[Rezension zu Amilcare Puviani: Sul prodotto ricostituente nell’industria dei fabbricati]

Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Amilcare Puviani (1893)

Schullern’s brief German review examines Puviani’s Sul prodotto ricostituente nell’industria dei fabbricati, a study of capital replacement and building taxation. It situates the work alongside Puviani’s earlier studies of the building tax, explains its central category, and assesses its implications for legislative reform.

Unter Prodotto ricostituente versteht der Autor jenen Theil des Rohproductes, welcher berufen ist, den während der Productionszeit dem productiv thätigen Capitale verloren gegangenen Wert, also den Wert der Abnützung des verwendeten Capitales und die mit Behinderungen in seiner nützlichen Wirksamkeit verbundenen Verluste, wiederherzustellen, resp. zu ersetzen.

English translation: By prodotto ricostituente the author understands that part of the gross product which is called upon to restore, or respectively to replace, the value lost during the period of production by the productively employed capital, that is, the value of the wear and tear of the capital used and the losses bound up with impediments to its useful operation.

The concept identifies the share of gross product needed to replace capital value lost through wear or impediments to productive use. Schullern emphasizes that Puviani’s present concern is not to establish this share’s role in taxation, but to determine its components and calculate it under different conditions affecting buildings. The conceptual move is from a general category of replacement to differentiated assessment.

Schullern particularly praises Puviani’s demand for distinctions grounded in accurate cadastral recording. Although these exceed previous proposals, he considers their justification strong enough to warrant serious attention in reforming building-tax legislation: justice is the governing principle against which administrative arrangements must be judged.

Damit soll nicht gesagt sein, dass Puvianis Postulate ohne weiteres in der Praxis zu acceptieren sind, wohl aber, dass die Gesetzgebung um blosser praktischer Schwierigkeiten in ihrer Geltendmachung willen sie nicht bei Seite legen darf.

English translation: It is not thereby meant to be said that Puviani's postulates are to be accepted without further ado in practice, but rather that legislation may not set them aside merely for the sake of practical difficulties in giving effect to them.

This qualification defines the review’s stance. Schullern does not endorse immediate implementation of every proposal, but rejects practical difficulty as sufficient grounds for legislative dismissal. His concluding acknowledgment of Puviani’s extensive use of relevant literature reinforces the study’s value for both theorists and practitioners. The review’s significance lies in connecting precise accounting for capital depletion with equitable taxation, while preserving a distinction between theoretical validity and practical adoption.