Mark Blyth, economista politico, dà una possibile spiegazione sul Guardian del perché il senatore Democratico Joe Manchin abbia affondato la legge “Build Back Better” proposta dal suo partito per finanziare un piani di investimento e rinnovamento infrastrutturale negli USA.

Secondo Blyth la storia di come il Prosecco veneto si è affermato nel mondo angloamericano rispecchia quello che gli economisti descrivono come “modello di crescita regionale”:

Growth models describe the “how we make money” bit of an economy, plus the political and electoral coalition that supports it. Think of all the social, political and regulatory structures that build up over time around making and selling a certain good, and all the folks whose jobs and incomes depend upon it.

Quando il prosecco – un prodotto che esiste dal 1924, realizzato in una zona piuttosto ampia del Veneto – ha incontrato un sorprendente e vasto successo nel mondo anglosassone, a inizio millennio, il tessuto socio-economico che maggiormente beneficiava di tali profitti si è mosso per difenderli:

Some enterprising British importers wanted to stick as much prosecco as they could into bottles, which would have taken control (and value) away from local producers. Rising to defend the “prosecco miracle” as it was called, the then minister of agriculture, Luca Zaia, a member of the rightwing La Lega party, expanded the “denominazione d’origine controllata DOC” to cover the distant village of Prosecco, which gave this rather generic product a claim to geographical exclusivity.

That in turn paved the way for a successful Unesco world heritage claim a few years later, further cementing the region’s claim to the product. The result was a major expansion of production, and prosecco hit €500m in sales in 2019. In short, those who benefited from the growth model rose to defend it.

Lo stesso modello spiegherebbe quanto accaduto negli USA. Manchin prima ha posto il veto alla parte del piano che prevedeva un maggior ricorso all’energia pulita, poi lo ha sabotato del tutto.

Why did he do this? Because his job is to defend the growth model against challengers, just as it was for the folks in Treviso. […] The notion that the best-paid jobs in the state ($77,000 a year) will be traded away by the state’s leading elected official for some promises on “retraining” and a “Green New Deal” is simply not credible. […] The core of the GOP electoral coalition, all these states have carbon-heavy growth models. Like the Italian wine industry, they are a creation of the state in the 20th century. They are embodied with myths and are supported by powerful coalitions. Few in Treviso are keen to dismantle the prosecco growth model. Why should West Virginia, and with it the other carbon states of the US, be any different?