Mussolini's focus on agricultural development during the Great Depression was driven by a desire to achieve autarky, or economic self-sufficiency. The rationale was that by boosting agricultural production, Italy could reduce its dependence on foreign imports, particularly of essential commodities like grain. This strategy was also influenced by ideological considerations; Mussolini viewed a strong agricultural sector as a key element of a self-reliant, robust nation. The 'Battle for Grain' campaign, for instance, aimed at increasing grain production to ensure food security and reduce import costs. However, while this focus on agriculture did yield some successes in terms of increased grain production, it also led to a neglect of industrial development and economic diversification, ultimately limiting the overall growth and modernisation of the Italian economy.

The Great Depression significantly influenced Mussolini's approach to fiscal policy and government spending. Faced with economic hardship, the regime adopted an interventionist stance, significantly increasing government spending. This was evident in the substantial investment in public works projects, designed to stimulate economic activity and reduce unemployment. However, this approach led to substantial budget deficits and a rise in national debt. Mussolini's government, striving to combat the effects of the Depression, prioritised immediate economic relief over long-term fiscal stability. This shift towards increased government spending reflected a departure from traditional economic policies, demonstrating how the pressures of the Great Depression necessitated a more direct and substantial role for the state in managing the economy.

The specific goal of Mussolini's currency devaluation in 1936 was to boost Italy's exports by making them cheaper and more competitive in the global market. By devaluing the Lira, the regime aimed to stimulate economic growth and balance the trade deficit. Initially, this strategy was moderately successful as it made Italian goods more attractive to foreign buyers, leading to a temporary increase in exports. However, the benefits were short-lived. The devaluation also made imports more expensive, contributing to increased costs for Italian consumers and businesses relying on foreign goods. Additionally, this approach did little to address the underlying structural problems in the Italian economy, such as inefficiencies in industry and agriculture. The devaluation was a quick fix rather than a long-term solution, and its effectiveness was limited by these broader economic challenges.

Mussolini's economic policies, particularly the shift towards autarky and protectionism, significantly impacted Italy's international trade relations. The introduction of trade barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, was aimed at promoting domestic production and reducing dependency on foreign imports. While this approach initially seemed beneficial for Italy's economy, it led to strained relations with trade partners. Countries affected by these protectionist measures likely saw a decrease in their exports to Italy, potentially leading to retaliatory trade restrictions. This isolationist approach also meant that Italy missed out on the benefits of international trade, such as access to cheaper raw materials and a broader market for Italian products. The policies reflected Mussolini's broader political and ideological goals but were economically counterproductive in the long run.

Mussolini's economic policies during the Great Depression had mixed effects on the Italian working class. On one hand, the public works projects and increased focus on agricultural production provided some employment opportunities. These measures were particularly beneficial in the short term, offering relief to many who had been unemployed due to the economic downturn. However, the benefits were unevenly distributed, with a greater emphasis on rural agricultural employment over urban industrial work. Furthermore, the protectionist policies and pursuit of autarky led to increased living costs and limited access to a variety of goods, adversely affecting working-class consumers. The regime's authoritarian nature also meant that workers had limited ability to voice their concerns or demand better wages and working conditions, leading to a stagnation in the overall improvement of the working class's quality of life. These policies, while aimed at stabilising the economy, often overlooked the broader social and economic needs of the working class, leading to disparities and discontent.