Answer

For decades, scholars and critics have argued on whether the Early Roman Empire was a command or a market economy with each giving their distinct reasons. Recent studies have established that the Roman Empire was a market economy but proponents have attested that most of the themes used to determine this factor are outdated. In connection to this, some of the studies that associate the Early Roman Empire to are mere inferences from incomplete data. By analyzing The Economy of the Early Roman Empire by Peter Temin and this essay will justify whether the Early Roman Empire was a command or a market economy by examining the credibility of the generated evidence.

The credibility of the Studies

The first aspect to consider when verifying the credibility of any study is analyzing the aim of the study. Whether the goal of the study was to lobby for a policy change or generate income, one has to evaluate the effect of the research or develop a new conception/theoretical framework as it influences the research question, collection of data, analysis, and interpretation of the results^[1]. To effectively utilize the findings and the context of any research one has to identify the aim of the research. Following Temin’s studies, it is evident that the researcher intended to determine the economic drive of the early Roman Empire.

The second facet is identifying the researcher. The presence of different organizations in the field of research offers knowledge that feeds into the choices in peoples’ everyday work. Therefore it is imperative to identify who has championed the exploration, and if the association or individual being referred to has the ability needed for directing examination on the identified subject^[2]. Also, evaluating if the organization has an interest in the specified research result is a decent practice. Assuming this is the case, the study ought to be accurate in showing how the various phases of the study were directed to ascertain its objectivity. In both studies, the researcher, Temin, qualifies as a credible writer. As an economist and an economic historian, Temin seems to the best candidate to undertake the study of the Roman Empire economy.

Another factor to consider when verifying research is to identify its sponsors. It is relatively important to recognize if a third party has supported or financed the study as this could additionally influence the objectivity of the investigation^[3]. If for instance, a student recruitment fair coordinator supports a study on the proficiency of various enrollment strategies, one has to be critical when analyzing the outcomes, especially if the student fair emerges as the most productive recruitment technique. Both of Temin’s studies have been sponsored by a renowned institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, hence suggesting that they are highly credible.

Also, one could authenticate research based on the method of data collection. In sociology, integrated interviews and questionnaires are probably the two most common methods of obtaining quantitative data. How the subjects in the sample, meaning those approached and interviewed, are being identified as the key factor in defining the representativeness of the outcomes^[4]. In research, there are two kinds of samples, namely probability and non-probability samples. The first type is an example wherein each person in the populace has a known chance of being picked. This method is essential for studies that generalize the results from the collected data. The second one insinuates that each person has a relatively equal chance to be selected. In Temin’s study, the method of data collection was through sampling previous studies that analyze the same variables.

Similarly, if a study uses secondary data, then its credibility is certain. In research, data can be obtained either through primary or secondary sources. In broader prospects data is collected for the specified study or existing data with a similar variable can be used^[5]. If a researcher utilizes existing data sets obtained by another researcher or organization, it automatically suggests that his/her data is credible. In like manner, Temin collects data from previous verifiable sources.

Another aspect to consider when determining the trustworthiness of any data is validity. The question usually being asked here is whether the study measured what it proposes to measure. Validity means the extent to which a measurement, notion, or conclusion is established accurately and corresponds to reality. For example, a study aims to analyze gender discrimination in an institution. By doing so, the researcher considers some cases related to discrimination that was brought forward by male faculty. However, the study does not analyze the reasons behind these discrimination complaints such as whether it was based on sexual orientation, age, religion ethnicity, or gender^[6]. Therefore the conclusion of the study cannot verify if gender-based discrimination has increased or decreased. As for Temin’s research, the claim of the measure is clearly defined. In doing so, the researcher first analyzes the history of the early Roman Empire and it social-economic characteristic. Through his study, Temin also ensures that he overcomes the limitations that affected previous studies.

The Economy of the Early Roman Empire

Prominent ancient historians have concluded that the Italian Peninsula was almost 30% urbanized during the early Roman Empire. Using urbanization to represent its per capita income, Roman Italy’s GDP during the 1700s was almost similar to those of the Netherlands and Spain- European countries with the most advanced industrial economy^[7]. This rough estimate is propped with an equally estimated calculation of the wages in the urban settings divided by the set price of wheat.

Outside Rome Italy, income was relatively low but researchers have failed to establish how low it was. Ancient Malthusian demographers and historians speak of subsistence farming. Many empires relied on subsistence income and in most cases, such regions would experience slow population growth and at the time a drop, bot to extinction unless of severe famine or chronic ailmen^[8]t. Historical evidence of urban growth suggests that the population in the early Roman Empire was growing rapidly indicating that average consumption was in somewhat upper ranges of subsistence living.

Currently, there are many sources regarding the history of Rome but none features its economic organization. This is because the Romans lacked printing equipment and information during the ancient times was expensive than in the modern days. However, economic historians have provided reliable evidence to prove that Rome was an economic market. For the exchange of products, the empire relied on a cash basis, but public borrowing was discouraged. Many tend to confuse this with the size of the money supply but whether it made sense to use money at all times^[9]. The Roman Empire borrowed the idea of coinage as a form of exchange from the Egyptians. During the ancient times, Egypt was fully monetized in that any empire that transacted with Egypt had to accept coin exchange. Even in the countryside, individuals use to carry coins when traveling. Egypt also permitted people to loan from one another. The Roman Empire adopted this method to reduce inflation but resorted to the Dacian loan where the rates were relatively low. Regardless, the loan was in form of a coin, suggesting again that money was mostly used in the early Roman Empire.

Another aspect of the loan that suggests the early roman economy was market-oriented is profitability. Interest rates are only applied within market economies. It is difficult to establish a method that interprets the early Roman Empire evidence on profit and interest in a redistributive or reciprocal organization of defined economic activity^[10]. However, the similarity between the rate of monetary loans and interests on the early Roman Empire agricultural foundation strongly suggests that the capital market was present in ancient Rome. Any rich Roan who aspired to either borrow or lend could either to agricultural foundations or urban loan companies. All the same, this does not signify that Rome was a capital marker that operated like the modern banking system, but because there were established market transactions set in a way that allowed individuals to settle on any economic activity that they desired.

In conclusion, many scholars have tried to argue whether the early Roman Empire was a market economy or a command economy. Critics have alluded that there is no clear evidence on either but researchers have established that it was a market economy, By analyzing Temin’s studies, one won realize that Romans used coinage for transactions and permitted learning and leading, which are characteristics of a capital market. Temin’s studies are credible because they verify the aim of the study, are sponsored by recognized institutions, the researcher used secondary sources, and the method of data collection is valid.

[1] Rigby, Michael, Shalmali Deshpande, and Mitch Blair. “Credibility in published data sources.” The Lancet 393, no. 10168 (2019): 225-226.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Temin, Peter. “The economy of the early Roman Empire.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 1 (2006): 133-151.

[8] Ibid

[9] Temin, Peter. “A market economy in the early Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 91 (2001): 169-181.

[10] Ibid