Giorgio Sebregondi: early contributions and seminal ideas for development studies

By Enzo Caputo

Giorgio Sebregondi è un iniziatore in Italia degli studi sullo sviluppo,

nel secondo dopoguerra. I suoi insegnamenti sono di estrema attualità

per ripensare l'approccio alla cooperazione internazionale allo sviluppo

e valorizzare le esperienze migliori fatte in passato.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Youcanprint
• Release date: Feb 9, 2021
• ISBN: 9791220317825

Book preview

2020

INTRODUCTION

It seems to me that there are two essential principles for properly defining a social development policy: the first is to reject the notion that development is restricted to economic development alone…; the second is that the development policy of a society must be designed as a policy of self-development for that society [1956a, p. 277].

The aim of this paper is to examine Giorgio Sebregondi (GS)'s thinking from the point of view of his very original, and still surprisingly significant, contributions to the theory and practice of social development. This is a very specific point of view, which does not claim to take into account all the richness and complexity of his entire body of work, which has been done very well in the past. I am referring, in particular, to the publication by S. Santamaita [1998] and the collection of accounts and essays edited by Carlo Felice Casula [1990], with a passionate and illuminating introduction by Giuseppe De Rita. For this reason, the reference texts we have used the most are the two most comprehensive works on the subject:

• an article from 1950 Considerazioni sulla Teoria delle Aree Depresse (Observations on the Theory of Depressed Regions). This is a most structured piece of writing, rich in quotations and precise references, a sound basis for a systematic critique, at an international level, of the theories of economic development and related policies in the 1950s. The article develops the first principle referred to in the opening sentence of these observations: the integrity of the development process and the relevance of political-institutional factors for the success of economic projects.

• A letter from 1956, written to Father Louis Joseph Lebret, founder of Economie et Humanisme - EH (Economy and Humanism movement). This addresses the second of the principles mentioned and contains, in a rather difficult exposition, the other highly innovative content of the GS approach: the need for the citizens involved to organize themselves, at different levels and in their own way, shielded from interference from political parties, in order to interact with the states acting as promoters of development and make use of the economic instruments they have made available.

All the other available works related to the topic under discussion have been taken into consideration and often cited. However, the two works mentioned were given preference because of their well-defined body of observations, which cannot be ignored when discussing GS's ideas on the development of society¹.

A final consideration regards the point of view of the author of this paper himself, who discovered Giorgio Sebregondi and the validity of his ideas during his own studies and experiences in development, mainly outside Italy. Therefore, the references of GS’s thought to the Italian context, although very extensive, are less emphasised compared to the works cited, but perhaps also less intrusive with respect to the clarity and general value of his insights.

The secular commitment to the development of society

The period after the Second World War saw the search for new political-institutional approaches toward non-destructive ways to address the imbalances and inequalities that had given rise to the horrors of war and produced bloody revolutions. GS puts himself at the centre of this research, which becomes the reason for his intellectual commitment and involvement in society. De Rita notes that he was perhaps the first to conceive of intellectual work as 'technico-political' work, aimed at applying technical skills to the total transformation of society [1990, p. 21]. GS provides the most accurate definition of his commitment to society himself in the Letter of 1956 [1956, pp. 256-57]: It means ... working, above all, for the introduction of new concepts into cultural life, to the expansion of knowledge through experience, to the verification - based on factual evidence - of one's original insights, to come up with new logical and working hypotheses. It means working towards planting new seeds and coming up with fresh insights rather than accepting fixed opinions and established doctrines. Therefore, he preferred the intensification and expansion of movements rather than the systematization and crystallization of aggregations [like for instance the political parties, ibidem , p. 253]. Although he clearly identified himself as a Catholic intellectual, it is not paradoxical to recognize in him the traits of a strong secular ethic, which shunned the interference of opposing ideologies in social transformation. He draws inspiration without prejudice from the various contemporary historical experiences, and then focuses on political skills and social dynamics empirically verifiable in the real world.², ³

GS starts from the centrality and universality of 'development' in the world after the Second World War⁴. For him, ‘development’ represents an approach to conflicts (and imbalances) between peoples and social groups allowing for a constructive solution, very different from the tragic outcomes experienced in the 1900s. In this sense, the concept of the development of society for GS has a very broad geographical scope, ranging from depressed regions within developed countries, to Latin American countries, large countries such as the Soviet Union, China, and India, and Mediterranean and African countries, to the extent of embracing the process of European integration: this was also - perhaps more than any other - a new way of dealing with imbalances and conflict. All over the world, the idea of the development of societies becomes a new frontier, a pressing and priority reality for the problems and inadequacies of the current order of nations [1950a, p. 217].

A new role for the state and its citizens

Toward this new frontier of development, two aspects of society must be considered:

• the State (the state institution at various national and supra-national levels) promoter, guarantor, and provider of economic instruments and technical tools for development and

• citizens as organized actors, who engage in dialogue with the State on concrete economic, social, and cultural policy choices affecting them at a national or local level, and appropriate the opportunities and skills they are given, interpret and manage them, and develop themselves.

It is the societies themselves that create these two dimensions and their new forms of relationship, in an attempt to resolve and overcome the imbalances created by history between the entrenched modalities and institutions that characterize them, and new internal and external dimensions that modify the conditions of their survival.

Because, says GS, society is a historical entity, referring to Felice Balbo⁵ for a more detailed philosophical formulation of this concept. For traditional sociologists, society was a natural, static entity regulated by biological and psychological mechanisms and relationships [1953a p. 160 and 1954b p. 232]. In contrast to this view, society is seen as a historical entity, based on motivation, with a specific purpose, with structural characteristics, and something that is