echi da villa d’este · 2000 2011 2020 15 source: the european house - ambrosetti, observatory on...

Brussels, September 20, 2013

Echi da Villa d’Este

Valerio De Molli

M i P t Th E H A b ttiManaging Partner, The European House - Ambrosetti

© 2013 The European House - Ambrosetti S.p.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This document is property of TEH-A. It may not bereproduced, memorized for storage in an electronic data base or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or other), in whole or in part, without the express written consent of TEH-A.


I dIndexIntelligence on the World, Europe and Italy(macrostructure of the program)(macrostructure of the program)

A Way Out Does Exist!

The Agenda for EuropeThe Agenda for Europe

EU Manufacturing and 4 competitiveness driversFinancial SystemInnovationRegulatory environmentEntrepreneurship

European Best Performers in Times of Crisis

The Observatory on Europe EU-27 Competitiveness Index

The Agenda for Italy

Doing Business in Italy: a difficult match or a well of opportunities? (anticipation of De Molli’s speech at the Tech Crunch event)

2

(anticipation of De Molli’s speech at the Tech Crunch event)


AAnnexes

Intelligence On The World, Europe, and Italy – Program

European Best Performers in Times of Crisis – Complete study

The «Observatory on Europe» initiative – Think tank concept, y p p

methodological approach and deliverables

Ob t E 2013 B i L d SObservatory on Europe 2013 Business Leaders Survey

3


M th d l i l tMethodological note

The following contents have been extracted from various sources:

□ Welcoming remarks by Valerio De Molli at Villa d’Este Forum g y(September, 6-8 2013)

□ Interventions and presentations by Villa d’Este Forum’s key-note speakers

□ Observatory on Europe 2013 Report

□ Observatory on Europe 2013 Business Leaders Survey

□ Valerio De Molli’s speech at the upcoming Tech Crunch event (Rome, September 26 2013)

4










5



P f th Vill d’E t F *Program of the Villa d’Este Forum*

FRIDAY, Sept. 6 2013 SATURDAY, Sept. 7 2013 SUNDAY, Sept. 8 2013

WORLD

The Economic Outlook

EUROPE

Challenges and Priorities for Europe

ITALY

New media and the

Fast-Growing Economies and New Political and Economic Balances

Europe, the Way Forward Balancing Austerity with

GrowthTh St t f th E

New media and the politics of the future

Education, innovation, research, andEconomic Balances

Today the World of Tomorrow - Scientific Developments

The State of the Eurozone European Best Performers

in Times of Crisis

R t i E ’

research, and technology for Italy’s future

EconomyDevelopments

Technology and Innovation as Drivers for Growth

Restoring Europe’s competitiveness and growth Manufacturing for Re-

Constitutional reforms

Justice and Security

Speech by Italian PrimeGrowth

Geopolitical Risks of the Syrian Crisis

Manufacturing for Relaunching Growth

Labor as a Driver for CompetitivenessTh E Ch ll

Speech by Italian Prime Minister

6* The complete program is enclosed in the annexes

The Energy Challenge










7



W i th id t f d li t d f il hi t i lWe are in the midst of an delicate and fragile historical nexus

The unemployed in Europe are currently 25 million

Between 2008 and 2012, European manufacturing lost 3.4 million jobsj

Only 37% of European citizens are willing to be self-employedemployed

We need:We need: an immediate and broad-ranging cultural change to recognise entrepreneurs as a driving force in to recognise entrepreneurs as a driving force in

the economy of the 21st century

8


B t h t th bi th f t hi ?But how we can guarantee the birth of a new entrepreneurship?

We see t least two lines of action:

The educational challenge: the education from very young age can develop within young people attitudes and y g g p y g p pentrepreneurial aspirations

The eco-system challenge: it is necessary recreate an The eco system challenge: it is necessary recreate an environment in which new companies can be born, grow and develop

We need reforms that are unequivocally pro-business in e eed e o s t at a e u equ oca y p o bus esswhich entrepreneurship is the major asset to be unleashed and capitalized upon

9










10



Th A d f EThe Agenda for Europe

Financial System

Manufacturing competitiveness InnovationRegulatory

Environment

11

Entrepreneurship


Th i i h l ff t d th EU’ f t i tThe crisis has severely affected the EU’s manufacturing sector…Industrial production index (excluding construction)

2005=100

110

1152005=100

∆2008-2012 %

95

100

105 -2.8%

-12.8%

85

90

95

-21.0%

70

75

80

70

Q1-

2000

Q2-

2000

Q3-

2000

Q4-

2000

Q1-

2001

Q2-

2001

Q3-

2001

Q4-

2001

Q1-

2002

Q2-

2002

Q3-

2002

Q4-

2002

Q1-

2003

Q2-

2003

Q3-

2003

Q4-

2003

Q1-

2004

Q2-

2004

Q3-

2004

Q4-

2004

Q1-

2005

Q2-

2005

Q3-

2005

Q4-

2005

Q1-

2006

Q2-

2006

Q3-

2006

Q4-

2006

Q1-

2007

Q2-

2007

Q3-

2007

Q4-

2007

Q1-

2008

Q2-

2008

Q3-

2008

Q4-

2008

Q1-

2009

Q2-

2009

Q3-

2009

Q4-

2009

Q1-

2010

Q2-

2010

Q3-

2010

Q4-

2010

Q1-

2011

Q2-

2011

Q3-

2011

Q4-

2011

Q1-

2012

Q2-

2012

Q3-

2012

Q4-

2012

Japan US EU27

12

Japan US EU27

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on OECD data, 2013


l i i t th i t... also in comparison to other economic sectors …Value added per sector in EU-27

2008=1002008=100

101

103

Public sector (+0.7%)

97

99

93

95 Services* (-4.5%)

Construction (-7.1%)

87

89

91

Agriculture (-11.6%)

M f t i ( 12 1%)

85

87

2008 2009 2010 2011

Manufacturing (-12.1%)

13(*) excluding financial and insurance services

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat data, 2013


lti i t i t l t… resulting in a strong impact on employmentEmployment in manufacturing, EU-27

% change 2008-12% change 2008-12

EU-15* New Member States

-15,1%

-17,3%

-20,7%

-23,5%

-28,1%

Portugal

Ireland

Denmark

Spain

Greece

-15,1%

-16,7%

-22,8%

-23,4%

Cyprus

Slovenia

Lithuania

Latvia

9 5%

-10,2%

-10,4%

-11,6%

-11,6%

,

EU 15

Italy

France

Sweden

Finland

-11,2%

-12,8%

-13,9%

-14,0%

Slovakia

New MS

Romania

Estonia

-2,7%

-6,4%

-9,5%

-9,5%

-9,5%

Austria

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Belgium

EU-15

-4,7%

-7,0%

-9,6%

-10,3%

Hungary

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Poland

Over 3.6 million jobs lost between 2008 and 2012

(*) excluding Luxembourg

-1,2% Germany -4,7% Malta

14

j



Th i ht f EU f t i i d li iThe weight of EU manufacturing is declining …

Added Value of the Manufacturing sector in the EU-27,

20.0%

g ,Share of total VA (%)

18.5%

0 0%

-2.9p p

+4.4 p.p.

15.6%p.p.

EUTarget

2000 2011 2020

15Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat data, 2013


d i i ifi tl MS… and varies significantly among MSs

Added Value of the Manufacturing sector, Sh f t t l VA (%) 2011Share of total VA (%), 2011

29.6

4.0 9 6

24 22.9

22.6

21.7

21.1

20.6

20.3

19.5

18.7

17.4

17.3

17.2

16.8

16.3

15.6

.1 .0 8 5 2 9114 14

.13

.13

.513

.212

.912

.510

.910

.810

.29.

26.

96.

16 6

Chi

nach

Rep

ublic

Hun

gary

Ger

man

yIr

elan

dSl

ovak

iaLi

thua

nia

Slov

enia

Japa

nAu

stria

Pola

ndEs

toni

aFi

nlan

dSw

eden

Ital

yEU

-27

Latv

iaPo

rtug

alBe

lgiu

mSp

ain

US

ethe

rland

sM

alta

d Ki

ngdo

mD

enm

ark

Fran

ceG

reec

eux

embo

urg

Cypr

us

16

Czec N

Uni

ted

Lu

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat and World Bank data, 2013


Wh t d th 20% t t i l ?What does the 20% target imply?

Added Value of the ManufacturingAdded Value of the Manufacturing sector in the EU-27,

Billions of euro and share of total VA (%) The current manufacturing VA in

Ge man + Ital2,550

CAGR4.2

Additional 792 billions of euro =

Germany + Italy

1,7584.2

20%

billions of euro needed by 2020

=

14.5 millions

15.6% additional jobs at the current

productivity level

2011 2020

Elaborations on IMF GDP estimates

17

Elaborations on IMF GDP estimates

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, estimates on Eurostat and IMF data, 2013


O f th i k i th i f t i d ti itOne of the main weakness is the gap in manufacturing productivityLabour Productivity in manufacturing, 2010

Gross value added/employee (USD) selected countries

32,4

49

140 000

160,000

Gross value added/employee (USD), selected countries

13

82,0

45

5

100,000

120,000

140,000

D

58,0

2

40,000

60,000

80,000US

D

0

20,000

,

nd

US an um ria ds nd ny ce nd 5* rk UK

ain

aly ce nia

p.

nia

Irel

an

U

Japa

Bel

giu

Aus

tr

Net

herlan

d

Finl

an

Ger

man

Fran

c

Pola

n

EU B

ig 5

Den

ma U

Spa

Ita

Gre

e

Slov

en

Slov

ak R

ep

Esto

n

18

(*) France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK



Fi i l S tFinancial System

Financial System


Environment

19

Entrepreneurship


EU i hi hl d d t f th b ki tEU is highly dependent from the banking sector

Structure of the financial sector in the US and in EU MSs: i ht i t t l t 2011weight in total assets, 2011

80%90%

100%

40%50%60%70%80%

0%10%20%30%40%

US

embo

urg

herla

nds

Irel

and

Swed

enKi

ngdo

mFr

ance

Belg

ium

Ger

man

yPo

land

Den

mar

kFi

nlan

dSl

ovak

iaAu

stria

Hun

gary

Mal

taIt

aly

Slov

enia

Port

ugal

Spai

nRep

ublic

Esto

nia

Bulg

aria

ithua

nia

Cypr

usRom

ania

Gre

ece

Latv

ia

Luxe

Net

h

Uni

ted

K G D S H S P

Czec

h R B Li R

20

Insurance Corp. and Pension Funds Investment Funds Credit Institutions

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on ECB data, 2013


I tiInnovation

Financial System


Environment

21

Entrepreneurship


E ’ i ti d fi it h f t (1/2)

Gross Domestic Expenditures on R&D as a percentage of GDP (%)

Europe’s innovation deficit has many facets (1/2)

percentage of GDP (%)

4.3% 4.4%

5.0%

Israel4.0%

3.3% 3.8%

4.0%

Israel

Finland

South KoreaEU-15 best

3.0% 3.2%

2.3%

2.7%2.8%

2.0%2 0%

3.0% JapanUS

EU 27

best

1.9%

0.9%

1.8%

1.0%

2.0% EU-27China

0.6%0.6%

0.0%

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

GreeceEU-15 worst

22

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

201

201



E ’ i ti d fi it h f t (2/2)Europe’s innovation deficit has many facets (2/2)

Indicator (2011 or latest available year) EU-27 US JP EU-15 EU-15 ( y )best worst

Share of population aged 25-34 with tertiary education (%) 33.6 41.1 55.7 49.9

(IE)19.8(IT)

Tertiary graduates in science and technology (per 1.000 of population aged 20-29 years) 12.5 10.7 13.8 24.2

(FI)9.0(NL)

R h % f t t l l d (%) 0 7 1 1 1 3 1.7 0.5Researchers as a % of total employed (%) 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.7(FI)

0.5(IT)

Patents registered (per million inhabitant) 93 133 277 293(SE)

8(GR)( ) ( )

Licence and patent revenues from abroad (% GDP) 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.18

(SE)0.01(PT)

123.2 8.7Public-private joint publications (per million pop.) 36.1 69.8 56.1 123.2(DK)

8.7(PT)

23Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat data, 2013


EU T ti d ti t d t d litEU Tertiary education tends to produce average qualityrather than excellence …

Top university institutions of the 2012-2013 Times “Higher Education Ranking”

80%

47%47%

27%20%

28%

41%

25%32%

20%

Top 10 Top 100 Top 400

US EU-27 other

Top 10

24

US EU 27 other

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Times Higher Education Rankings 2013


d th i t t l b hi d i t f h… and the private sector lags behind in terms of researchers …

Researchers per sectorp%, total researchers=100, 2011

31% 27% 20%

54%37%

69% 73% 80%

77%

69% 73%

46%63%

23%

China Japan US EU Austria Portugal

Private sector Public sector EU-15 best

EU-15 worst

25

best worst



d R&D dit… and R&D expenditures

R&D expenditure by sector of performance, % GDP 2000 and 2011GDP, 2000 and 2011

0.430 05

0.07

3 50

4.00

4.50

(*) In the Chinese case, no data is

0.31 0.390.44

0.43

0 260 02

0.10 0.110.14

0.05

0.032.50

3.00

3.50

case, no data is available for Higher education and no-profit sector’s investment, the green rectangles1 20 1 26

2.01 2.02 2.23 2.44

1.351.7

2.99

0.39 0.48

0 14

0.14

0.260.010.02

1.00

1.50

2.00

green rectangles represent “other sources of R&D” as registered by the China Bureau of

0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.31 0.51

1.20 1.26

0.57

0.14

0.00

0.50

2000 2011 2000 2011 2000 2011 2000 2011 2000 2011statistics

EU-27 US Japan China* South Korea

Government institutions Private sectorHigher Education Private No-profit institutions

26

Higher Education Private No profit institutions

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on OECD and China Bureau of Statistics data, 2013


B i i ti fi d littl t f ti l th itiBusiness innovation finds little support from national authorities…

Direct government funding of business R&D and tax

0,400,45

ec go e e u d g o us ess & a d aincentives for R&D, % GDP, 2010

0.260.05

0.12

0 200,250,300,35

(*) Weighted average calculated for European available

0.14

0.290.20

0 04 0 05 0.09 0 06 0.090 03

0.15 0.17 0.09 0.090 03

0.07 0 04

0.17 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.070.12

0.030.02

0.05 0.010,050,100,150,20 p

countries

0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.030.07 0.040,00

Fran

ce US

Aust

ria

Port

ugal

Irel

and

Belg

ium

Den

mar

k

UK

herla

nds

Swed

en

Spai

n

U A

vg.*

Ger

man

y

Japa

n

Finl

and

Ital

y

A P B D

Net

h S EU G

Direct funding of Business R&D Indirect support through R&D tax incentives

27Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat and OECD data, 2013


d h l t f th t it l k t... and has low support from the venture capital market

Venture capital (Euros of Venture Capital for every 100,000 Euros of GDP), 2009

88.1

80.2

8

70.3

68.6

68.5

55.4

0.8

9.1

50 49

33.6

31.3

30.1

30.1

18.2

16.3

14.6

14.3

8.0

4.2

4.1

3.8

1.1

0.3

0

US

Swed

en

Irel

and

Bel

gium

Finl

and

Den

mar

k

Fran

ce UK

ther

land

s

Aus

tria

Ger

man

y

EU B

ig 5

Port

ugal

Spai

n

Rep

ublic

Esto

nia

Gre

ece

Ital

y

Slov

enia

embo

urg

Hun

gary

Pola

nd

28

D

Net G

Cze

ch

Luxe

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat and OECD data, 2013


R l t E i tRegulatory Environment

Financial System


Environment

29

Entrepreneurship


Th ’ h l t i t f b i iThere’s no homogeneous regulatory environment for businesses in the EU …

Business environment (0=least attractive / 100=most

100

Business environment (0=least attractive / 100=most attractive), 2013

63

51

Denmark ranks 5th in the global WB Ease of Doing

Business Index, Greece 78th

US

mar

kdo

mnl

and

eden

elan

dm

any

toni

aap

anat

via

ania

stria

tuga

lan

dsU

-27

gium

ance

enia

prus

Spai

nub

licga

ryla

ndou

rgub

licga

ria

ania

Ital

yee

ce

Den

mni

ted

Kin

gdFi

nSw

eIr

eG

erm

Est Ja La

Lith

uAus

Port

Net

herla EU

Bel

gFr

aSl

ov Cy S

ovak

Rep

uH

ung

PoLu

xem

boze

ch R

epu

Bul

gRom

IG

re

30

Un Slo Cz

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on World Bank data, 2013


b t it i l t f b t ti t b t d t th EU l l (1/2)… but it is plenty of best practices to be promoted at the EU level (1/2)Indicators EU Top Performer Value

Starting a business IRELANDProcedures (number) SLOVENIA 2( )

Time (days) BELGIUM 4Cost (% income per capita) SLOVENIA 0

Paid-in min. capital (% income per capita)BULGARIA, CYPRUS, FRANCE, GERMANY,

IRELAND,LATVIA, PORTUGAL, UNITED KINGDOM 0

Dealing with construction permits (rank) DENMARKDealing with construction permits (rank) DENMARKProcedures (number) SWEDEN 7

Time (days) FINLAND 66Cost (% income per capita) HUNGARY 5,7

Getting electricity GERMANYP d ( b ) GERMANY SWEDEN 3Procedures (number) GERMANY, SWEDEN 3

Time (days) GERMANY 17Cost (% income per capita) FINLAND 29,6

Registering property LITHUANIAProcedures (number) PORTUGAL, SWEDEN 1( ) ,

Time (days) PORTUGAL 1Cost (% income per capita) SLOVAK REPUBLIC 0

Getting credit UNITED KINGDOMStrength of legal rights index (0-10) LATVIA, UNITED KINGDOM 10

AUSTRIA GERMANY LITHUANIA POLAND UNITEDDepth of credit information index (0-6) AUSTRIA, GERMANY, LITHUANIA, POLAND, UNITED KINGDOM

6

Public registry coverage (% of adults) PORTUGAL 90,7

Private bureau coverage (% of adults)GERMANY, IRELAND, ITALY, SLOVENIA, SWEDEN,

UNITED KINGDOM 100

Protecting investors IRELAND

31

Protecting investors IRELANDExtent of disclosure index (0-10) BULGARIA, FRANCE, IRELAND, UNITED KINGDOM 10

Extent of director liability index (0-10) SLOVENIA 9Ease of shareholder suits index (0-10) IRELAND, POLAND 9

Strength of investor protection index (0-10) IRELAND 8,3


b t it i l t f b t ti t b t d t th EU l l (2/2)… but it is plenty of best practices to be promoted at the EU level (2/2)Indicators EU Top Performer Value

Paying taxes IRELANDPayments (number per year) SWEDEN 4

Time (hours per year) LUXEMBOURG 59Profit tax (%) SPAIN 1,2

Labor tax and contributions (%) DENMARK 3,6Other taxes (%) SPAIN 0,7Ot e ta es (%) S 0,

Total tax rate (% profit) LUXEMBOURG 21Trading across borders DENMARK

Documents to export (number) FRANCE 2Time to export (days) DENMARK, ESTONIA 5

Cost to export (US$ per container) FINLAND 540Cost to export (US$ per container) FINLAND 540Documents to import (number) FRANCE 2

Time to import (days) CYPRUS, DENMARK, ESTONIA 5Cost to import (US$ per container) FINLAND 620

Enforcing contracts LUXEMBOURGProcedures (number) IRELAND 21

Time (days) LITHUANIA 275Cost (% of claim) LUXEMBOURG 9,7

Resolving insolvency FINLANDTime (years) IRELAND 0,4Time (years) IRELAND 0,4

Cost (% of estate) BELGIUM, DENMARK, FINLAND, NETHERLANDS, SLOVENIA

4

Outcome (0as piecemeal sale and 1 as going

AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, FINLAND, GERMANY, IRELAND, ITALY,

LATVIA NETHERLANDS POLAND PORTUGAL 1

32

concern) LATVIA, NETHERLANDS, POLAND, PORTUGAL, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SPAIN, SWEDEN, UNITED

KINGDOM

1

Recovery rate (cents on the dollar) FINLAND 89,7



E t hiEntrepreneurship

Financial System


Environment

33

Entrepreneurship


Fi f ll M f t i t l lFigures of small Manufacturing are crystal clearBusiness density of small manufacturing

enterprises*

24.2

22.4

7 The gap

enterprises(N. of enterprises per 1,000 people ages 15-64), 2010

17.7

1.6

.0

5 2

The gap between the EU

and the US is particularly11 11 10

. 5

10.2

9.2

8.6

7.3

6.3

6.2

6.0

6.0

5.7

5.7

5.6

5.6

5.3

5.2

5.2

4.6

4.5

4.3 9

particularly significant

4 4 4 3.

3.0

3.0

2.5

1.4

c a a e y al s n y 7 d n d a a 5 a a e m s a k y K a g d

US*

zech

Rep

ubli c

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Gre

ece

Ital

y

Port

uga

Cyp

rus

Swed

en

Hun

gary

EU-2

7

Pola

nd

Spai

n

Finl

and

Lith

uani

a

Bul

garia

EU B

ig 5

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

Fran

ce

Bel

gium

Net

herlan

ds

Aus

tria

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y

UK

Rom

ania

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irel

and

* SME h d f 1 t 49 l di t i f 50 l t 249 l tl

34

C * SMEs comprehend from 1 to 49 employees, medium enterprises go from 50 employees to 249, lastly big enterprises employ 250 workers or more

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat and OECD data, 2013


Th fi i i d fi it l bi i th USThe average firm size is definitely bigger in the USAverage size of manufacturing enterprises (employees) 2010

35 2

39.1

enterprises (employees), 2010

Best EU-15

35.2

13 8

21.4

15.7 Worst EU 1513.8

12.19.4

11.3

4.0

8.0

EU-15

4.0

US EU-5 EU-27 Ireland Italy

35

SME Total



L EU SME b d h “ i ” h h ld iLess EU SMEs manage to go beyond the “micro” threshold in comparison to the US

Composition of small manufacturing enterprises by number of employees, 2010

14.9% 22.7%

85.1% 77.3%%

1-9 empl (micro-enterprises) 10-49 empl 1-9 empl (micro-enterprises) 10-49 empl

US

1 9 empl. (micro enterprises) 10 49 empl. 1 9 empl. (micro enterprises) 10 49 empl.

EU-27

36Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Eurostat and OECD data, 2013


EU fi b d d b d i i i dWorst EU-27

EU firms are more burdened by administrative proceduresCosts for starting a business (% of per capita GNI), 2012

5.5

20.54.8

Best EU-27

1.4

0.0

Slovenia GreeceUS EU Big 5 EU-27

Time for starting a business (days), 2012 Worst EU-27

14 1332

EU-27

6

4

Best EU-27

37US EU Big 5 EU-27

4

Belgium Poland



P i l i ( i b i )Potentials savings (time to start up a business)

Nr. of European SMEs born in 2010

Average time to start up a b i (EU ) 2010:

2.5 millionsbusiness (EU average):

13 days X

Total days spent in complying with start up procedures (MSs weighted

average): 36 7 millionsaverage): 36.7 millions

If every MS aligns to Belgium’sTh lif f

If every MS aligns to Belgium s standard (4 days)

26.6 millions days saved

The average life of 913 people!=

X

Average value added of European SMEs per day:

Potential gain in added value:

17 billi f

X

=

38

European SMEs per day: 743 euros 17 billions of euro



P i l i ( b i )Potentials savings (costs to start up a business)

Nr. of European SMEs born in 2010:

2.5 millions

Average cost to start up a business (EU average):

1.479 euros

Total cost for start up procedures (MSs

X

Total cost for start up procedures (MSs weighted average): 5 billions of euro

If every MS aligns to Slovenia’s standard (no costs)( )

5 billions of euro saved

39Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, estimates on Eurostat data, 2013


I i h US h EU l b k bIn comparison to the US, the EU labour market appears to be more rigid

Rigidity of employment index 2012

59

55 53

49 49 48

Rigidity of employment index, 2012

4

45

41

39 38 37 36 35 35

33 313

28 27 26

23

16 3 21 1 2 10 10

7 7

Fran

ce

uxem

bour

g

Port

ugal

Slov

enia

Finl

and

Net

herlan

ds

Rom

ania

Swed

en

Gre

ece

Ger

man

y

Ital

y

Esto

nia

Latv

ia

EU B

ig 5

Spai

n

Cyp

rus

Mal

ta

Aus

tria

Hun

gary

Pola

nd

Bul

garia

ak R

epub

lic

Irel

and

Bel

gium U

K

Den

mar

k

US

40

Lu N

Slov

a



Ulti t l E t di d b f fUltimately, European entrepreneurs are discouraged by fear of failure

Fear of failureFear of failure (% of total respondents), 2012

61

58

44 43 43 42 42 42 41 41

39 8 7 73 3 37 37 36 36 36 35 34 34 33 32

30

27

eece

Ital

y

Big

5

ance

olan

d

man

y

tuga

l

Spai

n

gium

man

ia

mar

k

vaki

a

nlan

d

atvi

a

ustr

ia

uani

a

UK

elan

d

toni

a

gary

eden US

ands

veni

a

41

Gr

EU B Fra

Po

Ger

m

Port S

Bel

g

Rom

Den

m

Slov Fin La Au

Lith

u

Ire

Est

Hun Sw

e

Net

herla

Slov

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013, re-elaboration on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data, 2013










42



L t th d ili f EU C t iLong term growth and resilience of EU Countries

GDP (2012): $13.518,000 mln.CAGR 2002-2012: 1 64%

ResilienceCAGR 2002 2012: 1.64%CAGR 2008-2012: 0.79%

DE

PL3.4%

GDP, CAGR 2008-2012

AT

BE

CZEE

FR

DE

SKSE

UK0 6%

1.4%

CZ

DK FIHU

IE

IT

NLPT

SIES-2.6%

-0.6%

GR

-4.6%

-6.6%-0.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.5% 3.5% 4.5%

GDP, CAGR 2002-2012

43Source: The European House – Ambrosetti re-elaboration on OECD data, 2013

The long term

,


E l t d GDP th l t dEmployment and GDP growth are related

GDP INDEX

PL

SK

10

GDP INDEX

AT

BECZ

DK

EE

FI

FRDE

IE

SE

UK6

8

DK FIHU

IE

IT

NL

PTSI

ES

2

4

GR0

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

*The GDP and Employment Indexes are a weighted average of the variation in GDP and employment rates during the 2002-2012 and 2008-2012 periods; assigned weights are respectively 25% and 75%. The scores of

EMPLOYMENT INDEX

44Source: The European House – Ambrosetti re-elaboration on Eurostat and OECD data, 2013

during the 2002 2012 and 2008 2012 periods; assigned weights are respectively 25% and 75%. The scores of the indexes range from 0 to 10


EU B t P f A iEU Best Performers - An overview

Germany Austria Poland Slovakia Sweden

Employment rate (2012) 4 5 14 15 2Labour productivity (per person employed, EU-27=100, 2011) 11 3 19 15 5Unemployment rate (2012) 3 1 11 17 9Youth participation (2011) 4 3 14 17 6Labour cost (2012) 12 11 5 7 6

LABOUR MARKET

Labour cost (2012) 12 11 5 7 6

General Government Debt (% GDP, 2012) 13 11 9 5 2Old Age Dependency ratio (2012) 20 13 3 1 17

Inflation rate (%, 2012) 4 8 17 18 1

PUBLIC FINANCE

Manufacturing (% GDP, 2010) 5 7 9 4 12

Employment in manifacturing (2011) 8 11 5 6 12

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI stock/GDP, 2012) 18 14 13 8 5Export (% GDP, 2011) 12 10 14 4 13

MANUFACTURING

INTERNATIONALIZATION p ( , )

External openess (as (Export+Import)/GDP, 2012) 11 9 12 2 13

Venture Capital (% GDP, 2011) 10 8 14 20 1Patents registered (2011) 4 7 20 19 3R&D expenditure (% GDP, 2011) 4 2 19 19 5

INNOVATION

*The table offers a ranking of Germany and the top 4 economies from six different aspects

p ( , )

Total tax rate (2012) 11 16 9 12 15

Cost to Start a Business (% of GNI per capita, 2012) 13 12 18 9 4ENTREPRENEURSHIP

45Source: The European House – Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe, OECD and Eurostat data, 2013

The table offers a ranking of Germany and the top 4 economies from six different aspects


GDP d t i t th EU d EZGDP and entry into the EU and EZ

Entry into the EU or the Eurozone* (EZ) appears to produce positive effects on new member states While Austria’s performance has improved following entry into themember states. While Austria s performance has improved following entry into the Eurozone, Poland and Slovakia have significantly improved their performance in conjunction with entry into the European Union

600

700

800

300

400

500Austria

Poland

Slovakia

SwedenDP

,B

illi

on

$

0

100

200GD

Data from 2013 to 2018 are IMF projections

46* Sweden and Poland did not adopt the Euro

Data from 2013 to 2018 are IMF projections

Source: The European House – Ambrosetti re-elaboration on IMF data, 2013


EU B t P f K iEU Best Performers – Key common issues

The good economic performances of the best performing countries (Austria, Poland Slovakia and Sweden) have been achieved in different waysPoland, Slovakia and Sweden) have been achieved in different ways.

Austria and Sweden perform very well in terms of employment rate: from 2002 their employment rate is higher than average.

The 4 best performing economies also present a government debt-to-GDP ratio lower than 80%.

l d d l ki h hi h l l f l l k ’ Poland and Slovakia show a high level of external openness; Slovakia’s exports account for almost 90% of its GDP.

Germany is the main trade partner of Austria, Poland and Slovakia: these Ge a y s t e a t ade pa t e o ust a, o a d a d S o a a t esecountries have benefited from the stability of the German economy.

The manufacturing sector of Austria, Poland and Slovakia accounts for a high portion of GDP and employment (≈ 20%)portion of GDP and employment (≈ 20%).

Austria and Sweden have focused their efforts on labour markets and innovation.

47










48



2013 C t C ti L l 4 M i R i l Cl t2013 Current Competiveness Level: 4 Main Regional Clusters7.07

89

NorthernEurope7

6.8

6.64

6.47

6.43

6.18

6.17

2

p

WesternEurope

5.82

5.69

5.65

5.35

5.35

91 90 88 2

EasternEurope

Southern

4.9

4.9

4.8

4.82

4.58

4.47

4.41

4.39

4.37

4.28

4.13

0

Europe

4

3.80

3.70

3.47

3.26

embo

urg

Swed

en

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

herlan

ds

Kin

gdom

Irel

and

Bel

gium

Ger

man

y

Aus

tria

Esto

nia

Fran

ce

Slov

enia

Mal

ta

Rep

ublic

Cyp

rus

Hun

gary

Latv

ia

ithua

nia

Spai

n

Slov

akia

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Bul

garia

Ital

y

Rom

ania

Gre

ece

49

Luxe D

Net

h

Uni

ted

K G S

Cze

ch R H L S P R

Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013


A l f C titi F t I ti & Ed ti

8.8

An example of Competitiveness Factor: Innovation & Education

Innovation &

7.4

7.0

6.7

6.6

6.4 .4 .3 2

Innovation & Education

15%

6 6 6. 6.2

6.0

5.9

5.0

4.8

.4 3 24. 4.3

4.2

4.1

3.8

3.8

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.7

2

1.7

Finl

and

Swed

en

Ger

man

y

ther

land

s

Den

mar

k

Kin

gdom

xem

bour

g

Esto

nia

Irel

and

Fran

ce

Bel

gium

Aus

tria

Slov

enia

Cyp

rus

Spai

n

Hun

gary

Rep

ublic

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Port

ugal

Pola

nd

Slov

akia

Ital

y

Mal

ta

Gre

ece

Bul

garia

Rom

ania

50

Net

Uni

ted

Lux

Cze

ch



A l f C titi F t L b M k t8.5

8.0

.8

An example of Competitiveness Factor: Labour Market

L b M k t7.

7.4

7.4

7.1

6.7

6.6

Labour Market 10%

5.7

5.6

5.2

5.2

5.2

4.9

4.8

64 4

4.6

4.1

4.0

3.7

3.5

3.3

3.3 2 13 3 3. 3.

1

3.0

2.6

2.2

ther

land

s

Aus

tria

Den

mar

k

Ger

man

y

Swed

en

embo

urg

Kin

gdom

Finl

and

Bel

gium

Fran

ce

Cyp

rus

Mal

ta

Irel

and

Slov

enia

Rep

ublic

Esto

nia

Ital

y

Port

ugal

Pola

nd

Slov

akia

Rom

ania

Latv

ia

Lith

uani

a

Spai

n

Hun

gary

Bul

garia

Gre

ece

51

Net D G

Luxe

Uni

ted

Cze

ch L



EU i th C titi I dEU in the Competitiveness Index

MOST COMPETITIVE COUNTRIES

LEAST

52

LEAST COMPETITIVE COUNTRIES

http://www.observatoryoneurope.eu/



C l ti b t GDP C it d C titi L l

SE7.5

Correlation between GDP per Capita and Competitiveness Level

Correlation: 0.82R squared: 0 71

DKFI

NL

SE

UK6.5

7.0

ess

R squared: 0.71

BE

CYEE FR

IE

5.5

6.0

pe

titi

ven

07

-20

12

ATCY

CZ DEHULV

MT

SK ES

4 5

5.0

ag

e C

om

pco

re, 2

00

BG

ITLT

PL PT

SI

3 5

4.0

4.5

Ave

ra Sc

RO3.0

3.5

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Excluding outliers Luxembourg and Greece

53

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000Average per capita GDP (thousand of PPS), 2007-2012



C t P t C titi L l (1/2)Current vs. Past Competitiveness Level (1/2)

CountryCurrent1 Past2 Ranking

variationy variationRanking Score Ranking ScoreLuxembourg 1 7.07 3 6.71 2 positionsSweden 2 6.89 1 6.73 1 positionpDenmark 3 6.64 2 6.72 1 positionFinland 4 6.47 4 6.64 SteadyNetherlands 5 6.43 5 6.31 SteadyNetherlands 5 6.43 5 6.31 SteadyUnited Kingdom 6 6.18 7 6.06 1 positionIreland 7 6.17 6 6.29 1 positionBelgium 8 5 82 8 5 55 SteadyBelgium 8 5.82 8 5.55 SteadyGermany 9 5.69 12 5.11 3 positionsAustria 10 5.65 9 5.53 1 positionE i 11 5 35 13 5 10 2 i iEstonia 11 5.35 13 5.10 2 positionsFrance 12 5.35 10 5.17 2 positionsSlovenia 13 4.91 17 4.41 4 positions

54(1) Latest available data; (2) Five years earlier

Malta 14 4.90 14 4.78 Steady



C t P t C titi L l (2/2)Current vs. Past Competitiveness Level (2/2)

CountryCurrent1 Past2 Ranking

i tiCountry variationRanking Score Ranking Score

Czech Republic 15 4.88 15 4.68 SteadyCyprus 16 4.82 11 5.13 5 positionsCyprus 16 4.82 11 5.13 5 positionsHungary 17 4.58 23 4.02 6 positionsLatvia 18 4.47 18 4.33 SteadyLithuania 19 4 41 20 4 29 1 positionLithuania 19 4.41 20 4.29 1 positionSpain 20 4.39 16 4.51 4 positionsSlovakia 21 4.37 19 4.30 2 positionsPoland 22 4.28 22 4.02 SteadyPortugal 23 4.13 21 4.12 2 positionsBulgaria 24 3.80 24 3.96 Steadyg yItaly 25 3.70 25 3.74 SteadyRomania 26 3.47 26 3.46 SteadyGreece 27 3 26 27 3 32 Steady

55

Greece 27 3.26 27 3.32 Steady(1) Latest available data; (2) Five years earlier



B t h t b t It l ?But what about Italy?

External O

The Competitiveness Index attributes a very low score to Italy (25th position after

Openness

Innovation and EducationNetworks

to Italy (25th position after Romania and Greece)

The gap between Italy and

2,2 3,1

4,55,1

3,6 Macroeconomic StabilityEnvironment

the EU is particularly relevant in three key areas:

B i E i t

3,2

4,14,5

3,4 Business EnvironmentPublic Sector

□ Business Environment

□ Public Sector

5,1Labour Market

People & W llb i

Finance

□ External Openness Wellbeing

Italy EU-27 Sweden(B f )

56Source: The European House - Ambrosetti, Observatory on Europe 2013

(Best performer)


Th i k f th It li

9.4

8.3

7.9

7.6

7.3 9

The main weaknesses of the Italian economyBusiness Environment Index

Our Competitiveness Index places Italy among the worst 7

6.9

6.7

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.3

6.1

6.0

5.8

5.7

5.5

5.5

5.1

5.1

5.0

4.8

4.7

4.3

3.2

places Italy among the worst performers as for:

□ Business Environment

nmar

k

elan

d

gari

a

gdom

ypru

s

Latv

ia

bour

g

publ

ic

rlan

ds

ovak

ia

uani

a

man

ia

ustr

ia

ngar

y

lgiu

m

nlan

d

Spai

n

wed

en

veni

a

man

y

olan

d

rtug

al

ston

ia

ranc

e

reec

e

Ital

y

□ External Openness

□ Public Sector

Den Ir

e

Bul

Uni

ted

King C

y L

Luxe

mb

Cze

ch R

ep

Net

her

Slo

Lith Ro m A

u

Hun Bel

Fin S

Sw Slo

Ger Po

Por

Es Fr G

8.7

8.4

8.3

8.1 7 5

8.4 External Openness Index Public Sector Index

8

7.

7.5

7.3

7.2

6.7

6.5

6.4

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.6

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.2

5.2

5.2

5.0

4.9

4.3

3.4

6.1

5.8

5.7

4.7

4.4

4.3

4.1

3.9

3.8

3.7 3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.0 3.0 .9 2.9 .8 3

2.7

urg nd en ark

nd nds

ria

om ny nia

um rus ce nia

lta

ain

nia

gal

lic nd kia

via

ary

ece

aly

ria

3 3 2. 2 2.

2.4

2.3

2.2

1.9

1.8

urg lta

nd um nia

ary

nds

en rus

nia

via

nia

ark

blic nd gal

ny kia

ria

nd om ria

nce

ain

aly

ece

nia

57

Luxe

mbo

u

Finl

a

Swed

Den

ma

Irel

an

Net

herl

an

Aus

t

Uni

ted

King

d o

Ger

ma

Esto

n

Belg

iu

Cyp

r

Fran

Lith

uan

Mal

Spa

Slov

en

Port

ug

Cze

ch R

epub

Pola

Slov

a k

Latv

Hun

ga

Gre

e Ita

Bulg

ar

Luxe

mbo

u

Mal

Irel

an

Belg

iu

Esto

n

Hun

ga

Net

herl

an

Swed

Cyp

r

Slov

en

Latv

Lith

uan

Den

ma

Cze

ch R

epub

Finl

a

Port

u g

Ger

ma

Slov

ak

Aus

t

Pola

Uni

ted

King

do

Bulg

ar

Fran Sp

a

Ita

Gre

e

Rom

an










Doing Business in Italy: a difficult match or a well of t iti ?

58

opportunities? (anticipation of De Molli’s speech at the Tech Crunch event)


Il PIL d ll’It li h l 2013 è d t i l l i i tIl PIL dell’Italia anche nel 2013 è dato in calo; la ripresa, prevista per il 2014, sarà ad un ritmo inferiore alla media europea

Variazioni sul Prodotto Interno Lordo in Europa(periodo 2007-2014e, 2007=100)

GERMANIA

FRANCIA

UEUE

ITALIA

SPAGNA

L’OCSE a settembre ha stimato una contrazionedel PIL italiano dell’1,8%

stimedel PIL italiano dell 1,8% nel 2013. L’Italia è l’unico tra i Paesi del G7 a essere negativo per l’anno in corso

59Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Eurostat, 2013


A i 2013 i It li il t di di i h t tA maggio 2013 in Italia il tasso di disoccupazione ha toccato un nuovo record: 12,2%, il valore più elevato dal 1977

Tasso di disoccupazione tra i 15 e 64 anni in Italia(valori percentuali, 2004/2013)

Variazione annuale dell’occupazione in Italia per genere (valori percentuali, 2001/2013-T1)

4 0%

8,1% 7,8% 7,9%8,5% 8,5%

10,8%

12,2%

0,0%

1,0%

2,0%

3,0%

4,0%

,6,9%

6,2%6,8%

,

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

-3,0%

-2,0%

-1,0%

,

uominidonne

Secondo Confindustria a fine 2013 i posti di lavoro persi in Italia dall'inizio della crisi, sei anni fa, saranno pari a circa 1,8 milioni di unità

60Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Eurostat e Istat, 2013


L’ t d ll di i h i i i i i d llL’aumento della disoccupazione ha ripercussioni sui consumi delle famiglie

Andamento delle principali voci di spesa per le famiglie italiane 2007-2012 (valori percentuali, 2007=100)

Spesa al 2012 e variazione percentuale rispetto al 2007

COMBUSTIBILI ED ENERGIA120

134,9 euro/mese, +16,3%

ISTRUZIONE29,1 euro/mese, +15,0%

105

110

115

ALIMENTARI E BEVANDE468,3 euro/mese, +0,4%

TEMPO LIBERO E CULTURA95

100

105

TEMPO LIBERO E CULTURA99.7 euro/mese, -8,5%

ABBIGLIAMENTO E CALZATURE

SANITA’88,2 euro/mese, -11,7%

80

85

90

ABBIGLIAMENTO E CALZATURE119,9 euro/mese, -23,3%

75

80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

61Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Istat, 2013


Il d bit bbli PIL h i i t li lli l ti i iIl debito pubblico su PIL ha ormai raggiunto livelli elevatissimi

Debito pubblico /PIL, 2002-2012

126,98%

110%

125%

90%

80%

95%Francia

Germania

Italia80%

50%

65%

Italia

Regno Unito

Spagna

35%2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

In Italia nel primo trimestre del 2013, il rapporto Debito/PIL ha raggiunto quota 130,3%

62Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati IMF e Eurostat, 2013


L t tt diti i i lLa stretta creditizia non si placa

Dal 2008 a oggi le tensioni creditizie si sono riflesse in una generale persistenza disituazioni di razionamento del creditosituazioni di razionamento del credito

Nella manifattura le piccole imprese soffrono più delle medie e grandiimprese

Percentuale delle imprese che non hanno ottenuto il credito richiesto – Anni 2008 – 2012

10

Manifattura: 5,7%

8

6

Servizi: 4%4

22

2008 2010 2011 2012

63Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House-Ambrosetti su dati Istat, 2013


Il it l di i hi i è i ifi tiIl capitale di rischio ancora oggi non è significativo

Investimenti in Venture Capital in % del PIL, 2011

€ 70 mln.

64Fonte: Rielaborazioni The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Commissione Europea 2013


P l i l di fi i ti t l’ t lPer le imprese la carenza di finanziamenti rappresenta l’ostacolo chiave all’innovazione

O t li ll’ tti ità i ti l i d it li *Ostacoli all’attività innovativa per le aziende italiane*

46,2%carenza di risorse finanziarie

19,6%

23,9%

carenza di personale qualificato

rischio economico eccessivo “Le restrizioni finanziarie, ivi inclusa la mancanza di fonti di finanziamento

17,2%

19,0%

carenza di domanda per prodotti innovativi

eccessiva regolamentazioneadeguate, continuano a figurare tra gli ostacoli

all’innovazione più frequentemente citati dalle

15,1%

15,8%

carenza di informazione sui mercati

rigidità organizzative

innovativi frequentemente citati dalle imprese”

Consiglio Europeo di Lisbona, 2000

13,9%

,

0 20 40 60

carenza di informazione sulle tecnologie

2000

65

(*) Survey sull’innovazione nelle imprese svolta nel 2011 su un campione di 3.019 aziende in Italia

Fonte: Rielaborazioni The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Unicredit e Banca d’Italia, 2013


Gli i ti ti i R&S l t P b iGli investimenti in R&S nel nostro Paese sono bassi …

Investimenti in R&S totali3 8 (% PIL, 2011) Investimenti

(Miliardi € PPP*)

Usa 302,6

3,8

3,4 3,4

3,12,9 2,8 2 8 Cina 115,7

Giappone 103,6Germania 70,5Francia 39 5

, 2,8

2,32,1 2,0 2,0 2,0

1,8 1 7 1 70 Francia 39,5UK 30,4Italia 19,2Spagna 15,2

, 1,7 1,701,50

1,3 1,3

0 60Paesi Bassi 11,2Svezia 10,1Austria 7,5B l i 6 7

0,60

Belgio 6,7Finlandia 5,9Danimarca 5,4Portogallo 3 1

66

Portogallo 3,1Irlanda 2,5

Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Eurostat, 2013

(*) Parità di potere d’acquisto


i ll t bbli h i ll i t… sia nella componente pubblica che in quella privata

Investimenti in R&S(% sul PIL 2011)4 (% sul PIL, 2011)

0,6

0,2

0,2 0,2

0 2

3

4

2,5

0,9 0,9

0,8 0,7 0,70 6

0,4

0,2

0,3 0,30,4

0,1

0,1 0,21

2

1,8 1,81,2 1,1 1,1 0,8

1,20,60 0,6

0,60,7 0,5

0

1

Settore privato Settore pubblico Altro

(*) Include settore no profit e università

*

67Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Eurostat, 2013

(*) Include settore no profit e università


L l d li i ti i fi li t l i èLa leva degli incentivi fiscali per supportare la ricerca è poco utilizzata

Supporto pubblico alle attività di R&S delle aziendeSupporto pubblico alle attività di R&S delle aziende (% sul PIL, Paesi selezionati *)

0,4

0,5

0,05

0,12 0,260,3

,

0,290,20

0,15 0,14 0,12 0 09 0 08 0 08

0,03 0,08 0,07 0,11 0,14

0,01

0,170,12

0,05

0,1

0,2

, 0,09 0,08 0,08 0,07 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,03

0,05

0,0

Finanziamenti diretti alla R&S Incentivi fiscali alla R&S

68

(*) Germania Finlandia e Svezia non presentano un sistema di incentivi fiscali aggiuntivi ai contributi pubblici erogati per via diretta

Fonte: Rielaborazioni TEH-A su dati OECD 2012


I id tti i ti ti i R&S di d h d ll t ttI ridotti investimenti in R&S dipendono anche dalla struttura produttiva del nostro Paese

NUMERO IMPRESE

ITA UE 27

Micro 3.610.090 94,6% 92,2%

Pi l 184 345 4 8% 6 5%Piccole 184.345 4,8% 6,5%

Medie 19.370 0,5% 1,1%

Grandi 3.253 0,1% 0,2%

Altre attività dei servizi22%

Credito, attività immobiliari e servizi

p ofessionali

PMI: 99,9% Suddivisione del PIL tra le principali macro-attività economiche, 2011

22%

Agricoltura, silvicoltura e pesca

2%

professionali29%

Commercio, alberghiero, trasporti e

comunicazioni22%

Costruzioni6%

2%

69

22%Industria in senso

stretto19%

Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Commissione Europea e Istat, 2013


Ma è davvero tutto così negativo?

70


Il d fi it / PIL i li t li lti i i

RANK 2013

Il deficit / PIL appare migliorato negli ultimi anni..

RANK 20081 Germania -0,22 Estonia -0,53 Finlandia -1,24 Lussemburgo -1 7

1 Finlandia 4,42 Lussemburgo 3,23 Cipro 0,94 Paesi Bassi 0 5 4 Lussemburgo 1,7

5 Italia -2,16 Austria -2,77 Malta -2,9

4 Paesi Bassi 0,55 Germania -0,16 Austria -0,97 Belgio -1,0

8 Paesi Bassi -2,99 Slovacchia -3,2

10 Belgio -3,411 Francia 3 5

8 Slovenia -1,99 Slovacchia -2,1

10 Italia -2,711 Estonia 2 9 11 Francia -3,5

12 Slovenia -3,913 Portogallo -4,514 Grecia -5,5

11 Estonia -2,912 Francia -3,313 Portogallo -3,614 Spagna -4,5 ,

15 Cipro -5,716 Spagna -6,017 Regno Unito -7,2

p g ,15 Malta -4,616 Regno Unito -5,117 USA -6,7

l d

71

18 USA -7,319 Irlanda -9,8

Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Commissione Europea, 2013

18 Irlanda -7,419 Grecia -9,8


il d bit bbli it h t t d t l i i.. e il debito pubblico pro-capite ha tenuto durante la crisi

Debito pubblico pro-capite (in dollari),2008 and 20132008 and 2013

2008Giappone 72.000Italia 38.800

2013Giappone 98.900Irlanda 56.500Italia 38.800

Francia 29.300Canada 28.600Germania 28.000Irlanda 23 600

Irlanda 56.500Canada 45.500USA 40.300Italia 39.900Regno Unito 37 700

CAGR

Irlanda 23.600Regno Unito 19.100USA 18.600

Regno Unito 37.700Francia 37.300Germania 34.200

CAGRGiappone 6,55%

Irlanda 19,08%

Canada 9,73%

USA 16 72%USA 16,72%

Italia 0,56%

Regno Unito 14,57%

Francia 4,95%

Germania 4 08%

72Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013

Germania 4,08%

(*) Per CAGR si intende in Compound Annual Growth Rate


I t i i di it lf l’It li è ll ll diIn termini di spesa pro-capite per welfare, l’Italia è alle spalle di Francia, Germania e Regno Unito

Spesa pubblica pro-capite per welfare nei principali Paesi UE, 2011 (Euro)

10.011

9.008

7 3037.303 7.055

Francia Germania Regno Unito Italia

73Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Bocconi CERGAS, marzo 2013


L i h i t è t l iù lt d’ELa ricchezza privata è tra le più alte d’Europa

Ricchezza privata netta pro-capite nei Big Five europei e negli

164

143160

180.000 $

p p p g p gUSA, 2011 (migliaia di dollari)

143

122

102100

120

140

72 78

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

Francia Italia Regno Unito USA Germania SpagnaFrancia Italia Regno Unito USA Germania Spagna

74Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Credit Suisse , Global Wealth Databook 2012


L’ t i f t di f d ll’It li

Importazioni, esportazioni e saldo commerciale (miliardi di euro gennaio 2007 – gennaio 2013)

L’export si conferma un punto di forza dell’Italia

(miliardi di euro, gennaio 2007 gennaio 2013)

IMPORT

EXPORT

SALDO

3636

34

32

8

6

4SALDO

30

28

26

2

0

-2

Il 2012 ha registrato un aumento dell’export del 3 5% rispetto

24

22

20

-4

-6

8

dell export del 3,5% rispetto all’anno precedente, cui si affianca la

decisa caduta dell’import

20 -8

Esportazioni verso BRICS + MIKT, al 2010 (miliardi di Euro)

Paese Export 2010CAGR Export,

2000 2010Paese Export 2010

2000-2010Germania 134,4 +13,68%Italia 37,6 +5,16%Francia 36,2 +0,93%R U it 26 3 3 41%

75Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Istat, 2013

Regno Unito 26,3 +3,41%Spagna 15,3 +8,24%


N l 2012 l’It li è t i hi P i d l d h tNel 2012 l’Italia è tra i pochi Paesi del mondo che possono vantare un surplus commerciale manifatturiero con l’estero

750

Bilancia commerciale con l’estero dei Paesi del G-20 per i manufatti industriali non alimentari, 2012 (miliardi di dollari)

113

350

550

113

250

-50

150

-650

-450

-250

650

76Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati WTO, 2013


Il d i It l h l l’It liIl made in Italy che salva l’Italia

Vini e spumanti Rubinetti e valvole Mobili in legno Parti di turbine a gas

235 prodotti≈

€ 63 mld.390 prodotti

≈321 prodotti a t d tu b e a gas Trattori agricoli Macchine per imbottigliare Navi da crociera Lavori in alluminio

€ 74 mld.≈€ 45 mld.

Caffè torrefatto Lampadari Mobili in legno Polimeri di etilene

Calzature Pasta

Granito

Calzature Packaging Piastrelle Borse in pelle Occhiali da sole

Pasta Cuoio Barche e yatch Conduttori elettrici Parti di macchine per impacchettare

77

Occhiali da sole Parti di macchine per impacchettare

Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Fondazione Edision, 2013


T l ll t i i d tti di i l tt iTra le eccellenze troviamo i prodotti di meccanica non elettronica

Classifica mondiale di esportazioni di prodotti di meccanica non elettronica, 2011

PaesePrima

posizioneSeconda

posizioneTerza

posizioneTotale

Germania 28 20 10 58

Classifica mondiale di esportazioni di prodotti di meccanica non elettronica, 2011

Germania 28 20 10 58Giappone 16 14 13 43Italia 11 10 20 41Cina 13 6 7 26Cina 13 6 7 26USA 3 4 4 11Corea 2 4 3 9Francia - 3 3 6Francia - 3 3 6Regno Unito 1 1 - 2Canada - - - 0

Nelle esportazioni di prodotti di meccanica non elettronica, l’Italia segue solo Germania e Giappone, grazie alla presenza di una

manifattura di nicchia e di altissima gamma

78Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati UNCTAD/WTO, 2013

manifattura di nicchia e di altissima gamma


A h l’ t i d l i h f tt i t ’ ttiAnche l’esportazione del vino ha fatto registrare un’ottima performance annuale

4,7 5,3 55,miliardi di euro

,miliardidi euro

miliardidi euromiliardidi euro

VALORE DELLE ESPORTAZIONI DI VINO

ITALIANO NEL 2012≅ ≅VALORE DELLA

CAPITALIZZAZIONE IN BORSA DEL GRUPPO

VALORE AGGIUNTO DEL SETTORE TESSILE, ABBIGLIAMENTOITALIANO NEL 2012 BORSA DEL GRUPPO

FIAT IN APRILE 2013ABBIGLIAMENTO,

PELLETTERIA E AFFINI IN FRANCIA NEL 2011

79


L lità d ll if tt è h f tt di l t i li iLa qualità della manifattura è anche frutto di elevata specializzazione

Mappa dei distretti industriali italiani

Specializzazione dei distretti industriali italiani

Abbigliamento-ModaAutomazione - MetalmeccanicaArredo-CasaAlimentare, Agro-Industriale, ItticoAltro Specializzazione dei distretti industriali italiani

37,6%

25,7%21 8%

30%

40%

21,8%

11,9%

2,0% 1,0%

10%

20%

0%

80Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati Osservatorio Nazionale Distretti Italiani, 2013


C l ll it liCosa accomuna le eccellenze italiane..

I fattori critici di successo sembrano essere:

prodotti che uniscono estetica, artigianalità, innovazione e funzionalità

forte attenzione alla soddisfazione del cliente

produzioni fatte su misura dalla progettazione alla realizzazione fino all’assistenza post-vendita

presenza di medie imprese attive e competitive cresciute dal basso e che restano collegate al territorio di origine rafforzando il legame

f t i ll’ t ità di di l i ti l b li forte propensione all’export e capacità di dialogare con i mercati globali, controllando reti distributive proprie o almeno partecipate

81


N t tt l’It li i t ll t dNon tutta l’Italia si comporta allo stesso modo

La Lombardia nel 2012 ha registrato:

un valore aggiunto prodotto pari a 300 miliardi di €, equivalente al 21,29% del valore aggiunto italiano (pari a 1.413 mld. di €)

2°regione europea per valore aggiunto totale (dopo l’Ile –de-France) e 1°per valore aggiunto nell’industria

una produttività oraria pari a 33 67 €/h superiore a quella italiana (30 26 €/h) una produttività oraria pari a 33,67 €/h superiore a quella italiana (30,26 €/h)

4°realtà territoriale europea nel commercio estero, con una quota pari a 0,75%a 0,75%

il 29% di patent application nazionali

il 36% degli occupati nei settori ad alto contenuto tecnologico il 36% degli occupati nei settori ad alto contenuto tecnologico

82Fonte: Rielaborazioni The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Regione Lombardia e Istat, 2013


F b i ò Al i iFar bene si può – Alcuni esempi

Brembo produce impianti frenanti per veicoli; nasce come piccola officina i i è l d di lmeccanica e oggi è leader mondiale

al 2012 Fatturato pari a € 1,4 mld. e Utile pari a € 78 mln.

6 000 dipendenti 6.000 dipendenti

opera in 3 continenti e con siti produttivi in 12 nazioni

ha istituito il Parco Scientifico Tecnologico “Kilometro Rosso” contesto ha istituito il Parco Scientifico Tecnologico Kilometro Rosso , contesto

Diasorin da più di quarant' anni crea strumenti per le analisi di sangue e urineDiasorin da più di quarant anni crea strumenti per le analisi di sangue e urine

presente in tutto il mondo attraverso 24 società, e 6 siti produttivi tra Italia, Germania, Usa, Irlanda, Regno Unito e Sud Africa

nel 2012 il Fatturato ha superato € 350 mln. e Utile pari a € 70 mln.

ha investito più di € 17 mln. in ricerca

83


L’It li è ià il P d ll “b ” iL’Italia è già il Paese della “buona” ricerca

PaeseRicercatori

( )Citazioni Citazioni/per .000

ricercatori(.000) ricercatoriPaesi Bassi 54 3.974.719 73,61Svezia 49 2.686.304 54,82Belgio 38 1.918.993 50,50Italia 103 5.151.675 50,02D iDanimarca 37 1.574.167 42,55Regno Unito 257 10.508.202 40,89Canada 149 6 019 195 40 40149 6.019.195 40,40USA 1.400 48.862.100 34,90Germania 328 10.518.133 32,07Francia 239 7.007.693 29,32Spagna 135 3.588.655 26,58Giappone

84

Giappone 656 8.084.145 12,32

Fonte: Rielaborazioni The European House - Ambrosetti su dati Scimago Ranking 2012


Il P lit i di Mil è ll T 30 di l d ll i itàIl Politecnico di Milano è nella Top 30 mondiale delle università a vocazione tecnologica

'UNIVERSITA' PUNTEGGIO

1 Massachuttes Institute of Technology US 96,302 Stanford University US 93,303 University of Cambridge UK 90 503 University of Cambridge UK 90,504 University of California, Berkeley US 90,205 ETH Zurich CH 89,506 Imperial Collee UK 88,307 Nationale University of Singapore SIN 87,208 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne CH 86,409 University of Oxford UK 86,1010 C lif i I tit t f T h l US 85 8010 California Institute of Technology US 85,80

.. ………….. …..27 KTH, Royal Institute of Technology SWE 80,1028 Politecnico di Milano ITA 79,8028 Politecnico di Milano ITA 79,8028 Rheinisch-Westfalische Technische Hochschule Aachen DE 79,8028 University of Manchester UK 79,80

85

Se si esclude il mondo anglosassone il Politecnico raggiunge la quarta posizione in Europa


L’ ll d ll’I tit t It li di T l i

34 anni l’età media 1 000 ice cato i

L’eccellenza dell’Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia

34 anni l’età media 1.000 ricercatori

48% i i

3 premi Nobelricercatori stranieri

3 premi Nobel nel comitato scientifico

10 università e30 nazioni rappresentate 1.800

pubblicazioni i tifi h

10 università e centri di ricerca collegati in rete

86

scientifiche

Fonte: Rielaborazione The European House – Ambrosetti su dati IIT 2012