De Viti de Marco, historian of economic analysis*

For a discussion of De Viti's popularity in the international community of public economists, see Kayaalp (1998).

Abstract

After briefly reconstructing the debate in Italy during the period of the marginalist revolution on the correct methodology for the history of economic thought, the article examines De Viti de Marco's position. A historical essay of his (De Viti 1891) on Antonio Serra (1613), becomes the first object of our critical enquiry. As with other studies of De Viti de Marco, from it emerges the adoption of an analytical and retrospective approach. Through comparison with the essays of the other historians of economic thought of his age, the originality of the method applied by De Viti de Marco in his historical contribution can be seen.

Keywords:

• De Viti de Marco
• history of economic thought
• method
• marginalism
• Antonio Serra
• international monetary flows

Notes

*I would like to thank Alessandra Chirco, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Eugenio Somaini, and an anonymous referee for their useful suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies. A previous version of this article was presented to the conference ‘The modernity of Antonio de Viti de Marco's thought’, Lecce, 8 – 9 November 2002 and published in the Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Matematico-Statistiche, Working Paper n. 31/13, University of Lecce.

For a discussion of De Viti's popularity in the international community of public economists, see Kayaalp (1998).

This statement refers exclusively to De Viti de Marco's introduction into Italy of the utility theory of value. We do not wish to enter into the debate in the science of public finances concerning the interpretation of De Viti's thought in terms of the voluntary exchange theory of public finance, about which see Fausto (1995: 92 – 4).

In this work we deal with De Viti de Marco's method concerning the history of economic thought; on his methodological approach to economic theory, see Nuccio (1975).

On the influence of the German School in Italy, see the essays presented at the Symposium ‘Science, Institutions and Economic Development: The Contribution of ‘German’ Economists and the Reception in Italy (1860 – 1930)’ (Parisi et al. 1999).

This phase in the history of political economy in Italy, and De Viti's position with respect to it, has been dealt with by M. Finoia (1995).

On the contribution of the Italian historical school to public finance see Faucci (2000: 208 – 10).

Letter of Pareto to Pantaleoni of 4 March 1892 (Pareto 1960, vol.I: 359).

Cardini (1986) attributes the Cronache (editorial comments) of the Giornale degli economisti signed V to De Viti de Marco.

See, for example, Pareto's letter to Pantaleoni of 24 March 1893 (Pareto 1960, vol.I: 359).

On the ‘Pavia school’, see Graziani (1896), Lampertico (1884: X), Mazzola (1896), Coletti (1925), Griziotti (1937) and Bellanca (2000).

This affirmation is somewhat controversial; see Bellanca (2000: 202 – 4).

This is a series of twenty-six volumes containing Italian translations of works by both major and minor economists, and treatises on specific subjects. See Faucci (1995: 155 – 8).

Faucci (2000: 190) calls Ferrara: ‘the first scientific historian of political economy, not only in our country’. As well as Ferrara's focus on analytical aspects, he also recognizes his capacity to collocate writers according to their historical background.

Cossa writes (1892: 134): ‘Among the authors of works [of the history of economic thought …] first place must go to our revered teacher, Guglielmo Roscher’.

See, for example, Cossa (1883), where in a dozen or so pages the entire history of political economy is outlined.

On the relations between Cossa and Balletti, see M. Mosca (2005).

Pantaleoni (1898a: 412) writes: ‘There is only one thing that entitles one's hopes for a place in the Walhalla of history to be solidly founded, where scientific doctrines are concerned; they just have to have been scientific, in fact, and they can only have been so if they managed to be true’ (author's bold).

This information is taken from a manuscript curriculum of De Viti de Marco.

These essays are collected in Cossa (1963).

L'Economia politica di G. Stanley Jevons, translated by Cossa, contains a preface and biographical information about Jevons by Cossa. Jevons in his turn edited the English edition of Guida allo studio dell'economia politica by Cossa (1876). It should be recalled that Cossa is several times mentioned in the preface to the second edition of Jevons Theory (1879).

’… Serra, whose study has now been made much more accessible by the very fine work of De Viti De Marco’, gloss of Cossa in Balletti (1892, 154).

Cossa writes (1892, English translation 1893: 179) on Serra as follows: ‘He felt neither competent nor otherwise inclined to enlarge its scope so as to include discussions of international exchange. He was familiar neither with the quantitative theory of value, nor with that of comparative cost, and he carefully avoided discussing real exchange. What he does give is a precise account of facts concerning international payments in coin’. As we shall see, this judgment completely accepts the interpretation given to it by De Viti.

If we except a brief mention in Faucci (1991: 589).

For example Fusco (1981) recalls in some detail De Viti's opinions on Serra; Nuccio (1967: 58 – 9) quotes a long passage of De Viti's on Serra and comments briefly on the work.

On the historiography concerning Serra see Cossa (1892: 199) and Roncaglia (1999).

In the first version De Viti de Marco's polemic against Serra's previous interpreters is especially directed against Fornari (1882) as we shall see.

It will be remembered that one of the first formulations of the specie-flow mechanism was Thomas Mun's in 1630. In the eighteenth century it was taken up again by Cantillon and Hume (Blaug 1962, ed. 1997: 13).

Fornari writes (1882: 1): ‘Where possible, I noted the relations between the theories and the facts, inquiring into whether these were the products of those, or vice-versa’.

Graziani writes (1887: 262): ‘The theory of value that Wieser and Böhm-Bawerk studied so lovingly Sax raised to the status of foundation of the financial system […] the importance of needs emerges from their subjective strength or from their degree of intensity’.