Log out Go to App
Go to App

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 22: Problem 12

The Roman Empire lasted from 27 B.C.E. to C.E. 476 . The empire was wealthy enough to build such monuments as the Roman Coliseum. Roman engineering skill was at a level high enough that aqueducts built during the empire to carry water long distances remained in use for hundreds of years. Yet, although the empire experienced some periods of growth in real GDP per capita, these periods did not last, and there is little evidence that growth would have been sustained even if the empire had survived. Why didn't the Roman Empire experience sustained economic growth? What would the world be like today if it had? (Note: There are no definite answers to these questions; they are intended to get you to think about the preconditions for economic growth. Looking beyond this problem, if you are interested in the macroeconomics of the Roman economy, see Peter Temin, The Roman Market Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013, Chapters 9-11.)

Short Answer

Expert verified
The Roman Empire didn't experience sustained economic growth due to several complex factors such as the lack of key technological advancements, civil instability, and reliance on a slavery-based economy. If it had, the course of history and the modern world could be significantly different, with potentially earlier technological advancements and different power structures.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Roman Empire Context

The Roman Empire was known for its advanced engineering and rich wealth. However, it had periods of growth and decline. There are several reasons why the Empire didn't sustain growth.
02

Identifying Growth Factors

Several factors contribute to sustained economic growth. These include technological advancements, political stability, population growth, and availability of resources. Roman society lacked some of these factors. For example, their technological growth was constrained by the lack of key inventions such as the steam engine. Despite their engineering prowess, the Romans never developed machinery that could have significantly boosted productivity.
03

Conditions for Sustained Economic Growth

Political instability and conflict within the Empire was another reason why sustained growth didn't occur. Civil wars and conflicts with neighboring empires led to economic instability. Moreover, their slave-based economy may have also stunted growth. Slavery can hinder technological advancement because there is little incentive to develop labor-saving technology when labor is easily and cheaply available.
04

Speculating on the Modern World

If the Roman Empire had sustained economic growth, the world might be vastly different today. Technological advancements might have occurred earlier, drastically altering the course of human history. Alternatively, the Empire might have expanded even further, changing the geopolitical landscape. However, this is purely speculative and impossible to prove.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Start your free trial

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

What is the new growth theory? How does the new growth theory differ from the growth theory developed by Robert Solow?

Briefly describe three government policies that can increase economic growth.

(Related to Solved Problem 22.2 on page 747) Shortly before the fall of the Soviet Union, the economist Gur Ofer of Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote, "The most outstanding characteristic of Soviet growth strategy is its consistent policy of very high rates of investment, leading to a rapid growth rate of [the] capital stock." Explain why this strategy turned out to be a very poor way to sustain economic growth in the long run.

(Related to the Apply the Concept on page 746 ) In the 1961 edition of his best-selling introductory economics textbook, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson noted that Soviet GDP might become larger than U.S. GDP by \(1985 .\) a. In 1961 , why might a leading economist have expected that the Soviet economy might eventually become larger than the U.S. economy? b. Briefly explain why the Soviet economy failed to overtake the U.S. economy.

Deirdre McCloskey, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argued, "A poor country that adopts thoroughgoing innovation ... can get within hailing distance of the West \(\ldots\) in about two generations." a. What does McCloskey mean by a country adopting "thoroughgoing innovation"? What does she mean by a country getting within "hailing distance of the West"? b. A generation is usually considered to be about 25 years. In 2016, real GDP per capita in Italy was about \(\$ 33,500\) (measured in 2010 U.S. dollars), and real GDP per capita in Haiti was about \(\$ 1,500 .\) If Haiti adopted thoroughgoing innovation and as a result its average annual growth rate over the next 50 years increased to 6.5 percent, would Haiti end up with the level of real GDP per capita that Italy enjoyed in \(2016 ?\) [Hint: Use the following equation: Real GDP per capita \(_{2016} \times(1+g)^{50}=\) Real GDP per capita \(_{2066}\), where \(g\) is the average annual growth rate expressed as a decimal.] c. McCloskey also noted that her previous observation "does not mean that catch-up is inevitable." Briefly explain why low-income countries catching up with high-income countries isn't inevitable.
See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free