Introduction
Postwar Italy offers a privileged vantage point from which to examine the entanglement of Cold War politics, international organisations, and the early formation of development economics.
Far from being marginal to global debates on underdevelopment, Southern Italy became a key arena in which ideas, institutions, and policy instruments converged and were experimentally deployed.
Scholars have recently delved deeper into the role played since the 1950s by international organisations such as the World Bank, UN agencies, OEEC-OECD, and so on, in promoting cultures and policies aimed at fostering development (Kott Reference Kott2024; Ferns and Villani Reference Ferns, Villani, Ferns and Villani2024; Kröss, Pernet and Unger Reference Kröss, Pernet, Unger, Unger, Borowyand and Pernet2022; Stinsky Reference Stinsky2021; Martín García and Delgado Gòmez-Escalonilla Reference Martìn Garcìa, Delgado Gòmez-Escalonilla, Martìn Garcìa and Delgado Gòmez-Escalonilla2020, 10; Frey, Kunkel and Unger Reference Frey, Kunkel and Unger2014; Kott Reference Kott2011).
It is also well known that, in the context of the Cold War, other diverse key players operated alongside national governments and international organisations: in the Western world, institutions such as MIT, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others contributed in various ways to theoretical development during the era of ‘high development theory’ (Krugman Reference Krugman, Summers and Shah1993, 6) and to the dissemination of theories and practices aimed at combating underdevelopment (Parmar Reference Parmar2012; Parisi Reference Parisi2012; Parisi Reference Parisi, Cova and Fumi2011).
Of course, it has also been widely recognised that the interests and reasons underlying these actions were closely linked to the Cold War and drove a process that involved the transmission of values, tools and cultures that were far from neutral and which, among other things, developed in many ways in a similar manner on both sides of the Iron Curtain (Kott Reference Kott2024; Throler Reference Trohler, Dieter Meyer and Benavot2013, 143; Silova, Millei and Piattoeva Reference Silova, Millei and Piattoeva2017; Engerman et al. Reference Engerman, Gilman, Haefele and Latham2003).
In relation to the genesis of development cultures and policies, experiences on the European continent have long been overlooked, with the assumption that the problem of underdevelopment affected only colonial or former colonial countries. However, during the 1950s, Southern Europe played a significant role in this area, for strategic reasons related to NATO’s southern flank in the Cold War, but above all because of the objective underdevelopment that afflicted certain areas within individual countries (Granata Reference Granata2025; Baumeister and Sala Reference Baumeister and Sala2015). Italy, marked by the largest ‘backward’ area among advanced countries – namely the ‘Mezzogiorno’ – became a case study and a laboratory for development policies (Lorenzini Reference Lorenzini2019; Alacevich Reference Alacevich2013).
It was on this European ground that one of the entities most directly involved in the ‘production chain’ of modernisation theory, the Ford Foundation, met with the Associazione per lo sviluppo dell’industria nel Mezzogiorno (Italian association for the development of industry in the Mezzogiorno – SVIMEZ).
The profile and role of the Ford Foundation have been extensively reconstructed and interpreted. In its philanthropic activities, it operated as a ‘grant-giving agency with a broad charter’ and with strategic approaches aimed at ‘building and improving institutions; generating and disseminating knowledge and information; developing talents … [and] providing an independent contribution to public policy’ (Magat Reference Magat1979, 22, 47; Nielsen Reference Nielsen1972; Bell Reference Bell, Keohane and Nye1972; Macdonald Reference Macdonald1955).
Of course, ‘in the context of Cold War ideological competition’ (Parmar Reference Parmar2012, 100), this declaration of independence also concealed other aspects and purposes. The Foundation, in fact, worked closely with the US government and government agencies, such as the CIA, and ‘constructed a series of networks – based around power-knowledge’ – that mobilised American cultural centres and integrated them with international partnerships in areas of interest, in order to amplify their influence (Attal Reference Attal2019; Parmar Reference Parmar2012, 147; Berghahn Reference Berghahn2004; Sutton Reference Sutton and Gemelli1998; Leffler Reference Leffler1992; McCarthy Reference McCarthy1987; Sutton Reference Sutton1987; Bell Reference Bell, Keohane and Nye1972).
It was from the encounter between these two entities that the Centro per gli Studi sullo Sviluppo Economico’ (Center for Studies on Economic Development; hereinafter ‘Centre’) was born, which is the subject of this study. Despite the awareness of its importance on the part of those who had animated it (Novacco Reference Novacco1995, 43), the events surrounding this entity, although often cited, have long been ‘forgotten’ (Carbone Reference Carbone2021, 558). Recently, however, the Centre has been the subject of more in-depth studies, which have recognised its originality (Granata Reference Granata2022a; Carbone Reference Carbone2021; Lorenzini Reference Lorenzini2017; Vitale Reference Vitale2000).
While the role of SVIMEZ in postwar development has been extensively discussed, this article advances the literature in three specific ways: namely, it reconstructs the SVIMEZ–Ford Centre not merely as a site of technical assistance, but as a space of training and circulation of development expertise across national and international arenas. Moreover, it foregrounds the Centre’s internal intellectual pluralism and the tensions surrounding the relationship with the Ford Foundation, moving beyond a unidirectional interpretation of American influence. Finally, by situating the Centre within the broader Cold War geography of development, the article highlights how Southern Europe functioned as a crucial testing ground where global theories were adapted to the complexities of a dualistic economy. Here, the reconstruction of this institution will draw on largely unpublished documentation from the SVIMEZ archives, allowing us to follow the events that marked the establishment and development of the Centre throughout its period of activity.
Internationalisation of the Italian model and gestation of the Centre
In the immediate postwar period, Southern Italy attracted growing international interest and became useful for the design of policies appropriate to the problems of ‘underdeveloped’ European countries. This was also due to the leading role played by SVIMEZ and the group of experts working around it (D’Antone Reference D’Antone2004; Negri Zamagni and Sanfilippo Reference Negri Zamagni and Sanfilippo1988).
Founded in 1946, this influential think tank, which included all the major Italian banks and industries interested in investing in the South, was created by the then Socialist Minister of Industry, Rodolfo Morandi, and figures associated with the Istituto per la ricostruzione industriale (IRI), such as Donato Menichella, future governor of the Bank of Italy, Francesco Giordani, former president of the Institute and then deputy executive director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), Giuseppe Cenzato, president of the Southern Electricity Company (SME), and Pasquale Saraceno, a leading figure in the theory and practice of planning in Italy, who played a fundamental role not only at the national level, but also in connecting the Italian case to global debates, acting as a ‘diplomat’ and expert on development (Farese Reference Farese2024; Giovagnoli and Persico Reference Giovagnoli and Persico2013; Bonuglia Reference Bonuglia2010; Zoppi Reference Zoppi2002; Vigna Reference Vigna1997). At that time, SVIMEZ was incubating the so-called ‘new southernism’, an approach that aimed to resolve the historical ‘southern question’ through a process of state-stimulated industrialisation (Saraceno Reference Saraceno1977; Saraceno Reference Saraceno1986).
Above all, since the immediate postwar period, SVIMEZ had been the main centre of planning activity in support of Italian governments, and this role would be definitively confirmed in the early 1960s with the appointment of Saraceno to head the experts committee responsible for laying the technical foundations for the economic planning scheme of the centre-left governments (Saraceno Reference Saraceno1963).Footnote 1 On these bases, during the 1950s SVIMEZ had increased its influence at international level, particularly through its activities at the OEEC headquarters (Granata Reference Granata2022a; Ventresca Reference Ventresca2017; Granata Reference Granata2010; Ricciardi Reference Ricciardi2005; Salvati Reference Salvati1982; Saraceno Reference Saraceno1977).
Following the experience of the Cassa del Mezzogiorno, of which SVIMEZ had obviously been the inspiration and protagonist, in the first half of 1954, precisely in order to develop ever closer international relations, the Association co-opted Jan Tinbergen and Paul Rosenstein-Rodan as members of its board. The latter, a professor of economics at MIT, had extensive experience at the World Bank, and from that vantage point he had also studied plans for underdeveloped areas, including Italy, India and Indonesia, which is why his collaboration with SVIMEZ had intensified over time (Alacevich Reference Alacevich2021).Footnote 2 At the beginning of 1955, after stepping down as secretary of the OEEC, Robert Marjolin, former director of the French Ministry of National Economy and professor of economics in Paris, joined the board, along with Ambassador Attilio Cattani, who had led the Italian delegation in Paris throughout the crucial reconstruction phase (Farese Reference Farese2017; D’Antone Reference D’Antone and Barca1997).Footnote 3
In the following years, as a result, the field of studies, technical assistance and economic planning in underdeveloped countries and regions had further expanded at the international level, as had the commitment to supranational organisations (Granata Reference Granata2025, 95).Footnote 4
It was against this backdrop that, in 1958, the Centre was established, representing the culmination of these international activities.Footnote 5 The first contacts aimed at forming an entity based in Italy and dedicated to economic development studies dated back to the collaborations established by SVIMEZ with MIT and to meetings held in Rome since the mid-1950s. On those occasions, the Association’s leaders, with the mediation of Rosenstein-Rodan, had become acquainted with Max F. Millikan, director of the Centre for International Studies (CENIS), and Vincent M. Barnett, himself a development economist. The latter, who had long been at the helm of Colgate University, had some knowledge of Italy, having worked for the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) in the late 1940s and later heading the economic affairs section of the American Embassy in Rome (Millikan and Blackmer Reference Millikan and Blackmer1961; Blackmer Reference Blackmer2002).Footnote 6 The Ford Foundation’s interest in the Italian experience was also deepened by an exploratory trip made by Waldemar A. Nielsen, who, between 1955 and 1956, travelled to Southern Italy to study the works of agricultural reform, irrigation and vocational education. Nielsen, who had previously worked in the US State Department as director of the Marshall Plan’s European information programme, held the position of director of international affairs at the Ford Foundation (Eisenberg Reference Eisenberg2005; Nielsen Reference Nielsen1985; Nielsen Reference Nielsen1972). Given the importance of the Italian case, Nielsen soon devised a programme with a dual purpose: on the one hand, to train experts in economic disciplines and, on the other, to contribute to the implementation of development theories by promoting the Italian model as a case study.Footnote 7 These objectives, which appeared to coincide, certainly met not only the needs but also the ambitions of SVIMEZ and, in any case, were consistent with the issues that were crucial in Italy at that time, at least in the field of economic studies: ‘In Italy there does not exist a degree course aimed at training economists,’ wrote Sergio Steve shortly afterwards, analysing the shortcomings of the Italian academic system. ‘The inadequacy of the supply by our universities of trained economists relative to demand is very much recognised’ (Steve Reference Steve1962).Footnote 8
In this context, concrete negotiations for the establishment of an institute within SVIMEZ intensified in 1957 when, after preliminary discussions mediated by Rosenstein Rodan, meetings were held in Rome between SVIMEZ leaders and Nielsen himself.Footnote 9 The formal proposal for the creation of the Centre, presented by President Giordani to the Ford Foundation in May,Footnote 10 provided for a contribution from the Foundation of $520,000 over five years and an Italian commitment of $200,000 for the same period.Footnote 11 On the basis of these agreements, the Foundation’s Board of Trustees approved the grant shortly thereafter,Footnote 12 and the Centre was subsequently established. In accordance with the requests of the US side, it was set up with financial and administrative autonomy, while operating as a section of the Association.Footnote 13
However, the establishment of the Centre caused tensions within SVIMEZ, which were far from negligible both because of the figures involved and what they represented in cultural terms. The debate highlighted concerns and mistrust regarding the content of the operation and insufficient involvement in the definition of the agreement mediated by Rosenstein-Rodan. The first point of ‘conflict’, therefore, arose because Giordani and Molinari, due to their long-standing relationship with Rodan, their interest in acquiring resources, and also in raising the international status of the Association, had concluded the agreement without the necessary involvement of the organisation.Footnote 14
However, the concerns also related to aspects of a more purely cultural nature. In August 1957, Claudio Napoleoni, Gian Giacomo Dell’Angelo, Nino Novacco, and Giorgio Ceriani Sebregondi drafted a letter addressed to Pasquale Saraceno – but shared with him in advance – in which they formalised and voiced their concerns about the agreement. The ‘officials’ – some of the most important Italian scholars in their respective disciplines – expressed their fear that the Centre, through the Foundation’s funding, would establish a ‘purely organisational relationship’ with SVIMEZ rather than a ‘cultural affiliation and the refinement and broadening of experiences’. Implicit in the veiled threats of disengagement contained in the letters was, of course, the feared risk of the Italian side becoming subordinate to its influential partner. In fact, the officials’ initiative revealed their concern to safeguard their own approach to development and to assert their cultural autonomy.
This is an initiative that is unprecedented in our country. The point that will need to be made firmly, however, is that the initiative must at all times seek to meet the needs arising from within the Italian system, which obviously does not imply any form of cultural nationalism, but rather requires that we know how to use in the most organic and comprehensive way the cultural, scientific and organisational experience that has been gained on economic development issues both in other countries and at international level.Footnote 15
The elements that needed to be synthesised essentially derived from a two-pronged approach: the top-down approach drove the Foundation’s objectives, conveyed by Rodan, and argued that the Centre should compensate for the shortage of economists underlying Italy’s ‘lack of influence in international organisations’.Footnote 16 On the other hand, the approach conveyed by some of the pioneers of development economics in Italy, such as Ceriani Sebregondi, saw the Centre rather as a propagator of the original experiences gained within SVIMEZ through fieldwork in the South and, increasingly, in Mediterranean countries (Farese Reference Farese2018).
Two different ingredients, therefore, compatible but to be mixed with the right wisdom in the aims and programmes of the new institute and which, evidently, had been taken too much for granted during the gestation phase. In any case, both Saraceno and Molinari, recognising the validity of the concerns expressed, involved the ‘officials’ in a ‘provisional committee’ aimed at studying the identity of the Centre and the terms of its relationship with SVIMEZ and with the new financial partner who, in any case, at the beginning of 1958, through Nielsen, expressed ‘sadness’ at the ‘severe practical difficulties’ encountered, as well as the fear that the Centre could not be created as originally planned.Footnote 17
Internal discussions within SVIMEZ concerning the agreement with the Foundation reveal that cooperation was neither automatic nor uncontested. While Foundation funding was widely recognised as an opportunity, concerns emerged regarding autonomy, intellectual orientation, and the implications of external sponsorship. These tensions underscore the negotiated nature of the relationship and further complicate interpretations of the Centre as a passive recipient of American influence.
Despite these difficulties, however, the Centre began its activities on 1 March 1958, and, after an experimental phase marked by the tragic and premature death of Ceriani Sebregondi in June of that same year, it was divided into three main sections:Footnote 18 first, a ‘School for the training of experts in economic development issues’ (hereinafter: ‘School’), intended for those who were to work in agencies, institutes and companies involved in development policies.Footnote 19 The management of the School, which was initially supposed to be entrusted to Paolo Sylos Labini, was assigned to Claudio Napoleoni, who had been involved in its development and launch since 1958 and was soon appointed its director.Footnote 20
A second branch of activity was dedicated to ‘Research on concrete problems of economic development’, with the aim of implementing SVIMEZ’s activities, and finally, the Centre included an area dedicated to ‘promoting meetings between scholars and economic policy makers’ in foreign countries.Footnote 21 In organisational terms, the Centre was led by a ‘Steering Committee’ composed of five members, chaired by Giordani and composed of Saraceno, Guido Carli, Rodan and Tinbergen. This body was supported by an ‘Executive Committee’ chaired by Saraceno himself, and by officials and collaborators directly involved, including Napoleoni, as well as Dell’Angelo, Franco Pilloton, and Novacco, who was soon appointed director of the Association.Footnote 22
However, the heart of the Centre’s training activities was the School, which aimed to provide ‘training suited to the practical tasks required by economic policy.’Footnote 23
The Centre’s educational mission should not be understood as duplicating ‘traditional’ university-level training in economics, which was established in postwar Italy, as its objective was to form a specific type of expert: economists and officials equipped to operate at the intersection of economic analysis, public administration, and development planning. The emphasis was on theoretical specialisation and also on applied competence, policy design, and familiarity with state-led intervention tools. In this sense, the Centre aimed to contribute to the formation of a development-oriented research and technocratic profile, distinct from both academic economists and traditional civil servants (Maier Reference Maier1987; Hall Reference Hall1986).Footnote 24
Teaching took the form of lectures, seminars, conferences, practical activities and educational trips, which together formed a high-level specialisation course, initially lasting six months, with a total of 166 lessons and 332 hours.Footnote 25 From the very first year, the commitment of both the ‘students’ and the teachers proved to be remarkable, and the cornerstone of the training activity, in addition to Napoleoni himself (Napoleoni Reference Napoleoni1963), was certainly Rosenstein-Rodan, who taught for eight hours a week, living in Rome for over three months a year.
The course content, which can obviously only be summarised, was in the first phase grouped into three macro-areas; the first concerned the history and theory of economic thought and development, with an extensive treatment of macroeconomic theory. ‘We consider that at a time when opinions on the mechanics of growth are many and very uncertain,’ Saraceno asserted in his opening speech at the first School, ‘even those with practical interests should discipline themselves to reflect on theoretical problems.’Footnote 26
The second area focused on the analysis of development policies tested in ‘underdeveloped’ countries, and introduced the third group, which dealt specifically with Italy and the development problems faced up to that point. In addition to this programme, further courses were offered, consisting of 30 lessons in mathematics and 20 in statistical analysis, to ‘enable students to fully understand the subjects covered in the course on economic development and to help them carry out their research work.’Footnote 27
Since its foundation, the School’s faculty consisted of 35 members, including high-level officials from international organisations and Italian and foreign university professors. In addition, of course, there were members of the Centre, who were joined by prominent scholars, including Siro Lombardini, Giorgio Fuà, Nino Andreatta, Sergio Steve, Augusto Graziani, Giuseppe De Rita, Manlio Rossi Doria, and important state officials such as Gaetano Stammati and Guido Carli, who was then Minister of Foreign Trade but would later be appointed Governor of the Bank of Italy. Similarly, leading international economists passed through the classrooms of the course; Rosenstein-Rodan and Tinbergen were clearly key figures in the activities. In addition to being Director of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau, Tinbergen was also Professor of Econometrics at the University of Rotterdam. Other participants included Nicholas Kaldor of Cambridge; Paul Samuelson and W.W. Rostow of MIT; Thomas Balogh of Oxford; Robert Triffin of Yale; Ingvar Svennilson of Stockholm University and the OEEC; Edward S. Mason, Gottfried Haberler and Edward M. Chamberlin of Harvard; Hollis B. Chenery of Stanford University; Harvey Leibenstein of the University of California; and Gardner Ackley of the University of Michigan.Footnote 28
The emphasis on technical expertise also fostered considerable pluralism among the teaching staff. The presence of economists linked to the Marxist tradition, however heterodox, such as Claudio Napoleoni and Augusto Graziani, further complicates any interpretation of the Centre as a mere vehicle for American orthodoxy on development. Their involvement instead points to a pluralistic intellectual environment – which, after all, had been the essence of SVIMEZ since its inception – in which competing concepts and approaches to development coexisted and were actively debated, relating to the role of the state, paths to industrialisation and centre-periphery relations. This plurality was not accidental, but reflected the broader Italian culture of economic planning – forged in part by the harsh political confrontations of the controversial postwar period – in which development was a problem to be addressed rather than an established doctrine. It is also important to note that the convergence between technical expertise and ideological diversity in some ways mirrored the country’s political trajectory during the transition to the centre-left (centro-sinistra), when economic planning and development policy became a key area of dialogue between reformist Catholicism and the reformist left, paving the way for their subsequent governing coalition.
Crucial, then, was the composition of the class each year, which included both young graduates intending to specialise in economics and, above all, officials of all levels from public and private institutions, both Italian and foreign.Footnote 29
The School’s success was immediate, and the first course, which had 15 students, was expanded to 24, including two scholars from Japan and Egypt.Footnote 30 From the second year onwards, the number of participants exceeded 30, again from a variety of public and private organisations and universities, with a growing number from abroad.Footnote 31
The School also stood out for its substantial scholarship programme,Footnote 32 funded by institutions including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno, and, in particular, the OEEC-OECD and the European Productivity Agency.Footnote 33 Thanks in part to these instruments supporting participation, the Centre’s international outreach was particularly significant, and the funding partner also worked constantly to expand SVIMEZ’s international networks of relations.Footnote 34
In any case, the success of the School’s activities was considered ‘very bright’ by the promoters, both in terms of the number of students exceeding expectations and the collaboration of personalities from the Italian and foreign universities, as well as the outcome of lectures and seminars that aroused ‘considerable interest’ around the course.Footnote 35
A second activity of the Centre, considered preparatory to the School’s teaching task, was linked to field studies and research. The general criteria established for the development of activities in this regard aimed to accept and promote research in three main areas: first, on ‘structural phenomena’ in both the Italian economy and underdeveloped countries; secondly, on ‘principles useful for the definition and integration of development policies’ of a national and regional nature, with particular reference to the Italian experience; finally, on ‘elements linking macroeconomic and microeconomic analysis’.Footnote 36 From the early 1960s, following the death of President Giordani, the Centre launched a series of studies financed by the Foundation named after him, with the aim of publishing and promoting the research carried out there.Footnote 37
Furthermore, precisely in order to attract and enhance its role as a hub and propagator of studies on development in the Mediterranean area, the Centre consolidated its advisory role, in particular in support of international organisations.Footnote 38 In 1960, for example, Nielsen involved Napoleoni and SVIMEZ in the organisation of an international seminar to disseminate the results of research conducted on education, first in support of the Italian government and then of the OECD.Footnote 39
However, the success of the advisory activities also had unexpected effects. The difficulties of national and international organisations – such as the new EEC agencies – in finding qualified personnel meant that trained staff were constantly being drawn away from the Centre and the School, hindering their further expansion.Footnote 40 On the other hand, this situation was also a positive effect of the activity carried out and confirmed the usefulness of the pragmatic training approach as well as the premises relating to the shortage of skills and economic experts.Footnote 41
The second grant and international dissemination
The agreements reached during the Centre’s gestation period stipulated that the Ford Foundation grant would end after five years of activity, at the end of 1962. The previous year, therefore, discussions had already begun, first informal – since the relationship between Nielsen and Saraceno in particular had developed on a basis of personal trust – and then formal, to explore the possibility of renewing or even increasing the grant. From the outset, however, difficulties arose due to the standard operating procedures of the Foundation, which preferred to finance the launch of initiatives and then delegate their subsequent development to local funds.Footnote 42 However, the positive results achieved and the now evident mutual trust led to the identification of a possible meeting point between the needs of the Foundation and those of SVIMEZ in an evolution of the Centre’s tasks. The first grant had mainly supported American intentions to provide the training needed to fill the gaps in the Italian academic system. The mutual interest in the activities supported by the second grant therefore shifted towards emphasising the Centre’s international role. At the beginning of the 1960s, Italy had definitively moved from the group of countries with underdeveloped areas to that of developed countries; the possible involvement of the Foundation, and therefore the continuation of its activities, had to aim at transferring the skills generated within the Centre and taught by the School increasingly to low-income countries.
With the terms of continued collaboration thus redefined, in 1962 SVIMEZ proposed a new financing scheme that provided for a doubling of the Italian contribution and a reduction in the Foundation’s contribution from 65 to 40 million lire per year. For the new activities, which were essentially dedicated to underdeveloped countries, the Italian contribution thus rose from 32 per cent to 50 per cent of the total, creating an equal partnership between the two entities.
The evolution of collaboration in this way clearly revived SVIMEZ’s initial interests, because it placed the ‘Italian laboratory’ at the centre of new activities, with the aim of disseminating its methodologies and results. It also satisfied the Foundation, which emphasised its international commitment to areas that had become priorities.
In this regard, starting in 1960, the Centre had launched an activity called ‘individual training’, designed for experts and officials from other countries.Footnote 43 The programme aimed first and foremost to overcome the language barriers that penalised foreigners, since most of the lessons were held in Italian or, at most, in English. Secondly, but no less importantly, many of the potential participants were officials, experts and managers already working in public administration, public and private bodies, banks, and so on. It had been found that this type of person was ill-suited to the position of ‘student’ in a four- or five-month course, however prestigious, both for organisational reasons and, above all, for reasons of status.
Within the Centre, had matured Saraceno’s idea of organising a reception service to provide each individual ‘guest’ with a workstation, personalised assistance – a sort of individual tutoring – access to secretarial services, which organised travel and meetings by providing SVIMEZ’s agenda and network of contacts, as well as, of course, access to training and research resources. After the first experiments, the solution – which Nielsen described as ‘very ingenious’ – seemed to yield promising results, helping foreigners to ‘get in touch with the situation and problems of the underdeveloped Italian area, without any language barriers and with direct assistance’.Footnote 44 On this basis, a service was set up to select participants recommended by public administrations and cultural institutions in countries in the Mediterranean area, Southern Europe, the Near and Middle East, and North Africa, who were able to communicate in Italian, French, English or Spanish and who, during their stay, received a monthly allowance of $160.Footnote 45
Individual training soon became a crucial part of the Centre’s programme, and between 1960 and 1967, it hosted 133 foreign ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’, an average of about 20 per year, with a peak of 33 in 1963. They came from all continents, with a concentration from Southern Europe, but with significant numbers from the Southern Mediterranean, Africa, Asia and, finally, Latin America.Footnote 46
As part of this project, individual assistance was soon joined by collective assistance, i.e. assistance aimed at more or less numerous groups of scholars from the same country. For example, in 1965, when the number of participants in individual assistance had fallen to 11, another 66 scholars from 16 developing countries had actually travelled to Italy;Footnote 47 and so, of course, it was every year.
In addition, the Centre systematically hosted other groups attending courses at international institutes, universities and research centres linked to SVIMEZ, which included field study visits to learn more about the Italian case. Again taking 1965 as an example, 23 ‘assisted’ participants from 20 countries on the tenth course of the Economic Development Institute in Washington travelled to Italy: these included a large group of students from the Faculty of Agronomy at the University of La Plata in Argentina and five senior officials from the Japan Development Bank, involved in a seminar on ‘regional planning’. In addition, every year since 1961, several groups (of ten each) of students from Harvard University on a study trip to Italy joined the course participants on guided tours of various development organisations and institutions, such as the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno; the ‘consorzi di bonifica’ (land reclamation consortia); the ‘Ente per la riforma fondiaria’ in Puglia and Basilicata; the thermonuclear power plant in Latina; the Olivetti factory in Pozzuoli; the ‘Centro di specializzazione e di ricerche economico-agrarie per il Mezzogiorno in Portici’; the ISVEIMER bank in Naples; and various ‘industrialisation areas’, as well as settlements and factories belonging to state-owned industries.Footnote 48
In fact, the evolution of the objectives during the second grant period allowed for a significant expansion of the School’s educational offering. The main four to six-month course was accompanied by ‘specific thematic courses’ focusing on more limited aspects of industrial production, Italy’s experience in the field of agricultural reform and industrialisation, and, in general, activities aimed at Southern Italy.Footnote 49 These courses had more flexible formats ranging from three weeks to two months and, again taking 1965 as an example, hosted 21 people from 11 countries for a module in English on the issue of industrialisation in Southern Italy; ten experts from Central American countries for a course in Spanish on the Italian experience of agrarian reform; and nine Turkish experts for a course in English on the same subject.Footnote 50 These courses consisted, in their standard version, of at least 12 ‘lectures’, some given by SVIMEZ officials and others by experts involved in development policy in Southern Italy. They also included round tables, at least 24 hours of ‘assisted study’ and individual research projects, and the usual visits of several days to ‘industrial development areas’. Finally, these courses were often organised or supported by Italian institutions such as IRI (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale), foreign institutions such as the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague or other prominent study centres and universities, and supranational institutions such as the OECD and the EEC.Footnote 51
The Centre’s training programme was completed by a range of ‘business management’ and ‘regional planning’ courses. In 1965, SVIMEZ introduced courses on business management and organisation, which attracted 84 students in their first year,Footnote 52 in collaboration with the Study Centre of Naples and the Engineering Faculties of the Universities of Naples and Cagliari. In addition it offered two-month annual courses on regional economic issues, in order to address the problem of the ‘serious shortage of qualified staff for … the preparation of regional development plans’.Footnote 53
At the heart of this training programme, even during the additional grant period, remained the course that constituted the core activity of the School and which, however, underwent significant changes in the hierarchy of its content. In summary, the new objectives of the two proposing entities shifted the focus from the training of mainly Italian economists to the dissemination of Italian experience for the training of foreign experts in development policies. Furthermore, the actors entrusted with the task of interpreting the new strategies also changed in a not insignificant way. On the American side, for example, at the beginning of the decade Nielsen left the Foundation to take up the position of president of the Africa-America Institute in New York; on the Italian side, Novacco, who for four years had played an essential organisational role in both the Association and the Centre, moved to Paris to the recently established OECD Development Centre to follow activities in Africa and Latin America. Above all, during the same period, Napoleoni moved to the University of Ancona and was replaced by Massimo Finoia, an economist who had grown up within the Centre after attending one of its first courses and later became rector of the Third University of Rome (Novacco Reference Novacco1995, 46).
It was precisely the latter who was tasked with reorganising the course in order to adapt it to the new requirements of the School. Taking as an example the ninth edition, held between January and June 1967, we can see that the programme was divided into four parts. The first was dedicated to the problems of ‘production units’ and, starting from the concept of the enterprise as the ‘primary cell of the economic system’, addressed ‘the mechanism of enterprise functioning’ from a ‘practical-operational’ and ‘engineering’ point of view. This was followed by the ‘macroeconomic’ section, which focused on the Keynesian and post-Keynesian view and analysed the overall functioning of the economic system, also studying the content and instruments of modern economic policy:
[T]his does not mean that, for the purposes of development theory, Keynesian theory occupies a more prominent place than other theories. This choice is imposed … by the fact that modern economic policies, such as … the recent Italian economic policy … find their theoretical foundation in Keynesian thought. (Finoia Reference Finoia1966, 74)Footnote 54
The third section, in fact, focused on analysing the structure of the Italian economy and economic policies over the last 15 years, leading to the fourth thematic area, which consisted of Rosenstein-Rodan’s numerous lectures and addressed the problems of planning and development, analysing key documents of Italian economic policy such as the Vanoni Plan, the La Malfa Note, the Saraceno Report and the Giolitti Plan: ‘In this regard, it was not of secondary importance to study these documents at SVIMEZ,’ concluded the director of the School, ‘since it could be said that almost all of them had been drawn up with the decisive contribution of SVIMEZ’ (Finoia Reference Finoia1966, 75).
An examination of the thematic areas, in any case, shows that, first of all, the macroeconomic vision that initially formed the core of the course – in line with the Foundation’s objective – was subsequently subordinated to a more microeconomic approach, consistent with SVIMEZ’s expertise. Secondly, the Italian case gained a much broader and more focused space, aimed precisely at dissemination abroad.
With this structure, the School also operated throughout the five-year period of the second grant, which was due to expire in 1968, with the tenth edition of the course. With this horizon in mind, as in the past, SVIMEZ had moved in good time – at the end of 1966 – and with the same method, namely a confidential exploration by Rodan. However, at the beginning of the year, in a long ‘strictly confidential’ letter, the scholar had conveyed the difficulty perceived in an informal survey with the president of the Foundation, who, however, ‘with great emphasis’, had specified that it was not due to ‘dissatisfaction with the results obtained’.Footnote 55 Subsequently, contacts were initiated with a view to overcoming these difficulties and, in fact, at certain points during the year, there was even room for relative optimism.
Nevertheless, the obstacles were concrete; meanwhile, the evolution of the international situation and the emergence of the decolonisation process weighed heavily, causing ‘the changing nature of Foundation interests’ (Carbone Reference Carbone2021, 557; Attal Reference Attal2019, 53), now directed towards the ‘underdeveloped’ countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, which were at greater risk of falling into the Soviet sphere. Added to this was an administrative constraint, namely that the duration of the Foundation’s funding was normally shorter, and already the second grant had required a major change of direction to justify the continuation of the commitment.
For all these reasons, at the end of 1967, the Foundation’s programme officer announced the definitive termination of funding, concluding once again by emphasising that ‘the decision should in no way be interpreted as resulting from an unfavourable evaluation of the accomplishments of SVIMEZ’s work’.Footnote 56
Conclusions
The Centre and School continued their activities for two years after the end of the collaboration with the Foundation, and in 1969 the course reached its twelfth edition, the last one.Footnote 57 During the two grant periods, the Centre received 336 students, including several dozen foreigners, and, through its ‘individual training’ activities, 469 experts, including 53 from Africa, 188 from Latin America, 121 from Europe, 100 from Asia and seven from the United States.Footnote 58 Since, as mentioned, in addition to all these there were numerous groups of students, scholars and experts who attended short courses and carried out visits and field activities, it can be said that in a decade the Centre literally involved thousands of people from the countries concerned in the Italian approach to development. Beyond quantitative indicators, the Centre’s training activities contributed to the formation of transnational professional networks and to the circulation of development knowledge and practices across institutional settings. Former participants often occupied positions within planning agencies, ministries, and international organisations, reinforcing the Centre’s – and SVIMEZ’s – role as a node in the broader ecology of postwar development expertise (Dandolo and Amoroso Reference Dandolo and Amoroso2022; Dandolo Reference Dandolo2017).
The parties involved all agreed on the positive results achieved. Within SVIMEZ, it was believed that the Centre had even ‘made a valid contribution to the revival of economic culture in Italy’, not least because many former students of SVIMEZ – at least 40 over the course of the decade – had subsequently taken up academic roles, contributing to the dissemination of new economic theories and ensuring the continuity of the Centre’s approach.Footnote 59 On this point, Novacco noted that ‘a significant proportion of what was to become the country’s young ‘ruling class’ had attended the School’s courses, and he concluded by highlighting the ‘cultural influence on Italian life’ exerted by SVIMEZ and prominent figures such as Napoleoni (Novacco Reference Novacco1995, 43). Steve shared this view, considering the School to be ‘excellent’ among the institutions promoting advanced economic education (Steve Reference Steve1962). Moreover, this satisfaction was shared by the Foundation, and some time later the President reiterated the ‘many benefits generated by this initial investment’.Footnote 60
Through its direct collaboration with the Foundation, SVIMEZ had apparently become a fully-fledged part of the ‘production chain’ of modernisation theory, promoting and disseminating, through the specific training of intellectuals, officials and experts, the skills crucial for reproducing and disseminating it in low-income countries. It has already been mentioned, in fact, that the Foundation acted by ‘promoting Americanism, combating anti-Americanism, and developing a Cold War American studies network’ (Parmar Reference Parmar2012, 97); and that, ultimately, it operated ‘as an opening wedge for the United States Agency for International Development’ (Bell Reference Bell, Keohane and Nye1972, 116).
Awareness of this aspect, and its reasons, emerged in contacts between the parties, when Saraceno emphasised that SVIMEZ allowed ‘other Mediterranean underdeveloped countries to benefit from one of the few development experiences underway in the non-communist world’.Footnote 61 It is equally true, however, that this persuasive reference was put in writing during the negotiations for the second grant, and Saraceno was certainly not so naive as to be unaware of the interests of his regular interlocutors, such as Shepard Stone, director of the international affairs programme and notoriously linked to the CIA (Parmar Reference Parmar2012, 105).Footnote 62
In any case, it is the content disseminated through this collaboration that must be examined in order to contribute to the analysis of this aspect. The initial different conceptions – that of the Foundation, conveyed by Rosenstein-Rodan, and that expressed by SVIMEZ officials, mediated by Saraceno, who was a personal friend of Rodan (Farese Reference Farese2023) – were soon integrated. Napoleoni, among other things, had worked in symbiosis with Rodan in the early stages, and after his departure he had left ample room for the centrality of the Italian experience, so that the two visions had been reduced to a synthesis over the course of the decade.
The Centre’s experience confirms that during the gestation phase of the theoretical and practical apparatus of development policies, first Italy and then Southern Europe constituted a pivotal training hub whose results were then extended throughout the ‘decade of development’. This process of exporting the culture of modernisation of Western economic systems, which was then extended to former colonial countries, was in many ways considered in its para-colonial sense, i.e. from the top down (or from the centre to the periphery). On the other hand, the content produced within the Centre, and conveyed through the School and thanks to the support of the Ford Foundation, was the result of research, analysis and solutions derived from empirical contact with the reality of backward regions, both Italian and non-Italian. Above all, the cultures that inspired SVIMEZ scholars, in addition to being predominantly progressive even on a political level, were sensitive to approaches to development that paid great attention to the cultural and social factors of communities and, in this way, for example, they very quickly began to take an interest in education.
At least in the case in question, therefore, the process of exporting modernisation was not unidirectional, but also interacted with a push in the opposite direction, i.e. from the bottom up. New disciplines such as development economics and economics of education, in other words, clearly reflected the needs of political agendas resulting from competition between the United States and the Soviet Union (Throler Reference Trohler, Dieter Meyer and Benavot2013; Burgi Reference Burgi, Leimgruber and Schmeltzer2017; Granata Reference Granata2022b). However, at the same time, they arose from the analysis of real problems and the experimentation of solutions in countries affected by underdevelopment, and from the attempt to respond to the urgent need to include vast areas otherwise excluded from prosperity in the changes taking place.
Furthermore, the Centre’s activities also unfolded within a specific domestic political context. Its creation and consolidation coincided with the opening to the Socialist Party and with the broader season of centre-left governments, during which planning and development occupied a central place in political debate. While the Centre did not operate as a partisan actor, its agenda intersected with ongoing discussions on state intervention, industrial policy, and regional development, and it benefited from its close integration within Italy’s governing elite, of which SVIMEZ itself was an integral component.
Ultimately, in any case, the Centre, through the School and its research programmes, played a significant role in training a new generation of economists and development experts, helping to disseminate cutting-edge knowledge and methodologies both in Italy and internationally, and to promote the Italian experience in the Mezzogiorno as a useful case study for the problems of underdeveloped countries.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Mattia Granata teaches Contemporary History at Universitas Mercatorum (Rome). He is president of the Legacoop Study Centre (Rome) and board member of the I. Barberini Foundation (Bologna). Among his latest books are: Una questione meridionale europea. Ocse e paesi mediterranei nel dopoguerra (Rubbettino 2025) and Quarantacinque. Il dibattito sulla cooperazione alla Costituente (Rubbettino 2024).
Open access
