90 THE ROMAN EMPIRE
it promoted growth: see especially Frier and Kehoe (2007), Lo Cascio (2007), and
Kehoe (1997). Hopkins (1995/6) elaborated his earlier model of imperial taxes
stimulating trade and growth; for a new assessment of the contribution of various
types of taxes see Scheidel (forthcoming). Legal institutions regulating guardianship
have not received due attention in view of the demographic reality that a large share
of the property was owned by children under the age of full legal capacity and
women: Saller (1994, 2007), Kehoe (2013). Aubert (1994) examines the role of
managers and the law of agency. On the general absence of corporations in Roman
law, see Malmendier (2005). Laws regulating banking and the issuance of coinage
promoted economic activity, though to what degree is a matter of debate: Howgego
(1992, 1994, 1995), Duncan-Jones (1994), Harl (1996), Andreau (1999), Harris
(2006, 2008), Rathbone and Temin (2008), Temin (2013).
As a fundamentally agrarian economy, the empire’s economic growth was related
to demographic growth or decline and urbanization. Frier (2000) and Scheidel
(2007a) offer broad demographic estimates of the empire’s population; Lo Cascio
and Malanima (2005) argue for a higher estimate, but Fentress (2009) and De Ligt
(2012) use archaeological evidence of settlements to support lower estimates. The
economic consequences of high mortality, especially the shock of the Antonine
plague, have received attention: Duncan-Jones (1996), Scheidel (2002), Lo Cascio
(2012) for the impact of the plague. For malaria and other recurrent infectious
diseases, see the important work of Sallares (2002), and also Scobie (1986), Shaw
(1996), and Scheidel (1996a, 2001).
The relatively high level of urbanization in the empire had both positive and
negative effects on economic growth. Cities promoted growth through differentiation
and specialization of labor: Lo Cascio (2009), Bowman and Wilson (2011), Erdkamp
(2012); cities facilitated the development of human capital through formal education
and informal exchange of skills, but also exacerbated the negative impact of
infectious diseases (Saller 2012). The impact of Rome as the ruling megalopolis is the
subject of Morley (1996).
Archaeological and other sources have led to a better understanding of the urban
craft economy: Mattingly and Salmon (2001), Wilson (2002), and now Hawkins
(2012) on dis- integration of craft production. See Verboven (2007) for collegia.
The issue of whether cities of the empire should be considered ‘consumer cities’
has stimulated persistent debate. For an important clarifi cation, see Erdkamp (2001).
Jongman (1988) provides a detailed study of the economy of Pompeii.
The Roman Empire comprised many regions with varied economies. Italy is
generally thought to have been the wealthiest as a legacy of imperial conquest: Bang
(2012) is a salutary reminder of the exploitative power that benefi tted Italy. A
summary of regional developments is offered by Leveau (2007) for the western
empire, Alcock (2007) for the eastern empire, and Rathbone (2007) for Roman
Egypt. The availability of raw materials naturally varied by region, and the
monumental grandeur of Roman cities depended on transporting the marble and
other materials to the sites of construction: see Fant (1988, 1989, 1993), Hirt (2010),
and Wilson (2012). For mining and metals, Wilson (2007) and Domergue (2008).