No, there was no science of economics or really much intellectual understanding of the topic. Gary Young in Rome's Trade with the East even goes so far as to say that all of the policies that seem to show economic planning and foresight, such as the roads between the Nile and the Red Sea that allowed for much easier transport and protection, were purely reactive in nature. That is, the Roman didn't think "Hmm, if I build this road merchants might be more willing to make this journey" but rather "there are merchants going to the Red Sea and unless we do something to help them we will lose all that tax revenue". I personally wouldn't go quite as far as Young, but it can be very difficult to see specific measures taken to promote trade.

Within the empire it gets a bit more complicated. There is enough incidental evidence supporting it that we can guess that different cities had particular "market days" in a manner not unlike Medieval markets, but those markets were bound up in expressions of royal or lordly power, as they were granted to individual cities. There is no real evidence of something similar in Roman times with one partial exception: the Senate could use its taxation powers to favor particular ports. This is exactly what happened with Rhodes and Delos during the Republic, as the Senate granted privileges to the latter which almost instantly destroyed the position of the former (a terrible move, all in all). But it doesn't seem to be more fine grained than that.

Finance gets even more complicated, but it also has perhaps the most prominent example of real economic understanding on the part of Roman authorities. Early in Tiberius' rule through a rather complicated series of events many of the banks suffered an acute crisis as they could not repay their loans, and so they called in their debts and in a classic banking run pattern their debtors could not repay them. Tiberius saw this situation spinning out of control, so offered loans from the Imperial treasury at sharply reduced rates, which restored stability to the financial system in a way that would be approved by most economists today. But this moment is exceptional, at least within our sources. Beyond that there does not seem to have been much in the way of financial regulation outside of Roman contract law.

So on the whole, there was no individual position of finance or economics minister. Actions taken were largely ad hoc and never really amounted to a coherent policy. That being said, these administrative actions could still have major effects on the economy.

I don't know much about how the Roman economy was regulated, but one interesting attempt to curb inflation during the tetrachy was "The Edict on Maximum Prices", which was a law put out by Diocletian which listed out price caps for various goods and services. It was a total failure and traders ignored it completely, and it was quickly repealed, which goes to show how ineffective the Romans could be at regulating their economy.

You can read the edict [ here ] ( http://books.google.com/books?id=EZg0VBWfs-wC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false ) (first section is in latin, but there's a partial english translation in the second section)

Could someone recommend me some books concerning Economy of Rome, and general economics of that period?

The rest of the answers are awesome on the first part, so let me present my response to the latter part of the question. In the ancient world, education was mostly based around the Classical canon. An educated Roman would be familiar the plays of Euripides and Aeschylus, for example, as well as rhetoric. Economics as a subject was not around at the time, at least not in the modern form. The word itself comes from oikos and nomos, meaning management of the house, and that's what the first economic texts in the Classical world were about - see Xenophon's Oeconomicus and Book 1 of Aristotle's Economics (Book 2 delves more into things such as imports, and provides a rule that seems to have been forgotten by modern politicians: income must always exceed expenditure (EDIT: and apparently, for good reason too)). As a subject, it does not appear in its more scientific form until Thomas Aquinas and it was truly codified by Adam Smith. In universities, the first of which were established in the Middle Ages, were primarily places to teach either theology or Classics and related subjects. So it would have been impossible for a Quaestor to have studied economics.