Uncertainty and inequality in early financial thought: John Hicks as a reader of Knight and Keynes
考察了奈特和凯恩斯关于不确定性的论述在早期金融经济学发展中被忽视的作用，重点分析了希克斯1939年动态均衡模型如何再现了风险承担者与风险规避者之间的权力与报酬不对称，并提出了不平等是否为经济生活更大确定性所应付代价的政治问题。
Abstract The article examines the early reception of Knight’s and Keynes’ accounts of uncertainty and their overlooked role in the development of financial economics. Knight’s famous distinction between risk and uncertainty bore a deep social and political significance, dividing humanity into risk-takers and the risk-averse. This same distinction, I argue, along with its asymmetries of power and rewards, was reproduced in Hicks’ 1939 dynamic equilibrium model. It was recast as an opposition between hedgers and speculators in a market for risk, on the one hand, and between institutional investors and the general public, on the other. Hicks’s synthesis heeds both Knightian and Keynesian notions of uncertainty, adopting the former’s idea of profit-earning uncertainty-bearers and the latter’s definition of money as an imperfect though widely used hedge against uncertainty. Closer to Knight than to Keynes, Hicks’s model raises a fundamental political question: is inequality a price worth paying for greater certainty in economic life?