Fritz Machlup · 2014
Machlup’s Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance makes knowledge an object of economic analysis by translating a diffuse cultural notion into categories of stock, flow, production, distribution, cost, industry, and occupation. Its central argument is that knowledge matters economically not merely because individuals possess it, but because societies devote organized resources to creating, preserving, teaching, communicating, and applying it. The book’s conceptual point of departure is the distinction between accumulated knowledge and newly circulating knowledge:
At any moment of time, there is a stock of knowledge; during any period of time, there is a flow of knowledge.
This stock-flow distinction lets Machlup treat knowledge neither as a mystical possession nor as a simple commodity. Knowledge can accumulate, but the economic object of study is especially the costly movement by which it is made available. The emphasis falls on socially mediated circulation: teaching, publication, communication, research, professional service, and other channels through which what is known becomes usable by others. Hence the study is less a philosophy of truth than an economics of knowledge-bearing activities.
The key move is to define the “production” of knowledge in terms of dissemination rather than private discovery alone. A discovery locked inside an individual mind cannot be measured as social output and cannot enter the economy of knowledge in any meaningful way. Machlup states the boundary directly:
Generation of knowledge without dissemination is socially worthless as well as unascertainable.
This does not deny the intellectual importance of invention or insight; rather, it specifies the economist’s object. Knowledge becomes economically significant when it is communicated, taught, sold, subsidized, recorded, or otherwise distributed at a cost borne by someone. The book therefore ties knowledge to institutions and expenditures, not simply to mental acts.
Machlup’s definition of the knowledge economy follows from this premise:
The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States is, in essence, the annual flow of knowledge disseminated at a cost (defrayed or borne by some members of our society).
This passage condenses the work’s main thesis. Knowledge is not counted merely because it exists; it is counted when resources are used to make it flow. The economic significance of knowledge lies in the labor, institutions, media, and payments that organize its transmission. This makes the study relevant for national accounting, education policy, research funding, communications, and the analysis of professional and technical labor.
Structurally, the work proceeds by clarifying definitions before measurement. Machlup must first decide what counts as knowledge-related activity, because otherwise the “knowledge economy” would either include everything or nothing. His important distinction is between industries classified by what they produce and occupations classified by what workers do:
Knowledge industries are defined by their output, produced by any and all types of input; knowledge occupations are defined by the kind of work performed as input for whatever product in any industry whatsoever.
This distinction prevents a category mistake. A university, publisher, or research laboratory may be a knowledge industry because its output is knowledge-bearing. But a lawyer, engineer, teacher, analyst, or administrator may perform a knowledge occupation even inside an industry whose final product is not knowledge. Machlup thereby separates the sectoral location of knowledge products from the occupational distribution of knowledge work.
The work’s lasting relevance lies in this analytic architecture. Long before “information economy” became a standard phrase, Machlup showed how knowledge could be studied as a produced and distributed social good without reducing it to a physical commodity. His core conceptual moves—stock versus flow, generation versus dissemination, industry versus occupation—remain foundational for later discussions of human capital, information services, research and development, education, and intellectual labor. The book’s importance is methodological as much as empirical: it teaches how to count knowledge by first deciding what kind of social process knowledge becomes when it is made economically visible.
This work was divided into 115 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 115 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian