Consensus-Building
#27Key Findings
Italy falls into the bottom ranks internationally (rank 27) with regard to consensus-building.
The country lacks a strong tradition of regular consultation with nongovernmental scientists. Advice is provided by a small group of partisan experts chosen by the prime minister and ministers, while independent experts are rarely consulted transparently.
The relationship between the government and capital and labor representatives has deteriorated over the years. Trade unions and major manufacturers are only sporadically involved in policymaking. Social welfare and environmental CSOs have more influence at the local and regional levels than at the national level.
The government does not have a comprehensive policy for making information accessible to citizens in a way that facilitates accountability. There is no comprehensive data governance framework, and existing data portals are not designed for interactive feedback or communication with the public.
The country lacks a strong tradition of regular consultation with nongovernmental scientists. Advice is provided by a small group of partisan experts chosen by the prime minister and ministers, while independent experts are rarely consulted transparently.
The relationship between the government and capital and labor representatives has deteriorated over the years. Trade unions and major manufacturers are only sporadically involved in policymaking. Social welfare and environmental CSOs have more influence at the local and regional levels than at the national level.
The government does not have a comprehensive policy for making information accessible to citizens in a way that facilitates accountability. There is no comprehensive data governance framework, and existing data portals are not designed for interactive feedback or communication with the public.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is the government successful in effectively harnessing the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes?
10
9
9
The government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government is able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
5
4
3
4
3
Only rarely is the government able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
2
1
1
The government is not able to harness the best available scientific knowledge for policymaking purposes.
As in every advanced country, governments in Italy have access to a vast stock of scientific knowledge that can be utilized in the decision-making process. However, the way this knowledge is accessed and processed by policymakers determines its potential impact. In Italy, the recurrent politicization of advice, ad hoc searches for scientific knowledge, and the use of such knowledge mainly to legitimize political choices rather than to design them are common issues.
Firstly, there is no strong tradition of regular government consultation with non-governmental scientists in Italy. Typically, a small group of partisan experts, selected by the prime minister and other ministers, provides frequent strategic and technical advice. Independent experts are rarely consulted transparently, and there has been no institutionalization of an open and transparent consultation process for major legislative proposals. In the ministries of finance, culture, and labor, the role of external experts is more firmly established, but even here, independent academic experts are involved only on a short-term basis for specific tasks like spending reviews.
Against this traditional practice, the Draghi government gave impartial experts a prominent role by assigning them to four key ministries: environmental transition, infrastructure, technological innovation and digital transition, and universities and research. However, the Meloni government has revived the pre-Draghi model, returning to the practice of partisan appointments. Furthermore, the Meloni government developed some of its most important policy proposals – such as the bill on differentiated autonomy and the proposal for constitutional reform – without appointing a committee of experts, instead interacting only with those experts who share the government’s policy objectives.
Interaction with public research institutes is highly contingent and based on ad hoc requests, as shown by a recent study. There are no established projects for systematic cooperation between the government and academic institutions.
Overall, the system of policy advice in Italy, with the exception of the Draghi government, is still not very inclusive and relies primarily on bureaucratic expertise combined with partisan advisers. The academic community has consistently provided strong and detailed criticism. This was evident in the response to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) designed by the Draghi government, with many scholars highlighting that it was too ambitious, too centralized, and ill-equipped to address implementation problems. Similarly, during the first year of the Meloni government, the most important policy decisions faced strong criticism based on the existing body of scientific knowledge.
Citations:
- Galanti, M. T., and Lippi, A. 2023. “Government Research Institutes in the Italian Policy Advisory System.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 89 (3): 791-807.
Hadorn, S., Sager, F., and Mavrot, C. 2022. “Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63: 359-382.
Firstly, there is no strong tradition of regular government consultation with non-governmental scientists in Italy. Typically, a small group of partisan experts, selected by the prime minister and other ministers, provides frequent strategic and technical advice. Independent experts are rarely consulted transparently, and there has been no institutionalization of an open and transparent consultation process for major legislative proposals. In the ministries of finance, culture, and labor, the role of external experts is more firmly established, but even here, independent academic experts are involved only on a short-term basis for specific tasks like spending reviews.
Against this traditional practice, the Draghi government gave impartial experts a prominent role by assigning them to four key ministries: environmental transition, infrastructure, technological innovation and digital transition, and universities and research. However, the Meloni government has revived the pre-Draghi model, returning to the practice of partisan appointments. Furthermore, the Meloni government developed some of its most important policy proposals – such as the bill on differentiated autonomy and the proposal for constitutional reform – without appointing a committee of experts, instead interacting only with those experts who share the government’s policy objectives.
Interaction with public research institutes is highly contingent and based on ad hoc requests, as shown by a recent study. There are no established projects for systematic cooperation between the government and academic institutions.
Overall, the system of policy advice in Italy, with the exception of the Draghi government, is still not very inclusive and relies primarily on bureaucratic expertise combined with partisan advisers. The academic community has consistently provided strong and detailed criticism. This was evident in the response to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) designed by the Draghi government, with many scholars highlighting that it was too ambitious, too centralized, and ill-equipped to address implementation problems. Similarly, during the first year of the Meloni government, the most important policy decisions faced strong criticism based on the existing body of scientific knowledge.
Citations:
- Galanti, M. T., and Lippi, A. 2023. “Government Research Institutes in the Italian Policy Advisory System.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 89 (3): 791-807.
Hadorn, S., Sager, F., and Mavrot, C. 2022. “Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63: 359-382.
Graph View
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of trade unions and business organizations in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve trade unions and business organizations in policy development.
As in other European countries, and perhaps more so in Italy, the relationship between the government and the representatives of capital and labor has deteriorated over time. Italy has experienced significant political disintermediation, meaning the government has only sporadically involved the main trade unions and the associations representing the primary manufacturers in the policymaking process. This trend has been evident under both the Draghi and Meloni governments.
The Draghi government held some consultations with major unions on tax and pension policies, but their impact on final policy decisions in these areas was minimal. Similarly, Meloni has consulted both sides in a very ritualistic manner. Notably, both the main unions and the primary manufacturers’ association were highly critical of the budget law passed under the Draghi government for 2022, as well as the two budget laws passed under the Meloni government for 2023 and 2024.
In recent years, a trend has emerged characterized by a significant lack of consideration for the main demands of capital and labor. The Meloni government has focused more on approving segmented policies with clear beneficiaries, such as pensioners, employees, the self-employed, and other micro-interests.
The Draghi government held some consultations with major unions on tax and pension policies, but their impact on final policy decisions in these areas was minimal. Similarly, Meloni has consulted both sides in a very ritualistic manner. Notably, both the main unions and the primary manufacturers’ association were highly critical of the budget law passed under the Draghi government for 2022, as well as the two budget laws passed under the Meloni government for 2023 and 2024.
In recent years, a trend has emerged characterized by a significant lack of consideration for the main demands of capital and labor. The Meloni government has focused more on approving segmented policies with clear beneficiaries, such as pensioners, employees, the self-employed, and other micro-interests.
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading social welfare CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading social welfare CSOs in policy development.
Italian legislation (Legislative Decree 117/2017) mandates that public administrations ensure the active involvement of third-sector entities to uphold the principles of subsidiarity, cooperation, effectiveness, efficiency, economy, homogeneity, and financial and asset coverage. This involvement should be incorporated through co-programming, co-planning, and co-signing as public administrations exercise their planning and organizational functions at the territorial level.
The third sector in Italy comprises 375,000 institutions, including associations, foundations, and social cooperatives – an increase of 25% compared to 10 years ago. The production value of the third sector is estimated at €80 billion, representing almost 5% of the gross domestic product. There are more than 900,000 employees, 70% of whom are women, and 4 million volunteers.
Eighty-five percent of third-sector institutions are associations; the remaining 15% are social cooperatives, foundations, trade unions, or organizations. Two-thirds of nonprofit organizations (65%) are active in culture, sport, and recreation, followed by social welfare and civil protection (9%), trade unions and business (6%), religion (5%), education and research (4%), and health (4%).
The involvement of social welfare CSOs takes place mainly at the regional and local levels, as welfare services are attributed to the regions and municipalities. The national level is less involved. Available data show that at the regional and local levels, especially in North-Central Italy, the involvement of CSOs in the provision of social services is significant and extensive.
Thus, interactions between governments and CSOs are deep and stable at the subnational level. At the central level, however, they are weak, except for the role the Ministry of Labor plays in addressing and promoting third-sector activities and in planning, developing, and implementing initiatives related to EU Structural Funds for integrating social and active labor policies.
Citations:
Natoli, G., and A. Turchini, eds. 2023. L’offerta di servizi sociali del Terzo settore. IV Indagine sui servizi sociali realizzati dal non profit. Roma: Inapp. https://oa.inapp.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.12916/3924
Fondazione Sussidiarietà. 2022. Rapporto Sussidiarietà e… sviluppo sociale. Milano. https://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/rapp/rapporto_sussidiarieta__21-22.pdf
The third sector in Italy comprises 375,000 institutions, including associations, foundations, and social cooperatives – an increase of 25% compared to 10 years ago. The production value of the third sector is estimated at €80 billion, representing almost 5% of the gross domestic product. There are more than 900,000 employees, 70% of whom are women, and 4 million volunteers.
Eighty-five percent of third-sector institutions are associations; the remaining 15% are social cooperatives, foundations, trade unions, or organizations. Two-thirds of nonprofit organizations (65%) are active in culture, sport, and recreation, followed by social welfare and civil protection (9%), trade unions and business (6%), religion (5%), education and research (4%), and health (4%).
The involvement of social welfare CSOs takes place mainly at the regional and local levels, as welfare services are attributed to the regions and municipalities. The national level is less involved. Available data show that at the regional and local levels, especially in North-Central Italy, the involvement of CSOs in the provision of social services is significant and extensive.
Thus, interactions between governments and CSOs are deep and stable at the subnational level. At the central level, however, they are weak, except for the role the Ministry of Labor plays in addressing and promoting third-sector activities and in planning, developing, and implementing initiatives related to EU Structural Funds for integrating social and active labor policies.
Citations:
Natoli, G., and A. Turchini, eds. 2023. L’offerta di servizi sociali del Terzo settore. IV Indagine sui servizi sociali realizzati dal non profit. Roma: Inapp. https://oa.inapp.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.12916/3924
Fondazione Sussidiarietà. 2022. Rapporto Sussidiarietà e… sviluppo sociale. Milano. https://www.astrid-online.it/static/upload/rapp/rapporto_sussidiarieta__21-22.pdf
To what extent does the government facilitate the participation of leading environmental CSOs in policymaking?
10
9
9
The government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government is able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
5
4
3
4
3
The government is rarely able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
2
1
1
The government is not able to effectively involve leading environmental CSOs in policy development.
In Italy, 81 CSOs are legally recognized in the environmental field, many of which receive public funding. These organizations are recognized as political actors and should be consulted at both national and regional levels when decisions on environmental issues are made. However, consultation at the national level is often primarily ritualistic, and their political positions are not systematically incorporated into government policies. This is evident from the strong disagreement expressed by the three most important CSOs – Legambiente, WWF Italia, and Greenpeace Italia – with the environmental policies of both the Draghi and Meloni governments. The capacity of environmental CSOs to influence policies and decisions is generally greater at the regional and local levels, though this depends significantly on the political alignment of the local government.
Citations:
for the positions critical of the last governments of the major environmentalist CSOs see:
https://greenreport.it/
https://www.greenpeace.org/italy/
https://www.legambiente.it/
Citations:
for the positions critical of the last governments of the major environmentalist CSOs see:
https://greenreport.it/
https://www.greenpeace.org/italy/
https://www.legambiente.it/
Graph View
To what extent does the government publish data and information that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable?
10
9
9
The government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the government publishes data and information in a manner that empowers citizens to hold the government accountable.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely publishes data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens to hold the government accountable.
2
1
1
The government does not publish data and information in a manner that strengthens citizens’ capacity to hold the government accountable.
The government lacks a systematic and comprehensive policy for making information easily accessible to citizens in a way that enables them to hold the government accountable. While the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and various ministries maintain websites that publish information about government activities, this information often consists of sequences of events, such as ministerial meetings and press conferences, rather than data-rich documentation. Consequently, there is no comprehensive data governance framework, and the data portals are not designed as interactive feedback and communication tools.
Italy is a member of the Open Government Partnership, which implements two-year action plans aimed at increasing government openness at all institutional levels. However, at the central level, only a few ministries provide reliable data on certain policy dimensions. For example, comprehensive data on health policy is available on the Ministry of Health and Agenas websites (a national advisory and monitoring body). Good statistics are also available on education, higher education, and public employment. The National Institute of Statistics provides the most relevant data on socioeconomic and political dimensions.
Despite these efforts, there is no systematic strategy, and there is a clear lack of integration between institutional data sets. Integrating databases requires a certain quality of the data, but the databases managed by public authorities over the years do not always meet the desired quality standards. Reasons for this include a lack of control over the data and inadequate application tools, leading to a situation that now requires significant time and resources to recover and enhance the data to the required quality level.
Overall, Italy’s open government strategy remains weak. Even the biennial action plans – formal tools for implementing government openness – are designed in a way that, according to independent evaluators like the Independent Report Mechanism of the Open Government Partnership, can only produce modest results even if fully implemented (see the evaluation of the 2021–2023 action plan cited in the references).
Citations:
Independent Reporting Mechanism Action Plan Review: Italy 2021 - 2023. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Italy_Action-Plan-Review_2021-2023_EN_for-public-comment.pdf
Italy is a member of the Open Government Partnership, which implements two-year action plans aimed at increasing government openness at all institutional levels. However, at the central level, only a few ministries provide reliable data on certain policy dimensions. For example, comprehensive data on health policy is available on the Ministry of Health and Agenas websites (a national advisory and monitoring body). Good statistics are also available on education, higher education, and public employment. The National Institute of Statistics provides the most relevant data on socioeconomic and political dimensions.
Despite these efforts, there is no systematic strategy, and there is a clear lack of integration between institutional data sets. Integrating databases requires a certain quality of the data, but the databases managed by public authorities over the years do not always meet the desired quality standards. Reasons for this include a lack of control over the data and inadequate application tools, leading to a situation that now requires significant time and resources to recover and enhance the data to the required quality level.
Overall, Italy’s open government strategy remains weak. Even the biennial action plans – formal tools for implementing government openness – are designed in a way that, according to independent evaluators like the Independent Report Mechanism of the Open Government Partnership, can only produce modest results even if fully implemented (see the evaluation of the 2021–2023 action plan cited in the references).
Citations:
Independent Reporting Mechanism Action Plan Review: Italy 2021 - 2023. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Italy_Action-Plan-Review_2021-2023_EN_for-public-comment.pdf