Tagged "political economy"

In looking to imagine and crystallise potential alternatives to the seemingly unending vortex of underdevelopment and poverty in third and second world nations, an understanding of the deficiencies and insufficiencies of the current macroeconomic arrangement is an obvious starting point. The post-Bretton Woods monetary consensus, which promised to guarantee mutual ‘real growth’ through endless liberalization of domestic markets and fluctuating exchange rates, has in whole been failure for developing countries. Instead, of self-sufficiency and self-confidence, there isn’t even what one one called ‘multi-lateral beneficence’, but rather, a reliance and dependency on the most powerful players in the game, at the mercy of commodities swings and speculative exuberance (rather than being ’liberated’ and domestically sound, buffered from ‘shocks’). One wonders what one would do if they swapped shoes. What shall we do once we take control of these responsibilities?

Original at https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ . Linked to it via Paul Cockshott.

The Question

That said this is a question that is not absurd a priori. As we’ll see, the Roman Empire was never close to an industrial revolution – a great many of the preconditions were missing – but the idea that it might have been on the cusp of being something like a modern economy did once have its day in the scholarship. As I’ve mentioned before, the dominant feature of the historical debate among scholars about the shape of the Roman economy is between ‘modernists’ who argue the Roman economy is relatively more like a modern economy (meaning both that it was relatively more prosperous than other ancient economies but also that the Romans themselves maintained a more modern, familiar outlook towards money, investment and production) and ‘primitivsts’ who argue that actually the Roman economy was quite primitive, less prosperous and with the Romans themselves holding attitudes about the economy quite alien to our own. But here we need to get into a bit more specificity because beneath that quick description it is necessary to separate what we might call the ‘old modernists’ and the ‘new modernists.’