Its a cumbersome title, but here's what I'm looking for:
Take a given area of common trade. For example, the Mediterranean basin or the core of China. Under which circumstances is the economy of that region best positioned to grow?
Many small states (such as the pre-hellenistic era), a few large states (the hellenistic and post-roman era), or one massive state (the height of the Roman empire)?
Obviously, the more independent governments there are, the more competition there is. However, there's more conflict, more barriers to trade, and more chaos (piracy and the like).
With fewer but larger states, then there's less competition, though that competition will be better organized, and there's fewer barriers to trade, and a corresponding lower incidence of piracy and the like (although there's always the possibility of sponsored piracy, like the barbary states). However, conflicts are correspondingly larger.
With one state in control of the entire region, there is likely to be no piracy or such chaos (barring civil war, of course), and absolutely no barriers to trade. However, there's also no competition, and any political mismanagement can quickly lead to economic troubles (currency debasement being the classic example during the Roman era).
So, of these three situations, what might be the best, economically speaking?
Take a given area of common trade. For example, the Mediterranean basin or the core of China. Under which circumstances is the economy of that region best positioned to grow?
Many small states (such as the pre-hellenistic era), a few large states (the hellenistic and post-roman era), or one massive state (the height of the Roman empire)?
Obviously, the more independent governments there are, the more competition there is. However, there's more conflict, more barriers to trade, and more chaos (piracy and the like).
With fewer but larger states, then there's less competition, though that competition will be better organized, and there's fewer barriers to trade, and a corresponding lower incidence of piracy and the like (although there's always the possibility of sponsored piracy, like the barbary states). However, conflicts are correspondingly larger.
With one state in control of the entire region, there is likely to be no piracy or such chaos (barring civil war, of course), and absolutely no barriers to trade. However, there's also no competition, and any political mismanagement can quickly lead to economic troubles (currency debasement being the classic example during the Roman era).
So, of these three situations, what might be the best, economically speaking?