Cover: Jan Victors (1619-after 1676), Clothing

Reciprocity and redistribution: work and welfare reconsidered / edited by Gro
Hagemann
(Work, gender and society : thematic work group 4 ; 2)
331.094 (21.)
1. Lavoro – Europa I. Hagemann, Gro
CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa
This volume is published thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission, by
the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005-00164. The volume
is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held responsible for its
contents or for any use which may be made of it.
Cover: Jan Victors (1619-after 1676), Clothing the Orphans in the Deaconate, ca.1657, painting, Amsterdam
Historical Museum Collection, detail
Member of
© Copyright 2007 by Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press
Lungarno Pacinotti, 43
56126 Pisa
Tel. 050 2212056 – Fax 050 2212945
[email protected]
www.edizioniplus.it - Section “Biblioteca”
ISBN 978-88-8492-465-0
Manager
Claudia Napolitano
Editing
Francesca Petrucci, Eleonora Lollini
Informatic assistance
Massimo Arcidiacono, Michele Gasparello
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian
Welfare State
Giovanni Silvano
University of Padua
Abstract
After the Italian unification, the Right and Left began to tackle the social question.
Poverty and need were rife, especially in the South, while some state social policy was
urgently needed alongside the traditional private welfare services, secular and religious.
The outstanding figure was Francesco Crispi, generally better known for his home and
foreign policy than for welfare reform. In 1898 he introduced the first obligatory insurance scheme for industrial workers; he also reformed the Opere pie and laid the foundations of an embryonic national health system. Crispi’s Italy followed the German
social model. The Italian welfare state would continue to grow as industrialisation and
democracy became established.
Proclamato nel 1861 il Regno d’Italia sia la Destra storica sia la Sinistra storica dopo il
1876 si occuparono della questione sociale. Da una parte era urgente trovare una risposta
alla situazione di povertà e bisogno diffusa soprattutto nel Sud della Penisola e dall’altra era improrogabile avviare una politica sociale ‘statale’ in grado di guadagnarsi un posto tra i servizi tradizionalmente offerti da enti privati, ecclesiastici o laici. La figura più
importante della politica sociale italiana dall’unificazione all’età giolittiana fu Francesco
Crispi, più noto per la politica interna ed estera piuttosto che per le sue scelte di politica
sociale. Non solo introdusse in Italia il primo schema assicurativo obbligatorio per gli operai dell’industria nel 1898, ma organizzò pure il primo nucleo di un embrionale sistema
sanitario nazionale e riformò le Opere pie. L’Italia crispina seguì il modello sociale tedesco.
L’affermazione del welfare state italiano accompagnò il processo di industrializzazione e
democratizzazione del Paese.
Introduction
Economy, law, political science and sociology have traditionally dealt with the welfare
state – and especially what constitutes the welfare state: the character of a political and
administrative action at a given time in a certain society, aimed at modifying the living
condition – of a single person or a social group – from being below a minimum standard of living. Such action aims to protect people against risks and to respond to needs
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
24
Giovanni Silvano
that may emerge in their lives. The work of R. Titmuss is one of the most important
and significant attempts to offer a unitary explanation of the complex social policies
that have appeared in different countries at different historical times. According to Titmuss, there have been three historically distinct models of welfare: the public assistance
model, the reward model and the institutional redistributive model1.
The welfare state has offered its services via these models. In recent years an effort has
been made to reach a general definition of the welfare state in western societies, especially on the grounds of the essays P. Flora and A. Heidenheimer have collected2. M.
Ferrera on the other hand, trying to reach to a precise definition and keeping in mind
the most important proposals made in the past, has suggested we define the welfare
state as a set of public policies, linked to the process of modernization, used by the state
to make available services of assistance or of insurance or of social security, by introducing social rights and compulsory contributions3.
This definition also applies to a historical essay dealing with the origins of the Italian
welfare state in the 19th century: a canvas that not only covers the historical process
of modernization, but indicates the typical forms of public intervention at different periods of the history of the Italian social state. The people responsible for such
policy were the political and cultural leaders liable for the modernization of Italy
from the mid-19th century to Giovanni Giolitti’s time4. Any history dealing with
how the Italian 19th-century welfare state shaped itself ought to take into account
the historical context within which it developed. A nation’s welfare is the answer to
an ever-changing demand for social services that in turn emerge from a very specific
social organization of work and life. The aim of this essay is to suggest that modernization in Italy at the time of Francesco Crispi passed through adoption of a social
policy inspired on Bismarck’s politics. It deals with a subject almost absent from the
most recent historiography, interested as this mainly is in the foreign and domestic
politics of Crispi5.
From poor laws to national insurance
Though it developed from Crispi’s reforms, the Italian welfare state had been preceded
by the action of numerous institutions of medieval origins6. It might sound inappropriate see the ancient Italian states’ policies to relieve poverty as the modern welfare state
in embryo, but it is important to stress the continuity between poor relief in the ancien
régime and the development of a full-blown system of provisions designed to combat
the large variety of risks to which everyone was exposed in the 19th and 20th century.
Before the end of the 19th century Italy, like other European states, had introduced a
number of provisions, in the form of a mandatory national insurance plan, which comprised the bulk of contemporary welfare. It is also important to note that one can only
deal with Italian welfare state history from 1861 on, since prior to that date there were
as many welfare state measures as there were Peninsula states. In a very general sense
it may be said that all over Europe some form of ancien régime welfare state had been
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
25
operating especially in order to fight poverty, and this in turn developed into social
insurance programmes from the 19th century on.
Western societies have displayed a certain concern for the poor and this compulsion originated in medieval society and its religious feelings. In drafting poor relief ordinances,
Catholics, Protestants and Jews were all moved by a sense of charity, a major duty of all
such religions7. Although religious charity has underpinned social provision for the poor
from the 16th century to the present, European governments actually developed a sense
of social responsibility when they established non-religious systems of assistance. In modern and contemporary Europe, and to a certain extent also in the U.S., public assistance
came to prevail over religious charity. To be exact, religious and altruistic motivations to
provide relief to the poor and needy through special organizations are very much alive
in contemporary societies8, but the final responsibility for taking care of the needy has
come to rest with local and central governments. A high degree of collaboration between
religious and secular charity and public welfare assistance was achieved by a number of
European states in the course of developing their social welfare systems.
But who exactly were the poor in need of help? One type of ancien régime poor were
persons who, although working and thus receiving some income, could not save any
money to deal with a sudden loss of work, illness or other accidents. Their social standing was very fragile. Other poor were the ‘shamefaced poor’, whose respectable origins
prevented them from overtly seeking help. The ‘poor of Christ’, including pilgrims,
clergy, widows and orphans, or victims of misfortune, illness or any form of disability,
all together formed a category who were candidates for expulsion from a community
or else for institutionalisation9. Among the numerous attempts to cope with the needs
of so many poor, the most effective was the British Old Poor Law introduced in 1601.
This set the standard which most of the other European states referred to when enforcing laws against poverty. Whereas in industrial times poverty assumed typical forms
linked to low salaries and living in urban centres, in the ancien régime these forms differed widely and were dealt with by a number of distinct interventions. The 1601 Act
for the Relief of the Poor was the most important provision. It is recognized as being
the starting point for any further social assistance policy and formed the standard ancien régime solution to poverty-related problems.
The basic idea behind the 1601 law was that factories could be created to provide work.
The poor were not to be given money coming from taxation, but work. The Old Poor
Law introduced an Overseer of the poor who was responsible for setting all children
to work whose parents could not do so, and in general all who had no means of maintaining themselves. Each parish was to buy wool or iron or other materials on which to
set the poor to work as a test of need. Such factories were largely unsuccessful because
profit-making production was already in the hands of private enterprise. The Poor Law
was a national programme and the taxes paid by the landowners were destined to cover
its cost, since they were held responsible for causing poverty-related problems through
enclosure of the land10. The law provided indoor shelter in which the old, young, mentally ill, handicapped and needy could be housed and thus removed from society. Under
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
26
Giovanni Silvano
the Settlement Act of 1662 each parish became liable for those having legal residence
within its bounds: each community was to provide relief for its own members11. It is
interesting to note that in the U.S. until 1969 residence within a state was an eligibility
requirement in all public welfare programmes12.
Awareness that poor relief was something important was alive in British overseas colonies as well. Workhouses were not built in the colonies, and thus outdoor relief was the
standard way of helping the needy. In the early days there was little private philanthropy
in America, and only later on did charitable works take the form of a cooperative venture between philanthropists and government13. This is apparent in the founding of
the first public hospital in Philadelphia, which took place in 1750: private donations
were matched by a public grant from the public treasury. Among the Founding Fathers
Thomas Jefferson was particularly aware of the responsibility for dispensing poor relief,
as he had noted in his Notes on the State of Virginia:
The poor, unable to support themselves, are maintained by an assessment on the titheable persons in their parish […]. The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to labour,
are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a stipulated sum is annually paid. To those
who are able to help themselves a little […] supplementary aids are given. Vagabonds, without
visible property or vocation are placed in workhouses where they are well clothed, fed, lodged,
and made to labour14.
In years to come other important provisions would be made, as in 1833 when a national
pension system was established for the relief of veterans who had become mentally or
physically disabled while on military service. In general poor relief was a local concern
and taxation to support it was made on the basis of land ownership, as in Britain during
Elizabethan times15.
Poverty changed its face with the industrial revolution. The attempt to lower the impact of unwanted accident in private or in public life, such as loss of job, sudden death,
illness or any form of disability, became a common early aim of the developing modern
European and American welfare systems. The funds to do so varied: public, private or a
mixture of the two. In history social protection measures experimented all these ways,
which is one explanation of the deep differences present in contemporary welfare systems. The people’s well-being became a public concern and a government responsibility. If we look at the debate which took place in the French Constituent Assembly, we
find Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès saying that
the benefits of the social state are not limited to the effective and complete protection of individual freedom: citizens also have a right to all the advantages of association … no-one denies
that members of a society gain the greatest benefits from public property, from public works. It
is well known that those unfortunate citizens who are unable to provide for their own needs have
a right to receive aid from their fellow citizens […] the citizens share the right to everything that
the state provides for their benefit16.
It is a long story of significant achievement and frustrating defeat. One radical answer to
the demand for social services was Bismarck’s insurance model adopted by the German
Empire in 1883. By the year 1915 almost every European state had adopted compul-
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
27
sory insurance measures. The worker masses became fully included in each state’s process of industrial development, removed from the typical pre-industrial forms of welfare
that were no longer able to meet the newly arising needs. The chief spur to adopting
compulsory insurance was given by mobilisation of the labourers, organised in the first
social parties. The German social democratic party was founded in 1875, the Austrian
equivalent in 1888, the Swedish in 1889. The Italian socialist party was founded some
time between the years 1892 and 1893, during a period when compulsory insurance
policies were being adopted. In Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Italy, countries
still distant from the modernization levels typical of France and Britain, compulsory insurance came into effect before universal suffrage was achieved. Bismarck’s compulsory
insurance was the German conservative class’s answer to the claims for social protection
by the German worker masses. But that is hard to adjust to the Italian case at the end
of the 19th century. How indeed could it work in a social and economic context so
different from the German one? The two countries experienced the process of industrialization at different times and rates. It developed faster in Germany than in Italy. By
contrast, in Italy there was a long family tradition and religious network of mutual help
that may have been less developed in the German Empire.
The welfare state is an essential characteristic of any civilized culture. In Italy, like the
rest of Europe and the United States, it has continuously reshaped itself, and this makes
history the best possible way to explore its inner social, political and economic significance. The contemporary welfare state has had a tremendous impact on state public
finances, both on levy and expenditure of public revenue, whereas under the ancien
régime it hardly had any impact on what could be referred to as public finance17. It had
to do mainly with poverty, to fight which ad hoc charges were imposed, as happened in
Britain with the tax on landowners. In many cities of the various Italian regional states
early forms of poor assistance were funded by private donations to the so-called Camera dei poveri [funds for the poor] that distributed aid where needed.
The building of the Italian welfare state
The first form of organised support for workers came from mutual help groups. The
Statuto Albertino of 1848 made it possible to form free associations: some of these
aimed at alleviating the miserable condition of individuals and specific groups18. Mutual help groups were born out of this constitutional law and were to play a very important role in the making of the Italian welfare state. Such groups were strictly connected with worker organizations and took care essentially of those sharing a common
employment. Mutual help organizations were independent of government grants; each
member was expected to make a contribution, according to the group regulations19. In
time there was a movement towards unification and federation of the many existing
societies, pursued notably by the republican, Giuseppe Mazzini20. Political leaders soon
realized how important it was to include some such movement in their own political
manifesto. While conservatives looked on this social phenomenon with no particular
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
28
Giovanni Silvano
interest except in so far as it could partly solve the emerging social question, left-wing
supporters and the republican supporters of Mazzini struggled for decades to gain control of the worker movement21.
A growing demand for social services arose from the lowest ranks throughout the
decades of political unification of the Peninsula. Mutual help societies provided their
members and families with a great array of social services: aid for widows, orphans and
children, financial support in case of loss of job or death or disability caused while at
work, the lending of money, and education programmes carried out especially in the
countryside at evening time. It was locally-based welfare which had nothing to do with
a yet-to-come national social policy. Mutual help groups grew in number and in their
ability to offer new services to members. These societies were active principally in central and northern Italy where they attracted male factory workers and artisans working
in industry, while the majority of female workers were employed in the textile industry.
Men and women were present in these societies, forming the original core of the mass
parties and of the Italian trade unions. This form of partnership involved a restricted
number of factory workers and it must be admittd that the female presence never exceeded 10% of total members, at least until the age of Giolitti.
The Destra storica governments neither hampered nor facilitated the growth of such organizations. Central government was not even interested in organizing nationwide social services, and only local government agencies, the municipalities and the provincial
administrations shared some responsibility with private groups in caring for the poor
and in tending the indigent sick. A drastic change of attitude on this matter occurred
in 1886, when the so-called Berti Act set a standard juridical profile for such societies,
establishing that the administration board should be made up of members of the same
society. By the end of the century only 1,200 associations had gone through the rewriting of their statutes according to the new national scheme. Only 18% of all mutual help
societies thought it important to obey the rules of the Berti Act, even after the National
Federation of Mutual Help Societies was founded in 189422. In order to have as many
associations as possible adhering to the new statute scheme, Domenico Berti, minister
of agriculture during Agostino Depretis’ governments from 1881 to 1884, guaranteed
them a more favourable tax rate. He also set a number of eligibility requirements to be
met by all mutual help societies that showed an interest in being recognized as moral
organizations (enti morali) by the State23. The whole political value of the Berti Act lay
in trying to transform organized forms of civil society in a pattern coordinated by the
public authorities, so as not to create a monopoly on welfare by private organizations.
The law was approved after a long period of consultation: already in 1873 the Italian
Department of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce set in motion an important Europe-wide survey to get a better picture of mutual help elsewhere24. There was a real
interest in knowing more of what was going on in France, Belgium, and especially in
Britain, where the greatest number of such organizations were operating. Over the last
decades of the 19th century, Italian mutual help societies were able to start new services
like cooperative stores, lending banks, building schemes for popular housing25.
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
29
While in Europe the political interest in mutual help societies was increasing, in the
U.S. the situation was somewhat different. For the Americans private organizations
are and were the preferred providers of many social and cultural services. During the
Revolution it had been decided not to set up a powerful central government and not
to pay high taxes at any level of government. As a result, the definition of ‘public good’
was much narrower than in Europe. The fact that the First Amendment prevented the
government from giving any sort of religious congregation political or economic support meant that the Americans refused to rely on such institutions, unlike what had
happened in Europe where the church supported education, social services, poor relief,
health care and the arts. At the same time the First Amendment, by assuring the right of
assembly, laid down the basis for the growth of private voluntary organizations which
were to provide public services. Over the course of the 19th century private organizations grew stronger: non-profit organizations enjoyed new privileges, like reduced exposure to lawsuits, the power to acquire, retain and increase endowments, and exemption from local and state, as well as federal, taxes. “Above all, nonprofit made it possible
to separate church and state”26.
Non-profit made it possible for the Americans to accomplish what they wanted in
such different fields as the arts, culture, education and health. Unlike the European
tradition, which has always seen sovereignty as central and unified, the American
tradition split sovereignty so as to make it easier also for non-profit organizations to
operate as an expression of freedom of civil society. Contemporary American nonprofit organisations include hospitals and universities, orchestras and opera companies, theatres, religious congregations, environmental and civil rights organizations,
people working in family service, children’s service, neighbourhood development,
antipoverty, community health facilities, foundations and community funds. The
latter help to generate financial support for all these organizations. Viewed from a
historical perspective conservatives and liberals have debated the issue as to what extent people have to rely on these institutions to satisfy public needs. The former stress
the sector’s strengths, the latter its weakness. A compromise was found “early in the
nation’s history … nonprofit organizations in an ever-widening range of fields were
made the beneficiaries of government support to provide a growing array of services
– from health care to scientific research – that Americans wanted but were reluctant
to have government directly provide”27.
In focusing on American and European welfare systems a further important difference
comes to light. In the United States redistribution from the rich to the poor is much
more limited than in Western Europe. This tendency in public expenditure proves to
have been true in the past as well as in recent years. In terms of government expenditure, the U.S. spend about 15% of their GDP on social programmes, whereas European
countries spend 25%. While this makes it clear that European countries provide more
public welfare than the U.S., it should also be said that Americans make much richer
contributions than Europeans to private charity organizations, which in turn provide a
great choice of social services28. This indication leads us to believe that the divergence
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
30
Giovanni Silvano
between American and European welfare provisions rests primarily on their history
and only secondarily on their social policies.
If we now label European and Italian mutual help associations as non-profit there might
not be such a sharp difference between America and Europe, at least from one point of
view. In both cases, government control over such organizations was not very tight, although steps were taken to enforce some sort of control over them. This is more apparent in Italy and other European countries like France or Belgium, whereas in the U.S.
state control over non-profit organizations took different directions. Though mutual
help organizations in Italy were partly subject to a sort of public control, that proved
to be even more difficult with the Opere pie (private charitable foundations), which
were to remain to a large extent out of public control up to Crispi’s reform in 1890. Together with mutual help groups, Italy’s first days of the welfare state rested upon a very
large number of Opere pie operating down the entire Peninsula, though with differences
from one region to another. Their number in 1861 was gauged at 18,000, drawing on
a huge patrimony29. Opere pie were in fact a sort of foundation: each had a patrimony
whose revenues had to be spent in welfare operations going from education to health
care. In many cases wealthy people or religious and lay organizations had donated such
patrimonies in the old days for relief of the poor. Over the centuries, the Opere pie
maintained a private legal status, although a number of attempts were made by central
government to control them and use their resources.
Into social insurance
Soon after the Unification of the Peninsula, in 1862 a so-called Great Law was approved
which was expected to lower the church and bishops’ control over the Opere pie30. They
continued to be private organizations engaged in providing social services for the poor,
thus making it possible to have a private charity offering a ‘public good’. Among the political and social priorities of the Destra storica’s early days of government, social policy
was simply not present on the grounds that private organizations, namely Opere pie and
to a smaller extent mutual help groups, were taking care of the entire question. According to Bill n. 753 of 3 August 1862, such institutions were defined in a very broad sense:
“Considered as Opere pie and subject to the present law are the charitable institutions
and all the moral organizations that in toto or in part have the aim of assisting the less
affluent classes, both in health and in sickness, by offering them aid, education, instruction or teaching them a profession, an art or a trade”31. These private foundations were
to play an essential role in relieving poverty down to the present time in Italy.
The problem of their standing within the developing welfare state in Italy became apparent when Italy was hit by a cholera outbreak in 1885. Hospitals were themselves
Opere pie and in such circumstances they all proved incapable of coping with the challenge. From the political viewpoint the situation was thought to be propitious for a
general reform of all Opere pie. Thirty-four types of Opere pie were classified in 1889:
1,221 hospitals, 2,025 charitable institutions, 4,215 alms-giving institutions, 1,995 in-
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
31
stitutions for domiciliary treatment, 2,916 dowry foundations. Altogether there were
about 21,700 Opere pie in the Peninsula; in Crispi’s view, all needed thorough reform
that would guarantee standard administrative procedures and reliable social services32.
It may be claimed that Crispi’s 1890 reform was the first step towards building a national health programme: hospital treatment was guaranteed to all pregnant women,
acute patients or the injured regardless of their economic status. Furthermore hospitals
were all managed as if they were public charity trusts and no longer as local institutions
controlled by religious congregations. The political and cultural significance of Crispi’s
1890 Act n. 6972 goes well beyond its specific measures for public health; it reflects a
much wider vision of what public aid should be like in a nation taking its first steps in a
matter that had traditionally been in private hands.
So much for the involvement of private organizations in the public provision of social services; there also existed the Congregazioni di carità [charitable congregations]
and the Uffici pubblici di beneficenza [public offices for beneficence], both of French
descent, which were the public agencies through which central government did something for the poor33. The state took special responsibility for the health of the poor,
abandoned children, the mentally ill and the disabled. The Home Office was to take
care of these, whereas prefects and mayors were to organize and provide for all health
assistance needs at a more local level34. In the Destra storica’s last years of government,
legislation was passed in 1873 preventing children from being employed in itinerant
professions35. From 1876, the Sinistra storica was the political force which would bring
about new social legislation in a state that was ready to experience its own industrial
revolution36.
By that time the most urgent need was to find more efficient solutions to the social questions than the private charity forms had been. The new tool of social intervention was insurance. All European countries experimented with this important innovation, although
only Norway, Finland, Italy, The Netherlands and Luxemburg were to choose compulsory
insurance. In the U.S. the Social Security Act that established compulsory insurance cover
for invalidity, old age and unemployment allowance, was not approved until 193537.
Different forms of social insurance were introduced in a number of countries in the years
around 1880. At the outset legislation addressed job-related risks; life cover, against
sudden death, illness or ageing, would be taken into consideration later on, though
the approach to the problem remained essentially the same. Although it is generally
agreed that Bismarck was the first statesman to introduce accident insurance law in
Europe, some earlier experiences may have paved the way for his important reform. The
questions to be faced were simple. In the case of accident to an employee at work, who
was to be held responsible for the accident itself ? Who was to compensate the injured
worker? How was liability to be attributed between the employee and the employer?
In the late 19th century labour market, was it feasible for a third party to mediate between the conflicting interests of workers and employers? Such questions were urgently
debated as the second industrial revolution got under way in an increasing number of
countries38.
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
32
Giovanni Silvano
Back in the 18th century, long before the introduction of Bismarck’s insurance scheme
from 1883 onwards, injured Prussian miners had received free medical treatment and
invalidity payments in the event of work accident. Before 1884, large firms were operating schemes of protection similar to that made general by the 1884 Act. In 1838 Prussia
made railway companies responsible for work accidents not caused by the victim’s own
negligence. In 1871 the Reichstag applied a similar regulation in the newly-formed Empire. Not all such measures proved successful, on the one hand owing to the hostility of
employers, and on the other to the difficulty encountered by the workers in enforcing
their rights. But it is clear that Bismarck’s labour legislation was grounded in previous experience of worker and family protection against work-related injury or loss of
employment39. Bismarck’s provisions stated that employees in manufacturing, mining,
agriculture, forestry, building, transportation, and navigation were to be protected by a
compulsory insurance scheme. Compensation was due in all cases except when the injury was demonstrably self-inflicted. Employers had to compensate employees’ injuries,
and the dependents of those killed at work. In non-fatal cases benefits included medical assistance and two-thirds of regular earnings; in fatal cases the law assured funeral
benefit equal to one-fifteenth of annual earnings and income for dependents: 20% of
the husband’s regular earnings for the widow as well as for each child up to the fifteenth
birthday. Any dispute between an employer and his worker was to be settled by boards
of arbitration, and in the case of an appeal against a decision, the argument was to be
taken to the Imperial Insurance Office. Employers in each industry had to arrange accident insurance associations to which both the employer and the employee contributed
in order to ensure payment of due compensation to any injured worker40. The state
played no role on this specific point: the days of a social security insurance plan for all
workers were still far off.
Again in France, from 1848 until the second Empire of Napoleon III a number of attempts were made to build up an efficient social protection of workers and their families. In 1850 the Caisse nationale de retraite was founded and in 1853 the new Code
sanitaire was introduced, which envisaged the need for a general insurance plan against
all forms of illness. In 1868 the Caisse nationale d’assurance en cas de décès and the Caisse
nationale d’assurance en cas d’accidents résultants de travaux agricoles et industriels were
also founded. The adhesion to such insurance plans was not made obligatory and workers were free to choose whether to join them or not. A no-blame liability approach was
being accepted in French work legislation, and particular attention was also given to agricultural workers41. The French compensation law was brought in in 1898 and it stated
that compensation was due in all cases except in those where the accident was caused by
the victim. Employers were required to compensate employees injured and the dependents of those killed by accidents. Employers were not required to insure against the cost
of the indemnity due, but were free to insure themselves in private companies approved
by the state or mutual insurance associations. Pensions were guaranteed to the family
dependents in case of a worker’s death or permanent disability, whereas medical and
funeral expenses were considered a form of compensation in any temporary disability.
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
33
In Britain the Workmen’s Compensation Act was introduced in 1897. It was expected
to provide a cheaper and more reliable legal remedy for industrial accident victims than
had been possible under Common Law. The Employer’s Liability Act of 1880 had defined the general procedures to be enforced under Common Law, but dissatisfaction
with it grew. 1897 saw the “fellow-servant” rule abolished and the employer made liable
for the negligence of all his agents. It made it possible for an employer to assume the
risks of his employee’s negligence. The 1897 law stated that compensation was due in
all cases except when the injury was due to the workman’s misconduct. Other regulations settled the limits of payments the employer was to make in all possible cases. As
in France, so in Britain the employer could decide whether or not to insure himself
against the indemnity. He was also free to organize a scheme of accident insurance,
which would exempt him from the obligations of the law on condition he submitted
a certificate to a friendly society that his scheme’s provisions were no less favourable
to the workman than those of the Act. Years later, in the U.S. a similar process took
place: the Common Law principle of negligence was overruled and in the contract of
any workman the employer was to insure his employee against loss caused by accident
during his employment42.
The same script was repeated in Italy. In this country, which was a late-comer to the
second industrial revolution, both the Destra and the Sinistra storica showed a timid
but growing concern for social matters as it seemed urgent to do something for workers
who had experienced a work-related injury causing them permanent or momentary loss
of employment. If as a result they were unable to have any sort of income, they and their
families would be left in a destitute condition. Forms of support did exist in Italy, mainly
provided by private organizations, but no national legislation had ever been proposed
on such a crucial question before Crispi’s successful attempt. He managed to get a compulsory national insurance plan against work-related injuries approved on 17 March
1898. Introducing such a plan was certainly a political decision, but its provisions and
profile resulted from a debate involving politicians and economists as well as spokesmen
for civil society. In this particular discussion, Italy was able to marshal a high degree
of legal thinking and social consciousness that were coherent with the thoughts and
perspectives being discussed in Europe and in the U.S. on similar matters43. Certainly,
well before 1898 Crispi had already introduced important social legislation on crucial
questions such as health assistance for the poor (in 1888) and the transformation of the
Opere pie into I.P.B. (public foundations for assistance and beneficence) in 1890. He
seems to have contemplated a national insurance plan especially designed for factory
workers on the Bismarck model in the belief that the existing answer to the problem,
the 1883 Cassa nazionale di assicurazione per gli infortuni degli operai sul lavoro [national
insurance fund for labour accidents], was insufficient and in need of reform.
The Cassa nazionale was proposed in 1882 by Luigi Luzzatti, one of the most prominent intellectuals and politicians working in favour of social cooperation, and it was
administered by the Cassa di Risparmio [savings bank] of Milan44. The savings banks
voluntarily underwrote the Insurance Fund charity, which was obliged to compensate
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
34
Giovanni Silvano
workmen in case of injuries occurring in the workplace. Although the problem with
such an initiative was its non-compulsory character, it is important to note that workrelated problems were on the agenda of Italian politics well before Crispi’s intervention.
As early as 1869 a Superior Council of Providence was constantly busy dealing with
matters related to work and insurance45.
Crispi’s concern with social matters continued throughout his political life. When he
introduced a compulsory insurance plan against work-related injuries in 1898, similar
legislation had already been passed in other countries, but the pathway through which
it was endorsed in Italy makes it an interesting case46. Around 1898 the political and
social situation in Italy was rather contradictory: on the one hand, the government
had decided to call in the army to repress popular riots, and on the other, parliament
was approving the so-called Assicurazione obbligatoria contro gli infortuni degli operai
dell’industria [compulsory insurance for accidents to industrial workers]. While action
against workers’ interests was being taken, a social insurance plan in their favour was being passed. This plan did not cover rural workers and those who contracted any form of
disability caused by the nature of the work itself. Four years following its approval, only
7% of workers were in fact insured, whereas in Germany the percentage was much higher47. Italy experienced great difficulty in making its work insurance plan a success: it is
very likely that the long-standing tradition of private forms of assistance acted as an impediment to the success of the law. Nonetheless the law marked an important achievement in labour law history and in the battle for workers’ rights. In Italy, as happened in
many other countries, a lively debate arose to ascertain whose shoulders a work-related
injury cost should fall on. The law in Italy stuck to the liability concept that was already
embodied in the 1865 Civil Code. This principle was widely used and developed in
cases heard within the factory walls by the Collegi dei probiviri [special courts of upright men] on which representatives of the employer and employees served.
Conflicts of this kind were difficult to take to court, especially because the worker could
hardly afford to sue his employer. Such cases could be more easily discussed in front of a
different kind of court. On 15 June 1893 an Act was passed establishing the Collegi dei
probiviri whose members were either employees or employers, with the task of judging
all cases to do with disagreement on any work-related accident occurring within the
premises of the firm. Although such a committee was nothing new in Europe –one
had been established in France in 1806 and in Germany in 1808 – in Italy it played
an important role in speeding up the national legislation on work-related injuries48.
From one case to another the belief grew that the employer was to be held liable for
compensation, even if he had no fault in the accident at issue. A no-blame principle was
established which would allow compensation to be paid without the workman having
to go to court. Industrial accident victims had a cheaper and more reliable legal remedy
to get their rights recognized49. The work lawsuits taken to this special court were few
in number; in many cases the committee itself was only established some years after the
law’s enactment, in others the employer’s opposition was so resolute that the worker
had indeed but few hopes of having his case fairly arbitrated. Nonetheless the 1893 Act
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
35
is important in so far as it recognizes the existence of a pressing social question: how to
make the worker’s quest for impartiality more successful when it came to determining
liability over an accident occurring within the factory walls50.
One notes that the employer was expected to insure the risk itself of having employees
injured: the remuneration that was to be paid to the victim was doubly insured since
the employer was forced to insure himself against it. Though he was merely required to
compensate his injured workman on the basis of a standard insurance plan, he does seem
to have been required to insure himself against such indemnity. Italy apparently saw no
need for extraordinary social legislation: one referred to the general principle of liability
contained in the Civil Code dating from 1865, pending new social legislation capable
of guaranteeing benefits to any victim of work-related injuries. A number of other social provisions were in fact soon to be introduced: the way had already been paved by
Crispi’s efforts to make Italy a more modern and ‘European’ state. Much was done in the
field of pensions, in making provision for old age and in extending welfare to all Italian
citizens. The bulk of the Italian welfare state had been fully laid down by the end of the
century, and the system would go through major reforms in the years that followed.
Conclusions
The Italian peninsula has a long-standing tradition of dealing with poverty and social
exclusion. In such a tradition a shift took place, especially from 1860 onwards, when
social welfare matters increasingly began to be dealt with by government agencies, thus
lowering the impact of private organizations in providing relief for the poor. A number
of important provisions were implemented especially during Crispi’s governments: the
transformation of the Opere pie into I.P.B. was one of the most important steps towards
the secularisation of Italian welfare institutions51. Crispi also introduced social legislation: in 1898 a national insurance plan came in to cover work, the poor, the sick and
in general all those in need52. Crispi has some claim to being a great social reformer,
and certainly did much to modernize the state. In 1888 he reorganized the local associations and two years later he promulgated a new Criminal Law. During his second
ministry, in March 1894, he strongly repressed the Fasci siciliani (a popular movement
of democratic and socialist inspiration 1891-1894), while in July of the same year he
attacked the left-wing opposition with laws against anarchy. He was forced to abandon
politics following the defeat of the Italian forces at Adua in Eritrea in 1896. As a supporter of Mazzini, he stoutly defended the monarchy. Unlike Bismarck, his conservative political beliefs did not exclude promoting social reforms, which he intended as
the principal measures of insuring social peace without allowing much room for the
left-wing to claim credit.
From the time of Crispi’s ministry to the period after the Second World War Italian
welfare underwent major reforms and innovations regarding health, education, retirement, labour and assistance. Most welfare policies are now enacted at a local government level, though the central government sets the financial rules that Regions and
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
36
Giovanni Silvano
Municipalities have to comply with. It should be underlined that fiscal federalism is
still not as developed in Italy as it should be, especially considering the growing impact
of local government agencies on people’s lives and welfare. Taxation in Italy is still a
central government affair53.
Viewed in such a perspective, Italy and its welfare has something of the nature of
dreamland, but as happened in all European countries and the U.S. as well, from the
70s onwards social welfare has entered a time of increasing difficulty. Public finance
seems no longer able to sustain such generous systems of welfare, thus putting a great
deal of pressure on all states to reduce benefits in order to keep state expenditure within
the limits set by state revenue. In such a process one needs to remember that the Treaty
of Maastricht, signed in 1992, obliges each E.U. member state not to exceed a 3% maximum deficit in its public expenses based on its own GDP. The problem affecting Italy,
Europe and the U.S. is to how to continue to support a welfare system capable of coping
with an ever-increasing demand for social and health services, and nowadays also with
an expanding immigrant population54.
To go back to a high taxation policy seems no longer to be an option in a post-Ford
society, and this creates the inevitable challenge to find new welfare instruments offered
through public agencies and non-profit organizations at a sustainable cost. In Italy the
resources to be spent on welfare are less plentiful than in the past due to an unstoppable process of economic and financial globalisation of wealth, to an ever-changing
labour market and an increasingly ageing population. Will Italy be able to modernize
its welfare? How will its previous achievements in the campaign against poverty and
social exclusion play a role in shaping the 21st-century welfare? Can one really think
of the Italian welfare state from a European perspective? The European Union and the
European Commission in particular seem bent on submitting to each member state a
new model of welfare state far exceeding the boundaries of each state’s existing tradition
in the field. To these and other similar questions social sciences and politics may have
an answer55.
Notes
1
R.M. Titmuss, Social Policy, London 1974.
2
The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, New Brunswick (NJ) 1981. Published in
Italy in 1983 by il Mulino.
3
M. Ferrera, Le politiche sociali. L’Italia in prospettiva comparata, Bologna 2006, pp. 17-22. There are
other important definitions which each study refers to, as in the notable case of N. Barr, The Welfare
State as Piggy Bank. Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State, Oxford 2001: “Welfare
is thus a mosaic, with diversity in both its source and the manner of its delivery. Nevertheless, the state
at national or sub national levels is much the most important single agency in industrialized countries
[…] welfare state is used as a shorthand for state activities in three broad areas: income transfers, health
promotion and health care, and education” (p. 4).
4
This is the basic issue of V. Zamagni’s important book, Dalla periferia al centro. La seconda rinascita
economica dell’Italia (1861-1990), Bologna 1993.
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
37
The most recent discussion of Crispi’s social policy can be found in F. Conti and G. Silei, Breve storia
dello Stato sociale, Rome 2005, pp. 50-51. D. Adorni, L’italia Crispina riforme e repressione 1887-1896,
Milan 2002.
6
I want to suggest that the current European welfare state has its own prehistory which in many cases
goes back to the Middle Ages. Hospitals, Monti di pietà and Confraternities were the most important institutions founded to fight poverty and, more in general, social exclusion. Recent studies on
Hospitals devoted generally to helping needy people, both in Italy and in Eastern Europe, have been
reviewed by F. Bianchi e S. Marekek, Le riforme ospedaliere del Quattrocento in Italia e nell’Europa Centrale, “Ricerche di storia sociale e religiosa”, 2006, 69, pp. 7-45. On the Monti and their social role in
Northern and Central Italy see G. Silvano, A beneficio dei poveri. Il Monte di pietà di Padova tra pubblico
e privato (1491-1600), Bologna 2005. For a discussion of confraternities see C.F. Black, Italian Confraternities in the 16th century, Cambridge 1989. B. Geremeck, La pietà e la forca. Storia della miseria e
della carità in Europa, Bari 1986 has been and still is a fundamental reference work.
7
G. Ricci, Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe 1500-1700, London - New York 1999.
8
As far as Italy is concerned see the contribution of Sarpellon in G. Sarpellon (ed.), Chiesa e solidarietà
sociale, Turin 2002, pp. 9-44.
9
See B.S. Pullan, Good Government and Christian Charity in Early Modern Italy, in D.T. Critchlow,
C.H. Parker (eds.), With us always: a history of private charity and public welfare, Lanham, 1998, pp.
78-81 and G. Silvano, Handicap e storia. Tabù, pietà, integrazione e risposta sociale, in P. Tessari (ed.),
Disabili e Abili. Manuale per educatori professionali, Padua 2005, pp. 45-55.
10
On this important matter see C. Hill, La formazione della potenza inglese. Dal 1530 al 1780, Turin
1977 (1967), pp. 63-75.
11
It should be noted that in Britain, as early as 1388 beggars had to return to their parish of birth for
relief. The Act of 1662 established forty days’ residence in a parish as the criterion for settlement there.
On the Old Poor Law see the critical remarks on linguistics of J. Bentham in his Writings on the Poor
Laws, in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, I, ed. M. Quinn, Oxford 2001, pp. 3-7. “The proper
object of the system of laws, known in this country by the name of Poor Laws, is to make provision
for the relief not of poverty, but of indigence. Poverty is the state of everyone who, in order to obtain
subsistence, is forced to have recourse to labour. Indigence is the state of him who, being destitute of
property, is at the same time either unable to labour, or unable, even for labour, to procure the supply
of which he happens thus to be in want […]. As labour is the source of wealth, so is poverty of labour.
Banish poverty, you banish wealth […] indigence, therefore, and not poverty is the evil, the removal of
which constitutes the proper object of the Poor Laws”.
12
For this reconstruction of the Old Poor Law story in America, I rely on R.E. Smith, D. Zietz, American
Social Welfare Institutions, New York - London 1970, pp. 12-24.
13
It is all the more important to focus on the meaning of philanthropy in contemporary America. “Contemporary use of the term refers to voluntary giving by individuals and organizations to promote the
common good. Philanthropy is a fundamental human impulse. People of all economic means and culture
develop lifetime habits of donation and service to a wide range of causes … Although private and public
philanthropy in many countries at various stages of economic development are increasingly common,
the United States has evolved the most institutionalised history of philanthropy – driven at least in part
by federal-income-tax exemptions for contributions to organizations certified “charitable” or “nonprofit”
by state government […]. Philanthropy by foundations: tax-exempt nonprofit, charitable organizations
created by individuals, families, and corporations with gifts of money, stock or other resources invested to
generate income used to make grants. In 2004, more than 66,000 foundations with over $ 476.7 billion in
assets gave an estimated $ 32.4 billion in grants to nonprofit organizations to support a variety of activities,
including research, health, education, arts and culture as well as systemic and charitable efforts to alleviate
poverty and improve people’s life” (M.E.S. Capek, M. Mead, Effective philanthropy: organizational success
through deep diversity and gender equality, Cambridge (MA) 2006, p. 3).
5
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
38
Giovanni Silvano
Edited with an introduction and notes by W. Peden, New York - London 1954, p. 133.
14
The Poor laws were part of the colonists’ legal background. Each town was expected to maintain its
own poor, those who were settled in the town. In addition to provisions provided by the poor laws in
the colonies, orphans became apprentices and adults who were poor, but able to work, became servants.
“Poor laws were used, then, for a helpless residue of society. For all others, poverty and want meant an
adjustment of status, not a draft on the public purse.” (L.M. Friedman, A history of American law, New
York 1985, p. 90).
15
Archives parlementaires, t. VIII, quoted by Marcel Gauchet, Diritti dell’uomo, in F. Furet, M. Ozouf,
Dizionario Critico della Rivoluzione Francese, Milan 1989, pp. 613-623.
16
For an interesting analysis of Italian contemporary public expenditure, see D. Franco, L’espansione della
spesa pubblica in Italia (1960-1990), Bologna 1993, pp. 179-212.
17
More precisely, article 32 is here at stake, for it asserts “The right to assemble peacefully and without
arms is acknowledged, according to the laws that can regulate the exercise in the interest of public affairs. This disposition is not applicable to assemblies in public places or in places open to the public,
which remain entirely subject to the police laws”, in F. Gaeta, P. Villani, Documenti e testimonianze,
Milan 1977, p. 90. In the United States, the First Amendment made the same thing possible: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
18
On this relevant social phenomenon, see R. Allio, Le origini delle società di mutuo soccorso in Italia, in
V. Zamagni (ed.), Povertà e innovazioni istituzionali in Italia. Dal Medioevo ad oggi, Bologna 2000, pp.
487-502.
19
G. Silvano, Giuseppe Mazzini e il movimento cooperativo italiano: fiscalità, credito e lavoro, in G. Berti
(ed.), L’eredità di Giuseppe Mazzini. La democrazia tra coscienza nazionale e coscienza europea, Padua
2006, pp. 97-114.
20
On the Italian debate on labour and industrialism, see S. Lanaro, Nazione e Lavoro. Saggio sulla cultura
borghese in Italia 1870-1925, Venice 1988, pp. 141-162.
21
F. Girotti, Welfare state. Storia, modelli e critica, Rome 1998, pp. 143-144.
22
Only sick people and those who were unable to work were eligible for subsidies. D. Berti was also a
prominent figure in the history of the Casse di Risparmio, which he proposed should be social security
institutions rather than credit institutes. On this aspect, see L. De Rosa, Storia delle Casse di Risparmio
e della loro Associazione 1822-1950, Rome - Bari 2003, pp. 84-86.
23
Rome, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Archivio storico (MAIC = Ministero Agricoltura Industria
Commercio), Statistica delle società di mutuo soccorso, Rome, Regia Tipografia, 1875. According to this
analysis, 21,819 mutual help groups were active in Britain, 5,777 in France, 206 in Belgium and 1,447
in Italy. A critical historical survey of these crucial years can be found in the section by R. Zangheri in
the Storia del movimento cooperativo in Italia. La lega nazionale delle cooperative e mutue (1886-1986),
Turin 1987.
24
A. Cherubini, Beneficenza e solidarietà. Assistenza pubblica e mutualismo operaio, 1860-1900, Milan
1991 and L. Gheza Fabbri, Le società di mutuo soccorso italiane nel contesto europeo fra XIX e XX secolo,
in Povertà e innovazioni istituzionali in Italia, pp. 503-528.
25
D.C. Hammack, D.R. Young, Perspectives on Nonprofits in the Market-place, in Nonprofit Organizations
in a Market Economy, San Francisco 1993, p. 10. I owe the entire section on the U.S. to this author.
26
L.M. Salamon, The Resilient Sector: The State of Nonprofit America, in L.M. Salamon (ed.), The State of
Nonprofit America, Washington D. C. 2002, p. 5.
27
This makes Salamon’s point of view even more lucid. A. Alesina, E.L. Glaeser, Fighting Poverty in the
US and Europe. A Word of Difference, Oxford 2004, pp. 44-46.
28
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
39
Il valore della lira dal 1861 al 2000, Rome, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, 2001. Accordingly, the 1861
patrimony in the year 2000 would be like 7,111,846,300,000 lire. Though Opere pie were located for
the most part in Northern Italy, they were also present in the Southern region of the Peninsula.
29
G. Farrell-Vinay, Povertà e politica nell’Ottocento. Le opere pie nello Stato liberale, Turin 1997. Interesting remarks in G. Gozzini, Il segreto dell’elemosina. Poveri e carità legale a Firenze 1800-1870, Florence
1993, pp. 301-307.
30
Printed in the Gazzetta Ufficiale del Regno, 25 August 1862.
31
According to the first article of the 1890 law, “Beneficence institutions and therefore subject to the
present law are the Opere pie and every other moral organization that has in whole or in part the aim of
a) providing assistance to the poor, both being in health or in sickness, b) providing the education, instruction or preparation for a profession, an art or a trade, or providing in any other way the moral and
economic improvement of their state. The present law does not entail innovations to the regulations of
other laws governing schools, savings, providence, cooperation and credit institutions”.
32
E. Bressan, Dalla carità al “Welfare State”, in G. Rumi (ed.), Vita civile degli italiani. Società, economia,
cultura materiale. Trasformazioni economiche, mutamenti sociali e nuovi miti collettivi 1920-1960, Milan 1991, pp. 106-117 and G. Silvano, Tra passato e futuro: sussidiarietà e solidarietà in una società in
trasformazione, “Quaderni di Centroveneto”, 2002, 2, pp. 64-76.
33
G. Cosmacini, Storia della medicina e della sanità in Italia. Dalla peste europea alla guerra mondiale.
1348-1918, Rome - Bari 1995, pp. 403-408.
34
L. Castelvetri, Il diritto del lavoro delle origini, Milan 1994, pp. 57-60.
35
It has rightly been stressed as the relationship between the welfare state and the industrial revolution as
this occurred in most European countries. This is also true in the Italian case, where the industrial revolution occurred at a later time. On this point, see V. Zamagni, Dalla periferia al centro, pp. 103-146.
36
R.T. Kurdle, T.R. Marmor, The Development of Welfare States in North America, in The Development of
Welfare States in Europe and America cit., pp. 81-123.
37
A good description of the U.S. and of the economy of each European country can be found in R. Cameron, L. Neal, Storia economica del mondo. Dalla preistoria ad oggi, Bologna 2002 (1989), pp. 349-432.
38
By way of introduction, I find the following useful: P.W. J. Bartrip, Workmen’s compensation in twentieth
century Britain: law, history and social policy, Newcastle 1987, pp. 146-147.
39
Bismarck’s scheme sets down other eligibility requirements, such as an annual income that does not
exceed $ 714. Another law required all workmen with an annual income below $ 480 to be insured
against sickness in local associations. In this case, the worker was to pay two-thirds and the employer
one-third of the premiums. For the first 13 weeks of disability the employee was to benefit from these
associations. The employer was then only responsible in cases of serious and fatal injuries. A good and
convincing critical examination of Bismarck’s social reform grounds is offered by G. A. Ritter, Storia
dello Stato sociale, Rome - Bari 2003 (1991), pp. 61-85.
40
On the origins of the French welfare state, see A. Barbieri, Lo stato sociale in Francia. Dalle origini alla
seconda guerra mondiale, Rome 1999, and F. Ewald, Histoire de l’État providence. Les origines de la solidarité, Paris 1996 (1986). Although concern for agriculture workers came to light in Italy rather late
during the First World War, there are records of successful attempts at introducing forms of town-based
welfare provisions in the countryside. Emblematic of such history is the case of the company town of
Piazzola studied by C. Fumian, La città del lavoro. Un’utopia agroindustriale nel Veneto contemporaneo,
Venice 1990, pp. 47-51.
41
Court decisions in master and servant cases from 1850 on required that the contract for hiring a workman should assume the risks of all accidents, except those due to the negligence of the employer. A good
comparative approach to such questions can be found in C. Eastman, Work-Accidents and the Law,
New York 1969, pp. 208-215.
42
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
40
Giovanni Silvano
On the Italian debate as to the legal implications of the liability principle, see L. Gaeta, Infortuni sul
lavoro e responsabilità civile: alle origini del diritto del lavoro, Naples 1986.
44
A. Cherubini, Storia della previdenza sociale in Italia (1860-1960), Rome 1977, pp. 71-101.
45
D. Marucco, Lavoro e previdenza dall’unità al fascismo. Il Consiglio della Previdenza dal 1869 al 1923,
Milan 1984, pp. 71-84.
46
The most important work on social insurance plan timing in Western Europe is J. Alber, Dalla carità
allo stato sociale, Bologna 1987 (1982).
47
It was equal to 51%. There are many historical reasons that could explain why Italy was so late in approving social legislation on work insurance, but these remain largely unpursued. On the one hand, the law
itself referred only to some categories of factories and related risks, and on the other, there was strong
opposition to the law by conservatives and churchmen who, for different reasons, feared impending state
monopoly in this matter. To insure rural workers would have meant political turmoil that neither socialists nor Catholics would have been pleased about. All these arguments are summarized by M. Ferrera,
Modelli di solidarietà. Politica e riforme sociali nelle democrazie, Bologna 1993, pp. 212-218.
48
S. Merli, Proletariato di fabbrica e capitalismo industriale. Il caso italiano: 1880-1900, Florence 1972,
pp. 350-352 explores the meaning of the 1893 law.
49
L. Gaeta, A. Viscomi, L’Italia e lo stato sociale, in Ritter, Storia dello stato Sociale, pp. 227-276. This
chapter has been added to the Italian edition of Ritter’s work.
50
In 1904, a reform of the 1893 Act was decided upon and an analysis of its achievements was attempted
(MAIC, Ufficio del Lavoro, I Probiviri industriali. Inchiesta per la riforma della legge 15 giugno 1893,
Rome, 1904).
51
Crispi’s reform of Opere pie and more generally the framework of his social legislation came to an end
when Act 328/2000 was enacted.
52
G. Gozzini, Povertà e Stato sociale: una proposta interpretativa in chiave di path dependence, in Zamagni
(ed.), Povertà e innovazioni istituzionali in Italia cit. pp. 587-610.
53
Federalismo fiscale fra autonomia e solidarietà, “Centroveneto”, 2003, 1. In addition to this collection of
essays collected and edited by T. Treu, see G. Marongiu, Storia dei tributi degli Enti locali (1861-2000),
Padua 2001.
54
See the Dossier Statistico Immigrazione, a cura di Caritas diocesana di Roma, Caritas Italiana e Fondazione Migrantes, Rome 2006.
55
Among potential answers to the questions raised, I find what Maurizio Ferrera has to say interesting
in his Welfare states and social safety nets in Southern Europe: an introduction, in M. Ferrera (ed.), Welfare state reform in Southern Europe: fighting poverty and social exclusion in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and
Greece, Oxford - New York 2005, pp. 1-33. Very important, too, is a recent collaborative analysis of
Italian welfare. It offers a complete overview of both collection and expenditure of resources in the
major fields of welfare: education, public health, work and retirement. The work adopts a European
perspective that enlightens the Italian case. See F. R. Pizzuti, Considerazioni di sintesi, in Rapporto sullo
stato sociale 2006. Welfare state e crescita economica, ed. F. R. Pizzuti, Novara 2006, pp. 3-23.
43
Bibliography
Adorni D., L’italia Crispina riforme e repressione 1887-1896, Milan 2002.
Alber J., Dalla carità allo stato sociale, Bologna 1987 (1982).
Alesina A., Glaeser E.L., Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe. A Word of Difference, Oxford 2004.
Allio R., Le origini delle società di mutuo soccorso in Italia, in Zamagni V. (ed.), Povertà e innovazioni istituzionali in Italia. Dal Medioevo ad oggi, Bologna 2000, pp. 487-502.
Barbieri A., Lo stato sociale in Francia. Dalle origini alla seconda guerra mondiale, Rome 1999.
Pathways to the Contemporary Italian Welfare State
41
Bartrip P. W. J., Workmen’s compensation in twentieth century Britain: law, history and social policy, Newcastle 1987.
Barr N., The Welfare State as Piggy Bank. Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State, Oxford
2003.
Bianchi F., Marekek S., Le riforme ospedaliere del Quattrocento in Italia e nell’Europa Centrale, in “Ricerche
di storia sociale e religiosa”, 2006, 69, pp. 7-45.
Black C.F., Italian Confraternities in the sixteenth century, Cambridge 1989.
Bressan E., Dalla carità al “Welfare State”, in Rumi G. (ed.), Vita civile degli italiani. Società, economia,
cultura materiale. Trasformazioni economiche, mutamenti sociali e nuovi miti collettivi 1920-1960, Milan
1991, pp. 106-117.
Cameron R., Neal L., Storia economica del mondo. Dalla preistoria ad oggi, Bologna, 2002 (1989).
Capek M.E.S., Mead M., Effective philanthropy: organizational success through deep diversity and gender
equality, Cambridge (MA) 2006.
Castelvetri L., Il diritto del lavoro delle origini, Milan 1994.
Cherubini A., Beneficenza e solidarietà. Assistenza pubblica e mutualismo operaio, 1860-1900, Milan 1991.
Id., Storia della previdenza sociale in Italia (1860-1960), Rome 1977.
Conti F., Silei G., Breve storia dello Stato sociale, Rome 2005.
Cosmacini G., Storia della medicina e della sanità in Italia. Dalla peste europea alla guerra mondiale. 13481918, Rome - Bari 1995.
De Rosa L., Storia delle Casse di Risparmio e della loro Associazione 1822-1950, Rome - Bari 2003.
Dossier Statistico Immigrazione, a cura di Caritas diocesana di Roma, Caritas Italiana e Fondazione Migrantes, Rome 2006.
Eastman C., Work-Accidents and the Law, New York 1969.
Ewald F., Histoire de l’État providence. Les origines de la solidarité, Paris 1996 (1986).
Farrell-Vinay G., Povertà e politica nell’Ottocento. Le opere pie nello Stato liberale, Turin 1997.
Federalismo fiscale fra autonomia e solidarietà, Treu T. (ed.), “Centroveneto”, 2003, 1.
Ferrera M., Le politiche sociali. L’Italia in prospettiva comparata, Bologna 2006.
Id., Welfare states and social safety nets in Southern Europe: an introduction, in Ferrera M. (ed.), Welfare state
reform in Southern Europe: fighting poverty and social exclusion in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, Oxford
- New York 2005, pp. 1-33.
Id., Modelli di solidarietà. Politica e riforme sociali nelle democrazie, Bologna 1993.
Franco D., L’espansione della spesa pubblica in Italia (1960-1990), Bologna 1993.
Friedman L.M., A history of American law, New York 1985.
Fumian C., La città del lavoro. Un’utopia agroindustriale nel Veneto industriale, Venice 1990.
Gaeta F., Villani P., Documenti e testimonianze, Milan 1977.
Gaeta L., Infortuni sul lavoro e responsabilità civile: alle origini del diritto del lavoro, Naples 1986.
Id., Viscomi A., L’Italia e lo stato sociale, in Ritter G.A. (ed.), Storia dello stato Sociale, Roma - Bari 2003
(1991), pp. 227-276.
Gauchet M., Diritti dell’uomo, in Furet F., Ozouf M. (eds.), Dizionario Critico della Rivoluzione Francese,
Milan 1989, pp. 613-623.
Geremeck B., La pietà e la forca. Storia della miseria e della carità in Europa, Bari 1986.
Gheza Fabbri L., Le società di mutuo soccorso italiane nel contesto europeo fra XIX e XX secolo, in Povertà e
innovazioni istituzionali in Italia cit., pp. 503-528.
Work and Welfare Reconsidered
42
Giovanni Silvano
Girotti F., Welfare state. Storia, modelli e critica, Rome 1998.
Gozzini G., Il segreto dell’elemosina. Poveri e carità legale a Firenze 1800-1870, Florence 1993.
Id., Povertà e Stato sociale: una proposta interpretativa in chiave di path dependance, in Povertà e innovazioni
istituzionali in Italia cit., pp. 587-610.
Hammack D.C., Young D. R., Perspectives on Nonprofits in the Market-place, in Nonprofit Organizations in
a Market Economy, San Francisco 1993.
Hill C., La formazione della potenza inglese. Dal 1530 al 1780, Turin 1977 (1967).
Id., I Probiviri industriali. Inchiesta per la riforma della legge 15 giugno 1893, Rome 1904.
Id., Il valore della lira dal 1861 al 2000, Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, Rome 2001.
Jefferson T., Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Peden W., New York - London 1954.
Lanaro S., Nazione e Lavoro. Saggio sulla cultura borghese in Italia 1870-1925, Venice 1988.
Marongiu G., Storia dei tributi degli Enti locali (1861-2000), Padua 2001.
Marucco D., Lavoro e previdenza dall’unità al fascismo. Il Consiglio della Previdenza dal 1869 al 1923,
Milan 1984.
Massimario della giurisprudenza dei probiviri, introduzione, ordinamento e chiose di E. Redenti, Rome 1906.
Merli S., Proletariato di fabbrica e capitalismo industriale. Il caso italiano: 1880-1900, Florence 1972.
Pullan B.S., Good Government and Christian Charity in Early Modern Italy, in Critchlow D.T., Parker
C.H. (eds.), With us always: a history of private charity and public welfare, Lanham 1998.
Rapporto sullo stato sociale 2006. Welfare state e crescita economica, ed. Pizzuti F.R., Novara 2006.
Ricci G., Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe 1500-1700, London - New York 1999.
Ritter G.A., Storia dello Stato sociale, Rome - Bari 2003 (1991).
Salamon L. M., The Resilient Sector: The State of Nonprofit America, in Salamon L.M. (ed.), The State of
Nonprofit America, Washington D. C. 2002, pp. 3-61.
Sarpellon G., I principali risultati dell’indagine sui servizi, in Sarpellon G. (ed.), Chiesa e solidarietà sociale,
Turin 2002, pp. 9-44.
Silvano G., Giuseppe Mazzini e il movimento cooperativo italiano: fiscalità, credito e lavoro, in Berti G. (ed.), L’eredità di Giuseppe Mazzini. La democrazia tra coscienza nazionale e coscienza europea, Padua 2006, pp. 97-113.
Id., A beneficio dei poveri. Il Monte di pietà di Padova tra pubblico e privato (1491-1600), Bologna 2005.
Id., Handicap e storia. Tabù, pietà, integrazione e risposta sociale, in Tessari P. (ed.), Disabili e Abili. Manuale
per educatori professionali, Padua 2005, pp. 45-55.
Id., Tra passato e futuro: sussidiarietà e solidarietà in una società in trasformazione, in Silvano G. (ed.), Sussidiarietà e solidarietà in una società in trasformazione, “Quaderni di Centroveneto”, 2002, 2, pp. 64-76.
Smith R.E., Zietz D., American Social Welfare Institutions, New York - London 1970.
The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, I, ed. Quinn M., Oxford 2001.
Statistica delle società di mutuo soccorso, Regia Tipografia, Rome 1875.
The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, Flora P., Heidenheimer A. J. (eds.), New Brunswick (NJ) 1981.
Titmuss R.M., Social Policy, London 1974.
Zamagni V., Dalla periferia al centro. La seconda rinascita economica dell’Italia (1861-1990), Bologna 1993.
Zangheri R., Storia del movimento cooperativo in Italia. La lega nazionale delle cooperative e mutue (18861986), Turin 1987.