AN UNDERDEVELOPED ECONOMY 89of views has narrowed with the accumulation of archaeological studies and the
application of modern economic theory. It is now broadly recognized that to cast the
debate in terms of ‘autarkic primitivism’ versus ‘modernism’ obscures more than it
illuminates (after all, no one self- identifi es as part of either camp). Furthermore, to
characterize the imperial economy as having enjoyed ‘signifi cant growth’ or
‘signifi cant trade’ begs for more precision through comparisons with economic
development in other periods and places (Saller 2002).
Recent works addressing a broad range of issues in Roman economic history
include: the Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World (Scheidel,
Morris and Saller 2007), usefully supplemented by Scheidel (2012), a series of
volumes from the Oxford Roman Economy Project (Bowman and Wilson 2009,
2011, 2013) and a series of conference volumes edited by Lo Cascio (2003, 2006,
2009).
Efforts to estimate the total economic production of the Roman empire have been
made by Goldsmith (1984), Hopkins (1995/96), Maddison (2007), Scheidel and
Friesen (2009), and Temin (2013). Some scholars argue that in the absence of
statistics such macroeconomic estimates are not well founded (Bowman and Wilson
2009). The standard of living of the residents of the empire has been analyzed
optimistically by Jongman (2007) and Kron (2012), and more realistically by
Rathbone (2009), Allen (2009), Harris (2011) and Scheidel (2012).
Approaches and methods continue to be debated with Finley’s Ancient Economy
as the starting point (Morris 1994, 1999). More explicit attention has been devoted
recently to possible causes of growth and its limits (Hopkins 1995/96, Saller 2002,
Scheidel 2009a, Wilson 2009, Harris 2011, Temin 2013). The most- discussed causes
are trade (‘Smithian growth’), technological improvements, and institutions. For the
‘cabotage’ model of trade and connectivity in the Mediterranean, see Horden and
Purcell (2000); also on trade, Peacock and Williams (1986), Woolf (1992), Morley
(2007 a and b), Bang (2007, 2008), Tchernia (2011), Wilson and Bowman
(forthcoming), and on trade with India, Rathbone (2000). Parker (1992) provides
the fundamental treatment of Roman shipwrecks. Rathbone (2003) analyzes the
cost of shipbuilding. Much debate has swirled around Finley’s assertion that the
Roman Empire was not an integrated market: in favour of integration see Temin
(2001) and Kessler and Temin (2008), effectively critiqued by Bransbourg (2012).
Fulford (2009) suggests a more limited integration of coastal cities. Scheidel’s ORBIS
now provides a remarkable online tool for estimating travel times and transportation
costs around the empire. De Ligt (1993) and Frayn (1993) study fairs and markets.
Finley’s (1965) view of slow, incremental technological progress has been
challenged by Greene (2000) and Wilson (2002). Schneider (2007) and Pleket (2006)
offer balanced assessments; Zelener (2006) highlights the issue of turning better
technology into higher productivity. Oleson (2008) provides a reference work on
ancient engineering and technology. A key issue in economic performance is how
successfully the Romans harnessed non- somatic sources of energy: see Wikander
(1984, 2008) on water- mills and Wilson (2002). Smil (2010) offers a more modest
assessment of the impact of non- somatic energy sources on the Roman economy. For
maritime technology see Harris and Iara (2011); for food technology, Curtis (2001);
for fi sh processing, Wilson (2006a) and Marzano (2013b); for construction
technology, Wilson (2006b).
Prompted by D. North (1990), ancient historians have increasingly devoted
attention to the institutional context of economic behavior and the extent to which