THEROMANLABOR MARKET Journalof Interdisciplinary History, xxxiv:4 (Spring,2004), 513– 538. Peter Temin The LaborMarket ofthe EarlyRoman Empire Ancient Romewas a slavesociety. Hopkins wasthe rstto assert thatRome was one of only veslavesocieties in recordedhistory, aviewadopted quickly byFinley. This characterizationis impor- tantbecause slavery is usedas a sign of anon-marketeconomy, which, in turn, is aclassication within the Gemeinschaftund Gesellschaft conception of history asthe account of progressfrom one totheother. Theformer is theinformal economy of families andvillages where social rules andobligations aredominant inuences on behavior.The latter is theeconomy characteristicof modern, urbansocieties. In theclassic viewof Tönnies, “aperiod of Gesellschaft follows aperiodof Gemeinschaft. ”Tönnies, citing Marx,described the mechanism behindthis progress“ asaprocess of increasing urbanization.”Marx and Tö nnies weretrying to makesense of changes in nineteenth-centurysociety, in which the dramaticrise of urbanization loomed large. 1 Polanyi, in TheGreat Transformation, locatedthe center of this transition in thelabor market. He arguedthat labor markets in the modernsense didnot existbefore the Industrial Revolution and thePoor Lawsthat accompanied it in England. This viewis con- sonant with Weber’s judgmentthat a criticalcomponent of capi- talism wasfree labor. One way to identifya periodof Gesellschaft is theprevalence of urbanlife, butan evenmore important key is PeterTemin is Elisha Gray II Professor ofEconomics, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology. Heis theauthor of “EvolutionaryHistory,” Journalof InterdisciplinaryHistory, XXVIII (1998), 405–415; editor of AnEconomic History of NewEngland (Cambridge, Mass., 2000). Theauthor would like to thank RogerBagnall, Alan Bowman, Richard Duncan- Jones, PeterGarnsey, Keith Hopkins, Herbert Klein,Sheilagh Ogilvie, Dominic Rathbone, and Joshua Sosinfor help and advice. Healso thanks theWarden and Fellowsof Nuf eld College,University of Oxford, and theSimon R. GuggenheimFoundation for research sup- port. ©2004by theMassachusetts Instituteof Technology and TheJournal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc. KeithHopkins, Conquerorsand Slaves (Cambridge, 1978);Moses Finley, AncientSlavery andModern Ideology (London,1980); Ferdinand Tönnies (trans. Charles P. Loomis), Commu- nityand Society (East Lansing,1957), 231– 233 (orig. pub. as Gemeinschaftund Gesellschaft [Leip- zig,1887]); KarlMarx (trans. SamuelMoore and Edwar Aveling), Capital (London,1970; orig.pub. Hamburg, 1867),I, 352. 514 | PETER TEMIN thepresence of alabormarket in which theservices of laborcan bebought andsold, which, Polanyi argued,emerged only two centuries ago. 2 Thewidespread use of slaveryin Romeis takenas asign that Gemeinschaft dominatedthe life of theRoman republicand the earlyRoman empire.Finley, andothers following his lead,argued thatancient economies werenot marketeconomies, butan alter- nate,even primitive, form oforganization. Finley stated,“ In early societies, freehired labor (though widelydocumented) was spas- modic, casual, marginal.”According to Hopkins, theearly Ro- man empirewas “ asociety which hadno labormarket.” Hopkins speculatedas aresult, “In asociety without amarketin freelabor, recruitmentby force (i.e. slavery)was probably the only method of securing largenumbers of full-time dependentswith particular skills.”3 This viewis mistaken.A varietyof evidenceindicates that Romehad a functioning labormarket and a unied labor force. Wagedispersion in theearly Roman empire,to theextent that we know it, is indistinguishable from thatin pre-industrialEurope. Roman laborcontracts havea distinctly modernallocation of risks andrewards. In addition, Roman slaverywas so differentfrom modernslavery that it didnot indicatethe presence of non- market,traditional actions. Instead,ancient Roman slaverywas an integralpart of alaborforce that shares many characteristicswith laborforces in otheradvanced agricultural societies. Contraryto Finley, who asserted,“ [A]ncient slavery. ..co-existedwith other 2KarlPolanyi, TheGreat Transformation (NewYork, 1944);Max Weber (trans. TalcottPar- sons), TheProtestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (NewYork, 1930;orig. pub. inGerman 1905).More recent views rejectthe opposition of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in favor of a more complexview that sees bothideal types as present ina wide varietyof societies.This view,which also derives fromTö nnies, questions whichform of society is dominant,not ubiquitous, interpretinghistory as theshifting balance between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft rather thana totaltransition from one to the other. A societymight be regarded as dominated by onemode ortheother, but thesense thatprogress has eliminated Gemeinschaft is gone. See Thomas Bender, Communityand Social Change in America (NewBrunswick, N.J.,1978). 3Ian Morris, “Foreword,”in Moses I. Finley, TheAncient Economy (Berkeley,1999; orig. pub. 1973),1– 37, 68. Finley, AncientSlavery, 68.In “Further Thoughts,”Finley reaf rmed his positions, with“ nuancing,”that “ freehired labor was casual and seasonal”and that“ therewas nogenuine competition . ..betweenslave and freelaborers” (185– 186). Following Brunt, he acknowledgedabundant freelaborers inthe largest cities, but heinsisted thattheir employ - mentwas “strictlyspeaking casual”(Finley, “ Further Thoughts,”in idem,Ancient Economy, 177–207); P. A.Brunt,“ Free Labor and Public Works atRome,” Journalof RomanStudies, LXX(1980), 81–100; Hopkins, Conquerorsand Slaves, 14, 111. THEROMANLABORMARKET | 515 forms of dependentlabor, not with freewage-labor,” and Schiavone, who addedrecently that “ slavery. ..ledto theeven- tual stagnation of the[Roman economic] system, blocking off otherpaths,” the analysis herein nds thatfree hired labor waswidespread and that ancient slaverywas part of aunied laborforce in theearly Roman empire,not abarrierto economic progress.4 theroman labor market Afunctioning labormarket couples a labordemand with alaborsupply. Two conditions must belled, atleastpartially: Workers must befree to change theireconomic activityand/ or theirlocation, andthey must bepaid something commensurate with theirlabor productivity to indicateto them which kindof workto choose. Contemporarystudies maintain thatlabor needs to bemobile enough tobringwages for work of equalskill nearequality. Although this stipulation doesnot mean thateveryone has to change jobswith greatfrequency, enough peoplemust beableand willing todoso to keeppayments to labor from beingexcessively higher or lowerthan thewages of compa- rablework in otherlocations or activities.Even in theUnited Statestoday, which contains themost exiblelabor market in his- tory, wagesfor comparable jobs arenot completelyequalized. 5 When theseconditions arenot fullled, there is no labormar- ket,or perhapsonly local, isolatedlabor markets. People might not beable to change theireconomic activitiesdue to hereditary or guild restrictions. Theymight berestricted in whatthey can earnor beentitledto income forreasons unrelatedto theirwork. Wages,in thesense of areturnfor labor services might be“spas- modic, casual, marginal.”The choice betweenthese two alterna- tivesis importantbecause the nature of thelabor market is an importantcomponent to thenature of theeconomy asa whole. With afunctioning labormarket, an economy can respondto ex- ternalin uences likemarket economies dotoday.Labor can move 4 Finley, AncientSlavery, 68,127; Aldo Schiavone, TheEndof thePast: AncientRome andthe ModernWorld (Cambridge, Mass., 2000),156. 5 Laborproductivity hereinmeans theoutput of goods orservices thatresults froma worker’s employment,not the average labor productivity ofallworkers. In economicsjargon, it is the marginalproduct oflabor. GeorgeJ. Borhas, “Does Immigration Grease theWheels of the Labor Market?” BrookingsPapers on Economic Activity, I(2001), 71:“ Thereexist sizable wage differencesacross regionsor states inthe United States, even for workers withparticular skills lookingfor similar jobs." 516 | PETER TEMIN totakean advantageof atechnical change thatmakes an activity morepro table or adiscoverythat provides an economic oppor- tunity in anewplace. In alocal, non–labor market, labor would not beable to respondto changes in theexternal environment. Theeconomy insteadwould continue to actin traditionalways, perhapswith asmall gesturetoward the new opportunities. The economy would bedominated by Gemeinschaft, not Gesellschaft. Thetask of distinguishing thesetwo conditions in theearly Roman empireis rendereddif cult, asalways,by the absence of comprehensiveevidence. The chief evidencefor the absence of a labormarket in theearly Roman empirehas beenthe mere pres- enceof slaves.The question is not how many slaveswere present, however,but rather how slaveryoperated. Slaves in theAmerican South beforethe Civil Warwere not partof aunied American labormarket because their activities and incomes wereso re- strictedthat they had no incentiveto seekbetter working condi- tions. Slavesin theearly Roman empiredid not sufferunder the samerestrictions, butdespite Rome’ s use of slavery,free hired la- borwas the rule, not theexception, in therest of theearly Roman empire. Theabstract conditions thatde ne alabormarket typically arerelated to labormarkets in industrial economies; theyneed modication to applyto labormarkets in agricultural economies. Most of theworkers in such aneconomy arerural, working either in agricultureor in associatedcrafts and services; they rarely change occupations or residenceswithout strong