Beginning in 1970, Italians established a nationwide set of potentially powerful regional governments. These twenty new institutions were virtually identical in form, but the social, economic, political and cultural contexts in which they were implanted differed dramatically, ranging from the preindustrial to the postindustrial, from the devoutly Catholic to the ardently Communist, from the inertly feudal to the frenetically modern. Just as a botanist might investigate plant development by measuring the growth of genetically identical seeds sown in different plots, we sought to understand government performance by studying how these new institutions evolved in their diverse settings. As we expected, some of the new governments proved to be dismal failures - inefficient, lethargic and corrupt. Others were remarkably successful, however, creating innovative day care programs and job training centres, promoting investment and economic development, pioneering environmental standards and family clinics - managing the public's business efficiently and satisfying their constituents.
What could account for these stark differences in quality of government? Some seemingly obvious answers turned out to be irrelevant. Government organisation was too similar from region to region for that to explain the contrasts in performance. Party politics or ideology made little difference. Affluence and prosperity had no direct effect. Social stability or political harmony or population movements were not the key. None of these factors was correlated with good government as we had anticipated. Instead the best predictor is one that Alexis de Tocqueville might have expected. Strong traditions of civic engagement - voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and literary circles, Lions Clubs, and soccer clubs - were the hallmarks of a successful region.
Some regions of Italy, such as Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany, have many active community organisations. Citizens in these regions are engaged by public issues, not by patronage. They trust one another to act fairly and obey the law. Leaders in these communities are relatively honest and committed to equality. Social and political networks are organised horizontally, not hierarchically. These "civic communities" value solidarity, civic participation, and integrity. And here democracy works.
At the other pole are "uncivic" regions, like Calabria and Sicily, aptly characterised by the French term incivisme. The very concept of citizenship is stunted there. Engagement in social and cultural associations is meagre. From the point of view of the inhabitants, public affairs is somebody else's business - that of i notabili, "the bosses", "the politicians" - but not theirs. Laws, almost everyone agrees, are made to be broken, but fearing others' lawlessness, everyone demands sterner discipline. Trapped in these interlocking vicious circles, nearly everyone feels powerless, exploited and unhappy. It is hardly surprising that representative government here is less effective than in more civic communities.
