|
Back
to Top
Space: The Final Frontier
by Paul Krugman ,
Journal of Economic Perspectives Spring 1998
This
is one of the areas for which Paul Krugman won this year’s Nobel
prize. What explains
the
emergence of large regional concentrations of economic activity? The
concentration of production seems to be self-reinforcing. Firms
choose to produce in regions with good access to markets but access
to markets tends to be good in regions in which many firms choose to
produce. Both the size of the export base and the share of income
spent locally are likely to be increasing functions of the size of
the regional economy. So if a regional economy for whatever reason
reaches a sufficiently large scale, it could take off in a
cumulative process of growth. For example, the large market might
make it profitable to produce locally goods that had previously been
imported from other regions. This would increase the multiplier on
the region's export base, leading to a further expansion of income,
which would lead to still more local production, and so on. The key
assumption is that there are important economies of scale enforcing
the geographic concentration of some activities. The new interest in
space may be regarded as the fourth wave of the increasing
returns/imperfect competition revolution that has swept through
economics over the past two decades. First came the New Industrial
Organization, which created models of imperfect competition. Then
the New Trade Theory used that toolbox to build models of
international trade in the presence of increasing returns. The New
Growth Theory, which followed, did much the same for economic
growth. After 1990 we saw the emergence of the New Economic
Geography, which tries to explain the spatial structure of the
economy using models in which there are increasing returns and
imperfect competition.
Back to Top
The Economy of the early Roman Empire
by
Peter Temin,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2006
In
this article, noted historian, Peter Temin points out that ancient
Rome enjoyed high standards of living. The early Roman Empire,
followed the Roman Republic in 27 BCE with the development under
Augustus of a monarchy known as the Principate. The early Roman
Empire was followed in turn by the late Roman Empire that began
around 200 CE, following political and economic instability. There
is evidence from the late Republic and early Empire of widespread
economic prosperity and possibly economic growth. The standard of
living in ancient Rome was similar to that of early modern period of
seventeenth- and eighteenth century Europe, an extraordinary
achievement for any economy in the ancient world. Ancient Rome
managed to achieve this high standard of living thanks to
moderately stable political conditions and well functioning markets
for goods, labor and capital, which allowed specialization and
efficiency.
There are several misconceptions about slavery in ancient Rome.
Chemin provides deep insights here. Since this part of the paper is
the most interesting, a more detailed account is in order. Frequent
manumission—that is, freeing of slaves—was a distinguishing feature
of Roman slavery. Slaves in the early Roman Empire could anticipate
freedom if they worked hard and demonstrated skill or accumulated a
peculium,
money “owned” by slaves, with which to purchase freedom. About 10
percent of slaves in the early Roman Empire were freed every five
years starting at age 25. Anthropologists distinguish between “open”
slavery, in which slaves can be freed and accepted fully into
general society, and “closed” slavery, in which slaves are a
separate group, not accepted into general society and not allowed to
marry among the general population when freed. Roman slavery
conformed to the open model. Freed men were granted Roman
citizenship; their children could be town councilors, and their
grandchildren could be knights. Freed slaves retained the names of
their former owners and could be identified as members of their
owners’ family, providing former slaves with a reputation that
helped them to operate in the economy. A productive freed man also
increased the reputation and income of his former owner and his
family. Freed men could marry other Roman citizens. Children and
grandchildren of freedmen were accepted fully into Roman society.
The combination of frequent manumission and open slavery created
incentives for slaves to work hard and hasten the day when they
would be free workers. Slavery in fact was the most common formal,
legally enforceable long-term labor contract in the early Roman
Empire. Roman slaves worked in all kinds of activities. A slave
might even hold a managerial job. Ancient slave owners often
encouraged slaves to be educated to perform responsible economic
roles, since education increased the value of slave labor to the
owner. Some ambitious poor people in the early Roman Empire even
sold themselves into slavery as a long-term employment contract that
offered a greater chance of advancement than the life of the free
poor. Ex-slaves were better placed to make a success of themselves
in the urban economy than the free born poor: Upon manumission,
many of the ex-slaves started with skills and a business. Roman
slavery in some ways resembled the processes of apprenticeship and
indenture in early modern Europe, which reveals the integration of
Roman slavery into the overall labor market.
Well functioning markets promoted a modest rate of economic growth
that resulted in the prosperity of the early Roman Empire, which was
not to be equaled in the West for almost two millennia thereafter.
Back to Top
Identity and the Economics of Organizations
by George A. Akerlof and Rachel E. Kranton, Journal of Economic
Perspectives—Winter 2005
In this
paper, nobel prize winner George Ackerlof, well known for his Theory
of lemons and Rachel Kranton present a principal-agent model that
incorporates the notion of identity. Employees may have identities
that lead them to behave more or less in concert with the goals of
their organizations. With such an identity, workers are willing to
put in high effort . Identity is an important supplement to monetary
compensation. Monetary incentives remain a blunt instrument. First,
compensation schemes can be based only on variables (such as output
or profits) that are observable to management. But such variables
are most often imperfect indicators of individual effort, as
when—for example—output derives from workers' collective efforts in
a team . Moreover, many monetary incentive schemes create
opportunities for workers to game the system. For example, most jobs
involve multiple tasks. In this case, workers will have
incentive to overperform on the tasks that are well rewarded and to
underperform on the tasks that are poorly rewarded. Tournaments,
where pay depends upon relative performance, reduce the need
for information, but create another problem because workers may try
to sabotage one another. So to function well, an organization
should not rely solely on monetary compensation schemes. The
ability of organizations to place workers into jobs with which they
identify and the creation of such identities are central to what
makes organizations work.
Back to Top
|