Segment 1 — The Cold Open

In the years after the 2009 earthquake, Italian property owners began filing claims under a new tax-credit program meant to reduce future casualties. Engineers later inspecting some of those same buildings found that the work completed often consisted of new plaster, fresh paint, or upgraded kitchens rather than added bracing or foundation ties. The program had been designed to increase the lateral capacity of existing structures. Instead, many retrofitted buildings showed no measurable improvement in how they would behave in the next ground motion. Lateral capacity refers to a building’s ability to absorb and redistribute the horizontal forces that travel through walls and floors during shaking; without added steel ties, reinforced concrete shear walls, or improved connections at the foundation, that capacity stays essentially unchanged even after substantial sums are recorded on an invoice. Owners who selected only surface-level work still qualified for the credit because the rules accepted documented expenditure as sufficient evidence of compliance. The result was a growing set of buildings whose official records indicated they had been addressed, yet whose fundamental structural response to seismic loading remained the same as before any work began.

Segment 2 — The Good Intention

After the 2009 event, Italian policymakers faced a clear and urgent problem: a large stock of older masonry and concrete buildings that had never been designed for seismic loads. They chose to use the tax code as the quickest available lever, offering credits that reduced the net cost of approved retrofit work. At the time, the approach aligned with standard practice in several other countries that had also tried to accelerate private investment in safety upgrades. Lawmakers understood that public budgets could not pay for every building directly, so they hoped private owners would respond to lower out-of-pocket costs. The policy rested on a straightforward assumption that money directed toward seismic improvements would translate into safer buildings. No one at the design stage appears to have doubted that owners and contractors would focus on the structural elements the credits were intended to support. The arithmetic seemed simple: if an owner spent one hundred thousand euros on qualifying work, the state would forgo a portion of that sum in tax revenue, and the building would gain measurable resistance. Because the alternative—direct public grants for every vulnerable structure—was fiscally unrealistic, the tax-credit route preserved the appearance of broad coverage while shifting most of the cash flow through private hands. This framing made the mechanism attractive to officials who needed to demonstrate action without committing large new appropriations in a single budget cycle.

Segment 3 — The Implementation

The credits were structured as deductions or offsets tied directly to the amount spent on qualifying work, with verification occurring mainly at the point of expenditure rather than at the point of completed performance. Uptake was rapid in regions that had experienced recent shaking, and early reports noted increased activity in the construction sector. Proponents pointed to the volume of applications as evidence that the incentive was working. A few engineering voices raised concerns that the rules did not require post-work testing of lateral resistance, but those cautions did not alter the basic design. The program therefore moved forward on the premise that documented spending would serve as a reliable proxy for actual risk reduction. In practice this meant that an owner could submit receipts for new interior partitions, electrical upgrades, or decorative stone cladding as long as the line items fell within the broad category of “building improvement.” Because the credit percentage was calculated on total euros claimed, contractors had every reason to maximize the declared cost of each project while minimizing the engineering effort required to change load paths. The absence of a required performance threshold meant the administrative review stopped once the arithmetic of the invoice matched the credit formula.

Segment 4 — The Unintended Consequences

Audits conducted years later revealed that a substantial share of claimed work had addressed cosmetic or non-structural items while leaving the primary load paths unchanged. Because the credit rewarded euros spent rather than newtons of additional capacity, contractors and owners had a clear financial reason to choose visible, lower-cost interventions that satisfied the paperwork. In many cases the buildings received new finishes or minor partitions that improved market value or comfort but contributed nothing to resisting lateral forces. The absence of a required performance test meant the subsidy could be fully collected without any change in the building’s fundamental behavior during shaking. Over time this pattern created a second-order effect: a growing inventory of structures that carried official documentation of “retrofit” yet remained as vulnerable as before. Owners who had spent money in good faith discovered that their properties still posed the same risk to occupants. Municipal engineers faced the downstream problem of having to re-inspect buildings whose records suggested they were improved when in fact they were not. The incentive structure had therefore satisfied its own rules while leaving the original safety goal unmet. Consider the difference between adding a layer of interior plaster and installing a continuous ring beam at the roof level: the former can be completed in days with minimal engineering input, while the latter requires structural calculations, temporary shoring, and inspection of connections to existing masonry. When both qualify for the same percentage credit, the rational choice for a cost-conscious owner is the faster, cheaper option. The program’s design contained no mechanism that would penalize the cheaper choice or reward the more effective one.

Segment 5 — The Aftermath

Once the pattern became visible through engineering reviews, authorities began discussing adjustments that would tie future credits to verified performance rather than receipts alone. Some regions introduced requirements for dynamic testing or peer review of structural calculations before credits could be finalized. These revisions added administrative steps and costs that had not existed in the original program. In the meantime, the buildings that received only cosmetic work remained in place, still lacking the capacity the credits had been meant to provide. The episode illustrated how an input-based subsidy can generate activity that looks successful on paper while the physical outcome stays unchanged. Adjusting the rules after the fact could not retroactively strengthen the structures that had already been documented under the original terms.

Segment 6 — The Lesson

Any subsidy that pays for documented effort rather than documented results will eventually be optimized for documentation rather than results. When the metric of success is money moved instead of risk reduced, participants rationally select the cheapest actions that satisfy the metric. Programs meant to change physical performance therefore need independent verification of that performance, not merely proof that funds changed hands. The Italian experience invites a broader question for any current policy that relies on tax expenditures to achieve engineering or safety outcomes: how will success be measured once the receipts have been filed?

💬 Reply to this email — Patrick reads every one.

Share: X · LinkedIn · WhatsApp

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here — it's free.