Machlup’s essay is a methodological intervention into balance-of-payments theory. “Autonomous” and “induced” name positions in a causal story, not fixed labels attached to current-account, capital-account, or reserve entries. The same transaction may be an originating disturbance in one episode and an adjustment in another. What matters is the specified sequence of decisions, prices, institutions, and responses.
To expose the stereotypes is one of the chief purposes of this essay.
Machlup first rejects the idea that economic interdependence makes causal ordering impossible. Feedback does not abolish beginnings, transmission, or repercussion. Analysts may trace a disturbance through markets and then back again, but they must justify why a transaction is being treated as independent or dependent. Causal status cannot be read from the balance-of-payments table.
The accounting argument is the essay’s negative foundation. Double-entry identities ensure that current, capital, and reserve balances offset one another, but these identities are not explanations. They cannot tell whether imports induced borrowing, borrowing enabled imports, reserve losses changed money, or monetary policy reshaped trade.
These identities do not express any causal relationships, but only truisms, definitional relationships.
Machlup’s oil-price example shows why this matters. A rise in oil prices does not mechanically create a current-account deficit. An importing country may cut consumption, reduce other imports, increase exports, receive transfers, borrow, or use reserves. Only a specified behavioral and institutional setting explains which adjustment occurs.
The current-account deficit neither causes nor is caused by the capital-account surplus. The two imbalances are logical correlatives.
The essay then moves “from accounting to economics.” The relevant object is not an ex post balance but a transaction that changes decisions through income, liquidity, interest rates, exchange rates, or asset preferences. Machlup surveys doctrines that assign autonomy to the current account, the “basic” balance, long-term capital, monetary movements, or portfolio shifts. His criticism is consistent: classifications such as “above the line” and “below the line” are not causal theories. Nor do compensatory-financing schemes or anti-monetary accounts of depreciation show that trade needs are inherently prior to money and capital movements.
Repercussions must not be confused with spontaneous disturbances.
His discussion of Keynes’s transfer-problem argument sharpens the point. Keynes stressed sluggish trade responses and treated capital movements as accommodating trade balances. Machlup replies that this risks converting an accounting offset into causal explanation, especially when long-term investment is mixed with short-term finance and reserve movements. It may be plausible that autonomous lending produces import surpluses in borrowing countries; it is less plausible that investors lend because deficits already exist.
Exchange-rate regimes are decisive. Under genuinely fixed rates, reserve movements may be induced because authorities buy and sell foreign exchange at fixed prices. Yet such reserve changes can later affect money, spending, trade, and capital flows. Under managed flexibility, intervention may itself be autonomous. Machlup accepts monetary and portfolio approaches insofar as money stocks and asset preferences matter, but he resists treating unknown reactions as constants.
Economists are prone to consider assumptions as almost perfect substitutes for knowledge, or perfect antidotes for ignorance.
The stock-flow discussion extends the same method. Flow analysis is apt for goods, income, saving, investment, and long-run capital formation; stock adjustment is essential for short-run movements in money, near-money, and securities. Neither perspective is universally prior. Under freely floating rates, reserve movements disappear and the monetary approach becomes chiefly a theory of exchange-rate determination.
Machlup’s lasting point is disciplinary: balance-of-payments accounts display necessary offsets, not causal mechanisms. Current flows, capital flows, reserves, money, or portfolios may dominate particular episodes, but their role must be established by historical and theoretical analysis. “Autonomous” and “induced” belong to specified processes of decision and adjustment, not to account headings.
This work was divided into 21 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 21 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian