The transition from the republican era to the era of the emperors did not involve dramatic changes in economic life. There were some new elements, such as the great economic power of the emperor and the ever-increasing financial needs of the state, which had to pay for the army, the bureaucracy, and the court—all conducted on an imperial scale. The wars of the late republican period had resulted in an economic depression in many (but not all) parts of the empire. The end of these wars meant recovery and sometimes considerably more than that. However, the fact that in some places the economy was booming should not tempt us into jumping to conclusions about the economic state of the empire. It is probable, however, that there was economic growth all over. The favorable conditions of the Pax Romana meant the population was growing, which implies an increase in economic demand. Productivity also probably increased: more land was used for agriculture, and this land was developed more effectively; we can also discern an expansion of non-agrarian activities. The productivity per capita may likewise have increased, not because of technical innovation, which was almost non-existent, but as a result of specialization or social stimulus. Whether this indeed happened is uncertain. The relative order and integration of the first two centuries of the imperial era certainly favored regional and inter-regional exchange. Governmental transports of tax goods and the like should not, however, be seen as a commercial activity but as redistribution.
Wherever there was growth, there was a rise in the level of prosperity, but not everyone profited to the same extent. During the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, the rich became richer, most of the poor remained poor, and the state also wanted its share. If agriculture did indeed generate a surplus, it was creamed off by the tax collectors. Some of the tax money went back to the agricultural regions in the form of soldiers’ pay and other governmental expenditures, but how much was plowed back is debatable. All in all, apart from an increase in scale, there was little that distinguished the new era from the previous one. The empire remained an underdeveloped area where most of the population lived around the subsistence level on an income derived from agriculture. The rich elite made no
Antiquity: Greeks and Romans in Context, First Edition. Frederick G. Naerebout and Henk W. Singor. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 byJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Attempts to stimulate the economy; it was interested in consumption, not in investment. The emperors had no economic policy in our sense of the word. Needless to say, the imperial administration often concerned itself with economic matters, such as food supply and the balancing of tax revenues and government expenditure. But none of the emperors or their personnel made deliberate attempts to direct the economy. They merely tried to have enough in the government coffers.
Before going into details, it must be pointed out that it is almost impossible to give an overall picture of the imperial economy because of a shortage of data, especially figures. We cannot quantify essential matters such as production, trade, or taxes. In addition, we must ask ourselves whether drawing large chronological lines (indicating periods of high or low, for instance) or presenting rough geographical indications (East versus West, the situation in the various provinces) will result in something we can rely on. We are gradually coming to the conclusion that the character of the economy as well as the speed and direction of its development was characterized by considerable regional differences. For instance, evidence for the situation in the north of Italy does not necessarily hold good for its middle or south. Armed with this warning, we shall now, nonetheless, take a look at some general characteristics and trends.
World History
