ON THE POWER OF WEALTH

Andrea Pitasi

On the Power of Wealth. The Allocative Function of Law and Information Asymmetry in the

Evolutionary Systemic Strategies of the Knowledge Based Economy

Andrea Pitasi

Working Paper n.36

C.I.R.S.D.I.G Centro Interuniversitario per le ricerche

sulla Sociologia del Diritto, dell’informazione e delle

Istituzioni Giuridiche

Quaderni della Sezione : Diritto e Comunicazioni Sociali

www.cirsdig.it

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MESSINA

Facoltà di Scienze Politiche

Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica,

Matematica e Sociologia “Pareto”

CIRSDIG – Working Paper n. 36

2

Il Centro interuniversitario per le Ricerche sulla sociologia del diritto,

dell’informazione e delle istituzioni giuridiche (C.I.R.S.D.I.G.) con questi working paper intende proporre i risultati dei lavori svolti nell’ambito delle ricerche sia metodologiche

che applicative nel campo della sociologia del diritto, dell’informazione e delle istituzioni giuridiche. Tale centro è stato costituito dalle Università di Messina e di Macerata al fine di stimolare attività indirizzate alla formazione dei ricercatori ed

anche per favorire lo scambio d’informazioni e materiali nel quadro di collaborazioni con altri Istituti o Dipartimenti universitari, con Organismi di ricerca nazionali o

internazionali. I paper pubblicati sono sottoposti ad un processo di peer-reviewing ad opera di esperti internazionali. Direzione scientifica: proff. D. Carzo e A. Febbrajo.

Comitato scientifico dei “Quaderni del Cirsdig”

Prof. Roque Carriòn-Wam, Università di Carabobo (Venezuela) Prof. Domenico Carzo (Università di Messina)

Prof. Alberto Febbrajo (Università di Macerata) Prof. Mauricio Garcia-Villegas, Università Nazionale di Bogotà (Colombia)

Prof. Mario Morcellini (Università di Roma “La Sapienza”) Prof. Edgar Morin, École des HautesÉtudes en SciencesSociales (France)

Prof. Valerio Pocar (Università di Milano “Bicocca”) Prof. Marcello Strazzeri (Università di Lecce)

Comitato redazionale:

Maria Rita Bartolomei (Università di Macerata)

Marco Centorrino (Università di Messina)

Roberta Dameno (Università di Milano Bicocca)

Pietro Saitta (Università di Messina)

Angelo Salento (Università di Lecce) Elena Valentini

(Università di Roma “La Sapienza”)

Massimiliano Verga (Università di Milano Bicocca)

Segreteria di redazione:

Antonia Cava (Università di Messina)

Mariagrazia Salvo (Università di Messina)

Andrea Pitasi

Abstract

This essay is a revised and updated version of a paper presented at a seminar held by the author as a keynote speaker on April 22, 2008 in Pescara at the “Dipartimento di Studi Aziendali” of the “G. d'Annunzio” University. The work provides several theoretical hints toward a sociological analysis of the Knowledge Based Economy by using the following conceptual tools: System Theory, Law & Economics approach, the Information Asymmetry Model by Akerlof and Stigliz, Schumpeter’s sociological and economical analysis of business cycles and innovation strategies; Rogers’ Model to describe the Diffusion of Innovations and Williamson’s transactional costs and some methodological notes to evolve a computer supported simulation model in a constructivist mood to analyze the evolutionary trends of a Knowledge Based Economy, by using examples multi-dimensionally coevolving on a micro-macro-meso link. The exemplary simulation case is focused on the opportunity, for an Italian entrepreneur, to delocalize or re-localize a business.

Questo saggio è una versione riveduta e aggiornata di un paper presentato dall’autore come keynote speaker ad un seminario tenutosi il 22 Aprile 2008 a Pescara presso il “Dipartimento di Studi Aziendali” dell’Università “G. D’Annunzio”. Il lavoro fornisce alcuni spunti teorici per un’analisi sociologica della Knowledge Based Economy, utilizzando i seguenti strumenti concettuali: la Teoria dei Sistemi, l’approccio Law and Economics, il modello dell’Asimmetria informativa di Akerlof e Stigliz, l’analisi sociologica ed economica dei cicli imprenditoriali e delle strategie d’innovazione di Schumpeter, il modello di Diffusione dell’Innovazione di Rogers e i costi transazionali di Williamson, ed alcune note metodologiche per evolvere un modello di simulazione a computer secondo la logica costruttivista per analizzare i trend evolutivi di una Knowledge Based Economy, usando esempi che colleghino i livelli micro-macro-meso. Il caso esemplificativo considerato e presentato è focalizzato sull’opportunità per un imprenditore italiano di delocalizzare o rilocalizzare il proprio business.

Andrea Pitasi

4

Contents

1. Intoduction, p. 5

2. Micro-Meso Approaches: A Proposal, p. 8 3. Being Rich Leads to Glory?, p. 15 4. Quadrilogy, p. 20 References, p. 32


5

On the Power of Wealth. The Allocative Function of Law and Information Asymmetry in the Evolutionary Systemic Strategies of the Knowledge Based Economy Andrea Pitasi

1. Introduction

his work provides several theoretical hints toward a sociological analysis of the Knowledge Based Economy considering key theoretical foundations: a) System Theory mostly read though Laszlo’s and Luhmann’s

works; b) Law & Economics approach especially according to D. D.

Friedman theories: c) the Information Asymmetry Model by Akerlof and Stigliz; d) Schumpeter’s sociological and economical analysis of business

cycles and innovation strategies; e) E. M. Rogers’ Model to describe the Diffusion of Innovations f) Williamson’s transactional costs. g) the epistemological pillars of the algorithmic theory of

knowledge, information and complexity. My paper is essential theoretical but it also provides some

methodological notes to evolve a computer supported simulation model in a constructivist mood; this model is aimed to analyze the evolutionary trends of a knowledge based economy by using examples multi-dimensionally coevolving on a micro-macro-meso link.

The exemplary simulation case is focused on the opportunity to delocalize or re-localize a business. In our hypothetic case, an Italian entrepreneur is trying to assess whether delocalize somewhere else, eventually wondering where.

The first question the entrepreneur (from our entrepreneur’s point of view of who uses the “tunnel vision”, well deployed by Seabright (2005)) has to confront is a “modal” type of question, in order to esteem at which conditions delocalizing and re-localizing his business could be a successful choice. So he has to be able to ask himself “where”.

From an Italian entrepreneur’s point of view, it must be considered that the Italian economy is nowadays strongly and more often Keynesian-like and statehood-like (Bruni, Zamagni, 2004; Sacconi, 1997). As testified by recent developments on such issues as

T

Andrea Pitasi

6

civil economy, CSR, social audit, this represents an advantage for the entrepreneur on the economic ground; whether right or wrong could it be on the moral or political stage, inasmuch as he considers his own activity as a mere induced activity of public policies, thus being drag by the state.

Technically, by acting in such a way he does not create an entrepreneurial activity, nor any venture capital (belonging to him or not) and so he make a prudential public management policy and he invests his savings and revenues in government securities and fixed assets like every other wealthy saver, rather than a real entrepreneur.

If, on the contrary, he acts like an entrepreneur, then such a huge Keynesian economy represents a “bureaucratization” that leads to enormously increase the Williamson costs (http://cepa.newschool.edu/ het/profiles/williamson.htm). Williamson’s theory states that every organization of any kind (public, business oriented or not for profit) copes with three types of costs for the simple reason that it exists. The costs are labeled by Williamson as contract ones, economic ones and organizational ones. An example of contract costs is the choice of an organization to insource or outsource a service the organization needs, the best example of economic cost is the concept of price while pivotal examples of organizational costs are the wastes of times and of space (too much undesired and unexpected).

Furthermore, the present Italian legal system, should need not only a higher transparency, flexibility and administrative simplification, listening to the citizens’ needs (Rovinetti, 2006a; Rovinetti, 2006b), but above all it needs a simple regulation which could admit, though some due modal prudence, all those research procedures transversal to the “knowledge based economy”, without which none of the Italian firms could accede to a blue ocean.

The risk for the Italian entrepreneur lies in the fact that, if he does not delocalize, he will find himself producing at a high cost both trivial and expensive products that (rather) everybody could produce elsewhere at a sensibly lower cost. That will lead him to ask the government to implement some protectionist - “localistic” policies that contribute to increase Williamson’s costs. Thus making him even less competitive and exposing him to risk according to the principle of the judicial reciprocity by virtue of which the country (let us suppose China or Japan) whose products Italian government has applied a protectionist system to (a system made up by customs quotas and characterized by a high taxation for imports), it can apply the same rules towards Italian products (already less competitive because very expensive and very little knowledge intensive).

Of course we could “appeal” to the Italian brands , but who can really believe in it? Not for a lack of quality, but because the so called “made in Italy” is nowadays in a “red ocean” not in the blue one (Chan Kim, Mauborgne, 2005).


7

Therefore, the fact of providing illusionist localistic and protectionist like solutions facing the threats of globalization, may reveal itself risky and dangerous in the meanwhile. It is risky because they expose social actors (both macro and micro ones) to decisional choices which will probably reveal implosive; it is dangerous because they would create an effect of political-juridical fiction on the ground of external environment.

This effect is able to bring to collapse the same context they were supposed to protect (as if, in that “micro-context”, everybody would ride a “tricycle” while the rest of the mankind would be arranging “teletransfert” system, while the political class would have been already provided of it, even though it keeps praising the tricycle in public, in order to control its own citizens).

A cliff cannot stop the ocean, whereas a rock could simply hide the sight of those who lie under the shadow: since they cannot see the ocean, therefore, they could fail in seizing its rich opportunities, and in the meanwhile they would find themselves under shelter if the wages of the ocean would seriously rise.

If, on one hand, delocalizing for the mere purpose of cutting down Williamson’s costs could then be harmful for the consumption multiplier and it is extremely probable, on the contrary, that “localistic”- protectionist policies would actually isolate that micro context, even to such an extent that will make it become a producer of “low knowledge” and “high costs” goods with the only effect to cause an imposition of both import (due to protectionism) and export (for the principle of juridical reciprocity) as well as for the fact that nobody would ever purchase trivial items paying them a lot.

This is a lesson the Italian entrepreneurial class cannot learn: i.e. the strategic-evolutionary challenge is based on radical process innovation, above all technological and highly “user friendly” and “idiot-proof”, whereas incremental innovations can at least offer useful medium-short term tactical sabotages, that do not represent, however, real strategies, especially in a recessive economy, such as the present, domestic one.

My hypothesis on the subject is that the choice about localization and re-localization ought to be analyzed according to each case. Namely, when it will show up to the eyes of our entrepreneur (who will be, in our example, a knowledge intensive one, embedded in the global knowledge based economy) that it will be a choice driven by the chance to cut down the economic, organizational and contractual costs (generally defined as transactional costs or Williamson’s costs), due to his own activity.

The present, clearly cost downsizing oriented choice could appear successful on the short-middle term, but it could actually generate implosive side effects for the consumption multiplier, whereas, according to my opinion, apart from some extreme exceptions, in probabilistic terms, the above-mentioned choice can lead to a

Andrea Pitasi

8

successful performance if it resets the business, pushing it towards a blue ocean. This can be achieved by an innovative process with a high added value, through a strategic usage of a technological development, thus also depending on the type of judicial system adopted in a specific context rather than another, according to the “law shopping” logic (Galgano, 2005).

2. Micro-Meso Approaches: A Proposal When an entrepreneur is deciding whether delocalizing or

localizing his own business, he is acting at least on three levels: a) decision- making processes (micro level); b) strategic maps (macro level) of the complex organizations (public, private or non-profit ones) in some direct or indirect way involved in his only initially micro choice; c) Analysis of global scenarios (meso level) with relative

evolutionary trends. A theoretic and integrated micro-macro-meso approach is the

subject of one of my projects since when, in 1998 a visiting professorship at the University of Huston Downtown provided me some interesting inputs to implement a project for a “decision support” software among Texas, Bavaria and Campania, that took the form of CHRP 512 AS, that I personally created and implemented thanks to a 420.000 euro PON, in the period 2003-2005 (http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/projects/pitasi/). These pages summarize the main issues of a “quadrilogy” that began with Universi Paralleli (Pitasi, 2003), followed by the volume Sfide del nostro tempo (Pitasi, 2007) and by Unseimiliardesimo di umanità (Pitasi, 2008) which is actually the second one, followed by Sfide del nostro tempo. The forthcoming volume, co-authored by Emilia Ferone, is entitled Il tempo zero del desiderio (Pitasi & Ferone, 2008).

The entrepreneur, who is still deciding whether delocalizing or not is being inserting his decision making process into a complex micro- macro- meso dynamics which would imply a multivariate analysis in order to be adequately understood and supported by a strong “evolutionary algorithm”, as it would be defined by D.C. Dennet (2004a; 2004b).

Well aware of the complexity of our hypothetic entrepreneur’s decision, I would like to consider one particular aspect among the ones embedded in the decisional micro- macro- meso project: the allocative function of law in a global catalogue of law shopping.

A peculiar aspect in the entrepreneur’s decision consists in the type of juridical system adopted in the country where he would like to delocalize in and in the juridical system in force in the country where he would eventually re-localize in. Thus, also considering that he might asses different hypothesis of re-localization, for instance China, India,


9

Brazil, Panama or Russia, therefore finding himself facing a comparison among those juridical systems according to his own business.

For this reason, an “economic” evaluation of law, in the frame of the Law and Economics tradition (Friedman, 2004) (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ Academic.html), whose David Friedman can nowadays be considered one of the world leaders, represents a fundamental meeting point between law and economics. Though I would like to underline that I am studying this sort of match as a sociologist of law interested in economics, not as an economist.

I am going to show that this simple aspect of the allocative function of law already holds a variety of interdisciplinary dimensions which need a theoretical systemic approach (according to Luhmann 1990a and 1990b, through the system/environment paradigm) in order to be adequately understood, as well as an epistemology aware of the fact that the concrete actions of micro actors and macro organizations have more to do with the criteria through which actors and organizations observe, mould, model and “invent” the world, rather that the way the world has been made by itself.

From von Bertanlaffy’s studies (http://www.isss.org/lumLVB.htm) in biology, to Wiener and Ashby’s works (http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/pdf/3116.PDF) to the foundation of the first cybernetics, from Buckely‘s pages on the information theories to those by von Foerster (http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/rassegna/021005c.htm) for the development of a second order cybernetics, from Luhmann’s sociology to Laszlo’s olographic scope, from the studies on the science of the organization by Crozier and Friedberg (http://necsi.org/events/iccs/openconf/author/papers /f769.pdf) to the epistemic remarks by Delattre, the System Theory has been one of the main intellectual characters of the XX century, and, at the dawn of the third millennium, it has been confirmed as a strong conceptual instrument for the socio- economic development of humankind.

Delattre himself wrote that System Theory aims to impact on the fading of knowledge, as well as to develop a methodology able to face the challenges of complexity, focusing on a new synthesis of “pieces of knowledge”, following a unity principle, necessarily different from those used before, because it must be adequate to other levels of learning (Delattre, 1984, p. 3-5).

According to this view, the System Theory has revealed itself as a powerful concept model, also for its evolutionary and adaptable flexibility, for example trough the so- called “paradigm shift”, by a logic “whole/ parts” to a system/environment one.

The theory reveals its “heuristic” strength in the creation of an interdisciplinary conceptual modeling tools, which are fundamental for the implementation of global scenario analysis, e.g. evolutionary strategies of an adequate predictable equipment on a probabilistic basis and tactical-operative problem solving interventions which made it

Andrea Pitasi

10

suitable to be applied even in less technical versions such as the one implemented by Paul Watzlawick and his assistants (Nardone, Watzlawick, 1997; Ford, Lerner, 1995). The System Theory, being evolutionary (as well as testified by Ford and Lerner’s wonderful works) is suitable to be used to create evolutionary “glocal” models able to manage the complex dynamics of globalization and localization, of integration and differentiation that characterize the self- organized evolution of the living society. As Delattre (1984) himself wisely affirms “the interdisciplinary feature of the System Theory implies the study of and the comparison among the methods and concepts used in different fields in order to isolate the common background able to build the structure of a quite unified […] language; every language must be formalized whether it could be possible, which means that its internal combination rules have to be sufficiently precise to erase every possible ambiguity” (p. 15-16).

My own analytic perspective is very focused and open to interdisciplinary contributions, that could provide Kuhnian revolutions and Schumpeter-like radical innovations, which should be able to face the evolutionary challenges of the complexity of the present global scenarios, rich of crucial choices to be made and of bifurcations (e.g.: whether to keep having a petrol based economy or implementing alternative sources of energy; that are typical of our times and towards which the most tragic and worst decisions would be not deciding at all. That is the reason why the theory of “autopoietic” self-referential systems and constructive epistemology represent the founding premises for a new interpretation of the so called “economic rationality” that in some way leads the decisions made by our hypothetic entrepreneur. I would like to remark that, as soon as a matching point between law and economics is traced, some sociological variables show up in decision- making process of the above mentioned entrepreneur.

I think that the organization-evolutionary logic of the “homo aeconomicus” has been over dimensioned until Herbert Simon (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/ laureates/1978/) wisely suggested us to be a little bit more careful, though I think that nowadays we have been moving to the opposite extreme, thus underestimating that logic because of an excessive minimalist anthropology, too focused on the symbols of the dynamics ruling among politics, religion and common sense, with a political campaign- like approach to science!

Recalling our hypothetic entrepreneur, he is involved in a micro decision-making process, though with some non-linear macro and meso “follows up”, upon whether delocalize or not, and, in case of an affirmative option, where he will delocalize among the N available alternatives. Anyway, while he is evaluating these (according to him) economic aspects, he realizes that he is also weighing up some non-economic or even partially economic issues, always through an economic filter. For instance, those issues could refer to the law, I force,


11

of another country that allows or forbids the core business of his firm. Let us suppose he is in the field of the “bio- economics”, according to Stan Davis’s approach (Meyer & Davis, 2003): he would probably re-localize in the United Kingdom, Spain or Far East, but not in France or Italy. Otherwise the matter could concern some sociological, socio-cultural or religious issues, such as the myth of the “dormant child” of the Berber culture (for the socio-cultural explanations of that myth see Castellano, 2007): who would ever re-localize in a Country where a female employee can legally get a maternity leave with a valid doctor’s note, for, let us suppose, a 30 years- period?

The multidimensional complexity of this theme (i.e. the allocative function of law in the “knowledge based economy”) immediately suggests us the importance of a systemic interpretation in order to reach an interdisciplinary approach to the strategic analysis of the decisional process and the scenarios in which the System Theory reveals itself as an interdisciplinary “meeting place” through an epistemology based on the systemic- olistic constructivism. This concept represents the “prelude” for a theory of complex, evolutionary systems which differs from the others through a “system/environment” paradigm whose methodological set up consists in implementing conceptual models for simulation software, technically ruled on simulation by agents (Terna et al., 2006), such modeling techniques, with a high level of applicability, extensibility and “ostensibility”, also suitable for the theoretic experimental research.

According to this approach, it is important to remind that the mechanical reductionism does not represent the dialectic antithesis to the holism, but rather one of its operative tools (Normann, 1987, p.18).

Obviously, our hypothetic entrepreneur is not used to the System Theory, constructivism and simulation models with agents and maybe he is not too much appealed by them, though they represent implicit “know how” in its decisional process and the fact that he is not concerned of them it is not a positive point at all, since it could leave him facing either bad or good luck.

Therefore, he needs to understand in which moment he owns adequate information, knowledge and know how to implement a certain decision and when, on the contrary, he does not, for this reason he should well manage the concept of information asymmetry that gave Stiglitz and Akerloff the Noble prize (http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/, http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~akerlof/) as well as learn the concept of Williamson’s costs, in order to distinguish among real efficacy and efficiency.

This entrepreneur would be then able to adopt my CHRP 512 AS software, in order to value his way to make decisions from a “micro” perspective.

The conceptual software model that I conceived is based on nine binary 0/1 codes:

Andrea Pitasi

12

1. Adventure/ not adventure: life itself becomes an adventure, an energetic island of real-life stories without a logical or chronological sequence, activated and deactivated by an energetic charge with variable intensity; 2. Stranger/ not stranger: the observer is the one who is involved in a context, but who also knows that that context is contingent, especially for his biography; 3. Complexity/ not complexity: the variety of the possibilities is beyond the opportunities of an intersystem connection, so selectivity becomes necessary; 4. Construction/ not construction: the observer knows that he cannot catch the “noumenic” reality and that he just can catch the phenomenal one granted by his specific self-reference; 5. Hedonism/not hedonism: the action of observing eliminates each possible way to suffering from a self-referential point of view, and so it creates a pleasure that consists in the absence of pain. Let us make the example of a would be pilot who joins a course to learn to fly. His training would probably start with some theoretical seminars and then some simulated flights by pc. The simulations would not be enough to learn how to fly but after them the pilot would feel more confident, less under pressure and happier to learn thus the simulation programs would reduce the, broadly speaking, “pain” (stress, anxiety , anguish, panic etc. of the would pilot); 6. Relativism/not relativism: the observer knows that his point of view is relative but he also knows that he is the center of his own world, his microsphere, that he is a contingence between the others contingences. The observer also knows that his “reality” is contextual, but he can’t model the context, he just can choose a context that is more faithful to his self-reference. 7. Pragmatism/ not pragmatism: the observer knows that what is possible is extremely implosive without a suitable decision strategy that allows him to decide what can not be decided, and that this decision is based on the functional truth of the cashvalue. 8. Order/disorder: like in the well known Bateson’s metalogo, the observer stairs at an indefinite horizon of possible orders and at an almost infinite number of possible disorders. The matter is that what is order from a contingent point of view, for the observer it is a completely normal improbability; so the observer’ self-reference generates an order that is always reversible, contingent and improbable. 9. Self consciousness/not self consciousness: the observes acts on different levels of reality, in a way that is functional to his self-consciousness of his specific combination of multiple intelligences that could have led to a field of proliferation of the


13

decisional styles, made up on 512 (the number put in the name of the software, see Pitasi, 2003) from 000000000 a 111111111. Having acquired more consciousness of his own decisional style

and of his “micro” level, he can measure himself, with a higher strategic pragmatism, with the “macro” level of the complex organizations which could need a strategic map to be read. That map would be made up of a circular flow called KWF (Knowledge and Wealth Flow), that also represents a know- how packet, specifically thought for globalization scenarios of the local (“glocalized”) realities. Those scenarios became, in fact, explicitly dominant since when, on July 1997, Hong Kong returned to China and Deng Xiao Ping could afford to say that “becoming” rich brings the “glory”.

The KWF represents an evolutionary system that that would be able to become, in the future, a post- human evolutionary software. It is built up by 8 steps of the evolutionary system, so far still defined as “Knowledge Wealth Flow” (KWF):

1. Knowledge (K); 2. Know how procedures (KHP); 3. Juridical forms of intellectual property (JFoIP); 4. Communication strategies (CS); 5. Trendsetting (T); 6. Eduinfotainment (E); 7. Evaluation and measurement of the produced wealth

(EaMotPW); 8. Strategic wealth construction (SWC).

Andrea Pitasi

14

Figure 1. Knowledge and Wealth Flow

The KWF has been conceived bearing in mind that in a market

economy the employment range reflects the amount of information available. We have already learned that low tech and low concept mass production is getting to be reallocated in the Far East and, in secondarily, in Eastern Europe, on this side through the double strategic/availability level and that USA and UK can rely on another brand equity intellectual property law, at his turn upheld by a high bent for high tech and high risk investment within a legal frame. Notwithstanding religious lobbies, this frame is quite tolerant, pluralist and flexible, and follows common neo-pragmatic criteria of common law, open to social change and founded on a second generation Law and Economics conception of the rule, as brilliantly illustrated by David D. Friedman, Gary Minda (http://www.brooklaw.edu/faculty/profile/?page=104) and above all by Gary S. Becker (http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/).


15

3. Being Rich Leads to Glory? The already mentioned Law and Economics (L&E) approach,

derived from a complex and charming re-actualized view by Beccaria and Bentham, stresses the fact that will is the real engine of the creation of social and juridical norms, which are rational instruments for the achievement of a target (of will). This model chases away the illusion of the first best in the information asymmetry: quality and amount of information perceived as evolutionary bounds; for example, how much petrol is still available? Formally, there is no lack of data, but who does control the controller in the process of building of data – crucial but not new issue?

The control system in culture in general and in science in particular does exist and works through the so-called St. Matthew effect, the 20% paretian and the cumulative advantage played on inequality.

These three aspects underline that a virtuous circle does exist, a sort of self-fulfilled prophecy, thanks to which the more an author is quoted, the more he will be cited, the more awards he has been obtaining, the more he still will be getting, and so on, thus working in the same way in the opposite case, according to which the less an author is quoted, the faster he will be forgotten. It could be argued that the fact that an author is not quoted that often does not prove the quality and reliability and the effective value of its work, though an author is recognized as author itself…according to the legal, juridical and intellectual property framework, as well as according to the fact that the social sharing (i.e. publication) of its own work reinforces him in terms of social rules.

However, it is necessary to remind, as wisely suggested by Natalino Irti (2004) in his book Juridical Nihilism (p. 34-36), that, since nothing can be judged as true, false, good or bad, the rule consists of the way it shows its effectiveness in the best way, i.e. in the strongest way; if the law does not express other that a provisory disposition, it is created to be unattended or imposed.

The paretian 20%, the St. Mathew effect and the cumulative advantage, certified and codified by the intellectual property, which is the legal, juridical and social framework (according to Irti’s sense), lead to focus our attention on the author (being a scientist or an artist) whose work and identity are becoming a global brand, a brand equity, the will of which imposes itself on editors, readers, society tout court. From the second half of the XVIII century, the right on the intellectual property set in the middle the specific field of copyrights, at least in the northern American capitalist model that developed in a faster and stronger way that in the European model.

In order to let the author express his own even juridical will on a social ground, it is necessary for him to become a global brand and it needs that the KWF procedure - once having defined the indicators and

Andrea Pitasi

16

functional variables for each phase – will become an evolutionary -cognitive software to put on a system the author as a brand equity in a strategic way.

Concretely, the KWF procedure sets forth the following goals: 1. To turn the author into an entrepreneur of himself, thus also becoming his own editor and editing policymaker ; 2. To offer to the author those tools defined as: self-management, self marketing and “eduinfotainment” toolkit able to let his work reach to a wider number of readers; 3. To legally guard not only the specific copyright, but also the intellectual property tout court of his own work, being an author-entrepreneur. 4. To offer to the author the adequate know how to manage the technological platforms and supports of linguistic competence able to globalize. 5. To offer to the author an economic and finance know how in order to develop an adequate asset management of his own intangible assets. From the last mentioned point of view, in particular, it could be

possible for the author to adopt a model of Williamson’s transactional costs, to reduce the wastes, generating added value.

Let us go back to a little story that conditioned these years far more than what one can think and that media has often eventually reported during.

It is a matter that enhance political, juridical, economic and social implications and begins, or at least seems to have its own visibility, on July 1st 1997, the day in which Hong Kong went back to China and the XXI century starts. That day, the Mao Tze Tung’s heir, Deng Xiao Ping, affirmed that, as said above, “being rich leads to glory”. If that statement had been made by a business man it would have sounded obvious, whereas, said by a communist Chinese leader to more or less a billion and half people, it has got a quite different meaning. From that moment onward, a detailed strategy has been carried on, in order to reduce the economic importance of Hong Kong and to create cities, historically Chinese, economically as strong as Hong Kong. The most famous city is now Shentzen, a town arranged to be a place apt to welcome the world business. Now China is constantly on newspapers cover pages though the core of the matter is not the commercial competition but, the organizational level required by Western Countries to reproduce its own economic asset.

I will make an example out of the common sense. As soon as a northern Italy furniture producer introduces in the market a new model, it will be “cloned” and sold at lower prices. Therefore, even if the Italian product is better, the Chinese cloned-price relation is better. This is, at least, the common opinion, supported and widespread by not


17

specialized media. The matter that stands behind is the one referred to the strategic knowledge.

The paradox point is that the economic take off of China and (India), as well as the economic recovering of Japan, could be the engine of the overall development, against what public opinion can state, thus dragging with the USA (Siegel, 2005, p. 222) and then Europe, otherwise condemned to be, during XXI and XXII centuries, what Africa has represented for XX century, i.e. a bargain for global development.

According to J.J. Siegel’s words (http://www.jeremysiegel.com/): “The goods will be produced and the assets will be bought by the workers and investors of the developing world. I call this the global solution” (Siegel, 2005, p. 15). For a wider representation of KWF please see the second volume of my tetralogy (Pitasi, 2008).

At this point, our hypothetic entrepreneur finds himself facing some further steps:

a) Understanding whether delocalizing can lead him to a blue ocean (http://economiaemanagement. corriere.it/dynuni/dyn/Segnalibro/Etas/Kim_OceanoBlu.jht and also http://www.projectgroup.it/ conoscenze_metodologie/Strategia_oceano_blu.pdf) where his competitive advantage and his own value added would be unassailable as long as it would be possible.

b) By using Rogers’ model (Pitasi, 2007) in order to understand how long the above mentioned “as long as possible” period may last in reality, we have to remind that S=R/W (where S=Speed; R=Rogers’ model and W=Williamson’s costs), that is that Rogers’s model, becomes as much faster as much lower get the Williamson’s costs (W) cited above, while, as obvious, as costs (W) rise, R will slow down. Therefore, it is convenient for our entrepreneur to accelerate R, lifting W of his direct or indirect competitors, for example through lobbyist logics.

Andrea Pitasi

18

Figure 2. Rogers model updated (Pitasi, 2007).

c) Understanding whether delocalization is a mere, though

appreciable, reduction of his W costs or it has got an extremely high added value in terms of radical innovation and re-configuration, according to Richard Normann (2002) sense (http://www.reply-mc.com/category/richard-normann/) of his own business.

d) Understanding the way this eventual re-configuration in blue ocean, through a radical innovation in terms of process (probably in its technological variation), sets our hypothetical entrepreneur in


19

comparison to the crucial bifurcations in force in the present age, of which he is more or less aware. These bifurcations have been showed in the book Sfide del nostro tempo (Pitasi, 2007), trough the metaphor of the sport board as a premise to the evolutionary algorithm, reported as follows:

Table. 1. “Backboard” of the evolutionary algorithm (Pitasi, 2007)

“BACKBOARD” OF THE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM (PITASI, 2007)

Quart finals Quart finals Semifinals Finals Champion

Oil rule A1 Nuclear blended rule A2 Universal technological platforms B1 Local ideological – theocratic orders B2 Blood and territory logic C1 Telecommunications and bioengineering logic of satellites C2

Function of law as “natural” and gradual selector of administrative routine D1

Function of law as artificial selector of Kuhnian – like revolutionary D2

Law as a global technological platform E1 Law as global “shopping” catalogue E2 Natural increase of ethnic variety F1 Bioengineering increase of artificial speciation F2

Strategic and programmed management of the function R= (f) T on a probabilistic base G1

Fatalistic management of the function R=(f) T G2

Evolutionary policymaking H1 Politics administration H2

e) Even from an implicit level of know how, and with his

delocalization action, he would find himself in blue ocean with a high level of technological innovation, at the core of his economic development theory and of the Schumpeterian cycles. In particular, he would find himself, in the meanwhile, as the test driver and the test- animal, of an eventual third- type Schumpeterian cycle, which I am going to discuss about.

Andrea Pitasi

20

4. Quadrilogy

Without keeping any naïve pretensions of orthodoxy, not the

whole Schumpeterian thought can be nowadays applicable and “enhanceable” (let us think, for example, about a certain ingenuousness in the conceptualization of the analysis of the economic needs in the economic theory, see Schumpeter (2002, p. 8). Nevertheless, Schumpeter represents the sole economic researcher - before the economic science acquired experimental and cognitive configurations – that it is worth to study to understand the social evolution, since it represents the only economic theory that has survived to the end of both the utopian pure monetarism and the clumsy and often implosive Keynesian and neo- Keynesian theories.

Common sense beliefs and journalistic approaches to economics mostly consider the current economical –financial crisis mostly depending on speculative bubbles and this analysis is correct but what common sense beliefs usually do not consider is that these bubbles are of two kinds one typically financial(Enron, Lehmann Brothers etc.) and the other typically based on an overload of nominal rights promised without adequate economic resources. From this point of view the right to own home thus to buy one’s own house inspired the changes to the1977 Community Reinvestment Act (http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/) submitted by a Committee to the Congress and then approved under Bill Clinton’s presidential time was a strong pro welfare reform which started up the trendsetting towards the 2004 sub-prime bubble as it exposed the bank system to risks which according to the 1995 reform were some way in care of the US Federal State. As we know from the most prominent financial analysts (Pring, 2002, for example) business cycle of this kind requires between 7 and 9 years to make the bubble explode and the time gap between 1995 and 2004 is 9 years by the way.

Moreover, the Schumpeterian theory offers an important way of interpretation also for the selective evolution of the social élites and, though not having exclusively made reference to the radical technological innovation, it sees in this innovation a real criterion to make a difference, which is the economic multiplier, and the critical point between success and failure of a possible selection.

If we simplify the Schumpeter’s thought, the economic development, according to the scholar, comes from the introduction of new combinations which follow the case history- board showed below:

a. production of a new product; b. introduction of a new product method; c. the opening of a new market; d. the achievement of new sources of procurement; e. the re-arrangement or destruction of whatever monopolistic industry with the awareness that, metaphorically speaking, “It is


21

not the owner of the stagecoach to introduce the railways” (therein). The relevance to the present and the power of the Schumpeterian

theory are evident in several scholar’s works, such as the book edited by Riccardo Viale (2005) and his équipe (info on it: http://www.sociologiadip.unimib.it/dipartimento/ricerca/scheda.php?idUser=33) represents a fundamental witness of the revolution of the paradigm at present in force in economics (Viale, 2005, p. 9). He gives an idea of a more human and multidimensional economics, though it appears to be untimely to declare the death of the Homo aeconomicus: he is evolving in a Schumpeterian sense, not dying.

Viale states that the evolutionary economists have submitted two principal models of the Schumpeterian competition: Schumpeter Mark I (SmI), which represents the late XIX century industrial strategy characterized by several small innovative enterprises and Schumpeter Mark Ii (SmII), related to the early XX century conception of big firm, provided with research and development laboratories. There is a natural evolution from the first model to the second one. It depends on the relation of cause and effect among the variables of knowledge that changes from field to field: accessibility, that is the easiness by which an enterprise can use the knowledge produced by others, opportunity that is the specific source of the innovative knowledge that can be from one end an academic laboratory and on the opposite end the suggestions of clients and suppliers, “accumulability”, that is the ability to generate new knowledge starting from the previous one. According to these environmental features, it is possible to identify new models of adaptation through the learning and problem solving of each firm. When an environment presents high accessibility because knowledge is not only a “locked” property of the inventor, then we will have an environment full of many little innovators with a strong turnover between firm births and deaths (SmI). At the opposite a high degree of the skill of taking possession (“appropriability”) stimulates the industrial concentration (SmII). A great opportunity linked to the availability of widespread knowledge to be easily turned into innovation, allows an uninterrupted access of innovation and the absence of the downsizing of strong and paralyzing barriers created by the old product entrepreneurs to keep the foe of innovation at bay (SmI).

On the contrary, when there is a scanty technological opportunity, it is the big firm, not very innovative but with the best economies of scale and scope to prevail (SmI). Finally, another “cumulativeness” pushes to the concentration of firms provided of organization skills, of a steady technological basis and of a successful curriculum on the market. Only the latter will have the learning resources to exploit in an advantageous way the previously accumulated knowledge (SmII) (see Viale, 2005, p. 4-5).

To summarize the two Sm:

Andrea Pitasi

22

SmI: a) High accessibility of knowledge; b) Very little innovators; c) High turnover (high rate of firm birth and death); d) High opportunities of knowledge available and high innovation; e) Absence of meaningful situation rents; That means a high degree of fragmentation, dispersion and implosion with very little “cumulable” added value. SmII: a) High degree of the skill of taking possession (“appropriability”); b) Industrial concentration; c) Low technological opportunity; d) Predominance of firms that are less technologically innovative but with better economies of scale and scope; e) High cumulability; f) Concentration of firms with a consolidated technological basis; g) Successful curriculum; h) To learn the way to acquire resources to exploit in an advantageous way the previously accumulated knowledge. Nowadays, we certainly witness a strong division between the

elites of “top workers” and everyday man, in terms of Lasch’s view, but is functional to the exit and globalization of know how procedures and, hypothetically, to the development of an SmIII able to manage the evolutionary complexity of a real knowledge intensive society. Here we are close to Schumpeter’s theory again (http://www.iss-evec.de/information.htm). Thus, passing through Lasch, who claims (this time being right) that a society that plays looking down, and that considers the incompetence as a resource, it is a society exposed to serious risks; at this regard, in fact, he also writes that we have to lose the culture of “respect” (see Lasch, 2001, p. 23).

That is why it is necessary to valorise vital spaces of society (not the social dimension tout court, otherwise it will lead to mass conformism, whereas own vital spaces are precious), and therefore to let the money, the economy and the market own their evolutionary spaces through which development becomes real. In my writings, the concept of development is rooted in a knowledge based economy (Leydesdorff, 2006) in which development is both economical and linked to intangible variables (such as happiness, leadership, trust but also the intangibles linked to intellectual property matters such as brand value and copyright) and in which the matchfinding between demand and supply is at a very high speed with no meaningful Williamson’s costs.

Thus, avoiding that everything would be simply understood as a sphere of money, the market and the economy. The Schumpeterian lesson, as I previously showed, is vital in that sense and can be taken as a useful example since it does not link the economic development to


23

exclusively logics. On the contrary, Lasch himself evokes a civic sphere that would be integrated and, in some way, would go in the opposite sense of the market one (Lasch, 2001).

I believe that, in an age in which the economy is going to make a revolution in building its own paradigms and getting closer to neurosciences (that, at their own turn, have revolutionized the old psychological theories from Freud to the period before Piaget: as a matter of fact, it is Piaget that makes the epistemic- genetic revolution of constructivism start, as well as, therefore, the revolution of the modelling function which is so strong in the neurosciences).

Therefore, I believe that in this age sociology should react against all this melancholic nostalgias of becoming (again) a social philosophy, a moral philosophy or even a philosophy that generates a moral perspective, in order to address itself, instead, to provide its fundamental epistemic contribution, both theoretic and practical, to neurosciences, thus leading to unified theory of method, in that field.

Several critics began to be raised, towards the “behaviour paradigm” that started to be too widespread in those branches of psychology and sociology based on imitation, as the Tardian one. The theories of the selective influence opened the path for a first model of non linear communication (Pitasi, 2003), since they introduced some variables such as needs, opinions, values and skills of individuals and the related subcultures they belonged to.

However, only the accent given to the cognitive structures specific to each individual that signed the achievement of a new paradigm: the “cognitivism”.

A new active dimension of the beneficiaries of the communicative has starter, and constructivism is an epistemic matrix and therefore it deals with the issue related to the way the knowledge is acquired by the “knowing subject”. Earnst von Glaserfeld (1998, p.11) defines constructivism as a non conventional approach to the problem of knowledge and knowing. He begins from the assumption that knowledge, apart from the way it is defined, stands in the head of people, and that the thinking subject doesn’t have choice: he can only build what he knows on the basis of his own experience; because what we don’t understand of the experience is the only way which we can live in.

To summarize, the fundamental elements of the constructivist theory, according to the Bavarian epistemologist are the following:

1. Knowledge is not received d in a passive way, neither through sense nor through communication. 2. Knowledge is actively built by the “knowing” subject. 3. The function of knowledge is adaptive, in biological terms and aims to the “adaptivness” and viability.

Andrea Pitasi

24

4. Knowledge is needed for the organization of the experience world of the subject, not for the discovering of a reality which is ontologically objective (von Glasersfeld, 1998, p. 50; Pitasi, 2003). In the present work, constructivism epistemologically put the

basis for the conception according to which the modelling of social and economic sciences is basically useful to know the cognitive maps, the mental models and the selective- decisional criteria of what classic sociology would call the social actor, while the systemic science would define as the psychic system and the economics would describe with the term agents, rather than to value the goodness of the action itself or the scenario in which the decision has been taken.

Through the logic of the functional equivalents (Luhmann, 1989) (for a profile of the author see: http://www.filosofico.net/luhmann.htm) often adopted by the systemic science, this modelling can be well shifted also at a macro level, whereas the “meso” dimension could be observed only by an observer with mental “algorithmic” maps at a level of complexity and variety higher in reference to the ordinary point of view of our hypothetic entrepreneur who can, nevertheless, evolve and develop some skills of “meta- observation” .

Back to Schumpeter, the beginning of the third millennium owns a key bifurcation: a.) either a bio economic and biotechnological evolution in which neurosciences – also with the moral and ethic reflections of its own experts of higher prestige- contribute to make this evolution happen above all through reflexive actions of a meaning symbolically built and mediated and not only factual reflections, not “objectivable” and not knowable (in the sense of Crespi, 1993, p. 7-19, 50), which has been the evolutionary leap to a knowledge intensive society; or b). the “autopoiesis”, until the implosion of the society of incompetence which is twisting around itself in a “tragicomic” evident way.

Knowledge Based Society means pure social technology according to Luhmann’s view, of an hypothetic SmIII of the highest neocortical bio economic bioengineering, new organizational arrangements of the planetary energetic logic, morfogenesis, evolution of metropolis in new adaptive forms always more like a network in order to give synergy to localisms otherwise isolated, etc. On the contrary, the society of incompetence means society of the consensus, of the more or less silent majority, of common sense, of the degree in literature and philosophy as metaphor of the mass inflation- like education which leads to severe bumping effect, of the power still owned by incompetent elites, characterized by the predomination of a petrol -logic and the running away of the action, of the reptile-like brain that hides among the grass and marshes and the country cottage.

As I have already illustrated in the previous pages, as well as in some of my previous works, however, the bifurcation between, (using more precise terms) knowledge intensive system society (KISS) and


25

society of continuous incompetence (SCI) – continuous in the sense that it is autopoietic until the implosion, as said above- it is only the slogan that holds a more complex scenario analysis which also needs mathematic conceptualizations and formalizations. What appears evident is that KISS and SCI converge upon a point: the lack of actuality of a sort of democracy which is too slow and “buridanized”1 to catch the challenges of the KISS and, therefore, too incompetent to face the threats that international terrorism is spreading since several years.

My present consideration will probably raise some disputes, but I would like to stress that the lack of actuality of democracy does no mean in my opinion a way back to past. It is meant to be a sort of graveyard of differences, a trash can for losers, the worthlessness of unsuitable models. The KISS should therefore have the function of evolving new models, new strategies and new organizational structures. If current democracy is not convincing for several reasons, of course an alternative solution cannot come from the past, nor from totalitarian or autocratic regimes. I personally recognize as vital for each system (psychic, social, biological or bio economically post-human) the increasing of variety, though in a contingent way, subject to reductive selections of complexity, thus, coherently with the systemic lesson, above all the one by Von foster.

The scientific research in a Knowledge Based Economy is therefore an opening up to the “possible” (risks included, obviously) and as far as risks can occur, it is extremely probable that they would be less than those of a morph static graveyard-like quiet.

Of course philosophy (as a simple accumulation of facts for a literary salon: a chat that will lead nowhere), history (on the contrary meant as nostalgia often in bad faith for an alleged good ancient time almost certainly never existed; it is sufficient to think about plagues, famine, and a middle- life around 40 years old, etc.), politics (as an incubator of incompetence and the above mentioned downward trend game) and religion (as incubator of ignorance seen as a social value sharable from the beginning of the parable of Adam and Eva) are, on the contrary, four variables for the model of the “supermorphostatic” (SCI). What is sure is that in a KISS he is lacking in talent becomes invisible (Sennett, 2006) whereas, in a SCI it happens the opposite event: organizations are full of shadows-figures, invisibles, anonymous, grey, bureaucratic and very often as inept as static. In a SCI these characters overflows also from organizations which are formally considered more knowledge intensive, on the contrary, they contribute to widen the above-mentioned organizations in order to make them morphostatic and thus reproducing the SCI.

1 “buridanization” happens when an individual or an organization burns out in front of a “cross roads”, a dilemma which the individual/organization is not able to make a decision about.

Andrea Pitasi

26

Therefore it is probable that the evolution of the KISS would take the shape of a system without society, as far as, as said according to the Schumpeterian view, the owner of the diligences does not invest in railways. The system without society could evolve as SmIII.

As showed, the Schumpeterian cycle is characterized by three variable aspects: accessibility (ac) and its opposite taking possession (tp); opportunity (op) and the lack of it, non opportunity (nop); “accumulability” (acc) or not accumulability (nacc). These three variables can be combined into eight cycles formally possible, which is “rearrangeable” into two in the third degree configurations. Since they are very few, we can consider them in a more detailed way.

a) ac- op- acc = Formally plausible – we can call it a) variation – but actually it does not generate “position revenues”, competitive advantages or added value as it is easily understandable; b) ac- op- nacc = SmI; c) ac- nop- acc = Only incremental growth, of short term, an inflective and implosive in perspective even if it allows accumulability of knowledge whose marginal utility and competitive value suddenly decrease becoming a bargain for the socio- economic actor – let us call it b) variation; d) ac- nop- nacc = Only incremental growth, of short term, inflective and implosive in perspective – we can call it variable c); e) tp- op- acc = Fortune helps daring people: creation of “position revenues” and in the meanwhile diversifying as much as it is needed to generate radical technological innovation which, at its turn, will generate new incomes – Let us call it variation d). f) tp- op- nacc = Enterprises with huge evolutionary potential but that, because of some internal organization disorder- i.e. insider trading or mobbing- completely destroys what it creates, like Penelope in the Odyssey- We call it variation e); g) tp- nop- acc = SmII; h) tp- nop-nacc = An enterprise which is highly implosive which has “morphostatized” itself in the appearances of its juridical forms and probably gives an enormous as well as subjective value of usage to a kind of knowledge and technologies that are now out-of- date – we will call it variation f). In a conceptual way we can hypothesize six “ideal-typical” and

logical- formal variations of the SmIII, even though considering that in terms of practical applicability only variation d) – henceforth defined as SmIII tout court – enable an evolutionary cycle, whereas the other five activate a cycle that is, therefore, aborted before acceding to the phase of the evolutionary stabilization, that is of the “boom”. What is it meant for cycle in a Schumpeterian way?

A cycle should have a beginning when an entrepreneur introduces a new combination. Profits thus earned by the entrepreneur should


27

immediately draw other entrepreneurs for whom it should be easier to introduce, at their turn, new combinations since the initial resistance has been put down.

Facing this appearance “in swarms”, as Schumpeter likes to say, the economy would know in a short time a “boom”: growing wages, interest rates will grow as well, new jobs, etc. However, after a certain period a necessary depression would occur, for different reasons. First of all, after a while the new interest for new credits would fall down and once the initial bank loan would be settled by the entrepreneurs, a higher pressure downwards on the rate of interest come out. The more intense the boom has been, the more it would be difficult for business men to do precise evaluations. Finally, the old enterprises could always resort to resources previously accumulated, while the new ones would be extremely sensible to changes of the economic climate and could easily fail. As Schumpeter writes, in certain conditions depression could turn into a crisis which, however, does not represent something that must be necessarily done for the economic cycle. A new wave of prosperity would begin and the entire cycle would go ahead towards a new boom, a new depression and so on (See: Swedberg, 1991, p. 47; on Richard Swedberg http://www.soc.cornell.edu/faculty/swedberg.html).

This is the principal reason why, if it is true that intentional strategic and morphogenetic actions not always reveal to be successful in any case, it is, on the contrary, mathematically verified that “morphostasys” destroys through implosion and without creating future alternatives, since every answer offers an illusory, deceptive and soothingly short-term serenity that could even recall a graveyard-like calm.

The concept of the inevitability of the happening of creative destruction events in economic cycle is strongly Schumpeterian and could be understood only through the theory of the economic development, according to which it was rather inevitable, if an impersonal morphostasys would have been chosen, that capitalism would turn into socialism. The latter meaning, for the Austrian economist, every social system showing the following features: highly collectivized through public o private macro- structures with plenty of employers with a fixed income; a rather absent innovation or, in any case, owned by the intellectual property of the macro-structures of the innovator/inventor and in which property has become abstract and impersonal as the sovereignty of the state through mechanisms of pulverization of the property itself (public companies and multinationals in the modern semantic).

This theme can also be found in Keynes when he hypothesizes, horrified, a labour government froe England that would deliver the Country to the predominance of the extreme wing of the party and that would engender the social oppression since the labours carry on an ideology made up of grudge, hatred, contempt and destruction (unlike the Schumpeterian model of development) with no meaning (Keynes,

Andrea Pitasi

28

1991, p. 46- 50) and it is rather paradoxical that, in Italy as well as somewhere else, some politicians from both right and left wings define themselves as (neo)Keynesian.

In the Schumpeterian semantic even the fascist corporativism is a form of socialism (in the historical sense of the term), whatever ideology that sets above the social sphere to the individual, the steady organization of the evolutionary innovation, the bureaucratic routine to the development, that gives the power to “populist” élites instead of those “morphogenetically” radical and highly selective in the innovation, therefore the fact that Mussolini moved from the socialist party to the foundation of the fascist party is considered as something obvious and in a certain way foreseeable according to this theory, since Schumpeter develops these conceptions around 1910-1911.

As seen before, Schumpeter considered socialism not a dialectic antagonist of capitalism, but its unavoidable drift, whether capitalism would have turned in a “morphostatic”, bureaucratic ad impersonal movement (Swedberg, 1991, p 70-71, 95). He realizes that the economic events and the economic theory need each others, but the economic variables were necessary but not sufficient to describe and exploit development and changing. That is why, actually, the Austrian economist did contribute in a strong way to the foundation of an economic sociology (p. 98-100) and to a concretized theory (p. 99) that could face social and historic events as in the case of the October Revolution of 1917 which, for the “cynic” analyst, was a wonderful laboratory to evaluate the socio- economic impact of socialism. That statement made Weber extremely irritated, as a matter of fact, while he was having a conversation with Schumpeter in a café in Vienna, he left out of his mind since he was worried for the high number of dead people and bloodshed that were brought by the passage from Tsarist to real socialism (p. 104-105).

Everyone who knows that historical period, which coincides with the development of the sociological economy, could understand that even in the quarrel in that café in Vienna the classic theory of rationality had been put aside since both Weber and Schumpeter (even though with their theoretic differences) had showed economic but also widely sociologic, moral, philosophic and “politological” arguments to analyze the implications, not only the economic ones, of the October revolution. All this a lot of time before Herbert Simons’s studies, though the latter ca be considered appreciable ones.

Schumpeter himself introduced the concept of “entrepreneur” in the sociologic analysis and addressed this analysis towards social classes and the social action in order to understand the possible self-destructive reason of the behaviour of nobles first and bourgeois then (p. 118- 120).

These sociologic aspects of the economic development and of its period of depression are quite clear in the Schumpeterian view therefore they make mysterious the reasons of the mythopoeia of the rational


29

economic actor of the classic theory which had already been over passed by Schumpeter around 1918.

Furthermore Keynes himself (who was the last author to be added by Schumpeter in his history of economics) had already set into light in his analysis that several economic events could not be related only to economic reasons (e. g. the heritage principle derived from the previous feudal system) (Keynes, 1991: 49). That is the reason why the statement made by Riccardo Viale on the psychological micro foundation of economics (Viale, 2005, p. 10) cannot be taken as a principle anymore, though being an interesting theory, since the role of neurosciences is becoming peculiar.

Besides, it must be considered that Keynes had implicitly opened a debate on the possible rebellion of intellectual élites (Keynes, 1991, p. 46). As a matter of fact, Keynes himself complains about the fact that too many things will keep being decided by those who do not even know what they say one another (p. 47). It seems then, that, in order to understand the next evolutionary leaps, it would be necessary a new theory of the intentional, strategic, morphogenetic, evolutionary action of the knowledge intensive elites to set in the olographic field of the complex evolutionary systems.

Since there is a tax on the added value, someone may think that the law maker did not acknowledge a value to invention projects and to a wide part of the creative works. This law is still in force in a society that defines itself as a knowledge and information based-one, which could sound a little awkward and even paradoxical. Through the Schumpeterian thought, as well, it is possible to catch the difference between: 1. an authentic knowledge based society (previously described and codified as KISS) where the evolutionary challenge is the allocative function of the law in the dynamics of purchase and the ability of taking possession of the intellectual property (now onward IP) on the radical innovations and, rectifying Schumpeter’s way of thinking, on the scientific- technological inventions with a high added value(that therefore imply huge global research machines with a high potential); and, 2. a “mediocre” society of mass education, of the inflation of degrees, of the permanent professional training that can constantly redefine the society of the incompetence (generalist about methods, contexts and strategies), and generalized (on the ground mass consensus given to the generalist incompetence from masses proud of their incompetence).

According to Schumpeter, an entrepreneur can be defined in this way only if introduces a new combination. That means that nobody can be an entrepreneur for ever and there cannot be a social class of entrepreneurs.

“It is possible to inherit an entrepreneur’s money but not the lion claws ”, as well as a state cannot nationalize the brain of an entrepreneur.

Andrea Pitasi

30

Nonetheless, in the dynamic society it is the entrepreneur that leads what happens and not the consumer as in the static society. The entrepreneur has to be a particular person because he must be able to overcome the resistance to changes which are typical of every society. Most people are not able to do it, because they can face just what is familiar to them. On the contrary, the entrepreneur owns the strength and the courage to challenge the ways to do things and sweep away the forces of tradition. As a matter of fact, the author claims that the entrepreneur is pushed by three different no hedonistic reasons: first of all, there is the dream to found a personal empire, then it comes the will to win, and finally the joy to create (Swedberg, 1991, p. 45-46).

In the enterprise and in the radically innovative research, which are the two main “pivots” of an authentically knowledge based society, the Weberian teaching comes again stating that the scientific teaching deals with the “aristocracy” of the spirit (see Weber, 2006, p.11) and for what concerns these pages on Schumpeter, see my Il tempo zero del desiderio (Pitasi and Ferone, 2008).

At this point, our hypothetic entrepreneur would have understood that delocalizing has a meaning if it is considered as a strategic reconfiguration in blue ocean; otherwise the risk (Ri) could reveal higher than the opportunity (Op), but, in order to have adequate standards to evaluate whether Ri>Op, Ri<Op or Ri=Op, our hypothetic entrepreneur can only begin a meso- scenario analysis with which the conceptual structure of these pages would be ended, thus to open an epistemic-methodological reflection on the strategic function of the simulation models with agents into a theoretic systemic- evolutionary matrix which will support our knowledge intensive entrepreneur.

In my opinion, the great lesson of the constructivist epistemology which is strong evolved by Luhmann’s works at least from the 1980’s, is that if a theory is really a good one, then it could be used as a conceptual model for an artificial- simulative experimental system; otherwise, if it is considered a mere doctrinal speech, whether apocalyptic or integrated, whether conformist or not, ideological or utopian, it remains still more at upstream, thus less reliable of a simple Popperian conjecture.

Therein, I think that a methodological basis can be found for the systemic, upon any other working style of the xx century during which someone has often wanted to create the optical illusion that a questionnaire and the SPSS packet would be enough, anyhow used, to create a social science and not a banal “sociographic” and administrative accountability of the beliefs of common sense.

The simulation models basically serve the purpose of tracing the space-time and conceptual displacements of the borders of a system sense, with a mathematic precision (See Olaya & Ruess http://necsi.org/events/iccs/openconf/author/papers/f769.pdf ).

This epistemic- methodological remark concludes the present paper with the invitation to establish a high specialized équipe both on


31

the methodological and interdisciplinary ground and on the epistemological and theoretic one in order to implement a software to make scenario analysis and decision making support, through the micro- macro-meso flow, whose conceptual model had been the topic of my third volume on the quadrilogy (Pitasi, 2007).

The continuum, from the epistemology to the software simulation application that links constructivism, systemic and modelling with agents that, at this point, require a refined methodological set up which could systematize the micro-macro-meso dimensions into a unified model, not only conceptually but also procedurally, through the likewise important continuum of operative concepts and definitions, indicators and variables. But this will be the topic of a further work, which will follow a intensive experimental lab activity.

Let’s start working then!

Andrea Pitasi

32

References Akerlof, G. (2003). Racconti di un Nobel per l’economia. Milan: EGEA-

Bocconi. Bryant, C. G., & Becker, H. A. (Eds.). (1990). What has Sociology

Achieved?. London: The Mac-Millan Press. Bryant, J., & Zillman O. (Eds.). (1994). Media Effects. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Economia civile. Bologna. Il Mulino. Castellano, C. (2007). Costruzione sociale dell'identità femminile e

pluralismo giuridico. Rome: Aracne. Casti, J. (1990). Paradigms Lost. London: Abacus. Casti, J. (1994). Complexification. New York: Harper & Collins. Chan Kim, W., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press. Crozier, M. (1978). Il fenomeno burocratico. Milan: Etas. Crozier, M. (1987). Stato modesto, stato moderno, Rome: Ed. Lavoro. Crozier, M. (1990). L’impresa in ascolto. Milan: Il Sole-24 Ore. Dahrendorf, R. (1993). Per un nuovo liberalismo. Rome-Bari: Laterza. Dahrendorf, R. (1995). Quadrare il cerchio. Benessere economico,

coesione sociale e libertà politica. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Delattre, P. (1984). Teoria dei sistemi ed epistemologia. Turin: Einaudi. Dennett, D.C. (2004a). L'evoluzione della libertà. Milan: Cortina. Dennett, D. C. (2004b). L'idea pericolosa di Darwin. Turin: Bollati

Boringhieri. Dornbusch, R. (2001). Le chiavi della prosperità. Milan: Egea. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Le sfide del management del XXI secolo. Milan:

Franco Angeli. Drucker, P. F. (2002). Il management, l’individuo, la società. Milan:

Franco Angeli. Eco, U. (1993a). La ricerca della lingua perfetta. Rome-Bari: Laterza. Eco, U. (1993b). Trattato di Semiotica generale. Milan: Bompiani. Esposito, E. (2001). La memoria sociale. Rome-Bari: Laterza. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R.M. (1995). Teoria dei sistemi evolutivi. Milan:

Cortina. Foucault, M. (1972). L’ordine del discorso. Turin: Einaudi. Foucault, M. (1977). Microfisica del potere. Turin: Einaudi. Foucault, M. (1986). Tecnologie del sé. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. Foucault, M. (1994). Poteri e strategie. Milan: Mimesis. Friedman, D. D. (2004). L'ordine del diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino. Galgano, F. (2005). La globalizzazione nello specchio del diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino. Gallino, L.(1987). L’attore sociale. Turin: Einaudi. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. J. (2001). An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage. Gerken, G. (1996a). Multimedia, Das Ende der Information. Düsseldorf:

Metropolitan Verlag.


33

Gerken, G. (1996b). Magische Masse. Düsseldorf: Metropolitan Verlag. Habermas, J., & Luhmann N. (1973). Teoria della società o tecnologia

sociale. Milan: Etas Kompass. Hirschmann, A. O. (1978). Shifting Involvments. New York: Prentice Hall. Hirschmann, A. O. (1982). Felicità privata, felicità pubblica. Bologna: Il

Mulino. Hirschmann, A. O. (1996). Retoriche dell’intransigenza. Bologna: Il

Mulino. Horowitz, J. L. (1993). The Decomposition of Sociology. New York-Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Infante D., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1993). Building

Communication Theory. Prospect Heights (Illinois): Waveland Press Inc.

Irti, N. (2004). Nichilismo Giuridico. Rome: Laterza. Keynes, J. M. (1991). La fine del laissez-faire ed altri scritti economico-

politici. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri. Turin. Koch, R. (2000). Il principio 20/80. Milan: Franco Angeli. Lanzara, G. F. (1993). Capacità negativa. Bologna: Il Mulino. Lasch, C. (1983). La cultura del narcisismo. Milan: Bompiani. Lasch, C. (1984). The Minimal Self. Psychic Survival in troubled times.

New York: Norton & Company. Lasch, C. (2001). La ribellione delle élite. Milan: Feltrinelli. Laszlo, C., & Laszlo E. (1996). Navigare nella turbolenza. Milan: Franco

Angeli. Laszlo, E. (1987). L’ipotesi del campo psi. Bergamo: Lubrina Editore. Laszlo, E. (1992). La visione sistemica del mondo. Milan:

Gruppoinsieme. Laszlo, E. (1998). Terzo Millennio: la sfida e la visione. Milan: Corbaccio. Laszlo, E. (2008). Il pericolo e l’opportunità. Rome: Aracne. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The Knowledge-Based Economy. Boca Raton:

Universal Publishers. Luhmann, N. (1983a). Come è possibile l’ordine sociale. Rome-Bari:

Laterza. Luhmann, N. (1983b). Teoria politica nello stato del benessere. Milan:

Franco Angeli. Luhmann, N. (1988). “Warum Agil?“. Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie

und Sozialpsychologie, 40, 127-139. Luhmann, N. (1989). Comunicazione ecologica. Milan: Franco Angeli,. Luhmann, N. (1990a). Sistemi sociali. Bologna: il Mulino. Luhmann, N. (1990b). La differenziazione del diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino. Luhmann, N. (1990c). Stato di diritto e sistema sociale. Naples: Guida. Luhmann, N. (1995). Osservazioni sul moderno. Rome: Armando. Luhmann, N. (2000). La realtà dei mass media. Milan: Franco Angeli Luhmann, N., & De Giorgi, R. (1992). Teoria della società. Milan: Franco

Angeli. Mac Lean, P. D. (1984). Evoluzione del cervello e comportamento umano.

Turin: Einaudi.

Andrea Pitasi

34

Maturana, H. (1993). Autocoscienza e realtà. Milan: Cortina. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1985). Autopoiesi e cognizione. Padova:

Marsilio. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1992). Macchine ed esseri viventi. Rome:

Astrolabio. Meyer, C., & Davis, S. (2003). Bioeconomia. Milan: MCF-Olivares. Morin, E. (1974). Il paradigma perduto. Milan: Feltrinelli. Morin, E. (1993). Introduzione al pensiero complesso. Milan: Sperling &

Kupfer. Nardone, G. (1998). Il costruttivismo radicale. Una via per conoscere ed

apprendere,. Rome: 3S. Normann, R. (1987). “Qualità, produttività e strategia”. In Gramma.

(Ed.), Gestire la qualità nei servizi. Turin: Isedi-Petrini. Normann, R. (2002). Ridisegnare l'impresa. Milan: Etas. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1957). Man and People. New York: Norton. Piaget, J. (1975). La presa di coscienza. Milan: Etas. Piaget, J. (1982). Introduzione all’epistemologia genetica. Milan: Emme. Piaget, J. (1983). Biologia e conoscenza. Turin: Einaudi. Piaget, J. (2000). L’epistemologia genetica. Rome: Laterza. Pitasi, A. (1995). Comunicazione strategica e cambiamento sociale

nell’Unione europea multiculturale (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bologna, 2004-2005).

Pitasi, A. (1997). Comunicazione strategica. Bologna: Esculapio. Pitasi, A. (1999). Il sesto stratagemma. Rome: Seam. Pitasi, A. (2001). “The Communication Strategies of the Globalized

Individual”. In A. Pitasi A. (Ed.). The Future Trends of Communication Strategies. World Futures, 57, New York: Taylor & Francis.

Pitasi, A. (2003). Universi paralleli. Milan: Franco Angeli. Pitasi, A. (2007). Sfide del nostro tempo. Rome: Aracne. Pitasi, A. (2008). Unseimiliardesimo d'umanità. Milan: Guerini &

Associati. Pitasi, A., & Ferone, E. (2008). Il tempo zero del desiderio. Forthcoming. Pring, M. J. (2002). Technical Analysis Explained. Milan: McGraw-Hill. Rovinetti, A. (2006a). Comunicazione pubblica: sapere e fare. Milan: Il

Sole24Ore Rovinetti, A. (2006b). Fare comunicazione pubblica. Rome:

Comunicazione italiana. Sacconi, L. (1997). Economia, etica, organizzazione. Rome-Bari: Laterza. Schumpeter, J. A. (2002). Teoria dello sviluppo economico. Milan: Etas. Seabright, P.(2005). In compagnia degli estranei. Turin: Codice. Sebastiani, C. (Ed.). (1987). High Tech Marketing. Turin: Isedi. Sennett, R. (2006). La cultura del nuovo capitalismo. Bologna: Il Mulino. Siegel, J. (2005). The Future for Investors. New York: Crown Business. Simmel, G. (1978). La filosofia del denaro. Turin: Utet. Simmel, G. (1982). La differenziazione sociale. Rome-Bari: Laterza.


35

Simmel, G. (1985). La moda ed altri saggi di cultura filosofica. Milan: Longanesi.

Simmel, G. (1987). La forma della storia. Salerno:10/7. Simmel, G. (1991). “Lo straniero”. In S. Tabboni (Ed.), Vicinanza e

lontananza. Milan: Franco Angeli. Simmel, G. (2000). La legge individuale. Rome: Armando. Simmel, G. (2001), Forme dell’individualismo. Rome: Armando. Sloterdijk, P. (2001). Sellbsversuch. Muenchen: Carl Hansen Verlag. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Imposture intellettuali. Milan: Garzanti. Sola, G. (2000). La teoria delle élite. Bologna: Il Mulino. Stewart, T. (1999). Il capitale intellettuale. Milan: Ponte alle Grazie. Stewart, T. (2001). La ricchezza del sapere. Milan: Ponte alle Grazie. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Informazione, economia pubblica e macroeconomia.

Bologna: Il Mulino. Swedberg, R. (1991). Joseph A. Schumpeter: His Life and Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Terna, P., et al. (Ed.). (2006). Modelli per la complessità. Bologna: Il

Mulino. Touraine, A. (1993). Critica della modernità. Milan: Il Saggiatore. Viale, R. (2005). Le nuove economie. Milan: Il Sole 24 Ore. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Costruttivismo radicale. Rome: Unione

stampa Sportiva. von Glasersfeld, E.(1997). “Il costruttivismo radicale ovvero la

costruzione della conoscenza”. In P. Watzlawick, & G. Nardone (Eds.), Terapia breve strategica, Milan: Cortina.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Il costruttivismo radicale. Una via per conoscere ed apprendere. Rome: 3S. von Glasersfeld, E. e von Hayek F. (1995). La via della schiavitù,

Rusconi, Milano. von Hippel, E. (1990). Le fonti dell’innovazione. Milan: McGraw-Hill. Wallace, R. A., & Wolf, A. (1985). La teoria sociologica contemporanea.

Bologna: Il Mulino. Watzlawick, P., & Nardone, G. (Eds.). (1997). Terapia breve strategica.

Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Williamson, O. E. (1991). L’organizzazione economica. Bologna: Il

Mulino.

Andrea Pitasi

36

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andrea Pitasi is Associate Professor of Sociology of Law at the “G. d'Annunzio” University of Chieti and Pescara and Adjunct Professor at “Suor Orsola Benincasa” University of Naples. Besides, he is the Senior Editor of a book series titled “Teoria dei sistemi e complessità” for Aracne Publishing in Rome. He is Life Member of the International Communication Association (ICA, www.icahdq.org serving member of the Liason Committee for the relations with the UN Dept of Information), Life member of the International J. A. Schumpeter Society (www.iss-evec.) and member of the AAAI (www.aaai.org). He has been Guest Editor for the three- issue work "Future Trends of Communication Strategies" appeared in nr. 4, 5 and 6 of the 57/2001 issue of the journal World Futures run by Ervin Laszlo, published by Taylor and Francis, New York. For further information about the Author, see: http://www.andreapitasi.com (English) http://www.unisob.na.it/universita/areadocenti/docente.htm?vr=0&id=75 (Italian) E-mail: [email protected]


37

I QUADERNI DEL CIRSDIG

35. PAOLO DIANA, CLAUDIO MARRA, Rappresentazioni e pratiche della legalità negli adolescenti. Una comparazione nord-sud

34. LARRY D. BARNETT, Mutual Funds, Hedge Funds, and the Public-Private Dichotomy in a Macrosociological Framework for Law

33. VALENTÌN THURY CORNEJO, The Search for Authenticity: Some Implications for Political Communication

32. SIMONA VITALE, Il servizio pubblico radiotelevisivo: una ricerca sulle aspettative di alcuni telespettatori napoletani

31. ALVISE SBRACCIA, More or Less Eligibility? Theoretical Perspectives on the Imprisonment Process of Irregular Migrants in Italy

30. DOMENICA FARINELLA, FIORENZO PARZIALE, Processi di terziarizzazione e disuguaglianze socio-occupazionali in Italia: un’analisi a partire dal locale

29. ANNA TOTARO, Dinamiche di interrelazione tra blogosfera e mediasfera

28. ELENA VALENTINI, Università in rete. Esperienze e punti di vista tra innovazione normativa e dibattito istituzionale

27. ELISA GATTO, PIERPAOLO MUDU, PIETRO SAITTA, L’industria petrolchimica nella Valle del Mela: uno studio qualitativo sulla percezione del rischio e gli immaginari

26. MAURO FERRARI, CLAUDIA ROSSO, Interazioni precarie. Il dilemma dell’integrazione dei migranti nelle politiche sociali locali. Il caso di Brescia

25. MASSIMILIANO VERGA (a cura di) Quaderno dei lavori 2007 (Atti del Terzo Seminario Nazionale dell'AIS- Sociologia del diritto)

24. ANTONIA CAVA, Children Between Analogic and Digital TV. The Italian Case

23. NAUMAN NAQVI, The Nostalgic Subject. A Genealogy of the 'Critique of Nostalgia'

22. DAVID NELKEN, An E-mail From Global Bukowina

21. MEHMET KUCUCOZER, Civil Society: a Proposed Analytical Framework for Studying its Development Using Turkey as a Case Study

20. PAOLA RONFANI, Alcune riflessioni sui rapporti tra la sociologia del diritto e la psicologia

19. MASSIMILIANO VERGA, Cannabis: la "droga" e il "farmaco". Una rassegna della letteratura dal 1970 ad oggi

Andrea Pitasi

38

18. PIETRO SAITTA, La genitorialità sociale la sua regolazione. Una rassegna europea

17. PIETRO SAITTA e NOEMI SOLLIMA, Politiche familiari in Italia: problemi e prospettive. Confronto tra le leggi regionali di Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Toscana e Marche

16. MARIAGRAZIA SALVO, Il digital divide nella sua più recente configurazione : dalle differenze intragenerazionali alle differenze di genere

15. ANTONIA CAVA, Il cantastorie mediale : narrazioni in rosa

14. DOMENICO CARZO (a cura di), Estorsione e usura: uno sguardo empirico sulla città di Messina

13. MARIA GRAZIA RECUPERO, Violenza anomica e “conflitto dei doveri”

12. DOMENICO CARZO (a cura di), Tra interpretazione e comunicazione. Nascita e declino dei codici: un approccio transdisciplinare (Volume II)

11. DOMENICO CARZO (a cura di), Primi atti del convegno: Tra interpretazione e comunicazione. Nascita e declino dei codici: un approccio transdisciplinare

10. TIZIANA MASTROENI, La religione tra modernità e postmodernità

9. MARGHERITA GENIALE, Le passioni del sottosuolo: critica sociale o crisi sociale?

8. MARIA FELICIA SCHEPIS, Autorità e dipendenza nell'Antico Testamento. Profili teologico-filosofici e politico-sociali

7. DOMENICO CARZO (a cura di), I Media e la Polis. La costruzione giornalistica delle campagne elettorali.

6. DOMENICO CARZO, MARCO CENTORRINO, L'immigrazione albanese sulla stampa quotidiana.

5. ANNA CIPRÌ, I clochards: una prima rassegna bibliografica.

4. ANNA CIPRÌ, FRANCESCA DI GANGI,Bibliografia ragionata su droga e tossicodipendenza: 1987-1992.

3. DOMENICO CARZO, ROSSANA L. BIONDI, Aspettative dei giovani e diritto allo studio: aspetti sociologico-giuridici e psico-sociali in una ricerca nella provincia di Reggio Calabria.

2. ANTONINO PERNA, I mass media e l'immigrazione extracomunitaria. Una ricerca socio-giuridica.

1. DOMENICO CARZO (a cura di), Il nuovo Codice di Procedura Penale e la professione del giornalista.


39

Finito di stampare e legalmente depositato nel Febbraio 2009

presso il Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica, Matematica e Sociologia “Pareto”

Facoltà di Scienze Politiche Università di Messina

Via T.Cannizzaro, 278 – 98122 MESSINA

Andrea Pitasi

ISBN978-88-95356-13-6

ISBN 978-88-95356-26-4

ON THE POWER OF WEALTH

Documents

Transcript of ON THE POWER OF WEALTH