Shackle’s review combines exceptional praise for Timlin’s exposition of Keynes with a searching examination of equilibrium, expectations, and uncertainty. His reservations concern less the consistency of her analysis than the capacity of its formal relationships to explain economic change. He establishes this critical stance at the outset:
When a book is as good as this one, there is a danger that the reviewer, reading with exceptional interest and attention, will in criticising it apply a far higher standard, and find more things to wish slightly different, than in a book of lower quality.
For Shackle, Timlin joins intellectual discipline to a commitment to the social possibilities opened by Keynes. Her reconstruction draws on the promise she finds in the General Theory:
She has found in the General Theory something which is both intellectually fascinating in itself, and hopeful for mankind, and she has wished to restate it in her own manner.
The political implication is that liberal democracy need not accept persistent unemployment as the price of individual liberty. Shackle states the significance of Keynes’s discoveries directly:
They have shown that we are not faced with a choice between personal freedom and full employment.
Timlin develops this possibility through mutually determining economic relationships. Her diagrams stress simultaneous determination rather than isolated causal sequences. Following Hicks, her shifting-equilibrium method divides time into intervals within which determining functions remain fixed, punctuated by changes in expectations and desires that alter those functions.
Shackle elaborates the Hicksian “week” as an alternation between bargaining and the accumulation of information. Individuals first exchange offers and determine prices while ordinary news is suspended; events then unfold while prices remain fixed. This construction disciplines analysis without eliminating entrepreneurial error. When durable goods or inventories carry commitments between intervals, imperfect foresight can produce mistaken investment. Timlin’s supplementary models separating product sales from factor contracts therefore do not, in his view, differ essentially from her basic model. Output, consumption, investment, and interest jointly satisfy the relevant functional relationships and the ex post identity of saving and investment; shifts in these relationships may generate convergence, cycles, or irregular movements.
The central interpretive issue emerges in the discussion of interest theory. Shackle accepts Timlin’s placement of time preference and the technical productivity of existing capital within a perfect-foresight framework, but questions their prominence in an exposition of Keynes. For him, uncertainty and people’s responses to ignorance of the future supply the General Theory with its central purpose. A coherent treatment of interest is not necessarily an adequate account of the forces governing investment.
This distinction shapes his criticism of the book’s allocation of attention. Interest can occupy a prominent place in a formal system without exerting a correspondingly strong influence on industrial investment. Drawing on Oxford survey evidence, Shackle gives greater practical weight to the marginal efficiency of capital and its underlying expectations, while allowing interest a role in housing. Timlin’s extended treatment of interest-rate structure consequently appears warranted more by intellectual difficulty than by its importance for employment. He would have preferred Keynes’s ordering of capital efficiency, consumption, and monetary interest.
Shackle’s discussion of liquidity preference similarly shifts attention from completed transactions to the motives sustaining asset positions. Money influences interest through the willingness to hold it instead of income-bearing assets, not merely when it purchases a security. Holding money provides reassurance under uncertainty. These reservations coexist with his high assessment of Timlin’s exposition.
The concluding qualification concerns aggregate functions and individual expectations. Timlin rightly treats expectations as determining the forms of economic functions, but identical aggregate relationships can embody different distributions of individual beliefs. These differences matter when experience disappoints expectations: revisions depend on what particular people anticipated and how they respond. Initial aggregate functions therefore cannot uniquely determine a subsequent economic path.
The review’s distinctive contribution is its separation of simultaneous equilibrium from explanation through time. Timlin’s precision prompts Shackle to ask what formal analysis leaves unspecified. His admiration remains intact, but understanding economic movement requires knowledge of expectations and their revision that aggregate functional relationships alone cannot supply.
This work was divided into 1 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 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian