“Guarding the boundaries”: the controversial relationship between economics and philosophy in the dialogue between Benedetto Croce and Vilfredo Pareto

The recent book by Italo Magnani, "Dibattito fra economisti italiani di fine Ottocento" (2003, Milano, Franco Angeli) is a thought-provoking text on a decisive period in the development of economic theories, i.e. the marginalist revolution and the theories of general equilibrium, to which many Italian authors, such as Maffeo Pantaleoni and Vilfredo Pareto, provided original contributions. Moreover, Magnani's book encourages us to reconsider the reasons which brought about a complete separation between sociology and economics toward the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. This separation occurred despite the fact that Pareto can be read, along with Parsons, as deeply dissatisfied with it.

Seventy years ago James Burnham (1905–1987) was a well-known American intellectual figure. Burnham’s 1941 book The Managerial Revolution, a cause célèbre, provided some of the conceptual framework for George Orwell’s 1984. Cornelius Castoriadis (1922–1997) at the time was an obscure Greek-French political intellectual, writer and small-group organizer. He co-founded the left-wing Socialisme ou Barbarie in Paris in 1949 while Burnham was already on a rightward intellectual trajectory. The two, though, shared certain traits. Both emerged from Trotskyist milieus as critics of bureaucratic collectivism. Both were anti-communists. Both were gifted writers and thinkers who were distinctly unorthodox in their approach, notably their scepticism about 20th-century managerial society and bureaucratic forms of capitalism. Then there were the divergences. At its inception in 1955 Burnham joined National Review, the principal organ of modern centre-right conservative opinion in the United States. Castoriadis became a leading figure of the French self-management left. Based on his Christian Gauss Seminar at Princeton, Burnham’s 1964 book Suicide of the West offered the most potent intellectual critique of left-liberalism ever produced. In ‘Proletariat and Organization 1’ (1959), Castoriadis referred to Burnham’s ‘pseudoanalysis’ of bureaucracy. Burnham was not a self-management advocate. As he abandoned Marxism his social philosophy drew on Vilfredo Pareto and other Machiavellian social theorists. The paper explores the affinities and the divergent political trajectories of two of the 20th century’s most interesting anti-bureaucratic thinkers.

A szerző jelen tanulmányában a Magyarországot irányító elit társadalmi összetételének kialakulását taglalja az Osztrák–Magyar Monarchia korában, és hangsúlyozza, hogy a hagyományos elit csoportok (arisztokrácia és a korábbi földtulajdonos középnemesség) politikai elitként éltek tovább. Ez a tendencia ugyanakkor a két világháború közötti időszakban megváltozott, akkor kerültek ugyanis hatalomra a növekvő számú új tagok, különösen a „hosszú 1930-as években". A polgári közép- és felsőközép osztály gyors felemelkedése és gazdasági-társadalmi megalapozottsága a 19. század közepén történt meg. A tanulmányt gyakorlatilag egy rövid esettanulmány zárja, amely egy 1940-es évekbeli, középosztálybeli pécsi hölgy írásos gyűjteményén alapul, és amelynek célja a helyi középosztályok határozott belső integrációjának demonstrálása a felekezeti, származási és foglalkozásbeli különbségek ellenére.

An indispensable historical precondition for fascism was the inherent tension between the political dimension of the liberal order and its economic one. Liberalism was the socioeconomic doctrine with which the ascending European bourgeoisie of the late 18th and early 19th century challenged the nobility. Capitalism, fundamentally, was seen to be at odds with democracy; the economic liberal sphere was seen to be at variance with the expansionary dynamics of political liberalism. The whole purpose of the liberal civil society from a Lockean point of view was to shore up nascent capitalist property and production. The crucial fault of liberalism, according to Donoso, was that it inevitably heralds social revolution, which, once unleashed, it is completely incapable of thwarting. Like Constant during his sanguine moments, Pareto could envision a parliamentary system reasonable enough to acknowledge the iron laws of the economy, and hence adhere to free competition.Keywords: Benjamin Constant; capitalism; Donoso Cortes; economic liberal sphere; European bourgeoisie; fascism; John Locke; political liberalism; Vilfredo Pareto

In the second half of 19th century, newborn Italy was invaded by innovative ideas supported by democratic, liberal, and socialist intellectuals who wanted to renew social life, economy, and moral values by spreading their ideas both in politics and in everyday life. Right-wing reaction used the same methods of communication and persuasion: the publication of journals and books and their promotion in reading cabinets and public libraries. Maria and Antonia Ponti, two upper-middle-class sisters who married into aristocracy, used their influence and resources to advance the status of women in society. They founded associations and libraries (in Ravenna, Imola, and Bergamo) with the theoretical support of a network of Italian intellectuals, including Cor-rado Ricci, Vilfredo Pareto, and Maffeo Pantaleoni. The philanthropic actions of the sisters, who combined their Catholic and conservative point of view with the improvement of the condition of women, have handed down a remarkable legacy in the form of books and a collection of laces.

In the constellation that is the three great social thinkers from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Vilfredo Pareto’s stance regarding the reports between sociology, as a science, and philosophy is a specific one, generating consequences, the most significant in the scheme of an idealistic portrait of the consequences of the positivist method in sociology. Because the Italian sociologist seems to prolong the classic aversion overseeing positivism in philosophy until it became a usual attitude of work and, in the same time, reaching the extreme lengths at which philosophy negates it, on the basis of positive prerogatives of knowledge, overseeing any epistemological status.

The subject of this paper is political elitism (or the existence of political elites) and the shaping of that concept from the ancient times to the 20th century, on the example of the views of its main creators from Plato, through Claude Henri de Saint-Simon, Georges Sorel, or Max Weber to Czesław Znamierowski. Particular focus has been put on the ideas developed at the turn of the 19th century, including those of Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto, which the author considers to be the fullest and most original. All those ideas have been based on the presumption that the existence of elites is an obvious and indispensible fact since people are different and the natural inequality among them must be maintained to comply with intellectual, moral, or religious premises. Although, practically, all concepts of elitism have been critical of the Marxist theory or any other form of socialist ideology, most theorists hold an opinion that political elites should not isolate themselves in a closed circle, but allow at least some representatives of the other parts of society to join in. Only such ‘circulation’, they claim, can ensure durability of the elites and their survival. Some more recent concepts of political elites go further and propose that interests and aspirations of social masses be taken into account as broadly as possible. This view is a consequence of a conviction that elitism understood as a manner in which political structures function has disappeared and we are currently dealing with an objective process where different types of elites are emerging to create ‘lesser elites’, which – as the process of democratisation of public life continues – results in a gradual departure from the idea of government composed of excellent minds and personalities.

Abstract. At the end of the 19th century, Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Otto Ammon founded a school of thought denominated “social anthropology” or “anthropo‐sociology,” aimed at placing racism on a scientific basis. Their intent was to create a new discipline into which the themes of biological heredity, natural selection, social stratification, and political organization were to converge. This paper intends to demonstrate the wide resonance that anthroposociology had in the economic literature, analyzing the thought of authors such as Carlos C. Closson, Vilfredo Pareto, and Thorstein Veblen. A particular focus will be on the racial and eugenic arguments used as explanation of social and economic inequality.

Since the emergence of the classical school, the scientific ideal of the physical sciences has been a constant influence on the economic theory and its method. Its influence is still present in contemporary neoclassical economics. Similar to the case of physics, classical economists were very open in incorporating psychological elements into the economic discourse. This openness toward psychology continued with prominent marginalist economists, such as Jevons and Edgeworth, who were eager to draw from psychological ideas found in earlier authors. In the first decades of the 20th century, a major conceptual change in economics took place and this is also known as the Paretian turn. This conceptual change, initiated mainly by Vilfredo Pareto and completed in the first decades of the 20th century by J. Hicks, R. Allen, and P. Samuelson, attempted to remove all psychological notions from the economic theory. The legacy of the Paretian turn can still be identified in the significant reluctance of the contemporary orthodox economic theory to incorporate the findings of the new behavioral economics, a field with a discernable psychological bent. This chapter argues that the history of the relationship between the two subjects just mentioned and economics can lead to some potentially useful observations concerning the nature of contemporary neoclassical economics. It will also be maintained that the relationship between neoclassical economics and physics ultimately constrained its interaction with psychology. JEL codes B10; B40; A12; D90

Quality is always a hot topic in healthcare, and the ultimate goals are to maintain a high level of patient satisfaction and improve the financial aspects.[1] These two goals are rapidly changing, and they could be affected by many of the surrounding factors. When a healthcare organization faces a problem in achieving these two goals, it is important to understand the causes and immediately start the appropriate interventions. One principle of quality improvement in healthcare is to do it right the first time,[2,3] so it is important to do the right intervention promptly by targeting the most vital contributing factors that led to the problem at hand. By nature, healthcare organizations are complicated, also have been described as a complex adaptive system,[4] which is one of the most difficult systems to understand and manage because one problem could be linked to many contributing factors at the same time.The concept of the Pareto principle was developed in the 19th century by the economist Vilfredo Pareto,[5] who noticed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by just 20% of the population.[6] Moreover, he found that 80% of production usually came from only 20% of the companies. This led him to a general hypothesis that 80% of the results are originated from 20% of the factors or causes that influence the results.[7] The Pareto principle, which is also known as the rule of 20/80, has become an important quality tool, recognized by the American Society for Quality (ASQ) as one of seven basic quality tools for process improvement.[8]A Pareto chart enables a quality improvement specialist to make informed decisions and prioritize the appropriate interventions to achieve the desired goal.[5] The main concept behind the Pareto chart is that the weights or effects of the contributing factors that lead to specific outcomes are not equal, so identifying the highly weighted factors and working on them first will shorten the time needed to reach the desired outcome, thus saving effort and unnecessary costs. In 1937, the 80/20 concept was crystallized by Joseph M. Juran, a pioneer in the field of quality improvement, who added the cumulative line at the top of the chart to make it easier to judge the impact that each factor has on the desired outcome. He also came up with the terms “vital few” and “trivial many,” which are used to categorize the factors based on their weight.[9]Figure 1 shows an example of a Pareto chart that was used to identify causes of medication errors.When planning a quality improvement project, the Pareto chart is mainly used in the phase of problem identification, but a Pareto chart is also helpful in the data analysis and outcome evaluation phase, after conducting a specific intervention. Pareto chart presents the data in a visual manner, which may be suitable for communicating information about the problem to upper management when seeking their support or action.[5,10,11] Vice versa, if there is a desirable outcome that needs to be maintained, a Pareto chart could be used to identify the so-called vital few contributing factors that must be maintained to sustain the desired outcome.A Pareto chart is a bar graph with frequency on the left side (y-axis), percentage on the right side (z axis), and contributing factors are arranged in descending order by frequency on the x-axis. The line that reflects the cumulative percentage of the factors is a key component of the Pareto chart; when the line reaches ≥ 80%, this means that all of the previously added up factors represent 20% of the causes (i.e., the vital few). If you focus on these causes, then you will be able to reach the desired outcome most efficiently. After that, you can direct your effort toward the remaining factors (i.e., the trivial many). Keep in mind that the 80/20 rule is a rough guide about typical distributions based on the Pareto principle, so the numbers are not exact and the total may not add up to 100%. The Pareto chart effectively highlights that the weights or effects of the contributing factors that lead to specific outcome are not equal.A great way to understand the Pareto principle is by making your Pareto chart. Start by identifying the problem or situation that needs to be improved. Then, identify the factors that contribute to the problem and their respective frequency. Enter the data in a spreadsheet (e.g., Microsoft Excel) and create your own Pareto chart as follows.Now you have Pareto chart ready, and it should be similar to Figure 1.In conclusion, a Pareto chart is a useful tool that could be used in many phases of quality improvement projects, serving many functions. Applying the Pareto concept to quality improvement projects in a healthcare setting will reduce time, costs, and efforts.

The field of neonatology grew up with an abiding philosophy of rescue. The first two decades of our published literature are replete with evaluations of technology to provide cardiorespiratory support...

One of the oldest and most standardized procedures in assessing regional impact is the calculation of the number of jobs expected to result from the funding of a proposed project. Procedures for estimating expected job expansion date back to the early 20th Century. Before then, evaluation, especially of publicly funded or sponsored projects, was seen essentially as a political process; evaluation with implicit net benefits determined by legislative debate. The role for explicit economic analysis was limited. The pre-cursor of modern welfare economics began in the 18th Century (Bentham 1789). The essential principle involved viewed outlays by individuals as moving along a “hill of pleasure” to achieve the greatest utility, subject to their income. The aim of policy was to distribute income and or identify public projects so as to achieve “the greatest good for the greatest number”. By late 19th Century, this principle came to be less ambiguously formulated (Edgeworth 1881) when it came to be viewed as an overall allocation of resources so as to maximize aggregate satisfaction by equalizing marginal utilities of income over all individuals. Realizing that not everyone gained from government intervention, Vilfredo Pareto added the condition that the “gains to the gainers” exceed the “losses of the losers” (Pareto 1906). Finally, in A. C. Pigou (1920), Marshall (1928), and Nicholas Kaldor (1939) these changes in aggregate welfare would depend on whether or not the gainers from any initiative could, in principle, compensate the losses to the losers. These theoretical developments laid out the possibilities of constructing an actual “calculus of welfare maximization”. Dramatic floods in eastern U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries resulted in thousands of deaths and extensive property damage, leading to widespread interest in the Federal government assuming some responsibility for flood control, along with their historic interest in

Introduction: Enemas have been a mainstay of constipation management and used safely for bowel cleansing since the 17th century. Homemade enema preparations are becoming more popular both for bowel cleansing and for administration of coffee and other drugs. Generally safe and well-tolerated, enemas have been associated with complications including electrolyte disturbances, bowel perforation, and rectal bleeding. The following is a rare case of rectal necrosis following homemade enema administration that resulted in death. Case Report: A 52-year-old Caucasian male with history of alcoholic cirrhosis, esophageal varices, and peptic ulcer disease presented with a 3-day history of bright red blood per rectum and rectal pain after self-administering homemade rectal enemas. On admission, he was alert and oriented with normal abdominal exam and blood pressure, but was noted to have mild tachycardia and tachypnea. Frank hematochezia was witnessed and rectal exam showed tender hemorrhoids and anal fissure. Lab work was notable for hemoglobin of 5.1 g/dL, INR of 2.2, and platelet count of 25 x109/L. Packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets were transfused prior to an urgent esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) which showed no evidence of active upper GI bleeding. The patient then developed an ileus after administration of bowel preparation for a planned colonoscopy. He also had alcohol withdrawal requiring intubation for severe agitation refractory to benzodiazepines. He later developed septic shock with a fever of 104 degrees F. Norepinephrine, empiric IV vancomycin, and piperacillin-tazobactam were given, and abdominal CT scan revealed large bowel obstruction extending to the anus. Rectal exam prior to colonoscopy for decompression was significant for an ecchymotic and edematous appearing perineum. The colonoscopy itself was significant for contiguous necrotic-appearing tissue extending from the rectum up to 25 cm from the anal verge, where a clear demarcation with normal mucosa was seen. Surgical consultation deemed the patient a poor candidate for operation, given his underlying cirrhosis and high MELD score. His code status was transitioned to comfort measures and he passed away shortly afterwards. Discussion: Rectal necrosis following enema administration is a rare and morbid complication that has only been reported a few times in the past. Although uncommon, its potential deserves greater public awareness, given the increasing popularity of colonic cleansing and homemade coffee enema administration. Patients who engage in the use of homemade enemas should be educated about their potentially negative consequences.

The paper examines the division of cognitive space in Antiquity as exemplified by the two most influential classifications of sciences, by Aristotle and Geminus, which underlie all subsequent classifications of scientific disciplines until the 18th century. Aristotle, considering the mathēmata in their comparison with the “first” and especially with the “second”, physical philosophy, proceeds from the independence of all three kinds of epistēmai and strives to draw the most rigid boundaries possible both between them and within the field of mathēmata. Geminus’ classification reflects the far-reaching differentiation of sciences at the end of Hellenism, when almost all of them acquired several auxiliary disciplines, theoretical or applied, and when “mathematics” became synonymous with “science.”

Introduction. Modern financial theory still wonders the degree of behavioral factors influence on the financial assets pricing. We assume that it necessary to consider this problem within the framework of historical and economic science, since exchange prices are widely used in modern research as a historical source. Turning to the materials of professional stock exchange journalism, in this article we sought to determine how market participants described the pricing mechanism and how their market behavior were built in accordance with these analytical settings. Materials and Methods. We chose the book “Political, economic and financial issues of recent times” as our main source. That work includes analytical articles by I. P. Manus (1860–1918), a well-known stock speculator who made a millionth fortune on the Saint Petersburg Stock Exchange. Results. I. P. Manus’s articles demonstrate how the practice of economic analysis of financial markets combines a rational assessment of the financial results with taking into account “inefficient”, speculative price factors. In our source we trace the idea of uncertainty that cannot be overcome by formal analysis methods. All of that actualizes the need to use the methodology of behavioral finance when working with financial history materials. Discussion and Conclusion. We believe that it is not entirely correct for our material to draw a rigid methodological boundary between “behavioral” and “rational”. If we use the terminology of social history, it is much more effective to consider these concepts in their complex interaction, which forms a special “frame” of financial practice of the early 20th century.