Reflections on the Olivetti Papers

Editor's Note: Professor Salvemini, professor of economics at the University of Bari and advisor to the Italian Minister of the Treasury, attended the Olivetti Conference on Budgetary problems in the fall of 1981. Papers from the conference were published in the Autumn 1982 issue of this journal. After reviewing both the conference proceedings and the papers published in Public Budgeting & Finance , Professor Salvemini has provided some further reflections and thoughts on the ideas presented at that conference.     

Fostering Economic Growth through a “European” Debt

Economic growth in the EU area is one of the European Union's tasks and the Union's budget should be used to finance actions aimed at development. It is hard to imagine that an increase in budget revenues or a significant reduction in spending in other areas can provide the resources for this purpose. The proposal put forward is to allow for debt financing of investment spending and to downgrade the current constitutional status of the rule regarding a balanced budget. A “European” debt, it is suggested, could strengthen the international role of the euro. If such a reform were not to find consensus within the Union as a whole, it could, alternatively, be adopted in the Eurogroup.     

Reform of the stability and growth pact: Looking beyond the commission's proposal

Policymakers, military strategists and academics all increasingly hail climate change as a security issue. This article revisits the (comparatively) long-standing “environmental security debate” and asks what lessons that earlier debate holds for the push towards making climate change a security issue. Two important claims are made. First, the emerging climate security debate is in many ways a re-run of the earlier dispute. It features many of the same proponents and many of the same disagreements. These disagreements concern, amongst other things, the nature of the threat, the referent object of security and the appropriate policy responses. Second, given its many different interpretations, from an environmentalist perspective, securitisation of the climate is not necessarily a positive development.