Shackle’s essay is a conceptual inquiry into whether “profit” can retain a precise role in economic theory once production is understood as an action through time and uncertainty. He opens by asking not how profit should be measured, but whether the term names one coherent phenomenon at all.
What part, if any, can the word ‘profit’ usefully play in economic theory and analysis?
His starting point is the temporal structure of enterprise. Productive services are committed before the product exists, and before anyone can know the value it will command. This is not a secondary imperfection but the normal condition of economic life.
Those services of men, and of their possessions, which contribute to the creation of any object, event or state of affairs (any product) must for the most part be rendered some time before that product can emerge.
Because production takes time, uncertainty cannot be abolished; it can only be allocated. Contractual payments give some participants determinate claims, while the “enterpriser” accepts the residual uncertainty. Profit therefore first appears not as an achieved surplus but as part of a decision made among imagined futures.
It is of the nature and essence of human life that there can be no knowing in advance what will be the exchange value (in money or anything else) of the product at the date when it will be ready.
The essay’s central distinction is between prospective and retrospective profit. Shackle argues that the same word cannot safely denote both the imagined inducement to undertake a venture and the recorded result after the venture is complete.
I shall indeed maintain that we need two different words.
Ex ante, “profit” is not a single expected magnitude. The enterpriser confronts alternative hypotheses about possible gain and loss, each carrying a different degree of belief or potential surprise. Shackle’s account therefore rejects the simple formula that entrepreneurs maximize profit, if that phrase suggests one scalar object. The relevant object of choice is a configuration of hoped-for gain and feared loss, organized through his apparatus of focus-gain, focus-loss, and indifference maps.
This also changes the meaning of the claim that profit rewards uncertainty-bearing. If profit is the inducement to act, it is not the later reward itself but the imagined gain sufficient to overcome apprehension. Like a prize that stimulates many competitors though only one receives it, prospective profit operates psychologically and before the event. It belongs to expectation, not to accounting history.
Ex post profit, by contrast, is a recorded outcome. It may alter future resources, confirm or disappoint plans, and affect later expectations, but it cannot have caused the decision already taken. Shackle insists that confusing the result with the inducement is a logical error produced by static thinking, where past and future are collapsed into a timeless equilibrium picture.
It is only in a static analysis, the description of a situation which is essentially timeless, that a single concept of ‘profit’ could ever be enough.
This distinction also undermines attempts to divide realized profit neatly into entrepreneurial skill and luck. A single outcome cannot reveal how much was due to judgment and how much to fortune; such attribution requires wider evidence about repeated performance and circumstances. Nor can profit be treated straightforwardly as the marginal product of a determinate factor unless the analysis has first specified whether it is timeless and certain or historical and uncertain.
The essay’s importance lies in its insistence that profit theory must be temporal before it can be distributive. Shackle shifts attention from the question “what factor earns profit?” to the question “what role does an imagined surplus play in action under uncertainty?” Profit is therefore not merely an income category. It names, in ordinary economic usage, two different phenomena: the conjectural lure that helps constitute enterprise and the retrospective result by which a completed venture is judged.
This work was divided into 2 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 2 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian