Ultimately, the changes to the structures of the economy in the Middle East explain part of the growth in the economy, but not all. A shift to property rights, for instance, could not have occurred without a state, “a specialized form of organization, to specify, adjudicate and enforce property rights” (North, 1981, p. 64). Indeed, the early Islamic state, that of the Umayyads and Abbasids, played a significant role investing in and organizing the economy (Brett, 2011; Frantz‐Murphy, 2007a,b; Sijpesteijn, 2013; Blaydes, 2017). The imperial administration in the early centuries of Islamic rule implemented several policies and presided over cultural processes that benefitted the economy. The new regional states in the Middle East and North Africa, successor states that followed the dismemberment of the empire and reconstituted themselves as independent units with state capacity, benefitted from these policies. The term state capacity refers to the power of the state to discharge its responsibilities and efficiently organize the economy, extract resources, collect taxes in equitable manner, distribute the benefits accrued to society, defend its citizens, invest in, and organize economic activities (Besley & Persson, 2009; Blaydes, 2017; Dincecco, 2017). The question at hand is to demonstrate how did the successor‐states by maintaining the benefits obtained during the Empire period in the post‐Empire period, save on the costs involved in state formation and in building state capacity (Bosworth, 2004; Spuler, 1977). Two such policies put in place by the imperial administration with long‐term effect on the economy and eventually on the economies of the successor states demonstrate the saliency of the question. The first was a policy of urbanization, the second one of monetization. As Arab and other groups contributed new immigrants to the Middle East to settle in cities, the region experienced higher urbanization rates than elsewhere. Bairoch (1988) estimates that “Around the year 1000 the Muslim world must have had approximately 40‐50 cities with populations of more than 20,000, 6‐8 of which had populations of more than 100,000 (pp. 374–375).” They were larger than European towns and served different economic activities: There were mining towns, as well as agricultural and producer towns. Comparative estimates suggested that the urban network had fewer smaller towns than Europe but the level of urbanization in the Muslim world was approximately 10–13% as opposed to only 8–9% in Europe (Bosker, Buringh, & van Zanden, 2013). The second policy was the centralization and systematization of the monetary system. As early as the seventh century, the central administration in Damascus introduced a new unified currency with all coins inscribed in Arabic and bearing the same religious symbols (Ehrenkreutz, 1977; Shatzmiller, 2017). The coinage was linked to three

中文翻译：

---

中东经济史的近期趋势：中世纪650-1500年的文化因素和结构变化（第一部分）

归根结底，中东经济结构的变化解释了部分经济增长，但不是全部。例如，如果没有国家“一种专门的组织形式来指定，裁定和执行财产权的国家”，就不可能发生向财产权的转移（North，1981，第64页）。确实，早期的伊斯兰国家，即Umayyads和Abbasids的国家，在投资和组织经济方面发挥了重要作用（Brett，2011; Frantz-Murphy，2007a，b; Sijpesteijn，2013; Blaydes，2017）。伊斯兰统治初期，帝国行政机构实施了几项政策，并主持了有利于经济的文化进程。中东和北非的新区域州，继帝国解体后的继承国，从这些政策中受益，重建为具有国家能力的独立单位。国家能力一词是指国家履行职责，有效组织经济，提取资源，以公平方式征税，分配给社会的收益，捍卫其公民，投资并组织经济活动的权力（Besley ＆Persson，2009; Blaydes，2017; Dincecco，2017）。当前的问题是要证明继承国如何通过维持帝国后时期在帝国时期获得的利益，节省国家组建和国家能力建设所需的成本（Bosworth，2004； Spuler，1977）。 ）。帝国政府制定的两项此类政策对经济乃至继任国的经济产生了长期影响，证明了这一问题的突出性。第一个是城市化政策，第二个是货币化政策。随着阿拉伯人和其他群体向中东移民新移民定居城市，该地区的城市化率比其他地区更高。Bairoch（1988）估计：“在1000年左右，穆斯林世界必须拥有大约40-50个人口超过20,000的城市，其中6-8个人口超过100,000（pp。374-375）。” 它们比欧洲城镇大，并从事不同的经济活动：有采矿城镇，农业和生产城镇。比较估计表明，城市网络的小城镇数量少于欧洲，但穆斯林世界的城市化水平约为10-13％，而欧洲仅为8-9％（Bosker，Buringh和van Zanden，2013年）。第二项政策是货币体系的集中化和系统化。早在七世纪，大马士革中央政府就推出了一种新的统一货币，所有硬币都用阿拉伯文刻有相同的宗教符号（Ehrenkreutz，1977; Shatzmiller，2017）。造币被关联到三个 早在七世纪，大马士革中央政府就推出了一种新的统一货币，所有硬币都用阿拉伯文刻有相同的宗教符号（Ehrenkreutz，1977; Shatzmiller，2017）。造币被关联到三个 早在七世纪，大马士革中央政府就推出了一种新的统一货币，所有硬币都用阿拉伯文刻有相同的宗教符号（Ehrenkreutz，1977; Shatzmiller，2017）。造币被关联到三个