We know little in detail about the economy of the Roman world. There are
no government accounts, no offi cial records of production, trade,
occupational distribution, taxation. A systematic account of the Roman
economy is therefore beyond our reach. Economic historians, more even
than those historians with traditional interests, must set themselves limited
objectives and be imaginative and discriminating in their pursuit of them.^1
We begin with a simple model of the Roman economy, arrived at by
setting that economy against the background of other, better known, pre-
industrial economies. The next step is to ask how far it is possible to progress
beyond a broad characterization of the Roman economy as underdeveloped
toward a delineation of the peculiarly Roman form or forms of
underdevelopment, and by which of the several available methodologies
and approaches. In a fi nal section the economy’s capacity for growth is
explored with reference to the period of the Principate.
A simple model
The Roman economy was underdeveloped. This means essentially that the
mass of the population lived at or near subsistence level. In a typical
underdeveloped, pre- industrial economy, a large proportion of the labour
force is employed in agriculture, which is the main avenue for investment
and source of wealth. The level of investment in manufacturing industries is
low. Resources that might in theory be devoted to growth- inducing
investment are diverted into consumption or into unproductive speculation
and usury. Demand for manufactured goods is relatively low, and most
needs are met locally with goods made by small craftsmen or at home.
Backward technology is a further barrier to increased productivity. Finally,
there is no class of entrepreneurs who are both capable of perceiving
opportunities for profi t in large- scale organization of manufacture and
prepared to undergo the risks entailed in making the necessary investment.
5
An underdeveloped economy
71