Interesting and thought provoking point. Perhaps a couple of comments?
1) Is the issue really "cities"? Wasn't it the twin Roman institutions of slavery and of empire that did the actual sucking of the resources? These resources were handed to an elite who *then* choose to use those resources as luxury consumption in Rome - although it seems a similar amount of resources went to "luxury consumption" on lavish rural estates, resort towns like Pompei, or "provincial" cities (Alexandria alone had a population maybe a half million). So perhaps we want to think in terms of the "resource cost of greedy elites" (rather than "resource cost of cities") who are able to impose slavery and empire? It was not that the *cities* created resource deficits (a la Mumford) that might then cause environmental damage...rather it was greedy, overly powerful, elites that created the deficits who then in turn "happened" to settle in cities. The problem is not the consequences of cities -- it is the consequences of oppression. If one nets out the socially "unproductive" expenditure that "happens" to be located in cities, they might turn out to be a very efficient use of resources. I realize this is contested terrain. As Temin points out, he carried out his research precisely with the intention of refuting the slavery and "surplus" approach (pioneered by marxists like de St. Croix and a "progressives" like Finley). Temin proposes a view of Rome as a "market economy" which Temin sees as supporting Fogel and that crowd. (Temin, Journal of Roman Studies, 2001 and Working Paper MIT). 2) On Temin's "graph" (posted on Michael's blog) I wonder if someone, more knowledgeable than I, would contest Temin's view of price formation in the Roman Empire. Temin says it proves the power of supply&demand in an integrated Imperial market - a high demand closer to Rome and less so in the periphery. Someone more progressive might point to the costs of production approach and an historical context: it is well known that Rome sought to conquer Egypt and other parts of the Eastern periphery precisely because they could produce and market cheap grain (to be precise, large quantities as tribute, plus cheap market prices). The Nile Valley was superbly suited to the agricultural technology of the Ancient World (one big reason why Egypt was Egypt). Spain (and to some degree Gaul) offered a different benefit -- the opportunity to establish vast new slave plantations that Italy no longer could no longer provide. Likewise one is simply more likely to find extant relevant documentation (wholesale trade) from places that were favorable producers. Temin's "proof" is a linear regression with all of 6 prices/locations! [could a lefty could get away with that at MIT?]. There are others on the list much more well read on Ancient Rome than I (in the past, Carol C., Michael L. etc). Perhaps they can offer better comments. Michael P. writes:
I put the graphics for this on my blog: http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/ Peter Temin has published a fascinating article regarding economic conditions in the early Roman Empire. The story he tells describes the remarkable economic progress that the Romans had achieved. Temin, Peter. 2006. "The Economy of the Early Roman Empire." The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20: 1 (Winter): pp. 135-51. One particular graph suggests another side to his story. It shows the price difference between grain in Rome and in other parts of the Mediterranean region on the vertical axis and the distance from Rome on the horizontal axis. The graph has an excellent fit. The closer to Rome, the higher the price. The picture I get from the graph is one of Rome as a black hole, sucking in resources from the rest of the Empire. The closer to Rome, the stronger the demand. Temin, in effect, was confirming Lewis Mumford's thesis that urban life depends upon the surrounding areas supplying its resource deficits. The provision of these resources often creates environmental havoc. In addition, impoverishment of the rural hinterland tends to create a mass exodus producing an explosion of unsustainable slums. The fashion among economists is to argue that the urban areas supplied the creativity and ingenuity that create prosperity, although one could easily make the case that these urban areas create a brain drain that further impoverishes the surrounding areas. I don't mean to condemn urban life in general, but that the enthusiastic celebration of affluent urban life should be balanced with a careful assessment of its costs.
