In a fragmented and highly competitive global context, international reputation is no longer built solely through institutional narratives. Companies, research institutions, territories, and professional communities already operate as autonomous and interconnected actors. Rethinking the Sistema Paese means acknowledging this reality and transforming it from a centralized narrative into an enabling infrastructure.
For many years, the concept of Sistema Paese played an important role. It represented an attempt to present Italy to the world as a coherent whole – combining culture, economy, territories, businesses, and lifestyle – through a coordinated and recognizable narrative. In a specific historical context, this approach worked, and it is right to acknowledge that. Today, however, the question is no longer whether the Sistema Paese was useful, but whether it is still useful in the form in which it was conceived.
The Sistema Paese was born in a world profoundly different from today’s: slower, more hierarchical, where a country’s international image was built primarily by institutions through official channels, major events, and top-down communication. That world no longer exists. Today, a country’s reputation is a diffuse and continuous process, shaped daily by a wide range of actors – companies, universities, research centers, startups, professionals, artists, students, and citizens working abroad – often outside institutional radar screens, yet with a real impact on international credibility.
From this transformation emerge at least three limitations of the traditional Sistema Paese approach.
The first is centralization: the idea that Italy’s identity and international projection can be governed by a single decision-making center no longer reflects the distributed nature of global reputation.
The second concerns language: portraying the country almost exclusively through historical excellence, tradition, and heritage risks failing to explain who we are today and where we are heading, leaving innovation, research, new skills, and social transformations in the background.
The third limitation is the difficulty of adapting to a global competition that no longer pits states alone against one another, but rather complex ecosystems – cities, technology hubs, production chains, and networks of expertise – capable of attracting talent and ideas even before capital.
In light of these changes, the Sistema Paese should not be abandoned, but reimagined. Not as a mere tool of representation, but as an enabling mechanism. The role of institutions is no longer to tell the country’s story on behalf of its actors, but to create the conditions that allow those who build the country every day to be visible, connected, and credible in international contexts. This implies less self-celebration and greater investment in platforms, connections, and collaborative spaces capable of amplifying a plurality of voices while maintaining overall coherence.
From this perspective, the Sistema Paese becomes, first and foremost, a relational infrastructure. Less emphasis on a single, unified narrative and greater focus on the ability to connect skills, territories, research, and businesses, both within and beyond national borders. The unit of action is no longer only the country as a whole, but its ecosystems: cities, districts, value chains, and professional communities that already operate on a global scale and can be enabled to engage with comparable ecosystems in other international contexts.
This shift also requires a different relationship between institutions and the productive and cultural fabric of society – one based less on control and more on trust. International credibility cannot be assigned from the top down, nor built through declarations; it is strengthened by recognizing and supporting those who generate real value, innovation, and lasting relationships. A country does not succeed because it proclaims its excellence, but because others recognize it as relevant.
Diplomacy, too, is called upon to evolve within this framework. It does not lose centrality, but its function changes: from a primarily official voice to a connective infrastructure, a guarantor of coherence, and a facilitator of relationships. This does not imply a return to hierarchical or controlling logics, but rather the construction of a shared vision, common tools, and clear priorities capable of guiding and integrating the actions of the various actors involved.
Overseas offices should no longer operate as isolated or self-referential entities, nor merely delegate implicitly to local actors already active on the ground. Instead, they must function as nodes within a coordinated network, where structured coordination between central institutions, the diplomatic network, and local entities that have long operated in their respective contexts is not optional, but a fundamental condition for effectiveness. Only in this way is it possible to foster meaningful connections, collaboration, and access to international decision-making arenas, while reducing the fragmentation and overlap that currently weaken overall impact.
Ultimately, rethinking the Sistema Paese means accepting that the world has changed, and that the tools through which Italy presents itself must evolve accordingly. This is not about rejecting the past, but about preventing it from becoming the only language we use to speak about the future. Today, a country’s strength lies in its ability to give space, voice, and trust to those who make it credible—both within and beyond its national borders.
Leggi il redazionale completo in italiano su L’Imprenditore
