More than a decade ago, the Oxford Roman Economy Project (OXREP)1 and the Cambridge economic history of the Greco-Roman world put the question of the performance of the Roman economy at the center of historical debate, prompting a flood of books and articles attempting to assess the degree of growth in the economy.2 The issue is of sufficient importance that it has figured in the narratives of economists analyzing the impact of institutional frameworks on the potential for growth.3 As the debate has continued, there has been some convergence: most historians would agree that there was some Smithian growth as evidenced by urbanization and trade, while acknowledging that production remained predominantly agricultural and based primarily on somatic energy (i.e., human and animal).4 This is, of course, a very broad framework that does not differentiate the Roman empire from other complex pre-industrial societies. The challenge is to refine the analysis in order to put content into the broad description of “modest though significant growth”5 and to offer a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the economy.

中文翻译：

---

铅污染与罗马经济

十多年前，牛津罗马经济项目 (OXREP)1和剑桥希腊-罗马世界经济史将罗马经济表现问题置于历史辩论的中心，引发了大量试图评估经济增长程度的书籍和文章。2这个问题非常重要，以至于经济学家在分析制度框架对增长潜力的影响时的叙述中都提到了这一点。3随着辩论的继续，出现了一些趋同：大多数历史学家会同意，城市化和贸易证明了斯密式的增长，同时承认生产仍然主要是农业并且主要以体能（即人类和动物）为基础。4当然，这是一个非常广泛的框架，并没有将罗马帝国与其他复杂的前工业社会区分开来。挑战在于完善分析，以便将内容纳入“适度但显着增长”的广泛描述中5并提供对经济动态的更深入了解。