Agreement, as much as is possible within such a broad subject, regarding the definition of the study of economics could be summed up as “the study of the use of limited resources to fulfill unlimited wants.” Of course, this definition comes attached to a myriad of assumptions and ideologies; furthermore, it can lead those in the profession who are more inclined to consider the complicated nature of human social relations dissatisfied with such a sterile and simplistic outlook. James Angresano attempts to establish an alternative definition, and by proxy a different methodology, in their text Comparative Economics. Angresano (1996, 13) lays out his criticism of the orthodox perspective plainly by stating that this sort of a definition creates
…show more content…
to 150 A.D. The pre-modern economy, according to Angresano (1996, 40) was mostly influenced by social standing, hierarchy, redistribution of goods from the top down, and the influence of religious forces; therefore, this stands in contrast to modern economies in which the market plays a much more active role in distribution. The Roman Empire historically, Angresano (1996 42-43) was an economy based on military conquest and the redistribution of resources from conquered areas. Primary sources of wealth were land and slaves, both accrued through military conquest. The city of Rome, Angresano (1996, 43) notes, existed in a state of primacy over the other regions of the empire; moreover, it was seen as the focal point of the society and was the beneficiary of most of the redistribution of wealth because of its importance to the citizens and the institution of imperial power. In receiving most of the wealth, Angresano (1996, 44) observes that the Emperor was obliged to engage in acts of “civic patrimony” – a redistributive mechanism that involved providing land and slaves to the nobility, and bread and circuses to the lower classes – in order to preserve the working rules and economic structure of the empire. Rome, Angresano (1996, 46-48) observes, was harshly delineated along class lines. The vast majority of the imperial population were slaves, so most of what would be referred to as production in a modern economy was done by enslaved people at a subsistence level. It is important to note that mercantile activity, according to Angresano (1996, 47) was seen as a lowly activity and the aristocracy was prohibited by this social rule from engaging in trade. Angresano (1996, 48) could be seen as making the case that the main economic actor in the Roman economy was the military. All the wealth and income of the
to 150 A.D. The pre-modern economy, according to Angresano (1996, 40) was mostly influenced by social standing, hierarchy, redistribution of goods from the top down, and the influence of religious forces; therefore, this stands in contrast to modern economies in which the market plays a much more active role in distribution. The Roman Empire historically, Angresano (1996 42-43) was an economy based on military conquest and the redistribution of resources from conquered areas. Primary sources of wealth were land and slaves, both accrued through military conquest. The city of Rome, Angresano (1996, 43) notes, existed in a state of primacy over the other regions of the empire; moreover, it was seen as the focal point of the society and was the beneficiary of most of the redistribution of wealth because of its importance to the citizens and the institution of imperial power. In receiving most of the wealth, Angresano (1996, 44) observes that the Emperor was obliged to engage in acts of “civic patrimony” – a redistributive mechanism that involved providing land and slaves to the nobility, and bread and circuses to the lower classes – in order to preserve the working rules and economic structure of the empire. Rome, Angresano (1996, 46-48) observes, was harshly delineated along class lines. The vast majority of the imperial population were slaves, so most of what would be referred to as production in a modern economy was done by enslaved people at a subsistence level. It is important to note that mercantile activity, according to Angresano (1996, 47) was seen as a lowly activity and the aristocracy was prohibited by this social rule from engaging in trade. Angresano (1996, 48) could be seen as making the case that the main economic actor in the Roman economy was the military. All the wealth and income of the