Page 186 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 186
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
In terms of social capital, at least two aspects that reveal largely un-
known elements of community identity and solidarity are deserving of
mention, namely the role played by southern Italian settlements both in the
functions of withholding agents for the population on behalf of the royal
tax authorities and the management of collective resources.
For the royal tax authorities, the universitas was an intermediate in-
stitution between the government and the taxpayer. It was tasked with nu-
merous functions such as ascertaining and assessing the wealth of house-
holders, assigning the amounts due, collecting them and sending them to
the provincial tax authorities.
The principle of fiscal solidarity whereby the universitas was liable for
the entire amount regardless of the degree of solvency of the individuals is
an important feature (Bulgarelli Lukacs 2012, 34–44). We should also ob-
serve that collective action was constantly implemented by the communi-
ties in the form of continuous dialectic with the authorities to protect and
maintain levels of tolerable taxation, denouncing embezzlement by the tax
agents or any attack on collective resources by powers within the territo-
ry. With this ongoing defensive action, the community showed on the out-
side its unity and solidarity where the internal conflicts could find at least
an apparent settlement.
Reference to collective resources allows us to also consider another as-
pect of the formation of social capital, namely their management by the
community. This is the other important role played by local communities
where social capital assumes importance and visibility.
The Universitas was the holder of various kinds of collective resources
(woods, streams, pastures, land and buildings and much more) whose pres-
ence in the Apennine Mountains was more significant than elsewhere in
the Kingdom. The Universitas ensured that they were used only by ‘citizens’
(not all the inhabitants but only those who could boast local roots, mem-
bership and acceptance) and guaranteed their sustainability over time. It
also worked to maintain the rights currently in force regarding any kind of
assets (mostly ecclesiastical bodies and the feudal lord). All decisions con-
cerning their target, development or assignment were entrusted to the mu-
nicipal regiment, or the local parliament made up of all the household-
ers, or else a council of a few select families only (Bulgarelli Lukacs 2015,
123–131). The question of common goods was particularly important in the
charters and statutes of the communities, where detailed rules especial-
ly governed collective use and the conditions for access to properties and
184
In terms of social capital, at least two aspects that reveal largely un-
known elements of community identity and solidarity are deserving of
mention, namely the role played by southern Italian settlements both in the
functions of withholding agents for the population on behalf of the royal
tax authorities and the management of collective resources.
For the royal tax authorities, the universitas was an intermediate in-
stitution between the government and the taxpayer. It was tasked with nu-
merous functions such as ascertaining and assessing the wealth of house-
holders, assigning the amounts due, collecting them and sending them to
the provincial tax authorities.
The principle of fiscal solidarity whereby the universitas was liable for
the entire amount regardless of the degree of solvency of the individuals is
an important feature (Bulgarelli Lukacs 2012, 34–44). We should also ob-
serve that collective action was constantly implemented by the communi-
ties in the form of continuous dialectic with the authorities to protect and
maintain levels of tolerable taxation, denouncing embezzlement by the tax
agents or any attack on collective resources by powers within the territo-
ry. With this ongoing defensive action, the community showed on the out-
side its unity and solidarity where the internal conflicts could find at least
an apparent settlement.
Reference to collective resources allows us to also consider another as-
pect of the formation of social capital, namely their management by the
community. This is the other important role played by local communities
where social capital assumes importance and visibility.
The Universitas was the holder of various kinds of collective resources
(woods, streams, pastures, land and buildings and much more) whose pres-
ence in the Apennine Mountains was more significant than elsewhere in
the Kingdom. The Universitas ensured that they were used only by ‘citizens’
(not all the inhabitants but only those who could boast local roots, mem-
bership and acceptance) and guaranteed their sustainability over time. It
also worked to maintain the rights currently in force regarding any kind of
assets (mostly ecclesiastical bodies and the feudal lord). All decisions con-
cerning their target, development or assignment were entrusted to the mu-
nicipal regiment, or the local parliament made up of all the household-
ers, or else a council of a few select families only (Bulgarelli Lukacs 2015,
123–131). The question of common goods was particularly important in the
charters and statutes of the communities, where detailed rules especial-
ly governed collective use and the conditions for access to properties and
184
