Conclusion

The Ptolemaic state did not pursue a policy of ‘state monopolies’ in industry and trade. Although state intervention was extensive in some sectors, markets played an important role in others. Fiscal contracts leased out to entrepreneurs shared certain procedures and terminology, but the reality of state control was different in every industry, determined by strategic concerns and practical considerations. Together, these institutions show a pragmatic state concerned primarily with securing revenues from economic activities. While the papyri also highlight the limits of state control and the possibilities to evade regulations, they do not show a general decline of state capacity in the second century. The impact of the regulations on economic performance varied. While the ‘oil monopoly’ caused significant inefficiencies, the same was not necessarily true in other sectors. The regulations stimulated the circulation of coinage, leading to increased market performance, to an extent supported also by state enforcement of agreements and property rights. Finally, the analysis underscores the significant fiscal and economic role of temples and professional associations.