The earthquake, migratory birds, disputes between engineers. The debate on the Strait Bridge has historically focused on what, but little on who is responsible for building the structure. Yet the point of view is very interesting. It explains why, over the years, some politicians have focused on an operation that is theoretically very risky.
The point is precisely the risk. Today, it has been eliminated. From the 1990s to the first decade of the 2000s, the mantra was the market. Public works were based on project financing, and companies would recoup their investment through tolls. Today, no one would invest a single euro in transport between two regions in constant decline. This is where the public sector comes to the rescue, according to the old but effective definition: socialisation of costs, privatisation of profits.
The operation is based on a simple logic: public funds leave the state and arrive at a private company that was first ‘bailed out’ and then ‘guaranteed’ by the actions of Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, a state-controlled institution. This circuit is described in political economy textbooks as ‘public financing for private execution’.
The combination of public capital and private management of major projects is nothing new in Italy, but in the case of the bridge over the Strait of Messina, it reaches colossal proportions. Here, the money is almost entirely guaranteed by state funds, the economic risk is limited for the builder, and the profits accrue to the company’s shareholders, including the controlling private shareholder, Salini.
From Eurolink to the ‘national champion’ WeBuild
The history of the bridge is marked by two industrial protagonists.
Eurolink, commissioned from 2005 to 2013, was a temporary consortium of companies. Impregilo, the leader with a 45% stake, was joined by Sacyr (Spain, 18.7%), Condotte d’Acqua (15%), CMC di Ravenna (13%), IHI Corporation (Japan, 6.3%) and Consorzio stabile ACI (2%). The final design was entrusted to Danish and Canadian companies.
WeBuild, created from the Salini–Impregilo merger in 2014 and rebranded in 2020, is now a single publicly traded company. Its ownership is a mosaic: approximately 45% individual shareholders, 33% institutional shareholders, 16% held by CDP Equity, and significant stakes held by UniCredit and Intesa Sanpaolo. At the top is CEO Pietro Salini, with his Salini Costruttori as the main private shareholder.
Until 2013, Eurolink was a cartel of several companies with shared governance. Today, the dominant role is played by WeBuild, the lead company within the consortium, a vertically integrated entity that centralises decision-making and financial management.
Penalties. Getting paid without working
When the bridge project was blocked in 2012, Eurolink claimed €700 million in compensation. This figure was calculated based on a clause guaranteeing 5% of the value of the work, plus expenses incurred.
The new contract, which is currently being finalised, appears to be set to replicate and expand that logic by including withdrawal clauses amounting to 10% of the value of the work, which equates to 1.4–1.5 billion. These penalties could be imposed not only if work is halted, but also if the final project is not approved.
Why is CDP a shareholder in WeBuild?
CDP joined WeBuild in 2018 when the Conte-Lega government launched the ‘Progetto Italia’ initiative to rescue Astaldi, a major construction company that was on the verge of bankruptcy. WeBuild was chosen as the linchpin of the sector’s consolidation, and CDP Equity invested in the company to strengthen its financial stability and establish a ‘national champion’ capable of competing abroad and managing major domestic projects.
Since then, CDP has maintained a significant stake, ensuring a public presence in governance. However, this structure enables the state to directly finance projects entrusted to a company in which it also has a stake, thereby reducing effective competition in the procurement market and creating a de facto monopoly.
Public and private: the short circuit.
The flow can be described as follows:
1. The state finances the project using public funds.
2. Management passes to WeBuild, which is partly state-controlled through CDP.
3. The works generate profits, which are distributed as dividends to public and private shareholders.
4. The private share, including that of the Salini family, represents the actual ‘outflow’ of money from the public circuit.
This model involves public risk and shared private profit. Supporters argue that it preserves industrial skills and employment, while critics claim that it distorts competition and concentrates economic benefits in the hands of a few.
Ultimately, it is a classist political strategy reminiscent of the Kingdom of Italy, particularly in times of across-the-board cuts to essential public services that affect the south of the country disproportionately. We seem to be witnessing a repeat of the ‘railway banquet’ of 1879: a colossal programme involving 6,000 kilometres of railways that were neither useful nor profitable. This programme was approved for electoral purposes and was intended to transfer public money to private entities. During the same period, the infamous tax on milled grain remained in force, impoverishing the working classes. Therefore, the state at the end of the 19th century applied liberal economic theories, except for transfers of funds to private companies. Just like today.
The future of the project
With CIPES’s approval and the construction site ready to open, the bridge over the Strait is no longer just symbolic infrastructure; it is a financial machine worth over €14 billion, according to initial estimates. Whether the project goes ahead or is halted again will determine not only the landscape between Calabria and Sicily, but also the direction of one of the largest flows of public money to a private entity in Italy’s recent history.
