4
such as shipping regulation and standards development, “hard” laws have been possible.
2
But
in most economically important areas, most demonstrably in finance and trade, “soft” rules
(with national interpretation of international guidelines and significant leeway for national
implementation) are still the norm. Examples of successful international policy integration
(e.g. WTO, Basel Accords, European Union) suggest increasing convergence, but arguably
limited tenures of these institutions and unavoidable association with security concerns have
not permitted a decisive resolution of the security-market debate. Certainly globalization
during the 19
th
Century did not engender integrated international public goods institutions and
integration efforts in the early 20
th
Century faired very badly.
Are there examples of market-driven integration which can show the viability of an
economically motivated process of rules integration? The dearth of strong international
examples is clearly a problem. However, there may be other venues useful for analyzing a
market-policy linkage. Intranational cases of rules integration, i.e. policy integration within
countries from a state or provincial level to the federal level, may provide some purchase on
the association between market and rules integration. Cases involving large countries where
regional markets preceded creation of a national market and where federal governments
permit different levels of legal authority may offer some insights into market-driven rules
integration. In this context, this paper considers the market factors influencing development of
a unified currency in the United States in the 1860s and 1870s, specifically associated with
the integration of the national market in the mid-late 1800s.
2
A common set of Incoterms, rules for international shipping and air transport and telecommunications
standards are prominent examples of such “hard” international rules.
Convention