Dote famiglia, spot measures and uncertainty hold back choices

In recent months, there have been an increasing number of announcements of new bonuses or reconfirmations of existing bonuses, which should bring a wind of confidence to Italian households. It is appropriate, however, to make a non-emotional reflection on the impact that the bonus strategy has on the attitude of households towards the future.

Planning a family implies horizons of years: deciding whether to have a child, organising care and work time, building economic stability. Public measures, on the other hand, are fragmentary and time-bound, living in the logic of temporary measures, with limited resources and changing criteria. Faced with the new bonuses, after an initial euphoric reaction, most families raise their sights and point them further afield, wondering whether it is worth making certain choices that last much longer than the spot time of a bonus: access to a whole series of discounts, thanks to an Isee below the established threshold, could lapse the following year, making the family suddenly much poorer, paradoxically because its income has increased (the 'threshold trap'). Up to a certain limit (think of the fateful 40,000 euro Isee for birth bonuses, nursery, mothers) one is 'deserving' of help, just above one becomes invisible: a line that affects above all the middle class, already fragile but the hub of demographic recovery.

In addition to national measures, there is a constellation of regional and municipal calls. Many operate with click-day logic: resources that run out in a few hours, accessible only to those who are quickest or best informed. The result is a fragmentation that penalises certain areas of the country and accentuates inequalities, generating the impression that support for families is entrusted to chance and not to a strategy.

That bonuses are not the solution is shown by the demographic data: in 2024 the number of births in Italy fell below 380,000, a historic low. This is a sign that extemporaneous measures do not affect fertility choices, which are based on the availability of services, the reconciliation of work and care, and a climate of stability and trust. Incidentally, even where services exist, families continue to plan in uncertainty, because those who decide to have a child do so without knowing whether they will be admitted to the crèche, with what timetable, whether they will be able to count on a summer centre. It remains a leap in the dark.

It is clear that the current approach errs on the side of too short a view. The effective perspective uses the family lens, which sees the interconnections between different measures and their impact on long-range decision-making. The family lens clearly indicates that we needstructural measures, planned over multi-year horizons, with gradual access criteria. At stake is not just immediate support for families, but the very possibility of reversing a demographic trend that undermines the country's future.