Competitive Devaluation: Italy's Hidden Growth Strategy

In the decades before adopting the euro, Italy relied on a powerful but ultimately unsustainable growth strategy: repeated currency devaluation. Rather than undertaking politically costly structural reforms to improve competitiveness, between the 1970s and early 1990s, the Italian lira was allowed to weaken in response to inflationary pressures and external shocks. This flexibility enabled Italy to preserve export performance despite rising domestic costs, effectively using the exchange rate as a macroeconomic adjustment tool. In practice, competitive devaluation functioned as an industrial policy tool, supporting the expansion of Italy’s export-oriented manufacturing economy at the cost of delaying deeper structural adjustment.

​

Inflation, Wages, and Competitiveness

Italy entered the 1970s with a structural dilemma. Rapid wage growth, driven by strong trade unions and institutional wage indexation, combined with persistent inflation, at times exceeding 15–20% annually, created an environment in which rising domestic costs threatened external competitiveness. Under a fixed exchange rate, such pressures would typically result in declining exports, rising unemployment, and prolonged stagnation.

​

However, Italy did not operate under a fully rigid regime. It retained sufficient monetary autonomy to adjust its nominal exchange rate, allowing the lira to lose value when needed, either through official devaluations or by permitting it to weaken in financial markets. This flexibility proved decisive. By allowing the lira to depreciate, Italy could offset domestic cost pressures and sustain competitiveness without requiring politically costly wage restraint or deep structural reforms. This strategy, however, came at the cost of weakening longer-term incentives for productivity-enhancing adjustment.

​

The Lira as an Adjustment Mechanism

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Italian authorities, principally the Bank of Italy in coordination with the Treasury, repeatedly permitted or engineered devaluations. These episodes were often triggered by external shocks or mounting internal imbalances.

​

After the 1973 oil crisis, for instance, Italy faced both imported inflation and a deteriorating trade balance. Currency depreciation provided an immediate, if partial, remedy: it made exports cheaper and imports more expensive. Similar adjustments occurred during the late 1970s inflation surge and again during periods of tension within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), which Italy joined in 1979 but struggled to stay aligned with.

​

The logic was straightforward. A weaker currency reduces the foreign-currency price of domestic goods, boosting export demand. For an economy with a strong manufacturing base, this translates quickly into higher output and employment. In Italy’s case, repeated devaluations allowed firms to remain competitive internationally despite rising domestic costs. Estimates suggest that a 30% undervaluation could increase real GDP by approximately 1.5-4.5% over five years, highlighting the macroeconomic impact of exchange rate competitiveness. Firm-level evidence from the 1992–95 lira depreciation episode suggests that export growth occurred through two channels: existing exporters increased their export intensity, and new firms entered foreign markets in response to improved price competitiveness.

​

Export Growth and the “Made in Italy” Model

The main beneficiaries of this strategy were Italy’s export sectors, from textiles and fashion to  furniture, machine tools, and automobiles. A distinctive feature of Italy’s industrial structure was the prominence of small and medium-sized enterprises, often clustered in geographically concentrated industrial districts. Regions such as Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, and Lombardy became hubs of specialised production, combining craftsmanship with flexible manufacturing.

​

These firms were highly responsive to price competitiveness. Unlike large, capital-intensive multinationals, many Italian SMEs operated in sectors where margins were tight and international competition intense. Currency depreciation therefore had a direct and powerful effect: it lowered export prices without requiring firms to cut wages or invest heavily in productivity-enhancing technologies.

​

Empirical evidence at the firm level confirms this mechanism. Following the sharp depreciation of the lira in 1992, export participation among Italian manufacturing firms increased significantly, not only by expanding the activity of existing exporters but also by enabling less innovative firms to enter foreign markets. The share of non-innovating firms exporting rose from around 58% in 1991 to 65% in 1994 and 68% in 1997, while their export intensity increased from roughly 18% to 26%. Therefore, in periods of strong depreciation, even firms with lower productivity or limited innovation capacity were able to compete internationally. In this sense, the exchange rate acted as an implicit subsidy to exporters, supporting the expansion of export-oriented sectors and sustaining growth.

​

Growth at a Cost

This strategy was not without significant drawbacks. Repeated devaluations fed into domestic price levels by raising the cost of imported goods, particularly energy. This created a feedback loop: higher inflation eroded competitiveness, prompting further devaluations.

​

At the same time, Italy’s public finances deteriorated. By the 1980s, government debt was rising rapidly, driven by high interest rates and persistent fiscal deficits. The combination of inflation, currency instability, and fiscal imbalances contributed to broader macroeconomic fragility.

​

Perhaps most importantly, reliance on the exchange rate reduced incentives for structural reform. Rather than addressing underlying problems such as slowing productivity growth, labour market rigidities, and inefficiencies in public administration, policymakers could resort to devaluation as a short-term fix. At the firm level, depreciation reduced the need for technological upgrading, weakening the role of innovation as a driver of competitiveness. This created a system in which the economy became accustomed to periodic currency adjustments as a substitute for deeper change.

​

The End of Devaluation

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the scope for continued devaluation was narrowing. European integration was deepening, and participation in the ERM imposed increasing constraints on exchange rate movements. Italy faced growing pressure to align its monetary policy with that of more stable economies, particularly Germany.

​

These tensions culminated in the 1992 currency crisis. Amid speculative attacks on European currencies, the lira came under intense pressure and was forced out of the ERM in September 1992, in the broader turmoil associated with Black Wednesday. The episode exposed the limits of Italy’s exchange rate strategy in an environment of high capital mobility.

​

In the years that followed, Italy undertook significant efforts to stabilise its economy in preparation for joining the euro. By the late 1990s, inflation had been brought under control, and fiscal consolidation was underway. However, the adoption of the euro in 1999 marked a fundamental shift: Italy permanently relinquished its ability to devalue.

​

After the Euro

The consequences of this shift became increasingly evident in the 2000s. Without the option of currency depreciation, Italy could no longer offset domestic cost pressures through the exchange rate. Competitiveness now depended more directly on productivity growth, innovation, and structural reform, yet progress in these areas proved limited. Productivity growth stagnated, export performance weakened relative to earlier decades, and real GDP growth slowed significantly.

​

In retrospect, the pre-euro period can be seen as one in which the exchange rate masked deeper structural weaknesses. Competitive devaluation allowed Italy to sustain growth and employment in the short to medium term, but it did not resolve the underlying challenges facing the economy.

​

For two decades, the lira functioned as Italy’s unofficial industrial policy. By enabling repeated devaluations, it allowed Italian exporters to remain competitive despite high inflation and structural inefficiencies. This strategy supported the rise of the “Made in Italy” model and helped sustain growth in a turbulent global environment. But it also came at a cost: persistent inflation, rising public debt, and delayed reform. When the euro removed the possibility of devaluation, the structural weaknesses the exchange rate had once masked became impossible to ignore.​
 

References:

1. Baccaro, Lucio, and Massimo D’Antoni. 2024. “Tying Your Hands and Getting Stuck? The European Origins of Italy’s Economic Stagnation.” Review of Political Economy 36 (3): 1104–1129.

2. Banca d’Italia. 2023. “La lezione degli anni ’70 contro l’inflazione.” Economia per tutti.

3. Basile, Roberto. 2001. “Export Behaviour of Italian Manufacturing Firms over the Nineties: The Role of Innovation.” Research Policy 30 (7): 1185–1201.

4. Calignano, Giuseppe, and Giuseppe Quarta. 2016. “Increasing Innovativeness of SMEs in Peripheral Areas: Evidence from Southern Italy.” REGION 3 (1).

5. Carabelli, Anna, Giovanna Hirsch, and Roberta Rabellotti. 2006. “Italian SMEs and Industrial Districts on the Move: Where Are They Going?” Working Paper WP 3/2006.

6. Cottarelli, Carlo. 2025. “Le cause dell’aumento del debito pubblico dal 1970 a oggi.” Osservatorio CPI, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.

7. Di Maio, Michele. n.d. “Industrial Policies in Developing Countries.” In Industrial Policy, Development and Globalization, Chapter 11.

8. Di Nino, Virginia, Barry Eichengreen, and Massimo Sbracia. 2011. Real Exchange Rates, Trade, and Growth: Italy 1861–2011. Quaderni di Storia Economica No. 10. Rome: Banca d’Italia.

9. Fratianni, Michele, and Franco Spinelli. 2011. “Italy in the Eighties: Towards Central Bank Independence.” In Studies in Monetary and Financial History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Froot, Kenneth A., and Kenneth Rogoff. 1991. “The EMS, the EMU, and the Transition to a Common Currency.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, edited by Olivier Jean Blanchard and Stanley Fischer, 269–328. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11. Mastrandrea, Rossana, Stefano Amato, and Alessandra Patuelli. 2025. “The Context Matters: A Network Perspective on Interlocking Directorates in Italian Manufacturing Firms.” Networks and Spatial Economics.

12. Mucelli, Attilio, Alessandra Micozzi, Arthur Rubens, and Gary Jackson. 2015. “A Case Study of Italy’s Marche Region Industrial Districts: A Model of Transformation and Change.” Journal of Business Cases and Applications 13.

13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1980. OECD Economic Surveys: Italy. Paris: OECD.

14. Petrini, Francesco. 2013. “Devaluation, Inflation and Social Conflict: The Italian Case.” IRICE/RICHIE Working Group, Maison de la Recherche, Paris.

15. Rinaldi, Alberto, and Giovanni Solinas. 2023. “Vision, Governance and Industrial Policy in Emilia-Romagna: A Long-Run Perspective.” L’industria 1: 3–26.

16. Schilirò, Daniele. 2017. “Italian Industrial Districts: Theories, Profiles and Competitiveness.” MPRA Paper No. 86729. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.