I put the graphics for this on my blog: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/
Peter Temin has published a fascinating article regarding economic conditions in the early Roman Empire. The story he tells describes the remarkable economic progress that the Romans had achieved. Temin, Peter. 2006. "The Economy of the Early Roman Empire." The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20: 1 (Winter): pp. 135-51. One particular graph suggests another side to his story. It shows the price difference between grain in Rome and in other parts of the Mediterranean region on the vertical axis and the distance from Rome on the horizontal axis. The graph has an excellent fit. The closer to Rome, the higher the price. The picture I get from the graph is one of Rome as a black hole, sucking in resources from the rest of the Empire. The closer to Rome, the stronger the demand. Temin, in effect, was confirming Lewis Mumford's thesis that urban life depends upon the surrounding areas supplying its resource deficits. The provision of these resources often creates environmental havoc. In addition, impoverishment of the rural hinterland tends to create a mass exodus producing an explosion of unsustainable slums. The fashion among economists is to argue that the urban areas supplied the creativity and ingenuity that create prosperity, although one could easily make the case that these urban areas create a brain drain that further impoverishes the surrounding areas. I don't mean to condemn urban life in general, but that the enthusiastic celebration of affluent urban life should be balanced with a careful assessment of its costs. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
