The importance of being a Unesco World Heritage Site

Few days ago, Italy got another Unesco World Heritage Site, the area of Langhe-Roero and Monferrato, famous all over the world for its vineyard.

A UNESCO Site is a place recognized as of special cultural or physical significance. The criteria to be able to become a Site are defined in a Convention adopted by UN in 1972. The main element to identify a Site is the uniqueness it represents for human history or natural phenomena.

From 1972, there have been created 981 World Heritage Sites, located in 160 different Countries, the most part in Europe and North America. Following the top 10 list of the Countries with most number of Sites:

  1)   Italy - 50 
  2)   China - 47
  3)   Spain - 44
  4)   Germany - 39
  5)   France  - 39
  6)   Mexico - 32
  7)   India - 32
  8)   Uk - 28
  9)   Russia - 26
10)   US - 22

Considering the long procedure to became a Unesco Site (for instance, the candidature of Langhe-Roero began 10 years ago), why is it so important to enter in the Unesco List? Are there real benefit of being a World Heritage Site?

First, when a place becomes part of World Heritage it can have more easily access to National and International Founds. Then, a new Site can increase the number of tourists. From the other side, the prestigious given by being part of Unesco List involves also keeping in a good status the Site itself. This requires further investments and a system of control for the site.

The influence of "UNESCO Brand" is difficult to calculate. Some surveys have estimated that it can touch the 30% of tourists. But there are other elements that influence the tourism of a specific place, from marketing to the accessibility. Moreover, most of the sites were already touristic centers and in some cases the Unesco recognition didn't affect visitors inflow. 

Finally, it seems important to point out that the World Heritage List has been often criticized. From one site, there is a distortion in the number of sites: 496 out of 962 are from North America and Europe, the richest part of the world. Furthermore, the number itself of the sites has raised quickly in the last decades, and the designation has lost part of its uniqueness. The debate to reform the system is still open and regards both the improvement of the criteria to indentify a site, and also the number of the sites can be in the list each year. But for the moment nothing really seems to change.

Read More

Is it worth hosting a major sporting event?

Few days ago the 2014 World Cup has began in Sao Paolo in Brazil. It is estimated that the economical effort to build all the infrastructures for Word Cup and Olympic Games (that will take place again in Sao Paolo in 2016) will touch the amount of 33 billion US Dollars (24 bl Euros).

Such an expense for the organization of a sporting event is creating many protests from the population. Brazil is a country with wide economical disparities, an high crime rate and a large part of the population  (15%) under the poverty threshold.

Many Brazilians think that such a big amount of money should have been used to solve those problems and not for a sporting event. A recent poll has showed that just 35% of people think that World Cup can have a positive effect on the national economy.

So it is spontaneous wondering if hosting a major sporting event can be an economic advantage or a loss. To answer we can take a look at the history of past International Sport Events.

Just few years ago, for example, the State of Canada has run out the debit for the Olympic Games of Montreal, that took place in 1976. Athens 2004 was a fantastic show, but its cost, around 10 billion Euros, have speeded up the collapse of the economy. 

A research has estimated that for the London Olympic games in 2013 there have been an immediate retuns of 800 million Euros, 5 billion will come back before the end of 2015 with a 0.3-0.4% of GDP growth rate. Considering that the total cost have touched the 10 billion Euros, there will be probably many years to refund the debit. 

Barcelona 1992, instead, was a fantastic opportunity for the renovation of the imagine of the city, that has become one of the most attractive touristic city in the world. Also Turin has changed its international image after the XX Winter Olympic Games in 2006, at the price of 3 billion Euros. 

Panoramic of the costs of the most recent Olympic Games (www.tradingfloor.com)

It seems that hosting sportive events is not always a good investment. The returns are not enougth  to cover the costs, or they can do it on a very long period (30 years for Montreal...). Moreover, the structures built for those kinds of events are often not reutilezed anymore. It is, once again, the case of Athens, where the beautiful Olympic park has been left to the decay. 

Maybe, it is the moment to rethink to the organization of major sporting events, from one side to preserve the tradition and to the other to face to the current economic situation, unless we want to see these events taking place just in Dubai or similar places.

Read More

Monarchy or Republic?

The flag of the Kingdom of Spain

Few days ago, King Juan Carlos of Spain, has announced his unexpected abdication.

In Spain this decision has fired up a wide debate about the opportunity to move to a Republican State, especially in a such a difficult moment for the Country, deeply touched by the economic crisis (the unemployment rate is the worst in Europe at 25%, 54% for young people).

But how much do Monarchies cost in Europe?

A reaserch of Prof. Herman Matthjis from the University of Ghent has analyzed the costs of the Royal Families. The most expensive Monarchy is Norway: 42 million euro per year, followed by The Netherlands and UK (38 million), Sweden (15), Belgium and Denmark (13), finally Spain (8). If we consider cost per capita, Spanish pay just 0,17 euro to the King, instead of 1 euro for Belgians and 5 euros for Norwegians.

Republican countries spend much more for their Head of State. The President of France has a budget of 112 million euro each year, but he has also other functions, not just representative. The President of the Italian Republic costs the record amount of 228 million euro. At the opposite pole, the President of Germany has "just" 20 million euro.

Monarchies in the World (in red)

If we evaluate just the costs, Monarchy seems quite better than Republic. But there is a strong main argument against Monarchy: the fact that someone, just because son or daughter of the King/Queen, can become King/Queen him/herself, represents a violation of the most important principle of democracy, the equality between the citizens of a State.

Anyway, arguments in favor of Monarchy or Republic are various. More than the institutions, we should evaluate each person at the head of a State. In some cases Kings have been important as guarantee of democracy and unity of a Country, such as Juan Carlos after the Franco dictatorship, or Albert II against the secessionist forces that crossed Belgium in the last years. In others, like in Italy during the fascism, Monarchy didn't support democracy and didn't contribute to the stability of the Country (in fact Italians voted for Republic in a referendum in 1946).

In conclusion, it can be sharable to say that the reputation of Monarchy depends mainly by how Monarchs can use their power and by how much they respect their people.

Read More

Can the Italian Democratic Party be a new model for European Socialists?

The last European Elections has largely confirmed the previsions: Eurosceptics have got many votes and the abstaining has touched another record.

The only surprise of these Elections has been Italy. The Democratic Party (Partito Democratico PD), leaded by Matteo Renzi, has won the European Elections 2014 with the 40% of votes, +13% in comparison with the result of the National Political Election in 2013. This is the best result ever got by the PD since it was born in 2007.

The victory has two main causes. First, the other competitors have done mistakes in the electoral campaign (the case of Movimento 5 Stelle) or have had a too weak leadership (the case of Berlusconi's Party Forza Italia).

Second and most important element to comprehend this victory is the charismatic figure of Matteo Renzi. The former Major of Florence has conquered PD in December 2013, becoming Party Secretary. In a couple of months, following the contrasts with the Former Prime Minister Enrico Letta (PD member himself), Renzi finally became Head of the Government.

Renzi's political view followed two main guidelines: from one hand, he proposed the turnover of the political leadership and a strong reduction of the costs of politics. From the other, he never put in discussion the participation of Italy in the European Union and the respect of the Institutions. In this way, he could compete with other more populist political forces during the electoral campaign, but at the same time, he could keep an strong appeal to the more traditional part of the electorate.

Considering the advance of Eurosceptics in the last elections, can we consider PD as a new model for European social-democratic Parties, many of them in a huge crisis?

Of course, each Country is different. But two considerations can be done: first, the most part of Europeans are still favorable to Eu integration. On the long period, attacking the Union could become a boomerang. Second, changing of leadership should be probably one of the most important topic to face by many Parties that lost the European elections. Nevertheless, changes must be also substantial.

Finally, it is possible that this time Italy will be able to show a positive example for European Partners. We will see in the next months, especially during the Italian Eu Presidency Semester.

Read More