What do you think?
Rate this book
The Princeton Economic History of the Western World #71
The Roman Market Economy
What modern economics can tell us about ancient Rome
The quality of life for ordinary Roman citizens at the height of the Roman Empire probably was better than that of any other large group of people living before the Industrial Revolution. The Roman Market Economy uses the tools of modern economics to show how trade, markets, and the Pax Romana were critical to ancient Rome's prosperity.
Peter Temin, one of the world's foremost economic historians, argues that markets dominated the Roman economy. He traces how the Pax Romana encouraged trade around the Mediterranean, and how Roman law promoted commerce and banking. Temin shows that a reasonably vibrant market for wheat extended throughout the empire, and suggests that the Antonine Plague may have been responsible for turning the stable prices of the early empire into the persistent inflation of the late. He vividly describes how various markets operated in Roman times, from commodities and slaves to the buying and selling of land. Applying modern methods for evaluating economic growth to data culled from historical sources, Temin argues that Roman Italy in the second century was as prosperous as the Dutch Republic in its golden age of the seventeenth century.
The Roman Market Economy reveals how economics can help us understand how the Roman Empire could have ruled seventy million people and endured for centuries.
The quality of life for ordinary Roman citizens at the height of the Roman Empire probably was better than that of any other large group of people living before the Industrial Revolution. The Roman Market Economy uses the tools of modern economics to show how trade, markets, and the Pax Romana were critical to ancient Rome's prosperity.
Peter Temin, one of the world's foremost economic historians, argues that markets dominated the Roman economy. He traces how the Pax Romana encouraged trade around the Mediterranean, and how Roman law promoted commerce and banking. Temin shows that a reasonably vibrant market for wheat extended throughout the empire, and suggests that the Antonine Plague may have been responsible for turning the stable prices of the early empire into the persistent inflation of the late. He vividly describes how various markets operated in Roman times, from commodities and slaves to the buying and selling of land. Applying modern methods for evaluating economic growth to data culled from historical sources, Temin argues that Roman Italy in the second century was as prosperous as the Dutch Republic in its golden age of the seventeenth century.
The Roman Market Economy reveals how economics can help us understand how the Roman Empire could have ruled seventy million people and endured for centuries.
320 pages, Paperback
First published December 16, 2012
29 people are currently reading
531 people want to read
About the author
Peter Temin
35 books47 followersPeter Temin was an economist and economic historian, serving as the Gray Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, where he was formerly the head of the Economics Department.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 5, 2013
A fascinating attempt by a leading economic historian to work through a new area--ancient economic history--and to explain the concepts and tools of economics to ancient historians. The limits of the book are not Peter Temin's fault, but the fact that we have so little in the way of economic facts and data to go on--especially as compared to the rich political histories we have for Ancient Rome. But this sparsity almost makes the puzzle more interesting. One chapter, for example, is based on a regression analysis of the complete data set of Roman wheat prices--all six prices that we know of. Yup, six data points over several centuries from around the Mediterranean. Attempts to make inferences about growth depend on even sparser data, or else indirect links like the number of shipwrecks discovered or the number of pottery shards.
Through all of this, Temin has a number of specific arguments that he makes in a compelling manner:
--Rome was a market economy (unlike medieval/feudal economies), in that prices were set by markets, allowed to fluctuate, and integrated across markets. This was true not just for commodities like wheat, but also for labor (Temin has an extensive discussion about why Roman slavery does not violate this analysis, in part because he argues it was effectively much more benign than just about any other slavery in any other civilization) and financial products.
--Rome at least temporarily escaped the Malthusian trap, having sustained growth (at pre-industrial revolution rates) and incomes well above subsistence, and not just for the elites.
--The Roman economy can be understood using the same tools/procedures we use for modern economies.
Through all of this, Temin has a number of specific arguments that he makes in a compelling manner:
--Rome was a market economy (unlike medieval/feudal economies), in that prices were set by markets, allowed to fluctuate, and integrated across markets. This was true not just for commodities like wheat, but also for labor (Temin has an extensive discussion about why Roman slavery does not violate this analysis, in part because he argues it was effectively much more benign than just about any other slavery in any other civilization) and financial products.
--Rome at least temporarily escaped the Malthusian trap, having sustained growth (at pre-industrial revolution rates) and incomes well above subsistence, and not just for the elites.
--The Roman economy can be understood using the same tools/procedures we use for modern economies.
May 1, 2016
Beautifully readable, even for a non-economist. The breadth of his coverage was impressive, as was his ability to relate Roman economy to ancient daily life. I found his analysis of Roman slavery fascinating, particularly in its dramatic differences from America's version. He provided the clearest explanation of Roman trade guilds that I've come across . . . which is why I was reading the book.
July 31, 2022
This is a book by an economic historian that ties together what we know about the workings of the Roman\ market economy, especially from the late republic through the early empire period. In a nutshell, the author concludes that the Romans appeared to have a market economy, versus a command economy or a bureaucratic administrative state, although there were elements of these features too. The general conclusion is that if we want to think constructively about how people in the Roman Empire lived, in terms of their normal activities of living, working, and prospering, then the principles of a market economy - not that far different from what we have today - are a good place to start.
Having said that, this is a book about economic history and how one does such history making use of evidence that is two millennia old. Professor Temin first starts by reviewing some basic economic ideas. The words of choice in economics sometimes seem like everyday words, but they are often very specific in their meanings. Such is the case here and if one is interested in a refresher course on some of these ideas, this book is useful and surprisingly readable. Then there is the simple matters of prices and costs, and how decisions about them get aggregated into market decisions. That is hard enough to follow in current economic studies and textbooks and it is much “woolier” when the specific details of the settings are ancient and quite different from how people live today. Then there are “economic institutions”. How did financial transactions happen? Were there banks? How were loans made? How did trade happen? How did economic actors deal with spotty information when making transactions that spanned hundreds or even thousands of miles?
Towards the end are the questions of overall economic performance and growth. This is a knotty problem, given evidentiary gaps but particularly because the common wisdom is that economic growth was quite low for centuries before the industrial revolution and that the particular combination of factors in the industrial revolution is what permitted modern idea of growth to be realistically considered. Temin raises the issues that while the behavior of the Roman economy may not be consistent with modern industrial growth, there is evidence that there was some growth and growth with stability at the beginning of the empire and that this led to Romans living better than people had lived before the Empire. Much of the argument here is about assumptions and methodologies however, and the student of ancient growth is only just getting started.
This is an academic book that brings together a range of work, some of it published elsewhere, that seeks to provide the current state of knowledge on the Roman economy and the directions for future research. In this, the book is quite successful. If one is seeking more general history and less theory and methodological discussion, then this might not be the right book. I enjoyed it.
Having said that, this is a book about economic history and how one does such history making use of evidence that is two millennia old. Professor Temin first starts by reviewing some basic economic ideas. The words of choice in economics sometimes seem like everyday words, but they are often very specific in their meanings. Such is the case here and if one is interested in a refresher course on some of these ideas, this book is useful and surprisingly readable. Then there is the simple matters of prices and costs, and how decisions about them get aggregated into market decisions. That is hard enough to follow in current economic studies and textbooks and it is much “woolier” when the specific details of the settings are ancient and quite different from how people live today. Then there are “economic institutions”. How did financial transactions happen? Were there banks? How were loans made? How did trade happen? How did economic actors deal with spotty information when making transactions that spanned hundreds or even thousands of miles?
Towards the end are the questions of overall economic performance and growth. This is a knotty problem, given evidentiary gaps but particularly because the common wisdom is that economic growth was quite low for centuries before the industrial revolution and that the particular combination of factors in the industrial revolution is what permitted modern idea of growth to be realistically considered. Temin raises the issues that while the behavior of the Roman economy may not be consistent with modern industrial growth, there is evidence that there was some growth and growth with stability at the beginning of the empire and that this led to Romans living better than people had lived before the Empire. Much of the argument here is about assumptions and methodologies however, and the student of ancient growth is only just getting started.
This is an academic book that brings together a range of work, some of it published elsewhere, that seeks to provide the current state of knowledge on the Roman economy and the directions for future research. In this, the book is quite successful. If one is seeking more general history and less theory and methodological discussion, then this might not be the right book. I enjoyed it.
October 13, 2021
Kinda ridiculous book; MIT economist tries to bring modern neoclassical economics to the ancient world by interpreting the tiny scraps of available data to show that the Roman world met the basic assumptions (most egregiously, trying to show the existence of a competitive, mobile, labor market across the entire empire*) that are needed to do marginal utility maximizing, Solow total factor productivity growh models, equilibrium functions for overall income, etc etc etc. Like once you're rolling out your math and doing a regression on literally the only five data points known (and dropping out one of them as an outlier) to prove your point, and on a statistic that isn't even necessarily relevant to your thesis, and you admit that but keep on going, you really should be re-examining what you're doing.
I guess the point should be that yes there's existence of markets and commerce in Ancient Rome, but there's a difference btwn ancient merchant capital and modern industrial capitalism, including at a larger social/political economic level in the way commercial activity is situated and understood within wider society. Deliberately ignoring all that and reframing things in the methods of contemporary econ I guess you can come out of it with a number for Roman Empire GDP that you straight up admit is completely unreliable, because macroeconomics is hard, especially for a society where the basic assumptions and components for finding a GDP don't really apply, but I'm not really sure what else.
*it's also funny that he does the celebrated dodge of sidestepping the problem of Roman slavery by focusing almost solely on skilled/educated slaves (who often had good relations with their masters, could get paid for outside skilled work and buy their freedom, etc) and then extrapolating from their situation to the rest of the Roman slave population, but here with the added conclusion that this means roman economy was really based on a voluntarist, free wage system, just like today! Domestic slaves and slaves toiling in the dacian silver mines just need to Learn to Code and get a job and they'll be free and thriving in no time, etc
I guess the point should be that yes there's existence of markets and commerce in Ancient Rome, but there's a difference btwn ancient merchant capital and modern industrial capitalism, including at a larger social/political economic level in the way commercial activity is situated and understood within wider society. Deliberately ignoring all that and reframing things in the methods of contemporary econ I guess you can come out of it with a number for Roman Empire GDP that you straight up admit is completely unreliable, because macroeconomics is hard, especially for a society where the basic assumptions and components for finding a GDP don't really apply, but I'm not really sure what else.
*it's also funny that he does the celebrated dodge of sidestepping the problem of Roman slavery by focusing almost solely on skilled/educated slaves (who often had good relations with their masters, could get paid for outside skilled work and buy their freedom, etc) and then extrapolating from their situation to the rest of the Roman slave population, but here with the added conclusion that this means roman economy was really based on a voluntarist, free wage system, just like today! Domestic slaves and slaves toiling in the dacian silver mines just need to Learn to Code and get a job and they'll be free and thriving in no time, etc
May 27, 2020
Un muy buen libro pero también uno muy controversial tanto para historiadores del mundo antiguo como para historiadores económicos. Peter Temin intenta mostrar que en el Imperio Romano existían mercados de factores competitivos y por lo tanto que Roma era una economía de mercado. Para hacerlo aplica a los pocos datos que tenemos algunos principios básicos de la teoría económica y algunas teorías.
Su argumento es muy convincente, pero depende de supuestos muy fuertes que no son fáciles de sostener, o al menos encuentran contraargumentos fuertes dentro de la historiografía del mundo clásico. La conclusión de Temin sobre la existencia de una economía de mercado en Roma esta encontrada con lo que diversos historiadores como Findley, Veyne, Duby y otros piensan sobre el comportamiento de la economía romana, en especial sobre el trabajo. Su argumento sobre el mercado laboral es menos convincente a la luz de lo que aquellos historiadores mencionan, pero su argumento sobre el mercado financiero romano parece acertado.
Uno de los elementos que pueden resultar controversiales es que postula la posibilidad de un crecimiento pequeño pero sostenido que coexiste con la trampa malthusiana en el largo plazo. El argumento es convincente y al menos que pensemos que durante siglos no existió ningún progreso tecnológico, es un supuesto valido, la evidencia cada vez más muestra que dicho progreso tecnológico si existió. Sus estimaciones del PIB per cápita para el mundo romana y para Italia en el pico del poder del imperio, entre los años 120 y 180 EC, son consistentes con las de Angus Maddison y ligeramente arriba de la de otros investigadores. El resultado de un PIB per cápita de 1000 GKD para las provincias y de 1400 GKD para Italia es equivalente a los valores para Europa y Holanda del siglo XVII.
Aunque el libro es poco más que una especulación educada sobre los estándares de vida y la economía romana, es una muestra del valor que tiene la aplicación de la teoría económica para la exploración de las civilizaciones antiguas. Abre la puerta a un mayor entendimiento y muestra la importancia de la teoría económica dentro del campo de la historia.
Es un libro muy recomendable y que se lee muy bien como un contra argumento para The End of the Past de Aldo Schiavone y La Historia de la Vida Cotidiana de Roma de Paul Veyne et al.
Su argumento es muy convincente, pero depende de supuestos muy fuertes que no son fáciles de sostener, o al menos encuentran contraargumentos fuertes dentro de la historiografía del mundo clásico. La conclusión de Temin sobre la existencia de una economía de mercado en Roma esta encontrada con lo que diversos historiadores como Findley, Veyne, Duby y otros piensan sobre el comportamiento de la economía romana, en especial sobre el trabajo. Su argumento sobre el mercado laboral es menos convincente a la luz de lo que aquellos historiadores mencionan, pero su argumento sobre el mercado financiero romano parece acertado.
Uno de los elementos que pueden resultar controversiales es que postula la posibilidad de un crecimiento pequeño pero sostenido que coexiste con la trampa malthusiana en el largo plazo. El argumento es convincente y al menos que pensemos que durante siglos no existió ningún progreso tecnológico, es un supuesto valido, la evidencia cada vez más muestra que dicho progreso tecnológico si existió. Sus estimaciones del PIB per cápita para el mundo romana y para Italia en el pico del poder del imperio, entre los años 120 y 180 EC, son consistentes con las de Angus Maddison y ligeramente arriba de la de otros investigadores. El resultado de un PIB per cápita de 1000 GKD para las provincias y de 1400 GKD para Italia es equivalente a los valores para Europa y Holanda del siglo XVII.
Aunque el libro es poco más que una especulación educada sobre los estándares de vida y la economía romana, es una muestra del valor que tiene la aplicación de la teoría económica para la exploración de las civilizaciones antiguas. Abre la puerta a un mayor entendimiento y muestra la importancia de la teoría económica dentro del campo de la historia.
Es un libro muy recomendable y que se lee muy bien como un contra argumento para The End of the Past de Aldo Schiavone y La Historia de la Vida Cotidiana de Roma de Paul Veyne et al.
May 14, 2022
Very interesting, if unconvincing, read. A real trailblazer trying to marry modern neoclassical economics with the ancient world. At the outset, it might seem a bit of a ridiculous task, but within the context of the debate between Classicists (and it is usually classicists, not economists) over the degree of integration and marketisation in the Roman economy, this is a vital piece of economic history. If for nothing else, the book serves as a fantastic sourcebook for everything economy-related.
3.5/5
3.5/5
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews