Abstract
In this work, we present some traits of the socio-political and economic thought of Giuseppe Toniolo, who lived in Italy at the turn of the XIX and XX century, with special reference to the contribution that the Italian economist and sociologist gave to the definition and implementation of the principle of subsidiarity and to the ethical foundation of economic science. After outlining the definition of the subsidiarity principle in the first paragraph, we sketch the historical background in which Toniolo lived and operated. We then focus on the ethical factor and on the concept of subsidiary State emerging from Toniolo’s writings. Finally, we present some of the main elements of Toniolo’s legacy with reference to the current economic and socio-political debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a deeper insight onto the origins and philosophical properties of the PS, see Millon-Delsol (1993, 2012). Begg (1993), de Noriega (2002), Estella (2002) and Colombo (2004) treat the PS in the EU. Socio-economic and political implications of the PS can be found in Beabout (1998, 2008), Føllesdal (1998), Hittinger (2002), Kelly (2004), Archer and Donati (2008), Aßländer (2011), Evans and Zimmermann (2014), Fleming and Levy (2014). As for the theological dimension of the principle, see Hittinger (2008) and Guitián (2010).
Martini (2007), p. 89.
Donati (2007a), pp. 27 ff.
There is an ongoing debate on the actual application of the PS principle and its compatibility with solidarity at EU level. In fact, until now the PS has been often interpreted as a safeguard for the preservation of traditional national sovereignty. While welfare policies have remained largely a competence of national governments, the emergence of new social risks triggered by globalization, de-regulation and market flexibility have cast doubt on the efficacy of such a framework, calling for more coordinated or even EU-managed policy instruments. For a discussion on this point, see Moreno (2007). For policy proposals aimed at solving the so-called subsidiarity–solidarity trade-off, see Drèze and Decoster (2009) and Van Parijs (2012).
Millon-Delsol (2012), p. 27 and Duret (2000). See also Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (2004), #185. We should also emphasize that there are various forms of utilitarianism which are not necessarily coherent with a strict libertarian (i.e. the so-called Millian “act utilitarianism”) or Hobbesian view (although they may not be in line with Toniolo’s thought). For example, “ideal utilitarianism”, by Moore, rejected the purely hedonistic view and argued that it is implausible that pleasure is the sole measure of what is good; “rule utilitarianism”, put forward by Urmson, Brandt and Hooker, called for the need of rules in utilitarian thinking; “preference utilitarianism”, put forward in 1977 by Harsanyi, Hare and Singer, claimed that an agent morally ought to do an act if and only if that act maximizes desire satisfaction or preference fulfilment, regardless of whether the act causes sensations of pleasure. For a deeper insight on utilitarianism, see Shafer-Landau (2013), Sinnott-armstrong (2015) and Habib (2015). We thank an anonymous referee for raising such a point.
Millon-Delsol (1993); the author also points out that Althusius, a Calvinist syndic from Emden (Germany) of the beginning of the 17th century, and, more recently, Von Ketteler, Catholic German bishop and politician of the mid 1800, are to be recognized as forerunners of the PS.
Hittinger (2002), pp. 385–386.
Putnam (1994).
Leo XIII (1891), parr. 22 ff.
Bazzichi (2012), p. 33.
Walras (1896), pp. VI-VII.
Sachs (2013), p. 86.
MacIntyre (1981).
Sachs (2013), p. 87.
Cardini (2014).
Zamagni (2015), p. 27.
Duchini (1972), p. 467.
Faucci (2014), ch. 5.
Manzalini (2009), pp. 14–15.
Bianchini (1996).
Pecorari (1977), p. 50.
In his writing “Provvedimenti Sociali Popolari” of 1901, consisting in some policy proposals in favour of the working class, Toniolo explicitly distances himself from the “state socialism” that was being implemented by the Bismarckian social laws. In fact, in his view, such reforms should be not imposed from the top, as it was happening in Germany, but elaborated by a spontaneous psychological process of the ruling class (in view of the organic cooperation of classes) and inspired by solidarity among social bodies and classes (see Are 1990, p. 30).
Acerbi (1984).
See the introduction Toniolo wrote for the reprinted edition of his “Treatise” in 1915.
Spicciani (1984a). In effect, the German economic theories did not produce a large body of studies in Italy, and Toniolo remained one of the few Italian scholars who contributed to this strand of thought (Spicciani (1984b), p. 168). However, it should be borne in mind that Toniolo was certainly not completely ignored by the academic establishment of his day (Manzalini (2009), p. 32).
Toniolo (1915), p. 395.
Ibidem, p. 393.
Now reproduced in G. Toniolo, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, serie II, vol. II, cit., pp. 266 ff.
Ibidem, p. 287.
Ibidem, p. 289.
Spicciani (1984a), p. 166.
Ibidem, p. 271.
Antonio Genovesi, contemporary of Smith, had a similar position, too. According to Sen, “the nature of modern economics has been substantially impoverished by the distance that has grown between economics and ethics” (Sen 1987, p. 7). In fact, this was not the case in the classical approach: “The ethical questions are obviously taken more seriously by some than by others. For example, it has a greater hold on the writings of, say, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill (despite what Bentley says), Karl Marx, or Francis Edgeworth, than on the contributions of, say, William Petty, Francois Quesnay, David Ricardo, Augustine Cournot, or Leon Walras, who were more concerned with the logistic and engineering problems within economics” (ibidem, p. 6).
Bruni (2005), pp. 206–207.
Toniolo (1915), pp. 7–8.
For all, Toniolo (1882). See also the first series of volumes of the Opera Omnia published by the “Comitato per l’Opera Omnia di G. Toniolo”, Vatican City, 1952.
Pecorari (1997), p. 19.
Toniolo (1915), p. 309. Italics in the text.
Ibidem, p. 310.
Ibidem.
According to Toniolo, the social class “is an institution or social (and not purely economic) body and it responds to a human need to achieve, by wider reciprocity of aid, the legitimate and dutiful purposes of the existence […]. The class as a social fact […] arises from a more intimate rapprochement of ideas, feelings, mutual services, common goals, dependent on affinity of educations, professions, civil interests, habits of life”. (Toniolo 1951, p. 176).
Toniolo (1915), pp. 316–317.
Ibidem, p. 317.
Ibidem. Figuera (2014) writes that according to Toniolo, “social classes were part of a hierarchical context the respect of which guaranteed the correct working of society and the achievement of common good […]. Toniolo wanted to constrast the ideas of those who (like Marx, Loria and Sombart) attributed the origin of classes to ‘social and economic causes’ […]. Toniolo did not consider social conflict the instrument to determine income distribution, adopting rather an inter-classist and gradualist approach” (p. 428).
Toniolo (1915), p. 319. Italics in the text.
Ibidem, p. 320. Italics in the text. It should, however, be stated once again that in addition to his rejection of the minimal State, founded on an individualistic an utilitarian philosophy that he outspokenly condemned, Toniolo also and equally strongly rejected the proposal of the State that he defined as “the State of culture” (a forerunner of the “ethical” and of the “socialist” State), which would be expected to fulfil a duty “as a supreme pantheistic organism, providing for the indefinite evolution of civilization by means of laws” (ibidem, p. 336).
Ibidem, p. 325. Italics in the text. Authors’ underscore.
Ibidem, Italics in the text.
Ibidem.
Toniolo (1893).
Cerasi (2014), pp. 88 ff.
Toniolo (1893).
Negri Zamagni (2012), pp. 17 ff.
Benedictus XVI (2009), n. 57.
During the twentieth century, the PS has continued to be a cornerstone of Catholic social thought with many papal encyclicals and official documents (e.g. Pius XII’s speech at the Semaine sociale de France in 1947, John XXIII’s Mater et magistra, in 1961, Gaudium et Spes with the conclusion of the second Vatican Council, Gravissimum educationis, by Paul VI in 1965, John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus of 1991, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). In 2009, Benedict XVI has explicitly stated that “the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity" (Caritas in veritate, n. 57).
Martini (2007), p. 90.
Ostrom (1990).
Donati and Paci (2010) and references therein. This point opens interesting perspectives on the attempt of “modernizing” Toniolo’s thought and possibly “exploit” his views and hermeneutical tools to deal with the crisis of modern welfare states (we thank an anonymous referee for pointing us to this issue). We are conscious that Toniolo was far from pondering most of the issues that are of particular concern today as for the sustainability of modern welfare states. In fact, he lived in a historical phase in which welfare systems were embryonic and not yet conceived in the modern form (i.e. universalistic and mandatory schemes). This is why he never proposed mandatory pension or social insurance schemes, nor the use of public funds for social expenditure. Nonetheless, besides promoting widespread firm ownership, cooperative banks and social legislation for women and children, Toniolo called for solidaristic and voluntary schemes of social insurance, to be organized by guilds (Toniolo 1904), thus offering a possible (and very actual) solution to problems and issues still open today.
Antonini (2007), pp. 213 ff.
Carozza (2007), pp. 114 ff.
Antonini (2007), p. 225.
See, for example, Simon (1983), who introduced the concept of “bounded rationality” and Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 2000), who have provided an alternative descriptive view (based on cognitive psychology) to the “strict economic rationality” principle of choices in the presence of risk. The latter authors argue that “Outcomes are commonly perceived as positive or negative in relation to a reference outcome that is judged neutral[…].The reference outcome is usually a state to which one has adapted; it is sometimes set by social norms and expectations” (Kahneman and Tversky 1979, p. 456). Recent contributions in evolutionary game theory have shed light on the mechanisms of norms evolutions. In this stream of literature, Sacco and Zamagni (1996, 2001) focus on the conditions under which reciprocity and altruism may survive and even spread over as social norms (see Sacco et al. 2006 for a survey). More in general, experimental works of the last thirty years, reviewed by Engel (2010) and Güth and Kocher (2014), provide evidence that in most cases individuals do not behave as homini oeconomici. Among the latter works, Butler (1992) argues that “Morality, then, appears to be a preference variable. It is embedded within a type of 'extended rationality' (as described by Zamagni, 1991) in which it is 'rational for each individual to do his part to maintain a mutually advantageous arrangement' (ibid, p. 5). If it costs us relatively little, most will do the co-operative, collectively rational thing” (p. 299).
On the same topic, Kahneman et al. (2004) provide empirical evidence that quality and quantity of personal relations do matter in subjective well-being.
On this topic, see also the work by Sachs, which documents that in the USA the race towards greater affluence and prosperity has taken place at the expense of an erosion of social capital, mental well-being and ethical behaviour (Sachs 2011). Similarly, the “World Happiness Report” has been documenting for several years that ethical elements not only form the basis of social capital and well-being, but also exert considerable influence on a country’s performance and economic development (Helliwell et al. 2013).
See also Becchetti (2009) and his emphasis on ethical finance.
The always greater need to assess problems involving the environmental sustainability of economic development and the disalignment observed in numerous countries between the trend of GDP and prosperity led to these new trends. This phenomenon (known as the “Paradox of Easterlin”, from the name of the author who first identified it in the context of the USA) reveals that happiness does not increase with increasing incomes, or at least not if the starting point is represented by a certain income threshold (Easterlin 1974). Thus, alternative happiness indicators have been set up on the basis of these studies (for an overview, see Istat, 2015), according to which the wealth of a nation does not so much consist in the flow of goods and services produced and sold on the market as, rather, in the stock of economic, spiritual, cultural, environmental and relations goods of the community.
Becker (1991).
For their clarity, the following sentences drawn from Toniolo (1898) are worth quoting: “The easiness of loans […], increased by the transferability of the debt securities that represent it […], can multiply the commercial crises, properly so called, and the bank crises as well. Indeed representative debt instruments of monetary capital loan, multiplied and spread worldwide, become in their turn subject of speculation on natural or artificial fluctuations of their value and cause the stock market crisis” (p. 501).
On this point, Toniolo (1915) states that the current situation implied “for economists and for those holding political office that it is crucial to encourage the formation of an economic social conscience, for the progress of wealth”, defined as a set of concepts, sentiments, intentions and proposals in which the populations participate within their material interests” (p. 53). This vision, which attributes great importance to the cultural question as a driving impulse for the development of society, effectively prefigures the concept of “social capital” which is widespread throughout much of present-day economic literature (Coleman 1990).
Spicciani (1984a), p. 194.
Molesti (2005), p. 130.
References
Acerbi, A. (1984). Giuseppe Toniolo, tra filosofia neoscolastica e scienza economica. In Various authors, Contributi alla conoscenza del pensiero di Giuseppe Toniolo, Atti del Convegno del 18–19 dicembre 1981, Pacini Editore, Pisa, 59–85.
Antonini, L. (2007). La sussidiarietà e la cifra democratica del patto costituzionale. In G. Vittadini (Ed.), Che cos’è la sussidiarità. Un altro nome della libertà (pp. 213–226). Milan: Guerini Associati.
Archer, M. S., & Donati, P. (Eds.). (2008). Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together. The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: Vatican City.
Are, G. (1990). Una rilettura di Toniolo alla luce dello stato attuale delle scienze sociali, in Various Authors. Atti del convegno su Giuseppe Toniolo (Treviso 1845–Pisa 1918) (pp. 23–33). Pisa: ETS.
Aßländer, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as subsidiary co-responsibility: A macroeconomic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 115–128.
Bazzichi, O. (2012). Giuseppe Toniolo. Alle origini della dottrina sociale della Chiesa. Turin: Lindau.
Beabout, G. R. (1998). The principle of subsidiarity and freedom in the family, church, market and government. Journal of Markets and Morality, 1(2), 130–141.
Beabout, G. R. (2008). Challenges to using the principle of subsidiarity for environmental policy. University of St. Thomas, Law Journal, 5(1), 210–231.
Becchetti, L. (2009). Oltre l’homo oeconomicus. Felicità, responsabilità, economia delle relazioni. Rome: Città nuova.
Becker, G. (1991). Treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Begg, D. (Ed.). (1993). Making sense of subsidiarity: How much centralization for Europe?. London: Center for Economic Policy Research.
Benedictus XVI. (2009). Caritas in veritate. Rome.
Bianchini, M. (1996). La ‘Civiltà Cattolica’ e il carattere etico dell’economia politica. In M. Augello et al. (Eds.), Le riviste di economia in Italia (1700–1900). Dai giornali scientifico-letterari ai periodici specialistici (pp. 289–309). Milan: Franco Angeli.
Bruni, L. (2005). Hic sunt leones: Interpersonal relations as unexplored territory in the tradition of economics. In B. Gui & R. Sugden (Eds.), Economics and social interaction: Accounting for interpersonal relations (p. 206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2007). Civil economy. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2013). Handbook on the economics of reciprocity and social enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Butler, D. J. (1992). An experimental investigation into the effects of uncertainty on rational behaviour in two person symmetric games. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(4), 283–301.
Cardini, A. (2014). Giuseppe Toniolo, la questione sociale e l’“organizzazione corporativa” della scuola italiana di economia. Humanitas, 69, 104–114.
Carozza, P. G. (2007). Sussidiarietà e sovranità negli ordinamenti sovranazionali. In G. Vittadini (Ed.), Che cos’è la sussidiarità. Un altro nome della libertà (pp. 115–132). Milan: Guerini Associati.
Cerasi, L. (2014). Il corporativismo “normale”. Giuseppe Toniolo, tra medievalismo, laburismo cattolico e riforma dello Stato. Humanitas, 69, 82–103.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colombo, A. (2004). The principle of subsidiarity and European citizenship (Vol. 10). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
de Noriega, A. E. (2002). The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donati, P. (2007a). Sussidiarietà e nuovo welfare: oltre la concezione hobbesiana del benessere. In G. Vittadini (Ed.), Che cos’è la sussidiarità. Un altro nome della libertà (pp. 27–50). Milan: Guerini Associati.
Donati, P. (2007b). Old and new family politicies. The perspective of relational sociology. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas, 54, 127–159.
Donati, D., & Paci, A. (2010). Sussidiarietà e concorrenza.Una nuova prospettiva per la gestione dei beni comuni. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Drèze, J., & Decoster, A. (Eds.). (2009). On the interaction between subsidiarity and interpersonal solidarity. Re-bel E-book 1. Brussels.
Duchini, F. (1972). Scienza economica e giudizi di valore nella storia del pensiero economico. Rivista internazionale di scienze sociali, 80(5–6), 462–508.
Duret, P. (2000). La sussidiarietà “orizzontale”: le radici e le suggestioni di un concetto. Jus, 1, 95–145.
Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. David & M. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). New York and London: Academic Press.
Endo, K. (1994). The principle of subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacques Delors. 北 大法学論集, 44(6), 652–553.
Engel, C. (2010). The behaviour of corporate actors: How much can we learn from the experimental literature? Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(04), 445–475.
Estella, A. (2002). The EU principle of subsidiarity and its critique. London: Oxford University Press.
Evans, D. M., & Zimmermann, A. (Eds.). (2014). Global perspectives on subsidiarity. New York: Springer.
Faucci, R. (2014). A history of Italian economic thought. London: Routledge.
Figuera, S. (2014). The banking system as an instrument for the progress of social economy according to Giuseppe Toniolo. Rivista italiana degli economisti, 19(3), 421–444.
Fleming, J. E., & Levy, J. T. (Eds.). (2014). Federalism and subsidiarity: Nomos LV. New York: NYU Press.
Føllesdal, A. (1998). Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(2), 231–259.
Guitián, G. (2010). Integral subsidiarity and economy of communion: Two challenges from Caritas in veritate. Journal of Markets and Morality, 13, 279–295.
Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409.
Habib, A. (2015). Promises. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2013). World happiness report 2013. New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Hittinger, R. (2002). Social pluralism and subsidiarity in Catholic social doctrine. Annales Theologici, 16, 385–408.
Hittinger, R. (2008). The coherence of the four basic principles of catholic social doctrine: An interpretation. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together (pp. 163–171). Vatican City: Vatican Press.
Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Istat. (2015). Measures of equitable and sustainable well-being. Rome. Availabe at http://www.istat.it/it/files/2015/12/Rapporto_BES_2015.pdf.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 429–434.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, J. E. (2004). Solidarity and subsidiarity: “Organizing Principles” for corporate moral leadership in the new global economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(3), 283–295.
Keynes, J. M. (1904). The scope and method of political economy (3a Edn.). London: Macmillan.
Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (Eds.). (1993). Quasi-markets and social policy. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum novarum. Rome.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press.
Manzalini, F. (2009). Elementi di economia politica in Giuseppe Toniolo. Siena: Cantagalli.
Martini, G. (2007). Sussidiarietà e modello economico: la specificità italiana. In G. Vittadini (Ed.), Che cos’è la sussidiarità. Un altro nome della libertà (pp. 88–107). Milan: Guerini Associati.
Millon-Delsol, C. (1993). Le Principe de subsidiarité. Paris: PUF.
Millon-Delsol, C. (2012). I fondamenti antropologici del principio di sussidiarietà. In L. Violini & G. Vittadini (Eds.), La sfida del cambiamento. Superare la crisi senza sacrificare nessuno (pp. 26–30). Milan: BUR.
Molesti, R. (Ed.). (2005). Giuseppe Toniolo. Il pensiero e l’opera. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
Moreno, L. (2007). Europeanization, Territorial Subsidiarity and Welfare Reform. Regional and Federal Studies, 17(4), 487–497.
Morris, C. W. (2010). Amartya Sen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Negri Zamagni, V. (2012). Il pensiero economico di Toniolo in rapporto all’industrializzazione. In E. Preziosi & C. Santomiero (Eds.), Questione sociale e democrazia nel pensiero di Giuseppe Toniolo (pp. 13–23). Mian: RCS.
Nello, P. (2012). Solidarietà, socialità e democrazia. In E. Preziosi, & C. Santomiero (Eds.), Questione sociale e democrazia nel pensiero di Giuseppe Toniolo (pp. 25–37). Milan: RCS.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Pantaleoni, M. (1889). Principi di economia pura, Florence, (edited by the Istituto di Politica Economia e Finanziaria dell’Università di Roma, Milan 1931).
Pecorari, P. (Ed.). (1977). Ketteler e Toniolo: Tipologie sociali del movimento cattolico in Europa. Rome: Città nuova.
Pecorari, P. (1997). Ethics and economics in Giuseppe Toniolo. In G. Gaburro (Ed.), Ethics and Economics (pp. 15–24). New York: Physica-Verlag HD.
Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo anno. Vatican City.
Pollard, J. (2008). Catholicism in modern Italy: Religion, society and politics since 1861. London: Routledge.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Putnam, R. D. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Romani, M. (1961). La preparazione della “Rerum novarum” (pp. 156–173). Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
Sacco, P. L., Vanin, P., & Zamagni, S. (2006). The economics of human relationships. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 695–730.
Sacco, P. L., & Zamagni, S. (1996). An evolutionary dynamic approach to altruism. In F. Farina, F. Hahn, & S. Vannucci (Eds.), Ethics, rationality, and economic behaviour (pp. 265–300). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sacco, P. L., & Zamagni, S. (2001). Provision of social services: Civil economy, cultural evolution and participatory development. In G. Mwabu, C. Ugaz, & G. White (Eds.), Social provision in low income countries: New patterns and emerging trends (pp. 53–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sachs, J. (2011). The price of civilization. New York: Random House.
Sachs, J. (2013). Restoring virtue ethics in the quest for happiness. In J. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. Sachs, chapter 5.
Salimbeni, F. (1990). Giuseppe Toniolo e la cultura del suo tempo. Per un bilancio storiografico. In P. Pecorari (Ed.), Giuseppe Toniolo tra economia e società (pp. 303–338). Udine: Del Bianco Editore.
Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2013). Ethical theory: An anthology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Chicago: Stanford University Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Spicciani, A. (1984a). Giuseppe Toniolo, un economista storico. In (Various authors), Contributi alla conoscenza del pensiero di Giuseppe Toniolo (pp. 155–202). Pisa: Pacini Editore.
Spicciani, A. (1984b). Agli inizi della storiografia medioevistica in Italia. La corrispondenza di Giuseppe Toniolo con Victor Brants e Godefroid Kurth (Soc ed.). Rome: Jouvence.
Toniolo, G. (1871). Sull’importanza delle banche agricole. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. II, V, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, edited by the Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City 1949–1952, 409–436.
Toniolo, G. (1874). Dell’elemento etico quale fattore intrinseco delle leggi economiche. Prelazione al corso di economia politica nell’Università di Padova, Padua. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. II, II, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, edited by the Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City 1949–1952, 266–292.
Toniolo, G. (1879). Il credito di beneficenza presso le banche mutue popolari. Lettera al comm. prof. Luigi Luzzatti. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. II, V, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, edited by the Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City, 1949–1952, 437–454.
Toniolo, G. (1882). Dei remoti fattori della potenza economica di Firenze nel Medio Evo. Considerazioni sociali economiche, Hoepli, Milan. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. I, IV, Dei remoti fattori della potenza economica di Firenze nel Medio Evo e scritti storici, 1–287.
Toniolo, G. (1893). La funzione della giustizia e della carità nell’odierna crisi sociale, (1893) in Giuseppe Toniolo, un economista storico, in Spicciani (1984a).
Toniolo, G. (1898). Criteri scientifici etico-economici intorno al credito dal punto di vista cristiano. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. II, V, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, edited by Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City 1949–1952, 485–523.
Toniolo, G. (1904). Problemi, discussioni, proposte intorno alla costituzione corporativa delle classi lavoratrici a proposito di recenti convegni sociali. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali e Discipline Ausiliarie, 34(134), 161–186.
Toniolo, G. (1915). Trattato di economia sociale. Introduzione. In Opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, s. II, I, Trattato di economia sociale e scritti economici, edited by Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City, 1949–1952, 1–484.
Toniolo, G. (1951). Democrazia cristiana. Istituti e forme, edited by Comitato opera omnia di Giuseppe Toniolo, Vatican City, 1951, vol. II, p. 176.
Van Parijs, P. (2012). No Eurozone without euro-dividend. In 14th Congress of the basic income earth network, Munich.
Werhane, P. H. (2006). Adam Smith’s legacy for ethics and economics. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, LI(2), 199–212.
Zamagni, S. (1991). Extended rationality, altruism and the justification of moral rules. Deakin University, Faculty of Commerce.
Zamagni, S. (2008). Reciprocity, civil economy, common good. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together (pp. 467–502). Vatican City: Vatican Press.
Zamagni, S. (2014). Giuseppe Toniolo. Un economista in anticipo sul suo tempo e perciò misconosciuto. Humanitas, 1(69), 129–132.
Zamagni, S. (2015). Prudenza. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank two anonymous referees for their comments; the participants in the Conference “Economia sociale, diritti, cooperazione. Giornate di studio su Giuseppe Toniolo”, held in Pisa (Italy), for their helpful suggestions and comments. We would also like to thank Vera Neri Zamagni and Paolo Nello for their valuable comments on the Italian versions of the works that are at the basis of the present study. Naturally, all responsibility for any errors and omissions is exclusively ours. Although the conception and drafting of the text is the outcome of joint research, Sections “The Principle of Subsidiarity: Overview of Its Foundation”, “The Ethical Factor in Giuseppe Toniolo’s Thought” and “The Subsidiary State in Toniolo’s Thought” are attributable to Alice Martini, and Sections “An Introductive Historical Perspective” and “The Legacy of Toniolo” to Luca Spataro.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martini, A., Spataro, L. The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Ethical Factor in Giuseppe Toniolo’s Thought. J Bus Ethics 153, 105–119 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3407-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3407-0