IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1869.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Roman Familia: A view from the economics of property

Author

Abstract

This chapter presents an analytical framework that draws upon the economics of personal and real rights, which helps in understanding the institutions of the Roman familia. The discussion proceeds in four stages. First, it outlines the central tenets of the theory, which regards the formalization of transactions as a critical, secondary, public "contractual" step for creating a tradable legal commodity, specifically robust property (real) rights that are enforceable in rem against everyone but do not increase transaction costs. Second, it applies the theory to the marriage contract, a fundamental component of family law. Third, the chapter examines some of the primary features of Roman personal contracting from this analytical perspective, particularly the standard transactions related to the Roman familia, which is better comprehended as a household than as a mere family. Lastly, it focuses on one of the main features of Roman family law: the dowry, explaining the tendency to enforce it as a right in rem.

Suggested Citation

  • Benito Arruñada, 2023. "The Roman Familia: A view from the economics of property," Economics Working Papers 1869, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1869.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1.
    2. Benito Arruñada, 2010. "Institutional Support of the Firm: A Theory of Business Registries," Working Papers 508, Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Benito Arruñada & Giorgio Zanarone & Nuno Garoupa, 2019. "Property Rights in Sequential Exchange," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 127-153.
    4. Benito ArruÒada, 2003. "Property Enforcement as Organized Consent," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 401-444, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benito Arruñada, 2015. "The Institutions of Roman Markets," Working Papers 813, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Arruñada, Benito, 2016. "How Rome enabled impersonal markets," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-84.
    3. Guillaume Allègre & Thomas Melonio & Xavier Timbeau, 2012. "Dépenses publiques d'éducation et inégalités. Une perspective de cycle de vie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 63(6), pages 1055-1079.
    4. Alessandro Cigno, 2007. "A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Legislation on Marriage, Fertility, Domestic Division of Labour, and the Education of Children," CESifo Working Paper Series 2143, CESifo.
    5. Maristella Botticini & Aloysius Siow, 2003. "Why Dowries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1385-1398, September.
    6. Lamia Kandil & Hélène Perivier, 2017. "La division sexuée du travail dans les couples selon le statut marital en France - une étude à partir des enquêtes emploi du temps de 1985-1986, 1998-1999, et 2009-2010," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2017-03, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    7. Robert Kaestner, 1995. "The Effects of Cocaine and Marijuana Use on Marriage and Marital Stability," NBER Working Papers 5038, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Yan Yu, 2015. "The Male Breadwinner/Female Homemaker Model and Perceived Marital Stability: A Comparison of Chinese Wives in the United States and Urban China," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 34-47, March.
    9. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    10. Allan Puur & Leen Rahnu & Liili Abuladze & Luule Sakkeus & Sergei Zakharov, 2017. "Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(41), pages 1209-1254.
    11. Sunnee Billingsley, 2010. "The Post-Communist Fertility Puzzle," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 29(2), pages 193-231, April.
    12. Marcén, Miriam & Molina, José Alberto & Morales, Marina, 2018. "The effect of culture on the fertility decisions of immigrant women in the United States," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 15-28.
    13. Peggy Barlett & Linda Lobao & Katherine Meyer, 1999. "Diversity in attitudes toward farming and patterns of work among farm women: A regional comparison," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(4), pages 343-354, December.
    14. Michael E. Martell & Peyton Nash, 2020. "For Love and Money? Earnings and Marriage Among Same-Sex Couples," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 260-294, September.
    15. William S. Schulze & Michael H. Lubatkin & Richard N. Dino, 2002. "Altruism, agency, and the competitiveness of family firms," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4-5), pages 247-259.
    16. Luis Garicano & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2016. "The Returns to Knowledge Hierarchies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 653-684.
    17. Jeffrey T. Macher & John W. Mayo & Olga Ukhaneva & Glenn A. Woroch, 2017. "From universal service to universal connectivity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 77-104, August.
    18. Ravi Prakash & Abhishek Singh, 2014. "Who Marries Whom? Changing Mate Selection Preferences in Urban India and Emerging Implications on Social Institutions," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 33(2), pages 205-227, April.
    19. Jennifer Roberts & Karl Taylor, 2017. "Intra-household commuting choices and local labour markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 734-757.
    20. Delia Furtado, 2012. "Human Capital And Interethnic Marriage Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 82-93, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics of ancient law; economics of ancient societies; econ.analysis of Roman law; law and economics; family law; dowry; property rights; transaction costs; personal exchange; new institutional ec;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • K36 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Family and Personal Law
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • N13 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - Europe: Pre-1913
    • O17 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
    • P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.