An Institutional History Of Italian Economics In The Interwar Period — Volume I: Adapting To The Fascist Regime 3030329798, 9783030329792, 9783030329808

Table of contents :
Contents......Page 6
Notes on Contributors......Page 8
List of Figures......Page 11
List of Tables......Page 12
1 Introduction......Page 14
2 Fascism, Corporatism and Economics: State of the Art......Page 17
3 The Institutional History of Economics: Ideals and Achievements......Page 25
4 Italian Economics under the Fascist Regime in an Institutional Perspective......Page 31
5 Conclusions......Page 37
References......Page 39
Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous and Painful Continuity?......Page 46
References......Page 76
1 Introduction......Page 78
2 The Legacy from Liberal Italy......Page 79
3 The Reforms......Page 80
4 The Change to the Law Faculty......Page 83
5 The Advance of the Faculties of Economics and Business......Page 84
6 A Brief Aside on the First School of Statistics......Page 90
7 The “Schools” of Economists......Page 91
8 Academic Economists and Fascism......Page 93
9 The Fascist Economists on the International Scene......Page 95
10 The Victory of the Democracies......Page 96
References......Page 97
1 Some Introductory Remarks......Page 101
2 The Faculties of Political Sciences......Page 107
3 From Crisis to Suspension of the Faculties of Political Sciences......Page 117
4 A Short Time of Confusion: The Corporative Science Schools......Page 122
References......Page 127
1 Introduction......Page 131
2 The Revaluation of the Lira and the Great Depression......Page 133
3 The Reception of Corporatism in the Academic Journals......Page 139
4 Conclusion......Page 149
References......Page 150
1 Introduction: “Generalist” Journals and Economics......Page 155
2 An Unsuccessful Resistance to Fascist Ideology......Page 158
3 The Fate of Two Emblematic Journals......Page 164
4 The Transformation of Nuova Antologia and Echi e Commenti under the Fascist Regime......Page 167
5 Insights on Echi e Commenti......Page 170
6 The Propagandist Degeneration of Nuova Antologia......Page 173
Appendix......Page 177
References......Page 180
1 The Problem and the Labels......Page 182
2 The Sample and the Benchmarks......Page 186
3 Our Classification......Page 191
4 Distribution of Labels along the Years......Page 194
5 Some Interesting Cases......Page 197
6 Labelling Colleagues......Page 202
7 Conclusion......Page 205
References......Page 207
1 Introduction......Page 211
2 Series of Economics......Page 212
3 The Encyclopaedias......Page 223
4 Final Remarks......Page 234
Appendix: Index of the Nuova Collana di Economisti Stranieri ed Italiani......Page 235
References......Page 236
Name Index......Page 238
Subject Index......Page 249

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT

An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I Adapting to the Fascist Regime Edited by Massimo M. Augello Marco E. L. Guidi · Fabrizio Bientinesi

Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought

Series Editors Avi J. Cohen Department of Economics York University & University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada G. C. Harcourt School of Economics University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia Peter Kriesler School of Economics University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia Jan Toporowski Economics Department School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London London, UK

Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought publishes contributions by leading scholars, illuminating key events, theories and individuals that have had a lasting impact on the development of modern-day economics. The topics covered include the development of economies, institutions and theories. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14585

Massimo M. Augello · Marco E. L. Guidi · Fabrizio Bientinesi Editors

An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I Adapting to the Fascist Regime

Editors Massimo M. Augello University of Pisa Pisa, Italy

Marco E. L. Guidi University of Pisa Pisa, Italy

Fabrizio Bientinesi University of Pisa Pisa, Italy

ISSN 2662-6578 ISSN 2662-6586  (electronic) Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought ISBN 978-3-030-32979-2 ISBN 978-3-030-32980-8  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: © Photo 12/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View 1 Massimo M. Augello, Marco E. L. Guidi and Fabrizio Bientinesi Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous and Painful Continuity? 33 Piero Barucci The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists in the Law Faculties and in the Higher Institutes of Business Studies 65 Simone Misiani and Manuela Mosca The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced Corporative Studies 89 Fabrizio Bientinesi and Marco Cini The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism 119 Antonio Magliulo and Gianfranco Tusset

v

vi      Contents

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics and Regime Propaganda 143 Francesca Dal Degan and Fabrizio Simon Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging the Homo Corporativus? 171 Riccardo Faucci and Nicola Giocoli Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic Theory and New Paths 201 Carlo Cristiano and Massimo Di Matteo Name Index 229 Subject Index 241

Notes on Contributors

Massimo M. Augello is Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. He is founder and co-director of Il Pensiero economico italiano and chair of CIPEI (Centro interuniversitario di documentazione sul pensiero economico italiano). He is a member of the editorial board of History of Economic Thought and Policy and of the executive committee of Aispe (Associazione Italiana per la Storia del pensiero economico). Piero Barucci is retired Full Professor of History of Economic Thought and Economics. He taught at the Universities of Siena and Florence. In 1987–1991, he was President of the Association of Italian Banks, and in 1992–1994, he served as Minister of Treasury. He is honorary President of the Advisory Board of History of Economic Thought and Policy. Fabrizio Bientinesi  is Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. He is chief editor of Il Pensiero economico italiano and a member of the executive committee of Aispe (Associazione Italiana per la Storia del pensiero economico). vii

viii      Notes on Contributors

Marco Cini  is Assistant Professor of Economic History at the University of Pisa. He is member of the editorial committee of Il Pensiero economico italiano. Carlo Cristiano  teaches History of Economic Thought and Policy at LUISS University in Rome and has been Research Fellow in Economics at Pisa University. He is a member of the editorial boards of History of Economic Ideas and The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Francesca Dal Degan is Research Fellow and teaches History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. She is member of the editorial committee of Il Pensiero economico italiano. Massimo Di Matteo  is Full Professor of Economics at the University of Siena. He is member of the executive committee of CIPEI (Centro interuniversitario di documentazione sul pensiero economico italiano). Riccardo Faucci is retired Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. He is the founder and managing co-editor of History of Economic Ideas, and member of the scientific committee of Il Pensiero economico italiano. Nicola Giocoli  is Full Professor of Economics at the University of Pisa. He is managing editor of History of Economic Ideas. Marco E. L. Guidi  is Full professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. He is managing co-editor of Il Pensiero economico italiano. He is member of the editorial board of The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Œconomia and The Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought, and of the executive committee of CIPEI (Centro interuniversitario di documentazione sul pensiero economico italiano). Antonio Magliulo  is Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of International Studies of Rome. He is member of the editorial board of History of Economic Thought and Policy and of the executive committee of Aispe (Associazione Italiana per la Storia del pensiero economico).

Notes on Contributors     ix

Luca Michelini  is Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Pisa. He is managing co-editor of Il Pensiero economico italiano. Simone Misiani  is Associate Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Teramo, where he also teaches Contemporary History. Manuela Mosca  is Full Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Salento and Adjunct Professor at the University of Bologna. She is member of the editorial board of The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Œconomia, History of Economic Theory and Policy, and Il Pensiero economico italiano and of the executive committee of Aispe (Associazione Italiana per la Storia del pensiero economico). Fabrizio Simon  is Research Fellow and teaches History of Economic Thought at the University of Palermo. Gianfranco Tusset is Associate Professor of History of Economic Thought at the University of Padua. He is a member of the editorial board of History of Economic Thought and Policy and of the council of Eshet (European Society for the History of Economic Thought). He is the current chair of Aispe (Associazione Italiana per la Storia del pensiero economico).

List of Figures

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism Fig. 1 Years 128 Fig. 2 Economic journals 135

xi

List of Tables

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists in the Law Faculties and in the Higher Institutes of Business Studies Table 1 The advance of the Italian faculties of economics and business, and of statistics

78

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced Corporative Studies Table 1 Enrolments and graduates in the Faculties of Political Sciences (1925–1926 to 1942–1943) 107 Table 2 Schools of Advanced Corporative Studies and courses in 1937 114

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics and Regime Propaganda Table 1 Articles in Echi e Commenti and Nuova Antologia 165 Table 2 Authors of articles in Echi e Commenti and Nuova Antologia 166 Table 3 Economists contributing with more than 10 articles 166

xiii

xiv      List of Tables

Table 4 Universities where authors taught 167 Table 5 Subjects taught by the authors 167 Table 6 Topics of articles 168

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging the Homo Corporativus? Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Political economy textbooks Public finance textbooks Economic policy textbooks Annual distribution of labels

181 182 183 185

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View Massimo M. Augello, Marco E. L. Guidi and Fabrizio Bientinesi

1

Introduction

The two volumes that compose this book represent the main result of a research project on Italian economics during fascism: An institutional profile, which has involved a large part of the community of Italian historians of economics over the past two years.1 The main aim of this research has been to study the relationships between the economics profession and fascism 1The

project has been generously funded by the University of Pisa in the framework of the action “Progetti di ricerca di Ateneo (PRA), 2017–2019”.

M. M. Augello (B) · M. E. L. Guidi · F. Bientinesi University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. E. L. Guidi e-mail: [email protected] F. Bientinesi e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_1

1

2

M. M. Augello et al.

through a systematic and coordinated analysis of all the institutional loci that governed the production, reproduction and circulation of the economic science. As a consequence, the chapters that compose both volumes are all original and were planned and committed to specialists in the field with a view to providing an, as far as possible, full-scale representation of the condition of economics in the period between the two world wars. The history of the present work, in a sense, goes back a long way in time and presupposes many things. Basically, it presupposes the elaboration and refinement of an approach to the history of economic thought of which we have been protagonists and around which we claim, with a legitimate touch of pride, to have aggregated many a scholar. This approach is the institutional history of economics, which we can briefly define as the application to the evolution of this discipline of a complex toolbox—not only reducible to Bob Coats’s (1969, 1993) “sociology of economics”, from which, however, it takes its cue—which places at the centre of its study the institutional framework, both material and immaterial, within which economics has developed both as scientific and professional knowledge and as a patrimony of notions and languages that have circulated outside the economics profession, permeating public opinion, becoming the object of dissemination and education, as well as providing the political class with guidelines for government (Augello and Guidi 2019). In the research we have conducted over the last forty years, we have mainly applied this approach to the study of the Italian economic thought in a very specific historical period, that of the so-called liberal age, which in Italy goes, roughly, from the affirmation of a constitutional regime in some parts of the country after 1848, to the political unification between 1861 and 1870, up to the tragic events that, after the end of the First World War, brought to the affirmation of the fascist regime in 1922. This led us to coordinate a series of research projects, which highlighted the paths through which the science of political economy was established in Italy, at the moment in which the country had embarked on the path of economic modernisation and at the same time followed the course of the most advanced nations in establishing the fundamental freedoms, the progressive expansion of suffrage and a modern political and social dialectics.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

3

In this book, we are going to face a new challenge: to test our method by applying it to another period and to deeply different historical circumstances: the period between the two wars, characterised in Italy by the affirmation of an authoritarian and totalitarian regime, fascism, and by the imposition in the economic field of a “single thought” based on the corporative organisation of the economy. So here are the questions that crowd our minds and represent the backbone of the present research: Can the institutional approach contribute to clarify the attitude of Italian economists towards fascism? And can it highlight the nature of the debate about the characteristics of the corporative economy? How did academic and professional economists and other economists employed as experts in various organisations react to fascism, being educated in an elitist but sufficiently free world, for the most part imbued with liberal and laissezfaire ideas, but sometimes also sensitive to different ideologies, such as socialism or social Catholicism? Did they resist, and in what forms? Did they try to adapt and through which strategies? And how did a younger generation adhere to the corporatist ideology, in many cases lending their professional skills to the construction of its theoretical framework? To what extent did a regime imposed by violence—which obtained consensus thanks to demagogic and boorish slogans and came to actively collaborate with the extermination of Jews and Roma (including those among them who had supported the regime), in the deportation and detention of opponents, and in the deliberate provocation of a war that exterminated defenceless populations—take hold of their profile as intellectuals, scientists and teachers? As our readers can easily grasp, these are issues that go largely beyond the internal debate of the historiography on Italian fascism, to assume the more general value of a case study concerning the relationship between the economic profession and authoritarian regimes. In Sect. 2 of this chapter, we clarify the subject and scope of the present work. Next, after a brief outline of the main events that led to the fascist dictatorship and the creation of a totalitarian government in Italy, we discuss the state of the art in the historiography on Italian economics in the interwar period, focusing on the interpretation of corporatism, the “official” economic doctrine of the fascist regime. This section reveals that this interpretation, since the 1980s, has been largely made following the then dominant approaches to the history of economics, consisting of a

4

M. M. Augello et al.

mixture of Schumpeterian history of economic analysis and of intellectual, cultural and political history. Only recently, the historiography has explored new aspects, developing an institutional approach that focuses on the relationships between economic discourse and the institutions that support and limit it. Section 3 provides a definition of the institutional history of economics, illustrating its sources of inspiration and the contribution it can make to the historiography of economic thought. Then the reasons that led us to apply this approach to nineteenth-century Italy are briefly explained. Finally, in Sect. 4, we illustrate the internal organisation of our two volumes and we provide a concise guide to their contents, emphasising the innovatory perspective the institutional approach offers and comparing the situation of the economics profession under the fascist regime to its development in the previous liberal age. The conclusions offer some insights into the contribution that the institutional perspective can make to the study of economics in Italy under fascism, and into the scope and limits of our research. In no way, however, does this introductory chapter aim to offer a summary of the main conclusions of the research that has come together in this book, or to make general comments about the complex condition of Italian economists under the fascist regime. In this sense, our contribution must be read in conjunction with that of Piero Barucci (Chapter “Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous and Painful Continuity?” of the present volume) and that of Luca Michelini which opens Vol. 2, whose main arguments we largely share.

2

Fascism, Corporatism and Economics: State of the Art

As illustrated above, these two volumes deal with the relationship between economists and fascism in Italy and with the transformations that the economic discourse underwent as a consequence of the introduction of an authoritarian and totalitarian regime. The following chapters often evoke the events that characterised the so-called Ventennio (the two decades of fascist dominance). It may therefore be useful, in the first place, to offer a

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

5

brief history of the salient facts. An examination of the historiography on this subject will follow. On 23 March 1919, in a building located in Piazza San Sepolcro in Milan, the Fasci di combattimento were founded, forerunners of the Fascist Party, officially formed two years later. Benito Mussolini made it the instrument for a political struggle that would lead, in the night between 27 and 28 October 1922, to the “March on Rome”: thus began a path that eventually led to the formation of a real “regime”. In 1924, thanks to an ad hoc electoral law, the Fascist Party obtained a majority in parliament. Giacomo Matteotti, a socialist MP who had denounced fraud and intimidation, was kidnapped and killed. After a first moment of skidding, Mussolini and fascism came out strengthened by the “Matteotti crisis”. Between 1925 and 1926, the so-called Leggi fascistissime [very fascist laws] were passed, which abolished, among other things, the freedom of the press and the freedom of trade unions. In 1927, a Special Court for the Defence of the State was established to judge political crimes. The bulk of the fascist power structure was thus completed: the room for dissent was reduced to a minimum. From the economic point of view, Mussolini, especially after his speech in Udine on 20 September 1922, was in favour of a decisive reduction in State intervention in the economy and, at the same time, of collaboration between the productive classes. This collaboration should have been the basis of “corporatism”, the inner core of fascist economic thought. In 1926, the National Council of Corporations was created. In the same year, a strong revaluation of the exchange rate of the lira was established, up to 90 liras against one pound (so-called Quota 90 ). In 1931, the regime felt strong enough to impose an oath of loyalty on university professors. However, the effects of the crisis began to be felt heavily. Crises in industry and banking went hand in hand. The regime chose the path of direct intervention, with the formation of the Italian Industrial Finance Institute (Istituto Mobiliare Italiano, IMI) and the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, IRI). The 1935 invasion of Ethiopia marked a watershed. The embargo imposed by the League of Nations pushed Italy towards absolute protectionism, autarchy. Germany became the main Italian partner: an economic

6

M. M. Augello et al.

partner, thanks also to the autarkic policy, and a political partner, consolidated with the Pact of Steel signed between Italy and Germany in May 1939. If that were not enough, Germany also became a model for the racist laws introduced in Italy in September 1938. Italy entered the war alongside the German ally on 10 June 1940. Five years later, on April 28, Mussolini was captured and shot. The next day the German forces in Italy signed the surrender. The war in Italy was over, as was fascism. The end of fascism marked the beginning of its historiography. The debate on the fascist regime has been and still is extremely complex: “for eighty years […] there has been an animated debate on questions concerning the nature of fascism and its meaning in contemporary history: whether it was an autonomous movement or an instrument of other forces, whether it had an ideology and a culture, whether it was revolutionary or reactionary, authoritarian or totalitarian” (Gentile 2002, v). This is also true, if not more so, as far as the relations between fascism and economics are concerned, even though a real reflection on this subject was only started in the 1980s as a result of the professionalisation of the history of economic thought. Consistent with the mainstream of historiography in this field, which is divided between the history economic analysis approach and that of intellectual history, the attention of historians has been mainly focused on economic theory in the period between the two world wars and on the different ways in which economists reacted to, on the one hand, the choices of economic policy and social organisation made by the fascist regime and, on the other, corporatism. Corporatism is to be understood both as an economic system promoted by the regime to become a “third way” between capitalism and communism—and only partially implemented—and as an alleged alternative economic theory to the “utilitarian” and laissez-faire individualism of mainstream economics in the first decades of the twentieth century. Despite the presence of some important studies, corporatism underwent, in the first decades following the end of the Second World War, a sort of “displacement effect” (Tranfaglia 1990) due, on the one hand, to the difficulty of dealing with a recent past in which many living economists had been involved in various ways and, on the other, to the refusal of anti-fascist intellectuals to measure themselves against the official thinking of fascist totalitarianism. Luigi Einaudi, a mainstream liberal economist who had been formed at the end of the nineteenth century

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

7

and, after the end of the Second World War, was elected President of the Italian Republic, argued that corporatism should be considered a simple and unfortunate parenthesis in the development of economics.2 The work by Francesco Perillo and Eugenio Zagari (1982) on La teoria economica del corporativismo [The Economic Theory of Corporatism] represents a turning point in this area, because it goes into the merits of corporatist theories, attempts to classify them and finally strives to evaluate the points of contact and contrast with official economics. A similar perspective was substantially followed by Riccardo Faucci, who in 1990 promoted a special issue of Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica dedicated to Italian Economic Thought in the Inter-war Period. This issue also focused on the study of corporatist economic theories, generally inspired by an interpretation that judged corporatism to be inferior to “high theory” and considered it a “return to the past” (Faucci 1995, 522, our translation).3 The research promoted by Faucci, which adopted a history of analysis approach, but with openings to intellectual and cultural history, allowed scholars to overcome the aforementioned judgement by Einaudi on corporatism as an unfortunate parenthesis. For Faucci, corporatism should be interpreted as “the ex-post retrieval of the other Italian economic tradition, the historical, spiritualist and voluntaristic tradition, both professional and secular, that had had its best moment in the twenty years 1870–1890” (Faucci 1990b, 13). Faucci referred to the Italian economists, inspired by the German Historical School and the Socialism of the Chair, gathered in the Association for the Progress of Economic Studies (1875)—including Fedele Lampertico (1833–1906), Antonio Scialoja (1817–1877), Luigi Cossa (1831–1896) and Luigi Luzzatti (1841–1927)—who, during the nineteenth century, had prevailed over the line of thought based on eighteenth-century economists such as Ferdinando Galiani (1728–1787), Pietro Verri (1728–1797) and Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), and the nineteenth-century and early twentiethcentury economists straddling the classical school and marginalism such 2 On

Einaudi’s analysis and its consequences, see Finoia (1983). is the attitude and judgement of scholars such as Francesca Duchini and Duccio Cavalieri, who, although starting from different points of view, came to judge corporatism as a “Babel” (Duchini 1994, 222; Cavalieri 1994, 19).

3 Similar

8

M. M. Augello et al.

as Francesco Ferrara (1810–1900), Maffeo Pantaleoni (1852–1924) and Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923). The latter tradition had contributed to the elaboration of an abstract and formalised economic theory, consistent with the canon of the international evolution of economics. On the contrary, the economists of the so-called Scuola Lombardo-Veneta retrieved an approach to political economy that dated back to Antonio Genovesi (1713–1769) and Gian Domenico Romagnosi (1761–1835) and that refused to separate the analysis of the market from that of the formal and informal institutions that made its existence possible and limited its more individualistic and unequal effects (Guidi et al. 2004). In this sense, the corporatist vein prevailed over the other soul of the fascist movement, “the anti-State, ultra-individualist and in a certain sense anarchic-conservative” one (Faucci 1995, 523, our translation).4 Furthermore, Faucci (2014, 189), while confirming his judgement on the indefinable character of corporatist theory and the absence of a clear theoretical approach, identified some merits of that cultural experience: Undoubtedly, corporatism was a perfect fit for that military, industrial and bureaucratic compound that constituted the authentic backbone of consensus and strength for fascism. However, from the point of view of the history of ideas, it is interesting to highlight the character of an outlet valve that corporatism acquitted, at least until 1935, for the younger economists and intellectuals. On the one hand, it was the vehicle for a discussion of otherwise taboo themes, such as the Soviet five-year plans or the Roosevelt New Deal. On the other hand, it was an exercise in rewriting the current economic theory, with certainly unsatisfactory results, albeit disclosing a real intellectual tension, at least in some cases. (Faucci 1995, 524, our translation)

Corporatist thought therefore represented the Italian version of a more general dissatisfaction with the limits of interpretation shown by the marginalist mainstream, an interpretation that can also be found in the chapters composing this book. In Duchini’s words:

4 Duchini (1994) insisted on the contribution of economists of Catholic ascendancy to corporatism.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

9

Italian economic culture is neither isolated nor foreign to the great process of revision that is taking place outside of Italy: it is in line with this process, to which it makes contributions of a good scientific level, even if in Italy the resistance of traditional thought – especially for the scientific weight of Einaudi – is perhaps more accentuated, particularly on the subject of monetary economics and the science of public finance. Corporatist economic thought – in its different formulations and beyond the inevitable intrusions of amateurism and opportunism – is one of the manifestations of the ongoing process of cultural transformation. (Duchini 1994, 233, our translation)

According to various scholars (see Finoia 2001, 589–590), the genesis of the concept of “corporatism” was linked not only to the need to adopt a new “label” for propaganda purposes, but also to the stubborn resistance of mainstream economists, dogmatically bound to the concept of general economic equilibrium and opposed to any intervention of the State in the economic field. From this point of view, “The corporative statement can be seen as an unsuccessful embryonic attempt to alter the premises of economic science by abandoning microeconomics for a macroeconomic approach and harnessing the state to it” (Finoia 2001, 687. See also Finoia 1984). This was an aspect that had its weight also in the reception of Keynesian thought in Italy (Magliulo 2003). “An unsuccessful attempt”: this phrase contains a synthetic judgement on the fascist and corporatist economic thought. Zagari, in an analysis that has now become a classic, pointed out that an article published in 1934 by Luigi Amoroso and Alberto De’ Stefani was a watershed for the debate on corporatism. In Zagari’s words, the two authors succeeded in demonstrating “on the one hand, why corporative economics, even on the level of pure theory, and not only on that of applied theory, was superior to utilitarian economics [i.e. marginalism, our addition], and, on the other hand, that this result was achieved using logical schemes analogous to, but not identical to, those of economicism” (Zagari 1982, 50, our translation). From that moment on, the most revolutionary instances from the theoretical point of view, such as Ugo Spirito’s “proprietary corporation”, were abandoned (Perri and Pesciarelli 1990). Positions of more or less overt

10

M. M. Augello et al.

compromise between the corporatism propagated by the regime and the marginalist theoretical system prevailed. As Zagari wrote: The dominant economic theory, therefore, was not to be reneged on, but, if anything, valued by inserting it in a wider logical context in which the historical peculiarity of the fascist economy and those dynamic phenomena connected to the ‘expectations’ present in every economic structure based on private property had to find a place, phenomena that would otherwise have been excluded from the scientific sphere. And it was precisely this theoretical position that, without prejudice to the Paretian method, but at the same time highlighting its inconsistencies and limitations, succeeded in dropping the further resistance of many economists, who thus had the opportunity to achieve two objectives: not to deny the principles of scientific rigour that they considered exclusive to the school of general economic equilibrium, and to express their support for a movement of thought that promised broad developments for the role assigned to the State. (Zagari 1982, 52, our translation)

Corporatism thus became an “appendix to the textbooks on political economy, essentially as part of economic policy, in the chapter on causes and remedies of the crisis” (Faucci 1990b, 17, our translation). Faucci also considered the negative aspects of the debate on corporatism in Italy in all their weight: not only, in fact, were the results of the theoretical effort of corporatist economists totally insufficient overall, but the corporatism “was also a training ground for improvised economists, some of whom unfortunately won university professorships” (Faucci 1995, 526, our translation). An awareness of these limits was well present in contemporary economists.5 This review confirms that, from the methodological point of view, the historiography on corporatism has mainly adopted a combination of history of analysis and intellectual history approaches. However, as the last quotation reveals, Faucci’s studies (1990a, b) have also attempted some 5 Duccio

Cavalieri summarized this type of critical judgement as follows: “In fact, corporatism remained a simple crucible into which pieces of pre-existing economic theories were thrown in bulk in the naive illusion that this would be enough to forge a new synthetic doctrine, endowed with superior characteristics” (Cavalieri 1994, 45–46, our translation). See, in this book, vol. 2, Fabrizio Bientinesi and Marco Cini, “Planning and Discussing Corporatism”.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

11

“institutional accounting” of the relative success in the academic and editorial field of mainstream economists vs. the most enthusiastic supporters of the theory of homo corporativus (see also Fusco 2015; Guidi 2000). The studies of the last two decades have indeed opened up a new perspective, centred on some of the “research priorities” that, in the first issue of History of Political Economy, Bob Coats (1969) had indicated for studies in the history of economic thought: the analysis of the relationship between theory and economic policy—at the centre of two contributions by Piero Bini (2000) and Antonio Magliulo (2000), resulting from an international workshop on Economic Thought in Southern Europe in the Interwar Period, organised in Porto by Pedro Almodovar in November 1998—and the sociology of economics, present in the contribution by Marco Guidi (2000) at the workshop in Porto. Of course, these last two lines of interpretation have also been encouraged by the studies and research projects that, in the last four decades, have been conducted mainly on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see below, Sect. 3). This is confirmed by some recent contributions, such as a collection edited by Piero Barucci et al. (2015) and a study by the same three authors (2017), parts of a project that aims to study the economic culture of the interwar period in the light of the processes of institutionalisation and professionalisation of economics and as a key to understanding the links between theory and economic policy. Many of the contributions to the seminar series organised in Florence in recent years by Barucci, Piero Bini and Lucia Conigliello—published under their joint editorship (Barucci et al. 2017, 2018)—bring further insights into the study of Italian economic thought between the two wars in this cultural and institutional perspective. As we will argue in the next section, it is this same institutional perspective that inspired our research project, from which the present two volumes derive. Compared to the studies just mentioned, this contribution is distinguished by two characteristics: 1. They apply to the interwar period a methodology and a typology of case studies that the same team of researchers has already applied in a systematic manner mainly to the study of the Italian economic thought of the nineteenth century (see below, Sect. 3).

12

M. M. Augello et al.

2. They offer a systematic overview of all the institutional fields in which economic thought developed between the two wars, the period in which Italy was under the yoke of the fascist dictatorship (see below, Sect. 4).

3

The Institutional History of Economics: Ideals and Achievements

As is often the case, a method is defined first in practice and then in theory. In the course of our research, something similar happened to us: we identified an object of investigation, the institutions around which economics developed and reached maturity; we sensed the potential inherent in their study; and finally, we set to work to explore one by one their evolution and interaction with the development of economics, both in Italy and— as shown by the work of scholars with whom we collaborated—in other national cases. The starting point was provided by Piero Barucci and Istvan Hont’s project to study the international professionalisation of economics starting from its academic institutionalisation.6 We participated in the Italian research team, and, stimulated by the results of our investigation, we decided to go on with a coordinated series of other projects7 : on economics periodicals,8 on academies, economic associations and societies of political economy,9 on the role played by economists in liberal age parliaments and governments,10 on economics textbooks as a tool for education 6The results of this research were published independently by the various teams participating in the project. See Le Van-Lemesle (1986) (France), Barber (1988) (USA), Waszek (1988) (Germany), Mizuta and Sugiyama (1988) (Japan), and Kadish and Tribe (1993) (UK). As far as the Italian research group of this international project is concerned, see Augello et al. (1988). 7 On the whole, the research projects to which the publications listed in this paragraph are connected involved more than 150 researchers from all over the world. Many of them have independently contributed to this institutional line of research. See, inter alia, Asso (2001), Roggi (2001), Barucci (2003), Barucci et al. (2015, 2017); and, among similar projects applied to other national cases, Marco (1996). 8The studies on this topic are collected in Augello (1995), Augello et al. (1996), and Bianchini (1996). 9 For the results of this research project, see Augello and Guidi (2000, 2001). 10 See Augello and Guidi (2002, 2003, 2005).

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

13

and popularisation,11 on economists and daily newspapers,12 and finally on the translations of economics texts.13 As we went along this path, we collected stimuli that provided us with important interpretative keys and at the same time reinforced our confidence in the usefulness of our line of investigation. Initially, our imagination was activated by Bob Coats’s (1969) suggestion to move from the study of the “great men” to that of the figures linking economics, politics and society. In the meantime, Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) theory of the “intellectual field” reinforced our awareness of the issues at stake (economic, social and cultural capital) in the processes of institutional construction, while the long tail of Jürgen Habermas’s great vision (1962) of the “bourgeois public sphere” stimulated us to move from a sociology of economics as a profession and as a scientific community to a study of the impact of the economic discourse on that discursive area that lies between the sphere of private interests (and of their conflicts) and the sphere of government. And, permeated by the Foucauldian epistemology of the “order of discourse” as a historically changeable and institutionally supported social practice of control and exclusion (Foucault 1966, 1969, 1971), we opened up to constructivist sociology (Berger and Luckmann 1966), which allowed us to reflect on the interaction between formal knowledge, that of economics, and the general process of social construction of reality through the typification and institutionalisation of roles and representations. In this perspective, we recovered Bourdieu’s notions of social capital and of the performativity of economics (Bourdieu 2000, 2002),14 Bruno Latour’s (1987, 1999, 2005) and Michel Callon’s (1988) actor-network theory, and a Durkheimian interpretation of economic representations and of the rationalisation of knowledge (Steiner 1998; Lebaron 2009). What remained to be done was to make a pause and reflect on a definition that could faithfully capture the method of the institutional history of economics, and on what differentiates this approach from those that are current in today’s historiographic practice. This is what we do next. 11 See

Augello and Guidi (2006, 2007, 2012). Augello et al. (2016). 13 See Carpi and Guidi (2014) and Cini and Guidi (2017). 14 See also Muniesa and Callon (2009). 12 See

14

M. M. Augello et al.

Introducing the theme of the order of discourse, Michel Foucault (1971, 16) wrote: Certes, si on se place au niveau d’une proposition, à l’intérieur d’un discours, le partage entre le vrai et le faux n’est ni arbitraire, ni modifiable, ni institutionnel, ni violent. Mais si on se place à une autre échelle, si on pose la question de savoir quelle a été, quelle est constamment, à travers nos discours, cette volonté de vérité qui a traversé tant de siècles de notre histoire, ou quel est, dans sa forme très générale, le type de partage qui régit notre volonté de savoir, alors c’est peut-être quelque chose comme un système d’exclusion (système historique, modifiable, institutionnellement contraignant) qu’on voit se dessiner.

The institutional history of economics—in the meaning we attribute to it—derives precisely from being placed on a different scale from that which examines the theoretical production of economists (the object of the history of analysis), or the relations between economic theories and the cultural and sociopolitical context (the object of intellectual history) or those between economic theories and scientific theories and practices (the object of the history of science). It is, in fact, a history of the order of the economic discourse, which aims to understand how the latter is socially constituted, how the rules and “rites” (Foucault 1971, 41) of qualification and access to this discourse have been defined, the distinctions between scientific practice and common opinion, the ways of transforming science into doctrine (Foucault 1971, 31–35) and its dissemination through education and popularisation. It is a study of the institutional devices that have been selected over time to delimit and regiment the discourse on economics and make it a powerful tool for intervention in the public sphere and in the social construction of reality. This means that the institutional history of economics is first and foremost a history of discourse, of how it has been constituted as a system of knowledge and social practice of communication, no matter how much time and energy it costs, or has cost in the past, the institutional historian of economics to rigorously document the materiality and sociality of the phenomena within which economics was born and evolved, to reconstruct the power relations, the decision-making processes and the regulations in

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

15

charge of its teaching and study, or to analyse the entrepreneurial initiatives linked to the establishment of associations and publishing companies destined for its dissemination. Its aim is not to understand what economics is about, nor how it metabolises and represents the problems of individuals and society, but, after all, what economics is as a formal knowledge typical of modernity, how it has been organised and articulated, and to what ends it corresponds. To study not the economic discourse, but its order means to investigate the conditions of possibility of the economic science, in a sense closer to Marx than to Kant, as its object are the social and institutional coordinates of the discourse on it.15 There is no claim to “methodological imperialism” in the proposed approach; on the contrary, we are fully aware of the fact that, rather than working at the heart of economic theory in its historical trajectories, we work at its sides. Like economic epistemology, the institutional approach is a meta-history of economic thought. Yet it claims, at least, equal dignity with respect to other either “thin” or “thick” (Geertz 1973) approaches, because it has an equally important object: the nature and social and political function of economics and, therefore, indirectly, its specific difference with respect to other sciences on which it has also claimed to model itself. As argued above, the field to which we have applied this approach so far is nineteenth-century Italy, even if the projects on academic institutionalisation and on periodicals also took into account the previous century. On the one hand, the choice of Italy as a field of investigation appeared obvious in the division of labour that the comparative dimension of the projects envisaged. A secondary reason was that in the institutional perspective it became significant to study the different “national styles” (Coats 1988) of institutionalisation, professionalisation and dissemination of economics. On the other hand, to focus on the nineteenth century seemed natural 15The

definition just provided clarifies that the institutional history of economics, as we conceive it, does not directly derive from the institutionalist and neo-institutionalist approach, although it has many points in common with it, beginning with the consideration that institutions are not only of a sociopolitical kind, but also informal ones, such as “specific ideologies, beliefs, values, norms and mores which influence human behavior” (O’Hara and Waller 1999: 528). The evolutionary complexity and interdependency between rules, governance structures, knowledge, culture, the relationship between intentionality and decentralised unintended decision-making, the role of power and political control in forging ideas and events (Samuels 2018: 6581), are other evident points of contact.

16

M. M. Augello et al.

because, in Italy, this was the era, if not of the birth of political economy, whose tradition dates back at least to the sixteenth century (Bianchini 1988, 1994)—with its golden age in the eighteenth century (Faucci 2014, 36–66)—at least of its affirmation, consolidation and success as public discourse, public reason and language of the public sphere. And at the same time it was the era of its academic, and extra-academic, institutionalisation. The nineteenth century was also the age of bourgeois sociability and of the birth of a new type of association aimed not at control over the access to professions, but at building social capital and becoming an instrument of ideological propaganda, solidarity and economic and social modernisation (Banti and Meriggi 1991; Banti 1996; Meriggi 1992, 1994). Finally, it was the time when, with the emergence of constitutional regimes, followed by the political unification of Italy and the progressive enlargement of the suffrage, political economy entered into the political debate and a relatively large number of economists were elected to parliament or had important roles of government (Augello and Guidi 2003). This was not because—or better, not so much and not only because—economists were considered as experts to be consulted on finance and economic policy, but because they conceived themselves as public figures, and for them writing about economics or teaching economics was part, only part, of the public role they felt called upon to exercise. What made the nineteenth century interesting as an object of study was the fact that a powerful institutional affirmation of economics was the result of the central role that the discourse on political economy had assumed in those societies. Thanks to the rapid transformation, both in Great Britain and on the Continent (Rotschild 2001), of the Smithian message into a theory of free trade, nineteenth-century economics became the representation of a rational, efficient market society that pervades all social relations and promotes progress and modernisation. On the one hand, economics tended not so much to replace politics as to dictate to politics the rules of the game, and to transform the government of the economy into an impersonal governmentality based on market laws (Foucault 2004); on the other hand, it tended to penetrate to the sancta sanctorum of the individual private sphere, transforming the cognitive structures of people according to the rules of enlightened economic interest. In a word,

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

17

the nineteenth century was the century of the institutionalisation of political economy also in an immaterial and cultural sense, that is, as a set of representations and typification of roles and social relations (Berger and Luckmann 1966). The nineteenth century was also the time when Italian agriculture laboriously come out, at least in the northern and central regions of the peninsula, from the spiral of poverty and famine, thanks to the efforts of modernisers and bourgeois landowners whose entrepreneurial and philanthropic initiatives had allowed the spread of agricultural knowledge in the countryside (Zaninelli 1990; Biagioli and Pazzagli 2004), while the progressive development of manufactures opened the laborious path of an industrial take-off that had to wait until the early twentieth century to be realised (Castronovo 1990; Zamagni 1993). And industrial development had favoured the explosion, in urban centres, of the social question, which called into question the capacity of the Italian bourgeoisie to promote a development that was acceptable even to the poorest classes. But at the same time social conflicts could also develop thanks to the liberal constitution of the Kingdom of Italy after national unification. This framework allowed, for example, the birth of trade unions and a socialist party in 1892. Italian political economy accompanied all these transformations, opening up both to social and paternalist “new” liberalism inspired by German Socialism of the Chair—with the birth, in 1875, of the Association for the Progress of Economic Studies—to social Catholicism, and also to socialism inspired by Marxism and the Second International Association of Workers. In short: the nineteenth century was, as far as Italy was concerned, the time of the affirmation of political economy as a discipline taught, popularised and debated, against the backdrop of a liberal polity that was struggling to modernise and industrialise, but where elites grew who set themselves the task of promoting development through knowledge, technical education, scientific discoveries, the opening of new commercial channels, the establishment of savings banks, popular and rural banks, welfare and charity institutions, popular education, cooperatives, etc. Meanwhile, a professional figure of economist had progressively emerged, thanks to the academic institutionalisation of economics carried out in the context of

18

M. M. Augello et al.

a reform of higher education implemented by the first post-unification governments. Concluding this brief overview, it is worth underlining that political economy, at least in Italy, was above all a discourse that developed in the public sphere and discussed the tasks and limits of government action. It is true that economists’ arguments were based on the principles of economics, i.e. a theory of supply and demand, the law of markets, a theory of prices and value of goods, of distribution, of money, etc. But if we analyse the literary production of economists, if we scroll through the indexes of journals, the minutes of societies of political economy, not to mention parliamentary proceedings, we discover that economists, at least Italian economists (but we now know, not only them), did not discuss theory, but social problems, the scope and limits of government intervention, proposals and projects, and, at best, the virtues of the market, the adjustments to be made to amend its failures, solutions to the exploitation of workers and their emancipation, associations, cooperatives, consortia, trade unions, banks, strikes and public spending, taxes, debt, savings, social security and self-help. So the fundamental conclusion of the work we have done, applying the institutional approach to the economics of the nineteenth century, is that political economy was first and foremost a fundamental ingredient of public reason, if not the public reason of the time.

4

Italian Economics under the Fascist Regime in an Institutional Perspective

The two volumes that we introduce here, as we said at the end of Sect. 2, are not the first attempt to apply the institutional approach to the period between the two wars in Italy, but represent the first effort to analyse the relationships between economics and the fascist regime through a systematic study of the old and new institutions designed for the elaboration, teaching and dissemination of economics. As the various chapters of this work largely demonstrate, studying the places where economists worked, the legal norms and statutes that regulated, and increasingly tightened, their action as scholars and lecturers and their social and public role as

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

19

experts, opinion leaders and, in some cases, protagonists of economic policies, makes us understand much of the transformations that professional behaviour, freedom of expression, the opportunities to influence the opinions of citizens and the decisions of politicians underwent under the axe of the authoritarian and totalitarian regime that fascism established in Italy. It is the changed conditions for the actions of economists that transform the social role and the scientific and institutional profile of economics. Everyone had to choose: to retreat into an “ivory tower”, renouncing the traditional public role that economists had in the previous age; not to renounce to express their critical opinions, with the consequence of being forced to leave their jobs and the country; to carve out a role for themselves as experts and public managers in big companies, national banks, the new educational and economic institutions created by the fascist regime in order to promote their political and cultural objectives; finally—as happened to the younger generation—to adhere with conviction or with a dose of opportunism to the corporatist and fascist ideology and to be the spokesman for it in newspapers, magazines and teaching. Even the fascist regime implemented different strategies in different spheres and changed these strategies during the two decades in which it ruled Italy. These two volumes show on the one hand the obligations that fascism imposed on everyone, for example with the laws on censorship, with the oath of allegiance requested not only to all academics, but also to teachers of all levels, with a forced turnover in the guidance of academies, newspapers, journals, etc. On the other hand, Mussolini’s government also offered new opportunities to those who wanted to collaborate in some way in the construction of the “fascist era”: new university faculties (political sciences, economics), new specialised institutes for the study of corporative sciences, nationalised industrial companies and banks, a new national academy, the Accademia d’Italia, the monumental Enciclopedia italiana, an editorial series (the Nuova collana di economisti stranieri e italiani) that opened up to the new international currents of economic thought, apparently without any ideological preclusion. As said above, the extensive essay by Piero Barucci that follows this chapter offers a general interpretation of the overall process of institutional change that involved economists and endeavoured to make their work

20

M. M. Augello et al.

functional to the totalitarian objectives of the fascist regime. Barucci— thanks to his lasting experience of studying Italian economic thought, and the period between the two wars in particular—shows what were the alternatives and opportunities that the economists had at their disposal and how they—people in the flesh, faced with choices that could also have serious consequences on their careers, on their lives and on the fate of their families—tried to exploit them to their advantage, to circumvent them or to escape them. Barucci also discusses the differences in role and behaviour between the old generation, heir to the liberal economic culture, and the new generation, which grew up “under the shadow of the Fasces”, to quote a phrase by Albert Einstein (1960, 234). Finally, he identifies the sometimes respectable compromises that many had to accept in order to continue their studies and teaching in the new political and institutional context. In the remainder of this section, we propose to offer the reader a guide to the two volumes, explaining how we conceived them and giving a brief account of the contributions they contain. The work is divided into two volumes. Volume one takes as its starting point the normative changes and political decisions that the fascist regime adopted to bend to its objectives the educational and cultural institutions inherited from previous decades. Observation is given to those institutions in which, since the liberal age, a specific space for the economic sciences had been created. The latter had been entrusted, starting from the last decades of the nineteenth century, with precise scientific, cultural, educational and persuasive functions, and in other words, discursive practices precisely outlined and delimited. These discursive practices, as stated above, had evolved in line with the characteristics of a liberal political system. Now they had to adapt to the needs of a totalitarian regime. The traditional faculties in which economics was taught were not an easy terrain for fascististizzazione, and it was precisely the academic professionalisation that economists, as well as jurists16 and specialists in other 16 On the academic strengthening and professionalisation of legal disciplines, see, among others, Schiavone (1974) and Grossi (1987).

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

21

economic17 and social disciplines, had by then fully achieved, that represented—with its internal logic of reproduction, co-optation and enlargement—the best guarantee of independence. Rather, there was a process of adaptation to the needs of a more modern society. The faculties of law, invested with the “Gentile Reform” (named after the already mentioned philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who was its inspirer), launched in 1922–1923, saw an increase in economic teaching, while the higher schools of commerce were transformed into faculties of economics and became fully part of the national university system.18 This “institutional stickiness”, as well as conceptual independence, is reflected in university textbooks.19 On the whole, despite the obligation introduced to change the term “political economy” to “corporative economy” in the titles, and to illustrate the “principles” of the latter, the majority of textbooks do not reveal significant influences of the corporatist ideology and connivance with the totalitarian culture of fascism. The texts that measure themselves against corporatism, such as those of Marco Fanno and Giuseppe Ugo Papi, analyse it with theoretical instruments derived from mainstream economics and as the natural outcome of the increase in the role of the State in economic governance and the reduction of risk in investment decisions. A similar area of overall autonomy was that of the specialised journals on economics, created for the most part in the decades preceding fascism and to which academic economists contributed according to the selection mechanisms typical of scientific communities. A systematic analysis of the topics dealt with shows that most economists, for example in the debate on the Great Crisis, took positions close to those expressed by Hayek and Röpke, while, as regards the debate on corporatism, an initial effort to explore its theoretical aspects in the light of the standard principles of economics was followed in the 1930s by a more prudent, albeit honourable,

17 See

Lazzini et al. (2018). infra, the chapter by Stefano Misiani and Manuela Mosca (Chapter “The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists in the Law Faculties and in the Higher Institutes of Business Studies”). 19 See infra, the chapter by Riccardo Faucci and Nicola Giocoli (Chapter “Manuals of Economics During the Ventennio: Forging the Homo Corporativus?”). 18 See

22

M. M. Augello et al.

withdrawal to institutional and policy issues, which could be read as particular cases of the neoclassical theory of macroeconomic equilibrium.20 The case of “generalist” periodicals, which in Italy, as in the rest of Europe, boasted a tradition of attention to political economy dating back to the eighteenth century, is partly different. The study of the evolution of these journals in the two decades of the “fascist era” reveals that, in the 1920s, they managed to maintain some degree of autonomous and critical reflection, while in the 1930s, with the war in Ethiopia, the coming of the Second World War and the enactment of racial laws, they became increasingly empty and probably useless instruments of propaganda, also thanks to the (forced) turnover of their management.21 These initiatives of adaptation were accompanied by real institutional innovations, which the government led by Mussolini introduced with the clear objective of creating a political and administrative staff convinced of the superiority of the fascist and corporative organisation of the economy or, more generally, with the goal of integrating the citizens’ opinion with the totalitarian ideology of fascism. (One cannot speak of public opinion in a totalitarian regime, because there is no room for the activities of control, criticism and proposal that are allowed in liberal polities). This is the case of the faculties of political sciences, founded on the model of the School of Social Sciences established in Florence in 1875 by Carlo Alfieri di Sostegno, but substantially restructured and spread throughout the country. In fact, however, these faculties never managed to define their mission exactly, even though they were discontinued in September 1943 because they were considered too akin to fascist ideology. But this is even more the case of the higher schools of corporative sciences, created for the formation of the regime’s elite. Conceived as postgraduate institutes, they encountered problems of overlapping with other initiatives of the regime—such as the Trade Union Schools—and of homogeneity in the

20 See infra, the chapter by Antonio Magliulo e Gianfranco Tusset (Chapter “The Economic Culture

of Academic Journals During Fascism”). 21 See infra, the chapter by Francesca Dal Degan and Fabrizio Simon (Chapter “‘Generalist’ Journals

Between Dissemination of Economics and Regime Propaganda”).

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

23

admission procedures and in the teachings offered, “naturally” disappearing with the fall of the regime.22 In the publishing field, an initiative considered strategic to direct the cultural life of the country, entrusted to Gentile and Giovanni Treccani, was the above-mentioned Enciclopedia Italiana, a work in 35 volumes plus one of indexes published between 1929 and 1937. Within a short period of time, leading economists, initially involved, such as Luigi Einaudi and Costantino Bresciani Turroni, left its editorial board. Conversely, the most important entry, “Political economy”, was entrusted to Ugo Spirito, a philosopher famous for his radical criticism of the neoclassical theoretical approach. In contrast to this, the entries dedicated to corporatism were scarce and only appeared in the first appendix volume. In the same way, editorial series dedicated to economics, directed by economists close to fascism and favourable to corporatism, hosted books that contributed to building an alternative to liberal economics, but were also open to the non-standard currents of international debate, such as Keynesianism or socialist planning.23 Volume two—for a more detailed examination of which we send the reader to its “Foreword”—focuses on the relationships between the economics profession and the political, economic and cultural institutions of the fascist period, reconstructing the changes in the political order that the dictatorship introduced by entirely subjugating one of the main pillars of liberal government, a freely elected parliament with broad (though not universal) suffrage, and at the same time co-opting in the fascist chambers and in the various ministries a patrol of economists who proved to be tireless supporters. These economists first promoted the corporative organisation of the economy and then—after the bailouts of the early 1930s—an original model of half private, half public “mixed economy”. Volume two also offers insights into the opportunities offered to economists to exercise prestigious roles as experts and public managers in the economic institutions created by the regime and in the think tanks and research centres

22 See infra, the chapter by Fabrizio Bientinesi and Marco Cini (Chapter “The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced Corporative Studies”). 23 See infra, the chapter by Carlo Cristiano and Massimo Di Matteo (Chapter “Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias”).

24

M. M. Augello et al.

connected with them—such as those of Banca Commerciale Italiana and the Bank of Italy. The volume also deals with the rhetorical and communicative strategies—the “regime” journals—and the rewarding mechanisms in the cultural field—the Accademia d’Italia—through which, on the one hand, economists were encouraged to participate in the construction of an alternative vision to the individualistic and free market economy and, on the other hand, the most prominent exponents of the profession were blanked out and made less hostile to the regime. Finally, the book tries to fill an important historiographic gap about the fringes of the economics profession that were expelled from the system for political reasons—including Piero Sraffa, Costantino Bresciani Turroni and Umberto Ricci—and, after 1938, racial reasons, reconstructing the purges and painful diaspora of these people and, ultimately, showing the bitter price that the fascist dictatorship made pay intellectuals and scientists in general, and economists in particular. Some of them died in extermination camps. Others, who survived, were almost reluctantly reintegrated into academic roles after the end of the war. These events are counterbalanced by the purging of the most compromised economists with Mussolini’s regime after 1945: a largely unachieved process, experienced in the light of the image of fascism as an “interlude” to be removed from Italian history.

5

Conclusions

The history of the fascist period, more than seventy years after its fall, is not yet a cold object, nor can it ever be, neither for an Italian, nor for any citizen of the world. Among those who were involved in the choices of the regime, who suffered humiliation, imprisonment and deportation, there are the elders and adults with whom we grew up. Precisely because of this, and because totalitarianism and authoritarianism are permanent political figures of modernity (Arendt 1958 [1951]), we cannot take leave of this book without reaffirming that, if we have studied the everyday unfolding of economics in the ordinary and decisive choices that everyone had to make, in institutions and organisations, and in cultural and public activities, it is not to issue a verdict of acquittal. And if many personal

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

25

choices, because they had no real alternative, can be considered justifiable and even honourable, so cannot be a political system that did not allow freedom of thought and political liberty. One should not be deceived, therefore, if the book, precisely because of the preselected institutional perspective, shows how sometimes the fascist regime was tolerant, not insistent or not incisive, towards economists in particular, or if it is observed that, all in all, in exchange for the fulfilment of some formal obligation, the majority of economists were able to carry out the research and teaching they preferred and remained substantially in tune with the international developments of science. Nor is it enough to note that fascist modernisation allowed many economists to play the role of experts and managers, which for many continued without interruption after the war. All this does not imply any form of historical revisionism. It does not imply that we can conclude that, after all, the fascist period allowed economics to flourish as much as before or later, if not more. What keeps us safe from sentencing any easy rehabilitation is precisely the method chosen and the unique opportunity we had—taking advantage of our previous research—to compare in detail the order of the economic discourse in the liberal age with the order of the economic discourse in the fascist period. Lights and shadows thus appear in the right historical perspective and it is easier to identify, together with the room for manoeuvre and the undoubted progress in the processes of institutionalisation and professionalisation of economics, also the important losses: that of the economist as opinion leader and critical conscience of governments, that of a scientific discussion free from conditioning and from rhetorical and propagandistic degeneration, that of a real international circulation of ideas and people, and much more. And in the background, the study of what occurred to economics during the Ventennio brings out the same question that Hyman P. Minsky (1982) posed with reference to another traumatic event of the interwar period, the Great Crisis: Can “it” happen again? Acknowledgements The editors wish to thank all those who made this book possible: first of all the colleagues who wrote the individual chapters, among whom there are the most eminent historians of Italian economic thought. The two years of exchange that lie behind us have been very fruitful and have allowed

26

M. M. Augello et al.

us to achieve a harmony and a mature awareness of the problems of interpretation to be addressed. A special thank goes to Piero Barucci, who on several occasions has offered us stimulating intellectual provocations, allowing us to focus precisely on the research questions that have guided our analysis. We would also like to thank the staff of the Inter-University Centre for the Documentation on Italian Economic Thought of Pisa (CIPEI) for the documentary support given to our work, and in particular Chiara Bechelli, Elisa Cacelli and Raffaella Sprugnoli, for the valuable work made to prepare the Appendix to volume two. We are grateful to the University of Pisa for having generously funded the research project from which these two volumes stem, in the years 2017–2019. Finally, we are indebted to Rachel Sangster and Joseph Johnson of Palgrave Macmillan and to the editors of the book series Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought (Geoff Harcourt, Peter Kreisler, Avi Cohn, Jan Toporowski), for having encouraged us to give our contribution the mature features with which we now offer it to our readers.

References Arendt, H. 1958 [1951]. The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2nd enlarged ed. Cleveland and New York: World Publishing. Asso, P. F. (Ed.). (2001). From Economists to Economists: The International Spread of Italian Economic Thought, 1750–1950. Firenze: Polistampa. Augello, M. M. (Ed.). (1995). L’economia politica nell’Italia di fine Ottocento. Il dibattito sulle riviste. Special issue of Il Pensiero economico italiano, 3(2). Augello, M. M., Bianchini, M., Gioli, G., & Roggi, P. (Eds.). (1988). Le cattedre di economia politica in Italia. La diffusione di una disciplina « sospetta » (1750–1900). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Augello, M. M., Bianchini, M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (1996). Le riviste di economia in Italia (1700–1900). Dai giornali scientifico-letterari ai periodici specialistici. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2000). Associazionismo economico e diffusione dell’economia politica nell’Italia dell’Ottocento. Dalle società economicoagrarie alle associazioni di economisti (2 Vols.). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

27

Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2001). The Spread of Political Economy and the Professionalisation of Economists: Economic Societies in Europe, America and Japan in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2002). La scienza economica in Parlamento 1861–1922. Una storia dell’economia politica dell’Italia liberale – I. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2003). Gli economisti in Parlamento 1861–1922. Una storia dell’economia politica dell’Italia liberale – II. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2005). Economists in Parliament in the Liberal Age (1848–1920). Aldershot: Ashgate. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2006). La manualistica delle scienze economiche e sociali nell’Italia liberale. Special issue of Il pensiero economico italiano, 14(1). Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2007). L’economia divulgata. Stili e percorsi italiani (1840–1922) (3 Vols.). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2012). The Economic Reader: Textbooks, Manuals and the Dissemination of the Economic Sciences During the 19th and Early 20th Centuries. London: Routledge. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (2019). La storia istituzionale della scienza economica. In M. M. Augello & M. E. L. Guidi, Economisti e scienza economica nell’Italia liberale (1848–1922). Una storia istituzionale. Milano: FrancoAngeli; English translation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 333671196_THE_INSTITUTIONAL_HISTORY_OF_ECONOMICS. Augello, M. M., Guidi, M. E. L., & Pavanelli, G. (Eds.). (2016). Economia e opinione pubblica. Gli economisti e la stampa quotidiana in età liberale (2 Vols.). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Banti, A. M. (1996). Storia della borghesia italiana. L’età liberale. Roma: Donzelli. Banti, A. M., & Meriggi, M. (Eds.). (1991). Élites e associazioni nell’Italia dell’Ottocento. Special issue of Quaderni storici, 77 (2), 26. Barber, W. J. (Ed.). (1988). Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Barucci, P. (Ed.). (2003). Le frontiere dell’economia politica. Gli economisti stranieri in Italia: dai mercantilisti a Keynes. Firenze: Polistampa. Barucci, P., Bini, P., & Conigliello, L. (Eds.). (2017). Economia e Diritto in Italia durante il Fascismo. Approfondimenti, biografie, nuovi percorsi di ricerca. Firenze: Firenze University Press.

28

M. M. Augello et al.

Barucci, P., Bini, P., & Conigliello, L. (Eds.). (2018). Il corporativismo nell’Italia di Mussolini. Dal declino delle istituzioni liberali alla Costituzione repubblicana. Firenze: Firenze University Press. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (Eds.). (2015). La cultura economica tra le due guerre. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (2017). La cultura economica italiana (1889–1943). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, Th. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Press. Biagioli, G., & Pazzagli, R. (Eds.). (2004). Agricoltura come manifattura: istruzione agraria, professionalizzazione e sviluppo agricolo nell’Ottocento (2 Vols.). Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Bianchini, M. (1988). Some Fundamental Aspects of Italian Eighteenth-Century Economic Thought. In D. Walker (Ed.), Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought (pp. 53–77). Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Bianchini, M. (1994). The Galilean Tradition and the Origins of Economic Science in Italy. In M. Albertone & A. Masoero (Eds.), Political Economy and National Realities (pp. 17–29). Torino: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi. Bianchini, M. (Ed.). (1996). Political Economy in European Periodicals, 1700–1900. Special issue of History of Economic Ideas, 4(3). Bini, P. (2000). Receptiveness. The Making of Economic Policy in Italy in the Inter-War Years. Storia del pensiero economico, 40, 5–30. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Les structures sociales de l’économie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Bourdieu, P. (2002). Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Callon, M. (Ed.). (1988). La science et ses réseaux. Genèse et circulation des faits scientifiques. Paris: La Découverte. Carpi, E., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2014). Languages of Political Economy: Cross-Disciplinary Studies on Economic Translations. Pisa: Pisa University Press. Castronovo, V. (1990). L’industria italiana dall’Ottocento a oggi. Milano: Mondadori. Cavalieri, D. (1994). Il corporativismo nella storia del pensiero economico. Il Pensiero Economico Italiano, 2(2), 7–49. Cini, M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2017). Le avventure delle Aventures. Traduzioni del Télémaque di Fénelon tra Sette e Ottocento. Pisa: ETS edizioni. Coats, A. W. [Bob]. (1969). Research Priorities in the History of Economics. History of Political Economy, 1(1), 9–18.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

29

Coats A. W. [Bob]. (1988). National Styles in Contemporary Economics: Some Introductory Remarks. History of Economic Society Bulletin, 10 (2), Fall, 145–146. Coats A. W. [Bob]. (1993). British and American Economic Essays: The Sociology and Professionalization of Economics (Vol. 2). London and New York: Routledge. Duchini, F. (1994). Aspetti e problemi della cultura economica italiana fra le due guerre. In T. Cozzi, P. C. Nicola, L. Pasinetti, & A. Q. Curzio (Eds.), Benessere, equilibrio e sviluppo. Studi in onore di Siro Lombardini (Vol. II, pp. 185–240). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Einstein, A. (1960). Einstein on Peace. (O. Nathan and H. Norden, Ed., Preface by B. Russell). New York: Simon & Schuster. Faucci, R. (1990a). Materiali e ipotesi sulla cultura economica italiana fra le due guerre mondiali. In G. Becattini (Ed.), Il pensiero economico italiano: temi, problemi e scuole (pp. 183–231). Torino: Utet. Faucci, R. (1990b). Un’epoca di transizione? Il pensiero economico italiano fra le due guerre (1915–1943). In R. Faucci (Ed.), Il Pensiero economico italiano fra le due guerre mondiali (1915–1943). Special issue of Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica, VIII (2–3), 3–22. Faucci, R. (1995). La cultura economica. In A. Del Boca, M. Legnani, & M. G. Rossi (Eds.), Il regime fascista (pp. 507–528). Laterza: Roma-Bari. Faucci, R. (2014). A History of Italian Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge. Finoia, M. (1983, May–June). Il pensiero economico italiano degli anni ’30. Rassegna economica, 565–591. Finoia, M. (1984, July–September). Gli studi di economia applicata in Italia (1880–1940). Rivista milanese di economia, 103–135. Finoia, M. (2001, Winter). Continuity of Economic Policy and Economic Thought in Italy Between the First and Second World War. Journal of European Economic History, 3, 675–693. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard; English translation: The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock Publications, 1970. Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir, Paris: Gallimard; English translation: The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications, 1972. Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population. Cours au Collège de France. 1977–1978. Paris: Gallimard-Seuil; English translation: Security, Territory,

30

M. M. Augello et al.

Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Fusco, A. M. (2015). Il modello corporativo. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), La cultura economica italiana (1889–1943) (pp. 21–34). FrancoAngeli: Milano. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture. In Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books. Gentile, E. (2002). Fascismo. Storia e interpretazione. Bari: Laterza. Grossi, P. (Ed.). (1987). Riviste giuridiche italiane (1865–1954). Special issue of Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno, 16. Guidi, M. E. L. (2000). Corporative Economics and the Italian Tradition of Economic Thought: A Survey. Storia del pensiero economico, 40, 31–58. Guidi, M. E. L., Maccabelli, T., & Morato, E. (2004). Neo-Smithian Political Economy in Italy: 1777–1848. In Ph. Steiner (Ed.), L’économie politique néosmithienne sur le continent: 1800–1848. Special issue of Économies et sociétés, série Oeconomia, Histoire de la pensée économique, PE, 34 (2), 217–265. Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied: Luchterhand; English translation: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989. Kadish, A., & Tribe, K. (Eds.). (1993). The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850–1905. London: Routledge. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and EngineersThrough Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s Hope: An Essay on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lazzini, A., Iacoviello, G., & Ferraris Franceschi, R. (2018). Evolution of Accounting Education in Italy, 1890–1935. Accounting History, 23(1–2), 44–70. Lebaron, F. (2009). La formation des économistes et l’ordre symbolique marchand. In Ph. Steiner & F. Vatin (Eds.), Traité de sociologie économique (pp. 249–288). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Le Van-Lemesle, L. (Ed.). (1986). Les problèmes de l’institutionnalisation de l’économie politique en France au xix siècle. Special issue of Économies et Sociétés, PE, 6.

Italian Economics and Fascism: An Institutional View

31

Magliulo, A. (2000). Systematising Economics in Italy from 1910 to 1950: Italian Economic Textbooks Facing Marginalism, Corporativism and Keynesianism. Storia del pensiero economico, 40, 59–74. Magliulo, A. (2003). Il Keynesismo in Italia (1913–1963). Le ragioni di una rivoluzione mancata. In P. Barucci (Ed.), Le frontiere dell’economia politica. Gli economisti stranieri in Italia: dai mercantilisti a Keynes. Firenze: Polistampa. Marco, L. (Ed.). (1996). Les revues d’économie en France. Genèse et actualité (1751–1994). Paris: L’Harmattan. Meriggi, M. (1992). Milano Borghese. Circoli ed élites nell’Ottocento. Venezia: Marsilio. Meriggi, M. (1994). Società, istituzioni e ceti dirigenti. In G. Sabbatucci & V. Vidotto (Eds.), Storia d’Italia, 1, Le premesse dell’Unità (pp. 119–228). Laterza: Roma-Bari. Minsky, H. P. (1982). Can “It” Happen again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Mizuta, H., & Sugiyama, C. (Eds.). (1988). Enlightenment and Beyond: Political Economy Comes to Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Muniesa, F., & Callon, M. (2009). La performativité des sciences économiques. In Ph. Steiner & F. Vatin (Eds.), Traité de sociologie économique (pp. 289–324). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. O’Hara, Ph. A., & Waller, W. (1999). Institutional Political Economy: Major Contemporary Themes. In Ph. A. O’Hara (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Political Economy (pp. 522–532). London and New York: Routledge. Perri, S., & Pesciarelli, E. (1990). Il carattere della scienza economica secondo Ugo Spirito. In R. Faucci (Ed.), Il Pensiero economico italiano fra le due guerre mondiali (1915–1943). Special issue of Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica, VIII (2–3), 415–458. Roggi, P. (Ed.). (2001). Le grandi “voci” nei dizionari specializzati (e non) di economia. Special issue of Storia del pensiero economico, n. 4. Rothschild, E. (2001). Moral Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Samuels, W. J. (2018). Institutional Economics. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (3rd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 6581–6586). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Schiavone, A. (Ed.). (1974). Stato e cultura giuridica in Italia dall’Unità alla Repubblica. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Steiner, Ph. (1998). Sociologie de la connaissance économique. Essai sur les rationalisations de la connaissance économique (1750–1850). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

32

M. M. Augello et al.

Tranfaglia, N. (1990). Introduzione. In L. Franck, Il corporativismo e l’economia dell’Italia fascista. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Waszek, N. (Ed.). (1988). Die Institutionalisierung der Nationalökonomie an deutschen Universitäten. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag. Zagari, E., (1982). Introduzione. In O. Mancini, F. Perillo, & E. Zagari (Eds.), La teoria economica del corporativismo, Il corporativismo e la scienza economica (Vol. I, pp. 13–59). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane. Zamagni, V. (1993). The Economic History of Italy, 1860–1990: From the Periphery to the Centre. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Zaninelli, S. (Ed.). (1990). Le conoscenze agrarie e la loro diffusione in Italia nell’Ottocento. Torino: Giappichelli.

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous and Painful Continuity? Piero Barucci

1. During the fascist period, the number of economists in Italy increased steadily. New law faculties were founded, along with the first faculties of political sciences and also one, in Rome, of statistical and actuarial sciences. The number of higher institutes of commerce expanded in many parts of Italy and many of them became faculties of economics. Schools of statistics and of trade union studies or corporative sciences were also opened. A number of legislative measures introduced compulsory lessons in political economy (or such like), economic policy, financial sciences and the history of economic thought in faculties or secondary schools in which such disciplines had never before been taught. But the real novelty, even if quantitatively somewhat limited, was the emergence of non-academic economists, in other words the profession of the “commentator” on economic events and of journalists writing about economics in newspapers or magazines. This came about in part because Translated by Matthew Armistead.

P. Barucci (B) University of Florence, Florence, Italy © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_2

33

34

P. Barucci

of the opening of centres of economic studies by the Bank of Italy, the Commercial Bank of Italy and other banks, as well as by the electrical company Edison, some of the major national trade associations, the trade unions and the economic ministries. Thus, the figure of the expert in economics who made a living by being able to interpret economic events became well established. Also, the profession of those dealing with economics in the universities began to be clearly defined, despite the fact that political economy had sometimes been taught by scholars of other backgrounds: it should be kept in mind that most academic economists had graduated in law and not a few were lawyers by profession. Quite often it happened that academic economists were called upon to teach statistics, industrial economics, the history of economic thought, economic history, colonial economics and many other disciplines that had a minor academic tradition. The impressive growth in the number of magazines and periodicals that dealt with economic matters gave rise to a huge demand for writers on economics, which was met by occasional experts, bank officials, managers of economic ministries, trade union experts or administrators of insurance companies or those with experience gained in international institutions. 2. Two conditions in particular characterised the evolution of Italian economic thought during the fascist regime: on the one hand, the rapid disappearance from the scene of the major Italian economists of the time, those who some historians identified with the golden age of economic theory in Italy; on the other hand, the advent of the anti-democratic political regime destined to last around twenty years. Between 1923 and 1924, that is, in the space of a few months, Vilfredo Pareto, Maffeo Pantaleoni and Enrico Barone, three economists of recognised international distinction, who are still well known to scholars today, all passed away. They did not, however, leave behind any disciples in the strict sense, that is to say a community of scholars determined to become an academic force that would influence the selection of the next generation of economists. The three had some ideas in common, as well as many well-known theoretical differences. They had all been emphatically fascist, having encouraged the rise of the movement for years and supported it right up to its appearance on the Italian political scene.

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

35

Strong personalities inherently inclined to intolerance (particularly Pareto and Pantaleoni) had gone on to make different assessments of Mussolini’s behaviour and his understanding of the balance of powers in the State. Of particular note was a kind of “testament” (Pareto 1923) which Pareto, by then in decline, left Mussolini, urging him to respect the freedom of the press and of political organisation, which by then was coming under threat. Even so, the fact remains that even Pareto’s best disciple, Luigi Amoroso, who had discussed with him certain aspects of the mathematical formulation of general economic equilibrium, had in autumn 1922 declared his admiration of the dictator, whose March on Rome he had openly appreciated. From that point on, Pareto and Pantaleoni’s works became the “sacred scriptures” in economic discussions during the fascist era. Fortunately, these works, made up of dozens and dozens of polemical articles, writings with important theoretical content, political commentaries, multi-volume treatises difficult to reduce to a few ideas and actual retractions of earlier theories, gave ample opportunity for those who wanted to quote them in order to secure a kind of immunity compared to most orthodox economists of the time. 3. However, between 1925 (when the body of measures known as the Leggi fascistissime was introduced) and 1943, there was a prodigious production of writings on applied economics that attracted the censors’ eagle eye, with consequences to which we will return shortly. Such works aimed at commenting the regime’s choices were always characterised with patent complicity. The entire period was marked, especially in Italy, by a kind of “ongoing economic crisis”, which the government attempted to combat with measures that were not so much ascribable to a comprehensive theoretical approach as to reasons of a social or directly political nature. It was difficult for theoretical economists to step into evaluating economic policy interventions that appeared spasmodic and whose end goals were unknown, just as the specific conditions that they were aimed at tackling were unknown. Indeed, the message that the government gave the economists was that the critical conditions of the Italian economy were, all in all, better than those of other countries thanks to the timely measures taken for sound reasons by the government. In consequence, it was almost impossible to test policies without knowing the state of the Italian economy and the

36

P. Barucci

reasons for the government’s actions. But this was exactly what the regime wanted in order to prevent any form of objection to what the government had done. To offer some examples, it was not dangerous to discuss Pareto’s “pure” economic theory or even its late sociological elaborations; the Pantaleoni nationalist and merciless critic of banking crises was frequently quoted in economic and political writings; and it was possible to discuss the pros and cons of the gold standard. All these problems belonged to the category of studies open to discussion. But the economic repercussions of the socalled Peace of Versailles; the effects of a policy of pegging the lira to pound sterling (the so-called Quota 90 , because the aim was an exchange rate of 90 lire to the pound) (Castronovo 2013); the place of the rhetorical figure of the homo oeconomicus in theoretical developments of economics; the advantages of a policy of obligatory stockpiling of grain; and the State’s aspiration of having a greater role in the economic life of the country: all these were issues about which commentators were allowed little freedom of expression. In a situation like this, the historian’s problem becomes extremely difficult, since it is reasonable to hypothesise that what the economists affirmed did not correspond to what they actually thought. After the end of the First World War, the development of economic thought, in Italy as elsewhere, resumed the course of action typical of all social sciences, always wavering between the generalising lure and the demands of historical reality. Many economists returned to discussing or fighting over their favourite subjects, as they were personally inclined. But those who were interested in applied economics began to reflect on the economic problems of the moment and to propose economic measures they believed were best able to solve or alleviate them. Those in government, who could count on a liberal-democratic political and institutional order, were at least free to consider what the economists proposed and to decide whether to follow their advice, and that of industrialists, bankers and trade unionists. They could then choose the means and moments for their intervention, taking into account the likely reaction of the electorate and its representatives in parliament. The combination of these interventions, if interpreted with a historian’s discernment, produced outcomes that can be viewed in different ways but

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

37

which constituted for the economists a kind of test to help them decide which aspects of the work of the theorists were of value and which ought to be rejected. A free and transparent system of communication allowed economists to understand the result that certain actions had had in this or that country. Making allowances for the relative speed with which economic phenomena moved, the “circuit” between knowing and doing, or rather between economic theory and policy was able to operate well enough to allow effects to be evaluated (Barucci et al. 2017, 102). But in 1925, this circuit was broken, or rather it became mutilated, functioning only in the downward phase, or more precisely in the direction that went from Mussolini’s decisions to the economists. The latter, having to explain and comment on them, were faced with the unpleasant alternative of either approving them or facing some kind of limit on their personal freedom. The majority chose, opportunistically, some cautious form of assent. Economic science progressed in Italy within these extraordinary conditions: some government decisions could only be accepted. It is important to note that a number of the journals published in this period interspersed among the author’s comments, quotations, framed or in bold, from the speeches of Mussolini who, as the talented politician and journalist that he was, seized the opportunity to direct in that way the rhythm and direction of Italian economic policy with specific and undebatable choices. Mussolini made himself heard, to give some concrete examples, when the Banco Italiano di Sconto [Italian Discount Bank] was driven into liquidation and the Bank of Rome was “rescued” (1922)1 and when, sometimes unsatisfied, he supported the inappropriately named “liberal phase” that saw Alberto De’ Stefani acting as Minister of Finance. But it was later that the government’s economic policy was dictated by the decisions taken, or openly shared, by him. This happened with the aforementioned Quota 90 of 1926; the launch of the Carta del Lavoro [Labour Charter] (1927); his 1 In 1923,

the Banco di Roma, which had been in crisis for some time, was taken over by the Società Nazionale Mobiliare [National Society of Securitized Credit] (controlled by a Subsidy Consortium made up of the Banca Commerciale Italiana [Commercial Bank of Italy] and Credito Italiano [Italian Credit (Company)]. In 1933, with the creation of the IRI, both the Bank of Rome and the other two banks mentioned passed under the control of this holding and became, from 1937 onwards, “banks of national interest.” See Zamagni (1993); Castronovo (2013).

38

P. Barucci

early outline of the corporative order; his many interventions in favour of the banking system during the long years of its recovery (1922–1933); on the occasion of the creation of the Istituto Mobiliare Italiano [Italian Industrial Finance Institute] (IMI, 1931) and the Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale [Institute for Industrial Reconstruction] (IRI, 1933), the two pillars of the system of “mixed economy” that he wanted in order to save companies of strategic interest from bankruptcy (Castronovo 2013); with regard to colonial expansion; with the sanctionsimposed on Italy by the League of Nations after the invasion of Ethiopia (1936); on matters of the imperial economy; with the launch of a regulatory plan for the Italian economy; on the management and development of “key industries”; and, later and inevitably, with the policy of rearmament and the wartime economy. The documentation held in the Central Archives of the State, or in the huge archives of the Bank of Italy or in those belonging to banks and businesses, shows that Mussolini effectively imposed a certain stock dividend policy for listed banks and that he alone, at a time of grave difficulty for the Italian economy, drafted a measure to intervene in order to break off the relationship between the banks and industry that risked strangling the economy. This occurred a few days before the establishment of the IRI, when the ingenious solution of Alberto Beneduce—the first president of this public institution—convinced the dictator that it was opportune to intervene on the matter of financial “companies” (provided and controlled by the banks) in order to defend their own quoted security and to hide the losses of industry, rather than continuing to give public financing to the same banks. A short sidebar is necessary at this point for those who wish to investigate the role of economists in determining the regime’s economic policy. Throughout the initial period, from “fascism as a movement” to 1926, Mussolini was able to rely on the help of Alfredo Rocco, an intelligent lawyer who also had a good understanding of economic literature. Rocco was a nationalist who from 1914 had established the theoretical essence of the “corporation” as the fulcrum of coordination of the entire economic

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

39

system. Not only was he the legislator who introduced the regime’s measures restricting political and social freedom,2 but he also stood alongside Mussolini in support of his economic ideology at least until the approval of the Labour Charter. Once Rocco was removed from government on Mussolini’s order (1932), however, the dictator’s real adviser became Alberto Beneduce, whose academic background was in statistics (which he taught in Genoa) but who had had a brilliant career in the public economic sector, having established insurance institutions and bodies specialising in long-term credits. Neither of the two was an economist, and neither took part in the great paper tournament on the virtues of the corporative economy that began in the late 1920s and lasted until the end of the regime. The fact is that Mussolini’s decisions never initiated a real discussion. There is evidence that the political police (which from 1926 worked alongside the secret service OVRA)3 followed discussions in Italy on some of Mussolini’s decisions with great diligence. Historians have highlighted the negative consequences of Mussolini’s decisions and tried to identify what might have been the real contribution of economists in commenting on them. But in those years Italy’s economic policy was Mussolini. The decision to revalue (and not only stabilise) the lira was taken by him, and only him, in the interests of the nation, which meant the interests of the regime. The role of the economists was nearly zero. On this point, Mussolini was consistent. He said on more than one occasion that the economy had to be subordinate to politics and that high finance—meaning the banks that engaged in financial dealings involving the stock market and foreign exchange rates—was neither right- or left-wing and simply followed its own interests. In general, he placed in this category the Banca Commerciale Italiana [Italian Commercial Bank], which he did not hesitate to criticise in press campaigns, believing, with some reason, that it was a nest of anti-fascists. Similar things happened on other occasions, for instance at the launch of the colonial policy in which 2 Alfredo

Rocco was Minister of Justice from 1925 to 1932 and signed the penal code and the criminal procedure code in 1930. 3 OVRA—Organizzazione per la Vigilanza e la Repressione dell‘Antifascismo (Organisation for the Supervision and Repression of Antifascism)—was the secret police in Fascist Italy from 1930 to 1943 and of the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945.

40

P. Barucci

Italy (as historians now demonstrate) invested a great deal of resources and men. The colonies ought to have brought about the completion of the national territory, but Italy derived a tiny advantage from the policy, if not to cultivate some personal illusion. In this context, the economist’s duty was to show how the political decision was correct, and the many publications that had arisen in the meantime to deal with the subject worked hard to explain that the decision would benefit workers, businesses, entrepreneurs and banks. However, as already said, the economists were not aware of the costs of the imperial adventure and had access only to manipulated information about the economic advantages of the colonies. To give some idea of the conditions in which they worked, suffice it to say that the balance sheets of the banks and of the Bank of Italy were scarcely credible. Mussolini himself knew that the propensity of banks and industrial companies was to construct “chains of power” made up of voting syndicates, and mutually binding but unwritten commitments, for which reason he had to face a “Cagliostro” of a thousand faces, but with which he had to deal every day. The fact remains that in that long period the circuit between economic theory and its effects, conceived in a classical way, was non-existent. And it must be admitted that such a circuit is anyway a partial hypothesis that presupposes a state of competition, with transparent markets giving free access to new companies, and clearly understandable by all, including consumers and members of government. 4. The two volumes of which this contribution is part discuss the Italian economists of the twenty years of fascism and provide a great deal of information on the competitions for university teaching posts in economic disciplines. During the period, two reforms were launched that significantly altered the organisation of higher studies in Italy, namely the Gentile Reform (1923) and the Bottai one (1938). The demand for university professors grew exponentially for reasons already noted. More than anything, it was affected by the transformation of many higher institutes of commerce that had been established mainly at the initiative of local public institutions—municipalities, provinces, chambers of commerce and others—so that initially lecturers were sometimes recruited, locally or nationally, from among those who had already

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

41

acquired some knowledge of the subjects they were assigned to teach. This was the laborious and creative phase of the birth of “professions” such as those of the business economist, the statistician and the economic historian able to present new slants on what might be gleaned from archival research. At that stage, however, it was necessary to draw on those who also had research experience in fields closely connected to a “liberal” profession.4 The birth of the faculties of political sciences was very different, since in Italy these had a highly prestigious precursor in Florence’s Cesare Alfieri Institute, and developed rapidly under the prompting of the National Fascist Party (Partito Nazionale Fascista, PNF), which aimed to create a homogeneous political class in tune with the ideals of the regime. Thus, in Perugia, the faculty was born as a Fascist Faculty of Political Sciences.5 It should not surprise, then, that, even for professors of political economy, teaching posts were often assigned to senior officials of the economic ministries, who then worked alongside professional academic economists. For lecturers of economic policy, it was possible to draw from the vast number of trade unionists and managers of public institutions; while for accounting use was made of the numerous professional experts who already taught in local technical institutes; statisticians were hired from among many of the directors of local statistical offices; while experts in tax or administrative law were utilised to help fill positions in the financial sciences. Selection was more complicated when it came to political economy (later called corporative economy), given that academic economists were then already a “profession” deeply rooted in the law faculties and the higher schools of commerce that had been active for several decades.6 Between 1921 and 1941, twenty or so nationwide competitive examinations were held to appoint university professors in strictly economic 4 See,

in this collection, Stefano Misiani and Manuela Mosca, “The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists in the Law Faculties and in the Higher Institutes of Business Studies (1922–1943)”. 5 See, in this collection, Fabrizio Bientinesi and Marco Cini, “The ‘New Entries’: From the Schools for Corporative Studies to the Faculties of Political Sciences”. 6The first higher school of commerce was established in Venice in 1868. There then followed those of Genoa (1886) and Bari (1886), while others were founded in other cities only at the end of the century. See Augello and Guidi (1988).

42

P. Barucci

disciplines (economics, economic policy, science of public finance). It is reasonable to come to a very significant general conclusion about the results of these, which is that despite the death of the aforementioned three eminent economists—who had been committed to ensuring that economic studies enjoyed a high level of scientific respectability—their influence had permeated the new generation of economists, urging them to defend the analytical level of the discipline. There was therefore a widespread feeling that professors of economics belonged to a kind of closed circle, which wanted to distinguish them from those dedicated to some kind of practical economic endeavour. The result of this was that, despite the presence of Gino Arias, a convinced fascist from the very first moment, in the selection committees of almost half of the competitions, the choices of the members (appointed by the Minister of Education, and thus themselves political appointees) were very well balanced. At least until 1930, economists like Augusto Graziani, Costantino Bresciani Turroni, Umberto Ricci, Luigi Einaudi, Luigi Amoroso, Attilio Cabiati, Camillo Supino, Gustavo Del Vecchio and Benvenuto Griziotti, who were not directly involved in the activities of the ruling party, were repeatedly included. (One might also note that some of these were among the academics who left Italy or were expelled from their universities with the passing of the 1938 racial laws.) Moreover, in the initial phase of the fascist regime, the outcomes of competitive examinations were certainly not swayed by openly political considerations. Piero Sraffa, Federico Chessa, Giovanni Demaria and Alberto Bertolino were among the economists who gained promotion to professorships, and all were scholars with different theoretical and methodological interests but nevertheless linked by a determination to maintain high scientific standards in political economy. In around 1930, however, the picture began to change. A first sign of it came in 1931, when university teachers were permitted to continue their work only if they had sworn a public oath of loyalty to the ideals of fascism. Antonio de Viti de Marco decided not to do this and so abandoned university teaching. From then on, particularly in satellite disciplines vis-à-vis political (or corporative) economy, there appeared among the commissioners the ubiquitous Gino Arias, Gaetano Zingali and Arrigo Serpieri, while among those promoted were Carlo Emilio Ferri, Filippo Carli, Adolfo Aldo Crosara, Gennaro Mondaini and Celestino Arena. Most of them

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

43

belonged to a new generation that was more directly involved in the economic and political life of the nation. And, when reviewing these proceedings from a distance, we note that even in this second period scholars such as Bruno Foà, Volrico Travaglini, Francesco Vito, Alberto Breglia, Arrigo Bordin, Eraldo Fossati, Vincenzo Dominedò, Francesco Di Fenizio, Giuseppe Palomba, Luigi Dal Pane and Franco Borlandi were also appointed professors, and all were certainly engaged in upholding the prestige of university studies and were proud to be part of them. The presence of politics, on the other hand, was felt hugely with the introduction of large numbers of new courses related to the national order, such as in the economics of cooperative firms, transport, labour, tourism and many other specialisms by means of which younger people were able to gain access to the most prestigious courses and move to the most historic universities. It should be emphasised that, in this sudden and wide-ranging expansion of university teachings, the fascist regime had many means of rewarding people close to it. Such people sought to attain the most coveted professorships (the highest were always in economics and the science of public finance), but the judging committees, given the shameless political origin of many of the competitors, kept the evaluation criteria high. They made a point of mentioning at length the merits of those who had appeared in the regime’s journals, and paid cautious attention to those who had been kept away from them. But when it came to the final decision, the determining principle was almost always the scientific originality of the competitors. There were, of course, exceptions, but these do not deserve a particular mention. 5. The overall picture of these two volumes constitutes the broadest and most ambitious attempt to provide the clearest possible evaluation of the multiform physiognomy that Italian economic thought adopted during the fascist period. We do not, however, aspire to find a space within the many and contrasting interpretations that the Italian and international historiography now offers on fascism in Italy. For once setting aside the many strictly ideological and partisan assessments closely linked to the political confrontation of our own age, this work does not wish to “revise” the work that historians, economists or historians of economic thought produce almost without interruption. The

44

P. Barucci

contributors have not tried to revise the conclusion of anyone, but rather to reach one on the basis of extensive research carried out on the books and magazines, or writings circulated in other forms, published in the period. The objective has been to grasp the distinctive features of what Italian economists did between the two world wars, taking into account the political and cultural conditions, including the human ones in which they operated, and the freedom to conduct research and communicate their findings. The recurring question that has troubled the authors of these contributions is one that now concerns all who study this period, namely whether the contribution of the economists of the twenty years of fascism (or rather, of those who wrote about economics in that period) represents a discontinuity from developments of the first post-war period or whether instead the economic studies of the years of the regime must have formed a painful, ambiguous continuity that should not be confused with the many obvious instances of political opportunism on which hundreds of pages have been amassed. The premise is that, from a theoretical point of view, it is certainly true that at the turn of the century Italy had not had a true “economic school” but rather economists of considerable importance who had made analytical contributions influenced by marginalism, or related to the development of the theory of general economic equilibrium, or in the field of what we might now call economic sociology. It is, however, equally true that in the same period studies that followed the historical school of economics developed in Germany also made notable advances, and that those who felt connected to the classical economists, mostly the British ones, were alive and well. In other words, several distinct schools of economic thought co-existed in Italy, and not infrequently aired their differences openly and controversially. In the university competitions held in Italy in more or less the twenty years around the turn of the century for the teaching of political economy, science of public finance and statistics, the members of committees regularly included Fedele Lampertico, Angelo Messedaglia, Giuseppe Toniolo, Giuseppe Ricca Salerno, Salvatore Cognetti de Martiis, Augusto Graziani, Tullio Martello, Vito Cusumano, Ghino Valenti, Francesco Saverio Nitti, Camillo Supino, Pasquale Jannaccone, Luigi Einaudi and Giulio Alessio,

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

45

and on some rare occasions also Pantaleoni, who then had problems of his own in being accepted by the academic community. These competitions awarded professorships to economists such as Marco Fanno and Costantino Bresciani Turroni (in 1909, but the latter through a competition for the teaching of statistics). Yet the first economists in the Pareto or Marshall school to win a competitive exam—other than Luigi Einaudi who in any case had a background in, broadly speaking, historical studies—did so in around 1920, these being Gustavo Del Vecchio, Alfonso de Pietri-Tonelli and Guido Sensini. The disconsolate admission by G. Valenti, president of the committee that oversaw the competition for the chair in economics at the University of Cagliari, held in 1909, may be emblematic of this situation. At the conclusion of the proceedings of the judicial work, Valenti justified his abstention from the vote as follows: Scholars of other disciplines agree on the method to follow in their studies. We, however, as economists, disagree on our method. This explains the enormous differences between the judgments of the commissioners. It is how the Commission of Genoa placed outside the triad Fanno, who today has come first, preferring Arias, who in a subsequent competition was unanimously declared unsuited to a university chair in political economy. In this competition the Commission was unable to decide who between Fanno and Ricci it should choose, with two Commissioners arguing for the absolute superiority of Fanno and another two that of Ricci, and the fifth, that is myself, considered so divergent from the others that he would not pronounce his opinion. Now Ricci is ruled out on the agreement of four commissioners.

He added that Ricci adopted a scientific method, while Fanno “represents an approach that I would like to ban from economics” because it exaggerated mathematics.7

7The successful entrants were Marco Fanno, Fabrizio Natoli and Emanuele Sella, and those excluded were, among others, Carlo Cassola, Giovanni De Francisci Gerbino, Umberto Ricci and Guido Sensini. For all references to this specific case and to a vast picture of competitions in political economy, financial science and statistics listing all the committee members and the scholars promoted and excluded in the period 1891–1924, see Barucci et al. (2017).

46

P. Barucci

6. These were the terms of reference for Italian economists around 1910. Those of an indefinite background prevailed, oscillating between historicism and classicism, with some preference as regards the Socialism of the Chair, a widespread support of free-trade principles or at least lukewarm agreement with protectionist measures. This comparison, far from being clear and justified, in the case of the aforementioned academic competitions had ended up entangling, in a game purely for insiders, Marco Fanno and Umberto Ricci, who later became two of Italy’s leading economists. The landscape of Italian economists was not, however, dominated by two colours, the black and the white. Rather, it was dominated by an opaque grey onto which the trio of Pantaleoni, Pareto and Barone threw a dazzling, narrow beam of light. Simply put, the kaleidoscope formed by the theoretical approach of Italian economists during the fascist period continued to be similar to that of previous decades. It hardly needs to be added, of course, that the political context was different and significant limits were imposed on the margins within which Italian economists could think and write freely. Mussolini governed Italy knowing that he could count on immense personal support and on a formidable police apparatus, a combination of conditions that allowed the regime to keep its repressive interventions on the freedom of thought and teaching of economists to a minimum. F. S. Nitti, Arturo Labriola and Antonio Graziadei, albeit in different ways and for different reasons, chose exile; the great “classical” tradition of economists personified by De Viti de Marco, Graziani and Einaudi, adopted a cautious approach to ensure their physical survival, but at the cost of extreme humiliations to which not all of them could become reconciled; Antonio Pesenti, Ernesto Rossi and Carlo Rosselli, economists of the next generation, all suffered spells, sometimes lengthy, of detention or confinement; Bresciani Turroni, Ricci and Sraffa had to flee to Istanbul, Cairo and Cambridge, respectively, to escape possible censure or police control. They were allowed to return to Italy fairly regularly and to publish in Italian journals, but their centres of study, teaching and research were by then elsewhere. However, it was only with the racial laws of 1938, which excluded Jewish citizens from holding public (and not only public) positions in Italy, that the world of Italian economists was turned upside down. Some

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

47

of those affected escaped in time and sought refuge in foreign universities (often in South America), others were protected by their status as senators or because they were near retirement, others dressed in monk’s habits and hidden in out-of-the-way convents, and yet others ended their lives in Nazi concentration camps. Even economists who had rendered distinguished and conspicuous service to the regime did not escape the rigours of the racial laws. Gino Arias, Riccardo Bachi, Gustavo Del Vecchio, Marco Fanno, Riccardo Dalla Volta, Augusto Graziani, Bruno Foà, Renzo Fubini, Mario Pugliese, Giorgio Mortara, Gino Luzzatto, Mario Segre, Achille Loria, Cesare Jarach, Franco Modigliani (newly graduated) and other less well-known figures all abandoned teaching. Attilio Cabiati, a brilliant collaborator of Einaudi, was forced into silence (he had taught political economy at the University of Genoa) because he had had the courage to speak against the laws to the Minister of National Education, who was his university colleague. This was a full-scale witch-hunt that struck longstanding economists together with some of the younger, most promising Italian economists, who never returned to their homeland. But all this happened in 1938 when the recruiting of university professors had in any case become less frequent. As an alternative, the regime chose to indulge the expectations of the youngest economists by devising teaching specialisations open to “private lectureships” (i.e. having the right to teach without holding a university chair) as a step to a later posting in a university. It should be noted that censorship of economists does not appear to have been very pervasive. Among the journals, only Luigi Einaudi’s prestigious La Riforma sociale was suspended, but this was quickly replaced by the Rivista di storia economica, while the new Einaudi publishing house, owned by the Piedmontese economist’s family, was able to publish works by Cabiati, Fanno, Del Vecchio and Einaudi himself, as well as by Lionel Robbins, Arthur C. Pigou and many other authors who sided with positions hardly typical of the regime’s. All of this did not prevent—from 1925 onwards, especially after the various attempts on the life of Mussolini—the regime’s surveillance and control of the activities of economists from becoming increasingly vigilant and intrusive. The measures included scrutiny of correspondence, frequent wiretapping, checks on movement, actions and statements made in meetings of cultural organisations not closely connected to the regime. The

48

P. Barucci

information services of the political police expanded enormously and at huge expense, and the effectiveness of various collaborators, often persons motivated by self-interest, experimented with various means of persuasion. Those who, like myself, have had the opportunity to read hundreds of the documents now held in the Central Archives of the State must admit that they are essentially bureaucratic in nature, provided by informants from a non-specialist background who reported on issues relating to certain sectors of economic life, sometimes put into circulation by those who wanted to divert the regime’s attention from organised corruption. The fact is that those brought before the Special Tribunal were, in nine cases out of ten (or even less), industrial workers or farmers. They were known opponents of the regime, decidedly “political”, and mostly linked to the Communist Party.8 We know for certain that Mussolini spent time appraising the correspondence that was put on his desk every day, and then, using his powers of discernment and journalistic experience, as well an efficient organisation, quickly weeded out what was worthless. From the thousands of letters that daily reached him, he had a couple of hundred copied so that he could get a better measure of them. He cross-checked the information they provided with different sources, so as to discover who had invented reports and who was denouncing someone solely for trivial personal reasons. In general, he managed to give due attention to the letters so as to show them the respect they deserved as an expression of the potential watchers of the people under surveillance and as an organisational extension of the group of which he was part. As for keeping the economists in check, it was enough to threaten them with removal from their teaching posts and destitution. For those who lived on their university salary alone, the intimidation was persuasive, while for those who had a wealthy family behind them there was nonetheless the cost of exchanging gratifying work for a monotonous life spent in isolation.

8 For a wide-ranging discussion of these themes, see, among the books published in English, Bosworth

(2005) and Duggan (2012). The literature on Mussolini in languages other than Italian is considerable and easily found. The problem is different for those wishing to find a way through the endless literature on these issues in Italian. Suffice it to say that it grows by no less than ten major works a year.

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

49

But, aside from the many who played the double game, providing wellpaid information, and the many who became “turncoats” within a few months, the landscape of Italian economists was mainly one of people who resolved to recruit in large numbers academics who were proud to practise a science with a great past and considerable prestige even if at the cost of respecting silences and some professional embarrassments that the times forced upon them. The words of Henry Schultz, who met some Italian economists during a stay in the country in spring 1933, are revealing. When he asked R. Bachi, whom he met in Rome, whether he felt like a “free” person, the Italian replied: “Certainly, but I deal with pure theory”, and De Pietri-Tonelli, who he met in Venice, when asked whether he felt himself handicapped for not having joined the Fascist Party, answered: “No, but I just do a purely scientific job”.9 However, it seems that cases of economists being kindly advised to avoid putting at risk their freedom to teach and carry out research were not particularly rare. But in such situations, academic solidarity showed its worth. Teachers exercised great caution during their lessons and in their written works, but could not avoid being denounced by students— or their parents—who had difficulty passing an exam. A most striking example is that of Epicarmo Corbino, a liberal close to Einaudi and also Amoroso who taught economic policy at the University of Naples. In a lesson on 10 December 1937, he criticised the so-called Battle for Grain— a campaign for reaching self-sufficiency in grain production—as a manifest political expression of a “prevalence of the material over the spirit” and of a nostalgia for free trade in wheat (and thus in bread) at a time when the regime was implementing a policy of forced stockpiling of wheat at a price set by politicians. Some students who deemed Corbino’s remarks to be dangerous reported him to the local PNF federation, which informed the Prefect of Naples. The latter passed everything on to the university rector who suspended Corbino from teaching. The economist was kept under police control because in 1925 he had signed Benedetto Croce’s famous Manifesto, written in opposition to the Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals produced by Giovanni Gentile in

9 See

Bjerkholt and Parisi (2015, 98, 106).

50

P. Barucci

support of Mussolini’s regime,10 and thus his anti-fascism was taken for granted and “well known”. The same treatment was given to those who had publicly commemorated the first anniversary of Giacomo Matteotti’s assassination.11 A trial was organised, albeit one held behind closed doors and limited to only a few people, during which a number of parties officially testified in the presence of a ministerial inspector and the rector, while Corbino was given the opportunity to defend himself. The Neapolitan economist was also defended by several distinguished colleagues from the Neapolitan faculty (e.g. Giuseppe Ugo Papi), but before being cleared to resume his lessons he had to admit that it had all been a misunderstanding and that he was at heart a good fascist. In a subsequent meeting held in Naples, in the presence of the university’s administrative director, among others, Corbino made the following declaration: I am not a member of the PNF not because I did not wish to join, but because, when inscriptions reopened in 1932 signatories of the Croce manifesto were explicitly and publicly told that they would not be accepted under any circumstances. But my feelings have always been inspired by devotion towards the Fatherland and the regime, in accordance with the oath that I have taken.12

It has not been possible to know why Corbino made these declarations though, obviously, we can see that he found himself ensnared in a most difficult situation. After the war, he became an important member of the Liberal Party and an authoritative, albeit controversial, treasury minister 10 See

Papa and Flora (1958) and Turi (1980).

11 Giacomo Matteotti, an intellectual and socialist politician, was killed by a fascist squad on 10 June

1924, probably on Mussolini’s order. 12 On this point, which in fact is not well known, and about which a rich documentation has been published for the first time, see Spallato (2013), a paper presented to the conference Corbino economista e politico economico held in Naples on 3–5 June 2010 by the Istituto Italiano di Studi Filosofici [Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies], whose acts were never published. The contributions to the conference were largely published in volume 2 of 2012 of Il pensiero economico italiano (Barucci and Cattabrini 2012) and of the journal Libro Aperto, nos. 72–74, 2013. It is worth recalling that an article by Corbino (1942), which showed the great superiority of the naval power of the Allied Forces over the Italo-German Axis, contributed to the suspension of the publication of the Giornale degli Economisti.

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

51

in one of the first governments of the newly liberated Italy, which makes it more likely that his claim of support for the regime was extracted under some kind of duress. We do not know enough to say whether instances of this type occurred frequently in Italian universities. Those working in that period have spoken of the steps they took to steer well clear of potentially compromising situations, for example habitually avoiding the rooms where teachers gathered between lessons, and where an easily identified informer was always present. Everyone was aware that they were living in an authoritarian and “imperial” regime in which jokes about Mussolini were whispered clandestinely while, at the same time, there was an outpouring of writings celebrating his talents as a horseman, skier, dramatist, urban planner, worker and many other things. The more apologetic works about him often annoyed Mussolini, but he did not interfere with the publication of books depicting him as the “nation’s banker” (Alberti 1927) or as a scientific economist or a scientific thinker who belonged to a line that went back to Adam Smith (Ronchi 1932). 7. It should be noted that, as occurred in many other fields of knowledge, the fascist regime was not characterised by any kind of strict “closing” relating to the international debate on ideas and experiences of political economy. There was never, therefore, a climate of cultural isolationism in that regard. Einaudi achieved good results as a point of contact for important international foundations and was able to send young scholars to hone their skills in other countries. Apart from the predictable cases of Pareto and the famous ones of Sraffa, Bresciani Turroni and De Viti de Marco, some other Italian economists published their works directly or in translation in other languages. Ricci was already well known internationally before 1922, as was Roberto Michels and Barone. But others published in prestigious journals, sometimes in translation, including Amoroso, Arias, Borgatta, Del Vecchio, De’ Stefani, Cabiati, Fasiani, Attilio da Empoli (who published a volume directly in English in Chicago, da Empoli 1931), the aforementioned Einaudi (a regular contributor to the Economist ), Fanno, Fossati, Papi, Fubini, Gini, Graziadei, Loria, Griziotti, Vito and who knows how many others.

52

P. Barucci

The overall picture of the reviews of works by foreign scholars is very rich and, in general terms, not yet adequately investigated. Good translations of some of the key works of foreign authors were also produced, including some by Alfred Marshall, John M. Keynes, Irving Fisher, Friedrich von Hayek, Arthur C. Pigou, Edwin Cannan, Lionel Robbins, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Léon Walras and Heinrich von Stackelberg. Keynes’s works were widely reviewed and carefully read, but a great deal of interest was still shown in the classical authors up to John Stuart Mill, while particular attention was given to the works of Dennis H. Robertson, Knut Wicksell, James Meade, Frank William Taussig, Erich Schneider, François Perroux, Gaëtan Pirou, Fritz Machlup, Arthur Marget, Oskar Morgenstern, Erik Lindahl and Gustav Cassel. There were no translations of important textbooks used in English and French universities, but these were nevertheless amply reviewed and cited. There was even a translation of an economic work by Lenin. As evidence of the Italian economists’ openness to the international debate, we might recall the structure of the great initiative of the Nuova collana di economisti stranieri ed italiani (New Series of Foreign and Italian Economists, Utet, 1932–1936), published in twelve volumes and edited by G. Bottai and C. Arena, but in fact guided scientifically by G. Del Vecchio. This on its own can be considered an up-to-date (and unbiased) resource for those who wished to dedicate themselves to the study of economics. It is also noteworthy that the Nuova collana was published at the time when the discussion on the possibilities being opened up by corporatism was at its highest point. It was then almost becoming a ritual for Italian economists who wanted to avoid arousing suspicion to begin or end their work, theoretical or otherwise, by mentioning the virtues of corporatism and inveighing against the neoclassical theory and the homo oeconomicus premise on which it was founded. This virtually became the toll to be paid for writing about economics in Italy. Evidence of this can be found also in the many writings dedicated to that Italian economists of the past. Thanks to Einaudi and De’ Stefani, some attention was paid to Francesco Ferrara, Camillo Benso di Cavour and Carlo Cattaneo, but the preference was for works by Gian Domenico Romagnosi, with his concept of incivilimento [civilisation] in which there merged a critical attitude towards classical

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

53

economy, a tangled wrapping of history, law and economics, as well as a veiled anti-industrial attitude. It should also be noted that particular attention was paid to German authors only in the 1930s, except for Werner Sombart, who had been known to historians for years. But at the end of that recurrent decade interest was shown, in various ways, in Max Weber, Othmar Spann, Wilhelm Röpke, Carl Schmitt, Ernst Wagemann and Erwin von Beckerath. Even Ezra Pound’s unusual incursion into economics found space in the economists’ journals. 9. There has for years been almost a kind of natural and understandable “reluctance” to admit a simple truth: that the economic culture in Italy during fascism was relatively broad and varied. In those years, many economists were able to take part in cultural initiatives organised by the regime by using pseudonyms or proxies. Moreover, there seem to have been few instances of clear-cut censorship, partly because people sensibly took every measure to avoid it. And while it is a known fact that there were at least fifty or so journals controlled directly by the regime, it is equally true that a handful of journals containing implied opposition escaped scrutiny and survived, as did others who somehow managed to stay off the censors’ radar. Also, there were, overall, many economists who, though not directly linked to the regime, were invited to take part in some of the most important editorial initiatives of those years, such as—on the suggestion of Gentile—the Enciclopedia Italiana. Distinguished scholars of economics were also involved in two other similar projects of the PNF: the four-volume Dizionario di politica, published in 1940 with a preface by a political vice-secretary, and the two-volume Enciclopedia bancaria, published in 1940 under the auspices of the Fascist Association of Credit Companies and their workers. Beneath the monolithic Mussolini and his closest collaborators, there always existed a variegated culture, somewhat independent, somewhat detached from political engagement and somehow able to obtain a position protected by an important member of the political hierarchy who could issue a pass, usually short term. In our case, the endless discussion about the virtues of corporatism ended up filling thousands of pages of magazines, most of which were hastily destroyed in Rome in the forty-five days that elapsed between 25 July 1943, the date of Mussolini’s arrest by order of

54

P. Barucci

the King, and 8 September, the day of the armistice with the Allied Forces and the start of the official German invasion of Italy. To be sure, the desire to get rid of these publications was no doubt widely shared, but sadly it is now impossible, in some cases, to find a complete series. With the departure of De’ Stefani from the government, the position of economists as proponents of economic policies became nugatory and restricted. Whenever they wished to recommend something new, they did so by commenting on what another country was doing and then tentatively suggesting a workable version for Italy. This approach remained in use until the end of the regime, being employed with circumspection, and without mentioning names. It was no coincidence that the economists whose contributions had the most success were those who, in some way, could be considered to be advocates of alternatives to capitalism and capitalistic enterprise: planisme, cooperative production, forms of institutionalist economic thought and even some aspects of practices in the USSR. In this line of research, the experience of the so-called Pisa school, founded politically by Bottai and developed up to a certain point by Ugo Spirito and Arnaldo Volpicelli, had a major part, as it did, perhaps even more, for the studies of constitutional or administrative law. In a cultural climate of this kind, it is hardly surprising that the Catholic economists immediately saw how, in this way, they could enhance the message of the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, whose ultimate implications reiterated the Church’s aversion to forms of capitalism that reduced man and the entire economy to mere goods. Given that the interests of Italian economists were many and of varying theoretical consistency, the impressive number of journals with which they collaborated assiduously, contributing important articles, is not unexpected. It almost seemed that every viewpoint held in Italian economic and social thought had its own publication: in addition to the Pisa school, there was the Ferrara one with Paolo Fortunati, Nello Quilici and Nino Massimo Fovel, the Florentine one with Arias, the Roman one with the Rivista italiana di scienze economiche and many more besides, such as those closest to the corporations like the Rivista di politica economica, the Rivista bancaria and the Commercio. Conflicts over the direction of these journals were anything but minor, and typical of them was the dispute concerning the editorship of the Rivista

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

55

internazionale di scienze sociali and the Giornale degli economisti, to which the regime often paid attention when news reached it via the interest it always had in the two great Milanese universities where Gentile and Father Gemelli, both so close and yet different from the regime, played key roles. Although it may now seem uncomfortable and surprising, it is hard to deny that much of the debate that characterised the economists’ work of that period was repeated in almost the same terms after the Second World War, when the real novelty was not so much a new interpretation of Keynes (which did, however, have an impressive impact) as a violent eruption of Karl Marx’s economic thought. This was due to the transformed political climate and also the cultural hegemony that scholars of proven and bitter anti-fascist militancy were now free to express, and which they even proposed to put to direct political use. In the meantime, the economic theories of Pareto lost significance for a while. 10. Any historical judgement about the economists of the twenty years of fascism must be guarded and must, most definitely, be clearly and coherently expressed, identifying the differences between the various stages and taking into account the paths taken by the economists, their theoretical characteristics, their civil and party commitments, their writing for and collaboration with newspapers and journals, and their academic careers. Some judgements about the period, expressed immediately after the war by well-known Italian economists, quite different from each other, provide food for thought. In 1950, Giorgio Fuà wrote that the birth of corporatism should not be overlooked, and went on: It would be unjust to ignore the birth of it with […] the motivation that this system was in itself a bluff. Whether they were animated by a sincere enthusiasm or driven by a carefully calculated interest, whether they gave proof of a disinterested curiosity or of a spirit open to opposition, almost all Italian economists took part in the discussion—or rather in the quest for the theoretical basis of corporatism. This discussion often took on serious connotations although there were also, as is natural, many instances of amateurism and opportunism. It led some of our economists to a critical review of the traditional structure of science, in which each was guided by the particular needs of his own system of thought rather than by a real

56

P. Barucci

objective reference, seeing as the ‘corporative revolution’ was only a slogan to which no precise reality corresponded. (Fuà 1950, 29)

In the same year, in a beautiful romantic-autobiographical piece of writing, Luigi Einaudi said that: … within the framework of Italian economic science of the past half-century [one can see] a great stream, seething, sometimes very clear and sometimes turbid which transports sands and stones and silt to the sea. But here and there wonderful green islands emerge and on the creeks, where the calm water beats, miners wash sand filled with high-quality gold. (Einaudi 1950, 114)

He concluded: In the recent advancement of economic theory the part played by Italians was not small either in volume or in quality […] the gems scattered throughout the scientific world by Italian investigators were neither few nor of small account. (Einaudi 1950, 115)

A few years later, Alberto Bertolino, in an overview of Italian economic thought, noted that during the twenty years of fascism: The controversy between contrasting conceptions of the economy, that is between the utilitarian doctrine and the various others, reignited […]; and in accordance with the political demands of the time, some of them became enucleated in the formula of corporatism. From the scientific point of view, the meaning of the corporative economy is that of a radical critique of traditional economic doctrine and at the same time of scientific socialism. The problem of the economic act was reset, the economic function of the state was considered, the concept of general interest brought into focus, the problem of the balancing function of prices was re-examined, and the theory of international trade was reconsidered. But in truth it was not possible to construct a new economic doctrine. (Bertolino 1954, 218)

These three authors, invariably level-headed and studious in their judgements, openly or not anti-fascists—one, Einaudi, an expression of the most genuine liberal thought, the other, Bertolino, attracted to the challenge of

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

57

method and principles launched by Spirito (1930, 1932, 1933), and the third, Fuà, a victim of the deplorable racial laws of 1938—were already helping to denote the problematic nature of a period during which gems of reflection destined to make strides after a few years had somehow survived. Economic theory, together with a plethoric and repetitive rhetoric of corporatism, and amid the countless charlatans and scribbles of the regime, managed to stay alive among the economists and to keep them focussed on a root reflection about the science they were professing. 11. Two conclusions can be drawn from this long analysis. During fascism, an economist engaged in an analytical, and thus generalising, research project was usually allowed to complete it. But one who instead wanted to discuss the economic policy decisions being taken by Mussolini was faced with a stark choice: assent (genuine or otherwise) or silence; contrarily, however, one who wanted to discuss the virtues of alternative economic systems could refer to some point from the vast literature on corporatism to make a proposal that he could pass off as general and not related to Italy. Without leaping to conclusions, let us compare Declaration IX of the Labour Charter (1927) with article 41 of the current Italian Constitution (1947). Labour Charter: “The intervention of the State in economic production takes place only when private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. Such intervention may assume the form of outside control, encouragement and direct management.” Constitution. “Private economic enterprise is free. It may not be carried out against the common good or in such a manner that could damage safety, liberty and human dignity. The law shall provide for appropriate programmes and controls so that public and private-sector economic activity may be oriented and coordinated for social purposes.”

Taking into consideration the political climate in which the two texts were prepared and also the debates of which they were the climax, it is tempting to wonder whether the two legislators involved might have been related in some way. To say that both texts are part of the endless discussion

58

P. Barucci

on the “third way” would require a great deal of qualification, but to say that we are there or thereabouts is justifiable. It follows, however, that the rate of “corporativity” cannot then be assumed as the discriminating factor between the Italian economists of the fascist period. Only a detailed historical analysis can determine that. It may instead be scientifically more worthwhile to take a new path and evaluate the possibility of applying the pattern of continuity and/or rupture to the periods before and after the war. This is an extremely delicate matter, because it brings up a specific question, namely: What would an economist coming to these studies around 1950 have deemed worth “recovering” from the works written by his predecessors just a couple of decades before? If he thought it was worthwhile to at least glance at the reams about to be shredded, it may be more profitable to make a distinction between a fascist economist and an economic fascist. The former would comprise those who were always economists in terms of training, of themes tackled, of language used and of theoretical frameworks employed. All those who felt the dignity and pride of being economists would belong to this group. But all this must be decided while forgetting, or at least discounting for a moment, the positions and public offices they hold. To simplify, Amoroso—who wrote an enthusiastic evaluation of the March on Rome and wrote many articles in support of the regime—was always first and foremost an economist, as were many others, including Gini. I believe it is reasonable to say that Amoroso, for instance, did not celebrate the second phase of the fascist revolution, which someone called the “march from Rome”. And this has some importance. Even the analytical contributions made in order to create an economic theory of corporatism on the basis of the choices of a homo corporativus deserve attention. They did not produce results of any scientific value, but, having been conducted with the rigour of the economist, they still remain part of the laborious progress of a theory that has successes behind it, as well as errors and blunders. In contrast to the above, the economic fascists were those who, having completed some studies in applied economics, tax collection or labour economics, managed to carve out privileged positions in some corporation or another, or else obtain sinecures in the more out-of-the-way universities. Their writings would of course be disregarded as blatantly one-sided apologetics.

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

59

For all that, such people constitute an object of historical-political evaluation, although the intermediate cases, such as the supporters, pro-fascists and a-fascists, were numerous and are hard to fathom. There were those who championed generic “reforms” and those who, as semi-convinced fascists, took part later in the resistance or risked their lives to help clandestine organisations. But in these cases the political choice made by a person in a given moment prevails. An ultimate evaluation is the result of a more or less complete and convincing narrative and is therefore subject to challenge. It should be admitted that even this distinction bristles with ambiguity. How can we get the measure of an economist who, proud of being such, then becomes a determined informer in order to expose his Jewish colleagues and send them to certain death? The other possible conclusion to be drawn from this long analysis is, as already indicated, that of asking whether in the evolution of Italian economic thought there existed elements of continuity or of discontinuity in respect of what economists said, proposed and did during fascism, and to what they (perhaps the very same people) said, proposed and did during the republican era. At this point, it is possible to make a fairly general and cogent assertion. By and large, it can be said that there was a continuity of people and topics of economic theory, and a violent rupture, but only apparent, on the subject of corporatism, which is too obvious to be just highlighted, but if we go beyond the titles and return to the issue of comparatively valued economic systems, we find that our judgements must become much more cautious. A number of economists, some of whom were investigated in the so-called purge trials, rightly pointed out that in 1936 they had limited themselves to altering the title of their Lessons in Economics by replacing “political” with “corporative” and perhaps adding a page or two to illustrate the then corporative economic organisation in Italy. There is reason to believe that, after 1945, some convinced corporatists also did the opposite in absolute good faith. The novelty was the fact that they had to use their own knowledge of economics and the rigour of a suddenly rediscovered profession to deal with the economic policy issues of the post-war years. For sure, it was by then easier for echoes of the international debate to resound in Italian publications, many of which were brand new while others had been quickly adapted to the new political

60

P. Barucci

climate. But the after-effects of the reflection on the “third way” appeared also in the debates of the Constitutional Assembly in which scholars such as Amintore Fanfani, Paolo Emilio Taviani and Costantino Mortati took part. They had helped to add depth and originality to the subject of the limits of capitalism and the errors—even horrors—of National Socialism and theoretical and real socialism. With much deserved absolute respect for those who saw corporatism as their economic raison d’être and for those who paid, or whose family paid, a high and painful price for opposing it, one might say that corporatism was a “pretext” that fell from the sky to allow everyone to continue their academic life. Or, to put it another way, it was the scythe that made level the grass of the meadow. Those who had written pages galore of clearly politically motivated work were given the opportunity to forget them. Corporatism was in fact a way of being theoretically and literarily baroque and politically inefficient in dealing with the eternal problem of the relationship, as we say today, between State and market in an attempt to bring a socially satisfying order to the development of economic life. As political action, it was ineffective because it sought to ignore the class conflict that is an inevitable part of the process of production, and because it deludedly thought it could resolve the matter by creating a self-satisfying and selfsufficient bureaucratic structure. Moreover, it was politically ineffective because it aimed at attaining a “common good”, which in fact varied from moment to moment, and in the end was forced to dovetail that aim with the destiny of the regime and then that of the Axis, all the time pretending not to realise that, by doing so, it had exchanged the common good for the privileges of select groups of people. In the fullness of time, fascism became what Mussolini had never wanted it to become, at least until the moment when the alternative really became that of “win or die”, when, in other words, military victory became the yardstick of a universal judgement not open to appeal. Such an interpretation must not, however, become a historically unequivocal one. We must admit that, in so far as this organic structure of words and bureaucracy was concerned, the liberal economists kept the boat on an even keel: they never cultivated illusions. Quite the opposite, since the wisest of them maintained that the corporative system could be assessed only when its results were known, and not on the basis of premises or promises. For all

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

61

of them, but also for others less politically exposed, corporatism remained an “elsewhere” about which it was, at the very most, admissible to write an account of its unconvincing and even ambitious and misleading physiognomy. We must recognise that Einaudi was always firmly opposed to any viewpoint that conceded too much to the role of the State in economic activity. Bresciani Turroni did the same, writing an Introduzione alla politica economica (1942) published by the Einaudi publishing house in the dying days of the political experience of Mussolini. In reality, Catholics and fascists, Marxists and revolutionary socialists never managed to formulate a theory of production and a correlated theory of distribution of income that could serve as an alternative to the neoclassical one. It was not by chance that the same liberal economists in the Constitutional Assembly, when it came to the articles most directly concerned with economic matters, voted against them. The fact is that the Great Crisis of 1929–1932 was deemed to be historical proof of market failure. Among the economists who shared this perspective were those who were fascist from the beginning, the Catholics, those who had been contaminated by Ugo Spirito, and those who had read something about the so-called literature of the crisis ignited by unavoidable class conflicts. The question engendered a material and non-verbal continuity that came into being even before the amnesty measures, and therefore was real and not imposed. It was attributable to a convenient interpretation of the developments in economic thought of the preceding twenty years, one full of ambiguity, opportunism and sudden chameleonic change. Corporatism, even if only invoked distantly and cleansed of its ministerial trappings, played the role of the ferryman from the old to the new. On great occasions, friends were always the same but wore new clothes. With the exception of the 1938 racial laws, for the economists the guillotine set up by the totalitarian and police regimes had only a partial effect. They had been able to formulate their theories as they wished, had remained apprised of what was said in the international debate and had retained access to journals of theory from all over the world. However, they had to express their passion for political democracy prudently in order to escape the attentions of the vigilant political police. And those constraints were not to be taken lightly. With a little discretion, they could

62

P. Barucci

teach what they wanted. Thus, it is no coincidence that an updated edition of Graziani’s Istituzioni di economia politica was published in 1936 and received appreciative comments from Guglielmo Masci and Bruno Foà. The book was widely available in the universities even when its author was enduring the humiliation of being transferred to a teaching position in the science of public finance, a discipline considered less politically dangerous than corporative economy. It is not clear why, especially after the painless closure of the “purge” phase, the academic constraint and that of political legitimacy in progress should not produce its effects in the world of the economists. There remains the problem that from the ethical and political point of view we must exclude from the economists, and therefore from any form of continuity, all those who had not received a serious education in economics but had used their scant knowledge of the subject to gain advantages which the regime dispensed, often with largesse. This is and will always be the right choice, but, once made, it is difficult to put it into useful effect. History conceived as an “eternal repetition of the same” fails to become an interpretative canon of the past. But today it is fair to say that in the development of Italian economic thought between 1937 and 1950 elements of theoretical continuity seem to have been anything but negligible, at least as regards providing general options for the system of economic policy. In Italy, in a different area of scientific research, the theme of “continuity”—of ideas or of institutions—has been accepted and fleshed out over time. Yet among the economists, a sort of damnatio memoriae has held sway so that, from 1945 onwards, works on corporatism have been unknown.Those who admitted writing about the subject could be counted on the fingers of one hand. If anyone is sceptical about the “ambiguous” and “equivocal” nature of the transition, he or she certainly has every right to feel that way, but should deal with his or her suspicions case by case. While authors found it convenient to draw a line under what they had once written, their academic pupils thought it politically incorrect to remind them of it. It cannot be ruled out that for many economists continuity corresponded to the idea of a lacking in culture during the fascism best forgotten and kept at a safe distance. They were ready to look towards the

Italian Economists and the Fascist Regime: Only an Ambiguous …

63

“new” because not too much time had been lost following Mussolini’s economic notation: in economics, more than in any other speculative activity, they were different because they remained the same. Today, we can propound the hypothesis that the transition was intimately “painful” for a few, while we are well aware that for the many it was thought to be the start of an “ideal” phase.

References Alberti, M. (1927). Benito Mussolini banchiere della nazione: la politica finanziaria del capo del governo. Milano: Mondadori. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (1988). I ‘politecnici del commercio’ e la formazione della classe dirigente economica nell’Italia post-unitaria. L’origine delle Scuole superiori di commercio e l’insegnamento dell’economia politica (1868–1900). In M. M. Augello, M. Bianchini, G. Gioli, & P. Roggi (Eds.), Le cattedre di economia politica in Italia. La diffusione di una disciplina “sospetta” (1750–1900) (pp. 335–384). Milan: FrancoAngeli. Barucci, P., & Cattabrini, F. (Eds.). (2012). Corbino economista e politico economico. Special issue of Il pensiero economico italiano, 20 (2). Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (2017). La cultura economica italiana (1889–1943). Milan: FrancoAngeli. Bertolino, A. (1954). Il pensiero economico italiano dal risorgimento nazionale ai nostri giorni. Lisboa: Editorial Inpério. (Reprinted in A. Bertolino, Scritti e lezioni di storia del pensiero economico, pp. 337–355, by P. Barucci, Ed., 1979, Milan: Giuffrè. Bjerkholt, O., & Parisi, D. (2015). Glimpses of Henry Schultz in Mussolini’s 1934 Italy. History of Economic Thought and Policy, 2, 93–113. Bosworth, R. J. B. (2005). Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship 1915–1945. London and New York: Penguin Press. Bresciani Turroni, C. (1942). Introduzione alla politica economica. Torino: Einaudi. Castronovo, V. (2013). Storia economica d’Italia: dall’Ottocento ai giorni nostri. Torino: Einaudi. Corbino, E. (1942). Gli effetti della seconda guerra mondiale sul naviglio mercantile e previsioni per il dopoguerra. Giornale degli Economisti, IV (3–4), 109–118.

64

P. Barucci

da Empoli, A. (1931). Theory of Economic Equilibrium: A Study of Marginal and Ultramarginal Phenomena. Chicago: Christiano & Catenacci. Duggan, C. (2012). Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini’s Italy. London: Random House. Einaudi, L. (1950). La scienza economica. Reminiscenze. In C. Antoni & R. Mattioli (Eds.), Cinquant’anni di vita intellettuale italiana. 1896–1946. Studi in onore di Benedetto Croce per il suo ottantesimo anniversario (pp. 293–316). Napoli: Edizioni scientifiche italiane. Fuà, G. (1950). L’économie politique en Italie. Bulletin international des sciences sociales, 2(2), 85–198. Graziani, A. (1936). Istituzioni di economia politica (5th ed.). Roma: Società editrice del Foro italiano. Papa, E. R., & Flora, F. (1958). Storia di due manifesti: il fascismo e la cultura italiana. Milano: Feltrinelli. Pareto, V. (1923, September–October). Pochi punti di un futuro ordinamento costituzionale. Vita italiana. (Reprinted in V. Pareto, Scritti politici, pp. 795–800, 1974, II. Torino: Utet. Ronchi, E. (1932). Mussolini economista della rivoluzione. Roma: Pinciana. Spallato, S. (2013, January–March). Epicarmo Corbino prima e durante il fascismo. Libro Aperto, 72, 105–124. Spirito, U. (1930). La critica dell’economia liberale. Milano: Fratelli Treves. Spirito, U. (1932). I fondamenti della economia corporativa. Milano: Fratelli Treves. Spirito, U. (1933). Capitalismo e corporativismo. Firenze: Sansoni. Turi, G. (1980). Il fascismo e il consenso degli intellettuali. Bologna: Il Mulino. Zamagni, V. (1993). The Economic History of Italy, 1860–1990: From the Periphery to the Centre. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists in the Law Faculties and in the Higher Institutes of Business Studies Simone Misiani and Manuela Mosca

1

Introduction

During the twenty years when fascism was in power in Italy, the university set-up inherited from the previous period, the so-called Liberal Age,1 underwent a process of division and expansion. The law faculty, the only one offering economic subjects, opened up greatly to economics, while the

1 Liberal

era refers to the period prior to the rise of fascism in the early 1920s.

S. Misiani (B) University of Teramo, Teramo, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Mosca University of Salento, Lecce, Italy e-mail: [email protected] University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_3

65

66

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

higher schools of commerce were transformed initially into higher institutes and then into faculties of economics and business. The economists in the Italian universities formed influential schools which produced the country’s elites. An examination of the relationship between these schools and fascism reveals a varied, complex picture, quite apart from the single economists’ varying degrees of support for the regime’s ideology. Despite the particular features due to fascism, the development of the Italian system of university education did not differ from that in other European countries. The investigation conducted in this chapter on the universities’ transition from the liberal era to the fascist age enables us to give a description of the salient episodes marking the relationship between the economists and the regime. The reconstruction of the institutional and theoretical aspects, accompanied by a careful study of the political and social contexts, forms the basis for an attempted interpretation of the history of Italy between the two world wars.

2

The Legacy from Liberal Italy

In 1922, in the early stages of fascism, economists still regarded the faculty of law as being the whole universe, since it was the only one where economic subjects were taught. The 18 faculties in the royal universities2 and the 4 faculties in the free universities3 employed nearly all the economics teachers. In addition, there were four university institutes4 and the private

2The royal universities were located in Bologna, Cagliari, Catania, Genoa, Macerata, Messina, Modena, Naples, Padua, Palermo, Parma, Pavia, Pisa, Rome, Sassari, Siena and Turin. 3The free universities were Camerino, Ferrara, Perugia and Urbino. 4The four university institutes were: the Higher Technical Institute in Milan, the Turin Polytechnic Institute, the Genoa Naval School, and the Social Sciences Institute in Florence.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

67

Luigi Bocconi University which taught only economic subjects and business studies.5 There were 28 full professors,6 7 associate professors7 and 32 qualified lecturers,8 all centred in the law faculty, while in the other faculties there was only one full professor,9 three associate professors10 and one assistant professor11 altogether. The law faculty taught only two economic subjects: Political Economy and Public Finance.12 This was essentially the situation inherited from the liberal era. In Italy’s fascist period, things changed, partly through legislative innovations: the new normative situation of Italian universities, implemented in a discontinuous way, was mainly due to the Education Ministers Giovanni Gentile and Giuseppe Bottai who made important reforms in the entire education system.

3

The Reforms

The Gentile reform was launched in 1923.13 Drawn up before the fascist era, it was inspired by the idea of an organic education system from primary school through to university. The reform was introduced after the Great 5The founding of the Milan University opened the cultural question in Italy and Europe of the recognition of the university degree in Economics and Business. However, from the legal point of view Bocconi University was equated to the other royal higher education institutes. 6 Alessio, Arias, Cassola, De Francisci, De Viti de Marco, Einaudi, Fanno, Flora, Graziadei, Graziani, Griziotti, Lorenzoni, Loria, Majorana, Masci, Masé Dari, Natoli, Nitti, Pantaleoni, Ricci, Sella, Sensini, Sitta, Supino, Tangorra, Tivaroni, Tombesi and Zorli. 7 Bachi, Camboni, Criscuoli, Devilla, Rossi, Vinelli and Virgilii. 8 Ballarini, Boggiano Pico, Broglio d’Ajano, Cabiati, Carano-Donvito, Caronna-Bona, De PietriTonelli, De’ Stefani, Fenoglio, Fleres, Fubini, Giovannini, Gorini, Labriola Arturo, Leone, Licciardello, Luzzatti, Mariotti, Marray, Marsili Libelli, Mauri, Merenda, Michels, Musco, Nina, Porri, Prato, Racca, Satta, Scherma, Segni and Tenerelli. 9 Gobbi, full professor at the Technical Institute in Milan. 10 Berlingieri at the Genoa Naval School, Dalla Volta and Marinelli at the Social Sciences Institute in Florence. 11 Garino-Canina at the Turin Polytechnic Institute. 12 Only Genoa offered Economics and Commercial Policy as well. Bocconi added History, Geography, Politics and Statistics and the other higher institutes also taught industrial economics. 13 Giovanni Gentile was Minister of Education from 1922 to 1924. His reform underwent numerous major changes over the years. Barucci (2018) points out that “Between 1920 and 1943 in Italy the panorama changed radically, and it was not only because of the classification of university teaching due to the Gentile law; indeed, it only came about through a long slow erosion of the same”. Cf. in general Ricuperati (1994).

68

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

War, when the university world, having left behind its detachment from the country’s real situation, was charged with the post-war problems acutely felt by student-soldiers returning from the front.The Gentile reform aimed to create a truly national university, giving the central state the power to appoint chancellors and department heads. At the same time, however, it managed to find a compromise with fascism, via the recognition of the principle of teaching freedom and the universities’ autonomy in setting their own statutes, which accelerated the introduction of new economic subjects at university level. To give an example, the reform recognised the autonomy of the Catholic Sacred Heart University, where a degree in Political, Economic and Social Sciences was soon established. It also allowed Statistics to become an elective course in the law faculty.14 Gentile had a decidedly elitist vision of culture, the function of which was above all to produce the class of future managers. For this purpose, he stressed the primacy of a humanistic training, reaffirming the superiority of the route from classical lyceum to the law faculty, and barring students from technical schools from enrolling in that faculty. However, the reform also proved able to respond to the change that was taking place in Italy at a social and economic level, gradually allowing students from technical schools to continue their studies by enrolling in the higher institutes of business, and in the agriculture and statistics faculties. The change in status reflected the growing weight being acquired by economics and technical sciences, not only in the training of a more modern managerial class but also, and perhaps above all, in the professional world. In fact, university was on the way to becoming a factory training the new emerging middle class for whom a degree was a practical and professional goal, connected to the requirements of the professional associations and to the demand for technical managers.15 Therefore, while Gentile did reaffirm the power of authoritarian control over universities, he also managed on the one hand to safeguard the autonomy of university institutions and on the other to bring about a marked cultural change within them. The outcome was that the organisation of studies was liberalised, universities experienced 14 See

Favero (2015, 343). This subject was made an elective from 1923 and remained so after the reform of 1935. 15 On this, see Sapelli (1981).

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

69

a model of self-government, and higher education was modernised with a greater choice of subjects and higher standards. This was particularly important for the teaching of economic subjects. The elitist, class-conscious vision of the Gentile reform, destined to represent the upper-middle classes, was challenged by the process of “fascistisation” launched in the 1930s by the Ministers Cesare Maria De Vecchi16 and Giuseppe Bottai.17 Mauro Moretti (1994, 240) underlines the centralising nature of this legislation, highlighting “the bureaucratizing approach of single roles, age limits and the question of the oath”.18 The stages in the modernisation of education essentially followed the time schedule of the plan to construct a corporatist state. This process was launched with the “Commission of Solons”, appointed by Mussolini to draft proposals for constitutional reform; chaired by Gentile himself and including a number of university professors,19 the commission concluded its operations in July 1925 without actually affecting fascist legislation. The same line was taken in 1927 in the Labour Charter, a document outlining fascism’s corporatist policy. There was an acceleration in 1932, when Bottai, then Minister of the Corporations, changed the name of the subject from Political Economy to Corporatist Political Economy. In 1939, the Education Charter proposed to reorganise the entire Italian education system, vesting the university with the task of training “for science, certainly, not in the abstract but in the concrete reality of the fascist state”.20 Nevertheless, “Bottai’s reforming proposals did not become … operative because before long Italy entered the war” (Betti 2006, 30).21

16 Cesare

Maria De Vecchi was Minister of National Education from 1935 to 1936 (the Ministry of Public Education had changed its name in 1929, but returned to the original name in 1943). 17 Giuseppe Bottai was Minister of the Corporations (1929–1932) and then of National Education (1936–1943). 18 We will later return to the issue of the oath of loyalty to fascism required of university teachers. 19The Commission of Solons was also called Commission of the 18. Four members were academics: Gino Arias, Francesco D’Ercole, Corrado Gini and Santi Romano. 20Thus wrote Bottai in his report accompanying the Charter. Regarding the university, he said: “The university has the purpose of promoting science on a level of great moral and political responsibility and of providing the scientific culture needed to conduct administration and the professions”. Universities, XIX Declaration, in Education Charter, Meeting of the Grand Council of Fascism of 15 February 1939-XVII. 21 Italy entered the war on 10th June 1940. On Bottai, see Pomante (2018).

70

4

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

The Change to the Law Faculty

The change that took place in the 1930s affected the internal organisation of university life and strengthened the dialogue between law and economics. On the one hand, the economic subjects helped to modernise the courses of the law faculties, and on the other, economists played a leading role in creating new courses and new faculties where economics had top priority. Nevertheless, during the final years of the fascist era, in 1942–1943, the law faculty was still considered very important by economists. In that year the number of law faculties reached 27 (22 in royal universities22 and 5 in free universities)23 out of a total of 57, still making up nearly half the university institutes teaching economic subjects.24 They had 26 full professors out of a total of 46; 8 out of 11 full professors awaiting tenure; 38 associate professors out of 45; 14 assistant professors out of 35, and 26 qualified lecturers out of 41. The number of economic subjects taught in the law faculty grew: besides (Corporatist) Political Economy and Public Finance, new additions were Colonial Economics, Social Economics, Economic and Financial Policies, and Maritime Economics. Two subjects already taught elsewhere (Economic Geography and History of Economic Doctrines) were also introduced in the law faculty. Acknowledging the growing importance of economics in law, this faculty represented the incunabulum of the modernisation of economic theory in a corporatist sense, in line with the change in the state and the formation of a more up-to-date elite. The construction of a totalitarian state effectively needed normative legitimisation, with a law recognising the state’s right to its own corporatist jurisprudence, as well as specific laws against the enemies of fascism. Specifically, to train fascist personnel, the law faculties introduced courses in political and social sciences, out of which grew the faculties of political sciences. The latter have been a favourite field of historiography because they offer a perfect opportunity 22The royal universities were located in Bari, Bologna, Cagliari, Catania, Florence, Genoa, Macerata,

Messina, Milan, Modena, Naples, Padua, Palermo, Parma, Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, Rome, Sassari, Siena, Turin and Trieste. 23The free universities were Camerino, Ferrara, Urbino and the Catholic University of Milan. 24 Apart from the 27 faculties of law, the other 30 were distributed as follows: 12 faculties of economics and business, 6 of political sciences, 1 of economic science, 8 of agriculture and plus 3 others.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

71

to study the directions of the regime’s ideology.25 Here, we focus instead on the less studied issue of the planning and setting up of the faculties of economics and business, whose growth during the twenty years of fascism challenged the pre-eminence of the law faculties.

5

The Advance of the Faculties of Economics and Business

At the end of the 1800s, there were already higher schools of commerce in Italy. The Gentile law of 1923 accommodated the MAIC’s request26 to take charge of all the technical high schools. From 1924 on, higher schools of commerce could issue the qualification of “graduate in business science”, a decision that had the effect of strengthening the position of economists in the economic and social system. For instance, Altamura (2015) identifies the traditional role of the Higher School of Economics and Business in Bari as, on the one hand, providing, in accord with the Chamber of Commerce, instrumental skills for the trading and banking middle-class, and on the other as forging a close tie between academic research and the production activity of the local area. The hybrid situation of a course run by a Ministry different from the one to which it should have belonged was resolved in 1928 with the decision to transfer its control to the Ministry of National Education.27 The fascist regime imposed direct control over universities and conditioned the internal life of the faculties by guiding the institutional appointments both in public and private universities, though without managing to really influence teachers’ careers. On this point, it is worth recalling a significant episode related to the employment of permanent professors by the Luigi Bocconi Business University. Carlo Emilio Ferri, a militant fascist economist, had been shortlisted in 1929 for a place in Political Economy at the Higher Institute in Catania, thanks to the support of the economist 25 In this book, see the chapter by Bientinesi and Cini, as well as Gentile (2003) and Mangoni (1994) 26The

MAIC was the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, in operation until 1921. decree 17 June 1928, n. 1314. The archive where there is a trace of the activity of this branch of education on the eve of the transfer is found in the Central State Archive (ACS), Public Education Ministry, General coordination Technical education, 1925–1940.

27 Royal

72

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

Gino Arias.28 With the protection of the secretary of the National Fascist Party, Augusto Turati and of Mussolini himself, Ferri managed to be called to the University of Pavia, where he obtained the position of Dean of the Faculty of Political Sciences, without ever being able however to get a permanent job at the Bocconi University due to the internal opposition of the staff.29 The process of osmosis of the higher schools of commerce into the university system went ahead with their transformation into higher institutes of economics and business and with the creation of new institutes. This fact was significant, being evidence of the university world’s acknowledgment of the laboratory role in the training of an elite endowed with technical skills, coupled with the process of modernisation and construction of the corporatist state. These higher institutes were described as follows in a 1931 article published in Italica explaining the education system to foreigners wanting to study in Italy: Special regulations, though essentially not very different from those for universities, govern the higher institutes of economics and business located in Bari, Catania, Florence, Genoa, Naples, Rome, Turin, Trieste and Venice. There are also three free institutes situated in Bologna, Milan and Palermo.30

The purpose of these higher education institutes was to “respond to the new economic needs and to perfect the knowledge and training of technicians destined to management roles in business, industry and banking” (Travagliante 2015, 272). The subjects taught there were legal and economic, technical-vocational, and languages, with special attention to industrial and commercial aspects. They therefore had the double role of providing an elite scientific education but also of training for the emerging professions. However, this step was not without its problems. In fact, as had already happened with the transformation of schools of commerce 28 E. Ferri to B. Mussolini, 25th July 1929, in ACS Ministry of Public Education, General coordination

Higher education, DG. II, University legislation and statutes (1923–1938), envelope 48. this, see Romani (1977). 30 Italian Ministry of National Education (1931). The institutes were founded in the following years: Venice 1868, Genoa 1884, Bari 1886, Milan 1902, Rome 1906, Catania 1919, Naples and Trieste 1920, Palermo 1922, Florence 1926 and Bologna 1929 (Mio and Saccon 2015, 381). 29 On

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

73

into higher institutes, this change aroused fears of a further weakening of the ties between university and the country’s actual productive activity. An example was the action by the Dean of the Genoa Higher Institute, who led the opposition to the transfer of his school to the Ministry of Public Education, underlining the desire not to lose the link with the economic institutions. This request was not granted, however.31 In 1935, the reform of De Vecchi, Minister of National Education, transformed the higher institutes into faculties of economics and business, incorporating them into the university. The main goal of this reform, in line with the others implemented by this Minister, was to make higher education fascist (De Vecchi 1937) and to “rein in whatever autonomy was still left in schools” (Santarelli 1991). By eliminating the forms of university autonomy that had been admitted by the Gentile reform, Minister Bottai imposed predetermined study plans on the new faculties. This change aroused lively resistance in the universities, due to the way and the timetable with which it was imposed on the academic staff, with no organic reflection formulated independently by the university community. While on the one hand, this reform actually reduced the autonomy of the previous institutes and weakened their link with the local situation,32 on the other hand, by bringing the economics and business faculties into a national circuit, it allowed teachers trained in the country’s most prestigious universities to work in outlying areas, bringing new ideas and methods.33 In other respects, it can be said that the 1935 reform photographed the expansion of university economic culture, which was manifested in the considerable growth of enrolments: in 1935–1936 there were no less than 1341 Economics and Business graduates.34 The new students enrolling at 31The

Dean of Genoa contacted the Minister for the Economy (Belluzzo), with a letter of protest dated 21 June 1927. ACS, Public Education Ministry, General coordination Higher education, DG. II, University legislation and statutes (1923–1938), envelope 51, file “Reform of higher institutes of economics and business”. Other examples are the cases of the universities of Sapienza and Bari (Strangio 2006, 14; Ritrovato 2013). 32The essay by Altamura (2015) revolves around the loss of this specific function and of the connection of the Higher School of Commerce in Bari with the city’s Chamber of Commerce. 33 See, for example, the case of Catania (Travagliante 2015). 34This figure is contained in the file of papers related to the University of Ferrara’s application to open a Faculty of Economics and Business: in ACS, Public Education Ministry, General coordination Higher education, DG. II, University legislation and statutes (1923–1938), envelope 48, file “Proposals for the creation of new faculties and degree courses”.

74

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

university aspired less to elite positions than to entry into the emerging professions as accountants and statisticians. After 1936, the state launched a policy intended to promote competition among universities. To achieve this, Minister Bottai had two incentives at his disposal: authorising the creation of new faculties of economics and business, and introducing limits on enrolment.35 The latter could be used only at the universities of Rome, Naples and Bologna, since in the other universities student numbers were not very high, in spite of the general upward trend in enrolments and graduates in economics subjects. The fact that he considered this measure, however, shows how restricted and exclusive the vision of university still was, though there were already signs of the tendencies towards a change that would be accentuated in the post-war period. As for the first measure, the Minister approved the plan to transform the Royal Institute of Economic and Business Science in Venice into Ca’ Foscari University. In the 1936–1937 academic year, out of a total of 8000 students at the higher economic institutes, Venice was still a very important centre with 1650 students from different parts of Italy and from other countries, thanks to its international image favoured by its location near the Austrian border.36 Remember that in the same year the Bocconi University had just a little over 1000 enrolments. After fascism came to power, the Ca’ Foscari Royal Higher Institute of Business, founded in 1868 on the initiative of Luigi Luzzatti, underwent a process of fascistisation with the changing of academic positions and the decision to collaborate with the construction of the fascist state. In 1925, Luzzatti was removed, and in 1926, Silvio Trentin was forced to give up the chair of public law due to his anti-fascist ideas. The transfer in 1928 from the Ministry of the Economy to the Ministry of National Education was facilitated by Agostino Lanzillo, a leading figure of the fascist left coming from the world of revolutionary trade-unionism. Lanzillo came to the Ca’ Foscari institute in 1934 after abandoning political activity due to Mussolini’s rejection of the thrust for a corporatist revolution. He moved closer to the circle revolving around the journal Critica Fascista connected to Giuseppe 35 G. Bottai’s report to the Prime Minister in 1938, in ACS, Public Education Ministry, General coordination Higher education, DG. II, University legislation and statutes (1923–1938), envelope 48. 36 See Bortolutz and Vallata (2018).

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

75

Bottai. In 1936, then, the institute was given the title of faculty and in 1938 the Minister gave his approval to the scientific organisation and to the statute of the Ca’ Foscari State University.37 In the same period, the minister refused to authorise the request for permanent positions in order to open new faculties of economics and business, questioning the figures presented in the application related to the market for new accountants, and underlining the fact that this request did not take the relationships with the faculties of law and political sciences into account. In actual fact, in deciding the funding to allocate for the recognition of new faculties, Minister Bottai followed a book-keeping criterion, without considering the coherence with the plan to construct a fascist culture. Furthermore, in his 1938 report addressed to Mussolini, the Minister seemed motivated more by the need to respond to the pressures of the single universities than by factors related to the country’s modernisation process. Emblematic is the reason for turning down the application by the Free University of Ferrara, the citadel of the strongman Italo Balbo, where there was a School of Specialization in Corporatist Studies, created by the Law Faculty in 1936–1937, with corporatist economics courses held by Massimo Fovel, Paolo Fortunati and Manlio Resta (Manzalini 2018). Bottai’s rejection came more from fear of a centrifugal force from the university that might threaten the dominance of the national order, than from issues of costs, which were actually very low.38 Similarly, Bottai rejected Pisa’s application to create a Faculty of Economics and Business based on a proposal that had the support of the Fascist University Group, as well as the request from Siena. Essentially, in turning down the three applications from Pisa, Siena and Ferrara, he was guided by a uniform

37The

new statute of the Royal Higher Institute of Economics and Business in Venice was approved under the deanship of the mathematician Carlo Alberto Dell’Agnola with Royal decree 20 April 1939, n. 1029, recognising the plan for a new academic organisation with the creation of three faculties: Economics and Business, Arts, and Architecture. As well as the degree in Economics and Business, the Economics and Business Faculty issued degrees in Economics and Law, Accounting and Business Administration. See Annual Report Royal Higher Institute of Economics and Business of Venice for 1939 –1940. 38The plan envisaged that the new faculties would not be a burden on state finances, except for the cost of two permanent positions, as they could rely on the revenue of enrolments and the resources of the school (both for staff and private funding).

76

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

vision of university distribution and did not look beyond the existing situation. While after the reform in 1936, there were eight university faculties of economics and business (Bari, Catania, Florence, Genoa, Naples, Rome, Turin, and Trieste), at the end of the fascist period, in 1942–1943, we find ten (Bologna and Palermo had been added), plus the free Bocconi University in Milan and the Royal University Institute in Venice. Therefore, in the North of Italy a system of interconnected university institutes was being built up, with the Milanese model of Bocconi University at the centre, connected to the higher institutes of Genoa and Venice.39 It should be remembered that at this point economic subjects were also taught in the five faculties of political sciences,40 in the eight of Agriculture,41 in one Faculty of Letters and Philosophy (Milan), at the Catholic University (Political Sciences and Economic Sciences), in Engineering in Padua and in the Naples University Institute. The number of full professors teaching in the faculties of economics and business exceeded those in Law (31 against 26, with 15 in other faculties). The number of full professors awaiting tenure was the same (eight in both faculties, three in Political Sciences), there were 20 associate professors (38 in Law and 23 in Political Sciences),18 assistants (as against 14 in Law, 10 in Political Sciences and 7 in Economic Science), while there were very few qualified lecturers compared to the law faculty, because the laws of the time did not permit it.42 The economic subjects taught in the faculties of law and in the faculties of economics and business were mainly the same: Corporatist Law, Colonial Law, Public Finance and Financial Law, Economic Geography, Economic Policy, History of Economic Doctrines; in the faculties of economics and business one also found the subjects Economics of Transport, Mountain and Forestry Economics, Insurance Economics and Finance. 39The system’s interconnection emerged from teachers’ biographies, like those of Attilio Cabiati and

Gino Zappa, based in Genoa, who were advocates of the reform of the organization of Bocconi: see Massa Piergiovanni (1992). For other High schools, see Tagliaferri (1971, 1974), Di Vittorio (1987), and Farolfi (1988). 40The faculties of political sciences were located in Florence, Padua, Pavia, Perugia and Rome. In this volume, see the chapter by Bientinesi and Cini. 41The eight faculties of agriculture were in Bari, Bologna, Florence, Milan, Naples, Perugia, Pisa and Turin. 42 Normally for high schools qualified lecturers were not envisaged.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

6

77

A Brief Aside on the First School of Statistics43

Ever since unification (in the first half of the 1860s), Statistics had been given ample space in the law faculty; then in the 1920s, it became further entrenched in the faculties of political sciences.44 Starting in 1921, the government made plans for the hiring of statisticians in the state administration, and in 1926, the Central Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) was founded. The renowned scholar Corrado Gini was called to direct it. The following year Gini established a School of Statistics at the Sapienza University of Rome. This was made possible by a direct intervention by Mussolini, as can be seen from a letter dated 13th August 1927 written by the Duce to the Minister of National Education Pietro Fedele: This is to authorize Gini’s request. Schools of statistics are to be established. Arrangements are to be made with the ministry of finance so that the measure can be rapidly implemented in the form of a decree, given its urgency and the current parliamentary recess.45

The initiative opened up two issues. Firstly, the school envisaged initial funding from the Minister of Finance, while it should have been under the control of the Ministry of National Education. Secondly, Gini posed the problem of allowing students from technical schools to enrol, waiving the Gentile reform. The latter issue was resolved in 1933, after another direct intervention by Mussolini.46 Finally, in 1936, “in response to the inevitable cancellation of supplementary Statistics courses” (Favero and Trivellato 2011, 49), under the presidency of Gini, for the first time in Europe the Faculty of Statistical, Demographic and Actuarial Sciences was set up to consolidate “at the academic level [the] special connection between statistics and social sciences” (Favero and Trivellato 2011, 49). 43The

inclusion of this brief aside in this chapter is due to the affinity of Statistics with the other economic subjects, and the historiographical vacuum regarding the birth of the faculties of statistics. 44 See Favero and Trivellato (2011). 45 ACS, Ministry of Public Education, General coordination Higher education, DG. II, University legislation and statutes (1923–1938), envelope 52. 46 Ivi.

78

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

Table 1 The advance of the Italian faculties of economics and business, and of statistics Royal Higher Institutes of Economics and Business Bari Bologna Catania Florence Genoa Milan Bocconi Milan Catholic

Naples Palermo Rome Turin Trieste Venice

Free Higher Institutes of Economics and Business

1886–1935 1929–1938 1919–1935 1926–1935 1884–1935 1902–1935 1931–1935 (Faculty of Political, Economic and Commercial Sciences) 1920–1935 1922–1938 1906–1935 1906–1935 1920–1935 1868–1935

Faculties of Economics and Business

Faculties of Statistical, Demographic and Actuarial Sciences

1936–… 1939–… 1936–… 1936–… 1936–… 1936–… 1936–…

1936–… 1939–… 1936–… 1936–… 1936–… 1936–…

1936–…

Table 1 sums up the situation of the faculties of economics and business and of statistics.

7

The “Schools” of Economists

Although there were subjects that were taught exclusively in the faculties of economics and business, and not in law faculties, we have not found any features distinguishing the courses held in the different faculties. In other words, the faculty where the teachers worked did not determine their orientation. What distinguished them and constituted a strong element in their identity were instead the “schools” that formed around the universities, under the name of their city. Some of them dated back to the pre-fascist era, others emerged during the regime, and at times they were

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

79

the seed-bed for the post-fascist renewal. In the North of Italy Milan’s free Luigi Bocconi University played a role that was “anything but monolithic” (Barucci et al. 2017, 21), and in the same city, the Catholic economists gathered around the university founded by Father Agostino Gemelli in 1921.47 Still in the North, Luigi Einaudi’s Turin school which originated in the late 1800s, despite the regime, continued through the generations to champion a liberal vision on both the political and economic plane. The University of Ferrara, which made its name with the school of the statistician Paolo Fortunati, hosted important debates on corporatism.48 In 1920, Benvenuto Griziotti relaunched the fame of the Pavia school, which also originated in the 1800s, making the university a well-known centre for the study of Public Finance.49 In central Italy, an important role was played by the Pisan school founded by the Minister Giuseppe Bottai, while the Sapienza in Rome became the centre of academic power closely connected to political power and to Italy’s main economic institutions (like the Bank of Italy and ISTAT). In the South, the University of Naples managed to preserve a leading role in economics thanks to the economists Augusto Graziani and Epicarmo Corbino, despite the Jewish origins of the former and the antifascism of the latter. Bari was also an important centre, with Giovanni Demaria and Giuseppe Di Nardi, at least in terms of the number of enrolments. These data confirm that the polycentric nature typical of the history of Italian cities was not broken by fascism’s attempted centralisation and rationalisation of the university system: although it favoured the national circulation of the teaching staff, the fascist university system was not able to create a uniform economic culture. The data also show that the schools in the Centre–North were more dynamic than those in the South50 : emblematic was the failure of Benvenuto Griziotti’s plan in 1920 to set up in Sicily 47 It

was the Catholic University, already discussed, which among other faculties also had Law and Political, Economic and Commercial Science (1931). The latter also issued the degree in Economics and Business. From 1936, it was recognised as an autonomous faculty, following the separation from Political Sciences. For a history of the teaching organisation, see Carera (2010). 48 For instance, an important conference on trade union and corporatist studies that took place in Ferrara in 1932. 49 On the economists’ schools in Italy in these years, see Barucci et al. (2017, 21–22 and 110–111). 50The planning of the previous generation gave way to an ideological and propagandistic vision that sought to valorise the results obtained from the Regime’s economic policy (Zingali 1933).

80

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

a school of economics with a vision open to the problems of the Mediterranean (Travagliante 2015).The cultural gap between the North and South of Italy was certainly the result of the concentration of industrialisation in the North, an issue for which a solution was attempted in the post-war period.

8

Academic Economists and Fascism

The investigation of the relationship of the “schools” with fascism therefore reveals a very varied picture, quite apart from the more or less superficial adherence to corporatism by individual economists. The two faculties in fact were able to update themselves in order to cope with the radical transformation imposed by fascism, without however losing their internal autonomy. If one looks at the contents taught, one can see that there was not a passive acceptance of fascist orders, but a tendency to find a compromise between adapting the economics subjects on the one hand and elaborating a culture capable of coping with the crisis of capitalism and its economic and social consequences on the other.51 There were certainly corporatist economists, like Gino Arias and Luigi Amoroso, but they were not many, and their rise “came late, although they became very influential for a short period of time” (Barucci et al. 2017, 15). In 1932 at a famous congress held in Ferrara, Ugo Spirito went so far as to invent a third way between capitalism and socialism, allowing the corporations the role of controlling the market. In itself, membership of the Fascist Party did not involve submission to the regime, nor is the opposite true. Proof of this is the extraordinary career of the economist Alberto Beneduce, who was never a member of the party. After a short stint in academia (1910–1919), Beneduce was the real protagonist of Italy’s economic policy in the interwar period. Holding highly influential positions, he guided fascist policy in the international, monetary, industrial, financial and banking fields. He was one of the 51The

investigation on the textbooks by Faucci and Giocoli, in this volume, shows the small extent to which corporatism altered the essence of the economic theory taught in universities. In general: “it was almost becoming a ritual … to start and finish a work … by mentioning the virtues of corporatism, and directing harsh criticism at neoclassical theory” (Barucci et al. 2017, 19).

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

81

people behind the 1926 re-evaluation of the lira to “quota 90” (that is, a fixed exchange rate of 90 lire to the British pound), the massive state intervention in the Italian economy during the Great Depression with the founding of IMI (Istituto Mobiliare Italiano, Italian Securities Institute) in 1931 and of IRI (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, Institute for Industrial Reconstruction) in 1933, the reforms to the banking system in 1936, through to the support for the regime’s decision to adopt economic autarky in 1935–1936. In 1931 fascism forced academics to take an oath of loyalty. Of the economists, very few avoided the oath or refused to swear while many agreed in order to continue their work and also so as not to leave the education of the young exclusively in the hands of colleagues who had sworn their loyalty with conviction. Whereas some economists genuinely supported the regime, many merely paid lip service. Other teachers had serious difficulties, like Epicarmo Corbino, who was temporarily suspended from teaching in 1937, while others were persecuted, like Attilio Cabiati, who was forced to gradually give up his academic posts, and Antonio Pesenti, arrested for his clandestine anti-fascist activity. In general: there is evidence of direct interventions of censorship by Mussolini on some authors even resorting to the prefects and … both in the Italian Encyclopaedia and even more in the Dictionary of Politics one can sense an operation of selection or exclusion of contributors conducted on broadly political criteria. (Barucci et al. 2017, 20)

Finally, a separate mention must be made of the 1938 race laws, not only affecting students but also teachers.52 Remember that “R. Bachi, Gustavo Del Vecchio, M. Fanno, G. Arias, B. Foà, R. Fubini, M. Pugliese, G. Mortara, G. Luzzatto, M. Segrè and many others had to abandon teaching and, in not a few cases, go abroad” (Barucci et al. 2017, 12). In 1938 Cabiati was fired from the university for criticising the race laws. Having said that, overall during the twenty years of fascist rule the economists increased their influence in Italian universities: their numbers 52This

point has been of interest to historiography in recent years. Studies have appeared on the question of the application of the race laws and the problem of post-war reinstatement of individual universities: see, for instance, Pelini and Pavan (2009).

82

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

grew considerably and there were cases where they took on the role of Chancellor, like Arrigo Serpieri in Florence and Giovanni Demaria at the Bocconi in Milan.

9

The Fascist Economists on the International Scene

The fact that the Italian faculties of economics and business tended to become more important than those of Law was in line with the similar trend in the Anglo-Saxon world, just as the need for rationalisation seen in the university reforms implemented by the regime was common to the other countries in Europe. The changes that took place in the 1930s in fact brought Italy closer to the reforms adopted by the Anglo-Saxon countries and the most advanced capitalist world. In addition, the creation of the Faculty of Statistics in 1936 was a pioneering initiative in Europe. The universities also served as the cornerstone in the international circuit of the exchange of ideas, through research projects and scientific collaboration, scholarships for student and graduate trips, conference participation, translations and reviews of works published in the different countries. Through these channels, the traditional openness of the Italian academic community (teachers and students) managed to survive regardless of the ideological limits and constraints imposed by governments. Admittedly, Italian economists were no longer able to occupy the top positions reached by the marginalists between 1880 and 1920. However, the economic schools that developed around university faculties were influential and the fame of some of them reached beyond the Italian borders. The essay by Faucci and Giocoli in this book also underlines the international significance of the books written by our economists of the period. Some of those who published in prestigious journals or in reputable translations were L. Amoroso, G. Arias, G. Borgatta, G. Del Vecchio, A. De’ Stefani, A. Cabiati, M. Fasiani, A. da Empoli (author of a book published directly in English in Chicago), Einaudi, already mentioned (regular contributor to the Economist ), M. Fanno, E. Fossati, G. U. Papi, R. Fubini, C. Gini, A.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

83

Graziadei, G. Loria, B. Griziotti, F. Vito and many others. (Barucci et al. 2017, 18)

Networks of international exchanges developed with Austria and Germany prior to nazism, but above all with the Anglo-Saxon world. Giovanni Demaria, for instance, went to the USA on a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship, and then to London and Berlin (Parisi 2010). In this field, an important role was played between the wars by Luigi Einaudi’s Turin school, not only in sending Italian scholars to specialise in America, but also in welcoming northern and central-eastern Europeans (like A. Hirschman and P. Rosenstein Rodan).53 The international channel was used as an escape valve for political emigration, especially after the race laws in 1938, and influenced the direction of the diaspora: Piero Sraffa to Cambridge (UK), Costantino Bresciani-Turroni to Cairo, Umberto Ricci to Constantinople and then to Cairo, and Gino Arias to Argentina are just a few examples. At the same time, it should also be kept in mind that the presence of economists from other countries was of considerable importance, as was the diffusion of foreign works, above all, obviously, the General Theory by J. M. Keynes.54

10

The Victory of the Democracies

The investigation of Republican Italy is not the subject of this book, but it seems appropriate to point out that in the period after the Second World War, following the military and socio-economic collapse of 1942–1943, and with the defeat of totalitarianism and the victory of the democracies, Italian economists were called to participate in the construction of constituent culture and had a decisive impact on the debate over the principles of the Italian Constitution. Remember the role they played in the

53 Remember

that Einaudi was a consultant of the Rockefeller Foundation (Gemelli 2005) and correspondent for the Economist for almost forty years (Marchionatti 2000). 54 See Università degli studi di Firenze (1983).

84

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

Economic Commission for the Constituent Assembly chaired by Giovanni Demaria,55 and in the work of the Constituent Assembly itself. In post-war Italy, with the introduction of the policy of post-war reconstruction, there emerged essentially a re-launching of the schools of the 1930s, especially those that had debated the question of economic development in an intense interchange with the culture of western Europe. This was reflected in the creation of new faculties that welcomed young people who had grown up in the interwar period and had participated in the international change brought by the victors. This was the case of Giorgio Fuà, who graduated in 1942, and after working for the Economic Commission for Europe at the United Nations, created in 1959 a Faculty of Economics in Ancona that recruited young scholars formed in the 1930s, that is, belonging to the generation of Ezio Vanoni, Federico Caffè and Pasquale Saraceno. This generation had experienced the crisis of 1929 and the wartime economy, and was ready to discuss reconstruction measures inspired by the economic planning typical of Italian economic policy in the early decades of the post-war period. Acknowledgements The figures used in this chapter are from the tables made available to the research group based on the Italian university annals. Our thanks for the huge work done on examining the sources. Unless stated otherwise, the translations of quotations are our own.

References Altamura, F. (2015). L’insegnamento delle discipline economiche a Bari tra le due guerre. Da centro di formazione regionale a periferia del sistema. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), La cultura economica tra le due guerre (pp. 237–253). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

55The Economic Commission for the Constituent Assembly was one of the preliminary commissions

set up by the Ministry of the Constitution in October 1945 to examine the issues that would be debated by the Constituent Assembly, the legislative organism that after the fall of fascism drafted the Italian Constitution which is still in force.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

85

Barucci, P. (2018). Il capitalismo e la cultura economica in Italia fra le due guerre. Mimeo. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (Eds.). (2017). La cultura economica italiana (1889–1943). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Betti, C. (2006). La formazione universitaria dei maestri. In G. di Bello (Ed.), Formazione e società della conoscenza (pp. 29–40). Firenze: Firenze University Press. Bortolutz, M., & Vallata, G. (2018). Appendice I-III. In R. Cairoli & A. Trampus (Eds.), I rapporti internazionali nei 150 anni di storia della Ca’ Foscari (pp. 211–295). Edizioni Ca’ Foscari: Venezia. Carera, A. (Ed.). (2010). Per una comunità educante. La formazione e la didattica. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. De Vecchi, C. M. (1937). Bonifica fascista della cultura. Milano: Mondadori. Di Vittorio, A. (1987). Cultura e Mezzogiorno. La Facoltà di Economia e Commercio di Bari (1886–1986). Bari: Cacucci. Farolfi, B. (1988). I cinquant’anni della Facoltà dì Economia e Commercio dell’Università di Bologna (1937–1987). Roma: Bulzoni. Favero, G. (2015). La statistica nell’università italiana tra le due guerre. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), La cultura economica tra le due guerre (pp. 339–347). FrancoAngeli: Milano. Favero, G., & Trivellato, U. (2011, April). La Statistica nell’Università di Padova: un percorso emblematico dalla Restaurazione all’età repubblicana. Rivista di Storia Economica, XXVII (1), 21–59. Gemelli, G. (2005). Un imprenditore scientifico e le sue reti di relazioni internazionali: Luigi Einaudi, la Fondazione Rockefeller e la professionalizzazione della ricerca economica in Italia. Le carte e la storia, 1, 189–202. Gentile, E. (2003). La Facoltà di Scienze politiche nel periodo fascista. In F. Lanchester (Ed.), Passato e Presente delle Facoltà di Scienze politiche (pp. 47–56). Giuffré: Milano. Italian Ministry of National Education. (1931). Università e Istituti Superiori Italiani. Italica, 8(3), 74–78. Mangoni, L. (1994). Scienze politiche e Architettura: nuovi profili professionali nell’Università italiana durante il fascismo. In I. Porciani (Ed.), L’Università tra Otto e Novecento: i modelli europei e il caso italiano (pp. 381–398). Napoli: Jovene. Manzalini, F. (2018). Gli studi di economia corporativa nella Libera Università di Ferrara, Convegno CIPEI, Economisti e Scienza economica in Italia durante il Fascismo, 13–14 dicembre, Mimeo.

86

S. Misiani and M. Mosca

Marchionatti, R. (Ed.). (2000). “From Our Italian correspondent”. Luigi Einaudi’s Articles in “The Economist” (1908–1946). Firenze: Olschki. Massa Piergiovanni, P. (Ed.). (1992). Dalla Scuola Superiore di Commercio alla Facoltà di Economia. Genova: Società ligure di Storia patria. Mio, C., & Saccon, C. (2015). La ragioneria e l’economia aziendale tra le due guerre. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), La cultura economica tra le due guerre (pp. 372–384). FrancoAngeli: Milano. Moretti, M. (1994). La questione universitaria a cinquant’anni dall’Unificazione. La Commissione Reale per il riordinamento degli studi superiori e la Relazione Ceci. In I. Porciani (Ed.), L’Università tra Otto e Novecento: i modelli europei e il caso italiano (pp. 209–309). Napoli: Jovene. Parisi, D. (2010). Giovanni Demaria and the Rockefeller Foundation: Seesaw relationships during a thirty-year span (1930–1958). Storia del pensiero economico, 2, 81–91. Pelini, F., & Pavan, I. (2009). La doppia epurazione. L’Università di Pisa e le leggi razziali tra guerra e dopoguerra. Bologna: Il Mulino. Pomante, L. (2018). Giuseppe Bottai e il rinnovamento fascista dell’Università Italiana (1936–1942). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Ricuperati, G. (1994). Per una storia dell’università italiana da Gentile a Bottai: appunti e discussioni. In I. Porciani (Ed.), L’Università tra Otto e Novecento (pp. 311–378). Napoli: Jovene. Ritrovato, E. (2013). Tra la Scuola Superiore di Commercio e la Facoltà di Economia: precedenti storici e sviluppi fino agli anni ’70 del Novecento. Annali di storia delle università italiane, 17, 229–240. Romani, M. A. (1977). Bocconi über Alles. L’organizzazione della didattica e della ricerca (1914–1945). In Storia di una libera università: L’università commerciale Luigi Bocconi dal 1915 al 1945 (Vol. II, pp. 105–247). EGEA: Milano. Santarelli, E. (1991). De Vecchi, Cesare Maria. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Vol. 39). Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. Sapelli, G. (1981). Gli “organizzatori della produzione” tra struttura d’impresa e modelli culturali. In C. Vivanti (Ed.), Intellettuali e potere. Storia d’Italia, Annali (Vol. IV, 591–696). Torino: Einaudi. Strangio, D. (2006). Dal Regio Istituto di Studi Commerciali Coloniali e Attuariali di Roma alla Facoltà di Economia e Commercio. In R. Cagiano de Azevedo (Ed.), La Facoltà di Economia. Cento anni di storia (1906–2006) (pp. 17–80). Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore. Università degli studi di Firenze (Ed.). (1983). Keynes in Italia. Studi e informazioni: rivista trimestrale della Banca Toscana. (Special issue), 7.

The Persistence of Tradition: The Economists …

87

Tagliaferri, A. (1971). Profilo storico di Ca’ Foscari (1868–69/1968–69). Bollettino di Ca’ Foscari (special issue). Venezia: Tipografia commerciale. Tagliaferri, A. (1974). Per una storia della cultura e dell’insegnamento superiore a Trieste. Origini ed evoluzione degli studi economici. Trieste: Del Bianco. Travagliante, P. (2015). L’insegnamento degli studi economici nell’Università di Catania tra le due guerre. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), La cultura economica tra le due guerre (pp. 270–297). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Zingali, G. (1933). Liberalismo e fascismo nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia. Milano: Treves.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced Corporative Studies Fabrizio Bientinesi and Marco Cini

1

Some Introductory Remarks

The birth of political science faculties is closely connected with the formation of the new centralised Italian State in 1861. Subsequent to the birth of the new united State, there was a profusion of endeavours to create institutes and schools separated from the faculty of law within the university system itself, or degree courses within the law faculties, for the formation and preparation of staff to work in the public administration and diplomatic service (D’Addio 2003; Lanchester 2011). This essay is the outcome of a shared research. However, §1–3 should be attributed to Marco Cini and §4 to Fabrizio Bientinesi

F. Bientinesi (B) · M. Cini University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Cini e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_4

89

90

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

As early as 1862, the faculty of law in Palermo launched a degree course in political-administrative sciences. In 1875, the “Cesare Alfieri” School of Social Sciences was founded in Florence; three years later, in Rome, an Economic-administrative School was instituted as an annex to the Faculty of Law headed by Angelo Messedaglia,1 which remained active until 1901. In 1890, an Institute for Education in Juridical and Social Sciences was established at Pavia, again associated with the faculty of law. In these circumstances, the division between politics (administration) and law (justice) found expression in two distinct faculties, foreshadowing a clear-cut separation between the traditional faculty of law and the new university institution explicitly dedicated to political-administrative studies. Implementation of this project, however, came up against the fierce opposition of the academics in the field of jurisprudence, clinging to a formalised and conservative conception of law that prevented educational and training institutes at university level alternative to the law faculties from developing their potential. The long debate on the expediency of establishing such institutions culminated in the fascist period (1922–1943) with the inauguration of a number of schools of political and social science which the regime tasked to train the administrative personnel of the fascist state and forge the country’s new ruling class (Mangoni 1994). At the time when Mussolini’s regime finally collapsed, five state faculties were active—Rome, Pavia, Perugia, Padua and Florence—together with a “free” faculty, instituted at the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. In the meanwhile, as from the mid-1920s political science courses were being set up at the faculties of law in Palermo, Genoa, Bari, Naples, Pisa, Turin, Messina, Cagliari, Catania, Trieste and Siena.2

1 Messedaglia is rightly considered the forerunner of the faculty of political sciences in Italy. In 1858,

he was appointed professor of Political Economy and Statistics at the University of Padua. In 1870, he was called by the University of Rome to teach Political Economy and Statistics, although he kept teaching in Padua until 1877. 2 Archivio Centrale dello Stato (ACS), Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami, busta 182, fasc. 426. See also Ministero dell’Educazione Nazionale, Direzione generale dell’ordine universitario. 1942. Università e Istituti universitari, anno accademico 1941–42-XX. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

91

What finally opened the way to the institution of these faculties was the higher education reform launched by the Ministry of Education Giovanni Gentile in 1923—Royal decree n. 2102 of 30 September 1923, “Regulation of Higher Education”—which granted universities a significant degree of autonomy in creating alongside the traditional faculties new schools characterised by a marked leaning to professional training (Ricuperati 1994). There were many reasons that motivated the various universities to institute this new type of formation and preparation institution. A decisive role was played by exponents of the nationalist movement in the foundation of the first schools of political science, like those in Rome and Padua, both instituted in 1924, including Alberto De’ Stefani3 for Rome and Alfredo Rocco4 for Padua, both, moreover, in the very same years involved in the reorganisation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The reorganisation stemmed from the reform of the bureaucracy launched by De’ Stefani between 1924 and 1925 with the overhaul of some major ministries, and by Rocco, with the removal from service of officials hostile to the fascist regime. Nevertheless, the reasons we find lying beside the decision to found schools and faculties of political sciences do not always appear to have depended upon a particular plan of the fascist government. Emblematic here are the cases of the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart and the School of Political Sciences of Pavia. In the former case, the Faculty of Social Sciences founded in 1921, at the same time as the university itself was created, answered to the need felt in the Catholic world for critical discussion of the dominant epistemological theories, above all in the field of economics, with renewed opposition to liberal and Marxist doctrines. In the latter case, by contrast, the Faculty of Political Sciences appears to have been instituted in response to the need to extend the range covered 3 Alberto De’ Stefani, Finance Minister in the first Mussolini government from 1922 to 1925, began

his university career at the University of Venice, where he taught Political Economy from 1918. In April 1921, he became a full professor of Political Economy. He later taught in Padua and Ferrara, before moving to the University of Rome in 1925 where he taught Economic and Financial Policy. 4 Alfredo Rocco, leading exponent and ideologist of the Italian nationalist movement, taught Commercial law at the universities of Urbino and Macerata, Civil procedural law in the universities of Parma and Palermo, Commercial law in Padua. Finally, he taught Labour law and Commercial law at the University of Rome, of which he was rector from 1932 to 1935. From 1925 to 1932, he was Minister of Justice.

92

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

by the university in order to stand up to the competition of the newly instituted University of Milan (Bolech Cecchi 2003). The considerable differences observed in their organisation and the great variety of disciplines taught are probably due precisely to the manifold objectives that lay behind the creation of these new faculties. So much is also evident in the disciplines of an economic nature, introduction of which in some cases complies with the particular economic and productive issues of the area and thus with a pronounced leaning towards the applied science. Such is the case of the Padua faculty, where the orientation is particularly visible, although it is also encountered in other cases. As we will see, the university reform introduced by De Vecchi in 1935 would put an end to this pluralism, producing both standardisation in the teaching of economics and a general downsizing. It is, however, worth stressing that, subsequent to the introduction of the schools—and then faculties—of political sciences and degree courses, the teaching of economics in Italian universities as a whole saw appreciable extension, not only through the proliferation of faculties and of the degree courses they provided for, but also for another reason. In fact, enrolment in the faculties of political sciences was also opened up to students who had graduated from licei scientifici [scientific high schools], while the law faculties, in which economic disciplines were also taught, were open only to graduates from licei classici [classical high schools] diploma. Despite the efforts of the fascist regime to set the new faculties on a firm footing, as early as the 1920s a great many criticalities arose which thwarted the growth considerably. One of the biggest problems lay in the lasting shortage of full professors, most of the teaching staff having been taken over from the law faculties or accounted for with associate professors and lecturers. In fact, it is worth noting that in the academic years 1926– 1927, the full professors in the faculties and schools of political sciences numbered 17, while the associate professors came to 39; in the academic year 1931–1932, the full professors numbered only 15 as against 43 associate professors (Istat 1936). This situation is reflected in all evidence in the case of economics teaching although, it has been observed, it is precisely in these disciplines that the aim of forcing teaching into the fascist mould appears particularly evident. In fact, it was in the economic sciences that emerged more markedly than in the other disciplines “the ambition

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

93

(and evolution) to radically ‘renew’ its models, reversing the process of pulverisation of the political-social and juridical sciences that had come under way as early as the last decades of the 19th century” (Colombo and Ornaghi 1987, 334).5 However, the greatest contradiction lay in the possibility, provided for in all the regulations, to admit to the fourth and last year of the degree course graduates in law who, with a few exams, would be able to obtain a second degree. While this measure boosted enrolments, it severely distorted the cultural profile of the graduates in political sciences and of the faculties themselves, which had been created with the specific aim of turning out professional figures endowed with “original” administrative competencies, quite distinct from the legal training acquired in the law faculties. Finally, another criticality lay—at least up to 1935—in the generally unsystematic regulation of the faculties and excessive variety of fields of study. The barely concealed opposition of the law faculties, resentful of the pressing competition represented by the new faculties, thus led to debate, as from 1932, on the utility and status of the university regulation; indeed, in the chamber of deputies there was a call for it to be suppressed (Cherubini 2010, 53–56).6 Although the proposal was rejected, there emerged the numerous limits of the degree in political sciences, above all with regard to the failure to clearly define the professional paths it should lead to, and not even the admission to all the competitive examinations announced by the public administration, imposed by Mussolini in 1933, sufficed to change the picture that had crystallised in the meantime. The legislative measures of the 1930s remodelling the Italian university system did not contribute to more coherent definition of the new faculties and indeed in some respects had negative repercussions on their particular identities. With the consolidated text of the Royal decree n. 1592 of 31 August 1933, most of the higher technical and professional schools and institutes were upgraded to the level of faculties. The organisation of higher education in four university domains was abandoned with the creation of 11 faculties, to which were subsequently added the faculties of education. 5 With

regard to economic studies in the universities of Naples, Bari, Palermo, Catania, Messina, and Cagliari during the fascist period, see Barucci et al. (2015, 223–323). 6 Coming out in support of the new faculties were, among others, Sergio Panunzio (1932), Arnaldo De Valles (1933), and Roberto Michels (1933).

94

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

Against this background, the institution of the faculties of economics and business in 1935, the introduction of which was implicitly associated with the launch of 22 economic corporations a year before, meant the appearance of an undesirable competitor on the scene for the faculties of political sciences, since in many respects the professional profile of their graduates matched that of the graduates in economic sciences. Not by chance, but precisely to limit the invasiveness of the faculties of economics and business, the faculties of political sciences were authorised to award degrees in these disciplines. The process of centralisation of the university system was completed by the Minister De Vecchi with the Royal decree n. 1071 of 20 June 1935 and the Royal decree n. 2044 of 28 November 1935. Apart from attributing to the Minister all decisions on the fundamental and complementary studies for the individual degrees, the assignment of posts and the transfer of teaching staff, as well as drawing a clear-cut distinction between fundamental and complementary subjects for each degree, the reform established a single system for the political science faculties with 15 fundamental and four complementary teachings, as well as two foreign languages. With regard to studies in the field of economics, the only fundamental ones were Corporative Political Economy—replacing the traditional Political Economy—and Economic and Financial Policy, while the complementary studies included History of Economic Doctrines and Colonial Economy. This new organisation reaffirmed the multidisciplinary approach in political-social studies but reduced studies in the field of economics in comparison with the relatively numerous related subjects that had characterised the period before the reform. Finally, with the Royal decree n. 882 of 7 May 1936, the typology of degrees granted by the various faculties was defined: while the faculty of law could award degrees in law, political sciences and the statistics diploma, the faculty of political sciences could award, apart from the homonymous degree, the degree in economics and business mentioned above. However, the new arrangement contributed to yet further distorting the original objective assigned to the faculty of political sciences, namely training of highly specialised personnel for executive roles in the public administration, union organisations and the consulates and embassies.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

2

95

The Faculties of Political Sciences

The Faculty of Political Sciences in Pavia was the first to be instituted together with that of Rome. As we have seen, it was brought in, on the initiative of Arrigo Solmi, Dean of the University, and Pietro Vaccari (who was to become the first head of the faculty) to address the need to stand up to the competition of the newly instituted University of Milan. 31 January 1924 saw the inauguration of the Higher School of Political Sciences, although it had no autonomy in teaching and management and was, indeed, immediately transformed into a degree course in the Faculty of Law. The subjects qualifying it with a specific economic orientation included International Economic Policy, Emigration and the International Labour System, and Political and Economic Geography (Tesoro 1997, 202). Following on the political “crisis” of 1925,7 and thanks to the explicit support of Mussolini, the Council of Ministers approved the institution of a faculty in its own right (7 January 1926), separate and autonomous from the Faculty of Law, which the heads of the fascist government deemed not sufficiently aligned with the regime. The new faculty embraced three institutes, one of which was the Institute of Economic Policy. The faculty had only two full professors and eight associate professors. In its selection of teaching staff, the faculty showed a peculiar tendency; in fact, on completing their studies students were co-opted into teaching roles. For example, Eraldo Fossati, who graduated in 1926, was subsequently appointed to teach Banking Legislation and Economics, while on graduating in 1929 Raffaele Maggi was appointed to teach Economic and Financial Policy as from the academic year 1933–1934. Subsequent to the introduction of the new University Regulation (Royal decree 27 October 1932, n. 2079), the subject of Corporative Economics was added, assigned

7The crisis, as known, began after the assassination of the socialist deputy Giacomo Matteotti. With the enactment of the so-called fascist laws in 1925–1926, the last guarantees of the liberal state were erased and the fascist regime was consolidated.

96

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

to Carlo Enrico Ferri.8 The faculty’s scientific activities found effective display in the journal Annali di Scienze Politiche, published as from 1928; it was organised in three sections—politics, economics and history—reflecting the researches carried out in the three institutes forming the faculty (Bolech Cecchi 1997, 245–248). Despite the faculty’s increasing prestige, the number of students enrolled remained very limited—fewer than twenty a year, to peak at 45 only in 1940–1941—although the overall number of enrolments grew progressively from 18 in the year, the faculty was instituted to 178 in 1940–1941 (Ge Rondi 1997, 211–216). In March 1924, the University of Rome in turn created its own School of Political Sciences (Royal decree law 27 March 1924, n. 527). In the original project, the school was to be an elite institution for the training of officials who would be working in the field of public administration, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Colonies. However, the new school—which awarded two degrees, one in Political and Administrative Sciences and the other in Economic and Financial Sciences—took shape within the Faculty of Law, from which it took a significant percentage of its teaching staff, covering political economy (assigned to Umberto Ricci, who was, however, soon dismissed on account of his critical attitude towards fascism)9 and Public Finance (Antonio De Viti de Marco).10 The project as a whole was completed in 1925 with the transformation of the school into Faculty of Political Sciences (Royal decree law 4 September 1925, n. 1604), an autonomous university institution whose degrees were declared equivalent to those of the Faculty of Law (except for competitive examinations in the magistrature). The number of full professors rose from three to seven, which marked it out from the future faculties 8 After

being an executive officer of the League of Nations (1925–1926) and of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ferri became a full professor of Corporative Economics at the University of Padua in 1932, where he also taught History of Economic Doctrines and Economic and Financial Policy. 9 Umberto Ricci was professor of Statistics at the Universities of Parma and Pisa. He also taught Economics in the universities of Macerata and Rome. His studies were mainly concerned with agricultural economics and economic theory. In 1928, he was dismissed from teaching, having written an article critical of the economic policy of the fascist government. He was therefore forced to move to the universities of Istanbul and Cairo. 10 Antonio De Viti de Marco became professor of Science of Public Finance at the Faculty of Law of the University of Rome in 1887–1888, after having taught in the universities of Camerino, Macerata and Pavia. In 1898, he became full professor in the same discipline.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

97

of political sciences, destined to have very limited numbers of full professors. The faculty encompassed three institutes: the Institute of Financial Legislation and Policy, the Institute of Economic Policy and Economic Statistics and, finally, the Institute of Public Law and Social Legislation. Among the most sweeping changes was the transformation of study in political economy into theoretical economics, assigned to Luigi Amoroso and made independent of the Faculty of Law. Some studies in the field of economics previously included in the school, such as Science of Public Finance, Applied Economics and Banking Science, were abolished while others were brought in as fundamental disciplines, including Financial Policy and Legislation, assigned to Alberto De’ Stefani—who was the first head of the faculty—and Economic Policy and Statistics, assigned to Corrado Gini,11 while Economic History was included among the complementary studies (Caravale 1995, 21). In 1926, subsequent to the reform of the Statute of the University of Rome, the faculty structure was again modified. To begin with, the distinction between fundamental and complementary studies was abolished, while the number of subjects coming within the sphere of the faculty was raised to 28, although only 18 were effectively brought underway (including History of Economic Doctrines, assigned to Renato Spaventa, Banking Science, assigned to Francesco Spinedi, and Tourism Economics, which Angelo Mariotti was in charge of ). In 1929, Economic and Financial Policy was suppressed while 1931 saw the introduction of Agrarian Economics and Legislation, initially assigned to Giovanni Carrara and subsequently, as from 1934, to Giacomo Acerbo. The above-mentioned De Vecchi reform of 1935 laid down for the faculty a single order of studies structured around 15 fundamental and seven complementary disciplines. A new entry among the latter was Colonial Economics, assigned to Francesco Spinedi. December 1924 saw the birth of the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Padua, which was transformed into the Faculty of Political Sciences in 1933 when the university schools—that were 11 In

1909, Gini obtained the chair of Statistics in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cagliari and from 1913 at the University of Padua, where he also taught Political Economy, Demography and Economic Statistics; in 1923, he was called to hold the chair of Statistics at the University of Rome. Thanks to his commitment, the Faculty of Statistical Sciences was founded in Rome in 1936.

98

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

under the faculty umbrella—were transformed into faculties throughout the entire Kingdom of Italy. In its first year of life, the regulation of studies provided for two degree courses, one in political sciences and the other in social sciences. The “special” studies that differentiated this degree from the law degree concerned manifold disciplines ranging from national public law to matters of international law and politics. As for economics, an interest in addressing issues relevant to land management itself emerges clearly from the Statute. Significantly, the economic aspects were mainly oriented towards application, from agrarian credit in the Venetian provinces and land reclamation and partition of the rural areas to the configuration of rural properties and the organisation of the agrarian cooperatives (Simone 2015, 28). In the first two years of the course in political sciences the study of Political Economy and Public Finance was compulsory, while the optional studies included Economic Statistics. Optional in the second two-year period were Economic Policy, Agrarian Economics and Legislation, Banking Economics and Legislation, and Economics and Legislation of Means of Communication and Transport. Giulio Alessio (who taught Political Economy and Economic Policy from 1924–1925 to 1927–1928)12 and Marco Fanno, in charge of a great many fields of study, were by far the professors who enjoyed the most prestige.13 In 1928, Aldo Crosara14 arrived at the school and was placed in charge of Economic Policy in the place of Giulio Alessio, who left having reached the age limit.

12 It is perhaps worth remembering that Alessio had been Minister of Industry and Trade in the Giolitti government (1920–1921) and Minister of Justice in the Facta government (1922). 13 Marco Fanno taught Political Economy in the Genoa Higher School of Commerce and in the universities of Sassari, Cagliari, Messina and Parma. From 1920 to 1939, he taught in Padua. He was reinstated at the University of Padua in 1945. Among other subjects, Fanno was in charge of teaching Science of Public Finance and Financial Law (from 1924–1925 to 1926–1927), Science of Public Finance (dal 1927–1928 al 1934–1935), Banking Economics and Legislation (from 1924–1925 to 1934–1935), Political Economy (from 1928–1929 to 1933–1934), General and Corporative Economics (1934–1935), and Political and Corporative Economics and Colonial Economics (from 1935–1936 to 1937–1938). 14 Aldo Crosara started to teach Political Economy at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Later he taught Economic Politics at the University of Padua and, in 1934, became a professor of History of Economic Doctrines at the University of Perugia, where he also taught Political Economy.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

99

As we have seen, in 1933 the school was converted into a faculty. One of the major innovations associated with this transformation was the introduction of study of General and Corporative Economic Policy, which, however, came to an end when Crosara was transferred to the Faculty of Political Sciences in Perugia. In the courses held in Padua, these years were to see corporative studies given ample space thanks also to the presence of Crosara. The faculty suffered a severe blow when Marco Fanno was expelled as a Jew in 1938: his role went to Francesco Antonio Répaci, who had hitherto been teaching at the University of Modena. In the same period, Ezio Vanoni was appointed to teach Economic and Financial Policy (from 1937–1938 to 1941–1942). However, Padua, too, lacked full professors and had to resort to taking over and associated professors. The numbers of students enrolled in the faculty grew steadily: the first enrolments in the academic year 1924–1925 numbered 42 for political sciences and 13 for social sciences out of a total of 2490 enrolled in the university (almost all were already law graduates); in the academic year 1938–1939, 175 students were enrolled and 258 in 1941 (Simone 2015, 31, 126, 131). The “Fascist” Faculty of Political Sciences in Perugia—instituted with the Royal decree 23 October 1927 and officially inaugurated in the June of the following year—probably represented one of the most radical ventures undertaken by the fascist regime in the university world of the 1920s. The new faculty, in fact, was of a manifestly militant nature asserted with its very name, stressing the “fascist” identity with which the promoters meant to make the break with the previous liberal academic tradition perfectly clear (Treggiari 2014, 147–155). The faculty professors came almost exclusively from a background of revolutionary syndicalism or nationalist movements and had been taken on with the explicit approval of Mussolini himself. The founder and first head of the faculty was Sergio Panunzio, who subsequently moved to Rome in 1927 to teach General Doctrine of the State. Panunzio gathered a group of teachers around the new institution—from Paolo Orano and Oddone Fantini to Maurizio Maraviglia—opening the way for a veritable political workshop in concord with the most orthodox sectors of the fascist regime.

100

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

The faculty covered four areas of specialisation: (1) politicaladministrative; (2) political-union-corporative (the only one to boast high number of students); (3) political-consular-diplomatic; and (4) politicaljournalistic (Giuntella 1978). In this case, and unlike the other faculties we have been considering, subjects of an economic nature had relatively little weight. Economic Policy was assigned to Oddone Fantini, while Roberto Michels, called to the Faculty of Law that year as full professor of Political Economy, was entrusted with teaching History of Economic Doctrines (Giuntella 1992) until 1934, when he was replaced by Aldo Crosara, who was appointed to teach Corporative Political Economy in 1940. Despite the structural reforms introduced by Paolo Orano—who succeeded Panunzio at the head of the faculty in 1933—thanks to which the law faculty was able to enjoy a greater degree of independence (in fact, appointments in the disciplines taken over from the law faculty were quashed) and increase the number of full professors (from three to seven), there was a steady drop in the number of students enrolled, from the 207 of 1928–1929 to the 30 of 1938–1939, to the extent that the idea was raised of stemming the haemorrhage by instituting a degree course in economics and business alongside the course in political sciences. This turned out to be the right choice, for enrolments began to rise again, touching on 180 (Giuntella 1978, 312–313), although the introduction of the new degree course contributed to distorting the cultural profile of the faculty. Indeed, this negative outcome was openly censured in the conference on the faculties of political sciences which was held in Florence in 1942. We shall be returning to this conference in the next section. At the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart—founded by Padre Agostino Gemelli in 1921—the School of Political, Economic and Social Sciences was inaugurated in 1926, although a degree course in political sciences had been put in place when the university was founded in the Faculty of Social Sciences, which was absorbed into the new Faculty of Law in 1924–1925. In 1926, the degree course was removed from the law faculty and transformed into an autonomous school which awarded two degrees, one in Political Sciences and the other in Economic and Social Sciences. The University Statute, approved with the Royal decree 25 November 1926 n. 2413, provided for a wide range of studies in the field of economics including Political Economy, Public Finance, some six-month

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

101

courses in pure and applied Political Economy, Agrarian Economics and Labour Economics, six-month courses in History of Economic Doctrines, History of Economic Facts, State Accounting, Methodological Statistics and Demography (Colombo and Ornaghi 1987, 328–329). What is immediately striking in this brief overview is just how large economic disciplines loomed in the programme of studies at the Catholic University. When the school was being launched, the dominant figures were Antonio Boggiano Pico—associated with the Pisan school of Giuseppe Toniolo, under whom he had studied—Angelo Mauri—who was also director of the Institute of Economic Studies from 1924 to 1933 (Ornaghi 1988)—and Federico Marconcini. In the first four years of the life of the School of Political Sciences, economic studies were organised around Institutions of Political Economy, a course introducing study of the macro- and microeconomics, as well as Political Economy I and II (in the first course, study focused on Marshall’s analysis of price formation, while monetary and credit matters were studied in depth in the second) and History of Economic Doctrines (Duchini 1998). In the second half of the 1920s, due to Mauri’s recurrent absences for extra-academic institutional duties, three new professors came in succession: Giuseppe Prato, who held the post for only a year, Carlo Emilio Ferri—probably the closest to the corporativist theories of the fascist regime—and Mario Marsili Libelli who, after having taught Political Economy and Economic Policy, was to teach Economic History as from 1930 to 1931. In the 1930s, a great many professors from other universities responded to Padre Agostino Gemelli’s invitation and, albeit for short periods, followed one another in the chairs of Political Economy.15 They came from different backgrounds, not necessarily corresponding to the doctrinal

15 Political Economy was assigned to Attilio Garino-Canina (from 1930 to 1932) and Ugo Giuseppe

Papi (from 1932 to 1935). Science of Finance was assigned to Ernesto D’Albergo from 1930 to 1932 and Pietro Bodda from 1937 to 1940. Mario Alberti was appointed to the chair of Economic Policy from 1936 to 1939.

102

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

Catholic approach, but coherence in the line of economic studies pursued in the school was ensured by Francesco Vito16 (Gualerni 2003), who is also to be credited for efforts made in this decade to coordinate the school’s lines in economic studies with the fascist corporative doctrine on autonomous epistemological bases (Casadei 1994, 95–97). With this approach, moreover, the Catholic economic culture characterising the school endorsed the idea, and indeed the aim, of identifying a “directing principle” in the dynamics of the market economy. This was an issue that was closely bound up with analysis of the interrelations between ethics and economics, which had long been an object of investigation for the Catholic economists. In 1932–1933, the School of Political Sciences was transformed into Faculty of Political, Economic and Social Sciences, also qualified to award degrees in economics and business. 1936–1937 saw another name change: the faculty became Faculty of Political Sciences covering two areas of study, namely Political Sciences and Economics and Business. The last faculty to be instituted was the “Cesare Alfieri” in Florence. In 1923, the Gentile reform had provided for transformation of the Royal Institute of Higher Education of Florence into a proper university. In this context, the “Cesare Alfieri” Institute of Social Sciences retained its autonomy but was transformed into higher institute and obliged to adopt a new statute, approved with the Royal decree of 18 April 1925, which instituted the “Cesare Alfieri” as open university qualified to award degrees in social, political and economic sciences. With this reform, the law disciplines— taken over entirely from the Faculty of Law—loomed considerably larger, 14 of the 21 obligatory fields of study being within the area of law. There was only one economics discipline (Lotti 1984, 528–529), which was a major factor in changing the institute’s scientific and didactic profile. In 1928, the institute’s statute came in for further reform (Royal decree of 1 November 1928, n. 3499), subsequent to a prolonged exchange of ideas with the University of Florence, which intended to transform it into a subdivision of the Faculty of Law in the form of a School of Corporative Sciences. After a two-year period in common, the new order provided 16 Vito was an agrégé as from 1932; as from 1934, he was appointed to Political Economy and from 1942 to Economic Policy. In 1934–1935, he was appointed director of the Institute of Economic Sciences of the Catholic University.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

103

for the institution of three disciplines, reviving the traditional pattern of studies at the “Cesare Alfieri”: Diplomatic-Consular, AdministrativeUnion and Colonial. In general, the history and geography disciplines were enhanced, and Public Finance was brought back (Rogari 2004). Colonial Economics was assigned to Mario Bardini and Corporative Political Economy to Giovanni Lorenzoni (Gioia and Spalletti 2005).17 The Royal decree of 8 July 1938, n. 1855, finally transformed the institute into Faculty of Political Sciences, but teaching of law and economics continued to be taken over from the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Economics and Business, instituted in 1936. With the transformation of the “Cesare Alfieri” into faculty, the process leading to foundation of the faculties of political sciences was completed. They numbered six, the number that was to remain until the end of the parabola of the fascist regime. At the same time, the last two degree courses in political sciences were instituted at the faculties of law in Siena and Trieste. As we have seen, the degree courses were launched in the second half of the 1920s. In Palermo, the degree course in economic, social and political sciences was inaugurated in 1926–1927, as an adjunct to the Faculty of Law,18 while at the University of Bari, the economic and political sciences section (in 1939 transformed into a degree course in political sciences) was inaugurated in the academic year 1928–1929, again within the Faculty of Law, with the aim of further study and research into corporative and union doctrines, although the orientation of the degree course they veered fairly rapidly towards history–geography studies for “the training of a colonial bureaucracy serving for the ends of political, and no longer merely mercantile, expansion in the cities and regions of the Balkans and in the eastern Mediterranean basin” (Bianchi 2013, 207–228). In Genoa, the degree course in political, economic and social sciences was effectively launched in 1929 thanks to the initiative of Antonio Falchi, head of the Faculty of Law from 1928 to 1935, although the University

17 Lorenzoni

was an agrarian economist from Trent: in 1924, he had moved to Florence, where he took over the chair of Political Economy in the Faculty of Law. 18 Mentioned in Pelleriti (2017), and in Li Donni and Travagliante (2016).

104

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

Statute had as from 1926 authorised the faculty to award two degrees, in law and in political, economic and social sciences (Varnier 2013). In 1932, the Law Faculty of the University of Pisa also launched a course of political-corporative sciences in the course of complex reorganisation of the School of Political-Corporative Sciences founded by the Minister of Corporations Giuseppe Bottai in 1928 (Amore Bianco 2012, 166–175). In Messina, a degree course in political sciences was inaugurated in 1934– 1935 within the Faculty of Law. The disciplines in the field of economics provided for in article 14 of the statute were General and Corporative Political Economy, Public Finance, Statistics, Financial Policy and Legislation (assigned to Paolo Ricca Salerno), Corporative Economic Policy (assigned to Bruno Foà) and History of Political Doctrines (Cappuccio 2009, 90–95). In 1935–1936, the Turin Faculty of Law also launched a degree course in political sciences, although the range of economics studies was more limited compared with the course in Messina (the fundamental subjects were Corporative Political Economy, Economic and Financial Policy and Political and Economic Geography, all drawn from the Faculty of Law).19 In the same year, a similar course was introduced in the Faculty of Law in Cagliari: Political Economy was assigned to Giovanni Cao di S. Marco, a leading exponent of the Sardinian independence movement, member of Parliament, and in 1935–1936 Dean of the University, while History of Institutions and Economic Doctrines was assigned to Filippo Carli. As we have seen, the last two courses to be launched were in Siena and Trieste. The introduction of the course at the University of Siena seems basically to have been intended by the university administration to boost the supply of education and training so as not to be squeezed between the two major universities in the region, Pisa and Florence (Cherubini 2010, 74–88). The story of the foundation of the degree course at the University of Trieste is rather more complicated. The university had been founded in 1924 thanks to the support of local financial and insurance institutions. The connection between these institutions and the university

19 Annuario

della R. Università di Torino (1935–36, 156–157).

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

105

was represented by the Circle of Economic Studies headed by the statistician Livio Livi, who taught at the same university.20 Expansion of the research carried out by the Circle of Economic Studies over the geopolitical area of the Danube and Balkans—an area which the fascist regime deemed fundamental—was a key factor in the decision, formalised on 15 May 1938, to endow the university with a Faculty of Law with associated degree course in political sciences, the aim being to multiply scientific and cultural activities favouring irredentism and expansion in the Balkan region.21 The economics studies introduced in the course of political sciences were the same as those provided for by the National Regulations, namely Corporative Political Economy in the first year and Economic and Financial Policy in the second year, both assigned to Lionello Rossi.22

3

From Crisis to Suspension of the Faculties of Political Sciences

In 1938, when the last degree courses in political sciences were being instituted, all too evident were both the impasse faced by these institutions and the incapacity of the academic system to eliminate the incongruities that had hampered development. If, on the one hand, the attempt to transform these faculties into a special forum for the fascist regime can be said substantially to have failed, no less evident were the difficulties in setting graduates on their professional paths, for not only did they have to reckon with the competition of the law graduates but after the institution of degrees in economics and business they also came up against the relentless pressure exerted by the graduates in these disciplines. The figures on enrolments and graduates, although steadily increasing, evidence the situation 20The Circle issued a journal, Economia, founded in 1923, bringing together studies and analyses of

the Friuli–Venezia Giulia economy. The Institute of Political Economy, headed by G. Del Vecchio (autonomous institute annexed to the university), was associated with the Circle of Economic Studies (Vinci 1987). 21 Gli Annali della Università d’Italia (1939, 133, 253). 22 In the Corporative Political Economy course, Rossi concentrated on pure economics, the economic cycle and general economic equilibrium; only the last part of the course was dedicated to Corporative Economics and the State. The course of Economic and Financial Policy also found room for study of the Labour Charter.

106

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

all too clearly: in 1938–1939, the students enrolled in the faculties and degree courses in political sciences numbered just 1720, amounting to 2.2% of the total of students enrolled in Italian universities (77,429). In the same year, the students enrolled in the faculties of law came to 12,944 (16.7% of the total) and economics and business 12,272 (15.8%). The graduates numbered 290, corresponding to 2.4% of the total graduates (12,044), as compared with the graduates in law 2634 (21.9% of the total), and in economics and business 1518 (12.6%) (Scaramozzino 1968, 12). Subsequent to Italy’s entry into the war, enrolments increased, generally to avoid or put off enlistment, which also raised the number of students lagging behind, with the result that in the academic year 1942–1943, the total enrolled in political sciences was around 4000 students out of a total of 160,000 enrolled in Italian universities (Cherubini 2010, 90). To take just one example, in 1941–1942 enrolments in the Faculty of Political Sciences in the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart reached 1039 (as against 307 enrolled in law), while the following year enrolments numbered 1516.23 Clearly, these are anomalous figures, but they reflected a momentary situation closely connected with the particular historical circumstances (see Table 1). In any case, the most resounding failure was to be seen at a strictly political level: no graduates in political sciences were to be seen among the members of the Board of Directors of the National Fascist Party, and of the federal secretaries of the party only five held degrees in this discipline. Going on to ascertain the proportion of graduates from this faculty in the Chamber of Fasci and Corporations from 1939 to 1943, we find only 14 members, corresponding to 2.4% of the components of the assembly, holding a degree in political sciences (Gentile 2003, 74). Moreover, the decision taken by the National Fascist Party in 1939 to establish a Political Study Centre to groom the Fascist Party officials constituted further evidence of shortcomings in the effective functioning of the faculties of political sciences. The reforms brought in by Bottai between 1938 and the following year, with redefinition of the university didactic structure and launch of the Education Charter, offered the opportunity to resume debate on the 23 Data

drawn from the Annuario Statistico Italiano (1942, 154; 1943, 168).

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

107

Table 1 Enrolments and graduates in the Faculties of Political Sciences (1925–1926 to 1942–1943) Academic year

Number of enrolments

Number of graduates

1925/1926 1926/1927 1927/1928 1928/1929 1929/1930 1930/1931 1931/1932a 1932/1933 1933/1934 1934/1935 1935/1936 1936/1937 1937/1938 1938/1939 1939/1940 1940/1941 1941/1942 1942/1943

322 303 386 575 794 693 802 855 862 893 1098 1389 1413 1414 1664 3853 3489 3996

47 48 89 73 129 111 139 266 196 179 223 229 223 217 429 236 194 –

Source Annuario Statistico Italiano, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1927– 1943 a As from this year, students at the “Cesare Alfieri” Institute of Florence are included

identity “crisis” which the faculties of political sciences went through. In particular, the criticalities that had cropped up in the preceding years were discussed in the conference that was held in Florence in April 1942, significantly entitled Function and Structure of the Faculty of Political Sciences, which saw the participation of professors from all the faculties and from some of the degree courses (Pisa, Genoa and Siena). The opinion was generally shared that the failure of the faculties was attributable to losing sight of the original study project, which had been designed to turn out a new elite of public officials. Opening up the faculty to law graduates and other study courses, together with the proliferation of studies that had little to do with the particular objectives of the political studies, largely accounted for the outcome they were now faced with. Among the solutions proposed was the ideal of transforming the faculties of political sciences into faculties of specialised studies for graduates in law and in economy and business or converting them into political training colleges, on the pattern

108

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

of the Collegio Mussolini in Pisa. In particular, all the contributions to the debate concurred on the fact that the degree courses introduced in the faculties of law were to be abolished, the faculties hitherto instituted having sole responsibility for the courses. The irrational organisation of the faculties was also reflected in economics studies, as was observed by Francesco Vito, invited to present a report on these studies. The economist from the Catholic University pointed out that “reduced as they are to an institutional course of economics and a general course of economic policy, they appear insufficient” (Vito 1943, 73). In contrast with the prevalent trend in contemporary debate, he held that the economics taught in the faculties of political sciences had necessarily to have a solid theoretical basis, for “an economic system, living in a ‘political vacuum’ was inconceivable”. In keeping with the approach to economic science pursued at the Catholic University, Vito pointed out that there could be no contraposition between “theoretical economics and political economy. Economics is fundamentally connected with the political vision of society, but if it is to be studied scientifically, then theoretical procedure is to be applied” (Vito 1943, 74). This approach, which justified the survival of the faculties of political sciences alongside the more technical degree courses in economics and business, was in practice to be implemented with study of the political action of the State in the national economy and in relation to the real economic dynamics through study of the state financial activities, the international economic dynamics and the state directives to the economic and “social” public entities. Thus, economics studies were to be organised on the basis of four disciplines: Corporative Economics, Public Finance, Domestic Economic and Social Policy and International Economic Policy. Vito’s analysis showed a number of analogies with an analysis by an economist from a different cultural background, Celestino Arena, presented in the same period in the bimonthly review of higher education— the Annali dell’Università d’Italia—published by the Italian Ministry of Education and edited by Giuseppe Giustini under the close supervision of Bottai. Arena pointed out that economics had not had sufficient room within the law faculties, as indeed was evidenced by the excessive discretion these

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

109

faculties had enjoyed in the choice of full professors “on the basis of extrinsic and all too often arbitrary criteria, the only common factor of which was the equally shared aversion towards the teaching of economic disciplines” (Arena 1942, 302). In order to relaunch economic disciplines in a faculty that continued to have a leading role in the education and training of the ruling class, Arena suggested introducing study of Economic Policy alongside Political Economy and Public Finance, stressing that the first two disciplines should be taught by full professors and not associate professors. The shortcomings marking the law faculties were also all too evident in the faculties of political sciences, where there were “only two courses in the field of economics: general economics (annual) and financial economic policy (annual). Too few, even fewer than the law faculty courses. If we consider the nature and objectives of studies in that faculty, almost solely for the education and training of the political class” (Arena 1942, 302). Thus, there was no choice but to duplicate the teaching of Economic and Financial Policy “to be able, on the one hand, to take study of economic policy further, and, on the other hand, assign to study of financial policy consideration of the general scientific principles of financial activity, also taking the fiscal system into account. […] In my opinion – Arena concluded – the faculty of political sciences, like the law faculty, should have as fundamental studies necessarily covered: political economy, economic policy, and finance (including, at least for some time more, financial law” (Arena 1942, 303). The thinking that went into the Florence conference and the critical analyses that found room in the pages of the Annali dell’Università d’Italia constituted the basis for the deliberations of a committee set up in February 1943 to thrash out a radical reform of the faculties of political sciences. The proposal that eventually emerged contemplated a course of studies organised over five years with three years on common ground and two more specialised. Three possible lines of study were considered: a degree in “pure politics”, corporative union and administrative studies, and diplomaticcolonial studies. Finally, the project met the requirement to suppress degree courses in political sciences attached to the faculties of law (Gentile 2003, 80). As it turned out, the political events that led to the ruinous fall of the regime prevented the committee from coming up with a finalised proposal. Finally, in the months following upon September 1943 the courses hastily

110

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

associated with the fascist regime were suspended, and only at the end of the 1940s was it possible to reopen enrolment to the renewed degree courses in political sciences.

4

A Short Time of Confusion: The Corporative Science Schools

If relations between fascism and universities can be seen in terms of a continuous process of attempts to modify the Gentile Reform (Signori 2007), then the schools of corporative sciences—under the various denominations they took on—represented a significant part of the whole process. The aim was to provide the regime with “schools of advanced education” for students who had already graduated. In a few words, they were to forge the new fascist ruling class. The first and most important example of these schools was created in Pisa in the late 1920s. The deus ex machina behind this choice was Giuseppe Bottai, who saw the Pisan school as nothing short of a personal “construction site” (Amore Bianco 2012). It was precisely thanks to the support of Bottai, at the time Minister of Corporations and subsequently Minister of National Education, that the School of Corporative Studies enjoyed lavish funding, sufficing to create a student reception facility—the already mentioned “Collegio Mussolini”—on a model rarely seen among Italian universities. Equally innovative was the particular attention shown to the managerial aspects of the economy, borne out by the call on a scholar of the calibre of Federico Maria Pacces (Amore Bianco 2012, 167). Moreover, it was precisely thanks to the presence of the school that Pisa maintained its place at the centre of debate on corporativism. Here was founded the journal Archivio di studi corporativi (Corporative studies archive), and an important series was launched with the “Publications of the School of corporative sciences of the Royal University of Pisa”, paying close attention to the international economic situation and developments in theoretical debate beyond Italy’s borders.24 The observations of Widar 24This attention, together with the positions shown by some of the professors, including Ugo Spirito,

brought accusations of “communism” on the Pisan school cf. Amore Bianco (2012, 250).

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

111

Cesarini Sforza, director of the school, contained in an official document, asserting the school’s status as fascist think tank were not entirely unfounded.25 The example set by Pisa was soon followed by other universities, and schools of corporative studies flourished thanks to the initiative of the local bigwigs, as in the case of Ferrara,26 or as demonstration of their commitment to the ideals of the regime, thereby fostering expansion of the university itself, as in the case of Bari.27 The result was that, by 1940, there were advanced corporative study centres in Bari, Bologna, Ferrara, Florence, Milan (comanaged by the state university and the Catholic University), Pisa, Rome and, last to arrive, Trieste. This proliferation had created two sorts of problems, the first lying in coordination between the various schools and the second in coordination with the other projects launched by the fascist regime for the education and training of its ruling class over the years. Emblematic here were relations with the “union schools”, created for the training of the personnel of the fascist unions, by now the only unions after the “Palazzo Vidoni agreements” had eliminated all the other union organisations. On account of the somewhat blurred relations between “union schools” and the university institutions that hosted their courses, in 1935 the then Minister of National Education, Cesare Maria De Vecchi, had found himself having to officially stress that the union schools were totally extraneous to the academic world and, above all, it was impossible to award educational qualifications having legal value.28 The problem grew even worse in the years immediately following, when 25 ACS,

Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 25, Convegni vari, fasc. 125, Relazione di Widar Cesarini Sforza, direttore Scuole di scienze corporative di Pisa sulla trasformazione in centro di perfezionamento, 19 aprile 1937. 26 Decisive in which was the contribution by Italo Balbo, after whom the university was named in 1942, cf. Visconti (1950) and Cazzetta (2004). 27 Bianchi (2013). In fact, Bari decided to name its university after Benito Mussolini. 28 ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Circolare del Ministro dell’Educazione Nazionale su rapporti fra scuole sindacali e università, 3 December 1935. Two years later, endeavouring to enhance the appeal of the union schools, the possibility was considered of granting a reduction in the exams necessary for the law degree for those who had finished the union schools, cf. ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Appunto per il Ministro - Situazione scuole sindacali 18 June 1937.

112

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

Bottai succeeded to De Vecchi’s post. Bottai’s scheme was clear: to shut down the union schools and divert funding from them to the schools of corporative sciences.29 Naturally, the prospect drew an immediate reaction from the Minister of Corporations, Renato Ricci, who was in charge of the union schools.30 There remained the problem of coordination between the various— and internally extremely heterogeneous—schools of corporative sciences. There were no standardised, nor even similar, criteria for admission.31 There were no guidelines for the study plans. In a few words, hitherto every school had been making its own totally independent decisions, resulting in a sharp drop in overall enrolments.32 Overhauling began with the broader reform regarding differentiation between schools of specialisation, designed to lead to career paths, and of advanced education at a more theoretical and academic level (Ministry of National Education, 1937). In the course of this process, there were some who aimed to limit

29 ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Appunto per il Ministro del Sottosegretario di Stato per l’Educazione Nazionale (anno XVIII nota a matita). In the document, we read: “As things stand, therefore, the union schools do not seem to be serving a useful function, and it would therefore be expedient to abandon them to their own fate and foster their extinction so as to channel the funds they might have had towards the schools of advanced corporative sciences, which are the real centres for research and training of technical and executive resources for the corporative and union entities”. 30 ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Lettera del Ministro delle Corporazioni Ricci a Bottai, 12 April 1940. In this letter, Ricci observed that only 10% of those enrolled in the union schools were represented by union officials, which left doubts about the true motives of the 90% of the others enrolled. 31The University of Padua actually asked the Minister of Education to be able to admit foreign students without degrees to boost the number of paying students, cf. ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Relazione del Direttore generale dell’ordine universitario a Bottai, undated. The School of Advanced Education in Corporative Disciplines came under way in Padua only in October 1940, cf. Università degli studi di Padova (1941, 63). 32The number enrolled in “corporative studies” had decreased from 342 in the academic year 1933– 1934 to 281 by 1934–1935 and 222 by 1935–1936. The number of graduates had dropped from 72 to 65, cf. Ministero dell’educazione nazionale (1937, 349).

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

113

competition between the various corporative study schools with drastic reduction of them.33 The situation of corporative studies after the reform is illustrated in Table 2. However, the problem of coordination could not be said to have been settled. It was only in 1940 that Bottai decided to step in to rationalise the lines of study and research in the various centres, to which had been added in the meantime Padua and Trieste. In reality, more than actual rationalisation, the minister’s decisions stopped short at ratifying the existing “division of labour” on the occasion of the conference of 19 September 1940.34 Obviously, the outbreak of war interrupted any other attempt at reorganisation. In a volume published in February 1943 to bring together the “best” of the contributions of the Rome School of Corporative Studies, Bottai wrote that “comprehensive instruction in the field of corporative sciences” (School of Advanced Studies in Corporative Sciences, 1943, 12) was going ahead. Only a few months later, corporative sciences and their schools would be relegated to the research of historians.

33 In

a confidential report, Antonio Navarra asked for the number of high schools of corporative sciences to be limited to three: Rome, Pisa and Naples; cf. ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 25, Convegni vari, fasc. 125, Elenco nuove proposte relative a scuole di perfezionamento, undated, but registered on 24 February 1937. The plan to create a centre of corporative studies in Naples was subsequently withdrawn, cf. ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 25, Convegni vari, fasc. 125, Adunanza del Consiglio Superiore dell’Educazione Nazionale, 25 June 1937. 34 A document for restricted circulation listed the following specialisations: “Pisa: law-political studies with abstract tendencies”; Bari: social welfare; Bologna: business and agrarian studies; Florence: studies in structure and techniques of union organisation; scientific organisation of labour; statistics, with particular attention to the world of business; Milan: economic statistics, and union practice; Rome: “has and should preserve a comprehensive nature”; Trieste: insurance; Ferrara: Agrarian and financial statistics”, ACS, Ministero Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione generale dell’Istruzione superiore, Divisione II, Leggi, regolamenti, statuti, esami. Busta 12, Convegni vari, fasc. 86, Nota riservata su indirizzi di specializzazione delle scuole di perfezionamento in scienze corporative, undated.

Source Ministry of National Education, 1937

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan—Advanced School of Economics, Labour Law and Corporative System • Agrarian Economics • Corporative and Labour Economics • Agrarian Law • Labour Law and Corporative System • Demography • Administration Science • Social Medicine or Labour Psychotechnics Royal Higher Institute “Cesare Alfieri”, Florence—School of Advanced CorpoRoyal University of Pisa—School of Advanced Corporative Science Studies rative and Union Studies Applied to Company and Organisation • Corporative and Union Law • Elements of Corporative Law and Social Legislation • General State Doctrine • Notions of Civil, Commercial and Industrial Law • Economic and Labour Legislation • Techniques of Union Organisation and Collective Contracts • Labour Economic Policy • Elements of Corporative Economics and Economic and Financial Policy • Corporative Politics and Economics • Company Economics and Techniques, and Scientific Organisation of • History of Economic Systems Labour • History of Political Doctrines • Company Techniques • Company and Business Statistics Higher Institute of Economics and Commerce, Bologna—School of Advanced Studies in Corporative Disciplines • Corporative Politics and Economics • Corporative System (history, theory, law) • Labour and Welfare Law • Scientific Organisation of Labour • Labour Health • Theory and Practice of Cooperation • Organisation of Credit

Free University of Ferrara—School of Advanced Corporative Studies • Corporative Law • Corporative Economics • Modern History and History of Political Institutions • Labour and Welfare Legislation • Corporative Statistics • History of Economic Systems

Schools of Advanced Corporative Studies and courses in 1937

Royal University of Bari—School of Advanced Corporative Studies • General State Doctrine • Corporative Economic Policy • Labour and Welfare Legislation • Modern History • Political and Economic Geography • Professional and Demographic Statistics • Corporative Financial Systems and State Accounting • History of Agreements Royal University of Milan—Advanced course in corporative and union studies • Corporative and Union Law • Labour Legislation • Economic Statistics • Corporative Economics • Union Practice

Table 2

114 F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

115

References Amore Bianco, F. (2012). Il cantiere di Bottai. La scuola corporativa pisana e la formazione della classe dirigente fascista. Siena: Cantagalli. Annuario della R. Università di Torino 1935–36-XIV e 1936–37-XV. Torino: Stab. Tip. Villarboito. Annuario Statistico Italiano. (1942). Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Annuario Statistico Italiano. (1943). Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Arena, C. (1942). Sull’ordinamento degli studi di economia e finanza. Gli Ai della Università d’Italia, III (4), 301–308. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (Eds.). (2015). La cultura economica tra le due guerre. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Bianchi, O. (2013). Dalla Scuola di studi corporativi alla Facoltà di Scienze politiche. Annali di Storia delle Università italiane, 17, 207–228. Bolech Cecchi, D. (1997). Le riviste della Facoltà (1926–1966). Il Politico, LXII (181), 245–248. Bolech Cecchi, D. (2003). La Facoltà di Scienze politiche dalla costituzione alla riforma (1926–1968). Annali di Storia delle Università italiane, 7, 227–248. Cappuccio, A. (2009). La Facoltà di Giurisprudenza di Messina tra Fascismo e Liberazione (1934–1946). In G. Pace Gravina (Ed.), La Facoltà di giurisprudenza della Regia Università degli studi di Messina (1908–1946) (pp. 77–103). Messina: GBM. Caravale, M. (1995). Per una storia della Facoltà di Scienze politiche in Italia: il caso di Roma. Le Carte e la storia, I (2), 17–28. Casadei, F. (1994). Tra economia politica e corporativismo. Appunti per una storia universitaria delle discipline economiche dal 1923 al 1939. Storia e problemi contemporanei, 13, 79–101. Cazzetta, G. (2004). La Facoltà di Giurisprudenza nella Libera Università di Ferrara (1860–1942). In Per una storia dell’Università di Ferrara (pp. 183– 212). Bologna: Clueb. Cherubini, D. (2010). Le Facoltà di Scienze politiche in Italia. Le origini del Corso di Laurea in Scienze politiche dell’Università di Siena. Rassegna Storica Toscana, LVI (1), 7–121. Colombo, A., & Ornaghi, L. (1987). La facoltà di Scienze politiche di Pavia e della Cattolica: due casi di “autonomia” degli studi. In Cultura e società negli anni del fascismo (pp. 323–360). Milano: Cordani.

116

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

D’Addio, M. (2003). Le origini della Facoltà Romana di Scienze Politiche. In F. Lanchester (Ed.), Passato e presente delle facoltà di scienze politiche (pp. 25–44). Giuffrè: Milano. De Valles, A. (1933). Le Facoltà di Scienze Politiche e le controversie sulla loro autonomia. Annali di Scienze politiche, fasc, 6 (II), 123–132. Duchini, F. (1998). L’economia. In L’Università Cattolica a 75 anni dalla fondazione (pp. 237–277). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Ge Rondi C. (1997). La dinamica degli iscritti a Scienze politiche (1925–1996). Il Politico, LXII (181), 221–224. Gentile, E. (2003). La Facoltà di Scienze politiche nel periodo fascista. In F. Lanchester (Ed.), Passato e presente delle facoltà di scienze politiche (pp. 45– 85). Giuffrè: Milano. Gioia, V., & Spalletti, S. (2005). Etica ed economia: la vita, le opere e il pensiero di Giovanni Lorenzoni. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbetino. Giuntella, M. C. (1978). La Facoltà di Scienze politiche di Perugia e la formazione della classe dirigente fascista. In G. Nenci (Ed.), Politica e società in Italia dal fascismo alla Resistenza. Problemi di storia nazionale e storia umbra (pp. 293– 313). Bologna: Il Mulino. Giuntella, M. C. (1992). Autonomia e nazionalizzazione dell’Università. Il fascismo e l’inquadramento degli Atenei. Roma: Edizioni Studium. Gli Annali della Università d’Italia. (1939). I (1). Gualerni, G. (2003). Divenire umani. L’evolversi del pensiero economico di Vito negli anni 1929–1944. In D. Parisi & C. Rotondi (Eds.), Francesco Vito. Attualità di un economista politico (pp. 187–200). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Istat. (1936). Statistica dell’Istruzione superiore per l’anno accademico 1931–32 e notizie statistiche per gli anni accademici dal 1926–27 al 1930–31. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Lanchester, F. (2011). Origini e sviluppi della Facoltà romana di Scienze politiche. In V. I. Comparato, R. Lupi & G. Montanari (Eds.), Le scienze politiche. Modelli contemporanei (pp. 187–200). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Li Donni, A., & Travagliante, P. (2016). Il pensiero, le dottrine e l’insegnamento economico in Sicilia nel ventennio fascista. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Lotti, L. (1984). Gli studi politici e sociali: il “Cesare Alfieri” da Istituto a Facoltà. In Storia dell’Ateneo Fiorentino (contributi di studio) (pp. 525–542). Firenze: Parretti. Mangoni, L. (1994). Scienze politiche e architettura: nuovi profili professionali nell’università italiana. In I. Porciani (Ed.), L’Università tra Ottocento e Novecento: i modelli europei e il caso italiano (pp. 381–398). Napoli: Jovene.

The Faculties of Political Sciences and Schools for Advanced …

117

Michels, R. (1933, July–September). L’Enseignement des sciences politiques en Italie. Revue des sciences politiques, 48, 424–428. Ministero dell’educazione nazionale. (1937). Scuole universitarie di perfezionamento e di specializzazione. Roma: Tipografia del Ritir. Ornaghi, L. (1988). Mauri e la Scuola di scienze politiche. Bollettino dell’Archivio per la storia del movimento cattolico in Italia, 23, 143–150. Panunzio, S. (1932, June 16). L’insegnamento politico in Italia e le Facoltà di Scienze politiche. Nuova Antologia, fasc. 1446, pp. 475–490. Pelleriti, E. (2017). La fascistizzazione degli atenei siciliani: i docenti, le discipline, la didattica. In G. Astuto & A. Nicosia (Eds.), La Sicilia e il Mezzogiorno. Dall’impresa libica alla Grande Guerra (pp. 289–300). Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica. Ricuperati, G. (1994). Per una storia dell’Università italiana da Gentile a Bottai: appunti e discussioni. In I. Porciani (Ed.), L’Università tra Ottocento e Novecento: i modelli europei e il caso italiano (pp. 313–377). Napoli: Jovene. Rogari, S. (2004). Il “Cesare Alfieri” da Istituto a Facoltà di Scienze politiche. In L’Università di Firenze degli studi di Firenze. 1924–2004 (Vol. II, pp. 677– 693). Firenze: Olschki. Scaramozzino, P. (1968). Lo sviluppo della Facoltà di Scienze politiche in Italia. Milano: Giuffrè. Signori, E. (2007). Università e Fascismo. In G. P. Brizzi, P. Del Negro, & A. Romano (Eds.), Storia delle Università d’Italia (Vol. I, pp. 381–423). Messina: Sicania. Simone, G. (2015). Fascismo in cattedra. La Facoltà di Scienze politiche di Padova dalle origini alla Liberazione (1924–1945). Padova: Padova University Press. Tesoro, M. (1997). Come è nata la Facoltà. Il Politico, LXII (181), 191–210. Treggiari, F. (2014). «Libera», «Regia», di massa: l’Università degli Studi di Perugia. In M. Tosti (Ed.), Storia dell’Umbria dall’Unità a oggi. Poteri, istituzioni e società (pp. 135–165). Venezia: Marsilio. Università degli Studi di Padova. (1941). Annuario per l’anno accademico 1940– 41. Padova: Tipografia del Seminario. Varnier, G. B. (2013). Alle origini della Facoltà di Scienze politiche: il corso di laurea. In M. A. Falchi (Ed.), Le scienze politiche nel mondo contemporaneo (pp. 34–55). De Ferrari: Genova. Vinci, A. M. (1987). Le culture economico-giuridiche e l’imperialismo fascista nei Balcani: il caso dell’Università di Trieste. In Cultura e società negli anni del fascismo (pp. 445–472). Milano: Cordani. Visconti, A. (1950). La storia dell’Università di Ferrara (1391–1955). Bologna: Zanichelli.

118

F. Bientinesi and M. Cini

Vito, F. (1943). L’indirizzo degli studi economici nelle Facoltà di scienze politiche. In Funzione e struttura delle Facoltà di Scienze politiche. Atti del convegno interuniversitario 16–17 aprile 1942-XX (pp. 71–77). Firenze: R. Università degli Studi.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism Antonio Magliulo and Gianfranco Tusset

1

Introduction

Launching in April 1983 an innovative research programme on the “culture” of Italian law journals, leading Italian legal scholar Paolo Grossi posed the question: “does a culture of law journals exist?” In Grossi’s view, a “journal” meant a scientific community which had the purpose of interpreting the real world in the light of a particular field of knowledge: in this case, law. Around the same period, a parallel research project was initiated in Italy, with a focus on the processes of academic institutionalisation of economics: tenures, societies, parliaments and periodicals. A. Magliulo (B) University of International Studies of Rome, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] G. Tusset University of Padua, Padua, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_5

119

120

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

The aim of this paper is to investigate the economic culture shaped and spread by Italian academic journals during the fascist period. Two preliminary remarks are in order as to the keywords of the research programme: “academic journals” and “economic culture”. We consider “academic journals”, stricto sensu, the journals edited and directed by academic institutions like universities, faculties and departments. We assume that they are less influenced by extra-academic aims relative to other periodicals, even when edited by academicians close to associations which in fact constitute interest groups. Following this criterion, we have singled out five Italian academic journals during the fascist era.1 In Italian academic journals, one can find articles of various kinds: short notes on economic events, long essays concerning economic theory and articles related to political issues. We may, for instance, come across the landmark article by Piero Sraffa “Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantità prodotta”, published in 1925 in Annali di Economia, but we can also read a work such as Costantino Bresciani Turroni’s “La crisi della ‘stabilizzazione monetaria’”, published in 1926 in Giornale degli Economisti. In the first case, it was an essay written by an economist for other economists: the idea was to show some weaknesses in the Marshallian paradigm. In the latter case, it was an article written by an economist for a broader audience: the aim was to exert an influence on public opinion, as well as on policymakers. We consider the “economic culture” of academic journals the view and the assessment of the real world that emanated from economists through 1They are: (a) Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica. It was established, as Giornale degli economisti, in 1875 in Padua and the publication ended in 1879. The second series was run in Bologna from 1886 to 1900. The third series was run in Rome from 1900 to 1922 and the label Rivista di Statistica was added to the title. The fourth series was run in Milan, Bocconi University since 1926, from 1923 to 1938 under the direction of A. Beneduce, G. Del Vecchio and G. Mortara. On the Giornale, see Montesano (1998); (b) Annali di Economia. It was founded in 1924 in Milan, Bocconi University, under the direction of Girolamo Palazzina, see Romani (2017); (c) Riforma Sociale. It was established in 1894 and Luigi Einaudi was the co-owner since 1911 and the editor from 1908 to 1935 when the journal was banned by fascism, see Bianchi (2010); (d) Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali e Discipline Ausiliarie. It was founded in 1893 and in 1927 became the scientific journal of the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, see Nerozzi and Parisi (2011); (e) Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza. It was established in 1929 as periodical of the Institute of the Economic and Financial Policy at the University of Rome in association with the School of Statistics at the University of Bologna. The editors were A. De’ Stefani, L. Amoroso, and F. Vinci.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

121

the pages of the above-mentioned journals. Therefore, stricto sensu, the essay by Piero Sraffa (as well as many other such works) is primarily a study in economic theory. The economic culture of academic journals during the fascist regime can be detected from the evaluation of important economic events that occurred in that time period, like the 1927 revaluation of the lira, the Great Depression of 1929 and the conceptualisation of corporatism, with its embodied policies, during the 1930s. The paper is organised into two sections, differing from both a chronological and a methodological viewpoint. In the first part, using a traditional approach based on the textual analysis of written material, we will focus on the revaluation of the Lira and on the Great Depression. In the second section, we use an innovative approach based on a corpus linguistics in order to focus on the reception of corporatism in the academic journals.2

2

The Revaluation of the Lira and the Great Depression

At the inception of the fascist regime, from 1922 through the year 1925, the Italian economy experienced a period of recovery under the leadership of Finance Minister Alberto De’ Stefani, appointed by Mussolini in October 1922. The expansion was soon followed by a period of crisis, marked by an increasing trade deficit and the subsequent devaluation of the Lira. The economic debate was dominated, in Italy as well as the rest of Europe, by two connected issues. The first had to do with the international monetary order: the choice was between returning to the gold standard, and therefore to a regime of fixed exchange rates and flexible prices, and the transition to a managed currency system, as suggested by Keynes, with a regime of adjustable pegs and stable prices. The large majority of Italian economists—in fact, virtually all of them— favoured the first option, since they regarded the peg to gold as an external constraint deemed inescapable if one wanted to avoid “bad policies”. A harsher debate arose around a strictly related issue, namely the path to take 2 On

the history of Italian economic thought during the interwar years, see Faucci (2014, ch. 7).

122

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

to return to a gold standard system and in particular the right level of the exchange rate between the Lira and the other currencies. The controversy divided the Italian economists into two opposing sides: on the one hand, there were those who stood for a revaluation of the Lira (partial or complete with respect to the pre-war period), on the other hand those who advocated a substantial stabilisation of the Lira at market value.3 The dispute also divided academic journals, even if their editorial boards tried to host different viewpoints. Annali di Economia was basically a supporter of a revaluation of the Lira. The inaugural article in the first issue, published in November 1924, was written by Achille Loria (1924) under the title “Le peripezie monetarie del dopo Guerra” (monetary vicissitudes in the post-war period), and a collection of articles by Attilio Cabiati (1925) was published in November 1925 under the title “Il ritorno all’oro” (the return to gold). The last one was a very influential publication. Cabiati advocated a complete and fast return to the gold standard accompanied by a parallel reduction of nominal wages, so that the country could keep its international competitiveness along with unchanged domestic real wages. Conversely, he claimed, the policy of a managed currency aimed at stabilising domestic prices would prevent the “positive” deflation resulting from technical progress and economic growth.4 The other academic journals mainly supported a policy of stabilisation of the Lira at the current market value. Luigi Einaudi, a leading economist and the editor of Riforma Sociale, contributed several articles to the very influential newspaper Corriere della Sera between 1922 and 1925 (see Einaudi 1990). He argued that the number one priority for the Italian government was to ensure stability of the exchange rate, rather than holding on to its old level, and that such stability could be gauged applying Gustav Cassel’s purchasing-powerparity theory. It is interesting to note that Einaudi was critical of the proposal to revalue the Lira via a contraction of the money supply, i.e. applying a deflationary policy. A genuine revaluation of the Lira, in his 3 On

the Italian monetary policy of the period, see Cohen (1972), Barucci (1981), Marconi (1982), Cotula and Spaventa (1993), and Cavalcanti (2011). 4The main supporters of the revaluation of the Lira were the so-called Benvenuto Griziotti Group, see Barucci (1981).

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

123

view, could only result from the economic upsurge accompanied by a reduction of the public debt that fuelled the monetary expansion. Around 1925, Einaudi did not believe that it was still possible to set the “right” exchange rate for the Lira and suggested to pursue a sound fiscal and monetary policy. Riforma Sociale was in line with Einaudi’s analysis. Giuseppe Prato (1924) criticised Cabiati’s proposal and maintained that, due to the rigidity of most prices, a general reduction in nominal wages would bring about a cut in real wages, thus nullifying the attempt to compensate, through the revaluation, the workers that had been hurt by inflation. Comparing the two opposite strategies of revaluation and stabilisation, Carlo Rosselli (1926) contended that a revaluation of the Lira would be both unfair and harmful—unfair because it was not possible to compensate the past generations hit by inflation and harmful because it would inevitably trigger a deflationary spiral. The only way to spur economic growth was to stabilise the Lira at the current value on the basis of the purchasing-power-parity doctrine. Two important works were published in the authoritative Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica. Gustavo del Vecchio (1925), co-editor of the journal, argued for the impossibility to apply even a policy of slow revaluation, because of the role of expectations. The very announcement of a systematic policy of revaluation would in fact provoke a fast and sharp fall in the price level: consumers would put off their decision to buy goods and wait for a further drop, while firms would hasten to sell goods, fearing the same course of events. In a classical essay on the German case, Bresciani Turroni (1926) claimed that the stabilisation of the Mark in 1923 and 1924 was a necessary condition to foster a process of economic and financial recovery. On 18 August 1926, Benito Mussolini announced in Pesaro the decision to revalue the Lira pegging its exchange rate, which in July was reduced to 92.46 Lira against the Pound sterling (the so-called Quota Novanta) and to 19 Lira against the US Dollar in December 1927. The Pesaro speech marked a turning point in the Italian academic debate. Luigi Einaudi himself (1929, 1930) published two long articles in Riforma Sociale where he basically reiterated that the main priority was a

124

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

stable exchange rate, the “necessary condition for prosperity”. The Italian government, according to Einaudi, had finally stricken the right balance between different interests. The Giornale degli Economisti and Rivista di Statistica devoted several articles to an assessment of the economic consequences of a revaluation. In particular, Mortara (1927, 1928) used a full set of data to claim that a revaluation had no negative impact on the balance of payments. The attitude of the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali deserves to be remarked. One year after the Pesaro speech, in the July–August 1927 issue, the journal published an article authored by Guido Tagliabue (1927) which still argued for the usual reasons against revaluation and in favour of stabilisation. With an Editors’s Note in the November–December 1927 issue, the journal featured an article supporting revaluation, written by Aldo Crosara (1927), anticipating a further article by Gino Borgatta. A few months later, Borgatta (1928) wrote that “Quota Novanta” basically amounted to a stabilisation of the Lira, rather than to a real return to the pre-war level, and, above all, he asserted that its deep significance was to restore “considerable retrenchment” of government intervention in the economy (just the opposite of Mussolini’s creed). The outbreak of the Great Depression of 1929 shifted economists’ focus away from monetary and exchange policy and towards business cycle issues. Italian academic journals hosted plenty of articles on cycles and crises. The international debate was dominated by the dispute between Hayek and Keynes and by an attempt at a synthesis undertaken by Röpke. A sketch of the competing views is necessary here. According to Hayek, the origin of cycles and crises is to be found in too much investment (compared to the available amount of saving) being financed through credit manipulation. Banks, in a futile attempt to accelerate the pace of growth, artificially lower the market rate of interest rate below the “natural” rate. What results is a distortion of the structure of production. Attracted by lower interest rates, firms step up the production of capital goods (investment), even if consumers’ preferences have not changed. The economy enters an expansionary stage, fuelled by an excess of total demand (of consumer and capital goods) over total supply

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

125

and financed by foreign debt. In Hayek’s view, the crisis of 1929 actually started in 1927, during the boom, when the major central banks, in order to fight the deflation deriving from a general reduction in production costs, lowered the market interest rates, which financed unsustainable investment and consumption and increased foreign debt in key countries like England and Germany. Thus, crises can be prevented through a neutral monetary policy, but they cannot be cured with political remedies. The only way to restore the economy is to wait for (and facilitate) the spontaneous readjustment of markets through a deflationary process. According to Keynes, the origin of cycles and crises lies, on the contrary, in the volatility of investment relative to a constantly rising flow of saving. The risk inherent in this situation is the existence of idle (or abortive) saving, not used to finance investment, with a parallel shortage of total demand (consumption plus investment). The economy grows until the all-available saving is invested by firms; but the economy is prone to experience a fall in investment due to uncertainty, negative expectations or poor monetary policy. The crisis of 1929 really started in 1929, when the Fed, at the climax of a prolonged boom, mistakenly decided to raise interest rates, thus causing a dramatic fall in investment: this in turn set in motion a depression process, fuelled by a shortage of both investment and consumption. Therefore, the only way to recovery is to stimulate investment and/or consumption with an expansionary economic policy. Lastly, according to Röpke the origin of cycles and crises always lies (as indicated by Hayek) in the excess of investment over saving that occurs during a boom and which is caused by credit manipulation. However, one has to distinguish between normal and abnormal or prolonged crises. In the former, a recovery occurs spontaneously at the end of the liquidation and readjustment process (as described by Hayek). In the latter, recovery does not occur spontaneously, notwithstanding the liquidation and readjustment processes having run their course. Firms, due to continuing uncertainty and a lack of confidence, do not invest available savings. The economy falls in a “Keynesian” depression, characterised by an excess of saving over investment and by a parallel contraction of total demand, which results in a further fall in prices. The primary (and useful) deflation is followed by a “secondary (and negative) deflation” (or depression), which requires expansionary policies.

126

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

Italian economists took part extensively in the international debate, discussing the most popular theories. They largely shared an overinvestment business cycle theory à la Hayek. However, they also added some original caveats. In each journal, we can single out a most representative figure under this respect: Marco Fanno in the Giornale degli Economisti; Francesco Vito in the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali; Costantino Bresciani Turroni in the Annali di Economia; and Luigi Einaudi in La Riforma Sociale. Marco Fanno (1931) and Francesco Vito (1932) agreed with Hayek in viewing the origin of the great crash in the attempt, undertaken by the main central banks in 1927, to stop a positive deflation in order to ensure price stability. Luigi Einaudi’s (1931, 1933) conclusion was similar to Röpke’s: a normal recession, caused by an excess of investment over saving, can turn into an extraordinary depression because of hoarded saving. In a similar way, Bresciani Turroni (1931), in a series of subsequent writings based on his masterpiece essay, “Le vicende del marco Tedesco”, published in the Annali di Economia, detected two different stages in the German recession. The first one, dating from 1929 to 1932, was marked by a shortage of capital and required a restrictive policy à la Brüning (less consumption and more savings). The second one, from 1933 to 1935, was characterised by available saving being hoarded and not used to finance investment. The latter scenario made possible and effective the expansionary policy undertaken by Hitler. Even Fanno (1933), in an article titled “Il punto critico della deflazione” (The critical point of deflation), published in the same book where Röpke presented his own theory, interpreted the 1929 crisis as a case of normal recession which degenerated into an “abnormal” depression because of persisting negative expectations. While sharing a similar explanation of the business cycle, the leading representatives of Italian academic journals came to differing conclusions, though Bresciani Turroni and Einaudi considered the Great Depression a “special case” that justified a temporary policy of public intervention in the economy, while Fanno (1933) and Vito (1934) saw in that event a change of historic paradigm that called for the construction of a managed economy, which they labelled “corporative”. It is important to stress that, in their view, the role of the government in the new economy was deemed

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

127

consistent with the neoclassical theories of the business cycle and economic growth. The government, in particular, had to ensure the basic conditions for a stable growth, which the free market could no longer guarantee: flexible prices, stable exchange rates and the equilibrium between saving and investment. A Keynesian policy could only be justified in a great depression marked by hoarded saving.5 In brief, the Italian economists writing in the main academic journals in the 1920s and 1930s favoured a return to gold, in which they saw a way to curb the power of government in the economy. And even when they supported expansionary policies to tackle the Great Depression of 1929, they used the tenets of the neoclassical theories of the business cycles and economic growth to underpin public intervention in the economy.

3

The Reception of Corporatism in the Academic Journals

In this section, we outline and analyse the attitude taken by five of the most important Italian economic journals—the above-mentioned Annali di Economia; Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica; La Riforma Sociale; Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali; and Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza—towards the making of economic corporatism and fascism in Italy. Understanding the economic journals’ reaction is important for shedding light on the reaction of the academic world to the corporatist experience in Italy. The choice of the period to consider was dictated by the evolution of corporatism. Before 1932, it was difficult to find a conspicuous number of rational analyses of this economic construct, whereas in 1932 a sufficient number of articles (16) appeared. Then the number rose to 20 in 1933 and 38 in 1934, the year when the output of articles on corporatism peaked. After that, the number decreased—partly due to the disappearance of some of the journals. Our analysis did not go beyond 1937 because, from 1938 onwards, corporatism/fascism became a wholly political phenomenon, overriding its economic aspects. 5 For

more details, see Magliulo (2012, 2016, 2018).

128

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

Fig. 1 Years

The content of the economic journals is analysed with the aid of a language tool, conducting an in-depth study of the vocabulary used by the authors of a selected set of articles that dealt in some way or the other with corporatism. Although the above-listed journals were expected to contain quite a homogeneous linguistic corpus, the data show an oscillation in their path between the issues dated 1932 (when references to corporatism were still episodic) and those dated 1937, when the journals engaged in assessing fascism from an economic standpoint. This path is represented in the scatterplot of Fig. 1, which shows the words obtained by using the language tool to treat 127 articles appearing in the above-mentioned journals from 1932 to 1937.6

6There

were 22 articles published in the Annali di Economia (AE) from 1932 to 1937; 35 in the Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica (GDE) from 1932 to 1937; 19 in La Riforma Sociale (RS) from 1932 to 1935; 34 in the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali (RISS) from 1932 to 1937; and 16 in the Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza (RISEF) from 1932 to 1934.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

129

The set of 127 articles published in the economic journals underwent a correspondence analysis that revealed what were the relatively more common words or segments (sets of two or more words) in each year and in each journal.7 As mentioned previously, we can see in Fig. 1 a sort of path starting from 1932 (on the left) and moving to 1937 (on the right). The direction of this movement from left to right is confirmed by the value of the horizontal inertia, or variance (25.02), a value sufficient to demonstrate that there was some degree of change in the language used, i.e. a change in the content of the articles, from 1932 to 1937. But some change is apparent in the vertical direction too, with an inertia of 21.86, which means that the differences occur between the years in the lower quadrants, particularly 1935, and the years placed in the upper quadrants, mainly 1934. In fact, two linguistic peaks are clearly visible, corresponding to the years 1934 and 1937, meaning that some specificity characterises these two years. From a glance at the second quadrant (top left), it is noticeable that the words revolve around “corporatism”, while the words in the first quadrant (top right) revolve around the word “fascism”. In other words, 1934 can 7The vocabulary represented in a scatterplot, which “can be regarded as a map, because the position of each [year] can be regarded as a two-dimensional position, almost like a geographical location in a region defined by latitude and longitude. We say that the scatterplot […] simply expresses the [words/segments] in a visual format that communicates […] information” (Greenacre 2007, 5). Correspondence analysis provides “ways for describing data, interpreting data and generating hypotheses” without a theoretical model or preconceived hypothesis. How should the scatterplots contained in the book be interpreted? A word/segment close to an active variable (economist, year) means that the word/segment in question connotes texts/speeches concerning said active variable. In the centre (centroid) of the figure, we naturally find the words/segments that are common to the active variables we are considering, without characterising one or few in particular. We find the “inertia” or “variance” of the figure on the two axes: the higher the inertia, the greater the variability of the lexicon concerning the active variables in question and the lower the inertia, the more homogeneous the lexicon. The analysis of the textual corpora demanded the use of specific software. We used Taltac to manage the corpus and Spad to extract the figures. The final graphical view represents the initial corpus in terms of statistical associability between elements. The software thus serves as an advanced text analysis tool for deriving high-quality information from complex corpora. Since we are studying 5 years (5 journals in Fig. 2) in this case, we obtain 4 uncorrelated axes (and 4 in Fig. 2 as well) displaying the words investigated for each author considered, and the axes can be combined to form different planes. Each plane represents a part of the variability and shows a single synthetic outcome based on the part of variability it represents. The inertia (roughly speaking, the variability of the words over the set of authors) that can be read on the horizontal and vertical axes indicates how the variability is distributed over the various years or journals. A high inertia means that each year (journal) is characterised by more diverse content.

130

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

be identified as the year when interest in corporatism peaked, while 1937 saw a growing interest in fascism. The words and segments characterising the lower quadrants (the years 1932, 1933, 1935 and 1936) are relatively common in economic analyses on any country. Monetary topics, economic cycles and crises, the balance of payments and debt were much debated issues during the 1930s. “Money” and “crisis” are also at the heart of the whole figure, meaning they are words to be found in most of the articles considered. On the other hand, focusing again on the lower quadrants alone and shifting to the second half of the decade, there is plainly a growing attention to the economic role of the state: terms such as “public debt”, “tax”, “population” and “public budget” appear in the fourth quadrant (bottom right). From 1932 onwards, the five economic journals shifted their attention from firms and entrepreneurs to the state and its intervention in the economy. With the exception of “fiscal policy”, all the other economic policies find room in the right-hand quadrants of the figure, in line with a greater interest in government intervention in the economy. Two years occupy the upper quadrants, 1934 (top left) and 1937 (top right), which goes to show that—during these two years—the journals contained articles and analyses on the topics evoked by words/segments surrounding them in the figure. In fact, the top left-hand quadrant dominated by the year 1934 is largely occupied by words that bring to mind guilds and groups characteristic of the corporatist economy. “Labor” markets and “trade unions”, increasingly controlled by the Fascist Party, underscore the importance of the meso-dimension in the corporate economy. The top left-hand quadrant reveals the very economic essence of corporatism, from a “corporatist order” founded on a “common will” to a “national order”. Segments such as “Mussolini’s socialism” find a space connecting the top left- and right-hand quadrants. In an almost complementary manner, the top right-hand quadrant represents the political dimension of corporatism, which in Italy meant a “fascist state”. The pivotal year is 1937, amply characterised by political expressions alongside the economic terms, the latter (“economic policy”, “monetary policy”, “fascist economy”, “guilds”) being balanced by the former (“fascist revolution”, “fascist regime”, “fascism”, “corporatist policy”). In short, while the economic journals were devoting their attention to

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

131

economic corporatism in 1934, three years later the same journals were showing an interest in political corporatism (i.e. fascism). How do we explain the convergence towards corporatism in 1934? Corporatism was obviously not new, but in 1934, economic journals seemed to be generally attracted by this topic. As a first step, something can be said about the specific behaviour of these journals. Annali di Economia set itself apart with a well-known article by De’ Stefani and Amoroso on the logic of the corporatist system (“La logica del sistema corporativo”), which urged the economists of the time to see economic corporatism as a new economic phenomenon. The industrial corporatist order was also at the centre of A. Righetti’s article on Italian industry and corporatist rules (“L’industria italiana e l’ordinamento corporativo”), which appeared in the same June issue of the Annali di Economia. The journal also contained an analysis of the relationships between capital and labour in an article by A. Rocco, A. Asquini and G. Azzariti (“I rapporti tra capitale e lavoro”). Finally, still in 1934, Annali di Economia published an investigation on fascist agricultural policy by A. Serpieri and G. Mortara (“Politica agraria fascista”) and one on fascist mining policy by A. Petretti (“Politica mineraria fascista”). Moving on to the Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, corporatist actions and rules were at the core of G. Demaria’s analysis of oligopoly and corporatism (“Oligopolio e azione corporative”) published in 1934. The essay was a manifest attempt to offer a theoretical view of corporatism that would contribute to legitimising it in the economists’ eyes. A theoretical legitimisation that the journal pursued by means of other articles published in the same year, such as the work by A. Fanfani on the decline of capitalism and the consolidation of corporatism (“Declino del capitalismo e significato del corporativismo”). Other important works along the same lines that are worth mentioning include Papi’s explicit reference to a founding theory of corporatist economics (“Un principio teorico dell’economia corporative”) and F. Vito’s rationalisation of corporatism (“Sui caratteri dell’economia corporative”). A similar approach was taken by the Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza, which published two theoretical articles on corporatism in 1934, one by L. Gangemi on public finance (“Politica corporativa e finanza pubblica”) and the other by F. Vinci on the role of corporatism

132

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

in economics (“Il corporativismo e la scienza economica”). The peak in the interest in corporatism detectable in 1934 was therefore mainly due to a broad effort by economic journals to lend a theoretical representation (and possibly a justification) to corporatism. This rationalisation of corporatism is plain to see even in journals like La Riforma Sociale that remained cool towards the rise of corporatism and fascism. In 1934, Luigi Einaudi published an article on guilds (“La corporazione aperta”), drawing on a historical analysis of the guilds as a way to warn modern organisations against the risk of extinction met by those guilds that become too close. The reference to corporations was barely disguised. There were other contributions to the debate on corporatism in 1934: A. Breglia wrote about prices in a corporatist market (“Prezzi in mercato corporativo”) and A. Cabiati about the gold standard and economic autarchy (“Gold standard e autarchia economica”). Finally, the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali followed the same trend. In 1934, L. Amoroso and G. Masci published an article on corporatist rules (“L’ordine corporativo”), in which they singled out the conceptual features of this type of economic organisation. A. Muller focused on the planned economy (“Economia programmatica”), while F. Vito concluded the year with his note on the premises of international corporatist economies (“Le premesse dell’economia corporativa internazionale”). This broad set of references explains why the words revolving around the year 1934 in Fig. 1 express both an empirical (as in the Annali di Economia) and a theoretical (as in almost all the other journals) approach to corporatism. The year 1934 thus represents a point of arrival for the debate on this economic regime, as it is demonstrated by the fact that the main Italian economic journals saw the need to rationalise—logically, empirically and theoretically—what was first a political and then a social and economic experience. That a part of the above-mentioned articles also discussed corporatist policies reveals a widespread need to scientifically legitimise such social and economic measures. In the top right-hand quadrant of Fig. 1, there is a clearly visible preponderance of the year 1937. Beginning with the Annali di Economia, we can see a remarkable number of articles assessing a decade of the fascist economy, from 1926 to 1935, and the development of a corporatist economy. Conducting a brief overview, we can begin with G. Borgatta’s

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

133

article on monetary policy under corporatism (“La politica monetaria nel sistema corporativo”), pass on to F. Chessa’s analysis of savings and private insurance in the corporatist economy (“Risparmio e associazioni private nell’economia corporative”) and then to M. Fasiani’s contribution on crisis policies (“Principii generali e politiche delle crisi”). The writers’ interest clearly shifted from the organisation and working of a corporatist system to the economic policies of the fascist period. The list of articles represents a broad analysis on policies including papers by R. Fubini on banks (“Istituti di credito”); A. Garino-Canina on public finance (“La finanza pubblica nell’ordinamento corporativo”); P. Luzzatto-Fegiz on fascist demographic policy (“La politica demografica del fascism”); G. Masci on agricultural policy (“La politica agrarian”); and F. Vinci on the theoretical application of economic dynamics to corporatism, where the crucial problem remains the determination of wages (“Il problema cardinale del corporativismo e la dinamica economica”). Policies mean institutions, i.e. fascism as a concrete political experience that, going beyond the source of its political legitimisation, produces measures with a high social and economic impact. Whatever the political beliefs of the economists writing the articles, these policies were waiting to be analysed and interpreted. This explains why the 1937 issue of Annali di Economia was entirely devoted to such an assessment. The 1937 Giornale degli Economisti seemed to be moving towards more traditional, neoclassical economic topics, the only publication of relevance for our purposes here being F. Carli’s long article on corporatist economics as a science (“L’economia corporativa come scienza”). The same analytical references were contained in J. Griziotti Kretschmann’s article on the economic theory of value (“Tendenze dottrinali nella scienza economica con riferimento al problema del valore”), in which corporatist economics—i.e. the economic theory of corporatism, not the political experience—was the focus of analysis. Comparing the titles of the articles published in 1937 with those of previous years plainly reveals an attempt to develop preponderantly theoretical fields, which kept the Giornale far from any political commitment. Considering its earlier analytical focus on corporatism, this choice seems to suggest that no way exists to analytically legitimise either corporatism or fascism.

134

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

Since La Riforma Sociale stopped publishing in 1935, and the Rivista Italiana di Statistica Economia e Finanza changed its name and editorial board in 1934, the only journal that remains to be considered as far the year 1937 is concerned is the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali. In an article on psychotechnics applied to corporatist economics (“La psicotecnica nella concezione corporativa della società”), A. Gemelli argued for a correspondence between an approach to work management attentive to the human dimension and the corporatist economy. Again in 1937, J. Mazzei published an article on international economic policy (“Politica economica internazionale”) that included an analysis of corporatist economics, while the fascist experience was kept in the background. A general agreement seemed to exist that a corporatist economy was possible and worth developing. To conclude, F. Vito’s article on corporatist social and economic policy (“Politica economica e sociale corporative”) contained a thorough analysis of Italian economic policy in various fields in 1936 that seems appreciative of the corporatist regime. Generally speaking, the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali continued to pursue its efforts, clearly apparent in 1934, to rationalise the corporatist economy. Looking at how the attitude of the economic journals evolved towards economic corporatism and fascism, there is clearly a shift from an analytical perspective on corporatism towards a more in-depth focus on the institutional features of the fascist regime. The relatively more frequent recurrence of “fascism” and “fascist” is a consequence of this shift from theory to policy. The theoretical content of corporatism was overshadowed by the political experience: the special issue of Annali di Economia is paradigmatic from this point of view. On the other hand, we should not ignore how the Giornale degli Economisti gradually detached itself from any involvement in the theoretical justification of corporatism. Figure 2 shows the words and segments characterising the journals’ output in terms of their relative frequency. The reference to time is maintained by distinguishing between issues of the same journal by their year of publication. The proximity between words/segments and journals is therefore indicative of a relatively more frequent use of those words/segments in a given journal. The distribution of the journals enables us to distinguish between five subareas, each of which corresponds to a particular journal.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

135

Fig. 2 Economic journals

There is only a partial overlap between subareas III and IV and a very marginal superimposition between II and III. The variance in Fig. 2 is very low: 9.33% on the horizontal axis and 6.17% on the vertical axis. These values mean that the linguistic differences on both axes are very limited. Taking into account the variance of Fig. 1, it turns out that the differences year on year matter more than the differences from one journal to another. There are obviously some distinctions to be drawn, but these data tell us that all these journals discussed the same topics, year after year, albeit not necessarily in the same tone or arriving at the same judgements. The issues of the Annali di Economia are grouped in subarea I, confirming an interest or, better, a deliberate intention of this journal to make room for investigations on corporatism/fascism. Rather than weighing up how much the economists adhered to such a political and ideological experience, it is worth emphasising that this journal’s editorial board chose to treat corporatism/fascism as an “object” of scientific study. This choice explains why corporatism was rarely quoted outside the years dedicated

136

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

to this topic (1934 and 1937), with a few exceptions, i.e. B. Griziotti’s work on old and new trends in the science of finance (“Vecchi e nuovi indirizzi di scienza delle finanze”) in 1935 and V. Moretti’s essay on the international economic crisis and Italian depression (“La crisi mondiale e la depressione economica italiana”) in the same year. In 1934, the message was that a corporatist economy was all about bargaining, workers, unions and organisation. By 1937, politics and the government’s economic action had become the core issues. Overall, what emerges by looking at this subarea is that Annali di Economia focused mainly on macroeconomic aspects determined by the country’s political choices. Moving clockwise to subarea II, occupied by the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, what emerges can be roughly summed up by the title of an article by A. Fanfani in 1935 on distribution in the corporatist economy (“La distribuzione nell’economia corporative”). The object (corporatism) remained the same, but special attention was paid here to the outcomes of this economic system. The Annali di Economia emphasised the order on which corporatism was founded (with the coexistence of few aggregate actors), while the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali paid more attention to the aftermath. In fact, akin to Fanfani’s work, other articles dealt with distributional issues, including: S. Golzio’s article in 1936 on companies’ profits (“Considerazioni sui profitti e sulle dimensioni delle imprese industriali”); P. E. Taviani’s paper in 1936 on workers’ access to wealth distribution (“La partecipazione operaia al profitto e il sistema corporativo”); and F. Vito’s already-quoted 1937 article on corporatist social and economic policy. Continuing our clockwise tour, subarea III is populated by theoretical corporatism, as expressed by the Giornale degli Economisti and partly also by the Rivista Italiana di Statistica Economia e Finanza. The words “science”, “theories”, “individualism”, “competition” and “price” denote a tension with “economic individualism” that inevitably characterises economic corporatism. An attempt is made in this journal to solve the contrast by way of an analytical interpretation of corporatism itself. Suffices here to mention a pair of articles published in 1935: A. Breglia’s work on some concepts of corporatist economics (“Su alcuni concetti di economia corporativa (Prezzi, quantità, limiti di convenienza sociale)”) and B. Foà’s paper on economic quantities and corporatist theory (“Quantità economiche

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

137

e teoria corporative”). As mentioned earlier, corporatist economics had become a proper research field. Still in 1935, E. Fossati published a study on corporatist economics (“Linee di studio dell’economia corporative”) which contained an attempt to explicitly integrate the political factor in neoclassical economic analysis, arguing for the substantial unity of economic science. We can conclude here by saying that, from 1934 onwards, the Giornale published articles in which the traditional economic categories (international trade, profit, savings, etc.) were revisited in the light of corporatist economics, i.e. taking political choices into account. The articles written by F. Vito in 1936 on international trade (“La revisione della teoria del commercio internazionale”) and compulsory savings (“Risparmio forzato, cicli economici ed economia regolata”) mark a sort of zenith of this view. The Giornale shares a lesser part of its subarea with the Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza, which refers to the years 1932 and 1933 when both journals dealt with entrepreneurship and competition. A limited gap appears between the two journals in 1934, when the Giornale stressed the strictly analytical approach to corporatism, while the Rivista (as shown in Fig. 2) shifted towards more national concerns, “national interest”, “monopolistic state” and “monopoly”. Finally, La Riforma Sociale is confined to subarea V. This journal remained within economic boundaries, concerned with “crisis”, “public debt”, “balance of payments” and the “Gold standard”. While the social dimension was an important feature of this perspective, the strictly political one reflecting the choices of the fascist regime was virtually absent.

4

Conclusion

The first part of this chapter followed a traditional approach based on a textual analysis of selected writings to account for the positions held by leading Italian economists about the dual issue of the revaluation of the Lira and the Great Depression. We emphasised the attempt made by the academic journals to outline the government role within the economy, while remaining anchored to a neoclassical approach to money, the business cycle and economic growth.

138

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

The second part analysed the issue of corporatism following the innovative approach based on a corpus linguistics. Linguistic analysis of the five main economic journals of the period suggests that differences were more evident from a diachronic point of view than from a comparison of the journals themselves. As it turns out, interest in investigating the theoretical features of corporatism grew up until the 1934 peak, only to gradually fade away afterwards, making room for the analysis of political and institutional corporatism, which came to focus on the economic aspects of fascism. This evolution explains the broad interest in fascist economic policies in 1937. With some exceptions, this trend was common to all the journals discussed here, albeit with some differences in their orientation towards the end of the period considered (1937), when a remarkable concentration of papers on analytical topics in the Giornale degli Economisti helped to shed light on the different path followed by the Annali di Economia, which focused on the assessment of economic policies, and the Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, which deal especially with distribution issues. In conclusion, the chapter has showed how Italian academic journals tried to integrate the corporatist view and policies within a more traditional neoclassical-oriented economic culture.

References Amoroso, L., & Masci, G. (1934). L’ordine corporativo. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 5 (6), 765–780. Barucci, P. (1981). Il contributo degli economisti italiani (1921–1936). In Banca e industria fra le due guerre. L’economia e il pensiero economico (pp. 179–243). Bologna: Il Mulino. Bianchi, G. (2010). La direzione di Luigi Einaudi alla “Riforma Sociale”. In R. Marchionatti & P. Soddu (Eds.), Luigi Einaudi nella cultura, nella società e nella politica del Novecento (pp. 123–160). Florence: Olschki. Borgatta, G. (1928). La sistemazione monetaria. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 1(4–5), 257–276. Borgatta, G. (1937). La politica monetaria nel sistema corporativo. Annali di Economia, 12, 231–311.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

139

Breglia, A. (1934). Prezzi in mercato corporativo. Riforma Sociale, 45 (4), 381–401. Breglia, A. (1935). Su alcuni concetti di economia corporativa (Prezzi, quantità, limiti di convenienza sociale). Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 75 (4), 281–298. Bresciani Turroni, C. (1926). La crisi della ‘stabilizzazione monetaria’. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 66 (1), 1–48. Bresciani Turroni, C. (1931). Le vicende del marco tedesco. Annali di Economia, 7, v–xxiv, 1–596. Cabiati, A. (1925). Il ritorno all’oro. Annali di Economia, 2(1), 183–275. Cabiati, A. (1934). Gold standard e autarchia economica. Riforma Sociale, 45 (4), 361–380. Carli, F. (1937a). L’economia corporativa come scienza, I. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 77 (10), 693–711. Carli, F. (1937b). L’economia corporativa come scienza, II. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 77 (11), 761–780. Cavalcanti, M. L. (2011). La politica monetaria italiana fra le due guerre (1918–1943). Milano: Franco Angeli. Chessa, F. (1937). Risparmio e associazioni private nell’economia corporativa. Annali di Economia, 12, 339–387. Cohen, J. S. (1972). The 1927 Revaluation of the Lira: A Study in Political Economy. The Economic History Review, 25 (4), 642–654. Cotula, F., & Spaventa, L. (1993). La politica monetaria tra le due guerre 1919–1935. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Crosara, A. (1927). Scaramucce monetarie: la lira italiana a quota novanta. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 3(11–12), 171–192. De’ Stefani, A., & Amoroso, L. (1934). La logica del sistema economico. Annali di Economia, 9 (2), 149–174. Del Vecchio, G. (1925). La dinamica dei prezzi decrescenti e il riordinamento della circolazione. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 66 (6), 305–317. Demaria, G. (1934). Oligopolio e azione corporativa. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 74 (10), 714–725. Einaudi, L. (1929). Il contenuto economico della lira dopo la riforma monetaria del 1 dicembre 1927. Riforma Sociale, 36 (11–12), 505–523. Reprinted in Einaudi et al. 2014. Einaudi, L. (1930). Dei metodi per arrivare alla stabilità monetaria e se si possa ancora parlare di crisi di stabilizzazione della lira. Riforma Sociale, 37 (5–6), 227–261.

140

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

Einaudi, L. (1931). Riflessioni in disordine sulle crisi. Riforma Sociale, 42(1–2), 20–45. Einaudi, L. (1933). Risparmio disponibile, crisi e lavori pubblici. Riforma Sociale, 44 (5), 542–553. Einaudi, L. (1934). La corporazione aperta. Riforma Sociale, 45 (2), 128–150. Einaudi, L. (1990). Il mestiere della moneta. Torino: Utet. Einaudi, L., Faucci, R., & Marchionatti, R. (2014). Luigi Einaudi: Selected Economic Essays. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fanfani, A. (1934). Declino del capitalismo e significato del corporativismo. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 74 (6), 381–393. Fanfani, A. (1935). La distribuzione nell’economia corporativa. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 6 (6), 758–769. Fanno, M. (1931). Cicli di produzione, cicli del credito e fluttuazioni industriali. Giornale degli economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 71(5), 329–370. Fanno, M. (1933). Il punto critico della deflazione. In Economic Essays in Honour of Gustav Cassel. London: Frank Cass. Reprinted in Scritti vari di economia e finanza (pp. 255–264). Padova: Cedam. Fasiani, M. (1937). Principii generali e politiche delle crisi. Annali di Economia, 12, 25–107. Faucci, R. (2014). A History of Italian Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge. Fossati, E. (1935). Linee di studio dell’economia corporativa. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 75 (2), 102–120. Fubini, R. (1937). Istituti di credito. Annali di Economia, 12, 313–338. Gangemi, L. (1934). Politica corporativa e finanza pubblica. Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza, 12, 1017–1053. Garino-Canina, G. (1937). La finanza pubblica nell’ordinamento corporativo. Annali di Economia, 12, 441–477. Gemelli, A. (1937). La psicotecnica nella concezione corporativa della società. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 8(6), 833–845. Golzio, S. (1936). Considerazioni sui profitti e sulle dimensioni delle imprese industriali. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 7 (4), 366–378. Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall. Griziotti, B. (1935). Vecchi e nuovi indirizzi di scienza delle finanze. Annali di Economia, 10 (2), 651–763. Griziotti Kretschmann, J. (1937). Tendenze dottrinali nella scienza economica con riferimento al problema del valore. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 77 (9), 633–653.

The Economic Culture of Academic Journals during Fascism

141

Grossi, P. (Ed.). (1983). La “cultura” delle riviste giuridiche italiane. Milano: Giuffrè. Loria, A. (1924). Le peripezie monetarie del dopo guerra. Annali di Economia, 1(1), 1–35. Luzzatto-Fegiz, P. (1937). La politica demografica del Fascismo. Annali di Economia, 12, 109–124. Magliulo, A. (2012). The Great Depression of 1929 in Italy: Economists’ Views and Government Policy. In M. Psalidopoulos (Ed.), The Great Depression in Europe: Economic Thought and Policy in a National Context (pp. 153–185). Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives. Magliulo, A. (2016). Hayek and the Great Depression of 1929: Did He Really Change His Mind? European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23(1), 31–58. Magliulo, A. (2018). Before Hitler: The Expansionary Program of the Brauns Commission. In R. Leeson (Ed.), Hayek: A Collaborative Biography (pp. 129–159). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Marconi, M. (1982). La politica monetaria del fascismo. Bologna: Il Mulino. Masci, G. (1937). La politica agraria. Annali di Economia, 12, 143–188. Mazzei, J. (1937). Politica economica internazionale. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 8(4), 800–852. Montesano, A. (1998). Giovanni Demaria e il Giornale degli Economisti. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 57 (3–4), 289–296. Moretti, V. (1935). La crisi mondiale e la depressione economica italiana. Annali di Economia, 10 (2), 475–650. Mortara, G. (1927). Osservazioni sul commercio fra l’Italia e l’estero nei primi nove mesi del 1927. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 68(11), 566–575. Mortara, G. (1928). La rivalutazione della lira e il commercio con l’estero. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 69 (4), 353–359. Muller, A. (1934). Economia programmatica. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 5 (1), 47–54. Nerozzi, S., & Parisi, D. (2011). Introduction: Italian Economists and the Great Depression: The Journal Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali (1929–1940). Special issue of Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 119 (3–4), 237–267. Papi, G. U. (1934). Un principio teorico dell’economia corporativa. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 74 (5), 301–312. Petretti, A. (1934). Politica mineraria fascista. Annali di Economia, 9 (2), 373–401.

142

A. Magliulo and G. Tusset

Prato, G. (1924). Leggendo un nuovo corso di politica commerciale. Riforma Sociale, 31(7–8), 289–296. Righetti, G. (1934). L’industria italiana e l’ordinamento corporativo. Annali di Economia, 9 (2), 305–355. Rocco, A., Asquini, A., & Azzariti, G. (1934). I rapporti tra capitale e lavoro. Annali di Economia, 9 (2), 175–197. Romani, M. A. (2017). La Bocconi nel ventennio fascista. In P. Barucci, P. Bini, & L. Conigliello (Eds.), Economia e diritto in Italia durante il Fascismo (pp. 99–112). Firenze: Firenze University Press. Rosselli, C. (1926). Rivalutazione e stabilizzazione della lira. Riforma Sociale, 33(3–4), 157–170. Serpieri, A., & Mortara, G. (1934). Politica agraria fascista. Annali di Economia, 9 (2), 209–303. Tagliabue, G. (1927). Le alterne vicende della lira dal 1913 ad oggi e la fase culminante della politica monetaria. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 2(7/8), 177–194. Taviani, P. E. (1936). La partecipazione operaia al profitto e il sistema corporativo. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 7 (3), 297–311. Vinci, F. (1934). Il corporativismo e la scienza economica. Rivista Italiana di Statistica, Economia e Finanza, 12, 80–100. Vinci, F. (1937). Il problema cardinale del corporativismo e la dinamica economica. Annali di Economia, 12, 9–23. Vito, F. (1932). Review of Mlynarski F. The Functioning of the Gold-Standard. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 40 (3), 380. Vito, F. (1934). Sui caratteri dell’economia corporativa. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 74 (10), 704–713. Vito, F. (1936a). La revisione della teoria del commercio internazionale. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 76 (7), 433–439. Vito, F. (1936b). Risparmio forzato, cicli economici ed economia regolata. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 76 (12), 861–873. Vito, F. (1937). Politica economica e sociale corporativa. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 8(4), 569–583.

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics and Regime Propaganda Francesca Dal Degan and Fabrizio Simon

1

Introduction: “Generalist” Journals and Economics

In the first two decades of the twentieth century, when the process of professionalisation of economics was substantially concluded, and the process of specialisation of this science was consolidated, with a number of specific periodicals providing space for its discussion and dissemination, “generalist” journals—a kind of press which had had its largest diffusion The arguments proposed in this paper are the result of the reflection shared by both authors. For a mere necessity of division of work, Francesca Dal Degan wrote Sections I, II, III and V while Fabrizio Simon wrote Sections IV, VI and the Appendix.

F. D. Degan (B) Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F. Simon Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_6

143

144

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

in the nineteenth century—continued to accommodate contributions by economists, offering a peculiar debating ground. However, with the affirmation of fascist ideology, generalist periodicals progressively ceased to exist or to host economists’ articles. Thus, the main object of this research consists of clarifying what it can be intended by “generalism”, and in relation to which events and ideological pressures this type of publication disappeared as an alternative way to do journalism in a dialectic interplay with specialisation. We refer to the concept of “generalism” as indicative of multifaceted and eclectic knowledge, ready to be challenged by different viewpoints of facts and phenomena, like “a largely generalistic editorial overview” rather than general reporting aimed at covering everything. In a further sense, this notion is not contrary to the scientific study of reality; rather, it is the result of a visionary effort that is measured by the already refined needs to validate reasoning and scientific decoding. However, generalism maintains the character of a “vision”, that is the plural, dynamic perspective interacting between different fields of knowledge and oriented to generate some change in public opinion and, more generally, in the culture of a nation. In this perspective, the first aim of this research consists of questioning, on the one hand, if in parallel with the development of the professionalisation of economists and the spreading of scientific journals during the fascist period, generalism was preserved and to what extent, and, on the other hand, if economists continued to publish on this kind of press or they preferred to write on more specialised reviews. At a second level, our aim is to clarify which tools are used by generalist periodicals to create a national culture preserving autonomy in the interpretation of facts or, on the contrary, to collaborate with fascism. How did they produce professional worldviews and how did they evaluate facts or discourse? How did this attitude influence the performative level of generalist journalism in establishing methods of reports, in using different editorial formats, in organising editorial grounds in order to offer more room to some fields of knowledge rather than others? Thus, distinguishing the periodicals that contributed to making culture from those which served as a mouthpiece for fascist ideology was a necessary operation. In this perspective, the extent to which journalists

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

145

acted independently of those who collaborated with fascism is an element to derive from different signals: journalists’ distance from “power” within society, the taking on of a “propagandist tone”, the opening of the journal’s arena to different ways of thinking, struggling over the dominant interpretation of facts and then the integration of constructs which, deriving from a combination of different perspectives, can be placed as crucial elements of theories. The methodological intent of this work is to detect the different trajectories that seem to have led to a progressive impoverishment of the economic discourse in the periodicals of that time, with the relevant consequence that the meaning of “economy” was cheapened and immediately associated to that of corporatism. If we accept that, in relation to political economy, “we should take care not to use words in different meanings without being aware of the difference, nor suppose our notions to be quantitatively precise when they are really indefinite”,1 we have to conclude that the wealth of economists’ vocabulary, considered as a complex and ever-changing semantic system shifting towards different sets of images and meaning repositories, has to be considered as an element of resistance to the monolithic nature of the regime.2 Or, in other words, as stated by the columnists of a journal of that period, the wealth of the spectrum of freedom depends on the one hand on government intervention but, on the other hand, on the activities of journals which are able to become interpreters of the different voices and perspectives within society “because a civilised nation may be able to breathe more easily when parliament is closed; but the social body suffers from symptoms of asphyxiation whenever a journal is censored”.3 In fact, the political action of the fascist regime was mainly inspired by a step-by-step strategy that combines repressive interventions with the control of positions of power obtained by the colonisation of the established institutions from within.4 The idea that inspired us in the selection of periodicals was to distinguish those in which the scientific nature of the approach gave rise to a more cultural discourse from those in which it served to establish a specialised 1 Sidgwick

(1903, 51–52). (2015, 2). 3 “Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali 1925”. 4 As stated by Turi (1999). 2Tribe

146

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

analysis of phenomena (specialised scientific journals). Moreover, the idea was to focus attention on journals in which cultural production was, in some way and measure, extraneous or resistant to that culture that aspired to define itself as properly fascist and that aimed at “ideal clarification” and “scientific arrangement” of a “new integral construction of the social world”.5 For this reason, the framework of our research accommodates some journals whose scientific nature has not been denied, but which have the fluid tone of generalism understood as a typical trait of knowledge that comes from scientific reflection to produce political, economic and social culture.

2

An Unsuccessful Resistance to Fascist Ideology

In the perspective above delineated, the journals that have evidently embraced the fascist ideology, although attempting a multidimensional— even economic—reading of reality, are not taken into consideration in this work. Indeed, differently from the generalist ones which are at the core of this research, these journals assumed the need to create a wide-ranging and all-pervasive reading of reality in order to perform, on a cultural level, a process of appropriation by the State of the “social content”,6 that is, of that social life which, consistently with the fascist political project, when absorbed by the political one, had to get rid of any subversive or simply dissonant charge.7 Among these explicitly fascist journals, an example is Lo Stato, published in Rome on a monthly basis from 1930 to 1943.8 Among the economists who collaborated with it, there are Celestino Arena, Gino 5 “Archivio

di Studi Corporativi 1930”. (1930). 7 From an epistemological point of view the normativity of the ideological discourse developed in these journals was founded in relation to application rules which were entirely displayed in relation to one-sided cultural universe while generalist normativity needs to be established on the basis of a process of crossing boundaries among different cultural fields. About a similar approach to generalism as semantics, see Whiting (2007). 8The journal was directed by Ettore Rosboch between 1930 and 1935 and then by Carlo Costamagna from 1936 to 1943. 6 Bottai

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

147

Arias, Gino Borgatta, Giuseppe Bottai, Gustavo Del Vecchio, Giuseppe Ugo Papi, and a young Franco Modigliani. A further publication is Educazione fascista. Rivista di politica, arte e letteratura published from 1927 to 1933 (formerly Educazione politica from 1925 to 1926) which then took the title of Civiltà fascista as mouthpiece of the National Fascist Institute of Culture between 1934 and 1945. Published in Florence and Rome on a monthly basis, this journal was an instrument of the totalitarian programme that Giovanni Gentile, the director of the periodical from 1934 to 1937,9 considered as the very essence of the fascist state. In his own words: “Mussolini’s State is strength; but it is strength because it is an idea. It is the very concept of man and the world and therefore a totalitarian plan of life for the individual as well as for the nation”.10 In addition to Arena, Arias and Del Vecchio, the periodical counts among its collaborators Alberto De’ Stefani, Lello Gangemi, Corrado Gini, and Arrigo Serpieri. The periodical, Nuovi problemi di politica, storia ed economia, published annually in Ferrara between 1930 and 1940 and directed by Nello Quilici and Giulio Colamarino, features the writings of economists such as Marcello Boldrini, Bruno De Finetti, Corrado Gini and Libero Lenti. Moving to the journals that responded to certain traits of generalism but were not immediately linked to the Regime, Critica sociale. Rivista quindicinale del socialismo scientifico is worth mentioning in the first place, as a case of journal rapidly discontinued as a consequence of fascist repression. The history of this journal, founded in 1891 by Filippo Turati and directed by him and Anna Kuliscioff as a continuation of Cuore e critica,11 is particularly marked by the authoritarian changes of the fascist regime. It was suspended between 1926 and 1944 because of the enactment of the so-called Leggi fascistissime [very fascist laws] which provided that only periodicals led by a director approved by the governing bodies and not hostile to them were allowed to continue their activities. Critica sociale resumed in 1945 “after the violence of a dark and shady dictatorship”.12

9Then the editorship was taken by Pietro de Francisci (1937–1940) as director of the National Fascist Institute of Culture. 10 Editoriale (1934, 1). 11 Founded in 1886 by A. Ghisleri. 12 “Critica Sociale. Rivista quindicinale del socialismo scientifico 1945”.

148

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Among the contributors to the periodical, there are the economists Benvenuto Griziotti, Gino Luzzatto, Arturo Labriola, Carlo Rosselli, and Luigi Dal Pane, while the topics discussed included socialism, the question of prices, taxation and international market trends and, in the year immediately preceding the suspension, a number of articles on Marxism and freedom written by Antonio Labriola. Two other journals that can be included in the category of generalism are Vita e Pensiero. Rassegna italiana di cultura inspired by Catholicism, and Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali professing Republican ideals. Vita e Pensiero was a two-monthly journal published at first in Florence and later in Milan since 1914. Its editor was Agostino Gemelli and the journal was soon to become the cultural periodical of the Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. The involvement of economists as contributors is steady—we find Giambattista Salvioni, Giuseppe Toniolo, and Alberto Zorli—and the trend continues also during the two decades of fascist rule. As a matter of fact, the journal shares the rare condition—with few others such as Nuova Antologia and Echi e Commenti—of surviving to the censorship introduced by the “Leggi fascistissime”, so much so that it was published until the fall of fascism. Although Vita e Pensiero dealt in particular with ethic and spiritualistic themes, and consequently, the economic topics had a limited space, we can count thirteen professors of economics who wrote about sixty articles during the two decades. The right-wing nature of Gemelli’s Catholicism, despite the anti-Christian opinion typical of a significant part of the fascist movement, allowed the journal to achieve prudent compromises, which secured a better fortune to it compared to socialist periodicals and to more liberal and progressive Catholic circles. The result was an economic journalism which was able to avoid full homogenisation with fascist arguments and language, although not remaining entirely impermeable to the regime’s culture, especially in the second half of the 1930s. A recurrent solution—often entrusted to Fanfani’s pen—was the preference for topics in economic history or concerning the Catholic social doctrines. During the worst years of the regime, Francesco Vito was appointed main commentator on economic matters and, in a short of time, he became the only spokesman for economics in Vita e Pensiero. Selecting few trustworthy commentators on economic

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

149

issues was a practice that, as we are going to show, also characterises Nuova Antologia. The second journal we mentioned, the Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali, was founded in 1895 under the title Rivista di politica e scienze sociali and the following year merged with Antonio Fratti’s Rivista popolare.13 From 1894 to 1921, the journal was edited by Napoleone Colajanni,14 who made no secret of his intention to provide an honest analysis of the facts and problems of the country in the light of that “rough” positivism which he recognised as his main characteristic,15 and in which he saw the most solid and effective barrier against the spread of ideologies. Colajanni’s gaze and pen thus focused on outlining the contours of an overall analysis of the Italian reality and in particular of that of the south of the country. The main aspects of his strategy can be summarised as follows: a critique of the superficial and false opinions on Southern Italy, such as those that explained its difficulties in terms of race; a focus on the question of latifundium and the weak incentives to invest caused by the absence of “points of contact” between owners and farmers; the connection between crime and the “distance between social classes” as in fact, where this distance is minimal, “even if the economic well-being is not so great, the moral conditions are excellent, whereas, where the distance is great, they are very bad and with high criminality like in Sicily”16 ; finally, a critique of the economic policies of the State (railway conventions, taxes, protectionism). During the early years of this periodical, such an approach was pursued more decisively, but in the 1920s and until its cessation in 1925, with economists and scholars such as Achille Pasini (who hoped for an integration between fascism and Catholicism), Giorgio Mortara and Giulio Colamarino among the journal’s collaborators, both the tone and the content of the articles were diluted in a type of analysis that was generally inclined to “reconcile” different perspectives, organically conveying them into the ideological messages of the fascist regime. 13 On

this periodical, see Severino (1981). the journal was edited by Carlo Bazzi. 15 He wrote: “I am a rough positivist, who firmly believes that the only way to benefit your country is to tell the whole truth”, Colajanni (1901, 6613). 16 Colajanni (1912, 380). 14Then

150

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Consequently, even the lifetime of this periodical, published every fortnight, seemed to confirm that the generalist journals were more clearly affected, than the most consolidated specialist press, by the spread of fascist propaganda and the pressure against the freedom of expression, despite the fact that the editorial line did not manifestly oppose the regime but rather tried to follow the path of cultural and political exchange and integration between fascism and other currents, in the light of a repeatedly declared adherence to Mazzini’s tradition: “with strict investigation in every field of social studies; with the passionate but composed examination of the major phenomena of political life; with the ceaseless dissemination of the thought of our Master and his disciples”.17 The case of this journal reveals that the generalist approach often corresponded to the political goal of shaping public opinion in relation to the most compelling problems of national life. In fact, the periodical was discontinued when the laws against the freedom of the press were enacted, thus revealing how these laws effectively represented a mutilation of the freedom of thought and of the right to representation. Thus, the January 1925 issue stated: “We should not loose sight of the fact that today’s press is no longer that of 1848 or 1890; but that it has a special constitutive function as a complement of Parliament and sometimes also that of surpassing the role of Parliament”,18 specifying that newspapers and other periodicals should be considered as an “extension” of the Chambers, i.e. as organisms in which the materials to be transformed into laws are prepared, as well as arenas in which the public opinion—of which the Parliament itself should be the interpreter—is formed. A further element of interest concerning the role and impact of generalist journals during the twenty years of fascist government lies in the analysis of those journals which, since their programmatic statement, announced their intention to offer a multifaceted study of economic phenomena, thus undertaking a process that consolidated over time and that gradually lead from eclectic generalism to outlining the epistemological categories of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of economic events. In this

17 “Rivista 18 “Ibid.,

popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali 1923”. 1925”.

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

151

direction, we can place the editorial experiences of Scientia. Organo internazionale di sintesi scientifica which was published since 1907 in Milan and Bologna, on a yearly basis. The contributors to this journal include, besides some exponents of the older generation such as Augusto Graziani, Achille Loria, Camillo Supino, Filippo Virgilii, and Alberto Zorli, also some young economists such as Giovanni De Francisci Gerbino, Raffaello Gangemi, Benvenuto Griziotti, and Giorgio Mortara. The guidelines of Scientia, formulated in the programmatic article published in the first issue, were oriented towards an open and interdisciplinary interpretation of the problems that were investigated, enhancing the viewpoint of science in any field of research. This endeavour was progressively forced to succumb under the strokes of the fascist regime. As a matter of fact, while between 1921 and 1925 the participation of economists was quite high, it came to be significantly reduced subsequently, following the same path of the main generalist journals, including Nuova Antologia and Echi e Commenti, as we are going to show.19 This interdisciplinary inspiration, at least in the purposes announced by the editors of the journal, was shared by the Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali, published since 1893. In this case, like in the aforementioned Rivista popolare, a methodological instance parallels an awareness of the political value inherent in the dialogue between different scientific disciplines and perspectives, favouring the dissemination of “a message of public philosophy based on the centrality of man and the search for criteria that could be apt to interweave the relationship between man and man and between men and things”.20 Specifically, social—i.e. civil, political, ecclesiastical and economic—sciences should give rise to a general doctrine of society and civilization, a single science including special disciplines, which “rises itself above the particular…, coordinating their general postulates and final responses in a unified manner…”.21

19 A comparative research on Italian periodicals clarifies the prominent role played by Nuova Antologia and Echi e commenti in hosting articles of economic argument between 1920 and 1938: 648 in Echi e Commenti written by 9 academic economists and 223 in Nuova Antologia thanks to the contribution of 29 economists, see Augello (2013, vol. I, t. I, liii). 20 Parisi (1996, 501). 21 Parisi (1996, 504).

152

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

3

The Fate of Two Emblematic Journals

As announced, in what follows we dwell on a detailed analysis of two journals which attempted to maintain the features of broader generalism, interested in developing the investigation of different political, social, economic and cultural realities on a scientific basis, firstly by attempting to resist the pressures of the fascist regime, and successively by lowering somehow the level of scientific analysis of facts and the distance from the grammar of fascist corporatism. These journals are Nuova Antologia and Echi e commenti. Nuova Antologia was founded and managed by the economist Francesco Protonotari in 1866. It was published every fortnight, then monthly, firstly in Florence and later in Rome.22 The journal has been defined as “a periodical of culture and politics of a miscellaneous nature, even more so as its subtitle indicates: Rivista di scienze, lettere ed arti, but also as a sectoral periodical comparable with the first specialized journals founded during the mid-seventies [of the nineteenth century]”.23 Its interest lies in the fact that it enables us to provide elements for the analysis of a process of change that involved the category of generalist publications in Italy between the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. Echi e commenti was published in Rome between 1920 and 1943. The journal was issued every ten days and its editors included at first Achille Loria and then Arturo Di Castelnuovo, Alberto De Marinis, and Raniero Paolucci de Calboli. Echi e commenti is characterised by short articles commenting on the most urgent and relevant political, economic and cultural issues of the day, and it is also concerned with scouting and disseminating the most significant outcomes of international intellectual production. The path followed by the evolution of these journals reveals that, between the 1920s and the 1930s, a significant and visible change in their profile actually occurred. In the first decade of this period, the contribution of the economists to generalist journals maintained some margin of intellectual autonomy. Economists applied themselves to reading facts 22 Under

the direction of M. Ferraris between 1926–1931 and T. Tittoni from 1931. (1995, xxxi).

23 Augello

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

153

with a view to generating new interpretative frameworks that could prove useful to solving contingent problems (the question of war reparations, monetary policies, the organisation of labour). No commitment to a single ideal or precise theoretical system emerged in this period. Conversely, in the 1930s, the main economists no longer found room for autonomous reflection in these periodicals, and increasingly ceased to collaborate with them, or preferred to contribute to specialised journals which, precisely because of their specialisation and niche circulation, enjoyed in fact a larger freedom of expression and communication. They were replaced by economists, often of less intellectual depth, who were more inclined to support the propaganda of the regime. In evaluating the changes occurred both in the treatment of contents and in the editorial formats of these journals, we have pursued the following goals: (a) to map and measure the degree of absorption of the economic discourse developed in these journals with respect to the official demand to strengthen and disseminate the corporatist theory; (b) to outline the economists’ contributions in terms of creation of economic culture and to establish whether and to what extent the generalist approach embraced by the economists who were most determined to maintain a certain scientific and intellectual autonomy transformed itself into a genuine and original intention to adopt an interdisciplinary scientific perspective in the study of economic phenomena. This is a perspective that fits well with the trend highlighted by the quantitative analysis carried out by Augello (1995), which was applied to more than 650 journals over a period of time that extends from 1841 to 1944. Augello’s studies have shown that, in the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, alongside the consolidation of the economics profession, a process of spread of specialised journals was established, accompanied by a concomitant increase in the contributions of the economists. In the last years of the nineteenth century and in the first two decades of the twentieth century, alongside the specialist journals, generalist journals such as the Nuova Antologia, Echi e commenti or the Rivista popolare di Politica, Lettere e Scienze Sociali, together with the transactions of the numerous

154

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Academies and Cultural Institutes active during the period, hosted to a significant extent contributions by economists. This trend declined when, since the end of the 1920s, the number of articles on economic issues published in this type of periodicals decreased both in absolute and in relative terms, to the benefit of specialist journals (including, above all, the Giornale degli Economisti, the Rivista di Politica Economica, La Riforma Sociale, L’Economia Italiana, and La Riforma Agraria).24 The comparative and quantitative studies above mentioned reveal that a similar process concerns the academies,25 progressively absorbed by the fascist regime. Like the journals analysed in the present work, academies had traditionally been venues for the promotion of pluralistic culture. They had been traditionally characterised by that autonomy of thought that is possible every time people are not ideologically aligned and interested in maintaining a dialogue between different cultural and scientific perspectives. This was an element that was unsuitable for the fascist “reuse” of existing institutions, “trying to inoculate in them its own ideology – as Gabriele Turi observes – making them functional to the needs of propaganda and consensus of the regime itself ”.26 Thus, on the one hand, the objective of colonising the space of action of cultural institutions was pursued and, on the other hand, an attempt was made to render their activities impossible. In this sense, measures such as that of 21 September 1933 which required that the statutes of the academies be adequate to the political and cultural needs of the Regime and prescribed to all members an oath of fidelity to fascism, and that of 8 June 1939 which established the Accademia d’Italia, leading to the de facto cessation of the activities of the Accademia dei Lincei, marked “a turning point in the process of fascism of the entire academic world”.27

24 An exception is made for Echi e Commenti, which until 1928, the year in which Loria ceased to collaborate with the review, continued to be an active organ of reflection on economic facts but which, by including short articles to comment the most urgent issues of the time, affected aggregate analyses in a significant way. 25 On academies, see in this book Patalano and Guidi. 26 See Turi (1999). 27 As Marchesi (1974, 328) points out the institution of the Academy of Italy represented «the most colossal threat that fascism has tended to the incurable vanity of the intellectual class».

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

4

155

The Transformation of Nuova Antologia and Echi e Commenti under the Fascist Regime

Both Nuova Antologia and Echi e Commenti offer an uninterrupted series of issues which cover the entire fascist period, from the “March to Rome” to the downfall of the dictatorship in 1943. This circumstance allowed us to find a considerable quantity of articles whose total number amounts to 959.28 Among them, we selected those written by economists, which represent only a fraction of all articles dealing with economic subjects published in both journals, and conversely include also articles on topics unrelated to economics. As regards the room for economic subjects in these journals, this is second only to literature, even though subject classification is almost impossible, given the difficulty of tracing precise boundaries between topics. Also, the profile of the economists who contributed to these journals requires some kind of explanation. With the exception of Luigi Luzzatti,29 who never taught economics at university, the authors of articles are all academic economists teaching economic disciplines in Italian universities. These are the protagonists of our research. The largest number of articles is contained in Echi e Commenti and this fact is a consequence of the structure of that journal. Unlike Nuova Antologia, Echi e Commenti published three issues per month amounting to a lower number of pages. Therefore, Echi e Commenti offers a larger number of articles, published more frequently, but often consisting of only one page, whereas the articles contained in Nuova Antologia—which offered only two issues per month—measured on average four pages and usually displayed a more articulated and in-depth level of analysis. The two decades of the fascist regime allow us to introduce a periodisation marked by the fascist legislation of 1925–1926—the date of the above mentioned “Leggi fascistissime”—which gradually led to the curtailment of the freedom of the press. Within a couple of years, following the gloomy 28The

error margin of the count is about 2 or 3 articles.

29 Although Luigi Luzzatti was professor of constitutional law, the greatest part of his public activities

and scientific life were devoted to the financial and economic policy matters and his intellectual profile was mainly perceived as that of a professional economist. See Ballini and Pecorari (2006).

156

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

course of Italian politics, the profiles of both journals changed, transforming themselves into grounds for harmless cultural debate or, even worse, into instruments of propaganda.The first evident effect of the introduction of censorship was a decrease in the number of articles signed by economists (see Appendix, Table 1). The most significant reduction occurred in Echi e Commenti, which lost some of its more assiduous commentators—Achille Loria above all—and reduced the space devoted to discussions on economic matters. Economics was a subject too close to politics to remain open to free debate among economists. The new trend required entrusting economic and financial topics to reliable writers, such as members of the editorial board, of government or of the Fascist Party. Even though, in the second decade, Nuova Antologia published more articles on economic subjects, it also adopted solutions to limit economic debate on its pages. The journal, through specialised columns, arranged well supervised areas where selected economists played the tasks of commentators. From 1931 to 1942, the column “Note Economiche” hosted the largest number of articles written by economists in Nuova Antologia. With the exception of the first year, all of them were signed by Gino Borgatta,30 the man of confidence in the editorial board. Skimming through both magazines, we find forty-five economists who wrote articles in the twenty years taken into consideration, and they are evenly distributed: twenty-three in Echi e Commenti, nineteen in Nuova Antologia and three authors—Augusto Graziani, Achille Loria, and Filippo Virgilii—who contributed to both (see Appendix, Table 2). A substantial difference emerges not from comparing the journals but from comparing the two decades: a marked pluralism characterised the first period, whereas a rigid alignment with the fascist regime distinguished the second phase. An evidence of this caesura is the absence of names such as Graziani, Antonio de Viti de Marco and above all Loria, who had been the main commentator in Echi e Commenti. At the same time, two more aligned economists, an open supporter of fascism such as Guido Menegazzi and a prudent and docile scholar, Gino Borgatta,31 became 30 On

the experience of Borgatta as a journalist, see Tedesco (2012, 2016).

31 On the biographical and intellectual profile of Borgatta, see Anonymous (1971). On the economic

and financial thought of Borgatta see also the essay of Bellanca (1993, 215–256).

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

157

the main contributors for economics in Echi e Commenti and in Nuova Antologia, respectively. Turning to the entire set of economists who contributed to these journals, the majority of them published either essays or comments only occasionally and, over a period of twenty years, the average of contributions turned around two each. The list of authors who wrote more than ten articles is very short, encompassing just nine economists: Loria, Menegazzi, Virgilii, Graziani, Borgatta, Dalla Volta, Masé Dari, Biagi, and D’Albergo (see Appendix, Table 3). Among them, Loria and Graziani belong to the first decade, Dalla Volta and Virgilii published during the entire period, and all others are representative of the second decade. The geographic origin of the authors shows a marked prevalence of economists working in the north of Italy. Considering their academic affiliation at the exact moment when articles were published, we find in first place the University of Rome, with thirteen economists. The other universities are almost all from the north of the country, whereas those of the south and of the two main islands (Sicily and Sardinia) are only five and with the smallest number of economists (see Appendix, Table 4). If the score of the Capital does not need any special explanation, the large number of northern academics is particularly interesting since it confirms a cultural and political trend of the fascist period. Even if we take into account the fact that the south of Italy has fewer universities than the north—a consequence of the lower political fragmentation of the Mezzogiorno before the unification of Italy—it clearly appears that southern economists were weakly involved in these journals: a circumstance which is consistent with the well-known general strangeness of the culture of southern Italy to fascism. As regards the subjects taught by contributors, there is a prevalence of traditional ones such as public economics, political economy, statistics and economic policy. Corporatism—even considering the short duration of this discipline in university curricula—appears a marginal topic, involving few and second-rank economists, at least among contributors (see Appendix, Table 5).

158

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Subjects are various and deal with all the main economic debates of the period, but they focus also on methodological, doctrinal and ideological aspects or on specific economic topics (see Appendix, Table 6).32 The largest part of articles is devoted to comments on world economy or on the economic conditions of Italy, followed by discussions on monetary and banking issues, or on public finance. We are in the “interwar years” and articles reflected the urgencies of the political agenda of the age: the Russian Revolution and the birth of a socialist economy; war reparations after the First World War; the return to the gold standard; the crisis of 1929; and the Great Depression. From the end of the 1920s, the issue of corporatism starts to come under public scrutiny and its importance grows more and more during the 1930s. Furthermore, although they obtain less room, some specialised columns—mainly in Echi e Commenti—host articles on several subjects such as: agriculture, property, emigration, colonies, demography, eugenics, transport and tourism, revealing a good degree of versatility of the Italian economists of the period and their wish to experiment in new fields. On the contrary, we find few contributions about non-economic subjects with the exception of some occasional articles by Loria, Graziani, Luzzatti, Dalla Volta, and Virgilii, regarding literature, religion and law.

5

Insights on Echi e Commenti

Echi e Commenti presents a cultural profile inspired by various specialisations in the fields of economics, law, statistics, sociology and public administration. Under Loria’s guidance, there was a manifest preference for a historical approach to the investigation and analysis of facts. The programmatic article specified that the periodical had been created to defend the Italian interest (e.g. concerning the question of war reparations). In the first decade of its existence, the theoretical stance of the journal in relation to economic issues was liberal, focusing on the awareness of interdependence between States and animated by the confidence that, only through 32The

list of topics of Table 6 in Appendix does not include the column “Note Economiche” since in each issue it deals with different subjects.

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

159

commonly shared policies, the post-war difficulties would be overcome. A stringent analysis of events, coupled with an attempt to free the analysis from the pressure of opposed ideologies, was at the core of the journal’s identity above all in Loria’s years.33 Loria was cautious in distancing himself from the power in order to better observe its action and judge its working. In an article published on 5 November 1922, entitled “Augurando” [wishing], he greeted the new government and wished it to solve the economic and financial problems of the country and to bring peace and the dissemination of freedom to a successful conclusion. From 1920 to 1928, the articles on economic subjects were mainly authored by Loria, who contributed about 300 texts, but also other economists such as Graziani, Dalla Volta, and Virgilii collaborated. The prevailing topics ranged from public finance, to reparations, monetary stability and the price level, labour, emigration, cooperation and corporatism, and later extended to comparison of different economic and political systems such as socialism, democracy, capitalism and fascism. The editorial and scientific policy of the journal gradually changed after Loria’s dismissal in 1928, occasioned by his vote as member of the Upper Chamber against the law for the reform of political representation, which provided for the end of free elections and parliamentary pluralism. For a number of years, under the guidance of the new managing editor Arturo Di Castelnuovo, the journal tried to maintain some room for an open debate about the various questions concerning the country and involved the aforementioned economists as well as De Francisci Gerbino, Arias, Masé Dari, D’Albergo, and Ferri. But when the editorship passed to Paolucci de Calboli, the periodical took on, in its guise and content, the standard features of a journal aligned with the fascist regime. This profile was accentuated under Alberto De Marinis’s guidance, when the title of the column “Economics and Finance” was transformed into “Economics, Finance and Corporatism”, and it was entrusted to Guido Menegazzi, a libero docente [private lecturer] in Monetary and Credit Policy at the University of Rome.

33 On

this review, see Di Porto (1995).

160

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Menegazzi, despite a constant sobriety in the use of fascist rhetoric, aimed to “explain” the decisions and actions of the government in matter of budget deficit, the goal of self-sufficiency, monetary policy, public finance as the most effective tool to achieve rationality and economic justice. Menegazzi assiduously contributed to the economic column until 1937, when his collaboration became more and more sporadic and diluted into a vague and approximate analysis of abstract subjects. This changing attitude mirrored the fact that, after believing in corporatism as a way to achieve greater social justice, at the end of the 1930s, he turned to a vision inspired to Catholic solidarity. Along with a progressive fall in the theoretical and practical relevance of the economic reflections published in the journal, the whole structure and division into sections underwent a radical downsizing and the periodical took the shape of a monologue in favour of fascist propaganda. In fact, what Achille Loria had predicted was finally accomplished when, after his dismissal, he entrusted his bitter considerations to the pages of Nuova Antologia in August 1928.34 Intellectuals were not provided with venues for authentically scientific analysis, places in which they could to some extent feel at ease and undertake a critical and overall evaluation of the principles of different political, social, economic structures, in order to facilitate considered, reasonable, shareable and therefore free choices. It remained to retreat into an ivory tower, following the example of poets: If a thought emerges from the pages of a poet, it is that of contempt of social hierarchies, scepticism about already achieved positions, the vanity of the whole human consortium, of ambition, ascent and triumph and, dominant over all other sentiments, a disconsolate nostalgia for a quiet and modest life, freed from aspirations and worries […], from the irrational inevitabilities of human co-existence except in the impenetrable recesses of conscience, or in the impracticable albeit rational and free creations of the moral city. It is the ivory tower, where peace is everlasting, and where the most tremendous procellae, infuriating at every turn in the midst of the hardships of life, never come to disturb it.35

34 Loria 35 Loria

(1928, 315–329). (1928, 329).

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

6

161

The Propagandist Degeneration of Nuova Antologia

The columns of Nuova Antologia, during the 1930s, offer a nice point of observation to analyse the metamorphosis of the role of the economist as commentator and opinion maker under the fascist regime. Such a change concerns at the same time the argumentative style, the choice of subjects and the arguments exposed. The process is clear in the appearance of a new figure which we could call the “militant economist”. The latter is an activist of the Fascist Party who employs his professional competence and knowledge for propagandist aims. This is the role played by Bruno Biagi, who wrote almost all the articles contained in the column on corporatism. The largest part of the articles collected in this column consists of a narrative of the activities of corporations and of considerations—which are always expressed in a celebratory tone—on the current state of corporatism. The result is a detailed albeit unreliable report of the growth and spread of fascist corporations in the Italian society. A different story can be found in few other articles, two of them developing ideological contents and two other focusing on the doctrinal assumptions of corporatism. The first set is signed by Biagi36 and consists of two emphatic exaltations of the international spread of corporatism in various fascist countries of Europe and South America. The second group is made up by two theoretical essays, one written by Filippo Carli and the second again by Biagi.37 Biagi’s article deals with State intervention in the public health sector in the context of economic corporatism, which is explained opposing the social aims of fascist economy to liberal individualism. Carli’s contribution is the most articulated and in-depth essay on the subject published in Nuova Antologia. The author analyses the corporatist principles, its philosophical premises and its economic applications, in order to demonstrate that corporatism is an alternative economic model to both the doctrine of free market economic equilibrium and socialist planned-economy. Unlike the articles by Biagi,

36 1

May 1934 issue 1491; 1 November 1941 issue 1671. July 1934 issue 1496; 1 March 1936 issue 1535.

37 16

162

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

this is the only piece on the topic whose arguments are less contaminated with rhetoric and propaganda tones. Since 1932, the column “Note Economiche” is the main locus of economic debate hosted by Nuova Antologia. It is opened by Pasquale Jannaccone,38 who acted as editor and contributed some articles during the first year. In the second year, the column was entrusted to Gino Borgatta. “Note Economiche” is a perfect example for observing those changes that the pressures of the fascist regime determined on the economists and on the exercise of their profession. Indeed, if the column on corporatism was a propaganda instrument since the beginning, the articles by Jannaccone and Borgatta offered a kind of economic analysis—often a very technical one—that did not take any partisan political stance. Their linguistic style is sober and they carefully avoid celebratory tones or flattery towards the government or the Fascist Party. Furthermore, the choice of topics appears free from political commitments and the reasoning shows independence of thought. They usually deal with the international currency scenarios, the payment of war reparations or the problems of national and world finance. The articles often alternate a precise and applied economic analysis with more theoretical contents or intellectual reflections on the history and future of economic systems, and frequently quote and review the most recent international economic literature. Within a few years, however, this trend was destined to be reversed, and already in 1934 we perceive some signs of change in style and arguments. The topics debated remained those of the world economy and Italian public finance, and Borgatta fought a rearguard battle in defending the gold standard. The articles reveal an effort to carry on an independent and reliable analysis of facts, but in the course of time they increasingly betray a forced interpretation of events. Some evident mutations appear in the comments on Italian fiscal policy, which adopt moderately apologetic tones and a laudatory expository style in favour of the government, even though often indirectly expressed through the quotation of other authors. The great fact that determined a more marked change in the

38 On

the biographical and intellectual profile of Jannaccone, see Misiani (2004).

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

163

profile of the column was the Italo-Ethiopian war in 1935, which introduced the issue of war economy.39 The embargo the League of Nations imposed to the Kingdom of Italy forced the economists to take openly side in favour of the fascist regime. From this moment on, the articles increasingly express thoughts and arguments which are conditioned since the beginning by pre-established political stances. The regime policy— above all that towards foreign countries—constitutes an insurmountable framework within which the economic analysis is compelled to remain even at the cost of affecting the reliability of reasoning and conclusions. Furthermore, Borgatta is called to operate continuous theoretical repositioning to adjust his analysis to the development of events. The first of these adjustments emerges in an attempt to justify the abandonment of the gold standard system that had been defended until 1936. A particularly exacting task must have been the comment of the growth of military spending—for the war in Ethiopia and for the support of Francisco Franco’s army in the Spanish civil war—and of the criterion of taxation to finance them, since the former appeared disproportionate vis-à-vis the Italian economy, and the latter was not equally distributed among the social classes. These are obviously thoughts that Borgatta never exposed explicitly: they only emerged as fears, wishes and suggestions for the government. A scenario which got worse when, in the articles of 1938, Borgatta had to engage himself in seeking and showing some economic meanings in the autarchic organisation of the Italian economy that the fascist regime was forced to adopt as a response to the international embargo and in justifying the financial effort in public investments for Italian Eastern Africa.40 The tragic events of European history in 1938 and 1939 obliged him to interpret the Italian economic policy within the new scenarios of foreign policy. So, Borgatta became more and more critical of Western democracies, with arguments which sometimes degenerated into open denigration and appeals to fascist language and rhetoric. At the same time, we find an attempt to emphasise the affinity and convergence between the Italian and German economic and social model. The result 39The comments of Borgatta clash with the antimilitarism of the earlier years of his career. See Tedesco (2016). 40 On the drastic conversion of Borgatta from liberalism to autarky, see Tedesco (2012).

164

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

is an analysis whose value and reliability is heavily conditioned by ideological and partisan premises. The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 and the necessity to support the growth of military expenditure for war preparation, and the consequent tax reform, required Borgatta to cut definitively any cultural tie with the liberal tradition of his origins.41 The epilogue of the column “Note Economiche” occurred during the war years—the last piece dates from 1942—in a very different climate compared to the beginning. The articles of 1940 are entirely devoted to war economy, analysed under various aspects—theory, policy and finance— and commented also by quoting international economic literature, by now almost exclusively coming from Germany. What distinguishes this last stage of economic journalism in Nuova Antologia are both the language, which is irretrievably contaminated by propaganda, and the reasoning, which is altered by extra-scientific assumptions. A series of ideological and political dogmas delimit the area of economic discussion, creating a surreal context in which the conclusions of analysis loose any contact with reality. Some of the most recurrent assumptions are: the inevitable victory of Axis Powers; the certain expansion of Italian dominions; the institutional superiority of the fascist model of State; the economic superiority of the fascist model of society, etc. One of the topics dealt with is an imaginary planning of the future fascist economic order imposed on Europe and the world after the expected triumph of the Axis, a scenario characterised by hierarchic order and subordination among nations. Particularly surprising are the passages on the future monetary system for the judgement they contain on gold standard, which is stigmatised as an institutional symbol of Western democratic ideology. This stance clashes with the articles published by Borgatta until 1935 and with his past profession of liberalism. The pieces of the last two years—1941 to 1942—mark the end of the column “Note Economiche” at its lowest profile, and with it of the experience of economic journalism on Nuova Antologia during the fascist period. The triumphalist tones displayed at the beginning of the war disappear as soon as it becomes clear that Italy is not able to conduct a conflict that has 41Tedesco (2016,

243), quoting Riccardo Faucci, explains the radical change of Borgatta—from the liberalism of Einaudi’s school to fascist autarky—also as a consequence of his involvement as advisor of the Ministry of Finance and other fascist institutions created to rule the corporative economy.

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

165

grown well beyond the military and above all the economic capacity of the country. Borgatta’s articles degenerate into a description and technical explanation of fiscal policy and taxation avoiding any considerations on the economic and financial sustainability of the war. However, this is not a solution that can reassure the readers, and on the contrary, it inadvertently transmits a sense of discouragement. Skimming through the issues, we can conclude that in the last decade of the fascist period the Regime conditioned in an increasing way the profile of Nuova Antologia and the articles of the economists. But the circumstances that really affected the quality of its economic journalism were consequences of the international political events which occurred in Europe since 1936. Even though we cannot consider the pieces published at the beginning of the 1930s as examples of free and independent analysis, it was the political departure of the Italian government from the Allied Powers which imposed radical changes in the culture and mentality of the country and in the work of intellectuals. From this moment on, the propaganda of the regime became so pervasive and stifling that it went as far as directing any form of narration and interpretation of reality. As a consequence, also the work of economists lost any scientific requisite, transforming itself into a mere instrument of public persuasion.

Appendix See Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Table 1

Articles in Echi e Commenti and Nuova Antologia

Nuova Antologia Echi e Commenti Total number

109 850 959

23 (1922–1929)+86 (1930–1943) 569 (1922–1929)+281 (1930–1943) 591 (1922–1929)+367 (1930–1943)

166

Table 2

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Authors of articles in Echi e Commenti and Nuova Antologia

Acerbo Alessio Angrisani Arias Barbieri Benini Biagi Borgatta Carli D’Albergo Dalla Volta De Francisci Gerbino De Pietri-Tonelli De Viti de Marco Fantini Fasolis Ferri Flora Galeotti Gangemi Garino-Canina Gini Gragnani

Table 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

3 5 2 2 2 4 11 53 1 11 136 6 1 1 2 6 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 5

Graziani Griziotti Jannaccone Lolini Loria Luzzatti Mariotti Masé Dari Maugini Medolaghi Menegazzi Mortara Niceforo Nina Prato Ricchioni Serpieri Sitta Supino Tassinari Vinci Virgilii

83 (82+1) 1 8 3 306 (300+6) 6 6 13 1 1 163 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 92 (91+1)

Total number

45

Economists contributing with more than 10 articles

Loria Menegazzi Dalla Volta Virgilii Graziani Borgatta Masé Dari Biagi D’Albergo

306 163 136 92 83 53 13 11 11

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

Table 4

Universities where authors taught

Università di Roma Università di Bologna Università di Firenze Università di Torino Università di Padova Università di Pavia Università di Siena Università di Bari Università di Cagliari Università di Genova Università di Milano Università di Napoli Università di Pisa Università di Camerino Università di Catania Università di Ferrara Università di Modena Università di Palermo Università di Perugia Università di Trieste Università di Venezia

Table 5

13

4

3

2

1

Subjects taught by the authors

Public economics Political economy Statistics Economic policy Agricultural economics Corporatism History of economic thought Other economic courses

14 13 12 7 4 3 2 4

167

168

Table 6

F. D. Degan and F. Simon

Topics of articles

World and international economy Italian economy Corporatism Bank, credit, and saving Currency Liberalism, socialism and fascism Public finance Agriculture Labour Economic history-history of economics Emigration Method and doctrines Demography and eugenics Industry Tourism Colonialism Cooperation Social peace Gold Property Statistics

197 179 67 63 56 50 39 31 30 25 20 20 14 10 10 9 9 8 7 7 2

References Anonymous. (1971). Borgatta, Gino. In Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Vol. 12). Roma: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana. Augello, M. M. (1995). Il ruolo dei periodici nell’economia politica italiana della seconda metà dell’Ottocento. Il pensiero economico italiano, III (2), ix–lxxiii. Augello, M. M. (2013). Gli economisti accademici italiani dell’Ottocento. Una storia “documentale”. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra Editore. Ballini, P., & Pecorari, P. (2006). Luzzatti Luigi. In Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Vol. 66). Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Bellanca, N. (1993). La teoria della finanza pubblica in Italia, 1883–1946. Saggio storico sulla scuola italiana di economia pubblica. Firenze: Olschki. Bottai, G. (1930). Stato corporativo e democrazia. In Id., Esperienza corporativa (1929–1934) (p. 126). Firenze: Vallecchi. Colajanni, N. (1901). Discorso alla Camera, 11 dicembre. Atti parlamentari, legislatura 21, 1 sessione: 6613–6626.

“Generalist” Journals between Dissemination of Economics …

169

Colajanni, N. (1912). Il problema meridionale nei discorsi e negli scritti di Giustino Fortunato. Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali, 31 luglio, p. 380. Di Porto, B. (1995). Politica, economia e cultura in una rivista tra le due guerre. “Echi e Commenti” (1920–1943). Torino: Giappichelli. Editoriale. (1923). Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali (8–9), 1–2. Editoriale. (1925). Rivista popolare di politica, lettere e scienze sociali (1–2), 1. Editoriale. (1934). Civiltà fascista (1), 1. Editoriale. (1945). Critica Sociale. Rivista quindicinale del socialismo scientifico (1), 1. Loria, A. (1928, Agosto). Pensieri e soggetti economici in Shakespeare. Nuova Antologia, 63(1353), 315–330. Marchesi, C. (1974). Regie Accademie. In M. Todaro-Faranda (Ed.), Umanesimo e comunismo. Editori Riuniti: Roma. Misiani, S. (2004). Jannaccone Pasquale. In Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Vol. 62). Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. Parisi, D. (1996). La “Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali e discipline ausiliarie”. La divulgazione di una dottrina morale dei fatti sociali. In M. M. Augello, M. Bianchini & M. E. L. Guidi (Eds.), Le riviste di economia in Italia (1700–1900). Dai giornali scientifico-letterari ai periodici specialistici (pp. 497– 514). Milano: Franco Angeli. Parisi, D. (2003). Francesco Vito. Attualità di un economista politico. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Programma. (1930). Archivio di Studi Corporativi (1), 3–7. Severino, L. (1981, April–June). La Rivista Popolare di Napoleone Colajanni. Archivio Trimestrale, 357–374. Sidgwick, H. (1903). The Principles of Political Economy. London: Macmillan. Tedesco, L. (2012). Gino Borgatta e la crisi economica degli anni trenta tra protezionismo condizionato e autarchia inderogabile. Il pensiero economico italiano, XX (1), 91–107. Tedesco, L. (2016). Il protezionismo come irrazionalità economica e «sentimento di egoismo patriottico» nell’analisi e nella denuncia di Gino Borgatta sulla grande stampa d’opinione. In M. M. Augello, M. E. L. Guidi & G. Pavanelli (Eds.), Economia e opinione pubblica nell’Italia liberale (Vol. I, pp. 229–243). Milano: Franco Angeli. Tribe, K. (2015). The Economy of the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turi, G. (1999). Le Accademie nell’Italia Fascista. Belfagor, 54 (4), 403–424. Whiting, D. (2007). Defending Semantic Generalism. Analysis, 67 (4), 303–311.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging the Homo Corporativus? Riccardo Faucci and Nicola Giocoli

1

The Problem and the Labels

The purpose of this essay is to investigate the contribution of the textbooks of political economy and related disciplines used in Italian universities during the Ventennio to the project envisaged by fascist ideologues, Giuseppe Bottai and Giovanni Gentile, of creating the “new Italians” (cf. Barucci et al. 2015, 13). More specifically, we ask whether these textbooks really aimed at forging the homo corporativus in much the same way as The paper surveys forty textbooks of economics and related disciplines published in Italy during fascism. We try to understand to what extent those textbooks contributed to the regime’s goal of creating the ideal fascist citizen, the so-called homo corporativus. It is argued that, at least in their textbooks, a majority of Italian economists were rather unsupportive of that goal and endorsed corporatist ideas only superficially.

R. Faucci (B) · N. Giocoli University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy e-mail: [email protected] N. Giocoli e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_7

171

172

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

the corresponding textbooks of the early decades of the Kingdom of Italy aimed at creating the classical homo oeconomicus, i.e., the “agent and facilitator of the self-government of society through economic mechanisms and economic motives” (Augello and Guidi 2012, 3). Our method will be to evaluate the content of the handbooks per se, in terms of what an average university student of political economy in the 1930s and early 1940s could draw from those pages, without inquiring into the specific political ideas of the author. This entails that, regardless of an author’s own commitment to fascism, what matters for our purposes is only the characterisation of individuals qua economic agents—and the related one of economics qua science—which his textbook proposed to readers. In short, the protagonists of our story are the textbooks, not the economists who wrote them.1 Building on the characterisation that one of us gave of the various approaches to the economic analysis of corporatism,2 and in view of our goal in this essay, we will classify textbooks in four categories: supporters, experimenters, chameleons and neglecters. These labels deserve some explanation in order to properly frame them within the exceptional historical circumstances in which they are applied. Beginning in the early 1930s, the fascist government required, more or less formally, but always persuasively, that the adjective “corporative” be added to the name of the academic subject “Political Economy”.3 Accordingly, authors had also to modify their textbooks’ titles and, above all, content. No specific guidelines existed though as to what exactly the new subject of “Corporative Political Economy” should consist of. As our labels suggest, in some (indeed, many) cases the change was either purely superficial or entailed no real commitment to corporatist principles, let alone to the project of building the “new Italians”. That Italian economists could still enjoy such freedom should not sound surprising. The lack even among the highest political 1 For

a broader historical overview of the evolution of Italian textbooks of economics in the first half of the twentieth century, see Magliulo (2000). 2 See Faucci (1990, 13–18; 2000, 298–303; 2014, 189–191). Also see the distinction between “formal” and “integral” corporatist economists in Cavalieri (1994, 10, fn. 4). 3 According to the CIPEI database of academic economists during Fascism, the earliest occurrence of “corporativism” in the title of a university teaching in economics or related subjects was in 1929, with Filippo Carli’s course in “Corporative Policy and Economics”, at the University of Pisa.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

173

and intellectual ranks of the Regime of a clear and detailed characterisation of the corporatist project granted textbook writers substantial autonomy in filling with the most diverse contents what for the whole Ventennio remained the shapeless, and largely empty, vessel of corporatism. We call “supporters” those textbooks that openly endorsed the “official version”—vague and informal as it might be—of corporatism and corporatist economics as radically different from, respectively, previous socio-economic orders and standard economic theory. Some common traits of those textbooks can be identified. First, the image of corporatism as a brand new economic order, not just a “third way” between socialism and laissez-faire. Students were taught that corporatism was something “beyond and above”, and, for this reason, irreducible in its essence to the principles underlying old socio-economic arrangements. Second, the idea that the individuals populating a corporatist economy are no standard economic agents, but, again, something truly different. The homo corporativus is modelled as a new kind of agent, whose aims are—or at least would programmatically become—identical to those of the State. Third, the notion of an “immanent” State, whose goals pervade the whole economy and prevail over—more exactly, coincide with, and so eventually replace—those of the individuals. Finally, the rejection of economics as a pure and separate science. In its stead, “supporting” textbooks offered a holistic approach to social sciences that mixed economics with politics, sociology and law. The eventual goal was to create new epistemological foundations for the social sciences and, through them, spread the new corporatist culture.4 The label “experimenters” is used in this essay for those textbooks that depicted corporatism as some form or another of a “third way”—both historically and analytically—between socialism and laissez-faire. Building on this premise, and on the related acknowledgement of the failure of the free market system to deliver maximum efficiency, the typical “experimenting” 4 For

the argument that even this version of corporatism was not totally detached from the tradition of Italian economic thought, in that its roots at least partially lay in the historicist-spiritualistvoluntarist approach shared by many Italian economists of the late nineteenth century, see again Faucci (1990). The Regime ’s goal was no novelty. Denouncing the efforts during the first decade of the Kingdom of Italy to bend economics to become subservient of political power, the leading Italian economist of the time, Francesco Ferrara, had publicly voiced his discontent. See Faucci (1995, 20–25).

174

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

textbook presented readers with an (often innovative) analysis of how standard economic theory had to be modified to exploit the advantages of a corporatist order vis-à-vis capitalism’s and socialism’s drawbacks.5 “Overcome without reneging” was those textbooks’ catchword with respect to orthodox economics. By recognising the active role of the State in the price system—beginning with the most fundamental price of all, that of labour—as well as in the centralised management of the social conflict, those texts often undertook unexplored theoretical paths. Regardless of the author’s personal commitment to fascism, this elegant way out from the Regime’s diktat to change the teaching of economics had therefore a side benefit. It helped preserving the scientific reputation of Italian economists on themes, such as public intervention in the economy or imperfect competition, which occupied centerstage in 1930s economics debates worldwide. Textbooks in this group further vindicate the appeal one of us made long ago against adopting a dismissive attitude towards interwar Italian economics (Faucci 1990, esp. 7–10; also see Faucci 2014, Ch. 7). Inspired by the animal’s ability to modify its skin’s appearance while leaving all the rest unchanged, we label “chameleons” those textbooks that made room for corporatism in a superficial way, with only cosmetic changes that affected neither the traditional presentation of the subject nor, frequently, the author’s belief in the virtues of the free market system. It was not unusual to abide by the fascist command to change the discipline’s title by changing… only its title, and with it—and not even in all cases— that of the textbook assigned to the class, while leaving its actual content more or less untouched.6 The same label we attach to those textbooks that were made conforming to fascist diktats by the mere addition of a few pages about the legal and institutional details of corporatism—in particular, about the founding document of Italian corporatism, the 1927 Carta del Lavoro. Smart readers could in those cases appreciate the author’s 5 On this specific way of coping with the economics of corporatism, see more amply Magliulo (2000,

64–67). 6 Ferrara

had already used the label “chameleons” to chastise those economists who lacked strong principles and belonged to no clear school of thought, see Ferrara (1976 [1884], 368). We reiterate that this label, like all others, is assigned here to textbooks, not to their authors. It should not be interpreted as expressing a moral evaluation of the latter’s behavior. This, by the way, is the reason we decided to avoid using the word “opportunist”—which has a more negative tone—to characterise this group of textbooks.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

175

willingness to signal that the forced modification of the volume’s content was relegated to the separate field of law, while leaving the core, and the soul, of economics unaffected. Remarkably, even “chameleonic” textbooks that downplayed (when not openly denied) the theoretical relevance of corporatist ideas often contributed to international debates on how to cope with, say, labour market issues, the rising concentration of business or cyclical downturns. Finally, the label “neglecters” is assigned to the textbooks that carried no (or minimal) traces of corporatism or that even openly criticised it. In our sample, this is almost exclusively the case of textbooks published in the early years of the Regime, including those few pre-dating the change in the subject’s name. “Neglecting” works were included in the sample for reasons that transcend mere completeness (a few of them were among the most popular textbooks of the time). Some of them were sampled precisely because they expressly denied the scientific validity of corporativist ideas. Some others because they offer a benchmark to understand what the teaching of economics looked like in Italian universities before corporatist ideas had to be willy-nilly accounted for. In view of the latter point, we have corroborated our attribution of the label by looking specifically at how a given textbook dealt with a hot policy issue of the time like the debate between free trade and autarky/protectionism. Unsurprisingly, all “neglecters” (as well as most “chameleons”) offered standard treatments of international trade. Exemplar in this respect, if only for the scientific standing of the author, is Gustavo Del Vecchio’s (1930) textbook, which contained a passionate defence of the benefits of free trade.

2

The Sample and the Benchmarks

We examined 40 textbooks, 27 of which are textbooks of political economy, 8 of public finance and 5 of economic policy. In three cases (the manuals by Marco Fanno, Ugo Papi, and Alberto De’ Stefani), we considered two editions of the same text, in view of the prominence of the author and, above all, of the changed attitude towards corporatism displayed in the different versions. With the single exception of the 1936 reprint of Enrico Barone’s 1922–1923 textbook, our sample covers academic courses

176

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

taught in Italian universities and high institutes of business studies (Istituti Superiori di Studi Commerciali, the forerunners of the modern faculties of economics) between 1927 and 1943. The list is therefore highly representative of the universe of academic textbooks used across the country during fascism. Thirteen textbooks in political economy and two in economic policy carry the word “corporative” directly in their title. This however is not very significant, in view of the Regime’s pressure for a change in the subject’s denomination on the one side and, on the other, of the abovementioned heterogeneous content of sampled textbooks, regardless of their title. Hence, in order to avail ourselves of a clear-cut benchmark of soto-speak diehard corporatist books, we also looked at three important treatises that—though in different ways—openly put forward the corporatist dogmas of a “new society” and a “new individual”. In terms of our classification, these volumes, which were not intended for teaching but for academic debate, should be all marked as (strong) “supporters”. Yet, two of them are also remarkable for their effort to build a new economics of corporatism, so much so that the label “experimenter” would also apply (more details below). For opposite reasons, the same benchmark role is played—though this time within our sample—by Barone’s textbook, which we take as representative of the way orthodox economics was taught at the dawn of the fascist regime (1922–1923) in the leading University of Rome by one of the most prominent Italian economists.7 The sample contains the following textbooks (for full bibliographic details, see the reference list): I. Textbooks of Political Economy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 On

Amoroso L., Principii di economica corporativa, 1938 Arias G., Corso di economia politica corporativa, 1937 Bachi R., Lezioni di economia politica, 1927–1928 Barone E., Principi di economia politica, 1922–1923 (reprint 1936) Benini R., Lezioni di economia politica, 1936 Bordin A., Appunti di economia politica corporativa, 1937

Enrico Barone’s contributions to modern economics, see Caffé (1987) and Mosca and Bradley (2013).

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

177

Bresciani Turroni C., Lezioni di economia politica corporativa, 1943 Chessa F., Economia politica corporativa, 1941 Del Vecchio G., Lezioni di economia pura, 1930 Demaria G., Elementi di economia politica corporativa, 1938 Einaudi L., Corso di economia politica e legislazione industriale, 1931 Fanno M., Lezioni di scienza economica, 1936 Fanno M., Principii di scienza economica, 1938 Galli R., Corso di economia politica, 1932 Gobbi U., Elementi di economia corporativa, 1935 Graziani A., Istituzioni di economia politica, 1936 Jannaccone P., Lezioni di economia politica, 1936 Loria A., Corso di economia politica, 1934 Marsili Libelli M., Sintesi di economia politica corporativa, 1940 Masci G., Corso di economia politica corporativa, 1940 Mortara G., La realtà economica, 1935 Papi G. U., Lezioni di economia generale e corporativa, 1935 Papi G. U., Lezioni di economia politica corporativa, 1943 Sensini G., Corso di economia politica, 1933–1934 Serpieri A., Prinicipii di economia politica corporativa, 1939 Supino C., Principi di economia politica, 1931 Vito F., Economia politica corporativa, 1939.

II. Textbooks of Public Finance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Arena C., Corso di scienza delle finanze e diritto finanziario, 1939 Borgatta G., Appunti di scienza delle finanze e diritto finanziario, 1935 D’Albergo E., Principi di scienza delle finanze, 1940 De’ Stefani A., Manuale di finanza, 1932 De’ Stefani A., Manuale di finanza, 1943 Einaudi L., Principii di scienza della finanza, 1940 Fasiani M., Principii di scienza delle finanze, 1941 Fubini R., Lezioni di scienza delle finanze, 1934.

178

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

III. Textbooks of Economic Policy 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Bruguier Pacini G., Corso di politica economica corporativa, 1938–1939 Corbino E., Corso di politica economica e finanziaria, 1942 Del Vecchio G., I Principii della Carta del Lavoro, 1935 De Pietri-Tonelli A., Corso di politica economica, 1931 Di Fenizio F., La Politica autarchica in economia corporativa, 1938.

The three treatises on corporatist political economy we selected as benchmarks are the volumes by Filippo Carli (Teoria generale della economia politica nazionale, 1931), Eraldo Fossati (Linee di economica corporativa, 1937) and Ugo Spirito (I fondamenti della economia corporativa, 1932). As we said, none had been written for students. The reason we briefly comment on them here is to illustrate what an equivalent, wholly “supporting” academic textbook should have looked like if its author really aimed at forging the “new Italians” à la Bottai-Gentile. Carli’s Teoria Generale was under many respects a pioneering work, as it set the pattern for many subsequent eulogies of corporatism. Its core ideas—first, the alleged identity between the goals of the individual, conceived of as an integral part of the social system within which those goals were pursued, (namely the corporation), and the goals of the State, of which the corporation was simply the most accomplished embodiment, and, second, the ensuing characterisation of the individual not as an abstract homo oeconomicus, but as a flesh-and-bone homo corporativus—clearly mark the volume as wholly committed to the Bottai-Gentile project. Still, the book was also a work in theoretical economics, built upon a fairly standard equilibrium methodology and that pursued, as its utmost analytical goal, the derivation of the conditions for a quasi-perfect, realworld “mobile equilibrium” (either cyclical or dynamic) for the whole economy. Needless to say, even on this theoretical side Carli’s solution was be found in the broadening of economic possibilities guaranteed by the rules and institutions of the new corporatist order. Still more explicit with respect to the usefulness—and descriptive value—of traditional economic ideas was another apologetic treatise, such as Fossati’s Linee. Economics was orthodoxically depicted as dealing with the relation between means and ends; yet, the ends in a corporatist order were set by the State, itself conceived of as the most perfect syntheses and expression of the different social forces. Once belonging to the corporatist

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

179

order, the individual—either enlightened by proper corporatist education or constrained by the coercive power of the law—would behave consistently with his specific duty, that of fulfilling the three goals of a fascist state, which Fossati identified as national power, social justice and the maximisation of the productive possibilities given the available resources. In a wholly different league, we find Spirito’s treatise—the extreme expression of what a book about corporatist political economy might look like. I Fondamenti explicitly denies not only the notion of homo economicus, but also the scientific viability itself of traditional economics (indeed, of all social sciences). Only corporatist economics deserves the status of true science, in that it alone respects, and is shaped by, the fundamental premise of the State as an immanent entity in every economic act. According to Spirito, the truly revolutionary feature of fascism lies in the principle that the citizen is to be held accountable to the State for all its life and behaviour. Why? Because the goals of an individual are always identical to those of the State—a State to which the individual owes even his own life. Hence, any deviation from, or opposition to, State’s goals is illegitimate, so much so that, noted Spirito, economic phenomena may at most be anti-state, but never extra-state. This is the reason private property is still admitted by the Carta del Lavoro: property has in itself a public aim, because each owner is, in Spirito’s words, “a constitutive organ of the State”. By denying the autonomy of economic categories and by tracing back every manifestation of social life to the corporatist order of the fascist state, Spirito thus offered a ready-to-use template for those economics professors who really wished to conform their teaching to the corporatist project. As our analysis shows, very few of them followed his guidelines. A final word on our classifications. In some cases, the attribution of a single, clear-cut label was very difficult. Especially, the distinction between mere supporters and true experimenters could be very subtle. As it happened, students had sometimes to cope with a textbook that, though ideologically committed to carry forward fascist principles and catchwords (thus, a “supporter”), did so by also offering some original theoretical contributions, which effectively built a bridge with that very orthodox economics the rest of the book was perhaps criticising as inadequate and outmoded. Our difficulty is hardly surprising. As hinted in the Introduction, it is now commonplace in the HET literature on corporatist

180

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

economics to recognise that, regardless of their political allegiance, some Italian economists also viewed corporatism as an intellectual challenge to the robustness of standard economics, not dissimilar from those raised internationally during the so-called years of high theory (Shackle 1967). So, for instance, some of them took the opportunity offered by the addition of corporatist notions to either teach new analytical tools for handling deviations from perfect competition or affirm a methodological favour for a more inductive approach to economics against the then-dominant hypothetical-deductive approach (see Cavalieri 1994, 44). In cases like these, the label “supporter” would downplay the actual innovative content—be it analytical or methodological—of a given textbook. Therefore, whenever we found it impossible in our tables to mark a textbook univocally, we proceeded by assigning it a mixed label, classifying it as “supporter/experimenter”.

3

Our Classification

The following tables present the results of our classification of the 40 textbooks. As Table 1 shows, of the 27 textbooks of political economy, six were “neglecters” that de facto ignored corporatism (including Barone’s benchmark textbook, which actually predated corporatism itself ); eight were more or less opportunistic “chameleons” that merely accommodated corporatism without altering in any significant way neither the structure of the argument, nor the way the subject was taught, nor the specific theoretical conclusions; eight were fully fledged “supporters” of corporatist catchwords and underlying ideology. We classified only two textbooks as pure “experimenters”, i.e., as textbooks that, regardless of their support, or lack thereof, for corporatism, accepted the challenge to take its economic rationale seriously and endeavoured into a thorough examination of the changes required to standard economics to encompass it. Indeed, both were new versions of textbooks that in previous editions had been just “chameleons”—as if a few more years of experience with the fascist regime had eventually persuaded their authors (Fanno and Papi) to propose their students a more systematic analysis of corporatism. The three remaining

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

Table 1

181

Political economy textbooks

Author

Year

Affiliation (at book’s date)

Label

Amoroso Arias Bachi Barone Benini Bordin Bresciani Turroni Chessa Del Vecchio Demaria

1938 1937 1927–1928 1922–1923 1936 1937 1943

Rome Rome ISSC Rome ISSC Rome Rome Catania Milan

Supporter/experimenter Supporter Neglecter Neglecter 1936 reprint Supporter Chameleon Chameleon

1941 1930 1938

Einaudi

1931

Fanno Fanno Galli Gobbi Graziani Jannaccone Loria Marsili Libelli

1936 1938 1932 1935 1936 1936 1934 1940

Masci Mortara Papi Papi Sensini Serpieri Supino Vito

1940 1935 1935 1943 1933–1934 1939 1931 1939

Sassari/Genoa Supporter/experimenter Trieste/Bologna Neglecter Bocconi Milan Supporter For high schools Turin Neglecter For Turin school of engineering Padua Chameleon Padua Experimenter Florence Supporter Bocconi Milan Supporter Naples Chameleon Turin Chameleon Turin Neglecter Florence Supporter For public office competitions Rome Supporter/experimenter Milan Chameleon Pavia Chameleon Rome Experimenter Pisa Neglecter Florence Supporter Pavia Chameleon Cattolica Supporter Milan

Notes

textbooks (by Luigi Amoroso, Federico Chessa, and Guglielmo Masci) belonged to the supporter/experimenter category we examined before. Significantly, over 50% our sample consisted of “neglecters” or mere “chameleons” (14 textbooks out of 27), while for only eleven of them the label “supporters” seems adequate. These data suggest a lukewarm

182

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

reception of corporatism by many Italian economists, at least as far as the actual content of the textbooks assigned to their students is concerned. Regardless of the orders coming from the Regime, the majority of economics professors either did not change the way the discipline was taught or, when they did, they did so without necessarily endorsing the project of exploiting their academic position to form the “new Italians” or uphold corporatist institutions. Moving on to public finance and economic policy textbooks, we first remark the small number of “chameleons”. The outcome is easy to explain, in that fascism required no compulsory adaptation of the title or content of those economic subjects that in academic curricula followed the core one, i.e., political economy. Opportunism was less needed here, so much so that the boundary between sheer “neglecters” and fully fledged “supporters” was more clear-cut. In detail, our public finance sample of eight textbooks was very polarised (Table 2). The texts were almost equally split among four “neglecters”, two “supporters” plus one “supporter/experimenter” (De’ Stefani’s 1943 edition), and one “chameleon” (Renzo Fubini’s textbook). As to economic policy (Table 3), the five textbooks were almost symmetrically spread: we counted two “neglecters”, one “supporter”, one “supporter/experimenter” and one “chameleon”, though sui generis (in his textbook Del Vecchio focused on the Carta del Lavoro as a specific issue to which the standard principles of economic policy could be applied, but strongly denied that a special theory of the Carta and, more generally, of a corporatist economy could ever be possible). Again, the idea of a strong adhesion of these Table 2

Public finance textbooks

Author

Year

University (at book’s date)

Label

Arena Borgatta D’Albergo De’ Stefani De’ Stefani Einaudi Fasiani Fubini

1939 1932–1933 1940 1932 1943 1940 1941 1934

Naples Bocconi Milan Trieste Rome Rome Turin Genoa Trieste

Supporter Neglecter Neglecter Neglecter Supporter/experimenter Neglecter Supporter Adapter For Bari ISSC

Notes

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

Table 3

183

Economic policy textbooks

Author

Year

University (at book’s date)

Label

Bruguier Pacini Corbino Del Vecchio De Pietri-Tonelli Di Fenizio

1938–1939 1942 1935 1931 1938

Pisa Naples Bologna Venice Milano

Supporter Neglecter Adapter Neglecter Supporter/experimenter

Notes

textbooks to the corporatist ideal finds no validation in the data. As it turns out, students reading public finance or economic policy textbooks were even less likely than students of economics to be taught into thinking or behaving like a homo corporativus.

4

Distribution of Labels along the Years

In 1932, the second national conference on corporatist studies was held in Ferrara. The meeting is rather well known among historians because it was there that Spirito presented his notion of a “proprietary corporate order”. In this new form of corporatism, member workers would be entitled to a share of business profits, while unions would progressively be transferred the management and property (on behalf of member workers) of business equity and shares. Spirito’s proposal, which embodied “leftist corporatism” in its extreme form, met strong opposition. Most conference participants viewed it as questioning no less than the private property of production means—which on the contrary the Carta del Lavoro expressly preserved. Even a keen supporter of a revolutionary reading of the corporatist ideal, such as Bottai, chastised Spirito’s proposal as “not a step forward, but rather a step outside of corporatism”. The final relation of the meeting concluded that Spirito’s ideas had to be rejected because “they confused Fascism with Bolshevism”.8 Modern interpreters agree that the Ferrara incident played an important role in constraining, if not actually repressing, what until then had been 8 For

a through reconstruction of the episode and of Spirito’s proposal, see Cavalieri (1994) and several of the chapters in Barucci et al. (a cura di) (2017).

184

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

a relatively free and open debate about the true meaning and import of corporatism.9 In 1935, many journals of the so-called leftist corporatism— where the most radical readings of corporatism found fertile ground—were shut down. Spirito himself was removed from his chair at the University of Pisa, where he taught political economy and sent to teach Philosophy at the University of Messina. The third national conference of corporative studies, which had been scheduled for the Spring of 1935, was cancelled. It was therefore natural to inquire whether these events had any impact on the textbooks of economics and related disciplines. Table 4 shows a very unequal distribution of textbooks in terms of our labels, and thus of their commitment to the corporatist ideal, across the years. Of the 12 “neglecters”, nine were published before 1935. Of the 16 “supporters” or “supporters/experimenters”, 15 appeared after that year. This is a sign that the corporatist ideal was still strong despite the Ferrara episode and the ensuing “normalization” of its extreme versions. One could even argue that those events actually favoured the endorsement of corporatism in economics textbooks. Indeed, their authors seem to have joined the corporatist bandwagon only late, when its contours had been more neatly defined and made somehow “official”, at least with respect to what they did not include (i.e. no socialisation of property was entailed). Two further remarks need be added, though. First, the academic custom of teaching one’s own textbook entailed that “neglecting” textbooks were still amply used in Italian universities after 1935 and even during the darkest years of the Regime and the war. Second, a good 42% (10 out of 24) of the textbooks published after 1935 were either “neglecters”, “experimenters” or, at most, mere “chameleons”. Hence, while the “normalization” of corporatism somehow reassured our economists and led them to more strongly commit their textbooks to the—now sensibly watered down—corporatist view, the overall picture remained heterogeneous. A random Italian university student had still good chances to be taught a fairly orthodox version of political economy, one where corporatism played only a marginal role, if any at all.

9 See

again Cavalieri (1994) and Dardi (2017) and the literature cited therein.

N 1927

N 1930

C N N 1931

S N N 1932

Annual distribution of labels

N 1933

C N 1934

S C C C 1935

S C C C 1936 S C 1937

S S S-E S-E E 1938 S S S 1939

S S-E N N 1940

N = neglecter; C = chameleon; E = experimenter; S = supporter; S-E = supporter/experimenter

N 1922

Table 4

S-E S-E 1941

N 1942

S-E E C 1943

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

185

186

5

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

Some Interesting Cases

In this section, we briefly comment on a few interesting cases arising from our classification. Within the sub-set of “chameleons”, three textbooks deserve mention, those by Arrigo Bordin, Costantino Bresciani Turroni, and Augusto Graziani. The latter was the quintessential “chameleonic” textbook, in that it featured no analysis of corporatism whatsoever, save for a single chapter, Chapter 13 on the “Special legislation on wages”, dedicated to the institutional aspects of corporatist labour unions. This was maybe the simplest way to obey the Regime’s orders without affecting one’s own approach to the discipline.10 Bordin’s textbook was a more sophisticated “chameleon”. The author added a section on corporatism in the chapters dedicated to production and to goods and labour markets. In each case, corporatism was presented as a set of policy tools—in the form of legal rules—which allowed ordinary economic laws to be bent in the direction desired by the policy-makers, i.e., to achieve fascist goals. Still, the textbook did not break new grounds, to the point of being classifiable as a true “experimenter”. Even Bresciani’s textbook was substantially unchanged. Indeed, in the Introduction the author left intentionally unanswered the rhetorical question of why the adjective “corporatist” had been added to the subject’s name and, therefore, also to his textbook’s title (Bresciani Turroni 1943, 23). This deliberate omission however did not come without having made it clear to readers that the headline “corporatist political economy” could only mean two things: either the description of the institutions regulating the functioning of the Italian economy—a theme outside the volume’s scope and the topic of a dedicated course at Bresciani’s university—or a new approach to economic science. The latter, however, was a void project in that, Bresciani defiantly averred (p. 24), there was no such thing as an “autonomous science of the corporatist economy”. That section of the Introduction ended there. Smart readers could easily infer to what extent

10 See also Giorgio Mortara’s textbook, where an appendix on “The corporatist economic order”, not even authored by Mortara himself, was added to a basically unchanged table of contents.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

187

the actual content of the rest of the textbook really corresponded to its revised title. As we mentioned above, the most recent editions of Fanno’s and Papi’s textbooks in our sample deserve special attention as the only two works for which the label of fully fledged “experimenters” is really adequate. Both authors revised, or added to, the rather neutral treatment of corporatism given in previous versions of their textbooks. Both did so by trying to develop a consistent framework where corporatist ideas could be accommodated, yet without expressing—at least in their textbooks—any explicit commitment to them. Hence, in both cases we assigned the label “chameleon” to the older edition, but changed it into “experimenter” for the most recent one. Fanno’s (1936) Lezioni were a set of didactic volumes covering the whole field of economic studies. In the first volume of the collection (titled General Part ), the author dedicated only a single section to corporatism in the economic policy chapter. Corporatism was defined as just a set of policy tools the State could use to achieve, in a systematic and ordered way, the goals of the national economy (chief among them, neutralising class struggle). Readers interested in a more specific analysis of corporatist economic policy were addressed to another work by the same author (Fanno 1935). The latter book would become Volume 7 in the new, 1938 edition of the collection. The volume, titled An Introduction to the Study of the Economic Theory of Corporatism, thus contained Fanno’s presentation to students of what he called the pure theory of corporatist economics, the rationale being that mastering such a theory was a pre-condition for examining the actual working of Italian corporatism. Differing from most other textbooks of the time, Fanno invited readers to consider as the core issue in the pure theory of corporatism the analysis of how individual behaviour had to, and could, be constrained in order to be re-directed towards the goals set by the State. Hence, the traditional problems of economic analysis, such as the equilibrium of production and consumption, had to be studied within such a constrained choice framework. The analytical tools were fully orthodox—namely Paretian general equilibrium theory in a dynamic setting—although they too had to be adapted to the new framework. The latter however was a topic left for those students who were interested in pursuing more advanced economic studies.

188

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

Fanno’s truly “experimental” approach to corporatism is captured by a sentence he borrowed from a famous essay by De’ Stefani and Amoroso (1933): “The old [economic] science is still alive and kicking” (Fanno 1938, 206). This belief he took as his guiding light through the book, including a long (three pages!) polemical footnote against authors such as Carli, Spirito or Gino Arias, who on the contrary claimed that corporatism required a whole rethinking of economics. Fanno could not refrain from wittingly remarking (p. 203) that, if the homo corporativus, endowed with a pure corporatist soul, really existed as the ordinary nature of individuals, what was the point of “the monumental edifice of Mussolini’s policies”? The homo corporativus would spontaneously behave according to corporatist goal, making fascist institutions, if not Il Duce himself, redundant. On the contrary, Fanno noted, if we took as our theoretical starting point the traditional, rationally selfish homo oeconomicus, and followed from there the route of scientific inquiry, we should per force encounter, and appreciate, Mussolini’s achievement in building a corporatist society. The 1935 edition of Papi’s textbook shows a limited treatment of corporatism: four chapters in all in Volume 3, but of these only one, Chapter 13 on “The guiding principles of a corporatist economy”, really dedicated to the Italian case and with an almost exclusive emphasis on the institutional aspects of the Carta del Lavoro. This however was followed by a revised 1943 edition, where the author offered an original economic analysis of the phenomenon. Papi built on the foundations of standard economic theory to find an explanation of corporatism as the end point of a long historical process of social evolution. He identified the core feature of corporatism in the “awareness” and “finalization” of State intervention in the economy and its main goal in the mitigation of the excesses of individualism and the elimination of the ensuing social struggles. Corporatism achieved such a goal via the establishment—here came the theoretical part of his analysis—of a system of insurance against all forms of economic risk (chiefly, labourers’ risks with respect to jobs and wages and businesses’ risks with respect to profits and market shares). In particular, he argued that the rationalisation of the market achieved via corporatist rules produced positive

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

189

externalities for businesses—an idea first put forward in the 1920s by supporters of American associationalism.11 Under this respect, corporatism was nothing more than “disciplined production”, which could find full economic justification in specific historical circumstances. Adding to the above-mentioned core feature the other two leading principles of corporatism—which the 1943 textbook rendered as “defend all social interests” and “always stick to market reality”—one could legitimately conclude, with Papi (p. 319), that the economic policy of corporatism did not really differ from Pigou’s in Economics of Welfare, namely an economic policy that aimed at modifying market conditions in order to redirect individual behaviour towards collective goals. We attributed the mixed label of “supporter/experimenter” to those textbooks that expressed full commitment to corporatist ideas, but, at the same time, tried to develop a novel economic framework to account for them. Of special relevance here is Luigi Amoroso’s textbook, possibly the most puzzling case in our sample. A few years before publishing this textbook, Amoroso—who was a committed fascist—had published with De’ Stefani an essay, “La logica del sistema corporativo”, which represented a sort of manifesto for a rational approach to corporatism (De’ Stefani and Amoroso 1933). The latter is the work Fanno would approvingly quote in his “experimental” 1938 textbook as expressing the idea that orthodox economics was “alive and kicking” even in a corporatist order. The essay, which had even been presented in international conferences as a sort of “socially respectable” account of fascist policies, contained an analytical part, written by Amoroso, which elegantly established corporatism as a technical solution to the otherwise insuperable problems raised by the increasing concentration of market power (see Giocoli 2012). A reader could thus legitimately expect that in the 1938 textbook, after the first two books dedicated to a fairly mainstream12 presentation of the themes of economic dynamics and economic equilibrium, Amoroso would use the core argument of “La logica” as the theoretical backbone of his third book, devoted to the corporatist order. Yet, somehow surprisingly, those 11 For

many years American business was fascinated by Mussolini and his economic policies, see Diggins (1972, Ch. 7). 12Though technically sophisticated and quite unique for the time, see Montesano (2015) and Tusset (2009).

190

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

chapters contained nothing of the kind. The theme chosen by Amoroso to explain corporatism to his students was “The corporatist city”. Along more than 130 pages, readers of the 1938 textbook could find an account of the rise of, and the reasons behind, corporatism in terms of the transformation of… land property rights! While the theme of the legitimacy of private property was central to corporatist debates of the time, it looks out of place in a wholly analytical, yet still didactic text like Amoroso’s. Even more so, if we consider that this sort of “law and economics” core of his exposition was complemented by long philosophical reflections on economic metaphysics and historical materialism, and, finally, by a eulogising description of corporatist labour relations. Focusing on land property rights would strike students as a rather unusual—and undoubtedly original—way to support corporatism, especially when coming from one of the most renowned mathematical economists of the time (Amoroso was among the founders of The Econometric Society). Still, a full support it was. Hence, our attribution of the mixed labels “supporter/experimenter” to this textbook. As a final comment, it may be interesting to compare the original content of Fanno’s, Papi’s and Amoroso’s textbooks with the textbook authored by another prominent economist of the time, Francesco Vito. This volume can only be ranked among the sheer “supporters” of corporatism. Readers of Vito (1939) were treated everywhere with generous amounts of corporatist doctrines, including the plain statement of the scientific character of corporatist political economy and economic policy—which stemmed from the latter’s allegedly superior adaptation to current historical contingencies (first of all, the end of competition as an effective regulating force in interwar economies)—and the affirmation of the organic character of social phenomena, itself the conceptual pillar upon which a totalitarian, pervading notion of the State could, according to the author, be justified. What really matters to us, and differing from Fanno, Papi, and Amoroso, Vito made no significant effort to reconfigure economic theory in order to interpret the new social order—hence the label “supporter” for his textbook.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

6

191

Labelling Colleagues

As explained above, the protagonists of our exercise are the textbooks, not the economists who authored them. Attributing labels to economic texts— classical, neoclassical, Marxian, etc.—is among the most peculiar activities of historians of economics, now as much as in the past. During the fascist regime, this activity was intensely practised by several economists, most of whom of liberal penchant, who self-restricted their research horizon and opted for engaging themselves on less sensitive issues of economic history or the history of economic thought. These were viewed as relatively safe havens for scholars unwilling to pay tribute to fascist diktats. Focusing on historical themes often combined with an art that was itself especially cultivated during the Ventennio. Book reviewing was another elegant way of manifesting non-conformist opinions without incurring into excessive risks. As it happened, reviewing books entailed assigning labels and thus naturally lent itself to historical interpretation. One author in particular, whom we already met as textbook writer, excelled in merging the art of book reviewing with the historian’s viewpoint. Gustavo Del Vecchio’s Progressi della teoria economica (Del Vecchio 1936) is an outstanding collection of hundreds of book reviews published in academic and generalist journals over a time span of thirty years. Browsing the massive volume, one can appreciate the breadth of Del Vecchio economic knowledge and, with it, of the scientific horizon of a scholar who mastered English, French, German and Spanish. Aware of the exceptional character of the publication, Del Vecchio presented it as a good proxy for that “adequate historical exposition of the progress of economic theory during the latter decades” of which he lamented the absence (Del Vecchio 1936, v). Especially, he added, in view of the current “weakening of the creative power” in economics, the progress of which had been delegated of late to “technical, statistical, historical and political studies”. Alas, many of the “most brilliant expositions” in this vein consisted of “negations of economic theory”, predicated by outsiders “according to a priori or practical accounts of either a philosophical character or political intent” (ibid., vii–viii). Who, or what, was the target of Del Vecchio’s complaints becomes clear as soon as one reads his reviews.

192

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

Of the several sections composing the 1936 collection, the first, about “Treatises and Textbooks”, is of interest here. Most of the reviews in this section, like that of Vilfredo Pareto’s Manuale di Economia Politica or those of textbooks by important American economists such as Richard T. Ely or Charles J. Bullock, long predate the rise of fascism. Yet, a few of them are illuminating of the way Del Vecchio—himself a distinguished theoretician13 —exercised the delicate art of labelling contemporary textbooks. Reviewing two early 1930s textbooks by his renowned colleague, and committed fascist, Luigi Amoroso, Del Vecchio marked his dissent not only theory-wise (he criticised what he deemed a sterile, dogmatic repetition of Paretian doctrines), but also—if only implicitly—on political grounds. “It is difficult to find an author from which the present reviewer feels more distant than the eminent Rome professor”, wrote Del Vecchio. Who added: “I cannot subscribe without reservation to any of his fundamental propositions: neither his analytical deduction of the crises, nor his logistic population theory, nor his denial of the scientific character of economic policy” (ibid., 57, emphasis added). And, again: “a positive teaching stemming from [Amoroso’s] endeavour in any case remains: a fundamental problem does exist that economic science must solve, because it cannot get stuck at the, otherwise exceptional, results reached by Walras and Pareto” (ibid., 59). Between the lines, a critique could be read against the viewpoint, shared by supporters of corporatism à la Amoroso, that while economics as a pure science had achieved quasi-perfection, solving concrete policy issues should become the realm of non-economic—perhaps, even non-scientific (see Sect. 5)—reasoning. That academic textbooks could be used to send students a message of this kind clearly bothered Del Vecchio. Another prominent economist, Ulisse Gobbi of Bocconi University, published in 1929 an Appendice (Gobbi 1929) to update his magnus opus, the Trattato di Economia (the volume upon which Gobbi’s introductory textbook included in our sample would later be based). The appendix’s goal was to account for the innovations brought to economic legislation by the 13 A professor and, later, rector at Bocconi University, Del Vecchio (1883–1972) was struck in the later 1930s by the infamous racial legislation of the Regime and had to expatriate in Switzerland. After the war, he would resume teaching in Rome and become Treasury Minister in the crucial De Gasperi cabinet of 1947–1948. On Del Vecchio’s important contribution to monetary economics, see Tusset (2014).

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

193

fascist regime, first and foremost the Carta del Lavoro. Himself a supporter of fascism and a sincere believer in the integration of economics and the law, Gobbi explained readers that fascist law—especially, the corporatist doctrine that individual utility had always to defer to the “general, lasting interest of the Nation”—was fully consistent with the fundamental tenets of his Trattato. Del Vecchio, who had already positively reviewed the original Trattato in 1919, had now to come to terms with the 1929 appendix and its explicit endorsement of corporatism. His clever solution foreran what he himself would do to adapt his own economic policy textbook to fascist ideas—namely focus just on the legal side by meticulously exposing the content of the Carta del Lavoro, while leaving untouched the economic core of his teaching. Accordingly, Del Vecchio praised Gobbi’s ability to accommodate the new legal principles within the “pre-existing schemes of a general scientific system” (i.e. orthodox economics), this being “the broadest and easiest path to reach some conclusive results about that very relation between economics and politics, between theory and reality, which so much excites the writers of the old and the young generation” (Del Vecchio 1936, 27–28, emphasis added). For sure, recent policy measures had been “complex and sometimes mutually inconsistent”, so much so that “only time will reveal what their permanent and substantial achievements actually are” (ibid., 28). Yet, the review concluded, Gobbi had to be praised for showing “how in the last few years the structure of our economy […] has achieved a high degree of legal cohesion in the re-affirmed authority of the State, which is destined to last as a permanent achievement”. Such a legal cohesion—which a smart reader would immediately recognise as being nothing but the liberal principle of the rule of law, dangerously threatened in the turbulent aftermath of the First World War—was for Del Vecchio “the necessary condition for a smart, elastic and progressive activity of all the spontaneous economic forces of the Nation” (ibid., 29, emphasis added). This is what the law could, and should, do for the economy: allow the smooth working of market forces. And, for sure, this is what Gobbi meant to say—or, didn’t he? In terms of our classification, the message to readers of Del Vecchio’s review—those at least who need not be reminded that Gobbi did belong to the “supporter” ranks—was clear enough: look at how even a committed fascist has handled the addition

194

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

of corporatist ideas to economic theory and you will learn a ready-made recipe to harmlessly adapt your own textbook into a seemingly corporatist, but actually still wholly orthodox text.

7

Conclusion

We started this essay by asking if, and how much, the textbooks in economics and related disciplines used in Italian universities during the fascist regime contributed to the creation of the “new Italian” under the form of the homo corporativus. Our analysis suggests that, as far as those textbooks’ actual content is concerned, the answer is mainly negative. Despite the order by the Regime to change the subject’s title and, above all, adapt its content to the catchwords, institutions and, shaky as they might be, theoretical pillars of the new corporatist order, a majority of textbooks showed no significant influence of corporatist ideas, and even less so a programmatic commitment to shaping the hearts and minds of their readers according to fascist principles. Especially if compared to those treatises that fully expressed such commitment (like Carli’s, Fossati’s or Spirito’s), very few of our sampled textbooks would pass a hypothetical Bottai-Gentile test. And while several of the textbooks of the Ventennio were of high scientific level, contributing to preserve the prominent international standing of Italian economics on many of the fields at the frontier of interwar research, the reflection on the theoretical foundations of corporatism—at least as far as it affected university teaching—did not produce comparable results, with the only partial exception of Fanno’s and Papi’s revised textbooks. Even more significantly, many textbooks showed an increased support to the corporatist ideal only after the latter had been purged of its possible, more radical implications against the status quo, both socioeconomic and theoretical. In a sense, this fact alone would justify attaching the “chameleon” label to most of the post-1935 textbooks, regardless of their actual content. It is in this context that we may frame a well-known dictum by Giovanni Demaria: “I lock myself up in the ivory tower and declare that if a student sits in front of me negating the truthfulness of our theorems,

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

195

I reject him”.14 The episode has been reconstructed several times.15 At a conference organised in Pisa in May 1942 to discuss how to organise the “new order” that would follow the inevitable triumph of the Axis, Demaria (whose 1938 textbook, remember, we classified as “supporter”) had been assigned the task of delivering the general report. He would stun his audience by reaffirming the validity of “our own theorems”, i.e., those of orthodox economics, while dismissing corporatist dogmas, like autarky and centralised coordination. Even more shockingly, he would stress how the latter were antithetical to the fundamental principle of economic freedom. Enough with the homo corporativus fairy tale. Reality belonged to the homo oeconomicus. While it raised strong disapproval at the conference, Demaria’s discourse likely found receptive ears in the many old-guard economists who attended it. The fact itself that someone could dare express such views while the Regime was still apparently solid (Mussolini’s demise would only happen in July 1943) testifies to the extent to which the corporatist experiment was perceived as devoid of scientific legitimacy and intrinsically flawed. No surprise then that, come 1946, Italian economists would start again teaching their orthodox economics using orthodox textbooks (adequately purged of any reference to corporatism), as if nothing had happened. Ditto for post-war Italian economic policies, which would conform to rigorous orthodoxy. As one of us put it long ago, Demaria’s 1942 words “were no mere rhetoric […] Economic freedom and absence of planning eventually sounded synonymous in what was intended to be the apotheosis of Fascist regulated economy, but which de facto came to be the first official manifestation of postwar liberal reconstruction” (Faucci 1990, 18; our translation). Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of a PRA Grant of the University of Pisa. All translations from Italian in the chapter are our own.

14 In

“L’ ‘ordine nuovo’ e il problema industriale italiano nel dopoguerra”, presentation at the Study Meeting on the Economic Problems of the New Order, Pisa, May 1942; published in Demaria (1951, 501). 15 See, e.g., Faucci (2014, 191), and, more broadly, Amore Bianco (2015).

196

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

References Selected Textbooks Amoroso, L. (1938). Principii di economica corporativa. Bologna: Zanichelli. Arena, C. (1939). Corso di scienza delle finanze e diritto finanziario. Napoli: Jovene. Arias, G. (1937). Corso di economia politica corporativa. Roma: Società Editrice del Foro Italiano. Bachi, R. (1927–1928). Lezioni di economia politica. Roma: Sampaolesi. Barone, E. (1936). Principi di economia politica. Roma: Athæneum (reprint). Benini, R. (1936). Lezioni di economia politica. Bologna: Zanichelli. Bordin, A. (1937). Appunti di economia politica corporativa. Padova: Cedam. Borgatta, G. (1935). Appunti di scienza delle finanze e diritto finanziario. Milano: Giuffrè. Bresciani Turroni, C. (1943). Lezioni di economia politica corporativa. Milano: Edizioni CEA. Bruguier Pacini, G. (1938–1939). Corso di politica economica corporativa. Pisa: GUF Curtatone e Montanara. Carli, F. (1931). Teoria generale della economia politica nazionale. Milano: Hoepli. Chessa, F. (1941). Economia politica corporativa. Torino: Giappichelli. Corbino, E. (1942). Corso di politica economica e finanziaria. Milano: Giuffrè. D’Albergo, E. (1940). Principi di scienza delle finanze. Milano: Giuffrè. De Pietri Tonelli, A. (1931). Corso di politica economica. Padova: Cedam. De’ Stefani, A. (1932). Manuale di finanza. Zanichelli: Bologna. De’ Stefani, A. (1943). Manuale di finanza. Bologna: Zanichelli. Del Vecchio, G. (1930). Lezioni di economia pura. Padova: Cedam. Del Vecchio, G. (1935). I Principii della Carta del Lavoro. Padova: Cedam. Demaria, G. (1938). Elementi di economia politica corporativa. Messina and Milano: Casa Editrice Principato. Di Fenizio, F. (1938). La Politica autarchica in economia corporativa. Milano: Biazzi. Einaudi, L. (1931). Corso di economia politica e legislazione industriale. Torino: Libreria Tecnica Editrice. Einaudi, L. (1940). Principii di scienza della finanza. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore. Fanno, M. (1936). Lezioni di scienza economica. Padova: Cedam. Fanno, M. (1938). Principii di scienza economica. Padova: Cedam. Fasiani, M. (1941). Principii di scienza delle finanze. Torino: Giappichelli.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

197

Fossati, E. (1937). Linee di economica corporativa. Firenze: Casa Editrice Poligrafica Universitaria. Fubini, R. (1934). Lezioni di scienza delle finanze. Milano: Cedam. Galli, R. (1932). Corso di economia oolitica. Firenze: Poligrafica Universitaria. Gobbi, U. (1935). Elementi di economia corporativa. Milano: Hoepli. Graziani, A. (1936). Istituzioni di economia politica. Roma: Società Editrice del Foro Italiano. Jannaccone, P. (1936). Lezioni di economia politica. Torino: Giappichelli. Loria, A. (1934). Corso di economia politica. Torino: UTET. Marsili Libelli, M. (1940). Sintesi di economia politica corporativa. Milano: CETIM. Masci, G. (1940). Corso di economia politica corporativa. Roma: Società Editrice del Foro Italiano. Mortara, G. (1935). La realtà economica. Padova: Cedam. Papi, G. U. (1935). Lezioni di economia generale e corporativa. Padova: Cedam. Papi, G. U. (1943). Lezioni di economia politica corporativa. Padova: Cedam. Sensini, G. (1933–1934). Corso di economia politica. Pisa: Dispense GUF Università di Pisa. Serpieri, A. (1939). Prinicipii di economia politica corporativa. Firenze: Barbera. Spirito, U. (1932). I fondamenti della economia corporativa. Milano: Treves. Supino, C. (1931). Principi di economia politica. Milano: Società Anonima Editrice Dante Alighieri. Vito, F. (1939). Economia politica corporativa. Milano: Giuffrè.

Other References Amore Bianco, F. (2015). Il Fascismo e il dibattito sul ‘nuovo ordine’ (1939–1943). Osservazioni per una ricerca. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (a cura di), cit. (pp. 35–49). Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (Eds.). (2012).The Economic Reader.Textbooks, Manuals and the Dissemination of the Economic Sciences During the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Routledge: London and New York. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (a cura di). (2015). La cultura economica tra le due guerre. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Barucci, P., Misiani, S., & Mosca, M. (2015). Introduzione. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (a cura di), cit. (pp. 9–17).

198

R. Faucci and N. Giocoli

Caffè F. (1987). Enrico Barone. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (Vol. I, pp. 195–196). London: Macmillan. Carli, F. (1931). Teoria generale della economia politica nazionale. Milano: Hoepli. Cavalieri, D. (1994). Il corporativismo nella storia del pensiero economico italiano: una rilettura critica. Il Pensiero economico italiano, 2(2), 7–49. Dardi, M. (2017). Alberto Bertolino attraverso il fascismo. In P. Barucci, P. Bini, & L. Conigliello (a cura di), Economia e firitto in Italia durante il fascismo. Approfondimenti, biografie, nuovi percorsi di ricerca (pp. 1–25). Firenze: Firenze University Press. De’ Stefani, A., & Amoroso, L. (1933). La logica del sistema corporativo. Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali e discipline ausiliarie, 4 (4), 393–411. Del Vecchio, G. (1936). Progressi della teoria economica. Padova: Cedam. Demaria, G. (1951). Problemi Economici e Sociali del Dopoguerra 1945–1950 (T. Bagiotti Ed., pp. 473–502). Milano: Malfasi. Diggins, J. P. (1972). Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fanno, M. (1935). Introduzione allo studio della teoria economica del corporativismo. Padova: Cedam. Faucci, R. (1990). Un’epoca di transizione? Le coordinate teorico-istituzionali del periodo. In R. Faucci (Ed.), Il pensiero economico italiano tra le due guerre. Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica (special issue), VIII (2–3), 3–22. Faucci, R. (1995). L’Economista scomodo. Vita e opere di Francesco Ferrara. Palermo: Sellerio. Faucci, R. (2000). L’ economia politica in Italia. Dal Cinquecento ai nostri giorni. Torino: UTET. Faucci, R. (2014). A History of Italian Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge. Ferrara, F. (1976 [1884]). Il problema ferroviario e le scuole economiche in Italia. In F. Ferrara, Opere Complete: Vol. 8, Articoli su generali e scritti politici (R. Faucci Ed., pp. 353–393). Roma: Istituto Grafico Tiberino. 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(3), 181–191. Gobbi, U. (1929). Appendice alla seconda edizione del Trattato di economia. Milano: Società Editrice Libraria. Magliulo, A. (2000). Systematising Economics in Italy from 1910 to 1950: Italian Economics Textbooks Facing Marginalism, Corporativism and Keynesism. Storia del Pensiero Economico, 40, 59–74.

Textbooks of Economics during the Ventennio: Forging …

199

Montesano, A. (2015). Su alcuni contributi di economia dinamica tra le due guerre mondiali: Amoroso, La Volpe, Demaria. In P. Barucci, S. Misiani, & M. Mosca (Eds.), cit. (pp. 387–409). Mosca, M., & Bradley, M. E. (2013). Perfect Competition According to Enrico Barone. Cahiers d’économie politique, 64 (1), 9–44. Shackle, G. L. S. (1967). The Years of High Theory: Invention and Tradition in Economic Thought 1926–1939. London: Cambridge University Press. Tusset, G. (2009). Habits and Expectations: Dynamic General Equilibrium in the Italian Paretian School. History of Political Economy, 41(2), 311–342. Tusset, G. (2014). Money as Organization: Gustavo Del Vecchio’s Theory. London: Pickering & Chatto.

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic Theory and New Paths Carlo Cristiano and Massimo Di Matteo

1

Introduction

In this chapter, we review the specific contribution of series of economics and encyclopaedias to the development and evolution of Italian economic A previous version was presented at the conference “Economisti e scienza economica in Italia durante il fascismo” organised by CIPEI in Pisa on 13–14 December 2018. Di Matteo particularly thanks Riccardo Faucci, Daniela Giaconi and Nicola Giocoli. He is also indebted to Cecilia Castellani (responsible for the Gentile archives in Rome), the personnel of the library of the Circolo giuridico of the University of Siena and CIPEI for their courtesy and skill in obtaining documentary sources and access to material in the archives. Cristiano thanks Gabriella Miggiano for access to the complete lists of collaborators of the economic sections of the Enciclopedia Italiana and the topics edited by each collaborator. Special thanks go to Paola Buonocore for her precious help during research in the archives of the Enciclopedia Italiana. Section 2 was written by Di Matteo, Section 3 by Cristiano and Sections 1 and 4 were written jointly.

C. Cristiano (B) University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy M. Di Matteo University of Siena, Siena, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8_8

201

202

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

thought. For reasons of space, we provide general information on the essential characteristics of the main series of economics (with emphasis on Nuova collana di economisti stranieri e italiani ) and major encyclopaedias (Enciclopedia italiana, Dizionario di politica, Enciclopedia bancaria). We try to answer the following questions on the basis of the documentation: i) Can a particular line of fascist economic thought be identified, or rather are there authors who elaborated a theory of corporativism clearly distinct from traditional theory or various economists opted for a conciliation between corporativism and traditional theory? ii) To what degree was Italian economic thought influenced by more radical attempts at a new economic theory and by those of proponents of a less conflictual view between the two approaches? iii) Can the works examined here be considered marked by regime propaganda or to have left a more lasting trace?

2

Series of Economics

An analysis of fascist cultural policy can be found in the general introduction to this volume. Here, we recall the great interest of fascism for the process of education, from school to university, as reflected by the works we consider in this chapter. At the same time, fascism created new institutions such as academies, cultural institutes, university faculties, specialisation schools, publishing houses and their series of publications. Although this effort was largely successful, it encountered limits that suggest the existence of a culture of the fascist period, alongside fascist culture itself. By the former, we mean a second culture that maintained a sort of variegated autonomy from the regime. In this section, based on this distinction, we briefly look at the main characteristics of fascist economic culture as they emerge from examination of the major series launched by the various publishers. We then briefly describe the most significant series of the culture of the fascist period. Because of its importance, a separate analysis is dedicated to the Nuova

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

203

Collana di Economisti Stranieri ed Italiani (NCESI) edited by Bottai and Arena. The publishing house G. C. Sansoni was the centre of the debate on corporativism (its philosophical, legal, economic and political aspects) raised by the Pisa school.1 Three series are of interest. The first is Pubblicazioni della Scuola di scienze corporative della R. Università di Pisa, the second Biblioteca dell’archivio di studi corporativi directed by Bottai2 and the third Studi di Politica ed Economia. The first series was flanked by a documentary series containing Stalin’s report to the seventeenth congress of the Soviet Union Communist Party (1934), the work of Carl Schmitt on the principles of national-socialism (edited by Delio Cantimori) and a popular work by G. D. H. Cole on currency. There were also two economic volumes: Economica programmatica and Nuove esperienze economiche. The first included essays by foreign scholars on theoretical aspects of planned economies from France, Germany, UK, USA and USSR. The chapter on Italy was written by Ugo Spirito, whose ideas can be summarised by the following quote: “[corporativism] is order overcoming disorder, organism that disciplines dispersed energy, … solidarity that triumphs over brutal egoism, prevision and planning of tomorrow that replace the immediate impulse of contingent needs, … for well-being that does not separate duty from interest”.3 The second volume regards the effective experiences of public programmes developed in Japan, New Zealand, USSR, UK, Germany and USA (NRA). Again, we can quote the words of Spirito, who argues that only a corporativist solution was then available, although it was necessary to distinguish between conservative and revolutionary aspects. Capitalism was then employing corporativism, but “in corporativism there is an organic awareness of the new State not found in other countries. … In the lasting link between State and capital, Work is the economic subject … that can deplete all social life because it is not the undifferentiated 1 See

Amore Bianco (2017). It is widely recognised, even by anti-fascist intellectuals, that the school of Pisa included, in the words of Bobbio (1973, 229) “the only group that attempted to elaborate an original doctrine and sought to maintain contact with the rest of the world”. For a general assessment of corporativist ideology, see Asor Rosa (1975, 1488–1500) and the observations of Sraffa (November 1927) on the corporativist state, http://trin-sites-pub.trin.cam.ac.uk/manuscripts/ Sraffa_D2_2/manuscript.php?fullpage=1&startingpage=1. 2 See Cassese (1971). 3 Spirito (1933, 185).

204

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

work hypostatised by socialism but differentiated work of every degree up to the highest manifestation of thought and action…”.4 He goes on to write: “Corporativism resolves the antinomies of the old science because it makes it possible to avoid the contradiction between having to seek objective laws to match subjective will and not being able to find them … now science can observe the economic world starting from the rational assumption of the existence of agreement and can start the search for laws describing that agreement”.5 In another essay: “And the science of homo oeconomicus? Even pathology is science. Economics is the pathology of politics. Current science confuses negative with positive and goes to great lengths to demonstrate the laws of harmony of egoism. Egoism does not admit harmony and this science has completely failed”.6 Studi di politica ed economia is a very important series that includes collections of essays by Italian and foreign economists on the structure and effective working of the Soviet as well as the Italian economy. The programme of the first series was remarkable as it included many volumes that elaborate on corporativist doctrine from different angles. Awareness of the originality of the corporativist experience is demonstrated by the volume on fascist economics translated from German. In the series by Cya (a publishing house founded by Franco Ciarlantini in the early 1930s), including Problemi delle corporazioni, we find works that mainly concern the development and characteristics of the corporativist order of economics: Il cammino delle corporazioni by Giuseppe Bottai and several essays by Arias, including L’Italia e la crisi economica, which is the full version of his presentation on 3 July 1931, at the League of Nations in Geneva, during the first meeting of representatives of national economic councils and research institutes. Before discussing the series in the culture of the fascist period, let us observe first that there was considerable attention to the experience of other countries, at both theoretical and political level. This weakens the oftrepeated criticism that the fascist period was closed to foreign debate and experience. We also see from the words of Spirito that there was an attempt 4 Spirito

(1935, 237–238). (1933, 184). 6 Spirito (1938, 115). 5 Spirito

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

205

to surpass the homo oeconomicus of traditional doctrine and an effort to underline the differences with respect to nazism.7 Note also a certain attention to the historical function of corporativism that goes beyond both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. This is especially important because traces of this “third” way are found more or less openly in the institutional and economic policy of Italy after the Second World War.8 As already mentioned, cultural life, especially academic cultural life, was not completely revolutionised by the actions of the regime.9 The series published by the major universities included papers by academics who pursued their research interests to some extent independently from regime guidelines. This was especially true for essays at the frontier of economic theory. Among these publishing houses, there was Bocca, CEDAM, Seeber, Treves and Zanichelli and of course Vita e Pensiero. It is impossible to sum up the volumes published by these editors in a few lines, although some brief observations are useful. Zanichelli not only published essays on economic problems of the time by Lello Gangemi, Rodolfo Benini and Luigi Amoroso (all close to the regime), but set out to reprint classics of Italian economic thought, such as those by Francesco Ferrara and Enrico Barone, who were major representatives of economic liberalism. This underlined the desire to avoid cutting ties with previous elaborations of economic doctrine while corporativist doctrine was developing. Bocca was an example of the continued existence of work-space largely independent of corporativist doctrine with its Biblioteca di scienze sociali, which included various works by Antonio Graziadei, a critic of the theory of Marx and ex-member of the Italian Communist Party (to which he was re-admitted after the war). Graziadei had his own dialogue with all the schools of contemporary economic thought, including that of Keynes. Among major economic-academic publishers, there was CEDAM, based in Padua. Ca’ Foscari was an important centre, dominated by the 7 Spirito

(1934, 13) sustains that the Italian experience, unlike the German one, was based on the effective coincidence of the corporation with the nation without the state-company dualism typical of the nazi concept. The integral corporativism claimed by Spirito was already clear in the minds of the people of Italy, he sustains, whereas in Germany they were beginning to lay the basis for such a situation but without any real understanding. 8 A sign in this direction of investigation can already be found in Asor Rosa (1975, 1495). 9 Naturally, we refer to the economic literature.

206

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

figure of Alfonso de Pietri-Tonelli, a follower of Pareto who developed innovative analyses of political equilibrium along the lines of economic equilibrium. The series also gave voice to many important studies, including that of a group of scholars on the ideas of Cournot, essays by Vanoni on the taxation system and by Demaria on international economic problems. The case of Vita e Pensiero stands alone because in its many publications, the social doctrine, both historical and theoretical, of the Catholic Church, was developing side by side with miscellaneous analyses of the economic cycle, corporativist state and market forms, inspired by Agostino Gemelli.10 Amintore Fanfani’s intense activity on topics of economic history occupies a place of its own. His work aimed, among other things, to refute Max Weber’s thesis on the birth of capitalism whereas Francesco Vito developed a synthesis between Catholic social doctrine and corporativism. As examples of the culture of the period, there remains to consider two major publishing houses, Einaudi and Laterza, referring to two eminent anti-fascist intellectuals, Luigi Einaudi and Benedetto Croce. They published works that did not propose a direct discussion of corporativism but mostly treated problems of political economy. Giulio Einaudi, who founded Einaudi in 1933, besides printing the writings of his father Luigi, launched the Biblioteca di cultura economica, which began with Carlo Cattaneo and proceeded with Stefan Possony (the economics of total war) and Attilio Cabiati (the gold standard), finishing with the political economy manual of Bresciani Turroni. None of these figures could be described as fascists either politically or intellectually. Interest in contemporary economic problems became even clearer in the series Problemi contemporanei (29 volumes between 1934 and 1944), which brought together a series of studies by important Italian and foreign authors, such as Attilio Cabiati, Antonio de Viti de Marco, Roberto Michels, Marco Fanno, Lionel Robbins, Arthur Pigou, Federico M. Pacces, Silvio Golzio and Guido Carli. 10 Gemelli

puts it as follows (1935, VII, xii): “(..) we hope the ideas laid out here will promote progressive improvement of the social construction that our entire population feverishly awaits, under the guidance of the Head and Duce of Fascism and in the train of his faithful collaborators … By adapting and joining the interests of individuals with social interests, ethics will enable political action and economic activity to create a new society, the fundamental lines of which are indicated by Italy, through Benito Mussolini”.

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

207

The topics of the Italian authors regarded among other things the economic effects of sanctions, analysis of the crisis of 1929, transfers of capital, company organisation and the workings of the stock market. There were, however, examples of studies that were fully in line with fascist policy, e.g. Alimenti and Federici. The activity of Laterza was also interesting. Jointly with Yale University Press, it published the Storia ed Economia section of the series of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace regarding the history of the First World War and its consequences, including articles written by Giuseppe Prato, Giorgio Mortara, Riccardo Bachi, Luigi Einaudi, Arrigo Serpieri and Alberto De’ Stefani (all published before the end of 1930). A paper (Dal protezionismo al sindacalismo) by Umberto Ricci, sharply critical of fascist economic policy, came out in the Politica ed economia series along with a translation of H. Withers (The case for capitalism) which does not warrant any comment. Note, however, that as fascism gradually took hold, Laterza reduced publications in this field to a few manuals. In the words of Bottai, who wrote the foreword,11 the Nuova Collana di Economisti Stranieri ed Italiani (NCESI) was a continuation of the “tradition of the great economic collections, an envied Italian glory”.12 Beginning in 1850, five subseries of a series by Italian and foreign economists were published by UTET under the direction of various economists, such as Ferrara, Boccardo and Cognetti de Martiis.13 The fifth and last series, edited by Jannaccone, was interrupted in 1922. Various general and specific reasons urged a resumption of major editorial initiatives in the field of economics. The former included changes in domestic and international economic and social conditions and the definite establishment of the fascist dictatorship after 1925, the distinctive act of which was the Carta del Lavoro (Labour Charter). The latter reasons included the already mentioned interruption of subseries V that created an objective void, as well as fascist cultural activism, mainly indicated by

11 Zanni

(1985, 257) sustains that the foreword is not by Bottai but by Arena. (I, i). In the citations that follow, the first number indicates the volume according to the index in the Appendix. 13 See Augello and Guidi (2007). 12 Bottai

208

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

foundation of the Enciclopedia Italiana. According to Zanni,14 the initiative of Bottai and Arena met the need to confirm a continuity of the history of Italy, a sort of (black) thread linking fascism with the Historical Right of Cavour and the ideals of Mazzini.15 The topic of continuity vs discontinuity will be touched upon in the final remarks. The NCESI, edited by Bottai and Arena (the latter aided by Del Vecchio),16 was composed of 12 volumes on different topics each edited by a specialist (see Appendix for a list of the authors included in the various volumes).17 This imposing work numbered 7828 pages, 384 by the editors, and was published by UTET in the period 1932–1937. The editor18 wrote an introduction19 except in the case of Masci who wrote a concluding essay to volume VII.20 The underlying design of the work is expressed in the introduction to volume I: “The criterion was to choose articles that would give the collection lasting value, … that were well established elements of economic knowledge (…) This criterion induced us to combine works which while differing in method (…) all constituted harmonic unfoldings of economic science”. Moreover, “Unlike other countries, Italy adopted corporativism – a form of organisation that tends to implement experimentally instead of being a scheme imposed 14 Zanni

(2011, 104). (II, xi) observes that “ideas that are sometimes particularly reflected in current economic policy” are set out in volume II. He is probably referring to Mazzini’s thesis that an increase in production through greater economic freedom is not sufficient to obtain social well-being but is necessary to make distribution more equal. Along the same line, Romagnosi (who inspired Cavour and Cattaneo) sustains that economic freedom should not be confused with the “unbridled competition” and the state should prevent the formation of artificial and natural monopolies; he also underlines that “a material advantage is absolutely necessary for progress but this immense force must agree with social aspects, without which it cannot act or suitably provide the needs of life”. 16 Zanni (1985, 256–257) argues that “the cultural designer of the series” was actually Del Vecchio who writes (IV, p. XXIV): “The contributions [that I selected] refer partly to continuations of general study and partly to theoretical re-elaborations of concrete arguments resulting from an osmosis of general principles already reached by the creators of the new theories … These are already dealt with from different points of view in single volumes of the series”. 17The original design, as recognised by editors Bottai and Arena (I, p. XIV), was different from the final version, both in the editors of single volumes and in the choice of the essays included. See Zanni (1996, 118–119). 18 Except for volume XIII, edited by Papi, but with an introduction by Fanno. 19They range from four pages by Demaria in volume V (for reasons, see Zanni 1996, 36) to 58 pages by Arena in volume XI. 20 On the nature and characteristics of the forewords, see Zanni (1996, 35). 15 Garino-Canina

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

209

a priori on the economic system – and cannot ignore already developed economic theories”. Indeed, the aim of the series was “to offer the best scientific training for the problems of social policy that plague Italy and other civilised countries”.21 It may well be that in this series, Bottai, who did not always see eye to eye with the regime, perceived the possibility of being among those who proposed a different interpretation of corporativism, less permeated by the idealism of Gentile typical of Spirito. What relationship with the pressing problems of economic policy did the editors identify, if among other things they failed to dedicate a volume to corporativism?22 “From a comparison of the various theories, [the scholar] would be unlikely to forget that if theories are the best synthesis of past events, they cannot all have an absolute value for politics, i.e. for future events”.23 These statements show a concept of theory that is historically determined, while at the same time posing limits on economic policy. Surpassing these limits could lead to crude empiricism. According to the editors, the series indicated that economic theory basically had a coherent character that was achieved by a continuing process of reflection on the changing technical and political world. The selection criterion of the various works was to include classical and original works as well as recent essays that had achieved the status of classics. Limits of space prevent us from dealing in hierarchical order with the topics and how they are presented volume by volume. We chose to isolate the themes and arguments that seem most important: the relationship with pure economic theory, the nature and effects of protectionism and corporativism, the interweaving of political and economic theory and the relationship with traditions of the Risorgimento (on the latter see Footnote 18). As already mentioned, the editorial line of the series was not to refute neoclassical economic theory, but on the contrary to accept the emerging statistical methods so as to improve understanding of time trends of complex economic phenomena, as shown by volume VI edited by Mortara.

21 Further

on we read: “(..) constitute (…) through the choice of single deeply personal works (…) an organic whole, a type of grand treatise on political economy” (I, x–xii). 22 See Zanni (1996, 33–36). 23 Bottai (I, xi).

210

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

Volume IV, for its part, was a celebration of traditional theory according to Pareto, which is praised as unsurpassed and unsurpassable, even if Del Vecchio underlines the influence of Ferrara. He points out that the pure theory would have been inadequate for explaining real facts (the very raison d’être of the theory), were it not supplemented with historical and ethical elements. From this perspective, Masci proposes an interesting idea of dynamics as a theory of continuous movement in time,24 in which it is necessary to consider not only the forces of static systems, but also inertial forces and directive or propulsive forces. The former are historical forces that weigh on the evolution of the economic system; the latter are driving forces that express human capacity to forecast events and influence them according to set aims. Political action can in fact be conceived as the major great directive or propulsive force. “In Italian economic organisation, directive political action acts with great originality through corporativist organisation”.25 Consideration of the time evolution of economic phenomena brings us to volume V, which is dedicated to economic dynamics. It centres on the incomplete translation of Schumpeter’s Theorie (not yet available in English) and of J. M. Clark’s Overhead Costs, of which it underlines the points of contact with Pantaleoni’s essay (included in the volume), which sustains that the dynamics of a society cannot be represented by pure economic categories but must be considered as a pluralistic set of concrete historical elements. Fixed or indivisible costs that give rise to big firms or groups of firms was a fashionable topic of study at the time and is taken up in volume VII. A specially elaborated essay by Amoroso, a very famous mathematical economist and intellectual of fascist faith, is included in the volume. His paper builds abstract dynamic models by analogy with mechanics which are in clear contrast with the approach of Pantaleoni. Before coming to the volumes dealing with more topical themes, let us spend a word about volume III, edited by the confirmed anti-fascist Luzzatto, on the old problem of protectionism/free trade at the centre of the fascist economic policy. The two pieces by Keynes included in the 24 Unlike Pantaleoni’s conception that envisages non-equilibrium phases between equilibrium positions. 25 Masci (VII, 938–939).

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

211

volume serve to show that his positions on the question of protectionism depend on the internal and world contexts in which an economy operates. This once again confirms the open mind the editor had in relation to the Anglo-Saxon political and intellectual world. Let us now consider the three volumes (VII, VIII, XI) in which the authors of the forewords reveal in different ways the role of corporativism in the working of the economic system. In volume VIII, Fanno writes a limpid introduction that masterfully links theory with concrete questions of the period regarding price and production movements and the associated theme of the crisis of the gold standard. With regard to the stabilisation of prices on a world scale, Fanno observes that it calls for credible and stable cooperation between the various central banks, which is very difficult to achieve. Regarding internal stabilisation, Fanno underlines that corporativism, which induced a simultaneous rapid drop in wages, prices and rents, gave the Italian economy, unlike those of other countries, especially England, greater elasticity and a better capacity for adaptation, also with regard to world events such as the Great Depression of 1929. Fanno expresses doubts that the mechanism of monetary policy along the lines of Wicksell (included in the volume) can modify the decisions of firms in deep depression and seems sceptical about healing the world crisis by simple inflationary measures. The volume on industrial organisation returns to the theme touched on by J. M. Clark (volume V), namely great monopolies and cartels of firms. At the end of a long essay, Masci concludes, in line with the analysis of Marshall and in contrast with Liefmann,26 that the industrial organisation of the time did not involve a reduction in elasticity of the system in the face of the economic crisis.27 Indeed, the corporativist system is precisely the institutional model that prevents and/or represses negative effects on consumers and income distribution arising from the power of cartels.28 In conclusion, the corporativist system is presented as an institutional solution that, besides enabling prompt and simultaneous flexibility of 26 A German economist (1874–1941) whose work Kartelle, Konzerne und Trust reached eight editions (1905–1930). He was quoted among others by Lenin in his Imperialism. 27 Masci (VII, 950). 28 Exemplified by a quote from a speech by Mussolini on 14.11.1933 to the Consiglio Nazionale delle Corporazioni (VII, 935).

212

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

prices and wages in a depressive phase, can also stimulate and direct economic development and income distribution by virtue of a bi-univocal relation between firms and workers on one hand and the government on the other. Volumes IX and X on financial and social policies set out the objectives and instruments of State policy. On financial policy, Borgatta recognises the need to consider the changes in public finance (theory and practice) reported in the foreign literature since the war and post-war period, which transformed many relations of the State with the private sector. Although he does not mention corporativism, Borgatta assumes in any case that the government does not act solely on the basis of economic considerations but also in relation to an explicitly formulated welfare function of its own. In his presentation of the translation of Pigou’s The economics of welfare, Fasiani, with regard to government expenditure, hints that Pigou’s assumptions and conclusions do not adapt well to the Italian corporativist system: “Given a liberal economic and political system of the type existing today in England, it can be useful to study how far the attempt to draw concrete lessons from a study of first [sic!] approximation is legitimate; given the Italian economic and political environment, it can be useful to study to what extent Pigou’s assumptions and conclusions are in line with the corporativist system and the problems that arise and are solved within it”.29 In his lengthy foreword to the hefty volume XI, Arena does not miss the chance to stress certain deep convictions that we can assume to be not only his but also those of a part of the editors of the series. He begins by observing that the labour market cannot be likened to the goods market because workers have feelings, aspirations and needs that interfere with free market functioning. The evolution of the labour market therefore escapes any purely economic analysis because the curves of supply and demand are heavily influenced by the above factors. “At a certain limit, which is difficult to determine but very near, the problem ceases to be economic”.30 This is the framework in which a justification of the corporativist system 29 Fasiani

(X, x). (XI, ix). He criticises the purely economic explanations of wage determination of Boehm Bawerk and relegates Hicks to the function of representing the neoclassical model in its purity. 30 Arena

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

213

arises. The system represents “an institutional appraisal of labour which is necessarily supplementary to the economic and technical appraisal”, without violating the capitalist system of production.31 The last volume is edited by Michels, a political scientist converted to fascism.32 He touches on the relations between politics and economics, in line with the position of Bottai expressed in the introduction to volume I. According to this position, there is an increasing need to clarify the links of economic theory with other points of view (philosophical, political and sociological). The volume examines recent sociological theories with translations of certain papers by Weber and Simmel. The former could not be absent considering his innovative conception of charismatic power and his closeness (according to Michels) to Pareto’s sociological theory. Simmel is appraised for his ideas about the multiple circles to which individuals simultaneously belong, ideas that make it possible to lay the foundations for a theory more general than economic theory, based only on the rational, maximising aspect of individuals, which offers a distorted picture of society. It remains to mention volume I that includes the work of Cannan. As the latter contains a review of economic theory, it is particularly suitable as an introductory volume to the series. In any case, to make up for the “excessive insularity”33 of the essay, a series of critical essays by Del Vecchio, taken up by the Giornale degli Economisti, is added.

3

The Encyclopaedias

Three works of an encyclopaedic nature, for which it is possible to reconstruct the individual contributions of economists, were published during the fascist regime. The first was the Enciclopedia italiana di Scienze, lettere ed arti (EI). It was an initiative of industrialist Giovanni Treccani and the scientific director was Giovanni Gentile. The 35 volumes were published between 1929 and 1937, followed by an appendix in 1938. In 1940, this 31 Arena

(XI, lxiii). the complex personality of Michels, see Malandrino (2010). 33 Fanno, too, criticises Robertson for this feature (VIII, xxv). 32 On

214

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

work begat the Dizionario di Politica (DP), which was soon in opposition to the EI, and was curated by the National Fascist Party. In 1937, the publishing house Sperling & Kupfer originated the new Enciclopedia Bancaria (EB), quite independently of the EI and DP. It was published in two volumes in 1942. Designed to be a great encyclopaedia, on the level of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the EI had an ambiguous relationship with the regime. Writing for the EI did not mean being a fascist, but in the words of Benedetto Croce, one ran the risk of acting as “caryatids” for a “monument” to fascism.34 This underlying ambiguity, which gave rise to contradictory interpretations,35 also emerges from the words used by the editors of the work.The “Instructions to authors” included “absolute respect for the ideas of others so that men of every faith and doctrine of value can collaborate with the EI”.36 Concordia discors was the Latin formula that we find in the foreword by Gentile, who however did not fail to note that “The climate that has enabled a work of this level, hitherto unthinkable in Italy, is the new spirit that has exploded with the advent of fascism” (EI, I, xii, xiv–xv). The inclusive nature of the EI aroused discontent among the more intransigent fascists, as it suggested the idea that fascism was not able to autonomously represent the nation culturally. This need for cultural self-sufficiency found expression in the DP. Underling its distance from the EI, the DP was presented to Mussolini as the work of “247 fascists”.37 In the “Notes for collaborators”, written by Guido Mancini,38 we read that economics and public finance, like law, agriculture, industry, etc., are among the topics of the DP by virtue of their “close link to political action”. The history of these topics had to reveal “political momentum, understood with a fascist spirit”, while “movements and institutions in contrast with fascist doctrine” were to be treated “with sobriety, bringing out their negative aspects”. 34 Croce’s

words are reported in Turi (2002, 52). of opposing interpretations include Bobbio (1973, 214–217), according to whom the influence of fascism can only be traced in certain “marginal fringes”, and the already mentioned Turi (2002), who sees a much closer relationship between the EI and the regime. 36The text of the “Instructions to authors” can be found in Treccani (1939, 42–44). 37 On this episode, see Pedio (2000, 16). 38The complete text of the Notes can be found in Pedio (2000, 28–29). 35 Examples

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

215

Specific studies in the DP, such as Ghisalberti (1990) and the more exhaustive Pedio (2000), agree in sustaining that the “247 fascists” did not always achieve the desired coherence. If this is also partly true for the economic topics, some of the most important entries show a strongly ideological orientation, as we try to demonstrate. The history of the EB was different and in any case external to the affairs of the EI. We learn from the “Publisher’s notes” that the EB was compiled between 1938 and 1941. The introduction indicates that the initiative for the work was taken by the publisher in 1937 and that the fascist confederations (Confederazioni ) of credit institutes and workers merely expressed their support. Giuseppe Frignani, vice president of the Corporazione della previdenza e del credito and director general of the Banco di Napoli, was the director of the managing committee, which also included Nicola Garrone, Giuseppe Ugo Papi, Mario Rotondi and Francesco Vito. Although its aim was to give a general picture of the economic culture of the period, the EB covered a much narrower range of subjects than did the economic topics in the EI. Here, it serves us mainly for further comparison with the relationship that formed between the EI and the DP. In the previous section, we saw how during the fascist period, Italian economists pursued different objectives that were not always compatible, and this also applied to the creation of series of economics. These cultural initiatives arose largely independently of each other. Encyclopaedias, on the other hand, had to offer a synthesis. Moreover, in works like the EI, designed to be an absolute reference, the synthesis achieved was highly significant. The organisation of the economics sections of the EI had some weight in determining the cultural line inspiring the economic topics. The events that led to this organisation39 happened at the beginning of a decisive phase in the “fascistisation” of the country. The foundation of the Istituto Treccani, occurred in February 1925, after the assassination of Matteotti and a few weeks after Mussolini’s speech of January 3. The Fascist National Institute of Culture was also founded in 1925 and was directed by Gentile,

39 Some

of the information on this topic is from Zanni (1983).

216

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

who on April 21 signed the Manifesto of fascist intellectuals. The counterManifesto of anti-fascist intellectuals, signed by Croce, was published on May 1. This was the climate on 26 June 1925, when the first meeting of the board of the EI was held. The two economists present were Luigi Einaudi, who had recently signed Croce’s counter-Manifesto, and Alberto De’ Stefani, here still in the role of Minister of Finance of the Mussolini government, a position he was shortly to vacate on July 10.40 De’ Stefani would continue his collaboration with the EI, becoming director of the finance section, while Einaudi was shortly to leave the stage, ostensibly without making any concrete contribution. Another major but less immediate defection was that of Costantino Bresciani Turroni. The “Minutes of the meeting of directors of the sections on economics, finance and statistics”,41 dated 23 June 1926, name him director of “Political economy”, together with Rodolfo Benini and Alberto De’ Stefani, directors of the statistics and finance sections. A few years later, Bresciani left his position without writing a single entry, but not without leaving his mark.42 At the same meeting on 23 June 1926, the first topic list, with entries proposed by Benini and Bresciani Turroni, was discussed, along with a first list of possible collaborators.43 At this time, the participation of Einaudi, who was assigned to the topic capital, had not yet been excluded, while Bresciani Turroni was assigned to the topics capitalism, stock exchange

40 On the somewhat tense relations between De’ Stefani and the regime in this phase, see Bini (2017) who underlines the divergence between Mussolini and his minister after the assassination of Matteotti. 41 Archivio storico del Senato. 42 Bresciani Turroni notified his “provisional acceptance” in a letter to Gentile dated 23 March 1925. In another letter dated 11 September 1925, Bresciani thanked him for the invitation to “direct the section on political economy”. The collaboration proceeded in 1926 and 1927. A letter from Bresciani to Gentile dated 24 April 1928, sent from Cairo, reveals that Bresciani had recently declined the position. This correspondence can be found in the Archivio Storico (AS), Fondo EI, 1925–1939, sezione II Attività scientifica e redazionale, 1925–1939, s. 5 Corrispondenza, 1925/01/29-1939/11/25, lettera B, 1925–1938, fasc., 247, Bresciani Turroni Costantino, 1925/03/23-1928/09/05, docc. 28, cc. 42, b. 8, of the Istituto Enciclopedia Italiana (IEI). 43The topic list, including 124 “Main entries” and 275 “Secondary entries”, can be found in the Treccani archives (IEI, AS, Fondo Enciclopedia Italiana (Fondo EI), 1925–1939, sezione II Attività scientifica e redazionale, 1925–1939, s. 6, Lemmari [1926]–[1929], ss. 2, Volumi, [1926], fasc. 1449, Diritto e economia, [1926], docc. 1, cc. 295, b. 41).

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

217

(goods), internal and international trade, forward trade, inheritance and the German mark. After the defection of Bresciani Turroni, motivated by too much work,44 and the withdrawal of Benini, whose motive is unclear, finance was stably assigned to De’ Stefani and the combined sections of economics and statistics to Gustavo Del Vecchio in 1929. Both sections were then included in the larger “Editorial board for Philosophy, Economics, Statistics, Finance, Law, History of Law, History of Christianity and Ecclesiastic Subjects”, directed by Ugo Spirito until the end of 1933. The complete list of collaborators of the EI was a heterogeneous group of 103 names,45 and their contributions were also variable. The secondary entries were assigned to experts in the sector or secondary figures of the academic world, or directly to the editorial board, where much work was done by Anna Maria Ratti. The section directors only concerned themselves with a few entries. Besides the entry statistics, Benini only personally dealt with the entry demographics, the statistical part of illiteracy and world war damage. De’ Stefani, aided by Fasiani and Flora, concentrated on the main entry in his section (finance), only contributing to two 44 Besides

too much work, as indicated by Zanni (1983, 172–173), a reason could have been that Bresciani Turroni was reported to be an anti-fascist as early as 1925. In 1927, Bresciani went to teach in Cairo. 45The collaborators for the sections of economics and statistics and finance of the EI were: Annibale Alberti, Mario Alberti, Umberto Albertini, Luigi Amoroso, Anselmo Anselmi, Gino Arias, Riccardo Bachi, Roberto Bachi, Mario Bandini, Ettore Bassan, Rodolfo Benini, Alberto Bertolino, Bruno Biagi, Marcello Boldrini, Gino Borgatta, Guido Borghesani, Alberto Brizi, Angelo Cabrini, Angelo Chianale, Raffaele Ciasca, Francesco Coletti, Epicarmo Corbino, Aldo Crosara, Pietro Cuccia, Riccardo Dalla Volta, Giuseppe De Capitani d’Arzago, Lydia De Novellis, Alfonso de PietriTonelli, Alberto De’ Stefani, Anna Del Buttero, Gustavo Del Vecchio, Giuseppe Dell’Oro, Giovanni Demaria, Carlo Draghi, Marco Fanno, Mauro Fasiani, Federico Flora, Eraldo Fossati, Giuseppe Frignani, Giuseppe Frisella Vella, Renzo Fubini, José Gonzales Galé, Luigi Galvani, Lello Gangemi, Attilio Garino Canina, Nicola Garrone, Salvatore Gatti, Guido Gentili, Corrado Gini, Italo Giudici, Ugo Giusti, Ulisse Gobbi, Augusto Graziani, Carlo Grilli, Cesare Grinovero, Benvenuto Griziotti, Guido Jung, Ugo La Malfa, Ernesto Lama, Enrico Ferdinando Loffredo, Giovanni Lorenzoni, Gino Luzzatto, Fabio Majnoni, Lanfranco Maroi, Manlio Masi, Jacopo Mazzei, Paolo Medolaghi, Luigi Messedaglia, Roberto Michels, Giorgio Mortara, Robert Balmain Mowat, Nicola Muratore, Luigi Nina, Pietro Onida, Luigi Pace, Dario Perini, José Podestà, Vincenzo Porri, Giuseppe Prato, Anna Maria Ratti, Francesco Repaci, Massimo Salvadori, Renato Savelli, Emanuele Sella, Arrigo Serpieri, Alfredo Spallanzani, Franco Spinedi, Ugo Spirito, Guglielmo Tagliacarne, Giulio Tamagnini, Giuseppe Tassinari, Jacopo Tivaroni, Guido Toja, Vincenzo Tosi, Heinrich Türler, Albino Uggè, Armando Valente, Vincenzo Vianello, Gerolamo Vittorio Villavecchia, Felice Vinci, Francesco Vito and Federico Zapelloni.

218

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

other entries (public debt and Maffeo Pantaleoni), while Del Vecchio only signed the general part of credit. The entry political economy was written by Ugo Spirito (aided by Ulisse Gobbi), at the time transiently occupying the chair of Corporativist Political Economy at the University of Pisa.46 The contribution by Gino Luzzatto on the topic of economic history stands out in terms of quantity as well as quality.47 That by Augusto Graziani, who was assigned the “triad” entries capital, work and land, as well as capitalism, Karl Marx and Francesco Ferrara, was likewise remarkable. Another economist who was assigned an extremely important nucleus of concepts was Gino Borgatta, who wrote on competition, economic equilibrium, monopolies and prices. The absence of corporativist topics among the entries edited by the most representative economists is significant. Both in the EI and the DP, corporativism was largely the prerogative of contributors from the School of Corporativist Sciences of the University of Pisa.48 The EI had an entry on corporativism written by Giuseppe Bottai, his only entry apart from the first appendix, which was written in 1938. Before the entry in the appendix, the EI already had a part on “The corporations in the Italian union system” edited by Carlo Costamagna, who edited the entry Carta del lavoro (Labour Charter) for the EI and the DP. Together with Giuseppe Tassinari, Carlo Costamagna also wrote the entry on corporativism in the DP. Many of the hundreds of economic entries were the fruit of purely technical contributions, but in some cases, writing for the EI or the DP forced the author to confront a basic incompatibility between fascism and political economy. This incompatibility also emerges in the entry on “Fascism” in volume XIV of the EI (1932), written by Benito Mussolini himself with the support of Gioacchino Volpe for historical aspects. Although the cultural background of the economic profession was typically individualist and deeply rooted in economic liberalism, Mussolini exploited even this space 46 See

Footnote 54 below.

47The correspondence mentioned above indicates that Bresciani Turroni was the person who insisted

on the name of Luzzatto. Amore Bianco (2017) for useful information on the School of Corporativist Sciences at Pisa University.

48 See

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

219

to underline that “fascism is an attitude of absolute opposition to liberal doctrines, both in politics and economics”; “if liberalism denies the State in the interests of the individual”, “fascism confirms the State as the true nature of the individual”. Faced with this contrast, various attitudes were possible. We saw in the first section that a “pragmatic” approach prevailed, especially in the NCESI of Bottai and Arena. Something similar often emerges in the pages of the EI, and this is certainly also due to the contributions, in different ways and times, by Bresciani Turroni and De’ Stefani, as well as by Del Vecchio who actively collaborated with NCESI. Besides, in choosing to assign the crowning entry of the economic sections to Spirito, the editors of the EI ensured that this very entry became a major “fringe” of fascist ideology within the EI. The entry political economy in the EI is in fact completely in line with the fundamentalist approach of its author. To this, we must add the contribution of the DP, where an attitude of opposition and breach rather than conciliation and continuity prevailed. The result was an overlapping of discordant entries in works where synthesis would have been more useful, in first place for the regime itself. On this subject, a comparison of the EI and the DP entries for finance is indicative.The entry Finance in the EI does not seem in any way influenced by the fascist revolution. The introductory part, by De’ Stefani, refers to Adam Smith, who dictates the basic rules of liberal public finance, where individuals are in a position to be protected from the State. This is followed by Fasiani’s summary of the historical evolution of financial systems and by Flora’s paragraph on Public finance, where the topic is presented as a branch of political economy, with Pantaleoni, de Viti de Marco and Einaudi as the main theoretical references. The corresponding part on Public finance in the DP would later be written by Fasiani. In this part of the DP, the Italian primacy in Public finance would once again be celebrated, but only after stressing the lack of a unitary theoretical view, a theme which was completely absent in the EI entry. Within the EI, a comparison of the entries for finance and political economy, both published in 1932, is even more indicative. Spirito wrote the entry for political economy largely ignoring the indications of his mentor Gentile and standing in open contrast with liberal theses. Already in the introductory part, Spirito introduces a critique of the concept of homo

220

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

oeconomicus, stating that “Economic activity cannot be that of an abstract man (homo oeconomicus)”. Defining political economy as “the science of human activity applied to wealth”, Spirito adds that such activity should be understood “from the aspect of general interest”. He then introduces a distinction between “lower and higher order preference”, which amounts to subordination of the private to the public interest. The section on mathematical economics, in smaller type signed by Ulisse Gobbi, contains an important corollary on this principle of subordination. The task assigned to Gobbi was apparently to explain Pareto without citing him directly and to amend him where necessary. “Ophelimity” is therefore acceptable because “it expresses all the motives determining individual activity” and because “to indicate utility it is not necessary to postulate homo oeconomicus”. Besides, “the most serious objection to a socioeconomic system based on utility lies in the fact that if we start from something that expresses the simple fact of an individual’s preference for one thing rather than another… we always come to conclusions about this simple preference: mathematics cannot change the nature of the quantities to which it is applied. From individual preference we cannot obtain the criterion of higher order preference. Deviating an individual from the situation in which he would have remained or the direction in which he would by himself have gone can be useful to the nation” (p. 429). If this calls into question the concept of Paretian optimum, Spirito is later explicit in underlining that the individualistic presuppositions of economic science are “ideological principles raised to the status of scientific axioms” (p. 431). With Spirito, we are therefore diametrically opposed to the approach of, for instance, Amoroso and De’ Stefani (1933). While in their famous essay Amoroso and De’ Stefani propose a dialectic in which “classical” economics is absorbed in the new corporativist doctrine, the latter however never denying the scientific character of the former, Spirito’s dialectic aims directly at this denial. We are therefore distant from the approach we saw to prevail in the NCESI. Following a topos of the period, Spirito’s story, too, has a happy ending. Enlightenment philosophy is attacked from all sides, a new economics is arising, and the vanguard is Italy, where “the critique of Enlightenment philosophy was more peremptory” (p. 433). The “new conception” found

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

221

its first expression in the Labour Charter with proclamation of the “public character of private property”. The same narration with different nuances recurs frequently in the three encyclopaedias. It is used in particular by Bottai, Costamagna and Tassinari in their entries on the Labour Charter and corporativism in the EI and DP. With the exception of Tassinari, these authors avoid a true frontal attack on the scientific statute of “classical” political economy à la Spirito. Besides, the entries on corporativism have a content that is more political and legal than economic, and they do not succeed in positively defining either the new economic science or its relationship with the previous one. Even Tassinari, the only economist of the group and author of the paragraph on Corporative Economics in the entry on corporativism in the DP, more than positively defining the new economics, ends up replicating the themes of Spirito and Gobbi. In any case, whatever its theoretical nature, the new economics was often depicted as historically inevitable, like we observed with regard to the NCESI. It is thus in the dialectic of Spirito, which unfolds in the world of ideas, and it is the same in the dominant narration of the most ideologically connotated entries which are more rooted in real history. The entry on political economy in the DP is representative in this sense. Here, Masci and de Francisci Gerbino offer their fascist re-elaboration of a theme that was in vogue at the time, and that Schumpeter (2003, 81) would later sum up as “the creation of an entirely imaginary golden age of perfect competition that at some time somehow metamorphosed into the monopolistic age”. The theme can be found both in the EI and in the DP, but with highly variable tones and content. The entry on competition by Amoroso in the DP, together with the associated entries on monopoly and organisation, also by Amoroso, shows an extreme version of this interpretation of recent economic history. Here, Amoroso explains that the analysis based on competition should be replaced by an analysis “of partial monopolies”, while “from a political point of view”, the problem lies in “plutocracy”. According to Amoroso, the fact that monopolies prevail over competition is the underlying cause of the crisis of the economic system. Under the entry on monopoly, after an analytical part, Amoroso attacks big firms. United in “groups”, they are “animated by a desire to dominate”

222

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

which leads them to act politically. This is why a transition to a “collective and social order”, in which “firms cease to be private and become public”, is in order. The reference to IRI (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale), here only implied, becomes explicit in the entry on organisation. Yet, as a matter of fact, this entry deals mainly with corporativism, which according to Amoroso arises from “fascist mysticism”, with no reference to the entry on corporativism by Costamagna and Tassinari. Other contradictions emerge among the economists’ views. The entry on cartel in the DP, written by Vito, is out of tune not only with the entries by Amoroso, but also with the entry on capitalism written by de Francisci Gerbino and Malvagna. The latter authors see trusts and cartels as a degeneration of capitalism from competitive to parasitic, whereas Vito sees trade unions as “progress” with respect to “unbridled competition”. While competition acts “blindly”, trade unions are capable of “conscious discipline”. Vito admits that the new setting “is not without problems”, but there is little or no exaltation of corporativism in his words. If we go back to the EI, and specifically to the entry on competition by Borgatta, we note the same cooling of tones. Without explicit echoes of antiliberal polemics, Borgatta merely observes that only a perfectly competitive world would also be perfectly efficient, thus showing the empirical irrelevance of the model, more than its presumed historical obsolescence. The contrast with Graziani’s entries on capital and capitalism in the EI is even more striking. The entry on capital is a defence of the classical concept of capital, understood as wealth produced and directed towards the production of new goods, from the latest theories of Fisher and Menger. The entry on capitalism is a defence of this social system as the best conceived until then, and here Graziani polemises above all with Marx and with the idea of capitalism as exploitation of the working classes. There is no trace of corporativism, nor of any Italian historical primacy in overcoming a phase of capitalism. The area of disagreement widens further when we consider other themes linked to the diverging interpretations of economic history and in particular those of banks and credit and that of foreign trade and trade policy. For reasons of space, we only consider entries on banks and credit.

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

223

Under the entry on competition in the DP, Amoroso states that political action of large groups “occurs preferentially through banks. … A handful of bankers claim the function of market control”, while “mistakes by the few … may, and often do, have catastrophic consequences”. Di Nardi’s entry on credit in the DP, on the other hand, though written in complete observance of Mancini’s Notes, presents no trace of the rhetorical fury of Amoroso. The entry is largely a discussion of fascist legislation on credit starting from the first phase. In other words, “from 1922 until stabilisation of the Lira”. The historical construction of the role of the banks found in the entry on monopoly by Amoroso is here reduced to the observation that “The enormous growth of banks in the modern period … has drawn the attention of governments”, which have intervened with new laws. This is followed by 13 columns in which Di Nardi reports some facts. According to Di Nardi, there is no doubt that fascist intervention in this sector is positive, but the “gradual experimentalism” with which the regime intervened is sharply out of tune with Amoroso’s mention of “fascist mysticism”. The entry on credit in the EI, the general part of which was written by Del Vecchio, is even further from Amoroso’s rhetoric. The exposition, which also includes the topic of banks, is completely neutral politically and centres on technical questions. Finally, the entry on banks in the EB, written by Corbino, almost seems to respond to the attacks against the banking system found in the DP. Like Del Vecchio, Corbino is primarily concerned with explaining what a bank is technically and what its role is in the economic system. This is possibly due to the nature of the EB, which is basically an expression of the credit corporations. The entry by Corbino, however, goes further, becoming a well-reasoned defence of banks. Corbino does not fail to approve the legislative innovations recently introduced and recent banking policy, although it is difficult to understand whether the merit goes to the fascist regime, here in any case celebrated, or to “the lessons of 70 years of experience, acquired at a rather high price” (EB, I, 167–168).

224

4

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

Final Remarks

On the basis of our research, we can attempt to answer the questions posed at the start of this chapter. Despite Spirito’s clear view of the relations between traditional economic thought and corporativism, any elaboration of an alternative theory that goes beyond general propositions on the aims and articulation of a corporative system seems incomplete. This can also be said of the DP, whereas in the EI, the position of Spirito seems somewhat isolated. What emerges is in any case a position that we could call “pragmatist”, and it is found both in the NCESI and in certain parts of the EI. This position does not refute traditional theory but proposes to complete it with a more realistic analysis that includes concrete historical considerations and hypotheses of different behaviours. The economic system is not self-referential but is guided by explicit policies elaborated by the government and made functional by the corporativist system that somehow resolves class tensions between workers and employers, thus increasing productive possibilities. These two views however share awareness that the liberal system has in any case reached the end of its run and that an alternative system is needed, of which corporativism is the most advanced and informed expression, one that can oppose the crisis and achieve a better distribution of income. This helps explain the presence of discordant and sometimes contradictory entries in the same work, especially in the EI, and to some extent also the DP, due to authors with different theoretical and political approaches. In some cases, the same author even expresses himself in different ways, depending on the volume on which he was collaborating (if EI, DP or EB), for example accentuating extreme tones in works having a political line and writing in a more neutral way in other contexts. Indeed, Italian economic thought cannot be limited to these two alternatives, but maintains a certain freedom of evolution, especially with regard to theoretical developments along post-Paretian lines, which climaxed in the 1930s in pursuit of a general dynamic theory. This approach had an excellent representative in Gustavo Del Vecchio, who through various circumstances found himself co-directing both the NCESI and an important section of the EI. The EI and the NCESI include essays/entries

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

225

written within the boundaries of traditional theory as well as others belonging to a different approach, more or less distant from the former. Finally, Italian economic thought maintained a line, especially with regard to the analysis of economic policy, which included essays not always in line with fascist political economy but showing a certain independence of judgement.

Appendix: Index of the Nuova Collana di Economisti Stranieri ed Italiani Vol. I History of theories. Editor Arena. Foreword by Bottai. Essays by Cannan, Del Vecchio. Vol. II Italian economists of the Risorgimento. Editor Garino Canina. Essays by Romagnosi, Mazzini, Cattaneo, Cavour, Ferrara, Martello. Vol. III Economic history. Editor Luzzatto. Essays by Buecher, List, Keynes, Heckscher, Mazzei. Vol. IV Pure economics. Editor Del Vecchio. Essays by Menger, Edgeworth, Pareto, Frisch, Berardi, Young, Sraffa, Robertson, Shove, Mayer, Rosenstein Rodan. Vol. V Economic dynamics. Editor Demaria. Essays by Pantaleoni, Schumpeter, JM Clark, Amoroso. Vol. VI Economic cycles. Editor Mortara. Essays by Mitchell, Wagemann, Bresciani Turroni. Vol. VII Industrial organisation. Editor Masci. Essays by Marshall, Barone, Liefmann, Masci. Vol. VIII Money market. Editor Papi. Foreword by Fanno. Essays by Wicksell, Mises, Kemmerer, Young, Gregory, Robertson, Einzig, Hayek, Papi, Fisher. Vol. IX Finance. Editor Borgatta. Essays by Wicksell, Seligman, Stamp, Borgatta. Vol. X Social policy. Editor Fasiani. Essay by Pigou. Vol. XI Labour. Editor Arena. Essays by Carver, Marshall, Jevons, Boehm Bawerk, Hicks, Zeuthen, Moore, Webb, Sorel. Vol. XII Political economy. Editor Michels. Essays by Labriola, Marx-Engels, Loria, Pareto, Weber, Simmel.

226

C. Cristiano and M. Di Matteo

References Amore Bianco, F. (2017). L’esperienza teorica della scuola di scienze corporative dell’università di Pisa. In P. Barucci, P. Bini, & L. Conigliello (Eds.), Economia e diritto in Italia durante il fascismo. Firenze: Florence University Press. Asor Rosa, A. (1975). La Cultura. In Storia D’Italia, Dall’ Unità ad oggi (Vol. IV). Torino: Einaudi. Augello, M. M., & Guidi, M. E. L. (2007). Introduzione. In L’economia divulgata. Stili e percorsi italiani (1840–1922), “Biblioteca dell’economista” e la circolazione internazionale dei manuali (Vol. III). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Bini, P. (2017). Austerità e crescita negli anni 1922–1925 del fascismo. Alberto De’ Stefani e l’ultima controffensiva del liberismo prima della resa all’economia corporativa. In P. Barucci, P. Bini, & L. Conigliello (Eds.), Economia e diritto in Italia durante il fascismo (pp. 27–51). Firenze: Florence University Press. Bobbio, N. (1973). La cultura e il fascismo. In G. Quazza (Ed.), Fascismo e società italiana. Torino: Einaudi. Cassese, S. (1971). Bottai ad vocem. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Roma: Treccani. Gemelli, A. (1935). Introduzione. In Problemi fondamentali dello stato corporativo. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Ghisalberti, C. (1990). Per una storia del “Dizionario di politica” (1940). Clio, XXVI (4), 671–697. Malandrino, C. (2010). Michels, Roberto. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Vol. 74). Roma: Treccani. Pedio, A. (2000). La cultura del totalitarismo imperfetto: il Dizionario di politica del Partito nazionale fascista (1940). Milano: Unicopli. Schumpeter, J. A. (2003). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Spirito, U. (1933). L’economia programmatica corporativa. In Economia programmatica. Firenze: Sansoni. Spirito, U. (1934). Il corporativismo nazionalsocialista. Firenze: Sansoni. Spirito, U. (1935). Capitalismo, socialismo, corporativismo. In Nuove esperienze economiche. Firenze: Sansoni. Spirito, U. (1938). Dall’economia liberale al corporativismo. Critica dell’economia liberale. Messina: Principato. Treccani, G. (1939). Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani: Idea, Esecuzione, Compimento. Milano: Bestetti.

Series of Economics and Encyclopaedias: Traditional Economic …

227

Turi, G. (2002). Il mecenate, il filosofo e il gesuita. L’Enciclopedia italiana specchio della nazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. Zanni, A. (1983). Gli economisti e l’Enciclopedia Italiana – con notizie e documenti inediti sulle “voci” Keynes e Cournot”. Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica, I (3), 169–196. Zanni, A. (1985). Sulla mancata apparizione della Teoria Generale di Keynes in una seconda serie della Nuova Collana di economisti (con corrispondenze inedite). Quaderni di storia dell’economia politica, III (3), 253–275. Zanni, A. (1996). Demaria negli anni trenta attraverso un epistolario (giugno 1930–febbraio 1939). Storia del pensiero economico, 31–32, 25–128. Zanni, A. (2011). La Nuova collana di economisti di Bottai ed Arena. Annali della Fondazione Luigi Einaudi (pp. 99–112). Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.

Name Index

A

Acerbo, Giacomo 97, 166 Alberti, Annibale 217 Alberti, Mario 51, 101, 217 Albertini, Umberto 217 Alessio, Giulio 44, 67, 98, 166 Alfieri di Sostegno, Carlo 22 Almodovar, António 11 Altamura, Francesco 71, 73 Amore Bianco, Fabrizio 104, 110, 195, 203, 218 Amoroso, Luigi 9, 35, 42, 49, 51, 58, 80, 82, 97, 120, 131, 132, 176, 181, 188–190, 192, 205, 210, 217, 220–223 Angrisani, Giovanni 166 Anselmi, Anselmo 217 Antoni, Carlo 64

Arena, Celestino 42, 52, 108, 109, 146, 147, 182, 203, 207, 208, 212, 219 Arendt, Hannah 24 Arias, Gino 42, 45, 47, 51, 54, 67, 69, 72, 80–83, 147, 159, 166, 176, 181, 188, 204, 217 Asor Rosa, Alberto 203, 205 Asquini, Alberto 131 Asso, Pierfrancesco 12 Astuto Giuseppe 117 Augello, Massimo M. 2, 12, 13, 16, 41, 151, 153, 172, 207 Azzariti, Gaetano 131

B

Bachi, Riccardo 47, 49, 81, 176, 181, 207, 217 Balbo, Italo 75, 111

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8

229

230

Name Index

Ballarini, Francesco 67 Ballini, Pier Luigi 155 Bandini, Mario 217 Banti, Alberto M. 16 Barber, William J. 12 Barbieri, Gino 166 Bardini, Mario 103 Barone, Enrico 34, 46, 51, 175, 176, 180, 181, 205 Barucci, Piero 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, 37, 45, 50, 67, 79–81, 83, 93, 122, 171, 183 Bassan, Ettore 217 Bazzi, Carlo 149 Beccaria, Cesare 7 Bechelli, Chiara 26 Beckerath, Erwin von 53 Bellanca, Niccolò 156 Belluzzo, Giuseppe 73 Beneduce, Alberto 38, 39, 80, 120 Benini, Rodolfo 166, 176, 181, 205, 216, 217 Berardi, Domenico 225 Berger, Peter L. 13, 17 Berlingieri, Francesco 67 Bertolino, Alberto 42, 56, 217 Betti, Carmen 69 Biagi, Bruno 157, 161, 166, 217 Biagioli, Giuliana 17 Bianchi, Giulia 120 Bianchi, Ornella 103, 111 Bianchini, Marco 12, 16 Bientinesi, Fabrizio 10, 23, 41, 71, 76 Bini, Piero 11, 216 Bjerkholt, Olav 49 Bobbio, Norberto 203, 214 Boccardo, Gerolamo 207 Bodda, Pietro 101 Boehm Bawerk, Eugen 212

Boggiano, Pico Antonio 67, 101 Boldrini, Marcello 147, 217 Bolech Cecchi, Donatella 92, 96 Bordin, Arrigo 43, 176, 181, 186 Borgatta, Gino 51, 82, 124, 132, 147, 156, 157, 162–166, 182, 212, 217, 218, 222 Borghesani, Guido 217 Borlandi, Franco 43 Bortolutz, Michel 74 Bosworth, Richard J.B. 48 Bottai, Giuseppe 40, 52, 54, 67, 69, 73–75, 79, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 146, 147, 171, 183, 203, 204, 207–209, 213, 218, 219, 221 Bourdieu, Pierre 13 Breglia, Alberto 43, 132, 136 Bresciani Turroni, Costantino 42, 45, 61, 83, 120, 123, 126, 177, 186, 206, 216, 217, 219 Brizi, Alberto 217 Brizzi, Gian Paolo 117 Broglio d’Ajano, Romolo 67 Bruguier Pacini, Giuseppe 183 Brüning, Heinrich 126 Bullock, Charles J. 192

C

Cabiati, Attilio 42, 47, 51, 67, 76, 81, 82, 122, 123, 132, 206 Cabrini, Angelo 217 Cacelli, Elisa 26 Caffè, Federico 84, 176 Callon, Michel 13 Camboni, Luigi 67 Cannan, Edwin 52, 213 Cantimori, Delio 203

Name Index

Cao di S. Marco, Giovanni 104 Cappuccio, Antonio 104 Carano-Donvito, Giovanni 67 Caravale, Mario 97 Carera, Aldo 79 Carli, Filippo 42, 104, 133, 161, 166, 172, 178, 188, 194 Carli, Guido 206 Caronna-Bona, Filippo 67 Carpi, Elena 13 Carrara, Giovanni 97 Carver, Thomas Nixon 225 Casadei, Francesco 102 Cassel, Gustav 52, 122 Cassola, Carlo 45, 67 Castronovo, Valerio 17, 36–38 Cattabrini, Francesco 50 Cattaneo, Carlo 52, 206, 208, 225 Cavalcanti, Maria Luisa 122 Cavalieri, Duccio 7, 11, 172, 180, 183, 184 Cavour, Camillo Benso (Count of ) 52, 208, 225 Cazzetta, Giovanni 111 Cesarini Sforza, Widar 110, 111 Cherubini, Donatella 93, 104, 106 Chessa, Federico 42, 133, 177, 181 Chianale, Angelo 217 Ciarlantini, Franco 204 Ciasca, Raffaele 217 Cini, Marco 10, 13, 23, 41, 71, 76 Clark, John Maurice 210, 211, 225 Coats, Alfred William (Bob) 2, 11, 13, 15 Cognetti de Martiis, Salvatore 44, 207 Cohen, Jon S. 122 Cohn, Avi 26 Colajanni, Napoleone 149

231

Colamarino, Giulio 147, 149 Cole, George D.H. 203 Coletti, Francesco 217 Colombo, Arturo 93, 101 Comparato, Vittor Ivo 116 Conigliello, Lucilla 11 Corbino, Epicarmo 49, 50, 79, 81, 178, 183, 217, 223 Cossa, Luigi 7 Costamagna, Carlo 146, 218, 221, 222 Cotula, Franco 122 Cournot, Antoine Augustin 206 Criscuoli, Angelo 67 Cristiano, Carlo 23, 201 Croce, Benedetto 49, 50, 206, 214, 216 Crosara, Adolfo Aldo 42, 98–100, 124, 217 Cuccia, Pietro 217 Cusumano, Vito 44

D

D’Addio, Mario 89 D’Albergo, Ernesto 101, 157, 159, 166, 177, 182 D’Ercole, Francesco 69 da Empoli, Attilio 51, 82 Dal Degan, Francesca 22, 143 Dalla Volta, Riccardo 67, 157–159, 166, 217 Dal Pane, Luigi 43, 148 De Capitani d’Arzago, Giuseppe 217 de Finetti, Bruno 147 de Francisci Gerbino, Giovanni 45, 151, 159, 166, 221, 222 De Francisci, Pietro 67, 147 De Gasperi, Alcide 192

232

Name Index

De Marinis, Alberto 152, 159 De Novellis, Lydia 217 De Pietri Tonelli, Alfonso 45, 49, 67, 166, 178, 183, 206, 217 De Valles, Arnaldo 93 De Vecchi, Cesare Maria 69, 73, 92, 94, 97, 111, 112 De Viti de Marco, Antonio 42, 46, 156, 166, 206, 219 De’ Stefani, Alberto 9, 37, 51, 52, 54, 67, 82, 91, 97, 120, 121, 131, 147, 175, 177, 182, 188, 189, 207, 216, 217, 219, 220 Del Buttero, Anna 217 Del Negro, Piero 117 Del Vecchio, Gustavo 42, 45, 47, 51, 81, 82, 105, 120, 123, 147, 175, 177, 178, 181–183, 191–193, 208, 210, 217–219, 223–225 Dell’Agnola, Carlo Alberto 75 Dell’Oro, Giuseppe 217 Demaria, Giovanni 42, 79, 82–84, 131, 177, 181, 194, 195, 206, 208, 217, 225 Devilla, Giovanni Maria 67 Di Castelnuovo, Arturo 152, 159 Di Fenizio, Ferdinando 43, 178, 183 Di Matteo, Massimo 201 Di Nardi, Giuseppe 79, 223 Di Porto, Bruno 159 Di Vittorio, Antonio 76 Dominedò, Valentino 43 Draghi, Carlo 217 Duchini, Francesca 7–9, 101 Duggan, Christopher 48

E

Edgeworth, Francis Ysidro 225 Einaudi, Giulio 206 Einaudi, Luigi 6, 7, 9, 23, 42, 44–47, 49, 51, 52, 56, 61, 67, 79, 82, 83, 120, 122–124, 126, 132, 164, 177, 181, 182, 206, 207, 216, 219 Einstein, Albert 20 Einzig, Paul 225 Ely, Richard T. 192 Engels, Friedrich 225

F

Falchi, Antonio 103 Falchi, Maria Antonietta 117 Fanfani, Amintore 60, 131, 136, 148, 206 Fanno, Marco 21, 45–47, 51, 67, 81, 82, 98, 99, 126, 175, 177, 180, 181, 187–190, 194, 206, 208, 211, 213, 217, 225 Fantini, Oddone 99, 100, 166 Farolfi, Bernardino 76 Fasiani, Mauro 51, 82, 133, 177, 182, 212, 217, 219, 225 Fasolis, Giovanni Battista 166 Faucci, Riccardo 7, 8, 10, 16, 21, 80, 82, 121, 164, 172–174, 195, 201 Favero, Giovanni 68, 77 Fedele, Pietro 77 Fenoglio, Giulio 67 Ferrara, Francesco 8, 52, 54, 66, 70, 75, 79, 80, 91, 111, 113, 147, 173, 174, 183, 184, 205, 207, 210, 218, 225 Ferraris Franceschi, Rosella 21

Name Index

Ferraris, Maggiorino 152 Ferri, Carlo Emilio 42, 71, 72, 101, 159, 166 Finoia, Massimo 7, 9 Fisher, Irving 52, 222, 225 Fleres, Antonino 67 Flora, Federico 67, 166, 217, 219 Flora, Francesco 50 Foà, Bruno 43, 47, 62, 81, 104, 136 Fortunati, Paolo 54, 75, 79 Fossati, Eraldo 43, 51, 82, 95, 137, 178, 179, 194, 217 Foucault, Michel 13, 14, 16 Fovel, Nino Massimo 54, 75 Franco, Francisco 163 Fratti, Antonio 149 Frignani, Giuseppe 215, 217 Frisch, Ragnar 225 Frisella Vella, Giuseppe 217 Fuà, Giorgio 55–57, 84 Fubini, Renzo 47, 51, 67, 81, 82, 133, 177, 182, 217

G

Galeotti, Guido 166 Galiani, Ferdinando 7 Galli, Renato 177, 181 Galvani, Luigi 217 Gangemi, Raffaello (Lello) 131, 147, 151, 166, 205, 217 Garino-Canina, Attilio 67, 101, 133, 166, 208 Garrone, Nicola 215, 217 Gatti, Salvatore 217 Geertz, Clifforf 15 Gemelli, Agostino 79, 100, 101, 134, 148, 206 Gemelli, Giuliana 55, 83

233

Genovesi, Antonio 8 Gentile, Emilio 6, 23, 53, 55, 68, 69, 71, 73, 77, 102, 106, 109, 110, 201, 209, 214–216, 219 Gentile, Giovanni 21, 49, 67, 91, 147, 171, 213 Gentili, Guido 217 Ge Rondi, Carla 96 Ghisleri, Arcangelo 147 Gini, Corrado 51, 58, 69, 77, 82, 97, 147, 166, 217 Giocoli, Nicola 21, 80, 82, 189, 201 Gioia, Vitantonio 103 Gioli, Gabriella 12 Giovannini, Alberto 67 Giudici, Italo 217 Giuntella, Maria Cristina 100 Giusti, Ugo 217 Giustini, Giuseppe 108 Gobbi, Ulisse 67, 177, 181, 192, 193, 217, 218, 220, 221 Golzio, Silvio 136, 206 Gonzales Galé, José 217 Gorini, Enrico 67 Gragnani, Carlo 166 Graziadei, Antonio 46, 51, 67, 82, 83, 205 Graziani, Augusto 42, 44, 46, 47, 62, 67, 79, 151, 156–159, 166, 177, 181, 186, 217, 218, 222 Gregory, Theodor E. 225 Grilli, Carlo 217 Grinovero, Cesare 217 Griziotti, Benvenuto 42, 51, 67, 79, 83, 122, 136, 148, 151, 166, 217 Grossi, Paolo 20, 119 Gualerni, Gualberto 102

234

Name Index

Guidi, Marco E.L. 2, 8, 11–13, 16, 41, 154, 172, 207 H

Habermas, Jürgen 13 Harcourt, Geoff 26 Hayek, Friedrich August von 21, 52, 124–126, 225 Heckscher, Eli Filip 225 Hicks, John R. 212, 225 Hirschman, Albert O. 83 Hitler, Adolf 126 Hont, Istvan 12 I

Iacoviello, Giuseppina 21 J

Jannaccone, Pasquale 44, 162, 166, 177, 181, 207 Jarach, Cesare 47 Johnson, Joseph 26 Jung, Guido 217 K

Kadish, Alón 12 Kant, Immanuel 15 Kemmerer, Edwin W. 225 Keynes, John Maynard 52, 55, 83, 121, 124, 125, 205, 210, 225 Kreisler, Peter 26 Kuliscioff, Anna 147

Labriola, Arturo 46, 67, 148 Lama, Ernesto 217 La Malfa, Ugo 217 Lampertico, Fedele 7, 44 Lanchester, Fulco 89 Lanzillo, Agostino 74 Latour, Bruno 13 Lazzini, Arianna 21 Lebaron, Frédéric 13 Lenin. See Ul’janov, Vladimir Il’iˇc Lenti, Libero 147 Leone, Enrico 67 Le Van-Lemesle, Lucette 12 Licciardello, Giuseppe 67 Li Donni, Anna 103 Liefmann, Robert 211, 225 Lindahl, Erik 52 List, Friedrich 225 Livi, Livio 105 Loffredo, Enrico Ferdinando 217 Lolini, Ettore 166 Lorenzoni, Giovanni 67, 103, 217 Loria, Achille 47, 51, 67, 122, 151, 152, 154, 156–160, 166, 177, 181, 225 Lotti, Luigi 102 Luckmann, Thomas 13, 17 Lupi, Regina 116 Luzzatti, Luigi 7, 67, 74, 155, 158, 166 Luzzatto Fegiz, Pierpaolo 133 Luzzatto, Gino 47, 81, 148, 210, 217, 218, 225

M L

Labriola, Antonio 148, 225

Maccabelli, Terenzio 8 Machlup, Fritz 52 Maggi, Raffaele 95

Name Index

Magliulo, Antonio 9, 11, 22, 127, 172, 174 Majnoni, Fabio 217 Majorana, Giuseppe 67 Malvagna, Salvatore 222 Mancini, Guido 214, 223 Mangoni, Luisa 71, 90 Manzalini, Fiorenza 75 Maraviglia, Maurizio 99 Marchesi, Concetto 154 Marchionatti, Roberto 83 Marco, Luc 12 Marconcini, Federico 101 Marconi, Mauro 122 Marget, Arthur William 52 Marinelli, Olinto 67 Mariotti, Angelo 97 Maroi, Lanfranco 217 Marray, Roberto 67 Marshall, Alfred 45, 52, 101, 211 Marsili Libelli, Mario 67, 101, 177, 181 Martello, Tullio 44 Marx, Karl 15, 55, 205, 218, 222 Masci, Guglielmo 62, 67, 132, 133, 177, 181, 208, 210, 211, 221 Masè Dari, Eugenio 67, 157, 159, 166 Masi, Manlio 217 Massa Piergiovanni, Paola 76 Matteotti, Giacomo 5, 50, 95, 215, 216 Mattioli, Raffaele 64 Maugini, Armando 166 Mauri, Angelo 67, 101 Mayer, Hans 225 Mazzei, Jacopo 134, 217, 225 Mazzini, Giuseppe 150, 208, 225 Meade, James 52

235

Medolaghi, Paolo 166, 217 Menegazzi, Guido 156, 157, 159, 160, 166 Menger, Carl 222, 225 Merenda, Pietro 67 Meriggi, Marco 16 Messedaglia, Angelo 44, 90 Messedaglia, Luigi 217 Michels, Roberto 51, 67, 93, 100, 206, 213, 217 Mill, John Stuart 52 Minsky, Hyman P. 25 Mises, Ludwig von 225 Misiani, Simone 79–81, 83 Mitchell, Wesley C. 225 Mizuta, Hiroshi 12 Modigliani, Franco 47, 147 Mondaini, Gennaro 42 Montanari, Giorgio 116 Montesano, Aldo 120, 189 Moore, Henry Ludwell 225 Morato, Erica 8 Moretti, Mauro 69 Moretti, Vincenzo 136 Morgenstern, Oskar 52 Mortara, Giorgio 47, 81, 120, 124, 131, 149, 151, 166, 177, 181, 186, 207, 209, 217, 225 Mortati, Costantino 60 Mosca, Manuela 21, 41, 176 Mowat, Robert Balmain 217 Muller, Albert 132 Muratore, Nicola 217 Musco, Adolfo 67 Mussolini, Benito 5, 6, 19, 22, 24, 35, 37–40, 46–48, 50, 51, 53, 57, 60, 61, 63, 69, 72, 74, 75, 77, 81, 90, 91, 93, 95, 99, 108, 112, 121, 123, 124, 130,

236

Name Index

147, 188, 189, 195, 206, 211, 214–216, 218

N

Natoli, Fabrizio 45, 67 Nenci, Giacomina 116 Nerozzi, Sebastiano 120 Niceforo, Alfredo 166 Nicosia, Aldo 117 Nina, Luigi 67, 166, 217 Nitti, Francesco Saverio 44, 46, 67

O

Onida, Pietro 217 Orano, Paolo 99, 100 Ornaghi, Lorenzo 93, 101

P

Pacces, Federico Maria 110, 206 Pace Gravina, Giacomo 115 Pace, Luigi 217 Palazzina, Girolamo 120 Palomba, Giuseppe 43 Pantaleoni, Maffeo 8, 34–36, 45, 46, 67, 210, 218, 219, 225 Panunzio, Sergio 93, 99, 100 Paolucci de Calboli, Raniero 152, 159 Papa, Emilio Raffaele 50 Papi, Giuseppe Ugo 21, 50, 51, 82, 101, 147, 175, 177, 180, 181, 188–190, 208, 215 Pareto, Vilfredo 8, 34, 35, 45, 46, 51, 55, 192, 206, 210, 220, 225 Parisi, Daniela 49, 83, 120 Pasini, Achille 149

Patalano, Rosario 154 Pavan, Ilaria 81 Pavanelli, Giovanni 13 Pazzagli, Rossano 17 Pecorari, Paolo 155 Pelini, Francesca 81 Pelleriti, Enza 103 Perillo, Francesco 7 Perini, Dario 217 Perri, Stefano 9 Perroux, François 52 Pesciarelli, Enzo 9 Pesenti, Antonio 46, 81 Petretti, Arnaldo 131 Pigou, Arthur Cecil 47, 52, 206 Pirou, Gaëtan 52 Podestà, José 217 Pomante, Luigiaurelio 69 Porciani, Ilaria 85, 86, 116, 117 Porri, Vincenzo 67, 218 Possony, Stefan 206 Pound, Ezra 53 Prato, Giuseppe 67, 101, 123, 166, 207, 217 Protonotari, Francesco 152 Pugliese, Mario 47, 81

Q

Quilici, Nello 54, 147

R

Racca, Vittorio 67 Ratti, Anna Maria 217 Répaci, Francesco Antonio 99, 217 Resta, Manlio 75 Ricca Salerno, Giuseppe 44 Ricca Salerno, Paolo 104

Name Index

Ricchioni, Vincenzo 166 Ricci, Renato 112 Ricci, Umberto 24, 42, 45, 46, 83, 96, 207 Ricuperati, Giuseppe 67, 91 Righetti, Giuseppe 131 Ritrovato, Ezio 73 Robbins, Lionel 47, 52, 206 Robertson, Dennis Holme 52 Rocco, Alfredo 38, 39, 91, 131 Rogari, Sandro 103 Roggi, Piero 12 Romagnosi, Giandomenico 8, 52, 208, 225 Romani, Marzio Achille 72, 120 Romano, Andrea 117 Romano, Santi 63 Ronchi, Ennio 51 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano 8 Röpke, Wilhelm 21, 53, 124–126 Rosboch, Ettore 146 Rosenstein Rodan, Paul Narcyz 83, 225 Rosselli, Carlo 46, 123, 148 Rossi, Ernesto 46 Rossi, Lionello 105 Rotondi, Claudia 116 Rotondi, Mario 215 Rothschild, Emma 16

S

Salvadori, Massimo 217 Salvioni, Giambattista 148 Sangster, Rachel 26 Santarelli, Enrico 73 Sapelli, Giulio 68 Saraceno, Pasquale 84 Satta, Josto 67

237

Savelli, Renato 217 Scaramozzino, Pasquale 106 Scherma, Giuseppe 67 Schiavone, Aldo 20 Schmitt, Carl 53, 203 Schneider, Erich 52 Schumpeter, Joseph Alois 4, 52, 210, 221, 225 Scialoja, Antonio 7 Segni, Celestino 67 Segre, Mario 47, 81 Seligman, Edwin R.A. 225 Sella, Emanuele 45, 67, 217 Sensini, Guido 45, 67, 177, 181 Serpieri, Arrigo 42, 82, 131, 147, 166, 181, 207, 217 Severino, Lina 149 Shackle, George L.S. 180 Shove, Gerald 225 Sidgwick, Henry 145 Signori, Elisa 110 Simmel, Georg 213 Simon, Fabrizio 22, 143 Simone, Giulia 98, 99 Sitta, Pietro 67, 166 Smith, Adam 51, 219 Solmi, Arrigo 95 Sombart, Werner 53 Sorel, Georges 225 Spallanzani, Alfredo 217 Spallato, Stefania 50 Spalletti, Stefano 103 Spann, Othmar 53 Spaventa, Renato 97 Spaventa, Luigi 122 Spinedi, Francesco 97 Spirito, Ugo 9, 23, 54, 57, 61, 80, 110, 178, 179, 183, 184, 188,

238

Name Index

194, 203, 204, 205, 217–221, 224 Sprugnoli, Raffaella 26 Sraffa, Piero 24, 42, 46, 51, 83, 120, 121, 225 Stackelberg, Heinrich von 52 Džugašvili, Iosif Vissarionoviˇc (Stalin) 203 Stamp, Josiah 225 Steiner, Philippe 13 Strangio, Donatella 73 Sugiyama, Ch¯uzei 12 Supino, Camillo 42, 44, 67, 151, 166, 177, 181

Travaglini, Volrico 43 Treccani, Giovanni 23, 213 Treggiari, Ferdinando 99 Trentin, Silvio 74 Tribe, Keith 12, 145 Trivellato, Ugo 77 Turati, Augusto 72 Turati, Filippo 147 Turi, Gabriele 50, 145, 154, 181, 182 Türler, Heinrich 217 Tusset, Gianfranco 192

U

T

Uggè, Albino 217 Ul’janov, Vladimir Il’iˇc (Lenin) 52, 211

Tagliabue, Guido 124 Tagliacarne, Guglielmo 217 Tagliaferri, Amelio 76 Tamagnini, Giulio 217 Tangorra, Vincenzo 67 Tassinari, Giuseppe 166, 217, 218, 221, 222 Taussig, Frank William 52 Taviani, Paolo Emilio 60, 136 Tedesco, Luca 156, 163, 164 Tenerelli, Francesco Giuseppe 67 Tesoro, Marina 95 Tittoni, Tommaso 152 Tivaroni, Jacopo 67, 217 Toja, Guido 217 Tombesi, Ugo 67 Toniolo, Giuseppe 44, 101, 148 Toporowski, Jan 26 Tosi, Vincenzo 217 Tosti, Mario 117 Tranfaglia, Nicola 6 Travagliante, Pina 72, 73, 80, 103

Vaccari, Pietro 95 Valente, Armando 217 Valenti, Ghino 44, 45 Vallata, Giulia 84 Vanoni, Ezio 84, 99, 206 Varnier, Giovanni Battista 104 Verri, Pietro 7 Vianello, Vincenzo 217 Villavecchia, Gerolamo Vittorio 217 Vinci, Anna Maria 105 Vinci, Felice 120, 131, 133, 217 Vinelli, M. 67 Virgilii, Filippo 67, 151, 156–159, 166 Visconti, Alessandro 111 Vito, Francesco 43, 83, 102, 108, 126, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 148, 177, 181, 190, 191, 206, 215, 217, 222

V

Name Index

Volpe, Gioacchino 218 Volpicelli, Arnaldo 54

239

Y

Young, Allyn Abbott 225

Z W

Wagemann, Ernst 53, 225 Walras, Léon 52, 192 Waszek, Norbert 12 Webb, Sidney 225 Weber, Max 53, 206, 213 Whiting, Daniel 146 Wicksell, Knut 52, 211, 225 Withers, Hartley 207

Zagari, Eugenio 7, 9, 10 Zamagni, Vera 17, 37 Zaninelli, Sergio 17 Zanni, Alberto 207–209, 215, 217 Zapelloni, Federico 217 Zappa, Gino 76 Zeuthen, Frederick 225 Zingali, Gaetano 42, 79 Zorli, Alberto 67, 148, 151

Subject Index

A

Autarky 81, 163, 164, 175, 195

B

1936 Banking law 1926 Banking reform Battle for Grain (1925) 49 Bolshevism. See Carta del Lavoro [Labour Charter]; Socialism Bottai’s reforming proposals. See Reform of Public Education (Bottai, 1940)

Corporatism (corporatist/corporative economics) 3–10, 19, 21, 23, 53, 55, 57–61, 79, 80, 95, 98, 105, 108, 121, 127–138, 145, 152, 153, 158–162, 172–176, 178–180, 182–184, 186–190, 192–195, 221 Corporatism (corporative organisation of the economy) 3, 22, 23 1929 Crisis. See Great Crisis Crisis of 1929. See Great Crisis Croce’s 1925 Manifesto 49

C

Carta del Lavoro [Labour Charter] 37, 174, 179, 182, 183, 188, 193, 207, 218 Commission of Solons 69

E

Economic planning 84 Economic Sanctions. See Embargo of 1936

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 M. M. Augello et al. (eds.), An Institutional History of Italian Economics in the Interwar Period—Volume I, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32980-8

241

242

Subject Index

Economics, institutionalisation of 17, 119 Embargo of 1936 163

L

F

M

Fascist 1925 Manifesto 49, 216 Fascist propaganda 150, 160

Manifesto. See Croce’s 1925 Manifesto March on Rome 5, 35, 58 Marxism 17, 148

Leggi fascistissime (very Fascist laws) 5, 35, 147, 148, 155

G

Gentile Reform. See Reform of Public Education (Gentile, 1923) Great Crisis 21, 25, 61 Great Depression. See Great Crisis

N

National Socialism 60, 203

O H

Homo corporativus 11, 58, 171, 173, 178, 183, 188, 194, 195 Homo oeconomicus 36, 52, 172, 178, 188, 195, 204, 205, 220

Oath of loyalty to fascism (1931) 5, 42, 69, 81

P

Planned economy 132, 203 Protectionism 5, 149, 175, 209–211

I

IMI. See Industrial Finance Institute Industrial Finance Institute (Istituto Mobiliare Italiano, IMI) 5, 38, 81 Industrial organisation 211 Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, IRI) 5, 37, 38, 81, 222 IRI. See Institute for Industrial Reconstruction

Q

Quota 90 5, 36, 37, 81

R

Racial laws. See Racial Laws (1938) Racial Laws (1938) 42, 46, 57, 61 Racial legislation. See Racial Laws (1938) Reform of Public Education (Bottai, 1940) 113 Reform of Public Education (Gentile, 1923) 67, 102

Subject Index

Reform of University (De Vecchi, 1935) 73, 92, 94, 97 Regulatory plan. See Economic planning Revaluation of the Lira. See Quota 90

Socialism 3, 7, 17, 46, 56, 80, 148, 159, 173, 204, 205 Socialist planned-economy. See Planned economy Socialist planning. See Economic planning

S

Sanctions. See Embargo of 1936 Scientific management. See Industrial organisation

243

U

1935 University reform 92