Machlup’s book is a historical and conceptual survey of economic integration as both a term and an idea. Its central claim is that the phrase “economic integration” entered economic discourse relatively late, while the problems it names—division of labor, trade barriers, customs unions, monetary arrangements, and interdependence—belong to much older traditions of economic thought. The opening methodological point is therefore lexical but not merely semantic.
The history of an idea must therefore be distinguished from the history of the word attached to it at present or at any one time.
This distinction allows Machlup to avoid two errors: treating modern terminology as if it had always existed, and assuming that earlier writers lacked the concept because they lacked the word. His inquiry begins by tracing the appearance of “integration” in economic contexts, but it quickly expands into a genealogy of doctrines that anticipated later integration theory. The history of the word becomes a disciplined entry into the history of the problem.
The conceptual center of the book is Machlup’s broad definition of complete integration. He does not reduce integration to treaties, common markets, or the formal removal of tariffs. Instead, he defines it by the actual realization of productive possibilities across a wider economic space.
I submit that the idea of complete integration implies the actual utilisation of all potential opportunities of efficient division of labour.
This makes integration an outcome as much as an institutional form. Barriers matter because they prevent specialization, exchange, and resource allocation from developing as fully as they otherwise might. Conversely, legal integration is incomplete if economic actors do not in fact use the opportunities it creates. Machlup’s formulation thus shifts attention from political labels to the density and efficiency of economic relations.
He then generalizes the concept still further. Economic integration is not only a regional policy project but a condition of connectedness among activities, sectors, markets, and places.
In this interrelatedness and interdependence among all economic activities I see the essence of general economic integration.
This helps explain the book’s unusually wide scope. Machlup treats customs-union theory, preferential trading areas, payments arrangements, and international finance not as separate subjects but as parts of a larger inquiry into how economic systems become connected or remain divided. The history of integration thought is consequently also a selective history of international economics.
Machlup is explicit that such a history cannot be exhaustive. Since almost the whole theory of trade and finance bears on integration, the survey must be organized by judgment rather than completeness.
Only deliberate arbitrariness and ruthless selectivity can help us keep this survey down to acceptable proportions.
The resulting work is not a neutral catalogue of authors. It is a guided reconstruction of the concepts that made integration thinkable before it became a standard postwar policy term. Customs-union theory supplies one of the clearest examples. Machlup uses the distinction between welfare-enhancing and welfare-reducing effects to show that integration is not automatically beneficial.
Trade creation occurs when a previously protected domestic product is displaced by a lower-cost product imported from a member country of the union after the previous duty is lowered or removed.
The book’s lasting value lies in this union of conceptual history and economic analysis. Machlup shows that “economic integration” became fashionable in the twentieth century, but its substance reaches back into older debates over specialization, commercial policy, monetary order, and mutual dependence. His history therefore cautions against using integration as a vague political slogan. Properly understood, it names the realized use of economic opportunities within an interdependent system.
This work was divided into 144 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 144 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian