Vilfredo Pareto

-------Vilfredo Pareto ns
Nationality
French-Italian
FieldsPhysical economics
Physical sociology
Econoengineering
Alma matterPolytechnic University of Turin
Lausanne school
StudentsEmanuele Sella
Known forCirculation of elites
Social spinning top
Economic molecules
Social molecules
Collected works
12+ volumes
EponymsPareto principle
Spinning top social pyramid
Harvard Pareto circle
Influences
Isaac Newton, Jean D'Alembert, Niccolo Machiavelli, Leon Walras, Maffeo Pantaleoni, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer
Influenced
Lawrence Henderson, Paul Samuelson, Tjalling Koopmans
-----__---Vilfredo Pareto (signature)
In existographies, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) (IQ:190|#20) [RGM:590|1,500+] (Scott 50:29) (SN:3) [CR:282] was a French-born Italian mathematical engineer, physical socioeconomist, and “engineer-turned-economist-turned-sociologist” (Stegner, 2001), classified as one of the chiefs of the Laussane school of physical economics (1890s to 1920s), characterized a a “scholar of encyclopedia ambitions and Machiavellian dispositions” (Fuller, 2000); was the thematic backbone of of the 1930s to 1940s Harvard Pareto circle; generally noted, in hmolscience, for his efforts to formulate a social molecule themed mechanics of sociology, aka "economic dynamics" (Pantaleoni, c.1900); his total work culminating in his monumental four-volume magnum opus Treatise on General Sociology.

Overview
In c.1893, Pareto began teaching a course in political economics, on economics and sociology, at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland (see: Lausanne school).

In 1912, Pareto published his magnum opus Treatise on General Sociology, in four volumes (or two-volumes, later reprintings).

The following 1924 obituary like summary of Pareto by American political-economist James Rogers (Ѻ), seems to well encapsulate the life (existence), times, and nature of Pareto: [29]

“A marquis by birth, his long academic career never robbed him of either the tastes or the charm of manner of an Italian nobleman. Although professor at the University of Lausanne, for half of his long life he made his home in the quiet country village of Céligny, where, on the shores of the Lake of Geneva, he built the beautiful little Villa Angora. Here, with all the seclusion and comforts of a miniature country estate, and surrounded by numerous and beautiful specimens of Angora cats—his favorite pets and perpetual companions, which, in painted form, ornamented even the walls of his villa—he divided his time between writing books, and entertaining his friends. From his study, thus secluded, but filled with books of all ages and in all languages—-a veritable watch tower—he observed and studied the actions, customs, prejudices, motives, feelings, and thinking of his fellow men of all times, much as would an entomologist, at a safe distance, investigate the characteristics of a society of bees industriously shaping to their whims and needs, the social and material world around them. His objectivity and freedom from bias have rarely been surpassed in the academic field.”

The comment here about "objectivity and freedom from bias" are indeed very rare in the academic world, most academics being shaped and molded by pressures of job security, grant money acquisition, peer support gathering, etc. Rogers continues, which what seems to be a well-honed description of the advanced perspective:

“While the English and German scholars were issuing equally partisan and contradictory manifestos on the causes of the war, he calmly discussed the same great event as though it were taking place on the planet Mars.”

Pareto, in other words, according to Rogers, seems to have studied society they way a chemist studies molecules or a physicist studies planets, i.e. objectively, and with experimental science and the scientific method guiding the way and taking precedence over personal belief or motive.

Paretian terminology
Pareto produced a certain amount of jargon peculiar to his own writing. One of these is the distinction between what he called “residues”, a constant, instinctive part of social phenomena, and “derivations”, a deductive part that aims to explain, justify, and demonstrate the first. [28] The following is a Pareto terminology table:

Term
Definition
Source
SentimentAn attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling: predilection; a specific view or notion: opinion; emotion; refined feeling: delicate sensibility especially as expressed in a work of art; emotional idealism; an ideal colored by emotion.Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (2000)
ResidueThe manifestation of a sentiment.Lawrence Henderson (1935) [1]
DerivationA non-logical argument, explanation, assertion, appeal to authority, or association of ideas or sentiments in words.Lawrence Henderson (1935) [1]
Logical actionActions of which the anticipated direct consequences are [probably] objectively and subjectively identical [to a first approximation].Lawrence Henderson (1935) [1]
Non-logical actionAnything that is not a logical action.
Ophelimity A simple type of utility, described by the study of acts of the homo economicus, derived from economic forces. Pareto (1897) [17]

The following is an example 1902 usage of some of the above terms by Pareto: [34]

“Each of us has within a secret adversary who tries to prevent him from abstaining from the mixture of his own sentiments with logical deductions from facts. In noting this general defect, I well know that I am not exempt. My sentiments lead me to favor freedom; therefore I have taken pains to react against them. But it may be that I have gone too far and, fearing to give too much weight to the arguments in favor of freedom, have not given them enough weight. Similarly, it is possible that, fearing to give too little weight to sentiments that I do not share, I have given them too much. In any case, since I am not quite sure that this source of error is absent, it is my duty to point it out.”

Henderson (1935) gives the following examples of sentiments: [1]

“A desire to solve a scientific problem, a feeling that justice exists, a sense of the value of certain customs and rites, a need to participate in the acts of a cult, a feeling of personal integrity, a sense of loyalty to a community, a sexual complex.”

Here, according to Henderson, we see sentiment being but a term embodying: desires, feelings, senses, and needs. He goes on to clarify that these sentiments are "regarded as forces are regarded in modern dynamics." This brings to mind James Maxwell's 1947 statement that “the only thing which can be directly perceived by the senses is force, to which may be reduced light, heat, electricity, sound and all the other things which can be perceived by the senses.”

Pareto, as summarized by Henderson, distinguished between six types of residues and four types of derivations: [30]

Residues
Derivations


1. Instinct of combinations.1. Affirmation.
2. Persistence of aggregates.2. Authority.
3. Need to manifest sentiments by external acts.3. Accord with sentiments or with principles.
4. Residues related to sociability.4. Verbal proofs.
5. Integrity of individual and of what he considers dependent upon him.
6. Sexual residuals.

In other words, the main classes of residues, as summarized by Andrew Bongiorno (1930), are: combination-residues, which compel men to innovate; persistence of aggregates, residues which compel men to conserve; those which compel men to express their sentiments by means of outward acts; those which make a man a social being; the residues of the integrity of the individual; and sexual residues. [28]

Education
Pareto completed his BS in mathematical sciences in 1867 and his PhD civil engineering, in 1870, with a dissertation on "The Fundamental Principles of Equilibrium in Solid Bodies", an essay on mechanical equilibrium, both from what is now the Polytechnic University of Turin. It is said that his later interest in equilibrium analysis in economics and sociology can be traced back to his dissertation. After graduation, Pareto worked as director of the Rome Railway Company from 1870 to 1874, after which he became managing director of the Societa Ferriere d’Italia, Florence, a firm which extracted and processed iron and allied products. [24]

Amid the 1874 “Parliamentary Revolution”, wherein the “Historical Right” fell from power, being overthrown by the “Historical Left”, Pareto, himself being descendent of the ennobled Ligurian family—his father Marchese Pareto a leading civil engineer who had to seek exile in France because of his republican opinions and adherence to Joseph Mazzini—began become an outspoken critic of the government consorteria, regarding the Italian aristocracy as “sucking the blood” from the Italian poor, and in 1882 stood as an opposition candidate for a constituency in Florence, but without success. The next decade brought about a significant change in his reaction existence, which is best summarized by English political science historian Samuel Finer’s 1966 biographical summary chapter on Pareto: [24]

Laussane school of physical socioeconomics

Auguste Walras 75
Auguste Walras
(1801-1866)



|
|
|
Leon Walras 75
Leon Walras
(1834-1910)
Leon Winiarski 75
Leon Winiarski
(1865-1915)
Maffeo Pantaleoni 75
Maffeo Pantaleoni (1857-1924)
Vilfredo Pareto 75 new
Pareto
(1848-1923)

||
|

Photo needed 75
Emanuele Sella
(1879-1946)


The connectivity tree of hard science based economics philosophy of the Lausanne school starting from French socioeconomist Leon Walrus to the two cultures synergy of Italian economist Maffeo Pantaleoni, to that of Emanuele Sella who studied under Pantaleoni, to that of Italian political economist Claudia Rotondi, who did her 1995 PhD on Pantaleoni, Pareto, and Sella.
“Pareto’s father died in 1882; and after the death of his mother in 1889, the family household in Florence broke up and Pareto changed his entire way of living. He threw up the managing directorship of the firm and, instead, accepted a consultancy. Marrying a penniless Russian girl from Venice, Allessandrina (‘Dina’) Bakunin, he moved from Florence to a villa in Fiesole. He made use of his new leisure to launch a personal crusade against the government’s foreign and domestic policies. Between 1889 and 1893 he wrote 167 articles, many of the scholarly, but the vast majority anti-government polemics. His public lectures in a working men’s institute were closed by the police [see: human molecule (banned)], and he became a marked man in government circles.

“In the course of these activities, he became closely acquainted with other free-trading publicists and economists of the day and with one of these, Maffeo Pantaleoni, the economist, he formed a warm friendship which was to endure for the rest of his life. Through, Pantaleoni, Pareto developed an interest in pure economics and became acquainted with the new, mathematically expressed equilibrium system developed by Walras, the professor of political economy at Lausanne. He soon began to contribute acute and learned articles expounding Walras’ doctrine in the Giornale degli Economisti. For these his early mathematical training had equipped him superbly and they gained him international recognition. In 1893, with some intermediation from Pantaleoni, Pareto succeeded Walras in the chair of political economy at Lausanne; in 1894 this appointment was made permanent.

Pareto’s first important publication was the two-volume Cours d’Economie Politique (1896), based on his university lectures.

In 1898, his uncle died leaving him a legacy the value of which [is] estimated at about ₣200,000 [$134 million US dollars in equivalent 2013 terms]. Cynthia Russett has also commented that his father, previously, had left him a lifetime income, which had allowed him to retire in the first place, and to devote himself to the study of mathematical economics.

The other reason which contributed to the revolution in his thinking—and which incidentally also drove him to seek retirement from his teaching career for the sake of pure academic research—was an idea that came to him in his reflections on the astonishing popularity of Marxism in Italy. How was it that propositions which, in his view, were so demonstrably false had come to be regarded by the best youth in Italy as—to us his own words—a ‘new gospel’? In 1897 the idea suddenly came to him that the bulk of human activity is not due to rational processes at all but to sentiments. Men feel an urge and act; they invent justifications afterwards. He now burned to devote himself to writing a sociology based on this new principle.

His new views were first expressed in 1900 in a long article for Rivista Italiana di Sociologia and then in his book Les Systemes Socialistes (1901-02). They were further developed in his Manuel of Political Economy (1906). In 1907, he retired from his chair at Lausanne (though he continued to deliver lectures on sociology until 1916), and decided to write the long-meditated work on sociology—Treatise on General Sociology—completing it in 1912. Publishing delays and the outbreak of war postponed its appearance until 1916.”

The point when Pareto and Italian economist Maffeo Pantaleoni met was January 1890, with whom he established a long and sincere two cultures type of friendship that would prove decisive for the future course of science. In 1893, Pantaleoni recommended Pareto to Leon Walrus for appointment as a professor of political economy at the University of Lausanne. [1]

Course on Political Economy | 1893-1997
In circa 1893, Pareto began teaching a course in political economics, on economics and sociology, at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland (see: Lausanne school), a large part of which was based on a direct extrapolation of elasticity theory and vibration theory of equilibrium of the atoms and molecules in solid bodies to develop a theory of equilibrium of moving humans in socioeconomic systems. The content of this course, finished in draft notes form in 1895, was published in two volumes, in 1896 and 1897, respectively, entitled Course of Political Economics.

“Comparison to a system of material points is the only comparison, in our opinion, which can explicate the very complicated actions and reactions of social phenomena, and which can thus give us a clear idea of economic equilibrium.”
— Pareto (1897), Course on Political Economy, Volume 2 (pg. 26)

The first volume, a little over 70 pages, explains his principles of political economy and provides a first-approximation treatment of the economic phenomena that allows for the setting forth of the general conditions of economic equilibrium. The second volume, of about 800 pages, covers applied economics, wherein a large amount of statistical and factual material is used and analyzed, and in which his famous law of income distribution (Pareto principle) is formulated. [8]

Mechanical-to-sociology comparison table
See main: see: human thermodynamics variables table
The following, below right, from the second volume (pgs. 12-13), is a 1971 English translation, by translator Ann S. Schwier, of Pareto's famous 1897 mechanical-to-sociology comparison table, below left hyperlinked text version: [17]


Mechanical phenomenon

Social phenomenon
Given a certain number of solids, we study their relations of equilibrium and movement abstracted from the other properties. We obtain thus a study of mechanics.

The science of mechanics is divided into two others. If we consider inextensibly connected material points we obtain a pure science, rational mechanics, which studies in an abstract way the forces of equilibrium and movement. The easiest part of science is equilibrium. D’Alembert’s principle, considering the forces of inertia, enables the reduction of the dynamic problem to a static one.

From rational mechanics comes applied mechanics, which is a little closer to reality, considering elasticity, friction, etc.

Real solids not only have mechanical properties of the phenomena caused by light, electricity and heat. Chemistry studies other properties. Thermodynamics, like other sciences, studies some of these properties in detail. All these sciences constitute the physical-chemical sciences.
Given a society, we study the relations of production and wealth between men, abstracted from other circumstances. We obtain thus the study of political economy.

The science of political economy is divided into two others. If we consider the homo economicus who acts only as a result of economic forces, we obtain political economy, which studies in abstract terms ophelimity. The only part of this which is well known is static equilibrium. There may be a principle for economic systems analogous to D’Alembert’s, but at present our knowledge is very poor. The theory of economic crisis offers an example of dynamic study.

From pure political economy comes applied political economy, which does not consider solely homo economicus, but also other models of humankind closer to reality.

Men and women have other characteristics which are studies by other particular sciences, such as law, religion, aesthetics, the organization of society, and so on. Some of these have quite a high level of development, others on the contrary, have not. As a whole they constitute the social sciences.
If we wish to consider a concrete fact, all these sciences must be taken into account because they have been separated through a process of abstraction.
In reality, solids with only mechanical properties do not exist. It is a mistake to assume the existence of concrete phenomena subject only to mechanical forces, abstracted form chemical ones, as it is to assume that concrete phenomena may be subtracted from the laws of rational mechanics. In reality, persons who are subject only to economic stimuli do not exist. It is a mistake to assume the existence of the concrete phenomenon subject only to economic motivations, abstracted from other considerations, just as it is to assume that a concrete phenomenon may be subtracted from the laws of pure economics.
The practice differs from the theory precisely because practice must take into account a quantity of secondary characters which are not studied in the theory. The relative importance of primary and secondary characters is not the same from the general point of view of science and from the particular point of view of a practical operation. Syntheses have sometimes been attempted. An attempt has been made to find the cause of all phenomena in:
The attraction of atoms. An attempt has been made to reduce to all physical and chemical forces from a fundamental unity. Utility, of which ophelimity is simply a type. An attempt has been made to explain all phenomena in terms of biological evolution.
These are all interesting studies. But we must not resist these hypotheses and not go far from the solid basis of experience.

The above table, to note, seems to have been modeled on Irving Fisher's earlier table, being that Pareto seems to have been well-aware of Fisher's PhD dissertation. In 1902, in his Socialist Systems, Pareto, for example, commented the following: [13]

“Progress in the purely scientific sense of political economy are considerable. Books such as Mathematical Psychics, F. L. Edgeworth, Principii di economia pura [Pure Economics], Maffeo Pantaleoni, Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, Irving Fisher, etc., are written in a purely scientific point of view. A similar attempt is one of my courses, in the first volume, published in 1896, I said: "In all treatises on political economy, the main part is formed by the science of ophélimité and utility.”

Namely that on the Edgeworth, Pantaleoni, Fisher pioneering platform, that he had made a "similar attempt" in his 1897 Course on Political Economics.

Economic molecules
Pareto, in his 1890s Course on Political Economy, not only used the "society as a system of material points" model, but also seems to have increasingly begun use or employ the "society as a system of molecules" model. Pareto's overall theory is summarized by Indian sociologist Rajendra Pandey as follows: [12]

Pareto views society as a system of human molecules which are in a complex mutual relationship.”

To clarify further, the following are main human to "molecule" comparison quotes from his Course of Political Economics, the first of which seems to come from his 1896 first volume, the latter from his 1897 second volume: [6]

“Human society appears to us as a vast aggregate of molecules, rendering services, consume products and save, and centers, or glands, where savings are transformed into capital and products, some ...” “La société humaine nous apparait ainsi comme un vaste agrégate de molécules, qui rendent des services, consomment des produits et épargnent; et de centres, ou de glandes, où l’épargne se transforme en capitaux, et les produits, les uns …” (pg. 70)


“The economic phenomenon is not a static phenomenon, it is a dynamic phenomenon. The molecules which together represent the social aggregate oscillate perpetually. We may for the sake of analysis take certain average economic positions, as we take the average level of the ocean.” “Le phénomène économique n'est pas un phénomène statique, c'est un phénomène dynamique. Les molécules dont l'ensemble représente l'agrégat social oscillent perpétuellement.” (pg. 277)


“The theories of mathematical physics teach us how the vibrations of material molecules interfere and overlap. One day, perhaps, will we have similar theory of economic vibrations.” “Les théories de la physique mathématique nous enseignent comment les vibrations des molécules matérielles interfèrent et se superposent. Un jour, peut-être , aurons-nous de semblables théories pour les vibrations économiques.” (pg. 278)


“In service of the equilibrium of the molecules of the economic aggregate, we see movement of these molecules, and finally we see rise of the conception of the whole aggregate which is in motion and vibration.” “ser en équilibre les molécules de l'agrégat économique ; ensuite nous avons considéré certains mouvements de ces molécules; enfin nous nous élevons à la conception d'un agrégat qui est tout entier en mouvement et en vibration.” (279)


“A social aggregate can be viewed in a similar appearance to that under which the elasticity theory considers molecule aggregates material. We conclude with a test of social physiology, we conduit ....” “Un agrégat social pourra alors être considéré sous un aspect analogue à celui
sous lequel la théorie de l'élasticité considère les agrégats de molécules
matérielles. Nous terminons par un essai de physiologie sociale, qui nous
conduit de ....” (pg. 409)

This is all fairly interesting and what seems to be original theory for 1896, certainly in need of much analysis. The English translation of this work, however, seems to be non-existent.

Socialist Systems | 1902
In his 1902 Socialist Systems, Pareto elaborated on his earlier 1896 outlined wealth distribution principle ideas with the following diagram—shown with added clarification annotations—and comments: [26]

“The curve of the distribution of wealth in our society, varies little from one era to another. What is called social pyramid is in reality a sort of spinning top, which the following figure gives an idea:

This is shown below, with additional quote: [17]
Pareto principle (annotated)



“The molecules of which the social aggregate is composed don’t stay at rest; some individuals enrich themselves, other impoverish themselves.”
— Pareto (c.1902)

Rich occupying the summit, the poor are at the base. Abcgf the part of the curve we are only well known, thanks to the statistical data. The adef part is only speculative. We have adopted the form indicated by Otto AmmonExternal link icon (c)and which seems to us quite likely that the shape of the curve is not due to chance. It probably depends on the distribution of the physiological and psychological characteristics of men. Moreover. can, in part, relate to the theories of pure economics, that is to say, the choice of men (these choices are specifically related to the physiological and psychological characteristics) and the obstacles encountered in production.
Manuel of Political Economy (Pareto)


Assuming men arranged in layers according to their wealth, figure abcgfed is the outer form of the social organism. From what we have said this form does not change much, it can be assumed nearly constant on average and for a short time. But the molecules that make up the social aggregate do not remain at rest; individuals get richer, others poorer. So quite extensive are the agitated movements within the social organism, which resembles, in this, a living organism. In the latter, the blood flow is rapidly moving some molecules, the absorption and secretion processes continually change the molecules composing the tissue, while the external shape of the body, such as an adult animal, feels only insignificant changes.

Assuming men arranged in layers according to other characters, such as their intelligence, their ability to study mathematics, their musical talent, poetic, literary, their moral character, etc., it is likely to have curves forms more or less similar to what we just found for the distribution of wealth.”

(add)

Manuel of Political Economy | 1906
In 1906, Pareto published Manuel of Political Economy, wherein he seems to have used the term “molecule” only once, the English translation of which reads: [14]

“§73. Economic crises. The economic complexus is composed of molecules which vibrate continuously; this is a consequence of the nature of man and of the economic problems which he has to solve. These movements may occur in different directions, and in that case …”

Though in the original French edition it is difficult to see where this quote is found. [15]

Homo economicus | Pantaleoni
In circa 1908, Italian economist Maffeo Pantaleoni, in his article “The Phenomena of Economic Dynamics”, classified Pareto's overall theory as "economic dynamics" during the course of which he comments how Pareto referred to man as "homo economicus", the outline of which is as following: [22]

“The ruling idea in economic studies following those of Adam Smith was wealth. Later it became the idea of value and is so still in the case of many writers. The science has contained in a sporadic shape much material for a science of economic equilibrium, such as has been suggested by Pareto in a work which makes only a beginning of a study of economic dynamics.

In describing dynamic phenomena comparisons are used which were formerly taken from mechanics, but now more usually from biology. Economic agents are thought of either as molecules subjected to equal pressure in all directions, or, on the other hand, as parts of a living body subjected to equal stimuli, which are mutually counteracting. There is little use in disputing as to which method is better, since the useful thing is to apply a method rather than to argue about it.

Economic dynamics may be defined as a study of movements of disequilibrium, which lead to positions of equilibrium. When an individual spends his income so as to bring into a proportion the marginal utility of different articles within his purchasing power, the equilibrium exists and is rightly called static, because it will continue indefinitely and return if disturbed. Until this condition is reached, modifications in his demand or in his supply are likely to take place, and the quantity of the goods coming within his reach will change and these changes affect both the man himself and the persons he deals with, involving both the quantity of goods available and the incomes of different producers. The state of equilibrium yields the maximum of satisfaction relatively to the initial position and to the changes which this allows.
Homo economicus (Pareto) new 2
The term homo economicus—a Linnaeus-themed variant of John Mill's 1836 generic utility maximizing "economic man"—is said to be attributed to the work of Pareto and his 1896 statement that: "man himself; stripping him of a large number of his attributes, leaving out the passions, good or bad, reducing him to a kind of molecule that only acts in response to the forces of ophelimity”, which, as summarized by Australian economics historian Michael McLure (2002), is an abstract entity that only responds to the forces of ophelimity, in other words "an abstract molecule that acts only in response to economic forces". [17]

In every society purely economic motives have an extending or contracting radius of activity; in other words, the zones of economic action grow larger or smaller. As Pareto says:

“Man’s actual conduct resembles that of the homo economicus, or that of the homo ethicus, or that of the homo religiosus. It is sometimes a composite of all these characters. There are concrete phenomena in which the economic influences transcend all others, and here it is possible to consider alone the results deduced by economic reasoning; while there are other phenomena in which the economic constituent is insignificant and may be neglected. There are still others which are intermediate in character.”

To this we in the main agree, but find it necessary to examine variations of the zones in which all these homines move, and we must notice that even the homo economicus in his own proper capacity is modified when he enters into a composite with the others.”

Australian economics historian Michael McLure has discussed Pareto’s economic molecule theory in comparison to this generic homo economicus—one who attempts to maximize utility as a consumer and economic profit as a producer—a term deriving from John Mill’s “economic man” utility logic, such that Pareto’s homo economicus is ‘an abstract molecule that responds only to economic forces’. McLure elaborates further: [17]

“In pure theory, homo economicus of Cours [on Political Economy] is analogous to a molecule in the theory of mechanics (note: the impersonal subject pronoun has been used because the homo economicus is an abstract ‘molecule’, not a person). Kirman has pointed out that ‘Pareto regarded equilibrium as the termination point of a process … The time taken for this process is not specified but it certainly is not regarded as … as negligible (Kirman 1987, pg. 806).”

The discussion here of British-French economist Alan Kirman’s synopsis of Pareto’s equilibrium model from his 1987 Dictionary of Economics entry “Pareto as an Economist” is interesting. [18]
The Mind and Society (Pareto)


Vilfredo Pareto (middle years)
Pareto's 1912 four-volume magnum opus Treatise on General Sociology, reprinted in 1935 under the English title The Mind and Society, wherein he applies chemistry, physics, and mechanics to the study of man, defined as a type of molecule, sociologically and economically (see: power center). [10]

Treatise on General Sociology | 1912
In 1912, Pareto finished his four volume Treatise on General Sociology (Trattato di Sociologia Generale), though not published until 1916—later published in English as The Mind and Society (1935)—in which he elaborated further on his early theories, arguing that people are moved by certain "residues" and by "derivations" from these residues. Only in the fourth edition does he use the term "molecules" on seven page. The following are a few example quotes:

“§2079. Organization of the social system. The economic system is made up of certain molecules set in motion by tastes and subject to …” (pg. 1442)

“… and molecules have certain thermic, electrical, and other properties. So a system made up of social molecules also has certain properties that are important to consider. One among them has been perceived, be it in a rough and crude fashion, in every period of history—the one to which with little or no exactness the term ‘utility’ …” (pg. 1456)

“… subsist in certain relationships. The reasonings (derivations), theories, beliefs that are current in the mass of such molecules are taken as manifestations of the [psychic] state of that mass and are studied as facts on a par with other facts that society presents to view. We look for uniformities among them, and try to get back to the facts in which the in turn originate.” (pg. 1919)

Again, these are fairly advanced speculations for 1916, in much need of analysis.

Action and reaction follow one another indefinitely as if in a circle”
— Vilfredo Pareto (1912), Treatise on General Sociology (Ѻ)

In 1917, the year following the completion and publication of his magnum opus, Pareto gave an address on the 25th anniversary of his appointment as professor at the University of Lausanne, July 6th, the following are two of the noted end statements from the address: [32]

“The writing of my Treatise on General Sociology was driven by the desire to bring an indispensable complement to the studies of political economy and inspired by the example of the natural sciences that I determined to begin my Treatise on General Sociology the sole purpose of which—I say sole and I insist upon the point—is to seek experimental reality, by the application to the social sciences of the methods which have proved themselves in physics, in chemistry, in astronomy, in biology, and in other such sciences.”

“No one knows better than I how imperfect this treatise is; but even if it ought soon be forgotten, I hope that it will have been of some use, as a stone that is part of a great building: that of experimental science.”

(add)
Pareto theory overview (1897)
Pareto's general theory of molecular economic vibration overlap. [33]

Molecular enrichment | Pareto principle
Another noted Pareto molecule quote, in respect to personal enrichment or impoverishment, is as follows: [17]

“The molecules of which the social aggregate is composed don’t stay at rest; some individuals enrich themselves, other impoverish themselves.”

This seems to be the mechanistic understanding of his Pareto principle of wealth distribution, a logic that he referred to as the "circulation of the aristocrats". Austrian economist and political scientist Joseph Schumpeter comments on this: [19]

“As a matter of fact, there was an incessant—to use Pareto’s term—circulation des aristocracies. The elements that composed the uppermost stratum around 900 had practically disappeared by 1500. The Medici are not really an exception.”

In sociology, this is a regime change theory referred to as the “circulation of elite”. [20] Interestingly, Pareto's human molecular enrichment / human molecule impoverishment theory seems to have given rise to the following 1942 footnote statement by Schumpeter: [19]

“It can be shown that in all cases, that human molecules rise and fall within the class into which they are born, in a manner which fits the hypothesis that they do so because of their relative aptitudes; and it can also be shown, second, that they rise and fall across the boundary lines of their class in the same manner. This rise and fall into higher and lower classes as a rule takes more than one generation. These molecules are therefore families [see: family molecule] rather than individuals. And this explains why observers who focus attention on individuals so frequently fail to find any relation between ability and class position.”

Schumpeter says he would like to elaborate on in the framework of a book, but this not at the moment being possibly, is something about which he refers readers to his 1927 “Theory of Social Classes in the Ethnic Homogenous Milieu” [21]
Vilfredo Pareto (c.1912)
Pareto reading (c.1912) at about the time of publication of his Treatise on General Sociology.

Ophelimity
In the first part of volume one, he outlines his pure principles of political economy, supposedly based on natural science methods, and in doing so coins the term “ophelimity” (ophélimité), to refer to the subjective aspect of utility—though not “utility” exactly, being that he considered the conventional definition of utility to be flawed and ambiguous on several points, hence he needed a new replacement term—the new term “ophelimity” defined by hims as ability of any object or service to satisfy a need or desire of an individual. [9]

Pareto, however, compounded this newly coined term, by bring human molecular theory into the picture, i.e. referring to a person or the economic agent as a "kind of molecule", and and society as a system of human molecules. He then compounded his newly-coined term "ophelimity" further by asserting that ophelimity has "forces" associated with it and that the human molecule "only acts" in response to these forces: [6]

“First we separate the study of ophelimity (economic satisfaction) from the diverse forms of utility, then we direct our attention to man himself; stripping him of a large number of his attributes, leaving out the passions, good or bad, reducing him to a kind of molecule that only acts in response to the forces of ophelimity.”

Pareto further distinguished between what he called “elementary ophelimity” (ophélimité élémentaire), defined as the unit of pleasure that an individual draws form the consumption of a small increase of a good. Elementary ophelimity, defined by Pareto, is function of the quantities of all goods consumed, expressed as: [8]

 \phi_a (x_a, x_b, ...)dx_a \,

a consequence of which is that partial derivatives of total utility appear in his equations of economic equilibrium. [8]

Generalizations
Pareto’s last monograph was his 1920 Generalizations, retitled as The Rise and Fall of Elites: an Application of Theoretical Sociology (1991), outlines a well-developed, articulate, and compelling theory of change based on a Newtonian vision of science and an engineering model of social equilibrium, according to which the dynamic involves a shifting balance among the countervailing forces of centralization and decentralization of power, economic expansion and contraction, and liberalism versus traditionalism in public sentiment; and in which he expounds a scheme for predicting shifts in magnitude of these forces and subsequent change in the character of society. (Ѻ)

Socioeconomic Chemical Thermodynamics



Physico-chemical system
Gibbs 75 new
Gibbs
(1876)


+
Socio-economic system
Vilfredo Pareto 75 new
Pareto
(1912)

Henderson's theory
Lawrence Henderson 75
Lawrence Henderson
(1935)

In 1935, American physiologist Lawrence Henderson theorized that Pareto's 1912 mechanics based socioeconomic equilibrium theory, while not directly based on the chemical thermodynamics based equilibrium theories of American engineer Willard Gibbs, are nevertheless arguing the same point of view, and hence modern socioeconomic equilibrium theories will need to be reformulated in the physical chemistry reaction terms of chemical thermodynamics, a unified synthesis of Gibbs and Pareto, in short. [1]
Henderson | Gibbs + Pareto = social equilibrium
A common misattribution, originating from the 1935 alluded to similarity between the 1912 mechanical equilibrium theories Pareto and the 1876 chemical equilibrium theories of American engineer Willard Gibbs, outlined by American physiologist Lawrence Henderson, is that Pareto transposed his theory of social equilibria directly from the chemical thermodynamics work of Gibbs. The following, to exemplify, is a 2005 misattribution example found in the 2005 work of American science historian Hunter Heyck: [25]

Pareto’s work appealed to social scientists who had lost faith in the rationality of the public but not in the rationality of science. Henderson fit the bill perfectly: he was so taken with Pareto’s ideas that he led a faculty seminar on Pareto at Harvard in the early 1930s, from which emerged Henderson’s study Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologist’s Interpretation.

Pareto’s mathematical analysis of society was based on his engineer’s understanding of the thermodynamics of equilibrium systems. For example, one of Pareto’s central concepts was that of ‘ophelimity’, now usually called Pareto optimality. Ophelimity was a redefinition of marginal utility in thoroughly thermodynamic terms. Pareto defined a system as having maximum ophelimity when the increase of the ophelimity of any element in the system necessarily reduced that of some other element (or elements) in the system. Thus ophelimity, like energy, always was conserved in a closed system, making the reallocation of ophelimity a zero-sum game. This concept, it should be noted, especially welfare economics, where it plays an important role in the work of Paul Samuelson and Abram Berg.”

This, however, is historical anachronism. At the time when Pareto was studying civil engineering at Polytechnic University of Turin, from 1865 to 1870, thermo-dynamics (see: etymology) was barely yet a coined term, and it would not be until 1875 when Rudolf Clausius would call his second edition The Mechanical Theory of Heat a "textbook" suitable for standard engineering study, in Germany, let alone in Italy. While it is true that Pareto did begin to use the term "thermodynamics" on about 16 various pages of his 1912 Treatise on General Sociology, he only uses the term "entropy" once in the fourth volume, which is the key term one would have to grapple with if he or she was so inclined to attempt to reformulate the general equilibrium theory of economics in "thoroughly thermodynamic terms" as Heyck alleges.

In any event, to clarify, the name Gibbs is not found in Pareto's 1897 two-volume Course of Political Economics—which, of course, is natural enough being that Gibbs' 1876 On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances was not translated into French until 1899 by French chemist Henry Le Chatelier—nor, supposing that Pareto, by chance, read Gibbs in the 1900s, is the name Gibbs found in Pareto's 1916 four-volume Treatise on General Sociology. [10]

The root if the misattribution seems to have arisen in the views of American physiologist Lawrence Henderson who in his 1935 Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologists Interpretation, elaborates on a large number of Pareto-Gibbs comparisons, such as the following: [1]

“Gibbs considers temperature, pressure, and concentrations, so Pareto considers sentiments, or, strictly speaking, the manifestations of sentiments in words and deeds, verbal elaborations, and …”
Pareto circle
The so-called Harvard Pareto circle that solidified at Harvard University from 1932 to 1942, owing to the promotion of Pareto's work by American physical chemist, biochemist, physiologist, and sociologist Lawrence Henderson.

Henderson, however, never actually stated that Pareto derived his theory from Gibbs but rather only “compared Pareto’s social system to a physicochemical system as defined by Gibbs and emphasized that the equilibrium of the social system is logically identical to physiological equilibrium.” [12] In fact, in his appendix "Note 5", Henderson states is views on this matter explicitly:

“It is very unlikely that the general characteristics of Gibbs’ system had anything to do with Pareto’s construction of his social system. In other words, it is very probable, I thing certain, that Pareto did not keep Gibbs’ work in mind and a fortiori that he did not imitate it, when he worked out his social system; so that Pareto’s system is not the result of the application of the theories of physical chemistry to sociology.”

Henderson, however, does have this application in mind, and in his end note appendices, actually goes though a comparison of the equilibrium properties of the following liquid phase chemical reaction, namely of reactants carbon acid H2CO3 with disodium phosphate Na2HPO4 to form the products of sodium bicarbonate NaHCO3 and monosodium phosphate NaH2PO4:

 H_2CO_3 + Na_2HPO_4 \rightleftharpoons NaHCO_3 + NaH_2PO_4 \,

to that of the equilibrium properties of social systems, at the end of which he states:

“This simple example illustrates [the] logical principles [physical chemistry] that find universal application in the physical, biological, and social sciences.”

Henderson's treatise is fairly decent and in need of detailed analysis.

In any event, Henderson's 1935 Gibbs-Pareto comparisons, in turn, were later picked up by American sociologist Kenneth Bailey, whose 1990 Social Entropy Theory further builds on Henderson's comparisons, albeit it seems without reading his "Note 5", to outline a rather faint eluded to connection between Pareto and Gibbs. Bailey states, for example: [11]

“There is a direct link from the equilibrium analysis of Gibbs (1877), through Henderson (1935), who was a great admirer of both Gibbs and Pareto, to Parson (1951), thus the bulk of social systems analysis, particularly functionalism, is rooted in Gibbsian equilibrium analysis.”

In 2001, citing Bailey, American sociologist Daniel Rigney stated the following: [7]

“In popular parlance we speak of ‘chemistry’ of personal and group relationships. Vilfredo Pareto (1916) had a rather different sort of social chemistry in mind when he transposed his theory of social equilibria directly from the theory of chemical equilibria advanced by chemist J. Willard Gibbs.”

Likewise, in 2010, citing Bailey, Sri Lankan disaster management theorist Buddhi Weerasinghe stated the following: [11]

“The concept of resilience—time to recovery, the rate of speed of return to pre-existing conditions after disturbance (engineering resilience); the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behavior (ecological resilience)—has increasingly gained recognition and acceptance and it is now frequently used in many fields. In the early 20th century, economists and sociologists, such as Vilfredo Pareto began to apply J. Willard Gibbsequilibrium criterion to the modeling of economic systems and social systems (Bailey, 1990).”

Entropy
In his discussions and theories on mind and society, Pareto was cognizant of the concept of entropy but, according to Kenneth Bailey, eschewed it, instead relying heavily upon the concept of equilibrium. [4] Pareto, in fact, only seems to use the term once, namely in his fourth volume, where he says:

“The ‘energy’ of mechanics must not be confused with the ‘energy’ of ordinary parlance, nor is it excusable to imagine that a mechanical ‘live force’ is a force that is alive. If one would know the meaning of ‘entropy’ one had better glance at a treatise on thermodynamics.”

This statement seems to be in the vicinity of the defunct theory of life view.

Recent views
In 2003, Indian physicist Bikas Chakrabarti, in his article “Money in Gas-Like Markets: Gibbs and Pareto Laws”, coauthored with Arnab Chatterjee and S.S. Manna, considered ideal-gas models of trading markets, where each agent is identified with a gas molecule and each trading as an elastic or money-conserving (two-body) collision. Unlike in the ideal gas, they introduce a quantity the “saving propensity” $λ of agents, such that each agent saves a fraction $λ of its money and trades with the rest. They show that steady-state money or wealth distribution in a market is Gibbs-like for relation $λ = 0, has a non-vanishing most-probable value for $λ ≠ 0, and Pareto-like when $λ is widely distributed among the agents. They compare these results with observations on wealth distributions of various countries. [2]

In the 2008 article “Pareto and Boltzmann-Gibbs behavior in a Deterministic Multi-agent System, several authors used a Pareto-Boltzmann-Gibbs logic to develop an economic dynamics model in which an economy is a deterministic system of interacting agents. They consider the dynamics of the system to be described by a coupled map lattice with near neighbor interactions, in which the evolution of each agent results from the competition between two factors: the agent's own tendency to grow and the environmental influence that moderates this growth. These authors argue that depending on the values of the parameters that control these factors, the system can display Pareto or Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical behaviors in its asymptotic dynamical regime. [3]

Schmoller anecdote
The following is a noted humorous and witty encounter between Pareto and German economics historian Gustav Schmoller (1838-1917) (Ѻ) , following a speech by Pareto at a statistical congress in Berne, Switzerland: [36]

“When Schmoller challenged Pareto, saying that there were no economic laws, Pareto politely asked if there were any restaurants where one might eat for nothing. Schmoller disdainfully replied that one always had to pay something. That, retorted Pareto, was natural economic law.”

(add)

Quotes | On
The following are related quotes on Pareto:

Pareto's theory is that pure science is science is ‘rational mechanics’. Pure political economy, therefore, becomes a mathematical science. He begins with man as a ‘hedonistic molecule’ in which the economic factor is the primary force. But an analysis of the molecule into its component parts demonstrates its complexity and the presence of many other forces. Each factor must be studied separately and then all the factors recombined to form a synthetic concept of a real society or sociology.”
Howard W. Odum (1929), Introduction to Social Research [38]

Pareto’s Treatise on General Sociology is the hardest boiled book I have ever read. Three times, since I passed my puberty, has my mind been made over. Once by a nexus of which Henry Adams was the center, once by a matrix of which Frazer burned brightest, and once by a long study of genetics and evolution. Pareto is doing the job a fourth time, and far more vitally than any others.”
Bernard DeVoto (c.1930) [27]

Pareto’s monumental work, Trattato di Sociologia Generale, lies before us as the most massive and impressive statement of the mechanistic conception of social life.”
Werner Stark (1962), Fundamental Forms of Social Thought [23]

Pareto was one of the last Renaissance scholars. Trained in physics and mathematics, he became a polymath whose genius radiated into nearly all other major fields of knowledge.”
— Joseph Lopreato (1999), Publication (co-author: Sandra Rusher) (Ѻ)

Quotes | By
The following are noted quotes:

“Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truths for yourself.”
— Vilfredo Pareto (c.1910), comment on Johannes Kepler [1]

“My wish is to construct a system of sociology on the model of celestial mechanics, physics, and chemistry.”
— Vilfredo Pareto (1912), Treatise on General Sociology (pg. #) [5]

References
1. Henderson, Lawrence J. (1935). Pareto’s General Sociology: A Physiologists Interpretation (Gibbs, 9+ pgs; sentiments, residues, derivations, pgs. 20-22; Note 8: non-logical actions, pgs. 97-103; sentiment examples, pg. 63). Harvard University Press.
2. Chatterjee , Arnab, Chakrabarti, Bikas K., Manna, S. S. (2003).Money in Gas-Like Markets: Gibbs and Pareto Laws”, Physica Scripta T106 (2003) 36-38.
3. Gonzalez-Estevez, J., Cosenza, MG, R Lopez-Ruiz, Sanchez, JR. (2008). “Pareto and Boltzmann-Gibbs behaviors in a deterministic multi-agent system” (PDF), Jan 7, Elsevier.
4. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume Four) (entropy, pg. 1461). AMS Press.
(b) Bailey, Kenneth D. (1990). Social Entropy Theory (section: “Pareto”, pg. 59-61). State University of New York Press.
5. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1916). Treatise on General Sociology (§20, pg. 16). Publisher.
(b) Stark, Werner. (1962). The Fundamental Forms of Social Thought (quote, 126-27). Routledge.
6. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1896). Course of Political Economics (Cours d’Economie Politique), Volume One. University of Lausanne.
(b) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1897). Course of Political Economics (Cours d’Economie Politique), Volume Two. University of Lausanne.
(c) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1964). Cours d’Economie Politique (molécules, 5+ pgs; "à une sorte de molécule", pg. 398). Librairie Droz.
7. Rigney, Daniel. (2001). The Metaphorical Society: an Invitation to Social Theory (Gibbs, pg. 50). Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Marchionatti, Roberto. (2004). “Introduction: the Classical Era of Mathematical Economics”, in: Early Mathematical Economics, 1871-1915 (pg. 26). Psychology Press.
9. (a) Marchionatti, Roberto. (2004). “Introduction: the Classical Era of Mathematical Economics”, in: Early Mathematical Economics, 1871-1915 (pg. 26). Psychology Press.
(b) Optimum de Pareto (French → English) – Wikiberal.org.
10. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1964). Cours d’Economie Politique. Librairie Droz.
(a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume One) (chemistry, 24+ pgs; physics, 15+ pgs; thermodynamics, 2+ pgs). AMS Press.
(b) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume Two) (chemistry, 1+ pgs). AMS Press.
(c) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume Three) (chemistry, 8+ pgs; physics, 7+ pgs; thermodynamics, 2+ pgs). AMS Press.
(d) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume Four) (chemistry, 8+ pgs; physics, 4+ pgs; thermodynamics, pg. 1461; molecules, 7+ pgs). AMS Press.
11. Bailey, Kenneth D. (1990). Social Entropy Theory (Gibbs, 8+ pgs; section: “Pareto”, pg. 59-61). State University of New York Press.
12. Parascandola, John. (1992). “L. J. Henderson”, in: Science at Harvard University: Historical Perspectives (editors: Clark Elliott and Margaret Rossiter) (pg. 182). Lehigh University Press.
13. (a) Pandey, Rajendra. (1989). Mainstream Traditions of Social Stratification Theory: Marx, Weber, Pareto (“human molecules”, pg. 83). Mittal Publications.
(b) Ragendra Pandey (about), in: Sociology of Underdevelopment. Mittal Publications, 1986.
14. Pareto, Vilfredo. (1971). Manuel of Political Economy (translator: Ann S. Schwier) (molecules, pg. 383). Scholars Book Shelf.
15. Pareto, Vilfredo. (1906). Manuale di economia politica (molécules, 0+ pgs). Societa Editrice.
16. Pareto, Vilfredo. (1935). The Mind and Society: Trattato di sociologia generale (Volume Four) (molecules, 7+ pgs). AMS Press.
17. (a) McLure, Michael. (2002). Pareto, Economics and Society: the Mechanical Analogy (molecules, pg. 124; molecule, 4+ pgs; comparison table, pg. 65-66). Routledge.
(b) Kirman, Alan P. (1987). “Pareto as an Economist”, in: The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Volume Three (editors: J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman) (pgs. 804-09). MacMillan Press.
18. (a) Kirman, Alan P. (1987). “Pareto as an Economist”, in: The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Volume Three (editors: J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P. Newman) (pgs. 804-09). MacMillan Press.
(b) Kirman, Alan (contributions) – DictionaryOfEconomics.com.
(c) Alan Kirman (curriculum vitae) – Les Universites a Aix en Provence.
19. Schumpeter, Joseph. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (Pareto, 6+ pgs; "circulation des aristocracies", pg. 124; §18: The Human Element, pgs. 200-218; human molecules, pg. 204). Routledge.
20. Circulation of elite – Wikipedia.
21. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1927). “Theory of Social Classes in the Ethnic Homogenous Milieu” (“Theorie der sozialen Klassen im ethnisch homgene Milieu”), Archiv fur Soziallwissenichaft.
22. Pantaleoni, Maffeo. (1919). “The Phenomena of Economic Dynamics” (pdf), Abstract of Paper, in: Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, New York City, Dec 27-31 (pgs. 112-22; homo economicus, pg. 115). Princeton University Press.
23. Stark, Werner. (1962). The Fundamental Forms of Social Thought (quote, 125). Routledge.
24. (a) Finer, Samuel. (1966). “Biographical Summary”, in: Vilfredo Pareto: Sociological Writings (selected and introduced by: Samuel Finer; translated by Derick Mirfin) (§2, pgs. 9-12). Frederick A. Praeger.
(b) Samuel Finer – Wikipedia.
25. (a) Crowther-Heyck, Hunter. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: the Bounds of Reason in Modern America (pg. 69). JHU Press.
(b) Hunter A. Crowther-Heyck (about) – ACLS.org.
26. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1902). The Socialist Systems, Volume 1 (Les Systéms Socialistes, Volume 1) (diagram, pgs. 6-7). V. Giard & E. Briére.
(b) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1902). The Socialist Systems, Volume 2 (Les Systéms Socialistes, Volume 2). V. Giard & E. Briére.
27. Stegner, Wallace E. (2001). The Uneasy Chair: A Biography of Bernard DeVoto (Pareto, 26+ pgs; course, pg. 82; derivation, pg. 110; §: Seminar on Pareto, pg. 138-43; three times, pg. 138). University of Nebraska Press.
28.
Bongiorno, Andrew. (1930). “A Study of Pareto’s Treatise on General Sociology” (abs) (quote, pg. 351), The American Journal of Sociology, 36(3):349-70.
29. Rogers, James H. (1924). “Vilfredo Pareto: the Mathematician of the Social Sciences” (pdf), Proceedings of the International Mathematical Congress (pg. 969-72). Kraus Reprint, 1967.
30. (a) Henderson, Lawrence J. (1935). Pareto’s General Sociology: A Physiologists Interpretation (§VI: Classification of Residues and Derivations, pgs. 32-41). Harvard University Press.
(b) Margarita, Any. (2013). “Vilfredo Pareto”, Prezi.com, Oct 21.
31. Russett, Cynthia. (1966). The Concept of Equilibrium in American Social Thought (pg. 88). Yale College.
32. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1917). “Address”, on the 25th anniversary of appointment as professor at the University of Lausanne, Jul 6; in: Journal d’Economie Politique (pg. 426 ff), 1917.
(b) Homans, George C. and Curtis, Charles P. (1934). An Introduction to Pareto: His Sociology (Appendix, pgs. 291-99; note: Address is in French). Alfred A. Knopf.
(c) Russett, Cynthia. (1966). The Concept of Equilibrium in American Social Thought (pg. 89). Yale College.
33. Thims, Libb. (2013). “Econoengineering and Economic Behavior: Particle, Atom, Molecule, or Agent Models?” (video, 1:33-min) (article, 40-pgs) (PowerPoint, 36-slides), Key speaker talk delivered at the University of Pitesti Econophysics and Sociophysics Workshop (UPESW) / Exploratory Domains of Econophysics News (EDEN V) (organizer: Gheorghe Savoiu). University of Pitesti, Pitesti, Romania, Jun 29.
34. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1902). The Socialist Systems, Volume 1 (Les Systéms Socialistes, Volume 1) (pg. 6). Par Les Soins de G.H. Bousquety, 1926.
(b) Henderson, Lawrence J. (1935). Pareto’s General Sociology: A Physiologists Interpretation (pgs. 42-43). Harvard University Press.
35. Mahon, Basil (2003). The Man Who Changed Everything – the Life of James Clerk Maxwell (senses quote, pg. 25). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36. (a) Suranyi-Unger, Theo. (1931). Economics in the Twentieth Century (pg. 128). Publisher; in Economics in the Twentieth Century: the History of its International Development (pg. xxi). Routledge, 2013.
(b) Seligman Ben B. (1962). Main Currents in Modern Economicvs: Economic Thought Since 1870 (pg. 393). The Free Press.
(c) Hsieh, Ching-Yao, and Ye, Meng-Hua. (1991). Economics, Philosophy, and Physics (pgs. 48-49). M.E. Sharpe.
37. (a) Crick, Francis. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: the Scientific Search for the Soul (pg. 231). Simon and Schuster. (b) Gould, Stephen J. (2010). Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections on Natural History (pg. 83). W. Norton.
38. (a) Sorokin, Pitirim. (1928). Contemporary Sociological Theories (pdf) (§1: The Mechanistic School [pdf], pgs. 4-62). Harper & Brothers.
(b) Odum, Howard W. and Jocher, Katharine C. (1929). An Introduction to Social Research (pg. 184-85). H. Holt and Co.

Further reading
● Pareto, Vilfredo. (1897). Manual of Political Economy: a Critical and Variorum Edition (editors: Aldo Montesano, Alberto Zanni, Luigino Bruni, John Chipman, and Michale McLure). Oxford University Press.
● Pareto, Vilfredo. (1920). The Rise and Fall of Elites: an Application of Theoretical Sociology (Introduction: Hans Zetterberg). Transaction Publishers, 1991.
● Edgeworth, Francis. (1926). “Pareto, Vilfredo”, Palgrave’s Dictionary, in: F.Y. Edgeworth’s Mathematical Psychics and Further Papers on Political Economy (Amz) (pgs. 489-01). Oxford University Press, 2003.
● Donzelli, Franco. (1997). “Pareto’s Mechanical Dream” (pdf), History of Economic Ideas, 3:127-78.

External links
Vilfredo Pareto – Wikipedia.
Vilfredo Pareto (quotes) – Wikiquote.
Vilfredo Pareto (quotes) – GoodReads.com.

TDics icon ns