Appendix: Einaudi, President of the Italian Republic (1948–1955) Message after the Oath*

At the general assembly of the House of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic, on Wednesday, 12 March 1946, the President of the Republic read the following message:

Gentlemen: Right Honourable Senators and Deputies! The oath I have just sworn, whereby I undertake to devote myself, during the years awarded to my office by the Constitution, to the exclusive service of our common homeland, has a meaning that goes beyond the bare words of its solemn form. Before me I have the shining example of the illustrious man who was the first to hold, with great wisdom, full devotion and scrupulous impartiality, the supreme office of head of the nascent Italian Republic. To goes the grateful appreciation of the whole of the people of , the devoted memory of all those who had the good fortune to witness and admire the construction day by day of the edifice of rules and traditions without which no constitution is destined to endure. He who succeeds him made repeated use, prior to 2 June 1946, of his right, springing from the tradition that moulded his sentiment, rooted in ancient local patterns, to an opinion on the choice of the best regime to confer on Italy. But, in accordance with the promise he had made to himself and his electors, he then gave the new republican regime something more than a mere endorsement. The transition that took place on 2 June from the previ- ous to the present institutional form of the state was a source of wonder and marvel, not only by virtue of the peaceful and law-abiding manner in which it came about, but also because it offered the world a demonstration that our country had grown to maturity and was now ready for democracy: and if democracy means anything at all, it is debate, it is struggle, even ardent or

* Message read on 12 March 1948 and republished in the Scrittoio del Presidente (1948–1955), (ed.), 1956.

304 Message after the Oath 305 even tenacious struggle among different and opposing opinions; it is, in the end, the victory of an opinion, clarified as dominant over other opinions. It is in your debates, Honourable Members of Parliament, that there resides true life, the very life of the institutions we have freely bestowed on ourselves. And if I have any cause for regret at the separation from you decreed by your resolution, then it is precisely this: no longer will I be able to take part in debates, from which alone the common will arises; no longer will I be able to experience the joy – which is among the purest joys the human heart can feel – of being compelled little by little, as a result of the arguments expounded by others, to inwardly con- fess that one is fully or partly in the wrong, thereby moving slowly towards embracing the opinion of men wiser than ourselves. , one of the men who most greatly honoured the Mezzogiorno and this House, always proudly spoke out against the calumnies of those who, prior to 1922, had scoffed at the parliament and derided it as a place where too much talking took place: on the contrary, he declared, it had been his great fortune to learn much from listening to members far less educated than himself, and he ascribed to parliamentary debate the merit of having created a ruling class springing from the that had little by little expanded and has now become almost universal, a better ruling class than that which, at the dawn of the Risorgimento, was created by limited suffrage. Now, a clear picture is emerging of the great task that is entrusted here to you who bear the momentous duty of enacting the principles of the Constitution, and to myself, whom the fundamental law of the Republic has made the guardian of its observance. Between the two dates of 1848 and 1948, commemorated on the cente- nary day by both your presidents, a radically new problem has arisen, one that great political thinkers of the past century declared to be insoluble: namely, the problem of ensuring that democratic systems endure when those called upon to vote and pass resolutions are no longer restricted priv- ileged minorities but tens of millions of citizens, all equal before the law. seemed at that time – and still seems to many – incompatible with and democracy. The constitution Italy has adopted is a chal- lenge to this pessimistic vision of the future. It affirms two solemn principles: preserve all those elements of the present social structure, and exclusively those, that guarantee the freedom of the human person against the omnip- otence of the state and the arrogance of private power; and guarantee to all people, whatever may be the circumstances of their birth, the greatest pos- sible equality of starting points. This sublime mission of human elevation is one that we all, parliament, government and president, are called upon to sustain. Twenty years of dictatorial government brought the country civil strife, foreign war and such severe material and moral devastation that all hope of redemption appeared to have become vain. And yet, after saving the indestructible national unity that stretches – regional and local differences 306 Appendix notwithstanding and although so painfully mutilated – from the Alps to , we are now tenaciously reconstructing the ravaged national fortunes, and we have no less than twice given the world an admirable demonstration of our resolve to return to free democratic political competitions and of our capacity to cooperate as equals among equals, in the assemblies whose endeavours are directed to reconstructing that Europe from whence shone on the world an immense light of thought and humanity. Gentlemen, Honourable Senators and Deputies, lifting our eyes on high, let us humbly set out on the hard path along which our beautiful and adored country is destined to reach ever more glorious goals of moral gran- deur, of free civil life, of social justice and thus of material prosperity. Once again let there resound in this hall the cry ‘Long Live Italy!’ On Delays in the Debate and Approval of Draft Bills*

The premise that will be taken as the starting point seems, at the very least, controversial. The premise is that the delay in debating and approving draft bills presented by the government or upon the initiative of Parliament is detrimental and that the enormous backlog of draft bills can be considered as verging on scandal. This premise contrasts with the unequivocal teaching of the major political writers, among whom one need only mention the names of Guicciardini and Galiani, according to whom one of the greatest afflictions of peoples is the abundance of new laws. But quite apart from the teachings of the wise, those who criticize the delays in the forging of laws forget that the entire parliamentary structure was created, perhaps unwittingly and perhaps also against the wishes of the law-makers them- selves, with the aim of achieving that delay. The existence of two Houses in very many countries, and the process adopted in some countries wherein debate takes place by submitting bills to three readings, or in others by submitting them to the scrutiny of committees, and the rigorous nature of the rules designed to guarantee the free expression of all opinions and to safeguard minorities against majorities, are all unintentional tools that had to be introduced in order to regulate the flow of new laws, making their rapid approval difficult and subjecting them to fairly rigorous selection. The selection may come about accidentally, but it offers a means of ensuring that the rules governing the life of a country are not overturned at an excessively fast rate. If one starts out from the correct and experimentally demonstrated prem- ise that new laws are per se detrimental, and that more often than not a bill is proposed as a result of the ephemeral impulses of poorly informed

* Notes of 22 October 1952 and 21 September 1950, published in Scrittoio del Presidente (1948–1955), Giulio Einaudi (ed.), 1956.

307 308 Appendix public opinion or because of incompetence in applying the old laws, then everything becomes clear in the parliamentary mechanism, and the con- straints imposed on new legislation by the mechanism itself appear admi- rable. The writer of these observations recalls having repeatedly defended Parliament, before 1922, against the accusation of sluggishness in passing laws and of futility in debating, a charge that even then was levelled by the Fascist party against the parliamentary institution. We have seen the results of the suppression of tools which, through the slow pace and futility of debates, guaranteed the freedom of citizens. Let us not renew the same unfounded accusations today if we do not wish to find ourselves confronted with the same effects. That the two Houses should be entrusted with different duties is a true proposition, but what is highly controversial is the proposition that in order to obtain such an outcome it is appropriate to explicitly attribute different tasks to the two Houses. The results obtained when there is an attempt to attribute to a given House technical – and possibly also juridical and administrative – tasks are well known. Those Houses are not the parliament, but rather mere endorsement chambers. In Houses of this kind, only con- structive criticism is allowed, which effectively means that the criticism put forward against any adjective is no longer criticism, but simply conform- ism. Criticism that is required to have its range of action within a specified sphere, the so-called technical sphere, is not true criticism, for if criticism is to be true to its nature, then it must be unlimited and therefore political. The Houses of the fascist era exercised constructive criticism and therefore they exercised no criticism at all. The same holds true, as far as one can see, in the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Since the desire is that there should be no results, there must be no desire for causes either. This writer disregards the fact that in the two Houses were entrusted with tasks diversified according to the following criterion: political affairs assigned to one House and technical matters to the other. This approach, some- what gauchely attempted in France, is a different, and quite distinct, criterion of classification. In this regard, civilized countries can be distinguished into two categories. The first includes federal states, where senators are endowed with a dignity and power greater than that enjoyed by members of the House of Deputies, since the senators are representatives of sovereign states which have surrendered part of their sovereignty to the federation while retaining sovereignty in all fields that have not been surrendered. The second category is that of unitary countries such as France, Italy and , where the two Houses originally had equal powers. Little by little, decision-making power eventually became the exclusive prerogative of the House of Deputies, or in other cases this House was awarded priority or became predominant in the decision-making process. In the country where the problem was solved with the customary empirical methods characteristic of the English mentality, no delimitation of the field of action of the two Houses was undertaken: rather, On Delays in the Debate and Approval of Draft Bills 309 the power of the House known as the Upper House was reduced to that of a simple advisory function. Thus the House of Lords is by no means forbid- den to examine budget statements, and debates sometimes take place with greater solemnity than in the House of Commons. But the eventuality of a negative vote does not count, since the Speaker of the House of Commons need only certify that the bill in question concerns the budget statement for it to be presented forthwith to the sovereign, who will then sanction it, even if the vote by the House of Lords went against it. With all other laws the House of Lords has to reject the bill, which will be passed and become law only if, after one year has elapsed, the House of Commons has once again voted in favour of the very same text, identical word for word. The House of Lords has lost nothing of its moral authority following the reduction of its power to the mere one-year delay. The result has been that out of more than eight hundred peers, less than a hundred attend the ses- sions and, more often than not, no more than fifty or so are present; but these are authoritative peers, highly competent, whose word has never had so much influence on public opinion as has been the case since the powers of their House were limited to an advisory function. Whichever House has the right to say to the other: ‘You have been overhasty, you have yielded to the effrontery of sudden requests by an ill-informed public opinion; think it over again, debate the matter once more’, whichever one has these pow- ers of advising and urging caution has in and of itself greater dignity than the members to whom such advice is directed. This is the path that can be taken and which leads to success, not the path of the legislative division of tasks, which would produce nothing but discord and envy between the two Houses, since both Houses could hardly close their eyes to the patent evidence that the very concept of the existence of purely technical prob- lems and purely political problems is fundamentally flawed. France crudely attempted to implement the concept, but by reducing the right to delay to no more than a few days, the right itself has been shorn of any substance so that the ancient senate, now known as the Council of the Republic, has been transformed into a body substantially devoid of authority. Any attempt to define the legislative function that is supposed to be attributed to the government seems fruitless. The conditions that are usu- ally mentioned – ‘impossibility for the Houses to deal with the entire range of matters due to lack of time’, ‘both Houses are absorbed in other affairs’, ‘the need to entrust the government with the power to pass laws in the interests of the country’ – are so vague that they would allow absolutely any usurpation of legislative power by the government. Here too, the experience of the fascist era should act as a warning. It does not appear there has been any change in the of the Supreme Court in the . It should be recalled, first and foremost, that the American Supreme Court was not set up with the explicit aim of making a statement on the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress and 310 Appendix endorsed by the President. The Supreme Court is nothing more and nothing less than the supreme organ of a federal legal system, similar to that of other civilized countries. There too there are lower federal judges, courts of appeal and a Supreme Court. Anyone has the right to take any other person to court with the aim of obtaining a statement from the federal courts establishing that a given claim does not rest on any well-founded legal basis. In fact, a presidential act was even recently declared null and void by an ordinary federal judge because the latter argued that it could not be upheld by any valid law. Only later was the judgement submitted to the Supreme Court, which confirmed the position taken by the lower federal judge. Basically, the ordinary federal courts arrogated to themselves the right to say that the ruling contained in a law was not valid because it violated a principle of the constitution. That which took place was not the work of the federal constituent assembly, but rather the fruit of a position taken by the judges of the first Supreme Court. Why, in Italy, did we not have a president of the Court of Cassation in in 1848 willing to follow in the footsteps of the first judge (president) of the American Supreme Court, first in time and first among his peers, Justice Marshall, and to take the position that the ruling contained in a law was not valid because it was in conflict with the statutes? If such an event had taken place, probably some or some president of one of the two Houses would have become extremely angry, as did the president of the United States at that time, who thundered against the effrontery of one who had dared to describe the laws voted by Congress and endorsed by the president as devoid of legal effect. Who would have prevented the imaginary president of the Italian Cassation from retorting in the same manner as Marshall: ‘and who will quash my sentences?’ Commentators would have pointed out that what was logical in the United States, with its rigid constitutional regime, was not logical in a regime characterized by a non-rigid statutory structure. But if the Cassation had persisted in its opinion, the commentators would have discerned ele- ments of rigidity in the Albertine constitution as well. Indeed it would not be impossible, and perhaps not even difficult, to discover more rigid words in the Albertine constitution than those few phrases on which Marshall based his arguments in justifying his unquestionable right to declare the unconstitutionality of laws he did not like. And it is worth noting that in specific cases of a dispute between two persons, the Supreme Court can judge a law to be invalid not only because it is in contrast with some specific rule written in the constitu- tion and in the subsequent amendments to the constitution, but also in cases where it conflicts with one or other of the principles which, here in Italy, are looked upon with suspicion by purist law scholars because they belong to so-called natural law. A law can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court because it does not conform to the spirit that informs the On Delays in the Debate and Approval of Draft Bills 311

American constitution. But the ‘informing’ principles are extremely elastic and vary over time, so that a rule that was considered unconstitutional yes- terday may, today, be declared to be in conformity with the constitution. The spirit of the world, Weltanschauung, blows through its interpreters. It can thus truly be said that the federal judges, including the lower judges, enjoy a power which in certain respects is greater, in the legislative sphere, than that of Congress and the president. It would not appear that anything has changed in recent times with regard to this appropriation of quasi-legis- lative powers by the federal courts. Powers that no-one contests, partly also because they are exercised with the prudence that is proper to men who no longer have anything to hope from anyone and who cannot, unless they voluntarily withdraw, be chased out by any person at all. During the 168 years of life of the American constitution, only one case is known in which a judge of the Supreme Court was deposed in consequence of a charge brought before the Senate in which the judge was accused of behaviour not befitting the dignity of one who is called upon to hold high office in the judiciary. The above remarks are not intended to provide support, even indirectly, for any proposal to modify the constitution. They merely seek to express the requirement that any such proposal should start out from uncontentious premises and from examples that are in conformity with the facts. 22 October 1952

Condemning the necessarily slow pace of parliamentary affairs is synonymous with favouring one of the two opposing tendencies observable in the field of legislation: the tendency towards innovation and the ten- dency towards conservation. Accelerating law-making activity means siding with the innovators and against those who wish to preserve the present situation; that is to say, siding with innovating societies against the conserv- ative approach. Social stability derives from the struggle between these two tendencies, neither of which deserves to be encouraged. Since the starting point is mistaken, its consequences are equally mistaken. Not only should any rule that favours recourse to decree-laws be rejected – and on this point, providentially, the laws currently in force are fairly rigid – but the utmost effort should also be made to place severe limits on recourse to parliamen- tary committees as a means of passing new laws. According to a false doctrine of expertise, every committee should be composed of persons who are competent in the respective fields of defence, foreign affairs, education, etc. etc. This doctrine is false, firstly, because men cannot be assigned to separately demarcated spheres of expertise concern- ing agriculture, industry, war, etc. etc. Anyone who glances down the list of committees of the fascist regime and the present-day committees will soon notice that expertise is not the qualification best exemplified by the mem- bers of the committees. 312 Appendix

Secondly, if the quality of expertise existed, it would in any case be condemnable. A person who establishes laws on agriculture by virtue of possess- ing expertise in the sphere of agriculture makes a deplorable legislator. Such an individual necessarily creates laws with a view to particular interests, overlooking the opposing interests as well as the general interest. The system of committees whose members are endowed with sectorial exper- tise was invented for the purpose – whether this was done deliberately or unconsciously matters little – of surreptitiously securing the approval of rules contrary to the public interest, rules that were of use only to satisfy private aspirations. In a public and general assembly, on the other hand, there would be a somewhat greater likelihood of speaking out against private demands than is the case when discussion is confined to restricted committees formed of just a few members, where public airing of the issues is limited to the barest minimum. The general assembly may have many defects, but it unquestionably has the advantage of recognizing a basic principle: namely, while note must be taken of particular interests and attention should be paid to men endowed with expertise, the task of making a decision should fall to the politician endowed with political competence, which is a form of competence differ- ent from expertise in a particular field. Therefore, it was certainly appropriate to grant the legislative committees the power not only to discuss but also to approve laws, provided that this was subordinated to observance of two conditions:

1. When a committee meets in session, it is not only the members of the committee itself who should have the right to vote, but also, and without the need for any specific invitation, any of the senators or deputies that may wish to cast a vote. The difference between senators and deputies who are members of the committee and those who attend the session voluntarily should have been established by granting the attendance allowance exclusively to the former group. We would thus have avoided the pointless overcrowding of committee sessions while at the same time steering clear of obsequious homage to the false idol of expertise with its associated barrage of laws approved by stealth in the absence either of suitably qualified specialists, who quite by chance have not been enrolled in the given committee, or of capable politicians wishing to defend the public interest against individual private interests. 2. Even one single senator or one single deputy who disagrees with the resolu- tions passed by a committee should have the right to appeal to the House in the general assembly.

Popular suffrage is a myth and I think we can all concur with this assess- ment; but it is a necessary myth and the best one that has been invented so On Delays in the Debate and Approval of Draft Bills 313 far. This implies that every person invested with the legislative mandate has not only the duty but also the right to exercise it. The approval of laws in small committees violates the irrevocable right of an individual member of the assembly to appeal to the assembly individually, and to do so without requesting the consent of any colleague whatsoever. I regard this as a cardinal principle, lack of observance of which deprives the law-making process of any value. A law that cannot be assumed to have the consensus of the majority is hardly a law likely to inspire respect. Too many citizens may have good reason to consider it a repressive law. Besides, it is certain that the right of the single individual to compel the general assembly to revise a law already approved by the vote of the committee is by no means dangerous. One should have a certain amount of trust in the rise of esprit de corps among law-makers. A deputy or senator who was to constrain the assembly to go back over resolutions validly approved by the committee and was to oblige the assembly to do so without good reason would end up being ostracized by colleagues, and would be looked at askance, with the result that such a person’s appeals would be rejected. Parliamentary custom would eventually restrict voting in the general assembly to serious and genuinely discussable cases, and in such circumstances it is hard to see why a minority of even a single individual should be denied the right to appeal to the judgement of the assembly, a right which in our constitution is consented to a proportion of the members of the committees. Notes

Foreword

1. Architect, writer, and founder of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning in . A grandson of , he was President of the Foundation Luigi Einaudi of Rome in 2007–2011, and member of the board of directors of the three different foundations, each responsible for one of the three volumes of selected essays. 2. Oxford University, 22 June 1955; ‘En oeconomicus ille Turinensis ... cui civium suorum salus magna ex parte debetur’. 3. ‘L’Attualità di Einaudi’, in the catalogue of the exhibition: L’eredità di Luigi Einaudi, la nascita dell’Italia repubblicana e la costruzione dell’Europa, edited by Roberto Einaudi, Milano, Skira, 2008. 4. Letter of President Napolitano published in the magazine Reset under the title ‘The lesson of Einaudi. A Heredity for reformism and for everyone’, 29 December 2011.

Editors’ Introduction

1. Professor Emeritus of Public Finance at the University of Rome ‘Sapienza’ and edi- tor of the Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice which deals with the economics and politics of public intervention. 2. Professor of History of Political Doctrines and Jean Monnet Chair of History of European Integration at the University of Eastern , where he was head of the faculty of Political Sciences from 2005 to 2011. He has published Democracy and Federalism in United Italy (Claudiana, 2012). 3. A journalist and graduate in aesthetics, he was one of the founders of the Einaudi Centre of Turin (1964), member of the board of the Einaudi Foundation of Turin (1991–2012), and President of the Einaudi Foundation of Rome (1990–2007). He was General Secretary (1976–1985) and President (1991–1993) of the . Between 1970 and 2008 he was three times Minister (Environment, Industry, Defence), Member of both Houses of Parliament, Regional councillor and mayor of Turin. His publications include The Liberal Age (Rizzoli, 1996). 4. On the political biography and the Einaudian bibliography cf. L. Firpo, Bibliografia degli scritti di L. Einaudi, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Turin, 1971; R. Faucci, Einaudi, Turin, UTET, 1986; ID., Einaudi, Luigi, in Dizionario bio- grafico degli italiani, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome, vol. XLII, 1993, pp. 363–77. On his political thought, cf. N. Bobbio, Il pensiero politico di L. Einaudi, in L. Einaudi, Memorandum, G. Berta (ed.), Marsilio, Venice, 1994, pp. 73–120; A. Giordano, Il pensiero politico di L. Einaudi, pres. Di V. Zanone, , Name, 2006. The most insightful profile of Einaudian is still that of G. Solari, L. Einaudi e il liberalismo democratico (1949), critically and inte- grally reproduced and edited by D. Cadeddu in D. Cadeddu, Del liberalismo di L. Einaudi. Tre esercizi di lettura, , CUEM, 2007, pp. 25–64.

314 Notes 315

5. F. Ruffini (1863–1934), a historian of Cavour, professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the Universities of Pisa and Genoa, held the Chair of History of Italian Law in Turin. He was a senator from 1914 and Minister of Education during the First World War. 6. G. Solari (1872–1952), professor of the Philosophy of Law at the Universities of Cagliari, Messina and Turin. A recognized master of a generation of eminent Turinese scholars, among whom , Luigi Firpo and Alessandro Passerin d’Entrèves. 7. In the publication of their celebrated correspondence in book form (1957, ed. by Paolo Solari, Milan-: Ricciardi) several essays by Croce and Einaudi were added in order to help clarify the concept of freedom in the two masters of twen- tieth-century Italian liberalism. 8. Bari: Laterza, 1938. 9. La Rivoluzione Liberale, a. 1, no. 10, 23 April 1922. 10. Cf. Faucci, Einaudi, cit., p. 208. 11. Cf. L. Einaudi, ‘Classe dirigente e proletariato’, Il , a. 49, no. 300. 12. Cf. the arguments adduced in favour of this proposal in the collection of studies edited and introduced by C. Malandrino, Una rivista all’avanguardia. La “Riforma Sociale”, 1894–1935, pref. by G. M. Bravo, Florence: Olschki, 2000, in particular in the introduction in the same collection, ‘Socialisti liberali. Precursori di un’idea’, pp. 73–79, and also the arguments adduced by M. T. Pichetto, ‘“Guardare a tutti i lati delle cose”. La presenza del pensiero economico, sociale e politico inglese’, pp. 79–108 and by G. Becchio, ‘Una rivista anglofila’, pp. 109–30. 13. Cf. L. Einaudi, ‘Gli Stati Uniti d’Europa’, in , 20 August 1897. For a contextualization of these very early contributions, cf. C. Malandrino, ‘L’europeismo degli economisti torinesi’, in Quaderni di storia dell’Università di Turin, VIII–IX (2003–4), 7, July 2005, special issue entitled ‘La scuola di economia di Torino. Da Cognetti de Martiis a Einaudi’, R. Marchionatti and G. Becchio (eds), pp. 123–148. More generally, on Einaudi’s Europeanist thought, cf. U. Morelli, Contro il mito dello stato sovrano. Luigi Einaudi e l’unità europea, Milan: Angeli, 1990; C. Cressati, L’Europa necessaria. Il federalismo liberale di Luigi Einaudi, with an introductory essay by R. Faucci, Turin: Giappichelli, 1993; N. Bobbio, ‘Luigi Einaudi federalista’, which appeared in the compendium Alle origini dell’europeismo in Piemonte, C. Malandrino (ed.), Turin: Fondazione L. Einaudi, 1993; C. Malandrino, L. Einaudi. Due scritti sulla federazione europea, Ivi, XXIX, 1995, pp. 561–81. 14. Einaudi provided guidance for Rossi in his economic studies and engaged in intense correspondence with him; furthermore, it was precisely through Rossi that Einaudi exerted an influence, between 1939 and 1941, on Spinelli’s European federation and also on the rise of the European Federalist Movement in 1943; cf. L. Einaudi-E. Rossi, Carteggio (1925–1961), G. Busino and S. Martinotti Dorigo (eds), Turin: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, 1988. 15. Cf. Lettere politiche di Junius, Bari: Laterza, 1920, republished in various recent editions, cf. for example the one also containing the Einaudian eco- nomic-federalists writings of the period 1944–1945, edited by M. Albertini: L. Einaudi, La guerra e l’unità europea, Florence: Le Monnier, 1984. 16. Cfr. L. Einaudi, Riflessioni di un liberale sulla democrazia (1943–1947), a cura di P. Soddu, Firenze: Olschki, 2001, p. 22. 17. Cfr. C. Sforza, Contemporary Italy – Its intellectual and moral origins, New York, 1944. 316 Notes

18. Per i progetti che ormai si diffondevano, tra cui quello del Partito d’Azione, cfr. le note di Soddu al, cit. volume Riflessioni di un liberale sulla democrazia. 19. Cf. Einaudi, Riflessioni di un liberale sulla democrazia, cit., p. 29. 20. This voting method is a simplification of the Borda method, which is based on a ranking of each voter’s preferences for every candidate. Cfr. D. Black, The Theory of Committee and Elections, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 156–159. A few years ago much interest was aroused by a system very similar to that pro- posed by Einaudi, called ‘approval voting’, according to which each voter should indicate, without ranking of preferences, all the candidates to his liking. In this way the risk of ‘lost votes’ would be avoided. Cfr. S. J. Brams and P. Fishburn, Approval Voting, Boston: Birkhäuser, 1983. 21. On this theme cf. C. Malandrino, ‘L. Einaudi. A proposito di autonomie, federalismo e separatismo’, Annali della Fondazione L. Einaudi, XXVIII, 1994, pp. 545–67. 22. Cf. J. Buchanan, ‘The Italian Tradition in Fiscal Theory’, in Fiscal Theory and Political Economy, 1960, pp. 46–7. On this cf. D. da Empoli, ‘Equity Issues in the Italian Public Finance Tradition’, in The theory of Public Finance in Italy from the Origins to the 1940s, ed. by D. Fausto and V. De Bonis, Pisa, 2003, pp. 159–69. 23. Cf. G. Pagano, Luigi Einaudi e il socialismo, presentation by V. Zanone, Naples: Bibliopolis, 1993, pp. 114 ff. 24. Cf. R. Allìo, ‘I trivellatori di Stato. L’antiprotezionismo (1894–1914)’, in Malandrino (ed.), Una rivista all’avanguardia. La Riforma Sociale, 1894–1935, cit., pp. 315–42. 25. Cf. Riforma Sociale, XVIII, vol. XXII, 1911, pp. 1–14. Referring to previous demands put forward by grapevine growers who sought to insist that top-quality unadulterated wine should be given state protection, Einaudi pointed out that in order to identify wine of this type it would be necessary to fund ‘State wine tasters’. Once the problem of the grapevine growers had been solved ‘naturally’, as a result of a poor farming year, the oilmen had begun to clamour for protection against suppliers of cheap oil, and to complain they were being forced to drill holes that were too deep. 26. Cf. Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society, ed. by J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison and G. Tullock, College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1980. 27. On Einaudi and cf. C. Malandrino, ‘Luigi Einaudi’, in Dizionario del fascismo Turin: Einaudi, vol. I, pp. 460–462; and more extensively: E. Decleva, ‘Liberismo e fascismo nelle “Cronache” di L. Einaudi’, in Il movimento di liberazione in Italia, XVII, 1965, pp. 75–87; R. Vivarelli, ‘Liberismo, protezionismo, fascismo. Per la storia e il significato di un trascurato giudizio di Luigi Einaudi sulle origini del fascismo’, in Id., Il fallimento del liberalismo. Studi sulle origini del fascismo, : Il Mulino, 1981, pp. 163–344; Faucci, Einaudi, cit., pp. 194–216; L. Firpo (ed.), ‘Carteggio fra L. Einaudi e B. Croce (1902–1953)’, in Annali, Fondazione L. Einaudi, XX, Turin 1986, pp. 7–10; G. Turi, Casa Einaudi. Libri uomini idee oltre il fascismo, Bologna: Il Mulino, 1990; Luigi Einaudi. Diario dell’esilio (1943–1944), P. Soddu (ed.), pref. by A. Galante Garrone, Turin: Einaudi, 1997. 28. Cf. in this regard the writings gathered together and edited by P. Soddu in the silloge L. Einaudi, Riflessioni di un liberale sulla democrazia 1943–1947, Florence: Olschki, 2001. See also the memorialistic work: L. Einaudi, Diario 1945–1947, edited by P. Soddu, Turin: Fondazione L. Einaudi, Laterza, 1993. With regard to Notes 317

Einaudi’s activity in the Consulta Nazionale and the Constituent Assembly, see the silloge edited by S. Martinotti Dorigo: L. Einaudi, Interventi e relazioni parla- mentari, Turin: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, 1982, vol. II.

All notes in the following are those of Luigi Einaudi unless clearly indicated otherwise.

2 New Liberalism

1. ‘As defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence, the act of navigation is, perhaps, the wisest of all the commercial regulation of England’; A. Smith, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. 2. Recherches sur le principles mathématiques de la théorie des richesses, published by Antoine Augustin Cournot (1801–1877) in 1838, by the Hachette Press, .

5 Elementary Remarks on the Similarities and Differences between Liberalism and

1. I prefer to use the terminology of ‘public regime’ rather than ‘state’, in order to avoid becoming embroiled in the inanity of the disputes centring on the meaning of socializations, nationalizations, statizations. Many people, having seen the unfortunate experience of enterprises run by the state, imagine they can find a way out of the predicament by arguing that it is not a question of statalizing, which is considered rather suspicious and is looked at askance, but simply of nationalizing or socializing. These terminological disputes are unavoid- able unless there is a precise definition of such matters as the specific body the public enterprise should be assigned to, what kind of guarantees of independence from political power will be provided, what rules for tariff and price setting will be introduced, regulations on balancing the budgets, detailed publication of the accounts, etc. Note that these are by no means absurd requirements, hard though they may be to put into practice. But they are studiously ignored by the typical preachers of structural reform.

11 Has the Mission of the Monarchy in Italy Come to an End?

1. W. Staelin, Volk und Kõnig, in ‘Basler Nachrichten’, nr. 325, 27–28 November 1943. 2. Carlo Sforza (1872–1952), formerly Minister of Foreign Affairs under Nitti and Giolitti, sought refuge abroad in 1927 and returned to Italy in ; together with Croce (1866–1952) he tried to persuade Vittorio Emanuele III and the crown prince to abdicate. 3. W. Staelin, Volk und Kõnig, in ‘Basler Nachrichten’, no. 325, 27–28 November 1943. 4. General Enrico Cavaglia (1862–1945), played a significant role as commander of the VIII army corps in the battle of Vittorio . He was a Senator of the Kingdom, War Minister in the Orlando government as from January 1919, and in December 1919 he was appointed Special High Commissioner for Venezia Giulia, a role in which he addressed the question of Fiume, eventually rejecting the gov- ernment’s position. An opponent of Badoglio, he was ousted from his post after the appointment of the Piedmontese general as General Chief of Staff (1925), although he did not deny fascism his support. 318 Notes

5. Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (1860–1952), professor of public law from 1885 onwards, a parliamentary Deputy from 1897 onwards, holding ministerial office several times, became Prime Minister from October 1917 to June 1919. After ini- tially supporting fascism, a role in which he addressed the question of Fiume, he turned away from fascist policies in 1935 and resigned from his university post. He was a member of the National Consultative Body and the Constituent Assembly, and was Senator by right in the first term of parliament. 6. (1873–1951), a Socialist deputy in 1909 but expelled from the in 1912, holding ministerial office on several occa- sions, was Prime Minister from July 1921 to February 1922. An opponent of fascism, he withdrew to private life and in April 1943 he was among the founders of the Democratic Labour Party. As President of the National Liberation Committee from 9 September, after the liberation of Rome he became president of the Palazzo Madama assembly (the Senate) until his death. 7. The government that (1871–1956), Senator of the Kingdom, Chief of Staff of the army from May 1935 to December 1940, Marshal of Italy from 1927, Governor of Cyrenaica from 1928 to 1934 and commander of the war of Ethiopia, formed upon the fall of Mussolini, which he headed until the liberation of Rome, in June 1944. 8. The reference is to the episode that took place in the courtyard of the University of Naples on 28 November, when a speech by Croce was repeatedly interrupted by hecklers against the royal family and chanting in favour of the republic.

12 Major et Sanior Partes, or on Toleration and Political Adhesion

1. I first read of the distinction between major and sanior pars used by the medieval canonists when I perused Il principio maggioritario by Edoardo Ruffini (Turin: Bocca, 1927). [Author’s note] 2. Autobiography of , with a preface by J. Cross, New York: Columbia University Press, 1924, p. 149. Mill’s reference is to A. Comte, Système de politique positive, ou Traité de sociologie, instituant la religion de l’humanité, Paris: A la Librairie Scientifique Insutrielle de L. Mathias et chez Corilien-Goeury et V. Dalmost-chez l’Auteur et chez Corilien-Goeury et V. Dalmont-Ernest Leroux , Editeur, 1851–1882, 4 vv. Einaudi had proposed a preface for the republication in 1925 of Freedom by Mill, to be published by the Piero Gobetti publishing house, Turin. 3. J. G. Crowther, The social relation of sciences, New York: The MacMillan company, 1938. 4. L. Hogben, Science for the citizen. A self-educator based on the social background of scientific discovery, : Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1938. 5. Horace, Epistles, II, 27.

13 Proportional Representation and Constituent Assembly

1. In the elections for the legislative assembly held in February–March 1852 only eight opposition candidates were elected: five Legitimists and three republicans who decided to forgo their mandate in order not to have to take an oath of loyalty to Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (1808–1873), who had proclaimed a ten-year presidency Notes 319

in the December 1851 coup d’état. At the end of 1852 he assumed the title of Emperor with the name of Napoleon III.

14 Government is Impossible with Proportional Representation

1. ‘Or peasants’, handwritten addition by Einaudi (editors’ note). 2. ‘In the United States’, handwritten addition by Einaudi (editors’ note).

15 The Problem of the State Bureaucracy

1. The ‘open post’ system, forming part of reforms introduced by the Nitti govern- ment in 1919, allowed employees to move up to a more favourable salary scale even in the absence of vacancies at the higher scale; the earlier system allowed pay progression only if there was a vacancy for a higher-grade post.

17 Luigi Einaudi to Altiero Spinelli

1. The entire postscriptum was added after 15 November 1944; cf. further on the first paragraph of letter no. 72 dated 21 November (editors’ note).

18 The Myth of the Sovereign State

1. Junius, La Società delle Nazioni è un ideale possibile? cit (editors’ note). 2. The letter is not included in Einaudi and Rossi, Carteggio 1925–1961, ed. by G. Busino and S. Martinetti Dorigo, Turin: Fondazione L. Einaudi, 1988 (Studi, 28) (editors’ note).

22 The Genoa Strike

1. The many articles written by Luigi Einaudi during the Genoa dock workers’ strike between December 1900 and January 1901, published in La Stampa and other newspapers were collected here (editors’ note).

23 The State Drillers

1. Draft bill no. 690, entitled ‘Measures in favour of the oil industry’, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Trade in the session dated 9 December 1910, would have been approved furtively by the House at a moment when members’ minds were preoccupied with other matters, as was the case with the approval of the increase in excise duties on guns, had it not been for the indignation voiced by Hon. Ettore Ciccotti. Leafing through the newspapers, I have been unable to trace the arguments adduced by the worthy and uncompromising deputy who fought against the bill. I send him my congratulations, which are all the more sincere in the light of my generally low regard for socialist deputies, who are concerned 320 Notes

about nothing so much as the desire to beg favours for their clients even if, in order to obtain such favours and in total disregard of the harm inflicted on the public interest, they have to consent to equal favours granted to false industrial- ists, who profit from the assault on the State coffers. To be fair, I should mention that the draft bill presented by Hon. Raineri does contain a just measure in favour of the oil industry. And this is the abolition of the 5 per cent tax on the net prod- uct that affects the mines in Parma and Piacenza. Since similar taxes have been abolished in other regions of Italy, and since it is clearly a duplicate of the tax on moveable wealth, abolishing it in the former duchy of Parma and Piacenza is an act of justice that can no longer be delayed. Index of Names

Notes: n ϭ note; bold ϭ extended discussion or heading emphasized in main text.

Adams, J. C. 253 Buffoli, L. 80 Albert, King of Belgium 270 Buratti, A. 201, 205, 212, 213 Albertini, L. 21, 268, 272 Busino, G. 163, 8 (n14), 171 (n2) editor of the ‘Corriere della Sera’ 23, 169 Cadeddu, D. 2 (n4) letter from L. Einaudi 169–70 Carlo Felice theatre 205, 209 Alighieri, D. 96 Carlyle, T. 4 Allìo, R. 19 (n30) Carnegie, A. 82 Amendola, G. 21 Casareto, G. G. 220 Ardizzone, L. 268 Cattaneo, C. Attila 97 the federalist 8, 22 the unification of Italy 119 Badoglio, P. (Marshal) 117 (n4), 118 (n7) Cavaglia, E. 117 (n4) Bagehot, W. 4 Cavagnari, A. 234 Baldini, N. 80 Cavour, C. B., Count of 4, 99, 190, Barritt, R. (translator) ix 196, 240 Bastiat, F. 4 a conservative open to proposals Becchio, G. 6 (n12), 8 (n13) of progress 119 Bentham, J. abolition of the corporations 209 fading of the maximum income great liberal 37 levels 62 the situation in Piedmont 119 principle of the decreasing utility of Cecil, R. (Lord) 91 successive doses of wealth 62 Cesarò, G. A. C. di 234 theory of levelling Charles V 97 progressiveness 62 Chiesa, P. 202, 204–6, 212–13 Bergamini, A. 268, 272 Churchill, Sir Winston Beveridge, W. 190 a great journalist 278 Bianchi, E. 213 English liberals 14 Bismarck, O. von 88 peacetime programme 148 Black, D. 14 (n25) Ciccotti, E. 223 (n1) Bobbio, N. 22, 2 (n6) Clark, J. B. 41 ‘Il pensiero politico di L. Einaudi’ 2 (n4) Cognetti De Martiis, S. 8 (n13) ‘Luigi Einaudi federalista’ 8 (n13) Comte, A. 130–1, 131 (n2) Bonomi, I. 37 Constant, B. 4 Prime Minister 118 (n6) Conti, N. 219 Botero, G. B. 268, 272 Cournot, A. A. 4, 35 (n2), 41 Brams, S. J. 14 (n25) monopoly and competition 69 Bravo, G. M. 6 (n12) monopoly hypothesis 182–3 Bresciani Turroni, C. Cressati, C. 8 (n13) ‘Introduction to Economic Croce, B. 3, 278 Policy’ 193–6 ‘History as Thought and Action’ 3 Buchanan, J. 12, 17, 18 (n28), 20 (n32) ‘Storia d’Italia dal 1871 al 1915’ 23

321 322 Index of Names

antifascist manifesto 21 ‘In defence of historic buildings debate with Luigi Einaudi about and the landscape’ 25, 292–7 relations between and ‘Is Sovereignty Indivisible?’ 15, 16, liberalism 3 174–6 fascist period 116–17 ‘Italian finances’ 236 prestigious figure 10 ‘Journalists and Guilds’ 24, 275–81 verdict about the ratification of ‘Labour’s Struggles’ 4, 18 the peace treaty 95 ‘Lectures on Social Policy’ 17, 27, Crowther, J. G. 131 (n3) 44–51 ‘Myths and Paradoxes of Justice in D’Azeglio, M. 119 Taxation’ 17, 18 Da Empoli, D. ix, 18 (n28) ‘Observations on Electoral Dante Alighieri 96 Systems’ 12 De Bonis, V. 18 (n28) ‘Political letters of Junius’ 8, 169 De Nicola, E. 304 ‘Representation of Interests and De Nicolò, C. C. Parliament’ 11, 111–15 De Nicolò commission 154 ‘The Constitution in National Life’ 11 proposals about the bureaucratic ‘The Economic Problems of the problem 154–5 European Federation’ 8 De Stefani, A. 20 ‘The Federalist’ 9 De Viti de Marco, A. 62 ‘The President’s Desk’ 13, 25 Decleva, E. 20 (n33) ‘The problem of Bureaucracy’ 15 Draghi, M. ix ‘The smokestacks of Naples and Drago, A. 213 public health’ 26, 298–301 ‘Useless Preaching’ 6 Einaudi, G. (son of Luigi Einaudi) ‘Who wants Freedom?’ 3, 25 ‘Introduction to Economic antiprotectionist and 4 Policy’ 193 Budget Minister 1 ‘Le prediche della domenica’ 298 and political figure viii, ‘Lezioni di politica sociali’ 178 1–3 ‘Lo scrittoio del Presidente education and school reform 22, (1948–1955)’ 292 253–63 ‘Luigi Einaudi prediche inutili’ 53 Europeanist political thinker 8–9 ‘Prediche Inutili’ 258 exile in 1, 10, 12 Einaudi, L. fascist period 1, 23, 276–7 ‘A Statement Against the 22–3, 32–3, 49, Establishment of a Teacher’s 264–81 Oath’ 253 Governor of the 1 ‘About the Choice between Monarchy journalistic activity about workers’ and Republic in Italy’ 10 strike 18–19 ‘Against the Myth of the Sovereign letter from Basle 163 State’ 8, 15 letter to L. Albertini 169–70 ‘Away with the Prefect’ 15, 16, nuclear threat 22, 25, 282–90 156–62 preface to ‘On ’ 4, 31–3 ‘Elementary Remarks on the President of the Republic 1, 6, 10, Similarities and Differences Between 13, 22–3, 26, 304 Liberalism and Socialism’ 6, 53–84 protection of the environment 22 ‘Government is impossible with Senator of the Kingdom 3 proportional representation’ 12, speech to the Consulta 144–9 Nazionale 13 Index of Names 323

the conception of socialism 5–7 Junius (Einaudi’s pseudonym) 171 (n1) the debate with Croce about ‘L’Italia e il secondo Risorgimento’ 156, liberalism 3–4 275 the electoral system 11, 13 ‘Lettere Politiche’ 8, 86 the political thought 22–6 letter addressed to Luigi the theory of the critical point 5 Albertini 169 the vision of the federal state 15–17 Einaudi, R. (architect, grandson of Kant, I. 22, 96 L. Einaudi) Keynes, J. M. 41 foreword viii King, M. ix Krueger, A. 20 Faucci, R. ix, 2 (n4), 5 (n10), 8 (n13), 20 (n33) Lenin, V.I. 244 Fausto, D. 18 (n28) Leopardi, G. 278 Ferrari, G. 119 List, F. 89 Fichte, J. G. 88 Lolini, E. 153 Firpo, L. 2 (n4, 6), 20 (n33), 144 Lorenzo the Magnificent 97 Fishburn, P. 14 (n25) Louis XIV 95, 99 Fortunato, G. 305 Loyola, I. of 131 Francois I 97 Luzzatti, L. 80, 191 Frassati, A. 268, 272 Italian Prime Minister 255 Friedman, M. 17 Fuad (King) 193 MacDonald, J. R. 148 Machiavelli, N. 100 Galiani, F. 62, 307 Madison, J. Gandhi, M. 102 ‘Federalist Papers’ 8 Gibbon, E. 257 Malandrino, C. ix, 1, 6 (n12), 8 (n13), Gioberti, V. 119 15 (n26), 19 (n30), 20 (n33) Giolitti, G. 2, 19–20, 116 (n2) Malnate, N. 213, 216–17 Prime Minister 238 ‘Della tutela dovuta agli operai’ 220 Giordano, A. 2 (n4) Manzoni, A. 278 Gobetti, P. 2, 4–5, 18, 22, 31, 131 (n2) Marchionatti, R. ix, 8 (n13) ‘La Rivoluzione Liberale’ 4 Marshall, A. 41 Gossen, H. H. 41 Marshall, J. 170, 310 Gramsci, A. 2 Martino, G. 294 Graziadei, A. 234 Martinotti Dorigo, S. 8 (n14), 21 (n34), 163 Guicciardini, F. 307 Marx, K. H. 41, 69, 152 class conflict 6 Hamilton, A. 96 economic thought 41 ‘Federalist Papers’ 8 Massarenti, G. 80 failure of the first American league of Matteotti, G. 21 nations 171 Mazzini, G. 96, 99, 256 Hannibal 31, 101 causes of the unification of Italy 119 Hitler, A. 97, 120, 148 Menger, K. 41 Hogben, L. 131 Michels, R. 55 Mill, J. S. 4, 22, 229 Jay, J. 96 ‘On Liberty’ 4, 31–3 ‘Federalist Papers’ 8 organization of society 131 Jefferson, T. 96 ‘Principles of Political Economy’ 187 Josè, M. 11 Milton, J. 31–2 324 Index of Names

Mollien, F. N. 242 Risso, G. 213 Moltke, H. von 88 Rockefeller, J. D. 82, 235 Monnet, J. 13, 21 Romani, F. 219 Montaigne, Michel de 56 Roosevelt, F. D. (President) 127 Monti, M. ix Rossi, E. Morelli, U. 8 (n13) ‘Il Buongoverno’ 169, 199, 253 Morgan, J. P. 82 European federalist movement 8 Mosca, G. 2, 22, 55 letter to L. Einaudi 163, 171 political scientist 5 Rousseau, J.-J. 56, 90 morality and intellectuality of Ruffini, E. 123 (n1) the ruling class 123 Ruffini, F. 2, 254 the theory of the ruling class 11 Mussolini 10–11, 120, 265, 289 Saint Simon, H. de 130 last speech to the House 243 Salvemini, G. 2 238 Saracco, G. 106, 202, 205 the ‘corporative’ idea 246–9 Say, J.-B. 4 the advent 20 Schuman, R. 8 the collapse of the regime 1 Sella, E. 5 Sforza, C. 10 (n17), 116–7 Napoleon I 95, 156, 174 Shumpeter, J. 55 Napoleonic prefect 156, 160 Silvestri, G. 113 the dictator 156, 241 Smith, A. 4, 34, 64 Napoleon III 118–19, 141 Soddu, P. 10 (n16, 18), 20 (n33), 21 Napolitano, G. (Italy’s current President (n34) of the Republic) ix Solari, G. 2, (n4, 6) Naumann, F. 89 Solari, P. 3 (n7) Nitti, F. S. 2, 5–6, 116 (n2) Soleri, M. 236, 238 Spallarosso, V. 213 Olivetti, A. 163, 166 Spaventa, S. 37 Orlando, V. E. 117 nationalization of railways 72 Ostrogorscki, M. 55 Spinelli, A. 8, 163–7 Staelin, W. 116 (n1, 3) Pagano, G. 18, 19 (n29) Sturzo, L. 2 Pantaleoni, M. 41 Pareto, V. 11, 41, 55 Tarquinius Superbus 189 income distribution 187 Taviani, P. E. (Minister of Defence) 292 ‘Lausanne School’ 178 Tocqueville, A. de 4 the élite 22, 123 Tollison, R. D. 20 (n32) Pericles 189 Tonelli, L. 254 Petitti di Roreto, C. 191 Toracca, L. 213 Philip II 95 Torelli Viollier, E. 268, 272 Pichetto, M. T. 6 (n12) Treitschke, H. von 86 Pius IX 119 Tullock, G. 20 (n32) Podestà, A. 213 Turati, F. 2, 5, 18 Prezzolini, G. 2 Proudhon, P. J. 69 Umberto I (King) 10, 11 sentence about ownership 35, 41 Vanderbilt, C. 82 Raineri, G. 80, 223 (n1) Vicini, G. 213 Ricardo, D. 4, 41 Vigo, G. 219 Index of Names 325

Vittorio Emanuele III 10, 116 (n2), 244 Wieser, F. von 41 Vittorio Emanuele IV 11, 117 Wilson, W. (President) 91, 96, 169 Vivarelli, R. 20 (n33) proposal of the League of Nation 9 Walras, L. 41, 178, 187 Wollemborg, L. 80 Washington, G. 96, 170, 290 Wicksell, K. 41 Zanone, V. ix, 2 (n4), 19 (n29) Wicksteed, P. 187 introduction 1 Index of Subjects

academic freedom 254, 256–7 competitive framework: criticism of abolition of the prefects 15, 156–62 the 187 advocacy groups about economic compromises between electoral issues 112 systems 139–43 Africa 89 conditions for a European army 103–5 alternative vote 14 conditions for peace 9, 287–90 American federalism 9, 17, 22, 94, 120, Constituent Assembly 1, 13, 27, 95 157, 171, 175, 285 Constituent Assembly: function of Anarchy 2, 6, 9, 89, 92, 163, 170, 240, the 121, 139, 142 245 Constituent Assembly: problems Anglo-Saxon democracy 6 about 120 Annali di economia 193 Constitution of the Italian antifascist intellectuals’ manifesto 21 Republic 22, 26 anti-protectionist 2, 4, 19 consumption tax 39 artificial monopoly 36, 76, 183–6 contributions for a European atomic bomb: elimination of the 100, army 104–7 283–6 control of the press: abolition of 24, atomic era 99 128, 265, 271 Austria 89, 90, 227, 256 cooperatives 5, 70–1, 79–80 corporate state 246 balance between liberal and socialist Corriere della Sera 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 21, 22, view 82—4 23, 25, 26, 40, 86, 111, 151, 169, 200, Balkans 89 240, 253, 268, 283, 287, 298 battle for political power 57 5 Biella 5, 18 culture: protection of 25 20 customs duties: problem of 105, 107, 111 binding mandate: unacceptability of the 140 daily newspapers: categories of 265–7 1, 21 daily press: conditions for the British workers’ guild: the conference improvement of the 270–4 of the 275–6 daily press: the problem of the 265–74 Budget Minister viii, 1 damage of the private monopoly 73 budget report 236 debate about insurance 60 Bulgaria 90 debate with Croce 3 debates about international capitalist countries 39 questions 91 causes of the 118 decentralization of functions 15 centralization–decentralization 14–17, Degree of Doctor in Civil Law 161, 175 (honoris causa) viii citizen’s duty about taxation 189 Departmental committee 247 colonial treaties 91 dictatorship: question of 240–5 commercial treaties 91, 115 different governmental systems 174 common points between liberals distribution of wealth 63, 181, 187 and socialists 57–9, 64, 73, 81 divisibility of sovereignty 16, 174–6

326 Index of Subjects 327 division of tasks between multiple generator of wars 100 sovereignty 174–6 Genoa 5, 18, 172 domestic federalism 15 Genoa strike 199–220 doubts between Republic and Genoese working class 201, 206 Monarchy 10, 26, 118–20 Germany 4, 86, 88, 96, 98, 105, 119, 172, 228, 241, 284 economic analysis 35–6, 187 Giacomo Charitable Foundation ix economic communities: system of 15 governing: the ability of 242 economic competition 9, 17, 36, 42, Governor of the Bank of Italy viii, 1 71, 179, 181–3, 186–8 guarantee of the debate 243 economic crises viii economic crisis 246 Holy Alliance 96, 169 34–5, 58 economic private action 37 idea about human person 34–5, 57–8 economic public action 37 Il Risorgimento Liberale 23, 24, 169 Economics of Inflation 193 immobilism 54, 142 editors: the independence of the 270–2 inflation viii, 65, 68, 193, 238 education 5–7, 253–63 inheritance taxation 5, 38–9, 43 Egypt 89, 98 interdependence of free peoples 89 electoral systems: critical analysis interests representation 11, 111–15 of 11–14, 139–49 intervention by the state in the environment: protection of the 22, economy 7, 19, 37, 64, 67, 83, 25–6, 300 180, 183, 186, 189, 195 essence of parliament 141 Italian boundaries 99 European Army 103–7 Italian drillers 2, 19, 222–35 European federalism 8–9 Italian lira viii European Federation 8, 15, 86–94, 103–7 Italian Ministry of Culture ix European Unity 95–102 Italian monarchy 9–10, 26, 116–21 exile 1, 10, 12, 117, 132, 171 Italy’s finances: condition of 236–8 fascist period 1, 23, 276–7 journalist activity 2, 13, 18, 24 federal state 15, 125, 175, 308 journalist: professional register of 24 federal system 170 journalists’ associations 275 federalism 8, 9, 14–5, 17, 151–76 journalists: problem of 275–81 Fellow of the British Academy viii juridical equality 59 figure of in Italian politics 116–7 Kyoto Agreements 26 First World War 2, 3, 9, 14, 19, 20, 95–7 Fondazione Luigi Einaudi of Rome viii, L’Unità 2 ix La Politica commerciale dell’Italia 193 Fondazione Luigi Einaudi of Turin viii, ix La Riforma Sociale 1, 2, 19 (n30), 199, France 3, 59, 91, 97, 119, 157, 159, 233 172, 190, 227, 290, 308–9 La Rivoluzione Liberale 4 free trade 4, 37, 266 La Stampa 2, 5, 8 (n13), 18, 23, 24, free workers’ associations 206 199, 268 freedom of choice 55, 144, 157, 273 La Voce 2 freedom of opinion 24 Labour Charter 247 freedom of the person 81 labour issues: regulation of 208, 218–19 freedom of the press 22–3, 32–3, 49, labour treaties 91 264–81 labour struggle 18 328 Index of Subjects large constituency 139, 144–7 oil production: state intervention Lateran Pacts 21 about 231–2 League of Nations 9, 86–92, 96, 101, 126 Oxford University viii League of Nations: criticism of the 169–73, 289 Parliament: function of 11–13, 26–7 League of Nations: limits of the 97 parliamentary debates: centrality of 27, legislation on economic issues 111 305 liberal economic thought 17–18 Persia 89 liberalism ix, 2, 3–6, 19, 22, 34–9, political figure viii, 10, 54, 117, 145 53–84 political idea 8, 53, 143 liberalization of the press 24 political-constitutional liberation period 23 memorandum 21 liberism 2, 3–4, 21–2 Popolo e il re in Italia 116 liberist economic policy 4, 22 Port of Genoa: issues about 207–18 liberty of the press see freedom Prefect 156–62 of the press Prefect: institute of the 15 President of the Italian Republic viii, 1, 15 6, 10, 13, 22, 23, 26, 253, 294, 303–14 Marxism 3, 6, 83 Prime Minister ix, 10, 117, 159, 202, meaning of the two great wars 98 238, 255, 310 measures in favour of the oil principle of equality 6, 58 industry 223 (n1) principle of the majority 124 member of the parliamentary private and public employees 50, 75, assemblies viii, 54, 141 210, 259 military sovereignty: renunciation private capitalist system 246 of 285–6 private monopoly 72–3, 186 minimum income 17 private ownership 36–7, 72, 74, 266–7 minimum wage 17, 77, 191, 212 private schools: educational programme Ministry of Popular Culture 24 of 260 mission of the Monarchy 116–21 professional roles 24, 277 monarchy 9–10, 26, 96, 110, 116–21, progressive taxation 61, 64, 79, 189–90 128, 140, 170, 244, 256 proportional representation 12–14, monopoly 3, 35–43, 69–81, 104–5, 121, 136, 139–49 122, 182–90, 229, 258–63, 276, 286 proportional system 12–13, 147–8 multiple sovereignties 174 protectionist intervention 19 ‘Myths and Paradoxes of Justice in public enterprise system 73–4 Taxation’ 17, 18 public intervention 1 (n1), 7 ‘Myth of the Sovereign State’ 8, 15, 16, public monopoly 186 169–73 referendum 9, 10, 26 National Council of Corporations 246, regime of competition 42 249 regime of monopoly 71 nationalization 7, 37, 71–2, 75–6, 79, relation between liberalism and 120 socialism 5 nationalization of the railways 71–2 rent-seeking 20 natural monopoly 36, 183, 184–7 republican constitution 9, 22, 244 Navigation Act 34 return to Italy 1 navigation treaties 91 Rivista del servizio minerario 232 negative income tax 17 role of the House of Savoy 118–19 nuclear threat 22, 25, 282 Russia 83, 96, 171, 225, 228, 244 Index of Subjects 329

Saracco case 106 tax treaties 92 Scandinavian democracy 6 taxation system 10, 54, 61 Second World War 9, 15, 21 textile workers’ strike 5, 18 Selected Economic Essays viii viii, 2, 23, 24, 236, 246, Selected Political Essays viii 273 Senator (L. Einaudi) viii, 3, 21 The Times 24, 273 Sicily 15, 106, 107, 174, 234, 236, theory of rent-seeking 20 306 theory of surplus value 6 single-member constituency system theory of the critical point 5 12 theory of the ruling class 11 social classes: division of 35 Turin 5, 23, 53, 145, 174, 178, 185, social thought (of Luigi Einaudi) 5 193, 199, 258, 295–6, 298, 310 socialism 3, 5–6, 19, 52–84, 130–1, Turkey 89, 90 137, 207, 217 two constitutions of the United society of free citizens 5, 49 States 169 sovereignty: indivisible 8, 15–16, two ways after the war 93 174–6 sovereignty of state 8, 87, 89, 90, 100, Unification of Italy 23, 119, 175 161, 284, 290 13 sovereignty of state: renounce of 25 United States of America 13, 94, 170, speech to Parliament 26 173, 290 state bureaucracy 15, 151–5 1, 2, 253, 254 state educational system 258–63 state intervention in the economy 7, Valle d’Aosta 15 67, 83, 180, 183, 189 voluntary cooperation: the idea of 98 state management 72 state subsidy 23 war 95–102 state: intervention of 40 wealth distribution 38, 188 statute of the Caravanners’ Guild 208 welfare 17, 60, 236 structural reform 54 worker leagues 5, 78, 218–19 struggle against monopoly 41, 72, World Peace 93–4 183 see First World War Switzerland 1, 10, 12, 17, 27, 43, 50, World War II viii see Second 57, 60, 83, 96, 105, 120, 121, 133, World War 134, 149, 158, 175, 227, 289 worldwide oil production 228