Beyond Golden Visas: What Spain Really Teaches Italy
Spain is dismantling a model that has created visible tensions. Italy, which never adopted it, still risks missing the opportunity to build a better one.
Leggi la versione italiana dell’articolo pubblicata su Esco quando voglio 👇
In recent months, the topic of so-called golden visas has returned to the center of the European debate with a level of clarity that, until recently, was missing. This is no longer just a technical tool to attract capital, but an issue that directly touches on how European countries interpret the relationship between investment, residency, and public interest.
Spain’s decision to move towards eliminating the real estate route within its program represents, in this sense, a turning point. For over a decade, the mechanism was relatively straightforward: investing at least €500,000 in property allowed non-EU citizens to obtain a residence permit, with access to the benefits of free movement within the Schengen area. The model worked, in the most literal sense of the word: it attracted capital, supported the real estate market, and generated significant inflows.
But it also produced side effects that have become increasingly difficult to ignore. In certain urban areas—Barcelona, Madrid, as well as highly attractive coastal cities—the inflow of foreign capital primarily directed toward property acquisition has contributed to rising prices. Combined with other factors such as tourism, short-term rentals, and domestic demand, this has made access to housing progressively more difficult for a growing share of local residents.
The political response arrived with some delay, but it did arrive. And, as often happens, it took the form of a decisive—almost symbolic—correction: removing the most visible instrument, the one most easily identified as part of the problem, even if it is not the only contributing factor.
This shift, however, risks being interpreted too simplistically if not placed within a broader context. Because what is being questioned is not the principle of attracting foreign capital, but rather the way in which that capital is directed and used.
And this is precisely where the Italian case becomes interesting.
The Italian anomaly: a theoretically more advanced model, but underdeveloped
Unlike Spain, Portugal or Greece, Italy has never allowed residency to be obtained simply through the purchase of property. The Italian system, introduced in 2017, was designed from the outset to link residency to what could be defined as “productive” investments: participation in innovative startups, investments in Italian companies, public financial instruments, or projects considered strategic.
Seen in light of the issues emerging elsewhere in Europe, this approach now appears particularly forward-looking. Italy has effectively avoided one of the main distortions of the European golden visa model: turning the real estate market into a gateway to residency.
And yet, this structural advantage has not translated into a real competitive positioning.
The numbers remain limited, international awareness of the program is low, and above all there is a lack of integration between this instrument and a broader economic and territorial development strategy. In other words, the investor visa exists, but it has not yet become a lever.
The risk, at this point, is not that Italy chose the wrong model, but that it never fully developed it.
Two opposing dynamics within the same country
To fully understand the potential role of this instrument in Italy, it is necessary to start from a less simplified reading of the domestic context.
Italy faces a more complex issue than housing pressure alone.
In some cities—Milan above all, but also Rome, Florence, and Bologna—market tension is now evident, with rising prices and increasingly limited access.
At the same time, large parts of the country are experiencing the opposite phenomenon: depopulation, fragile local economies, and a lack of essential services.
It is precisely this dual speed—compression in major cities and emptiness in internal areas—that should guide any policy aimed at attracting investment.
This observation is not merely descriptive. It has very concrete operational implications.
If a neutral approach is adopted, allowing market dynamics alone to guide capital flows, it is inevitable that investment will concentrate in already strong areas, where perceived risk is lower and liquidity is higher. This is exactly what has happened in other European countries, and there is no reason to assume Italy would behave differently.
The critical point: attracting capital is not enough, it must be directed
At this stage, a central issue emerges—one that is often treated superficially: is attracting foreign capital, in itself, a sufficient objective?
The answer, based on recent experience, is clearly no.
Capital, by its nature, moves towards the simplest, most visible and most liquid opportunities. Without a clear framework, without targeted incentives, and without a system of guidance, there is no reason for it to flow into more complex environments—even when those environments are the ones that need it most.
This means that a country can, in theory, have a perfectly functioning investment attraction tool and yet fail to generate any structural benefit in terms of territorial balance or widespread economic development.
And this is exactly the risk Italy faces today.
Rethinking what we mean by “productive investment”
The Italian debate often uses the term “productive investment” as if its meaning were self-evident. In reality, this definition needs to be expanded and made more aligned with the country’s actual conditions.
If the concept is limited to technology startups or financial investments in already structured companies, it captures only a small portion of available opportunities and tends to concentrate resources in already developed areas.
If, instead, a broader perspective is adopted, the picture changes significantly.
An investment can be considered productive when it contributes to:
reactivating unused properties within local territories, transforming them into residential or productive spaces
developing essential services, such as local healthcare, education, or assistance
creating economic activity tied to stable presence, rather than temporary flows
strengthening physical infrastructure, improving accessibility, mobility, and connections
In this sense, the distinction between financial investment and territorial investment becomes crucial. The former can generate returns; the latter can generate systems.
The consequences (if nothing changes)
If Italy does not address this issue, the outcome is relatively predictable.
On one hand, it will continue to attract a limited volume of investment through its program, without truly competing with countries offering simpler or more visible pathways.
On the other hand, whatever capital does arrive will still tend to concentrate in major cities, contributing—albeit to a lesser extent—to existing pressures.
Meanwhile, the areas that most need capital, skills, and presence will remain on the margins, with a gradual weakening of their economic and social fabric.
This is not a theoretical scenario. It is, to a large extent, already happening.
A possible direction: building a system, not just a policy
If this outcome is to be avoided, an additional step is required.
Having a sound regulatory framework is not enough. A system must be built around it.
In practical terms, this means:
simplifying access processes for investors
making territorial opportunities more transparent and accessible
creating support mechanisms to reduce operational uncertainty
introducing elements of geographic orientation, including through targeted incentives
These are not necessarily radical regulatory changes, but rather a matter of greater coherence across existing policies.
Conclusion
Spain has chosen to correct the effects of a model that, over time, has produced clear imbalances.
Italy is in a different position. It does not need to dismantle a system that created problems, but it still has the opportunity—one that remains open—to build one that actually works.
The difference, however, does not lie in the starting point.
It lies in the ability to move from a theoretically sound framework to a practically effective strategy.
Because, in the end, the issue is not whether to attract foreign capital.
It is deciding—deliberately—where we want that capital to have an impact.