Dizionario di Politica

Authors: Bobbio, Matteucci, Pasquino
Summary: In about 14.000 words, the entry offers a developmental analysis of liberal movements and ideas through an overview of classic thinkers, such as Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Croce and Laski.
The entry first defines liberalism generically as a historical phenomenon of modern Europe, then attempts to provide a more specific definition by means of an analysis of four main approaches: historical, philosophical, epochal and structural. Contextually, three prejudices on which these approaches rest are highlighted: the philosophical prejudice, the juridical prejudice and the historical prejudice.
In several passages the author points out the ambiguity of the term and the consequent difficulty to reach an exhaustive definition. Indeed, the ethical-political contents of liberalism are perceived in different ways by Renaissance, Rationalism, Utilitarianism and Historicism. However, the protection of the individual from the power of the state or of extreme forms of communitarianism is a constant theme.
The difficult usage of the term "liberal" is due to the differences in social and institutional structures where liberal ideas are expressed. Accordingly, the entry draws attention to the fact that nowadays its meaning varies across countries. In Great Britain and in Germany, it refers to a centrist political position, able to mediate between innovation and conservation. In the United States, it refers to leftist radicalism defence of civil liberties, whereas in Italy it refers to the supporters of free, economic initiative and private freedom. If the contexts where the liberal concept is expressed are different, so are the perspectives from where different disciplines study liberalism (juridical, political and economic approaches).
Lastly, the entry points out that contemporary liberal thinking is faced with a choice between the welfare state (where responsibility for welfare lies with bureaucratic apparatus) and the minimal state (where such responsibility lies with individuals). The only alternative which brings civil society back in is neocorporativism.