The Economic Consequences Of The Grain Dole

[Favonius Cornelius]

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the grain dole given out at Rome through its entire history. During the Republic it was used as a method of gaining popularity with the people for elections, and also equally used as a reason for prosecution of those who used it in the slightest. Later the emperors tightly controlled it, for they knew the consequences of allowing the public to go hungry.

 

The grain dole centralized quite a lot of people into one city from across Europe. Was it's implementation a mistake? Did Rome need such a population, and should it have controlled the grain more tightly to encourage colonization and productivity in other parts of the empire. If Rome could have maintained half its size and forced the people to move to locations like Gaul and Britannia would the west have stood?

[Tobias]

That is the thing though; if more and more people had moved away from Italia, all the other provinces would have increased in size and power. It would surely be only a matter of time before businesses, upper class peoples, the plutocrats and even the government was moved away from Italia. As Italy and Rome decreased in population, money would also move away from there. Eventually, Italy, if not Rome, would have lapsed into an unimportant state, and may have been overthrown by an ambitious and powerful province wanting control of the Peninsula and city.

 

I agree that if more people had been spread around the Empire, more productivity and Romanization of the other provinces would have occurred, most likely making them less likely to fall or lose their own culture. I suppose it came from the fact that originally outside of Rome and Italy, until much later, hardly any peoples had Roman citizenship, and I daresay they were not likely to stop giving as much grain to the original citizens or generalising grain doling throughout the empire. Not a practical way, lowering the main governing area's population.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Tobias

[Zeke]

True but if they hadn't have done it people would have starved so yeah...what can you do, let the people starve?

 

 

Zeke

Edited December 26, 2005 by Zeke

[M. Porcius Cato]

True but if they hadn't have done it people would have starved

 

There is every economic reason to think the grain dole would have INCREASED the threat of Roman starvation. If the state provides any commodity for free, demand skyrockets as people have no incentive to economize and restrain themselves.

 

At the same time, farmers in Italy and elsewhere would have had no reason to transport their grain to Rome as long as the price in Rome is less than can be had elsewhere. If Rome were the only market for Italian grain, many farmers would have gone bankrupt, had to sell their farms, and would have thus crowded into Rome and ended on the dole themselves. Presumably, wealthier farmers could have survived the loss of Roman income, but they would have been foolish not to switch their production from grain to other goods.

 

Thus, as soon as the supply from the state-run graineries ran out, the only grain available in Rome would have been the grain held by hoarders, and then there would have been little available grain within economical shipping distance to Rome. (A problem Rome "solved" by shipping all its grain from Egypt, thereby turning Egypt into the ancient world equivalent of a modern oil-state.)

 

Most likely, there was always some sort of rationing system in place to contain these ill effects of the grain dole on the supply side. However, if you look at the history of the dole, it becomes clear that what started as a temporary subsidy (under the Gracchi) soon became an unmitigated addiction, a permanent drain on Roman resources, and a politically destabilizing force.

 

The grain dole should have been eliminated, but few had the courage to deny the mob what they wanted (including Cato), and those who plagued Rome with this backwards policy were rewarded politically in their own day and still enjoy support today among the economically illiterate.

 

(To any still suffering from the delusion that an economic short-fix such as free grain will alleviate starvation, I invite you to examine the effects of western aid to Africa, which is provides a test-case for the hypothetical effect of free grain on the alleviation of starvation.)

[Zeke]

Well....I would have to say free grain might have worked then if all the farms were compacted into the Latifunda system and a law had been passed saying that the Senators that owned those lands had to grown grain with slaves as a "civil service" for the people.

 

Like nowadays in modern America.....98% of our grain is wasted. If the farmers grew it for free and distrubted it to us and the third world countires we wouldn't have this problem of starvation in places like Mali and Chad......but no were greedy and money counts more then people's lifes sadly. I guess this also mattered in ancient Rome.

 

Zeke

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Like nowadays in modern America.....98% of our grain is wasted. If the farmers grew it for free and distrubted it to us and the third world countires we wouldn't have this problem of starvation in places like Mali and Chad......but no were greedy and money counts more then people's lifes sadly. I guess this also mattered in ancient Rome.

 

Zeke

 

(In my opinion.)Even if we got the majority of that grain and other stuff to Africa, it still wouldn't be enough to end starvation. Sure, we can help Africa out with then tens of billions of dollars every year(even still not enough), but then we got the North Koreans to feed too every year with 500,000 tons of food annually, and then the Tsnami-strucked areas. The whole world can't be helped. World hunger also in my view isn't prominent anymore these days with ongoing problem of AIDS on the African Continent, the Avian Flu that threatens the world with a pandemic, and the global War on Terrorism. Even if we can help out everyone, it'll just be temporary.

Edited December 27, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Zeke]

True, I am not saying help everyone though. Not to sound like a jerk or a Capitalist, but if we feed the Africans they can work in our factories that we build in their countries hence we can get all our junk thats makes our lives as Americans more convient.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

True, I am not saying help everyone though. Not to sound like a jerk or a Capitalist, but if we feed the Africans they can work in our factories that we build in their countries hence we can get all our junk thats makes our lives as Americans more convient.

 

Well, that last clause may more reply to the Chinese whom we get all our imported manufactured stuff from. (They've been having problems with overpopulation and toxic spillings lately.) But as to solve the Africa situation, I believe in the free trade system that we've recently helped them out with, and so far, that system is going really well. Abstinence education and condoms seems also to be the only true way to fight Aids.

 

Sorry to be offtopic

[Zeke]

Sorry to get off topic myself but did you know in the old days the South African Goverment taught that if you went with a Virign, you could get rid of AIDS! How retarded is that?

[Virgil61]

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the grain dole given out at Rome through its entire history. During the Republic it was used as a method of gaining popularity with the people for elections, and also equally used as a reason for prosecution of those who used it in the slightest. Later the emperors tightly controlled it, for they knew the consequences of allowing the public to go hungry.

 

The grain dole centralized quite a lot of people into one city from across Europe. Was it's implementation a mistake? Did Rome need such a population, and should it have controlled the grain more tightly to encourage colonization and productivity in other parts of the empire. If Rome could have maintained half its size and forced the people to move to locations like Gaul and Britannia would the west have stood?

 

The grain dole was a terrible waste of economic and human capital, but it never constituted a major drag on the Roman budget anywhere equal to the upkeep of the armies, either under the Empire or Republic. If I remember correctly, Egypt, the breadbasket of the Republic and Empire, paid its tax in grain which was used for the dole. It was a nasty legacy of the optimate class.

 

The dole was an unfortunate aspect of the appropriation of lands, especially in the 2d century AD, when land-owning soldiers were away on several years of campaigning. They'd return essentially landless--those lovers of the Constitutional Republic, the optimates, being the primary extortionists of much of these small farms and adding them to their own large land holdings. Even worse off were the Italian allied soldiers with farms who had even less recourse to any tribunes or justice.

 

Tiberius Gracchi in a famous speech, gives a vivid portrayal of returning legionnaires pathetically wandering the countryside with their families, homeless because neighboring large-land owners seized their small farms. Add to this the influx of slave labor in place of paid free labor driving wages down and you've got a recipe for disaster for many formerly land-owning citizens who ended up as urban dwellers.

 

I think the dole averaged around 200,000 to 500,000 dwellers or thereabouts depending on the era. Not enough to make much of a dent in Gaul I'll guess and perhaps more than Britain could handle agriculturally. The Roman answer was a rash of laws to limit slave labor and several plans, under Republic and Empire, to reestablish those on the dole to farms. The laws seemed to never get full implementation.

 

What probably should have happened was to put a stop to the land expropriations immediately or to force reforms, but the optimate class, the beneficiaries, being as powerful as they were, famously fought against these. Barring that a forceful limitation on slave labor, which optimates wouldn't have put up with either or finally pushing these landless out into colonies within the first generation when agricultural know-how was still intact. Sadly none of these was ever efficiently pushed through, so it was Bread and Circuses for all.

 

...

(To any still suffering from the delusion that an economic short-fix such as free grain will alleviate starvation, I invite you to examine the effects of western aid to Africa, which is provides a test-case for the hypothetical effect of free grain on the alleviation of starvation.)

 

You may not have meant it this starkly. I've worked a lot with USAID, State and non-governmental agencies in the past on international development issues [except for Somalia, non-African].

 

No one has heartburn about alleviating starvation in immediately effected areas to keep people from dying in, say the next few weeks. It's the follow-on aid that deals with ag and economic infastructure in the longer term that is where the big bucks go and disappear. And where you mysteriously have a wealthier class of indigenous have's and little to show for the money.

 

The new method isn't to deny food for starvation, even the most right-wing Bushite wouldn't tote that flag. It's to have USAID or World Bank (or whomever supplies the aid) reps on the ground when the long term aid is being administered and auditing the work as it's being done.

 

Sorry, off topic I know.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Since I started this topic, I feel free to say that analogies and tangents related to modern 'grain doles' are totally ok in this thread.

 

I think they help bring things into context.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The grain dole was a terrible waste of economic and human capital, but it never constituted a major drag on the Roman budget anywhere equal to the upkeep of the armies, either under the Empire or Republic. If I remember correctly, Egypt, the breadbasket of the Republic and Empire, paid its tax in grain which was used for the dole.

 

Almost all spending by the state was on the military, so of course the direct costs of the dole were relatively insignificant. However, by forfeiting Egyptian taxes in lieu of grain, the effective cost of the dole was probably equal to that of all the taxes collected in Spain or any other wealthy province.

 

The dole was an unfortunate aspect of the appropriation of lands, especially in the 2d century AD, when land-owning soldiers were away on several years of campaigning. They'd return essentially landless--those lovers of the Constitutional Republic, the optimates, being the primary extortionists of much of these small farms and adding them to their own large land holdings.

 

One of these days, Virgil, I'd like you define "optimate" because you seem to use the term so flexibly it encompasses just about anyone (and at any time during Roman history) who opposes something you support.

 

First off, while soldiers were away on campaign, their lands lay needlessly fallow. Putting those lands to use--with the owner's consent--was wise policy. However, property rights were not always protected (certainly not by populares!), and some soldiers had their lands expropriated by their neighbors. We have no idea how widespread this was (quite obviously not all the landless were veterans or even poor), nor do we know whether those who expropriated the land were optimates or populares.

 

Second, the subsidy that T. Gracchus supported to help the victims of their neighbor's theft was vastly less expansive than the true dole used in later years. Your explanation of the dole as a kind of veteran's benefit fails to address the transformation of this temporary subsidy into the free-for-all, middle-class entitlement that it almost immediately became. By G Gracchus, senators were standing in line with everyone else for their share. So, let's immediately disabuse ourselves of the fancy that this dole was simply a reparation to dispossessed veterans.

 

No one has heartburn about alleviating starvation in immediately effected areas to keep people from dying in, say the next few weeks.

The question is how to alleviate even suddenly-affected areas. Frankly, we Americans SHOULD have heartburn over how we alleviate starvation. Our stupid solution is to pay American farmers for their grain, to be shipped thousands of miles away, and to be distributed for free. The alternative--paying regional farmers and distributors for their product, to be shipped along available local routes, and distributed freely among the affected--at least ameliorates the regional economic disruption caused by the free distribution of grain and provides aid more immediately. As is typical, American altruists are more interested in appearing to help the needy (including American farmers) than in actually doing anything to help get rid of the need.

 

It's the follow-on aid that deals with ag and economic infastructure in the longer term that is where the big bucks go and disappear. And where you mysteriously have a wealthier class of indigenous have's and little to show for the money.

And what happens with this suddenly wealthier group of parasites? They gain a political upper hand, wield power over their honest neighbors, and start on a path of expropriation and waste that sends their nation further down the sink hole than ever before. This is the story all over Africa.

 

As long as unproductive and armed parasites have unlimited power over the productive citizenry, no amount of foreign aid will ever be enough--as any Swiss banker could tell you.

[Virgil61]

One of these days, Virgil, I'd like you define "optimate" because you seem to use the term so flexibly it encompasses just about anyone (and at any time during Roman history) who opposes something you support.

See my past posts on the subject, I

[M. Porcius Cato]

See my past posts on the subject, I

[Virgil61]

I don't care that your sympathies are with the faction of Caesar; I care that you don't refer to any crass patrician from the time of the Gracchi as an optimate.

Reading a lot of Cicero recently I see.