1

The Tourism Sector as a Factor of Convergence for Italian Regions: the Case of Law 488/921

Pasquale PAZIENZA Dipartimento di SEMS, Facoltà di Economia, Università degli Studi di Foggia, Largo Papa Giovanni Paolo II n. 1, 71100 Foggia, Italy. E-mail: p.pazienza@unifg.it Edgardo SICA Facoltà di Economia, Università degli Studi di Foggia, Largo Papa Giovanni Paolo II n. 1, 71100 Foggia, Italy. E-mail: e.sica@unifg.it Abstract Tourism is one of the most dynamic sectors of the world economy. It is highly labour intensive, offers many employment and business opportunities and contributes to the growth of local economies. In this light, it is also seen as an important factor of economic convergence for those countries characterized by socioeconomic inequalities. For this reason, the enforcement of the tourism sector is today one of the main aims on the political agenda of many European and non-European governments. In Italy, the legislative framework represented by law 488/92 was implemented to provide soft-funding for improving innovation and competition of those enterprises operating in the tourism sector, enabling them to contribute to regional economic convergence. However, doubt still remains of its effectiveness. Through the use of a panel data technique, this work aims to analyse the impact exerted by this law on some macroeconomic indicators of regional economies (per-capita GDP and per-capita Added Value generated in the tourism sector) to verify whether it contributes to the economic convergence of the country. The main conclusions highlight that law 488 does not appear to contribute effectively to the reduction of the economic divergence across regions. Keywords: Economic Convergence; Tourism Financial Incentives; Law 488/92.

1 This work was jointly conceived and produced by the two authors. However, sections 1, 2 and 5 were written by Pasquale Pazienza and sections 3 and 4 by Edgardo Sica.

2

1. Introduction In most countries one can observe the existence of a so-called double socioeconomic identity. This is characterized by the coexistence of rich, developed geographical areas together with others less advanced and suffering from the typical problems of underdevelopment. This situation can be seen in Italy, where socioeconomic divergence between the regions of the Centre-North and those of the South represent a long-standing problem (Mauro, 2004; Novacco, 2004; Daniele, 2002; Dunford, 2002; Terrasi, 1999). To improve the socioeconomic conditions of the weaker regions and enable them to catch up to the stronger ones several policies have been adopted. These are largely based on the implementation of financial incentives in various activity sectors and the provision of investments to ameliorate the factors of the territorial context (Arnone and Timpano, 2004; Arnone, 2004; Novacco, 2004). Among the initiatives undertaken to provide Italian enterprises with financial incentives, one of the most important is represented by the legislative framework introduced by law no. 488 of 1992, which provides support for those enterprises operating in the sectors of industry and civil engineering, tourism and commerce, who wish to carry out investments to strengthen their activities. With specific regard to the tourism sector, the implementation of a tool of this kind is in agreement with the general view that tourism may stimulate the economic growth of regions and can represent a key-sector for their development through the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities (Ennew, 2003). Focusing on the financial facilitations granted to firms operating in the sector of “tourism-hotel management”, this work aims to verify if law 488/92 contributes in reducing the economic gap between weaker and stronger regions enabling them to converge towards the same level of per-capita GDP and sectoral added value. On the basis of this idea the paper is organized as follows: section 2 describes the inequality existing between Italian regions and puts into evidence the rational of law 488 for their socioeconomic convergence; section 3 presents a brief review of the reasons why tourism is seen as a key-sector for development; section 4 presents our experimental design and points out the early empirical evidence; finally, section 5 ends with some concluding remarks.

3

2. Inequality across the Italian regions and policy initiatives for cohesion

Italy is characterized by deep regional inequalities, particularly between the eight southern regions of the “Mezzogiorno” (Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia, Campania, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicilia and Sardegna) and the remaining 12 of the Centre-North (Trentino Alto Adige, Lombardia, Emilia Romagna, Valle d’Aosta, Piemonte, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Toscana, Lazio, Liguria, Marche and Umbria). This situation represents a deep-seated problem that can be traced back to the Unification, in 1860. After the Second World War and the “reconstruction” of Italy, many Italian regions started to experience a process of economic growth, later defined as an “economic miracle”. In the 1950’s Italy occupied 14th position in the economic world ranking with 31% of U.S. per capita GDP (Terrasi, 1996). In those years the so-called “southern question” assumed a critical part in the national political agenda, leading to the implementation of regional development policies: therefore, the convergence of regions became a frequent object of study. In the same period, together with high average growth rates of total (between 5.7% and 5%) and per capita (between 5% and 4.4%) GDP, population, industrial employment and labour productivity, per capita income across regions started a process of convergence. This course of action, however, came to a half at the beginning of the 1970’s, when Italy’s rhythm of growth declined in part because of the changes in the international scenario, and in part because internal adjustments. In other words, Italy faced a second phase of development characterized by a slowing down of the average growth rates and, above all, by a process of economic divergence across regions which led to the growth in dualism of the Italian economy (Mauro, 2004). By the 1990’s the development gap in development between Italy’s regions was larger than 1980’s. Figure 1 below shows how, today an industrialized and prosperous North coexists with a far less developed South.

4

Fig. 1 – Map of welfare clusters in Italian regions as hypothesised by SVIMEZ

Italy =100 Clusters Gaps with respect to the

Medium Class Gaps with respect to the

Top Class

Top Class High Class Medium Class Low Class Lowest Class

+30 +15

= -25 -35

= -15 -30 -55 -65

Source: Novacco, 2004. Figure 1 shows the sharp North-South contrast, with all the “lowest class” regions entirely located in the “Mezzogiorno”. The same situation can be observed at a provincial level. In 2002, Italy’s leading province was Milan with a per-capita GDP equal to 152.6% of the Italian average, closely followed by Bolzano (150.6%) and Bologna (136.5%), all in the North (source: Unioncamere – Istituto G. Tagliacarne, 2003). At the bottom of the list there were the southern Provinces of Enna (57.7%), Foggia (57.5%) and Crotone (56.9%). These statistics highlight that Italy needs to implement valid policies for the cohesion of the country through which regional socioeconomic convergence may be achieved. More specifically, the question is: what sort of strategy

5

could be considered for the implementation of a valid policy for the socioeconomic convergence among the Italian regions? If the economic cohesion between “weak” and “strong” areas of the country is the target, then a valid policy would push the weaker regions towards the stronger ones. In Italy, this is mainly done through the implementation of financial incentives to firms and through the provision of investments. On the one hand, financial incentives are given to production frameworks within the “weak” territories. They represent a sort of compensation of external costs suffered by those enterprises operating in the southern regions, which derives from the lack of adequate infrastructural organization of their territories and implies higher organizational costs such as, for example, transport costs. On the other hand, investments are related to material and immaterial factors: a) investments in physical infrastructures such as road, rail, port and airport facilities and logistics, etc.; b) investments in context factors such as education, research, technology, innovation, etc. Hence, while incentives have a compensative nature for external costs, investments aim at ameliorating the external economies. The latter should help to increase the general quality of territories and their level of attraction for private investments. However, and with specific regard to the framework of financial incentives to enterprises, many argue that Italy’s framework has been awakened because of a high number of often not properly targeted proposals (Novacco, 2004). Without entering into the details of this argument, it is possible to observe that among the initiatives undertaken to provide Italian firms with financial incentives, an important one is represented by law no. 488/92 which will be briefly examined in the next section.

3. The tourism sector as a factor of convergence: the rational of Law 488/92

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the world economy. Like other industries, it affects the economy of those areas – regions or countries – where it takes place (Holloway, 1998). The contribution of tourism to an area’s economy cannot be easily recognised because tourism involves many different activity sectors (i.e. transport, refreshment, entertainment), and because various products (such as a meal in a restaurant) are not only sold to tourists but also to local residents. However, the economic impact of tourism can be mainly observed in terms of employment, income, investment and development. Being a labour-intensive industry, tourism determines employment and business opportunities for local people, sometimes representing the only

6

source of employment for the “weak” labour-force, such as women, unskilled workers and rural people. For this reason, it generates income through wages and salaries paid to those jobs either directly or indirectly connected to the sector. Moreover, the contribution of tourism’s flows to income can be augmented by the so-called “tourism income multiplier”, which occurs when money spent by tourists in a particular area or region is re-spent in the same area or region by the recipients. Since tourism requires infrastructures and utilities, it often encourages local authorities to make improvements in infrastructure, thus benefiting the local population (Roe et al., 2004). With respect to traditional sectors in depressed areas, such as agriculture and manufacturing, tourism represents a good opportunity for development. This may be the case of the southern regions of Italy. Thanks to several factors, such as the natural beauty, the temperate climate and the richness of its historical resources, tourism represents an economic growth’s tool for the whole “Mezzogiorno”. In Italy, the proportion of GDP due to tourism-related activities has increased significantly during the last few decades (Marino, 1999). In 2002 the added value generated in the tourism sector was equal to 44 million euro out of which 15 million was spent by international tourists and 29 million by domestic tourists (Manente, 2003). Nevertheless, as often argued, the Italian tourism sector is unable to benefit from all the advantages of such a huge demand. This is because it is characterized by the presence of small and medium enterprises, which in most cases suffer from a lack of financial resources to improve their supply. In the last decade, however, tourism enterprises have found significant support from Law 488/92 since it provides them with financial resources with which they can strengthen their activities. Broadly speaking, this law provides support for those firms operating in the sectors of “industry and civil engineering”, “tourism” and “commerce”, who wish to make new investments to strengthen their level of activity. The support consists of grants for a percentage of those investments2 made to

2 Investments have to be of a medium amount, can extend over a period of two to four years, have to be made in durable assets (both tangible and intangible), and have to be made from the day after the date on which the application was submitted, without retroactivity. More specifically, the amount of aids granted by the law in question varies from between 7.5% and 65% of the total value of expected investments and is calculated on the basis of gross subsidy equivalent (GSE) and net subsidy equivalent (NSE).

7

develop new production units in depressed areas3, to increase production capacity and employment, or to improve ecological conditions associated with production processes. The rational of the law in question is that the money received can be used by enterprises to start an “individual” growth path, which should generate positive externalities in the socio-economic context of the local territory. This should be made possible by the fact that the Law in question works through a simple “call for tender” mechanism. In other words, once a year, the Italian Ministry of Industry announces the possibility to apply for financial contribution and declares the deadline for applications. In order to obtain the grant, applicant firms have to draw up a detailed business plan, describing the organizational and financial aspects of the firm, the planned investments and the market in which they will take place. The applications are then examined by banks delegated by the Ministry, who evaluate the feasibility of the firms’ investment projects and decide on their funding eligibility. Firms selected for funding receive the contribution directly into their current account, in two or three payments, depending on the duration of their investment project. If the planned investment is completed within a couple of years, firms receive the financial contribution in two instalments. Otherwise, if the investment extends over a period of three or four years, contribution is granted in three payments. The first instalment (consisting of up to 50% of the contribution) is generally paid out to the firms within eight months of the submission of their application. Law 488/92, therefore, is often seen as a very simple and rapid tool for those enterprises which need financial assistance to improve – such as in the case of the tourism sector – the quality of their offer by increasing the number of hotel-rooms and diversifying the range of products and services. For the reasons stated above, it is easy to agree with the general view that Law 488 actually represents an engine of development for less developed areas and a step in the right direction towards the socio-economic convergence of the Italian regions. In this sense, it would help to reduce the historical socio-economic gap between the North and the South of Italy. However, there is no empirical proof to support this statement.

3 These are specifically: a) areas defined by the European normative as “objective 1”, i.e. the entire territory comprising the six southern regions of Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicily and Sardinia; b) areas defined by the European normative as “objective 2”, areas included in “derogation 87.3.c”, and “phasing out areas” (areas that were previously objective 1 or 2), i.e. a large number of specific areas in Abruzzo, Molise and other central and northern regions with industrial reconversion problems; c) areas defined by the European normative as “5b areas”, i.e. disadvantaged rural areas; d) areas set down by the derogation to article 92.3.c of the Treaty of Rome.

8

Having made this premise, we now move onto verifying if there is any evidence to confirm that the implementation of law 488/tourism has contributed to the growth of the Italian tourism sector, and in particular, to the amelioration of the economy of the weaker regions of the Italian “Mezzogiorno”.

4. The impact of law 488/92-tourism: early empirical evidence

Since the aim of law 488/tourism consists in promoting productive activities, financial contributions should represent a significant determinant of added value generated in the tourism sector as well as of regional GDP. For this reason, our analysis is composed of two steps. Through the use of a panel regression technique, we firstly measure the impact of aids granted by law 488 on the added value generated in the tourism sector; then, we test to see if these financial contributions are useful in the convergence of the Italian regions. First Step To measure the impact of law 488-tourism on the added value generated in the tourism sector, we first use a regression model whose form is as follows:

itti

tititi

uyearCRpc

HCpcCONTRterrAVpc

,3

,21,1,

log

logloglog

20..,,.........1i 2002.,,.........1999t

(1)

where: - tiAVpc ,log is the natural logarithm of per-capita added value generated

in the tourism sector in each Italian region; - 1,log tiCONTRterr is the natural logarithm of the financial contributes

granted to those applicant firms operating in the tourism sector, normalised by the extension of the regional territory4;

4 As is already referred in section three, firms selected for funding receive the first payments within eight months after the submission of their application. For this reason, we have lagged this variable on the basis of the assumption that – as observed in several cases – one year should be an adequate time to test for the first effects

9

- tiCEpc ,log is the natural logarithm of per-capita regional household

expenditures for education and culture; - tiCRpc ,log is the natural logarithm of the number of crimes committed

calculated on a regional basis. In accordance with the main literature on economic growth (Mankiw et al., 1992), the last two variables are included as proxies for the level of socio-cultural environment in each Italian region;

- year is employed to catch the time effect; - is an intercept; - itu ~ IID(0, 2) is the error term5. On the basis of the LM test and the Hausman test we focused our attention on the fixed effects estimation. Its results are reported in table 3.

Table 3 – Results from regression (1) Dependent variable: tiAVpc ,log

Regressors Coefficients p-value 1,log tiCONTRterr 0.0151

(0.0093288) 0.113

tiCEpc ,log 0.1049 (0.3336214)

0.755

tiCRpc ,log - 0.1828 (0.0759943)

0.022

Year 0.0076 (0.0067054)

0.261

cons - 22.6232 (14.97794)

LM test 35.16 0.0000 Hausman Test 16.45 0.0025 F-Test 2.93 0.0350

Standard errors in parenthesis

produced by new investments. In the appendix of this work a table shows – together with other figures – the dynamic of the amount granted by Law 488 in the tourism sector between 1999 and 2002. 5 Data on regional added values, cultural environment and crimes are taken from the Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT); data on the amount of financial contributions granted by law 488/92 are taken by the Italian Institute for Industrial Promotion (IPI). Calculations are implemented using “STATA 8.0” econometric software.

10

Before moving onto commenting on the coefficients’ result, we can observe that according to the F-test, all variables are jointly significant at a 5% level. This would suggest that the regression model (1) is correctly specified. Furthermore, the variables are expressed in a logarithmic form and we are reminded that this becomes a measure of the elasticity between variables. With regard to the results achieved for each single variable, we observe a positive – although small – value of the variable 1,log tiCONTRterr . This

shows that the added value generated in the tourism sector is a significant correlate of financial contributions. The relationship expressed by the variable tiCRpc ,log is negatively significant and seems to suggest that the

unrest characterizing the social environment badly affects the dependent variable. The values performed by the variables tiCEpc ,log and year do not

result significant. As a first and partial conclusion, we would say that the results show a certain inelasticity of the added value generated in the tourism sector with respect to the aids granted by law 488/tourism. In other words, the law under analysis does not seem to contribute effectively to the increase of the sectorial added value, since the coefficient value does not appear to be particularly marked. Second Step In the second step of our procedure, we use the per-capita added value generated in the tourism sector as a regressor of the per-capita GDP. This is done to verify whether the increase of added value – which as we have just observed can also be ascribed to the effect of law 488/toursim – can be seen as an effective factor in reducing the economic gap existing between the Italian regions. In more formal terms, we estimate an equation of the following functional form: ittiti uyeardummyAVpcGDPpc 2,1, loglog

20..,,.........1i 2002.,,.........1999t

(2)

where:

11

- tiGDPpc ,log is the natural logarithm of regional GDP computed in per-

capita terms; - tiAVpc ,log is the natural logarithm of per-capita added value generated

in the tourism sector in each Italian region; - dummy is a dummy variable assuming value = 1 for the eight southern

Italian regions and = 0 for the remaining regions; - year is employed to catch the time effect; - is an intercept; - itu ~ IID(0, 2) is the error term.

On the basis of the LM and Hausman tests, we focus our attention on the random effects estimation. Its results are reported in table 4.

Table 4 – Results from regression (2) Dependent variable: tiGDPpc ,log

Regressors Coefficients p-value tiAVpc ,log 0.1640

(0.0322474) 0.000

dummy - 0.3416 (0.0499352)

0.000

year 0.0142 (0.0015)

0.000

cons - 31.1453 (3.139312)

LM test 115.13 0.000 Hausman Test 7.078 0.675 Wald-Test 389.54 0.000

Here again, the F-test highlights that all the considered variables are jointly significant. This would allow us to say that the regression model (2) is correctly specified. Moving onto commenting on the coefficients’ results we can observe that, on the one hand, the positive sign of the variable

tiAVpc ,log would suggest that the added value generated in the tourism

sector positively affects the regional per-capita GDP. On the other hand, however, the dummy variable shows a negative relationship with respect to

12

the per-capita regional GDP. This would suggest that the tourism sector does not effectively contribute in pushing the weaker regions – identified with dummy = 1 – towards an economic convergence with the other Italian regions. A further positive sign of the variable year would support the idea that the regional GDP tends to increase over time.

5. Concluding remarks The results achieved in our analysis should help to understand whether law 488/tourism can be seen as a useful contribution for the economic convergence of the Italian regions. On the basis of what has been stated in the previous section, our two step procedure has firstly highlighted the effective role played in tourism by the incentive framework of law 488. More specifically, what can be observed is a positive and statistically significant relationship – although characterized by a small coefficient value – between the amount of financial incentives granted and the added value generated in the tourism sector of the Italian regions. A further step, which is based on the second regression analysis, has put into evidence two aspects. First of all, the added value generated in the tourism sector of the investigated regions positively contributes to the regional GDP as normally expected. However, as a second and most important finding of our analysis, it is possible to observe that there is no evidence of an effective contribution of the tourism sector to the realization of an economic convergence across the Italian regions. In fact, while the empirical analysis highlights the existence of a positive correlation between the regional per-capita added value of the tourism sector and the considered measure of GDP, a negative and statistically significant relationship between the dummy variable – used to distinguish northern from southern Italian regions – and the regional GDP can also be observed. In other words, the aids financed by law 488 in the tourism sector contribute only minimally in increasing the added value of the tourism sector, but they are unable to contribute to the reduction of the economic gap between the northern and southern regions of Italy. In this sense, we would conclude by saying that the funds granted by law 488/tourism fail to contribute to the realization of the economic convergence across the Italian regions. This final piece of evidence opens the discussion to further considerations. Generally speaking, many voices highlight that financial incentives, used with the aim of providing development opportunities for the weaker areas, often only generate benefits only for those already strong (Caroleo and Garofano, 2003; Graziani, 2001; Lutz, 1972). This is basically due to the fact that the

13

depressed areas do not have the capability of producing and supplying goods and services (plants, machinery, equipment, professional services, etc.) which can be functional to development. This implies that the weaker areas are compelled to “import” them from the stronger areas. It becomes clear, therefore, how this mechanism tends to generate benefits for the already developed regions instead of the underdeveloped ones, as well as for the strong sectors in regional economies rather than for the weak ones (Arnone and Timpano, 2004). We are conscious that the evidence for this statement surely calls for deeper research and investigation. However, our empirical work – although specifically related to tourism as a productive sector – may be intended as early evidence of it. References Arnone, M. (2004) “Politiche locali per lo sviluppo. Il ruolo della legge italiana 488/1992, la contrattazione negoziata e l’esperienza europea” Development and Comp Systems 0405009, Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL Arnone, M. and F. Timpano (1999) “Struttura industriale e impatto degli incentivi:

un’analisi empirica della legge 488/92” Urban/Regional 0404005, Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL

Boldrin M., Canova F. (2001) "Inequality and Convergence in Europe's Regions: Reconsidering European Regional Policies", Economic Policy, April, 207-253

Caroleo F.E. and M.R.Garofano (2003) “Il dibattito sui due Mezzogiorno d'Europa alla luce del pensiero di Pasquale Saraceno” Paper presented at the Conference "Cultura, Stato e Mezzogiorno nel pensiero di Pasquale Saraceno", Salerno 2-4 ottobre

Daniele, V. (2002) “Diari di sviluppo di convergenza regionale in Italia” Università degli Studi Magna Grecia di Catanzaro, DOPES WP No 09

Dunford, M. (2002) “Italian Regional Evolutions” Environment and Planning A, (2002) 34: 657-94

Ennew, C. (2003) “Understanding the economic impact of tourism” Som Nath Chib Memorial Lecture

Graziani A. (2001) "Mezzogiorno: investimento produttivo e risorse umane" in: Carillo M. R., Zazzaro A. (a cura di), Istituzioni, capitale umano e sviluppo del Mezzogiorno, ESI, Napoli

Holloway, J. C. (1998) “The business of Tourism” Fifth Edition - Longman Iammarino S., Jona-Lasinio C., Mantegazza S. (2004) “Labour productivity, ICT

and regions. The resurgence of the Italian ‘dualism’”, Luiss Lab on European Economics, LLEE Working Document no.12, May

14

Istituto Guglielmo Tagliacarne (2003) “Le traiettorie dello sviluppo delle province italiane attraverso l’analisi del prodotto interno lordo. Una prima analisi 1995-2002”, Rome, Istituto Guglielmo Tagliacarne

Lutz V. (1972) "Il dualismo nell'economia italiana" in: Graziani A. (a cura di), L'economia italiana dal 1945 ad oggi, Il Mulino, Bologna

Manente, M. (2003) “Il turismo nell’economia italiana” in “XII Rapporto sul Turismo Italiano”, Turistica

Mankiw, N.G., D. Romer, and D.N. Weil (1992) “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107, pp. 407-437.

Marino, A. (2001) “The tourist sector: public versus private - the Italian and Spanish experience” Tourism Management 22 43-48

Mauro, L. (2004) “The macroeconomics of Italy: a regional perspective” Journal of Policy Modeling 26 927-944

Novacco N. (2004) “Strategie e politiche per la ‘coesione’ dell'Italia - Riflessioni sul Mezzogiorno” Quaderno SVIMEZ nuova serie n. 1.

Roe, D., C. Ashley, S. Page and D. Meyer (2004) “Tourism and the Poor: Analysing and interpreting tourism statistics from a poverty perspective” PPT Working Paper No.16, ODI

Terrasi, M. (1999) “Convergence and divergence across Italian regions” the annals of regional science, num. 4, pp. 491-

15

APPENDIX

Table A.1 – Law 488/92 (tourism-sector): general statistics. 1999 2000 2001 2002

Regions Number of applications

Total investments (in mln of €)

Financed contributions (in mln of €)

Increase of employees

Number of applications

Total investments (in mln of €)

Financed contributions (in mln of €)

Increase of employees

Number of applications

Total investments (in mln of €)

Financed contributions (in mln of €)

Increase of employees

Number of applications

Total investments (in mln of €)

Financed contributions (in mln of €)

Increase of employees

PIEMONTE 41 35.20 5.68 164 16 38.16 4.85 161 9 28.80 4.24 91 4 3.64 0.61 13 VALLE D'AOSTA

0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0

LOMBARDIA 4 1.96 0.21 8 16 35.17 3.85 137 10 18.10 2.68 104 8 15.56 2.31 66 TRENTINO ALTO ADIGE

3 5.15 0.44 6 3 3.23 0.45 10 3 6.93 0.75 5 4 13.39 0.71 11

VENETO 55 72.19 7.61 229 23 69.46 6.94 210 35 156.98 13.57 474 19 21.85 2.52 68 FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA

9 80.96 7.94 109 6 88.99 14.86 125 3 22.69 2.21 65 0 0.00 0.00 0

LIGURIA 28 40.61 8.11 131 18 29.83 3.81 112 16 64.02 6.36 180 20 28.87 3.21 80 EMILIA ROMAGNA

7 14.42 1.09 33 10 12.25 1.51 43 8 16.70 2.29 36 10 22.13 2.18 54

TOSCANA 66 84.41 12.18 408 43 120.58 9.55 656 58 142.02 9.81 685 25 62.31 6.70 246 UMBRIA 44 47.81 7.35 399 45 44.44 6.03 252 19 33.59 3.89 176 24 27.39 3.32 159 MARCHE 14 12.33 1.82 55 8 9.37 1.71 52 8 15.82 2.43 51 10 7.17 1.01 23 LAZIO 17 27.62 3.75 192 19 31.11 5.16 226 17 36.30 5.60 319 16 22.58 3.33 155 ABRUZZO 65 56.51 12.14 289 56 68.27 15.13 322 28 38.20 9.28 215 27 30.75 7.34 151 MOLISE 12 21.39 5.40 118 21 38.93 9.12 214 16 27.12 7.49 169 8 13.12 3.63 70 CAMPANIA 295 353.08 98.66 2,719 341 495.32 133.18 3,952 247 402.93 104.45 3,488 210 362.86 94.42 2,533 PUGLIA 156 290.16 77.06 2,576 101 347.05 83.66 2,457 115 329.82 74.38 2,579 100 263.07 65.26 1,774 BASILICATA 24 42.25 10.32 329 28 51.47 15.69 375 40 63.39 18.35 548 37 44.79 17.73 387 CALABRIA 113 186.25 60.15 1,629 72 171.09 55.67 2,234 58 217.93 53.22 2,069 73 232.57 62.88 2,416 SICILIA 145 384.85 125.16 2,616 135 348.69 96.80 2,630 149 532.80 144.18 4,101 120 422.62 102.29 2,990 SARDEGNA 37 189.58 46.37 920 47 168.23 41.82 885 79 201.19 49.39 1,765 42 249.58 61.89 1,869 Nord-Ovest 73 77.78 14.00 303 50 103.16 12.51 411 35 110.92 13.28 376 32 48.07 6.14 158 Nord-Est 74 172.72 17.08 377 42 173.94 23.74 388 49 203.31 18.82 580 33 57.37 5.41 132 Centro 141 172.16 25.10 1,054 115 205.50 22.45 1,187 102 227.73 21.73 1,231 75 119.45 14.35 583 Centro-Nord 288 422.66 56.19 1,734 207 482.60 58.71 1,985 186 541.96 53.83 2,187 140 224.89 25.90 873 Mezzogiorno 847 1,524.06 435.27 11,196 801 1,689.04 451.07 13,067 732 1,813.38 460.74 14,932 617 1,619.35 415.44 12,191 Italia 1,135 1,946.72 491.46 12,930 1,008 2,171.64 509.77 15,052 918 2,355.34 514.57 17,119 757 1,844.24 441.34 13,064 Italia Totale 1,135 1,946.72 491.46 12,930 1,008 2,171.64 509.77 15,052 918 2,355.34 514.57 17,119 757 1,844.24 441.34 13,064 Source: IPI

16