RISULTATI RICERCA

The aim of this paper is to examine Maffeo Pantaleoni’s position on the events surrounding the First World War. The first part presents his thoughts on the nature and causes of the Great War, the possible specificities of an economic theory of war, and his analysis of the cost and financing of war. Then, the attention is focused on his proposals for the constitution of the “shareholder State”. I will then present his geo-economic analysis of the autarkic tendencies of economic systems in times of war and his anti-corporatist approach to economic nationalism. This will be followed by the discussion on his position on the so-called ‘Jewish international’, seeking to delimit the nature of his anti-Semitism. The last paragraph is devoted to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and the constitution of the League of Nations, both of which he criticized severely. As an alternative, he proposed a common European army under the authority of a federal body.

The significant presence of history in Pantaleoni’s writings, both in reference to ideas and economic facts, suggests caution against an interpretation of his position in the methodological debate between detractors and supporters of the positive interaction between economic theory and history that lacks nuance. This contribution aims to investigate – against the backdrop of the broader theme of the separation or useful contamination between economic and historical knowledge – the role that history can play, according to Pantaleoni, for an economic science that aspires to be “pure”. To this end, it examines both his writings and discussions on the topic with other economist colleagues. Finally, some reflections are proposed on the issue of generality versus historical specificity in the development of economic theory today.

Maffeo Pantaleoni’s concepts of political prices and economic prices explore institutional change and the dynamics of rent-seeking society. He distinguishes between objective discriminations, which conform to the reproductive logic of an institution, and those that are entirely arbitrary. Additionally, he distinguishes between criteria of impartiality, which treat everyone the same way, and criteria of universalizability, which apply a rule regardless of whom it may benefit or harm. Through these concepts, he defines economic prices as characterized by proscriptive rules, which prohibit certain choices, rather than prescriptive rules, which allow certain options for some and not for others. They cannot eliminate privileges, but they eliminate privileged access to privileges. Their antithesis is political prices, which emerge when groups compete with each other to grab rents and maintain privileges. The more the system of political prices generalizes across all institutions (private, public, commercial) of society, the less it can sustain itself, as every group desires to benefit from it, but no one wants to finance it. Here lies the historical resilience of economic prices.

The paper explores Maffeo Pantaleoni’s 1898 essay, focusing on his analysis of why rational agents enter mutualistic agreements, i.e. contracts, despite common predatory and parasitic behaviors. Pantaleoni classifies social relationships into predatory, parasitic, and mutualistic categories, anticipating the zero-sum logic where wealth is redistributed rather than created. The paper highlights the limitations of Pantaleoni’s neglect of the legal system in shaping contracts, contrasting his ideas with legal realism, which emphasizes law’s role in reducing transaction costs. It also connects Pantaleoni’s work with John Rogers Commons’s theory, extending his ideas into modern institutional economics.

This essay provides a parallel review of Maffeo Pantaleoni’s and Vilfredo Pareto’s thoughts on labour issues. Despite noteworthy differences in their theoretical angles on labour, both Pantaleoni and Pareto had faith in the self-regulating function of labour markets. Pantaleoni’s and Pareto’s adherence to this neoclassicism-backed liberal creed in contradiction to the nature of capitalistic labour caused vicissitudes of their attitudes towards industrial relations. With changes in Italy’s industrial relations, Pantaleoni and Pareto shifted from being sympathetic to antagonistic towards labour movements. They finally inclined to Fascism in the expectation that the Fascists could restore market-directed Italian capitalism by ruthlessly crushing workers’ power. Thus, this essay illuminates strong affinities between Pantaleoni’s and Pareto’s thoughts on labour issues.

The paper discusses Pantaleoni’s feminism, as explicitly attributed to him by Pareto, against the backdrop of the first wave of feminism in the Western world. Pantaleoni was personally in contact with feminists from the aristocracy and upper-middle class and supported many of their initiatives in favour of women. The article examines Pantaleoni’s scarce writings on women’s behaviour and role in society, as well as his views on the feminist movement. Pantaleoni’s favoured subject of enquiry, as well as the distinguishing feature of pure economics, was homo oeconomicus, a figure whose actual existence he never doubted and to whose popularity he made a crucial contribution. In the 1990s, feminist economics criticised the neoclassical approach, denouncing the androcentric bias in its notion of rationality and thus the masculinity of homo oeconomicus. In response, microeconomists argued that homo oeconomicus is an ungendered, abstract, universal category. By reconstructing the features of economic rationality that Pantaleoni attributed exclusively to men, this article provides a crucial element into the masculine connotation of homo oeconomicus.

Il contributo sottopone ad analisi alcuni fra i contratti collettivi più applicati in ambito sanitario, concentrandosi sulle componenti retributive di base. Constatata la diffusione del fenomeno - comune ad altri settori - del dumping contrattuale, l’Autore ferma l'attenzione sull’ampia libertà concessa agli enti e alle imprese private che operano in accreditamento con il servizio sanitario nazionale quanto alla scelta del contratto collettivo. Attraverso una rilettura della sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 113/2022, l’Autore perviene a sostenere che l’introduzione dell’obbligo di applicare il contratto collettivo stipulato dalle associazioni sindacali comparativamente più rappresentative nel settore potrebbe configurare una tecnica antidumping efficace e compatibile con il sistema.

Salvatore Carannante, Warburg, Leonardo, il Rinascimento, Edizioni della Normale-­ Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, Pisa-­Firenze 2023, pp. 104, € 20,00.

Alfredo Ferrarin, I poteri della ragion pura. Kant e l’idea di una filosofia cosmica, Edizioni ETS, Pisa, 2022, pp. 310, € 32,00

Roberto Gilardi (a cura di), La riflessione sul sé nella filosofia del Novecento. Varia-­ zioni humeane, Mimesis, Milano-­Udine 2023, pp. 320, € 26,00

In 1313, the Chapter of Metz designated Thomism as the official and most authoritative doctrine, while rejecting divergent views. Durand of Saint-­Pourçain was accused of being contra doctrinam communem, and his anti-­Thomistic theories were condemned in two lists of errors (1314, 1316). Such theories were deemed dangerous to the doctrinal unity that legitimized the Dominican intellectual autonomy. Joseph Koch, the first scholar to focus on the issues surrounding Durand’s works, posited that Thomism (or Anti-­Thomism) provides a valid criterion for distinguishing between three different versions of Durand’s Sentences Commentary: the first redaction is characterized by strong doctrinal criticism of Thomas Aquinas;; the second reflects a moderation of these polemical arguments;; and the third returns to the critical position of the first. This poses a crucial question: is it correct and sufficient to consider the doctrinal position towards Thomism as the sole criterion for distinguishing between the three redactions of the Commentary? This issue invites further investigation into the nature of Durand’s anti-­Thomism. Should his anti-­Thomism be considered as truly unequivocal and strong or is it more appropriate to adopt a more nuanced perspective? For instance, Mariateresa Fumagalli suggests that Durand dismisses the Thomistic arguments as “unimportant and defective”, even though they lead to conclusions he ultimately accepts, which he arrives at through a different approach. Could his antiThomism be defined solely within the context of the internal disputes of the Dominican Order? This study undertakes a critical examination of Durand’s works, particularly his Sentences Commentary, in relation to Thomas Aquinas’ writings, aiming to demonstrate that Durand does not merely criticize Thomas but builds an original philosophical framework. Using Thomas as a starting point, Durand develops either more robust demonstrations of similar conclusions or innovative theories, such as the theory of the “mediate action”.

Linear thought should give way to the systemic view, from the perspective of Complexity Theory. According to this approach in Medicine disease is considered as part of a larger, interconnected whole. From the “Biomedical” model it is necessary to move to the “Biopsychosocial” model. Today it is time to see the human person within and as an integral part of the ecosystem: this is the concept of “One Health”. Several new paradigms of care and research arise from this kind of vision: the most important to date is the PNEI Paradigm. But other paradigms are especially engaged on the economic and environmental sustainability front. Without detracting from the significant role of technology, increasingly today’s Medicine must reevaluate the fundamental role of the “Medical Humanities”, from bioethics to philosophy, from communication to the integration of knowledge and research.

The purpose of the study is to establish the role of climate change threat in shaping national strategies and foreign policy relations of the actors in international relations. The methods of the study include document analysis of international agreements and national legislation, case studies, and comparative analysis in the context of differences in approaches to climate communication. The results of the study demonstrate that the rhetoric of European Union officials and aspects of European climate strategies position the EU as a leader in adapting to climate threats. Climate communications within the United States are more focused on informing the population about climate change, while foreign policy environmental institutions aim to fully protect the country’s national interests. Moreover, considering that the industrial sector of the People’s Republic of China is a leader in greenhouse gas emissions, a substantial threat lies in the potential deviation from commitments under the Paris Agreement. Conversely, the United States government has demonstrated some of the most progressive actions in mobilising resources within the framework of climate communications. An example of this is the executive order “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” and the Inflation Reduction Act. Within the European Union, a similar practice is represented by the European Green Deal, which frequently appears in mass media and has a transparent reporting system, enhancing climate literacy and awareness among broad segments of the population. Thus, the climate communication and diplomacy of the European Union focus on raising awareness both within and beyond its borders, while the US government prioritises foreign policy interests within its climate strategies. In contrast, the rhetoric of the government of the People’s Republic of China highlights the challenges in achieving the targets set by the Paris Agreement within the timeframe leading up to 2030.