Pareto’s Contributions to the Science of Public Finance

Mauro Fasiani

Chapter 16 in The Paretian School and Italian Fiscal Sociology, 2007, pp 266-305 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Summary 1. — Pareto’s harsh judgements on the science of public finance — 2. — Causes for the hostility he attracted on himself — 3. — Need to excuse his verbal excesses — 4. — The three main groups of his contributions to the science of public finance — 5. — 6. — A) The first group including three separate fragments. ‘Pareto’s law’ of income distribution and its financial applications — 7. — Pareto’s critical comment on Martello’s ‘progressive tax’ — 8. — 9. — The Ricardian theorem on public debt — 10. — B) The second group including the treatment of methodological problems. The study of the science of public finance and of social sciences in general — 11. — Logico-experimental sciences, precepts and judgements — 12. — Elliptical propositions and the possibility of translating them into theoretical principles. The reasons why their translation is very difficult and arbitrary, rather than easy, as many claim — 13. — Relationships between such notions and Pareto’s methodological analyses — 14. — That which is and that which should be in the typical example of Ferrara’s thought — 15. — Ferrara, Pareto, logico-experimental and non-logico-experimental science — 16. — The concept of a logico-experimental social science and the difficulties in constructing it — 17. — Separation of logico-experimental science from moral science — 18. — Possibility of carrying out such a separation — 19. — Possibility of creating some other social sciences — 20. — The concept of non-logical actions. The incomprehensible difficulty in understanding it — 21. — The acknowledgment of the existence of non-logical actions and the theory of their uniformities — 22. — C) The third group of fragments of Paretian thought — 23. — The concept of public need in Pareto’s critique — 24. — Subsequent objections and logico-experimental research — 25. — The Paretian concept of maximum of utility for and of the community — 26. — The reasons for its poor diffusion. Pantaleoni’s ‘individual and collective maxima’ and their difference from Pareto’s ‘maxima’ — 27. — Nineteenth century optimism with regard to public finance, E. Sax’s typical theory and the artifices it contains — 28. — Pareto’s reaction — 29. — Coordination of the third group fragments — 30. — Summary of Pareto’s contributions considered in this article — 31. — Beyond faith.

Keywords: Political Economy; Public Finance; Public Debt; Moral Science; Dominant Class (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-59626-9_16

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9780230596269

DOI: 10.1057/9780230596269_16

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().