Economically Ideal Number of Independent States

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?
 
In the ancient and medieval period, I think it has to be one large state, no question about it. If 95% of your GDP comes from agriculture, then you do need the organizational capacity of a large, centralized state to create the sort of massive hydraulic infrastructure required to efficiently produce yields. The internal peace and stable trade networks that result will also be a plus.

'No competition' is a bit of a false argument since there is bound to be some competition internally, even if you have state monopolies - at the very least, you'd have competition from smugglers or itinerant tradesmen who can hop beyond the state's jurisdiction.

If you mean 'competition' as in tech competition then it's also worth it to remember that larger states have more opportunity for capital and knowledge accumulation - though they will take longer to adapt to new technologies compared with states in a hypercompetitive environment.

Political crises/economic troubles generally don't tank a state's economy unless it is a prolonged period of destruction (like the Crisis of the Third Century), in which case it's not really one large state dominating an economic area any more. Even taking collapse into account, the periods of peace that large states can bring to a region can still outweigh the periods of disruption... as seen by the fact that China, despite having gone through numerous periods of dislocation with deaths numbering in the 100 millions, still accounted for a significant portion of world GDP up until the 1800s.
 
I'm tempted to say that a Mediterranean-spanning Roman Empire would be ideal - all logic would point to that. However, the truth is that the Romans, while very good at adapting stuff from others and incorporating it into their own society, didn't really have a good track record at developing new technologies, concepts or techniques compared to what came before them.

Plus, if one takes the number of shipwrecks as a good indicator for trade in the Med, then the only thing the Roman Empire brought was stagnation, with 50 BC representing the start of a (at first slow) decline.

The biggest increase in trade volumes IMHO comes from maturing Hellenistic states and the rise of Carthage. Rome as a unified Italian state also plays an obvious part in this

url
Mediterranean_shipwrecks.jpg


Lead production (as measured by ice core chemical analysis of lead pollution in Greenland ice samples) did increase during the late republic/early empire, but by 1 AD it was all down-hill for it as well.

What did increase substantially during Empire times was the size of cities - however, with trade growth & volume lagging far, far behind, we can only assume that most of those living in cities did so (on average) under increasing levels of poverty compared to their ancestors.
 
By that graph, interestingly, its actually the fall of Carthage in the 2nd century BC that correlates with the largest increase in shipping.
 
I'm not sure I'd read as much into that chart. It could also reflect the maturation of local economies in the Roman Empire. If you're building vineyards in Gaul, do you really need to import wine from Italy, for instance? And archaeological remains don't reflect this downward trend that shipping does. You see continued development outside of Italy up to the 3rd century Crisi, and beyond in the Roman East.
 
Well, obviously, circumstances matter. Suppose the area in question is surrounded by hostile powers. A strong central power is going to be far more important then, because small polities can be crushed one by one.

Generally, I always argue for a mix between "many small states" and "one massive state". DominusNovus is wholly correct in pointing out that the more independent governments there are, the more competition there is. On all levels: they'll have various legal systems, tax regimes, etc. etc. That's a good thing, because the great diversity will foster all sort of development and innovation.

But how do we prevent inter-state conflict, barriers to trade, piracy, and threats from bigger neighbors? Well... by assembling all the small statelets into one big Empire or League. This way, you can have one big united free trade zone with a common currency, but with great internal diversity regarding legal codes and taxation etc. An attack on one of the small statelets will be considered an attack on all, leading to great strength.

Essentially, I'd say a highly decentralized trade empire, consisting of as many member states as possible, is very close to an ideal situation. It makes economic sense, and political sense. (If one statelet passes repressive legislation, citizens can easily hop across the border to a more free locale. The less repressive states will get all the best and brightest living within their borders, thus becoming more succesful, leading others to follow their shining example.)
 
I'm tempted to say that a Mediterranean-spanning Roman Empire would be ideal - all logic would point to that. However, the truth is that the Romans, while very good at adapting stuff from others and incorporating it into their own society, didn't really have a good track record at developing new technologies, concepts or techniques compared to what came before them.

Plus, if one takes the number of shipwrecks as a good indicator for trade in the Med, then the only thing the Roman Empire brought was stagnation, with 50 BC representing the start of a (at first slow) decline.

The biggest increase in trade volumes IMHO comes from maturing Hellenistic states and the rise of Carthage. Rome as a unified Italian state also plays an obvious part in this

url
Mediterranean_shipwrecks.jpg


Lead production (as measured by ice core chemical analysis of lead pollution in Greenland ice samples) did increase during the late republic/early empire, but by 1 AD it was all down-hill for it as well.

What did increase substantially during Empire times was the size of cities - however, with trade growth & volume lagging far, far behind, we can only assume that most of those living in cities did so (on average) under increasing levels of poverty compared to their ancestors.

This is fascinating. Thanks.

One question that comes to mind, though: did ship construction techniques improve during the Empire? (Or anything else that would make voyages more survivable - changes in shipping routes, navigation, sailing skills, size of ships, weather conditions / frequency of storms, etc.?)
 
The standard understanding is that, in maritime matters, there was almost total stagnation during the Roman Imperial period. The stability brought about a lack of any reason to change. There wasn't much of a need for a fleet, there were no concerns about pirates, all harbors were, of course, Roman harbors...

You know, now that I think about it, you could make a case that, in maritime matters, the Roman Empire was in a very similar high-level equilibrium trap to that of Imperial China (cliffnotes version: things were going so smoothly that innovation dies out).
 
Again, the main issue revolves back to what you mean by 'best economic development'. While the graph of shipwrecks and lead plumbing is interesting, it doesn't mean much if you are thinking about 'economic development' in ancient terms because most of the economic development back then came from agriculture, not commerce/industry. Population graphs might give a more representative picture. And even if you're thinking about commerce/industry arguably a large population also gives you the internal market needed to kickstart industrialization.

Essentially, I'd say a highly decentralized trade empire, consisting of as many member states as possible, is very close to an ideal situation.

But surely that would mean that the Holy Roman Empire was your ideal economic state... and historically that punched way below its weight even in Europe (mainly because its constituent statelets constantly fought/were manipulated to fight each other). Yes, it laid the foundations for German industrial success later, but until unification attempts began the region remained rather weak.

Also, one could argue that the best and brightest in the HRE didn't exactly go to the least repressive states but instead went to the states that could best afford their services (which would be the various monarchies - esp. super-repressive Austria, instead of the free cities).

Another counter-example could be found in the Warring States period in China, where the strongest nation and eventual winner was the quasi-totalitarian empire of Qin - who once pressed an entire county's adult population into battle, so pretty repressive.
 
But surely that would mean that the Holy Roman Empire was your ideal economic state... and historically that punched way below its weight even in Europe (mainly because its constituent statelets constantly fought/were manipulated to fight each other). Yes, it laid the foundations for German industrial success later, but until unification attempts began the region remained rather weak.

I would never call the HRE an ideal state. For starters, it lacked two major aspects that a succesful decentralized empire should have:

1) an effective internal free market (meaning zero internal trade barriers, a single currency, and a universal system of weights and measures)

2) a central government that has sole authority over all foreign relations (even the USA under the Articles made sure from the stater that only Congress would have the power to make treaties etc. - The HRE didn't have that stipulation)

Those two things are certainly elements of what I'd call an ideal state, so the HRE falls short. But it certainly had its good points.


Also, one could argue that the best and brightest in the HRE didn't exactly go to the least repressive states but instead went to the states that could best afford their services (which would be the various monarchies - esp. super-repressive Austria, instead of the free cities).

This happened on occasion, but there are also numerous examples of critical thinkers being able to relocate with relative ease whenever they got into trouble. A big centralized state means that you're pretty much screwed when the central government sentences you to death. There's a reason quite a lot of French Enlightenment thinkers spent years in the various German states: much easier to write or publish critical works over there. You get in trouble over it in Frankfurt? No worries. Just travel a few miles, and suddenly you're in a diffderent jurisdiction and perfectly safe. (Whereas in France you'd get arrested in Marseilles for something you'd written in Paris.)

I'd call that an advantage, on the whole.


Another counter-example could be found in the Warring States period in China, where the strongest nation and eventual winner was the quasi-totalitarian empire of Qin - who once pressed an entire county's adult population into battle, so pretty repressive.

I'm not altogether familiar with the Warring States period, so I cannot comment on this.
 
Top