The Early Oligopolistic Models: Market Power in the Paretian Tradition

  • Mario PominiEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought book series (PHET)


The study of non-competitive markets was a very active field of research in the period between the two World Wars. The chapter focuses on the developments that emerged within the Paretian tradition. The Italian followers of Pareto participated actively in this debate, and indeed Luigi Amoroso played a prominent role. The Italian mathematical economist was recognized as the main proponent of Cournot’s approach. Other Paretians who made important contributions were Arrigo Bordin, Felice Vinci, and especially Emilio Zaccagnini. The analysis of this strand of literature can help us to understand the reasons why Cournot’s perspective became the dominant approach to the oligopoly theory only in the postwar period.


  1. Amoroso, L. (1909). La teoria dell’equilibrio economico secondo il prof. Vilfredo Pareto. Giornale degli Economisti, 19, 353–367.Google Scholar
  2. Amoroso, L. (1921). Lezioni di Economia Matematica. Zanichelli: Bologna.Google Scholar
  3. Amoroso, L. (1930). La curva statica di offerta. Il Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
  4. Amoroso, L. (1935). La produzione in regime di concentrazione industriale. Rivista Italiana di Scienze Economiche, 8, 15–32.Google Scholar
  5. Amoroso, L. (1942). Meccanica Economica. Città di Castello: Macrì.Google Scholar
  6. Bordin, A. (1934). Lezioni di economia politica. La statica: parte prima. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
  7. Bordin, A. (1936). Lezioni di economia politica. La statica: parte seconda. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
  8. Bordin, A. (1948). Di taluni massimi di utilità collettiva. Il Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 9, 174–189.Google Scholar
  9. Bowley, A. (1924). The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics. Londra: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Chamberlin, E. (1929). Value Where Sellers are Few. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 44, 63–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Finetti, B. (1935a). Il tragico sofisma. Rivista italiana di scienze economiche, 7, 362–382.Google Scholar
  12. De Finetti, B. (1935b). Vilfredo Pareto di fronte ai suoi critici odierni. Nuovi Studi di Diritto, Economia, Politica, 8, 225–244.Google Scholar
  13. De Finetti, B. (1937a). Problemi di optimum, Giornale dell’Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 8, pp. 48–67. English transl. Problems of Constrained Optimum. In L. Pasinetti (Ed.), Italian Economic Papers, vol. III, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Finetti, B. (1937b). Problemi di “optimum” vincolato. Giornale dell’Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 8, 112–126.Google Scholar
  15. De Finetti, B. (1943). La crisi dei principi e l’economia matematica. Acta Seminarii, II, 33–68.Google Scholar
  16. Edgeworth, F. (1897). La teoria pura del monopolio, Il Giornale degli Economisti, 15, pp. 17–31, 307–320, 405–414.Google Scholar
  17. Edgeworth, F. (1922). The Mathematical Economics of Professor Amoroso. The Economic Journal, 32, 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edgeworth, F. (1925). Papers Relating to Political Economy. Londra: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Gaeta, A. (1967). Concorrenza e monopolio nel pensiero di Amoroso. Il Giornale degli Economisti, 26, 942–956.Google Scholar
  20. Giocoli, N. (2012). Who Invented the Lerner Index? Luigi Amoroso, the Dominant Firm Model, and the Measurement of Market Power. Review of Industrial Organization, 41, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guccione, A., & Minelli, E. (1999). Consumer Theory and Axiomatics: A Note on the Early Contribution by Luigi Amoroso. History of Politic Economy, 31, 587–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in Competition. The Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurwicz, L. (1953). What Happened to the Game Theory? The American Economic Review, 43, 398–405.Google Scholar
  24. Keppler, J. H. (1994). Luigi Amoroso (1866–1965): Mathematical Economist, Italian Corporatist. History of Political Economy, 26, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leontief, W. (1935). Stackelberg on Monopolistic Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 44, 554–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, S. (2002). Advanced Industrial Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mistri, M. (1970). Su due formule amorosiane di concentrazione della concorrenza. Il Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 29, 257–270.Google Scholar
  28. Pareto, V. (1909). Manuel d’économie politique. Paris: Giarde et Briere.Google Scholar
  29. Pareto, V. (2014) [1909]. Manual of Political Economy. A Critical and Variorum Edition, edited by A. Montesano, A. Zanni, L. Bruni, J.S. Chipman and M. McLure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pigou, A. C. (1924). Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Pomini, M., & Tusset, G. (2009). Habits and Expectations: Dynamic General Equilibrium in the Italian Paretian School. History of Political Economy, 41, 311–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schumpeter J. (1982) [1908]. L’essenza e i principi dell’economia teorica. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
  33. Shackle, G. (1967). The Years of High Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Vinci, F. (1944). Gli ordinamenti economici, Milano, Giuffrè. English trans. Economic Institutional System. The Particular Case of Free Competition. In L. Pasinetti (Ed.), Italian Economic Papers. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Von Neumann J. e O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Von Stackelberg, H. (2011) [1934]. Market Structure and Equilibrium. Berlino: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Wicksell, A. K. (1926). Lectures on Political Economy. Londra: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Zaccagnini, E. (1942). Legami tra curve di indifferenza, di baratto e di domanda. Il Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 4, 546–562.Google Scholar
  39. Zaccagnini, E. (1947). Massimi simultanei in economia pura, Il Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 6, 1947, pp. 258–292. English trasl. Simultaneous Maxima in Pure Economics. In A. Peacock, H. Houtakker, R. Turvey, F. Lutz, E. Henderson (Eds.), International Economic Papers. London: Macmillan, 1951.Google Scholar
  40. Zaccagnini E. (1953). Scienza economica e postulato edonistico, in Studi in onore di Gino Borgatta. Bologna: Arti Grafiche.Google Scholar
  41. Zaccagnini, E. (1958). Sulle condizioni di massimo simultaneo. Il Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 16, 565–594.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations