita-Anno 2004.
ISTAT, (17 gennaio 2008), Reddito e condizioni di vita. Indagine sulle condizioni di vita -Anni 2005-2006.
Lucatelli, S. (2006), “Lo sviluppo dei territori rurali nel Documento Strategico Preliminare Nazionale, Continuità, discontinuità, priorità per la politica regionale 2007-2013” in Agriregionieuropa, Numero 4, Anno 2.
Lucatelli S., Monteleone A., “Valutazione e Sviluppo delle Aree Rurali: un approccio integrato nella valutazione delle
236
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Politiche di Sviluppo”, Materiali UVAL, n.7, 2005.
Lucatelli, S., Raimondo, L., (2007), “La politica regionale e i territori rurali: il Quadro Strategico Nazionale 2007-2013”,
In Agriregionieuropa, Numero 8, Anno 3.
Lucatelli, S.; Savastano, S. and Coccia, M.; (2006), Health and Social Services in Rural Umbria, in Materiali UVAL,
n°12; Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze – Dipartimento per le Politiche di Sviluppo; Unità di Valutazione degli
Investimenti Pubblici
Mantino, F. (2006), “Il futuro dello sviluppo rurale in Italia nel periodo di programmazione 2007-2013”, In
Agriregionieuropa, Numero 4, Anno 2.
Mantino, F. (2006), “Quali risorse per la programmazione regionale 2007-2013 dello sviluppo rurale?”, In
Agriregionieuropa, Numero 6, Anno 2.
Ministero dell’Economia (2006), “Aggiornamento valutazione intermedia del quadro comunitario di sostegno, Obiettivo
1, Italia 2000-2006” Dipartimento delle politiche per lo sviluppo,.
Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali (2003), Piano di azione nazionale contro la povertà e l’esclusione sociale
2003-2005.
Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali (2005), Rapporto di Monitoraggio del Piano d’Azione Nazionale per
l’Inclusione Sociale 2003-2005.
Ministero del Lavoro e della previdenza sociale, Ministero della Solidarietà sociale, Ministero della Salute, (2006),
Rapporto nazionale sulle strategie per la protezione sociale e l’inclusione sociale 2006-2008, Novembre 2006.
Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (2006), Piano Strategico Nazionale per lo Sviluppo Rurale, dicembre 2006.
Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico- Dipartimento per le Politiche di Sviluppo e di Coesione (2007), Quadro Strategico
Nazionale per la politica regionale di sviluppo 2007-2013, marzo 2007.
Monteleone, A., Storti, D., (2004), “Rural development policy in Italy after agenda 2000: first results for the period 20002003”, paper presented at 87th seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, assessing rural development
policies of the CAP, Vienna, April 21st -24th 2004.
OECD (2006), “Rural Policy Reviews. The New Rural Paradigm policies and Governance”.
Paolini, F. (2003), “Reddito minimo d’inserimento. L’esperienza può dirsi conclusa”, Redattore sociale.
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri- Dipartimento per le Politiche Comunitarie (2005), PICO- Piano per l’Innovazione,
la Crescita e l’Occupazione, Roma, 14 ottobre 2005.
Pupo D’Andrea, M. (2006), “Il punto sulla PAC”, in Agriregionieuropa Numero 4, Anno 2.
Pupo D’Andrea, M. (2006), “Finestra sulla PAC n.3”, in Agriregionieuropa Numero 6, Anno 2.
Pupo D’Andrea, M. (2006), “Finestra sulla PAC n.4”, in Agriregionieuropa Numero 7, Anno 2.
Pupo D’Andrea, M. (2007), “Finestra sulla PAC n.5”, in Agriregionieuropa Numero 8, Anno 3.
Pupo D’Andrea, M. (2007), “Finestra sulla PAC n.6”, in Agriregionieuropa Numero 9, Anno 3.
Rovati G. (2004), “Misurare la povertà e l’esclusione sociale: problemi e proposte”, relazione al Convegno Misure della
povertà e politiche per l’inclusione sociale, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore 19 – 20 novembre 2004, Roma.
Saraceno, C. (2003), “Una bolla di sapone chiamata RUI”, www.lavoce.info, 16.03.04.
Sivini G. (2006), “Occorre una nuova politica agricola per lo sviluppo rurale locale”, in Cavazzani A., Gaudio P., Sivini
S., eds, Politiche, governance e innovazione per le aree rurali, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2006, pp. 81-96.
Solustri, A., Finocchio, R. (2006), “La politica comunitaria a favore delle aree svantaggiate nella programmazione 20002006”. In Agriregionieuropa, Numero 7, Anno 2.
Storti D. (2000), “Tipologie di Aree Rurali in Italia”, INEA, Roma
Villa, P. (2006), “National expert assessment of the gender perspective in the National Report on Strategies for Social
Protection and Social Inclusion, 2006 – the Italian National Report”, Department of Economics, University of Trento.
Zumpano, C., (2007), “L’approccio integrato nelle politiche di sviluppo rurale: strumenti e modalità di attuazione” In
Agriregionieuropa, Numero 9, Anno 3.
237
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
Annex - Example of Good Practices
238
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
239
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
240
Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas - Final report Annex I - Country Studies
ITALY
241

RURAL/ITER

International Academy of cheese making art

Concistoro per il voto su due Cause di Canonizzazione e per la

eng - Università degli Studi di Pavia

Brochure - ENERGREEN

Preliminary Programme

Consulta il programma - AIIG Emilia Romagna

アグリツーリズモに関する日本語・外国語文献

ANNEX LA RINASCENTE APRE IL 3 DICEMBRE IN VIA SANTA

Popolazione e sviluppo - Dipartimento Metodi e modelli per l