Populism no longer frightens the summit of Davos

Last year, the dominant fear at the Davos summit was the possible advent of populist parties in Europe and, consequently, their effects on the global economic aspects. A year after the danger populism was partially averted, while remaining a threat, even if not entirely since the Italian elections are imminent. Of course, Trump's manner of governing, on the one hand, is appreciated for his tax facilities to businesses, but, from another point of view, the nationalist approach, which envisages, as announced in the electoral campaign, the negation of globalization, substantial fears in the proponents of world trade. Moreover, it is impossible not to read in the will to close the White House tenant a clear sign of populism understood as a rejection of economic exchange also intended as a cultural exchange and a willingness to accuse others of their own productive and social limits. This policy, however, is not pursued with the intention of redistributing any wealth obtained to an audience of as large as possible, but is traded with the growth of jobs, often unskilled, with low wages and low level of rights. It would seem almost a strategy intended to increase a political consensus based on the policy contrary to the different, identified as the origin of the problems, including economic, and the acceptance of supposed advantages, however minimal, perceived not as negative because of the compression of rights, but a kind of paternalistic help. If these aspects of populism are truthful, and in part they are certainly true, one can understand how the habitual visitors of Davos see in populism, overcoming initial suspicions, an opportunity to allow economic growth through savings in production costs. Certainly the story that populism was a political feeling born from the base of societies is a fact to which very few have believed: for the growth of these movements, in fact, we need the support, in a clear or concealed way, of the establishment. What most seems to worry about the summit is that the number of accessions to populist movements grows in step with the rate of inequality, produced by the economic policies adopted in recent years. To worry is that to direct the masses towards populism is, that is, a reason that is contiguous to finance and that this could constitute an obstacle to social control. The solution is to rethink the growth trends towards greater inclusiveness, perhaps by allocating a percentage of the greater share of wealth generated to the social classes that are not part of those social partners who enjoy position rents or consolidated advantages. It is certainly not a huge and therefore fair share, but it provides the perception of a small change in direction in order to exercise control in a discrete manner and keeping the levers of power in a solid way. Redeveloped in a dimension in which it is possible to exercise a management that is consonant with particular interests, the phenomenon of populism can be seen from a perspective different from that of social danger and become a functional tool to a certain vision of economic development. Probably in certain environments there is the awareness that even political upheavals, which could be interpreted as negative, are not so harmful to economic growth, after all the speed of decision is often considered a decisive aspect of the success of economic operations and is not a in the event that, in a dictatorial regime such as the Chinese one, the highest percentages of performance in growth rates are recorded. In Europe there are cases of Poland and Hungary that could be studied in this sense and even Erdogan's Turkey, if it were able to free itself from certain extreme attitudes, could become a laboratory where to understand if the populism so driven can be useful to the economic question .