"Racism" is a somewhat vague term for which I believe the current usage is primarily born out of the American civil rights movement. Europeans on the other hand have been comfortable with labeling various national characteristics for centuries -- various national characteristics that are undoubtedly true. These come in negative, positive, and contested categories. For instance, the British are known for their "stiff upper lip," Germans (traditionally, not contemporarily) for their warlike sentiment, etc.

In America we have the sense that these things are mutable, and this is partially true, but it is unreasonable to expect people to change overnight, and it is especially unreasonable to expect that some external force (e.g. purely economic forces) will produce the massive changes that might be perceived as necessary for a society to adapt to modernity as the Economist writers perceive as necessary and laudable.

In any case, I think it is unacceptable to focus only on the negative aspects of a people. "Blacks are, well, blacks" would generally be racist since virtually no one would use that in a positive sense. Italians often self-perceive that their resistance to the way things are done in a capitalist world is based on some inner nobility -- and although I generally disagree, I think there is still a grain of truth there. Besides, Italians are among the most openly racist peoples in Europe -- people from Northern Italy are even comfortable calling Southern Italy part of Africa (not meant in a positive sense!).