The Teaching of Political Economy in Nineteenth-Century Italy and the Characteristics of its Institutionalization

  • Gabreella Gioli
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 15)


It isn’t society as a whole or even a random collection of members that hands on the stock of scientific knowledge but a more or less definite group of professionals who teach the rising generations not only their methods and results but also their opinions about the direction and means of further advance. In a majority of cases competence in doing scientific work cannot be acquired, or can be acquired only by individuals of quite exceptional originality and force, from any source other than the teaching of recognized professionals. (1)


Nineteenth Century Political Economy Italian Society Private Tutorial Italian Government 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, 1954, p. 46.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    We refer mainly to research work presented in the volume: Massimo Augello, Marco Bianchini, Gabriella Gioli and Piero Roggi (eds.), Le cattedre di economica politica in Italia. La diffusione di una discipline “sospetta” (1750–1900), Milan: Franco Angeli, 1988; and in the international version to contributions collected in the following works: ‘Les problèmes de l’institutionnalisation de l’économie politique en France au XIX siècle,’ Economies et Sociétés, no. 6, 1986; William J. Barber (ed.), Breaking the Academic Mould. Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1988; Chuhei Sugiuyama and Hiroshi Mizuta (eds.), Enlightenment and Beyond. Political Economy Comes to Japan, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Piero Barucci, ‘La cattedra e l’autonomia della scienza economica: una riflessione,’ in Le cattedre di economia, op. cit., p. 27.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    It was Bartolomeo Intieri, a Tuscan, who did his utmost in order that a chair for Antonio Genovesi be instituted with private funds. Franco Venturi, Illuministi italiani. Riformatori Napoletani, Vol. V, Milan-Naples: Ricciardi, 1957, p.15ff.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See the contributions of Marco Bianchini, ‘some Fundamental Aspects of Italian Eighteenth-Century Economic Thought,’ in D.A. Walker (ed.), Prospectives on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. I., London: Edward Elgar, 1989, and the work ‘Una difficile gestazione: il contrastato inserimento delPeconomia politica nelle universita dell’Italia nord-orientale (1769–1966). Note per un’analisi comparativa’ in Le cattedre di economia, op. cit., pp. 47–92.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alberto Bertolino, ‘Il pensiero economico italiano dal risorgimento alia ricostruzione,’ in Massimo Finoia (ed.), Il pensiero economico italiano 1850–1950, Bologna: L. Cappelli, 1980, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Antonio La Penna, ‘Universita e istruzione pubblica,’ in Storia d’Italia, Vol. 5, Turin: G. Einaudi editore, 1973, pp. 1744–1745.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Guido Baglioni, Uideologia della borghesia industriale nell’Italia liberale, Turin: G. Einaudi, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Daniele Rota (ed.), Pietro Custodi tra rivoluzione e restaurazione,’ Vol. II, Lecco: Cattaneo editore, 1989. See especially the contributions by Simonetta Bartolozzi Batignani, Marco Bianchini and Aurelio Macchioro.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Piero Barucci, ‘Il pensiero economico “classico” nei primi decenni dell’800: un tentativo d’interpretazione d’assieme,’ in Fatti e idee di storia economica nei secoli XII–XX, Bologna: E Mulino, 1976, pp. 689–707; Gabriella Gioli, ‘Gli albori dello smithianesimo in Italia,’ Rivista di Politico Economica, VII, 1972, pp. 3–48.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    This measure anticipated among other things the Special Regulation of the Faculty of Jurisprudence, according to which a ‘promotion examination’ was established at the end of the second year in the following subjects: Institutions of Roman Law, History of Law, Philosophy of Law and Political Economy. This regulation also confirmed the differentiation already present in the Casati law between ordinary professors and private or ‘free’ professors. Information regarding the regulation of Italian universities can be found in the following sources: Il Digesto italiano, Enciclopedia metodica e alfabetica di legislazione, dottrina a giurisprudenza, edited by Luigi Lucchini, Vol. XIII, part two, Turin: UTET, 1901–1904, p. 1035 ff; Raccolta ufficiale delle Leggi e dei decreti del Regno d’Italia, various years.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Vera Zamagni, ‘Istruzione e sviluppo economico — Il caso italiano (1861–1913),’ in Gianni Toniolo (ed.), L’economia italiana (1861–1940), Ban: Laterza, 1978, pp. 141–144.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Giuseppe Ricuperati, ‘La scuola nell’Italia unita,’ in Storia d’Italia, Vol. V, Turin: G. Einaudi, p. 1700.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    In these years there were those who proposed a return to the model of the medieval universities: these were run by free associations of students who elected the rector and the teachers, autonomously organizing their studies. The creation of the class of ‘free teachers’ (teachers whose salary from the public universities depended on the contributions made by those enrolled on their courses) is, to a certain extent, an expression of this tendency. It was also hoped that the presence of free teachers in competition with ordinary professors would constitute a guarantee of the quality of teaching. In reality there were very few benefits at the didactive level and many conflicts of a financial nature between free teachers and the State. On this theme, see the work by Antonio La Penna, ‘Universita e istruzione pubblica,’ op. cit.; and Carlo Matteucci, Sulle condizioni della pubblica istruzione nei regno d’Italia. Relazione generate presentata al ministro del consiglio superiore di Torino, Milan: Stamperia reale, 1865. See also the work by Mauro Moretti and Ilaria Porciani, ‘Università e Stato nell’Italia liberale: una ricerca in corso,’ Scienze e Politico, No. 3,1990.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    For more information on this aspect, see Carlo G. Lacaita, Istruzione e sviluppo industriale in Italia, 1859–1914, Florence: Giunti, pp. 145–147.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    On these two institutes see the work by Sandro Rogari, ‘L’ Istituto di Studi Superiori Pratici e di Perfezionamento e la Scuola di Scienze Sociali (1859–1924),’ in Storia delVAteneo Fiorentino, Contributi di Studio, Vol. 2, Florence: Parretti, 1986, pp. 959–1030; besides the already cited Digesto Italiano, Volume V, Istituti diver si d’Istruzione Superiore, p. 1086. For a comparison with the French case see the work in this volume by Johan Heilbron.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    On the business schools, see the work by Massimo M. Augello and Marco E.L. Guidi, ‘I “Politecnici del commercio” e la formazione della classe dirigente economica nell’Italia post-unitaria. L’origine delle Scuole Superiori di commer-cio e rinsegnamento deireconomia politica, 1868–1900,’ in Le Cattedre di economia, op. cit., pp. 335–384.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Carlo G. Lacaita, Istruzione e sviluppo industriale in Italia, op. cit., p. 147. It was a controversial question, even when related to the problem concerned with allowing the teaching of political economy to expand to a greater or lesser extent: whether to limit it to university, para-university and technical institute studies or to extend it to the classical licei. Two fronts emerged in 1868 at the time of the debate taking place in the ‘Italian Political Economy Society’. There were some economists (A. Scialoja, L. Luzzatti and F. Protonotari) who felt that education was necessary for the formation of the middle class, the pillar of the future modern Italian society, and others, such as F. Ferrara, who wanted to keep it in the technical institutes, denying its usefulness in the classical licei. A diversity of opinions continued throughout the nineteenth century. See Nuova Antologia, Vol. VIII, (20 June) 1868. see also Piero Barcucci and Pier Francesco Asso (eds.), Francesco Ferrara e il suo tempo, Rome: Bancaria editrice, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    This proposal was passed by the Chamber by a few votes, but incited a strong reaction from the opposition, contributing to the crisis of the government led by Depretis. The project was abandoned by the new government, and the chance for a general reform of the universities thus faded away for more years. A system of partial reforms, passed with adjustments or specific modifications, was resorted to. Giorgio Candeloro, Storia dell’Italia moderna, Vol. 6, Milan: Feltrinelli, pp. 278–279.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Raffaele Romanelli, L’Italia liberale (1861–1900), Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979, p. 180ff.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Anna Pellanda, Angelo Messedaglia, tematiche economiche e indagini storiche, Padua: Signum edizioni, 1984, especially pp. 24–35; Cesare Mozzarelli and Stefano Nespor, Giuristi e scienze sociali nell’Italia liberale, Venice: Marsilio editori, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Franco Venturi, Italy and the Enlightenment, New York: New York University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Riccardo Faucci, ‘La cultura economica dopo l’unita,’ in Massimo Finoia (ed.), Il pensiero economico italiano, op. cit., pp. 53–65, in particular pp.55–56; Raffaella Gherardi,’ sul “Methodenstreit” nell’eta della sinistra (1875–1885): Costituzione, amministrazione e finanza nella “Via media” di Giuseppe Ricca-Salerno,’ Materialiper una storia della cultura giuridica, XIII, no. 1, June 1983.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    On this subject see the works contained in the special edition ‘I cento anni de “L‘industria”,’ in L’industria, no. 3, 1986; and also Vera Zamagni, Lo Stato italiano e l’economia, Florence, Le Monnier, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Silvio Lanaro, Nazione e lavoro. Saggio sulla cultura borghese in Italia, 1870–1925, Padua, Marsilio editori, 1979, p. 169.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Francesco Ferrara, ‘Prefazione,’ in Biblioteca dell’Economista, first series, Vol. 3, Turin: Pomba editore, 1852, p. xxxv, now found in Francesco Ferrara. Opere complete, Vol. 2, op. cit.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Francesco Ferrara, Lezioni di Economia Politica, in Piero Barucci and Pier Francesco Asso (eds.), Francesco Ferrara. Opere complete, Vol. 11, Rome: Bancaria editrice, 1986, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    The quote by Adolphe Blanqui comes from Francesco Ferrara, ‘Prefazione’ in Biblioteca dell’Economista, first series, Vol. 3, Turin: Pomba editore, 1852, p. xxxix, now found in Francesco Ferrara. Opere complete, Vol. 2, op. cit. See also Aurelio Macchioro, Studi di storia del pensiero economico e altri saggi, Milan: Feltrinelli, 1970.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    These themes are discussed and outlined in Pierangelo Schiera, ‘Amministrazione e costitutione: verso la nascita della scienza politica,’ in Scienza e pensiero politico nella seconda metd dell’ Ottocento, Florence: Olschki, 1982, p. 80, and in this volume. Research in Germany and Italy into “common methods for the scientific solution of social problems …” is also discussed in Pierangelo Schiera and Friedrich Tenbruck (eds.), Gustav Schmoller e il suo tempo: la nascita delle scienze sociali in Germania e in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Emilio R. Papa (ed.), Il positivismo e la cultura italiana, Milan: Franco Angeli, 1985. See particularly the work by Riccardo Faucci.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Massimo Augello and Denis Giva, ‘La definitiva istitutionalizzazione ac-cademica dell’economia politica: le Universita di Padova e di Torino (1860–1900),’ in Le cattedre di economia, op. cit., pp. 241–289.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Gabriella Gioli, ‘La nascita e raffermazione deirinsegnamento dell’economia politica in Italia: continuita e discontinuity (1750–1900),’ in Le cattedre di economia, op. cit., pp. 407–408. Similar works and especially legal studies may be found in Aldo Mazzacane (ed.), L’esperienza giuridica di Emanuele Gianturco, Naples: Liguori editori, 1987; I giuristi e la crisi dello stato liber ale in Italia fra otto e novecento, Naples: Liguori editori, 1986, particularly the contributions by Antonio Cardini and Ilaria Porciani.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Piero Barucci and Piero Roggi, ‘I cent’anni de “L’industria”. La politica economica per raffermazione della cultura industriale in Italia,’ Uindustria, no. 3,1986, pp. 355–379. See also Antonio Cardini, Stato liberale e protezionismo in Italia (1890–1900), Bologna: Il Mulino, 1981; Giuseppe Are, Economia e politica nell’Italia liberale (1890–1915), Bologna: Il Mulino, 1974.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Guido Baglioni, ‘L’ideologia della borghesia industriale,’ op. cit., p. 473.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Piero Bini, ‘“L’industria”: 1887–1914. La politica economica del decollo industriale,’ L’industria, no. 3, 1986, pp. 403–434; Giovanni Zalin, ‘Protezionismo e sviluppo economico accelerato nel pensiero di Friedrich List e di Alessandro Rossi,’ Rassegna Economica, no. 6,1980, pp. 1363–1407.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Piero Bini, ‘“L’industria”: 1887–1914,’ L’industria, op. cit., pp. 406–411.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    The German university model to which Luigi Luzzatti and Vittorio Ellena tended was the same as the one which Richard T. Ely had tried, unsuccessfully, to bring to the USA in the middle of the 1880’s. See the contribution to this volume by John G. Gunnell.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    It is worth remembering that marginalist theory became known in Italy after 1883 when Maffeo Pantaleoni, following W. Stanley Jevons, developed the theory of ‘the comparison of various expenditures by marginal degrees of utility’ as a criterion to follow in the allocation of public expenditure. However, marginalist theory was introduced in 1876 when Gerolamo Boccardo, who succeeded Francesco Ferrara as the editor of the third series of the Biblioteca dell’economista included works by the aforementioned Jevons (1876) and Walras (1878). See Piero Barucci, ‘The Spread of Marginalism in Italy, 1871–1890,’ History of Political Economy, (Papers on the Marginal Revolution in Economics), no. 2, 1972, pp. 512–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 40.
    Besides the work by James M. Buchanan ‘La scuola italiana di finanza pubblica,’ in Massimo Finoia (ed.), Pensiero economico, op. cit., p. 207ff., see also Mauro Fasiani, ‘La teoria della finanza pubblica in Italia,’ (translated from the German) in Massimo Finoia (ed.), Il pensiero economico, op. cit., pp. 118–202.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, op. cit., p. 47.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Giuseppe Are, Economia e politica nell’Italia liberate, op. cit., pp. 193–194.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    Maffeo Pantaleoni, ‘Il secolo ventesimo secondo un individualista,’ in Erotemi di economia, Vol. I, Ban: Laterza, 1925, p. 280.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, op. cit., p. 757.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabreella Gioli

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations