Suchergebnisse

This article presents some observations on "public happiness" in order to clarify the idea's meaning in the eighteenth-century Italian context. It examines Lugino Bruni's interpretation of this concept, and criticizes his understanding of public happiness as the continuation of Artistotle'seudaimonia. Bruni stresses the social and collective nature of happiness in the civil economy of the Italian eighteenth century. By examining the works of Ludovico Antonio Muratori and Antonio Genovesi, this article addresses instead the political meaning of public happiness for absolute monarchies, and underlines its origins in the German tradition of natural law.

In this contribution I examine the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the conditions of peasants in the southern provinces and Sicily, usually called the Faina inquiry (1906–9). I focus on how the task of observing the conditions of the peasant was defined, how it was entrusted to agricultural economists, and how they accomplished it. The peasant way of life varied greatly across southern Italy. Knowledge about local varieties and local specificities was embedded contextually and was available only to locals themselves. Observation thus coincided with translation of local features into a more general language that could be understood by a larger community of scientists and by a nationwide public opinion. Political change imposed severe time constraints on data collection. Farm types were devised to handle variety quickly and effectively. Types mobilized difference while preserving and stabilizing variety among classes.

L'analisi del penisero politico di Amartya Sen e, in particolare la sua dottrina della democrazia e dell'identità, è condotta a partire dagli strumenti logici e concettuali che egli ha sviluppato nel corso della sua attività nel campo dell'economia del benessere e della teoria della scelta sociale.

Abstract
By looking at the life, travels, and work of Wolf Ladejinsky, one of the leading American experts and advisers on agrarian reforms in Asia during the postwar era, this article sheds light on the practices of development experts. Ladejinsky's work shows how the postwar period saw the emergence of a new kind of traveling economist whose task was to engineer and assess the implementation of modernization programs. In particular, the article analyzes the role of field trips in the career of Ladejinsky across Asia. The task of traveling experts was complicated. Ladejinsky's agenda was clear and his goals predetermined but they had to be adapted to different national and international frameworks. Adaptation had two sides: on the one hand, it meant fixing certain elements of the land reform plan, such as the maximum size of landowners' estates, according to local agricultural conditions; on the other, adaptation consisted of a form of institutional engineering, to harness political will, popular support, and bureaucratic structures for land reform. He developed, therefore, an array of methodological suggestions to collect relevant information during short visits.

The Swiss-Russian economist Nikolaj Sieber was one of the first who wrote about Marx in Russia. In this article we reconstruct the development of his thought by mobilising evidence about the intellectual and political context he lived in. We document his involvement within the Ukrainian national movement of the 1870s and argue that this closeness was consistent with his take on the capitalist evolution of the Russian Empire. We discuss his importance in the Russian debates on the future of the peasant commune and of Russia and conclude that his interpretation of Marx and capitalism was crucial for the development of the Russian social-democratic party. ; The Swiss-Russian economist Nikolaj Sieber was one of the first who wrote about Marx in Russia. In this article we reconstruct the development of his thought by mobilising evidence about the intellectual and political context he lived in. We document his involvement within the Ukrainian national movement of the 1870 s and argue that this closeness was consistent with his take on the capitalist evolution of the Russian Empire. We discuss his importance in the Russian debates on the future of the peasant commune and of Russia and conclude that his interpretation of Marx and capitalism was crucial for the development of the Russian social-democratic party.

The Swiss-Russian economist Nikolaj Sieber was one of the first who wrote about Marx in Russia. In this article we reconstruct the development of his thought by mobilising evidence about the intellectual and political context he lived in. We document his involvement within the Ukrainian national movement of the 1870 s and argue that this closeness was consistent with his take on the capitalist evolution of the Russian Empire. We discuss his importance in the Russian debates on the future of the peasant commune and of Russia and conclude that his interpretation of Marx and capitalism was crucial for the development of the Russian social-democratic party.