TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Financing the State
- Many problems of state and consequent social difficulties lay in needed for tax revenue and problems in its collection. Some scholars believe in extra taxation which aided decline and extortion.
- Finlay model that urban areas no centres for industrial production – markets and profit underdeveloped. Hopkins and indeed Finlay now place more emphasis on increased monetarization and level of trade. 2nd century- low level of economic growth. Higher level of prosperity in the Eats and more long-term exchange.
- General assumptions about ancient economy, no reason to doubt not applied to later empire
- Roman Empire – wealth largely form the and, state revenues and army consisted of the majority of the budget. Other expenditure extremely limited.
- Extent of monetarization low – and coinage for political or military value not economic or commercial.
Hopkins argues for increased economic growth – factors, were they present in later Roman Empire?
- Increased amount of land under cultivation
- Greater population size – more division of labour and consequent growth in non-agricultural production, higher productivity per capita – attributed to peacetime more workers as less involved in wars
- Government exaction and government expenditure acted as stimulus to economic growth
- These approximations from –200 to 200 – in the later period in the West less land as settlement and war – less taxes available – population may actually have dropped – also displaced by settlers. West saw war in this period and fragmentation of territory, obvious consequence of damage to land and urban centres. Cost of manpower etc.
- Clear from Hopkin that West may have suffered economic decline – even before Barbarian settlement.
- Natural facto and disruption of land-based empire may have caused a reduction in raw materials.
- Positioning of army in towns as opposed to frontiers would have lessened spread of coinage and payment in kind operated with estate-to-estate trading.
- Not doubt a large army post-Diocletian, but Joes’ idle mouths exaggerating and Dicoletian probably reinforce status quo as opposed to huge expansion.
- Huge cost of the army may not be the reason. Reason that it had huge borders to protect. Eastern empire had better strategy – pay Arabian allies to defend it, presence of army acted as an economic stimulus adding roads and infrastructure as well systems of transport and local support.
- Regional variations in late antique economy as well as intervention of external factors. Difficult to compute cost of the army. Taxes still fell mainly on agricultural production – government had little recourse in response to loss of land and shortage of manpower – apart from repeated legislation to keep coloni to land.
- Tax collector – hated and very dangerous figure i.e. not paying taxes.
- Regressive taxation and almost entirely land based – did not tap trade or senatorial income. Sign of privilege was tax exemption. Eastern Empire seemed more successful in collecting taxes.
- Inequitable and disorganised mess – especially anonna tax in kind for military – distribution problem, getting it a problem and calculating what had to be given was inaccurate.
- Grain requisitioning from Africa and Egypt to capitals problematic – who got grain w sa corruption and when those lands taken there were problems.
- By 6th century payment in gold was the norm – pounds or solidi the norm. Inflation always and at some points little difference between solidi and copper-metal coinage. 491-518 more successful in introducing stability. Collection of taxes in kind and fluctuation in value against solidi cannot but have depressed the market.
- Monetary policy of the Romans also poor – East did better an economy continued to function – were they in West? Revenues maintained in East. Yes local difficulties, famine, pestilence etc but all normal things and could be contained – whereas eternal factors, settlement and demographic change a different matter all together.
Comments
