Law and the Rural Economy in the Roman Empire

Notes

201 Notes %% Introduction 1. For the link between population and economic growth, see especially Scheidel 2001, 181–250; 2002; and Zelener 2003. For population and agrarian development, see Lo Cascio 1991b, 707–16. For the role of technology, see Greene 2000 and Zelener 2003, 112–42. 2. For basic discussions of the Roman economy, see especially Morris, Saller, and Scheidel, forthcoming. See also Garnsey and Saller 1987, 43–103; Lo Cascio 1991a; and Drexhage, Konen, and Ruffing 2002. For the stratification in landownership in the Roman Empire, see Goldsmith 1987 and, from a different perspective, Jongman 1988, 187–203. 3. See Banaji 2001, and the discussion in the conclusion to chap. 5. 4. See North 1990, as well as North 1981 and North and Thomas 1973. 5. For application of the law and economics approach to the ancient world, see Frier and Kehoe, forthcoming. 6. See Saller 2005, 234 (2002, 263), on the possibility of elite control and de‑ clines in agricultural productivity. 7. See Furubotn and Richter 2005, 117. 8. See Tollison 1998. This approach is criticized by economists in the Institutional Economics tradition, in whose view this approach privileges certain market forces that are themselves the product of institutional arrangements: see Medema, Mercuro, and Samuels 2000, 442–43. 9. For this view of the relationship between ancient landowners and tenants, see Andreau and Maucourant 1999. 10. Verboven 2002, especially 287–329. 11. For a broad introduction to the economic analysis of legal rules, see Shavell 2004. 12. For an introduction to this literature, see Mercuro and Medema 1997, espe‑ cially 130–56; P. G. Klein 2000; as well as Furubotn and Richter 2005 and Eggertsson 1990. 13. P. G. Klein 2000, 456. 202 14. For discussion of the importance of HNIE to legal history and of the interac‑ tion between economic and legal history, see R. Harris 2003. 15. For discussion of the complexities in understanding decision-making in eco‑ nomic matters, see North 2005. 16. See Hopkins 2002 (a reprint of Hopkins 1995/96) and Pleket 1990. Lo Cas‑ cio 2000 argues that the Roman state promoted “the basic mechanisms of growth: in the nexus between urbanization, shift towards the market and monetization, and spe‑ cialization in production” (80). Temin 2004 judges that Roman financial institutions compared favorably with those of eighteenth-century Europe. Hitchner 2005 argues in favor of sustained growth in the Roman economy, but for the limited extent of the economic growth possible, see Saller 2005, a reprint of Saller 2002). 17. See Frier 2000 and Scheidel, forthcoming. For discussion of the debate about Roman population numbers and arguments against higher estimates for the overall population of the empire, see Scheidel 2004. 18. For the consumer city model, see Erdkamp 2001; Jongman 1988, 15–62; Mor‑ ley 1996, 13–32; and Scheidel, forthcoming. For a somewhat different interpretation of the relationship between city and countryside, see Engels 1990. 19. The dependence of landowners on capturing the surplus from the countryside is an implicit theme in Horden and Purcell 2000, 175–297 (see especially 206 and 218). For this view of the relationship between ancient landowners and tenants, see also Andreau and Maucourant 1999 and, earlier, de Ste. Croix 1981, 213. 20. Scheidel, forthcoming. 21. This is a theme of the Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. 22. See Mattingly 1993 and Mattingly and Hitchner 1993. 23. See Wilson 2002. 24. Scheidel, forthcoming. 25. See Boserup 1965. 26. Scheidel, forthcoming. 27. E. L. Jones 1988. 28. On this issue, see Field 2000, 737, 742. 29. See P. G. Klein 2000, 458. 30. P. G. Klein 2000, 458, citing O. E. Williamson. 31. See North 1990. 32. P. G. Klein 2000, 461. 33. Field 2000, 742. 34. Medema, Mercuro, and Samuels 2000, 440. For discussion of the relationship between NIE and the old Institutional Economics (OIE), see Rutherford 1994. 35. Medema, Mercuro, and Samuels 2000, 437–39. 36. Field 1991. For the possible uneven distribution of the benefits of economic growth in the ancient world, see Millett 2001. 37. E. L. Jones 1988, 49, 62–63. 38. Barzel 2002. 39. The Theodosian Code, in fact, provides the source for the texts of the imperial decrees from this period that are preserved in the Code of Justinian. For the process by which the Theodosian Code was compiled and edited, see Matthews 2000 and Honoré 1998, 12–53. 40. For this view, see Watson 1995. Notes to Pages 4–12 [3.133.159.224] Project MUSE...