1. Ferraresi, F. and Ferrari, G.. “Italy: Economists in a Weak Political System,” History of Political Economy, 1981. 13(3), pp. 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. For an examination of the historical trend which favoured the prevalence of marginal analysis, see Schumpeter, J.A., History of economic analysis, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1954) p. 892.Google Scholar See also Hutchison, T. W., “International flow of economic ideas. Insularity and cosmopolitanism in economic ideas 1870–1914.” American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings, 1955, 45(2), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar With reference to the Italian case: Are, G., Economic e politica nell'Italia liberale; 1890–1915 (Bologua, Il Mulino, 1975)Google Scholar; Cardini, A., “Economisti e politica in Italia tra il 1870 e il 1914”. Note economiche, 1984, 2, pp. 126–142.Google Scholar

3. Coats, A.W., “Economists in Government: Conclusions,” History of Political Economy, 1981, 13(3), pp. 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Augello, M.M.-Guidi, M.E.L., “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 Augello, M.M., Bianchini, M., Gioli, G., Roggi, P. (Eds.), Le cattedre di economia politica in Italia. La diffusione di una disciplina ‘sospetta’ (1750–1900), (Milano, Franco Angeli, 1988), pp. 335–384.Google Scholar

5. The beginning of such specialized academic training might be related to two different headings: from an institutional standpoint, the reforming of Law Faculties Statutes (“Regolamento Generale”) in 1876 through which different aspects of university life (training of lecturers, entries to the academic career, didactic activity, studying programmes) were reorganized; and on the other hand, (as far as economic research was specifically concerned) to the aftermath of Methodenstreit.

6. The often specialist contents of such non-compulsory courses, together with the growing influence on them exercised by economists' political and scientific activity, are further evidence of the progress of professionalization.

7. In Italy the first University Institutes which contained departments of Political economy were founded in Pisa in 1877 (“Il Seminario storico-giuridico”), in Siena in 1880 (“Il Circolo giuridico”), and in Torino the following year (“L'Istituto di esercitiazioni nelle scienze giuridico-politiche”). On the role played by such Institutes, and more specifically by “Il Laboratorio di economia politica” in Torino (1893), in the formation of professional economists, see Augello-D. Giva, M.M., “Alle origini della professionalizzazione accademica degli economisti: organismi universitari e docenti della Facoltà giuridica di Torino (1881–1903)”, Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali, 1988, 1.Google Scholar

8. In fact, the curricula of the Universities do play a relevant part in the forming of economic experts who have matured in an environment outside the University.

9. I intend to refer both to the introduction of new economic subjects, the creation of the first economics Department within Law Faculties and to the foundation of the High Schools of Commerce.

10. See Barucci, P.. “The Spread of Marginalism in Italy (1871–1890)”, History of Political Economy, 1972 4(2), pp. 512–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. In fact, it is precisely with reference to the Societies of Political economy, that the problems of the professionalization of economists have been historically posed. See the classic studies by Coats, A.W.. “The First Two Decades of the American Economic Association”. The American Economic Review, 09, 1960. 50(4), pp. 624–637Google Scholar; “The Origins and the Early Development of the Royal Economic Society”. The Economic Journal, 06., 1968, 309 (78), pp. 349–371Google Scholar; and the recent “The American Economic Association and the Economics Profession”, The Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1985. 23(4), pp. 1697–1727.Google Scholar On the same problem, but on a more general level, also see Church, R.L., “Economists as Experts: The Rise of an Academic Profession in United States, 1870–1920”, in The University in Society, Vol. II Ed. Stone, L., (New York, Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

12. Faucci, R., Finanza amministrazione e pensiero economico, Il caso della contabilitá di stato da Cavour al fascismo, (Torino, Fondazione Einaudi, 1975), especially the introduction.Google Scholar

13. See the “Atto costitutivo” of the association in “Societá di economia politica”, La Rivista contemporanea, giugno, 1860, pp. 119–121.Google Scholar On the discussions promoted by SPE, cfr. Are, G., Il problema dello sviluppo industriale nell'etá della Destra, (Pisa, Nistri-Lischi, 1965, 1965), esp. pp. 135–139.Google Scholar

14. Beside Reymond, G.G. (1831–1902), these were Gerolamo Boccardo (1829–1904) lecturer at Genova, Pietro Torrigiani (1810–1885) at Parma, and Francesco Trinchera (1810–1874) part time professor of Political economy at Napoli.Google Scholar

15. See “Societá di economia politica italiana”, La Nuova Antologia, luglio, 1868, pp. 629–631.Google Scholar

16. On the important role played by Protonotari, F. (1832–1888) in the spreading of economic culture as editor of La Nuova AntologiaGoogle Scholar, see Faucci, R., “Organizzazione e diffusione della cultura economica in Italia dopo l'Unitá. Lettere di L. Cossa e di A. Loria a F. Protonotari 1868–1886”. Economia e Storia, marzo, 1978, 25(1), pp. 93–113.Google Scholar

17. Besides the above mentioned Boccardo, G., Protonotari, F., Reymond, G.G., and Torrigiani, P., the academic economists who joined the Italian Society of Political Economy were: Giovanni Bruno (1818–1891) at Palermo, Antonio Ciccone (1808–1893) at Napoli, Luigi, Cossa (1831–1896) at Pavia, Salvatore Majorana, Calatabiano (1825–1897) at Catania, Angelo, Marescotti (1815–1892) at Bologna, Angelo, Messedaglia (1820–1901) at Padova.Google Scholar

18. See the summaries of the meetings of 1868 and 1869, in La Nuova Antologia, luglio, 1868, VII, pp. 633–644; febbraio, 1869, XII, pp. 416–425; aprile, 1869, XII, pp. 858–570.Google Scholar

19. “Societá di economia politica italiana”, La Nuova Antologia, dicembre, 1868, p. 809.Google Scholar

20. Under the direction of Pantaleoni (1827–1924) himself, together with Antonio De Viti De Marco (1858–1953) and Ugo Mazzola (1863–1899), both professors of Public finance at, respectively, Roma and Pavia.

21. It is well known that the debate on the method swept Italy after the articles of Vito Cusumano (1843–1908) and Francesco Ferrara's (1810–1900) reply. See particularly Cusumano, V., “Il congresso degli economisti tedeschi in Eisenach”, Archivio Giuridico, 1872, X, pp. 2226–2228Google Scholar; “Sulla Condizione attuale degli studi economici in Germania”, ibid., 1873, XI, 1874, XII, pp. 284–317; “Lo smithianesimo, i riformisti e i socialisti cattedratici”. L'Economista d'Italia, 1874, VI, pp. 554–556Google Scholar; and Ferrara, F., “Il germanismo economico in Italia”. La Nuova Antologia, agosto, 1874, pp. 983–1018.Google Scholar

22. “Societá Adamo Smith”, L'Economista, 1874, p. 729.Google Scholar On the political position of this group see Salvestrini, A., I moderati toscani e la classe dirigente italiana: 1859–1876. (Firenze, Olschki, 1965).Google Scholar

23. “Societá di economia politica sotto il titolo di Societá Adamo Smith. Atto costitutivo”, L'Economista, 1874, I, 2, p. 563.Google Scholar

24. To strengthen its own character of scientific association, the ASS statute, however, expressly barred “from its own discussion and resolutions everything of a precisely political taste.” Admittedly this resulted from the intentions of evading its own ideological reference: see ibidem, p. 563.Google Scholar

25. For the professional composition of the new association and the programme read by Schmoller, G., see Roversi, A., Il magistero della scienza, Storia del Verein fuer Sozialpolitik dal 1872 al 1888, (Milano, Angeli, 1984), esp. pp. 41–45.Google Scholar

26. Besides the above quoted Bruno, G., Maiorana-Calatabiano, S., and Marescotti, A.—already members of ISPE—the following were also founder members of the ASS: Carlo Fontanelli (1843–1890) lecturer in High School of Social Sciences at Firenze, Tullio Martello (1841–1918) lecturer in High School of Commerce at Venezia, Giovanni Pinna Ferrá (1839–1904) at Sassari, and Giuseppe Todde (1829–1897) at Cagliari.Google Scholar

27. This needs to be underlined in order to point out the academic implications of the free-trade battle which the ASS intended to promote, and to emphasize its difference from the composition of the rival association that was to be founded the following year. See, for example, Ferrara, F., “La Societá Adamo Smith e la circolare di Padova”, L'Economista, 1874, II, p. 961.Google Scholar

28. For instance: the emerging of a new university type of “voluntary teacher” (libero docente); the rapid increase of “free-courses” (corsi liberi) in economic subjects—which acompanied the official ones—and the progressive specialization of their content; the founding of the first university Institutes of economics.Google Scholar

29. The very interesting text of the “Circolare di Padova” can be found in Parisi Acquaviva, D., “Congresso di Economisti nel gennaio 1875 in Milano”, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 1978, 86(3), Allegato, pp. 339–340.Google Scholar

30. Among the young exponents of the Historical school who were to be protagonists in the 1890s of the new generation I wish to point out: Rodolfo Benini (1862–1956) lecturer at Perugia and at Pavia, Eugenio Mase'-Dari (1864–1961) at Camerino and at Cagliari, Amilcare Puviani (1854–1907) at Perugia, Ugo Rabbeno (1863–1897) and Ghino Valenti (1852–1920) at Modena.Google Scholar

31. On the supremacy of the Historical school in the teaching posts of Public finance see the conclusions of Spoto, L., Economisti e questione agraria in Sicilia (1860–1895). Giuseppe Ricca Salerno e la trasformazione del latifondo, (Palermo, Vittorietti, 1980,) p. 31.Google Scholar

32. As for the relationship between the Presidency and the local committees, the statute required the latter to send to the national office of the association the results of the studies and researches which had been assigned to them, or that they conducted on their own. This was intended to maintain continuity in order to be informed of the intentions and the “state of work” of the various local bodies of the association. See the Statute of the APES in Parisi Acquaviva, D., Allegato, V.Google Scholar

33. This Inquiry was the first to consider the protectionist instances of the economic circles which did not acknowledge themselves in government policy: such requests were to find expression at the Milan Conference and were at the origin of the political “turning-point” of the following year. On the “Inquiry” directed by Scialoia, A. (1817–1877), see Baglioni, G., pp. 189–231; Are, G., Alle origini dell'Italia industriale, (Napoli, Guida, 1974).Google Scholar

34. See Acquaviva, D. Parisi, p. 438.Google Scholar

35. Such conclusions would reflect the historians' general lack of interest in the university structures in which the early development of the social sciences took place in Italy.

36. Cardini, A., Stato liberale e protezionismo in Italia: 1890–1900, (Bologna, Il Mulino, 1981).Google Scholar

37. With reference to the American case, see R. Church, pp. 562–3.

38. Moments which, however, according to Church, progressively characterize the process of the professionalization of the American economists: ibidem, pp. 581–583.

39. See in particular Messedaglia, A., “L'insegnamento della giurisprudenza nelle Universitá del Regno. Relazione a S.E. il Ministro della Pubblica Istruzione, La Nuova Antologia, set., 1869, pp. 576–593.Google Scholar On the activity and role of the Superior Council of Public Education see Ciampi, G., Il governo della scuola nello Stato pre-unitario. Il Consiglio Superiore della Pubblica Istruzione dalle origini all'ultimo governo Depretis: 1847–1887, (Milano, Comunitá, 1983).Google Scholar