Economics in the ancient world?

Part of my research is located between philosophy and specific disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. I’m currently working on a project on several facets of economic life in the ancient Near East. I’m very serious about it, and even did some study in Akkadian, Sumerian, and Hebrew to understand some of the debates on the interpretation of primary sources.

Some crucial questions that anybody in my situation have to ask relate to theory: Was there any such thing as an economy, to begin with? Okay, the answer is straightforward: people were indeed allocating scarce resources, trading them, producing them, and so on. I don’t know of anyone who doubts that, and in case anyone tries, I’d point them to the enormous amount of ancient Mesopotamian contracts, receipts and court cases dealing with the issue, not to mention the famous “law codes” of Hammurabi and other kings.

The answer to next question, though, is less obvious: Can we apply contemporary economic theory to interpret, understand, explain, model, etc. economic behaviour in the ancient world? So far, I’ve identified three schools of thought on this matter in the field of Ancient Near Eastern Studies.

First, there are those who focus on particulars on the “micro” level. Their research is predominantly concerned with the publication, translation, and commentary on hundreds and hundreds of inscribed clay tablets containing valuable information about everyday life in the ancient world. These scholars won’t have much to say in terms of generalisation, because the questions they address are a degree further removed from the questions we tend to ask, say, in economics or sociology.

A common type of research in this line (and, frankly, a type of research I wouldn’t mind executing someday) looks at the complete set of cuneiform tablets found in a specific place and tries to elucidate some patterns within that set of texts. I’ve heard, for example, of someone who did his PhD on the archives of a certain family in Babylon which was involved in trade. That scholar didn’t stop at telling the story of that family, but also synthesised a considerable amount of information about economic transactions and the everyday struggles for that town in that particular period. He also pointed out some interesting linguistic features present in the contracts, letters, and receipts that he transcribed, translated and published as part of his thesis.

In this kind of research, the emphasis is on detailed observation and description, and on a modest type of generalisation to a mid-range view of the local situation. It doesn’t really deal with the economy in general and, arguably, doesn’t make much room for any of today’s economic theories to be used.

The second school of thought borrows from economic sociologists and anthropologists the idea that any economy is intrinsically linked to the way a specific society operates in a given period of history. The works of Karl Marx, Max Weber and, more recently, Karl Polanyi and Immanuel Wallerstein are examples of broad statements of this thesis. Polanyi, in particular, has applied some of this thinking to ancient economies, arguing that, in the ancient Near East, there was no such thing as a “market” in the modern sense. If that’s indeed the case, then the task is to develop a new economics (or at least a new economic theory) to account for phenomena which are particular to that historical context.

In this second kind of research, a key procedure is to ask what the ancients thought they were doing when they were engaged in economic activity. This is analogous to the anthropologist’s “thick description” of a culture in its own terms. Hermeneutics and interpretation should play a major role. We’d need to read those primary sources in search for clues about the ancient view of the economy. Did they imagine the economy as we imagine it today? Or was it something different in their view? What were the words and notions they used to describe economic activity? And so on.

However, how would we know what to look for in the first place? Wouldn’t the very notion of an “economy” be alien to the ancient mind, at least until much later with the Greeks and Romans? Because of this tricky implication, people in this line of research may choose to ignore any subjective or discursive features and may opt instead for a reduction of ideas to material factors, perhaps driven by a Marxist philosophy.

Then, thirdly, there’s the view that presupposes the applicability of contemporary economics to ancient economies. So far, I’ve come across two lines of research, both of which seem underexplored because of the lack of interest of economists in the ancient world, or lack of ability to tackle primary sources. The first line of research looks at the relationship between institutions and the general operation of the economy. I’d place this within the broader approach of neo-institutional economics, or also the so-called law and economics tradition of economic thought.

One interesting question that has been asked in this line of research has to do with the impact of government regulations in the everyday functioning of the economy. For example, how clear were property rights? If we look at the “law codes” of ancient Mesopotamia, we see a large number of definitions of what was allowed and what was forbidden, but were those rules enforced? Were they simply a suggestion? Sometimes, there’s a contrast between what the law code says and what local judges decided in a concrete court case. This way of researching ancient economies, in my view, is more productively executed as teamwork, with an economist and a specialist in ancient texts, languages, and archaeology joining forces.

A second way of applying contemporary economic science to ancient economies resembles the mainstream way of doing research. A model is constructed on the basis of some initial hypothesis, and then the hypothesis is tested against “data”. An important problem with this is that there’s a dearth of concrete and unambiguous information amenable to this sort of treatment. However, this is not the case for all periods. As a matter of fact, we do happen to have access to sizeable sets of information about prices and wages for Babylonia in the Hellenistic period. The crucial source is a set of records that people made correlating the position of the stars and planets with all sorts of information, including economic information. Some preliminary analysis of those series has suggested that prices, for example, behaved more or less like a mainstream economist would expect them to behave.

This issue of the dearth of data leads me to the following thought. I believe that even a mainstream economist should be open to the possibility of another style of economics in the study of ancient economies. I don’t think economists should give up studying them altogether. Some cross-theoretical dialogue with those engaged in other ways of thinking about ancient economies may be in order. However, I understand that many on both sides of the attempted dialogue will feel uncomfortable. After all, a mainstream economist and a Marxist don’t just disagree on method. They also disagree on politics, ethics, the meaning of life, and a number of other issues.

As a possible avenue of research, then, I’d like to suggest a more deductive approach in theory construction and a more discursive approach in the study of historical patterns. From the deductive system we’d know how an economy works in general, even if there are historically-specific possibilities to tackle. From the discursive approach we’d be able to make the most of the “data” that we do have in abundance – thousands of clay tablets with textual information – and with that illustrate the general points.

In my view, this would look like a combination of Austrian political economy with rigorous philological use of primary sources. It would be the sort of research programme to be tackled with a team of people, good libraries, near a museum and in constant dialogue, learning, and interaction. Both fields could potentially benefit from the original interdisciplinary research programme that would emerge.

Natural Law and Economics

The field of “law and economics” applies economic theory to the consequences of law. This branch of economic theory examines the laws that would maximize efficiency and equity. The theory compares, for example, the incentives created by criminal versus tort law to determine the mix of laws that minimize the social cost of wrong-doing. Law and economics studies contract law to determine when a contract is proper, what is the most effective way to enforce contracts, and how best to deal with breach of contract.

The pure market has voluntary exchanges that involve contracts, and so the structure of contract law becomes important. Deficient law and enforcement breeds uncertainty, corruption, and less prosperity. Since contracts are part of the market, contract law is also within the market, and the enforcement and governance that forms the legal infrastructure is part of the market.

Law and economics also deals with external effects, acts that affect others without compensation. The theory examines taxes, regulations, bargaining, and lawsuits as ways to deal with bad effects such as pollution. Another contrast is between property rights and liability rules. A liability rule does not prohibit a trespass, but requires compensation when it happens. And so law and economics contrasts prohibiting an action in advance, versus dealing with the consequences after the act is done.

People think of the market economy as having buying and selling, supply and demand, production and consumption. But there is much more to the market than a customer buying a product. The product may be defective, or the seller might not get paid. There are many legal doctrines that deal with such problems. These are part of the market and part of economics.

A pure free market economy would include the body of law that has evolved over hundreds of years. There are several origins of law: constitutional law, legislated statute law, the common law from decisions by judges, the law merchant of commerce, and natural moral law.

An anarchist society would need much of the law that now applies to marriages and families, lawsuits, crimes, contracts, and uncompensated effects on others. The difference would be that the anarchist society would have voluntary governance, by individual consent, rather than an imposed government. But a network or federation of voluntary communities would need much of the same law that we have today.

One controversial area of law and economics is whether there should be legal monopolies on “intellectual property,” i.e. copyrights on expressions and patents on inventions. Today’s law is mostly utilitarian, providing protection from copying for a limited time in order to provide incentives to creations, although political influence has extended copyright protection for long durations.

The difference between a libertarian society and today’s world is that there would be no laws prohibiting peaceful and honest acts, even if they are offensive. Drugs, prostitution, and gambling would be legal. There would be no restrictions on trade such as with Cuba or on the production, importation, and use of hemp.

Whether in today’s world or a libertarian world, there should be a basic “law of the market” which prescribes that products are presumed to be safe and effective unless stated otherwise. But a pure free market would avoid laws that restrict one’s own use, or consensual use, of property. Lawsuits would mostly adhere to the British system in which the loser of a case would have to pay the legal costs of the winner, which would greatly reduce frivolous law suits, thereby reducing overall litigation costs.

Today’s complex tax laws would be abolished in free-market law and economics, because honest and peaceful transactions would not be hampered by imposed costs. The public finance consistent with a free market would include voluntary user fees, penalties for damage such as pollution, and the land rent that comes from nature or is generated by population and government’s public works. The full employment of a pure free market would provide the job security that comes from employers needing to fill positions, with few idle workers from which to choose.

The complexity of today’s division of labor makes the law that governs relationships necessarily complex, but the clout of lawyers, special interests, and bureaucrats make the law excessively restrictive and needful of attorneys. A truly free society would make the law the servant of the economy and not its master.

What economic theory needs to take into account is that the field of law and economics is not just one of many applications of economics but rather an inherent part of the market economy, and so law has to become more integrated into economic theory. Also, equity is a goal of law and economics, along with efficiency, and an objective application of equity cannot exist without its foundation, natural moral law. “Natural law and economics” needs to become a prominent part of law and economics.