Frank H. Knight's magnum opus Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, published in 1921, is widely recognized for introducing and establishing the distinction between risk and uncertainty. It is also known for developing a novel theory of the firm and business profit based on entrepreneurial judgment. However, the work's relevance for institutionalism has only rarely been addressed or even acknowledged. This introduction to the special issue organized to celebrate the centenary of Knight's tome briefly summarizes the work's institutionalist implications and the articles that comprise the special issue.

The last two chapters of Frank H. Knight's Risk, Uncertainty and Profit are seldom cited and frequently ignored. But in those chapters, Knight moves from entrepreneurial judgment and organizational strategies to meet the dilemmas uncertainty presents in a firm to the wider question of how uncertainty affects the social organization of economic activity. Ignoring the concluding chapters of Knight's book means we miss an important part of his early career thoughts on the tradeoffs between free enterprise and the social organization of economic activity. The purpose of the paper is to lay out the perspective on social economic organization that he took in the final two chapters of his first major work against the context of his other contemporary writings.

The implications of Knightian uncertainty are frequently discussed in the context of market-based institutional settings. Given money prices, entrepreneurs can engage in calculative action, in conjunction with ‘judgment’, to guide decision-making and bring about a coordination of production plans with consumer preferences. However, if the existence of Knightian uncertainty is ubiquitous and applies to all human action, then what are its implications in non-market institutional settings? This paper explores questions related to the implications of Knightian uncertainty for two important non-market institutional settings: democratic government and the nonprofit or philanthropic sector, where there is an explicit lack of monetary calculation, yet nonprofit and political entrepreneurs still must use ‘judgment’ to deal with Knightian uncertainty. For instance, what are the implications of private property and privatized cost in the case of nonprofits versus the absence of private property and socialized cost in the case of democracy, in the presence of Knightian uncertainty? Which group of ‘consumers’ is likely to have their preferences satisfied when it comes to nonprofits (benefactors or beneficiaries) and democratic government (voters or lobbyists)? The paper, thus, points to the importance of further research on the implications of Knightian uncertainty in the hard case of non-market institutional settings.

Entrepreneurial action takes place in a context of Knightian uncertainty. In order to overcome this uncertainty, entrepreneurs engage in a process of judgment resulting in a decision about the course of action. Institutions arise mainly to reduce economic friction by providing structure to human interaction and thus reducing uncertainty. However, institutions may also introduce further uncertainty and thus disrupt the judgment process preceding entrepreneurial action. The present paper builds upon recent efforts to integrate the concepts of uncertainty and institutions within the entrepreneurial context. Drawing on Frank H. Knight's seminal insight, the judgment-based view of entrepreneurship, and relevant concepts of entrepreneurial outcomes, the main contribution of the paper lies in the development of a model offering a coherent description of the way institutions affect uncertainty and the entrepreneurial process.

In Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (RUP), Knight (1921) develops a theory of the firm that stresses the important role of entrepreneurial judgment for a firm's success. For Knight, entrepreneurial judgment is first and foremost the selection of ‘proxy entrepreneurs’ who are capable of making good judgments under uncertainty. In this sense, entrepreneurial judgment is essentially ‘judgment of judgment’. An overlooked implication of Knight's position is the fact that it leads to an endorsement of distributed entrepreneurship and responsibility. We deem this a very modern idea that challenges a completely hierarchical understanding of the firm. Knight himself does not thoroughly examine the institutional implications of the analytical framework he sets up in RUP. In this paper, we summarize the ‘philosophical vision’ of Knight's framework and illustrate his rationale behind the distribution of entrepreneurship. We conclude the paper with a discussion of potential institutional implications by referring to the danger of monocultures, the additional value created by cognitively diverse teams, and the effectiveness of venture capitalists.

Formal economic models of entrepreneurship have two characteristics: they model entrepreneurship as an allocation of resources, and they identify common factors affecting this allocation. These common factors are represented as parameters of optimization models, and they are evaluated at the market level. We argue that although these models are useful, they are incomplete because certain aspects of entrepreneurial behavior, such as judgment, alertness, or innovativeness, cannot be easily transformed into allocative problems. Moreover, entrepreneurial acts involve idiosyncratic elements, which limit the applicability of the market-level analysis to individual cases. Thus, the traditional economic methods have to be complemented by approaches highlighting the role of individual and historical specificity. The study of entrepreneurship, therefore, requires a synthesis of both general theory and historicist approaches, as envisioned a century ago by Frank Knight.

This paper revisits and fine-tunes a spin-off from Knight's (1921, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit) influential distinction between risk (‘probability of unknown events’) and uncertainty (‘unquantifiable randomness’): the contrast between actuarial institutions and entrepreneurship. It contends that this opposition is not exclusive and argues that the act of insurance does not automatically reduce entrepreneurial profits. To maintain this claim, the paper emphasizes hedging and, more specifically, draws on an innovative actuarial scheme – parametric (or index-based) insurance – which, unlike indemnity-based insurance, does not rely on a damage assessment but indemnifies the policyholder according to the variation of an index. This argument sheds new light on the function habitually assigned to actuarial institutions, amends the theory of entrepreneurial profits, and integrates hedging within entrepreneurial judgment.

The politics of financial governance under conditions of uncertainty has re-emerged as a significant issue for scholars of International Political Economy and related fields, not least because of the fallout from the 2007-2008 financial crisis. In this article I assess the legacy of Frank H. Knight's Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit for debates about reconceptualising financial governance and fostering financial stability. I argue Knight's book is productive in assisting understanding of the fallacies of the ‘risk-based’ economic theory tending to underpin financial governance, in particular drawing attention to the limitations of social scientific knowledge that reduce governance capacity and increase uncertainty in financial markets. I further argue, after Knight's deliberately paradoxical approach, that uncertainty in finance might be beyond regulation but at the same time there is still a societal need to attempt to achieve a politics of uncertainty that can cope with ignorance of the future through experimental governmental efforts.

Financial institutions in developing economies fail to provide entrepreneurs with access to finance to grow their businesses. This severely hampers economic development in these countries. We seek to explain why and develop an argument and model based on Knight's theory, which we augment in two ways. First, by describing problems embedded in financial institutions of developing economies, for which we use the Schumpeterian view that creative destruction requires new credit to fund entrepreneurial disruption and de Soto's finding that undocumented assets possessed by entrepreneurs in developing economies cannot be leveraged as collateral to access finance. Second, we use Williamson's hierarchical institutional model to distinguish vertical interactions. The model is illustrated using the case of Uganda, a developing country in Eastern Africa. Our analysis finds that Uganda suffers from intertwined and misaligned formal and informal institutions, limited extent of codified property, and sparse access to finance. The findings prompt policymakers in developing economies to consider problems with and within financial institutions.

In his seminal 1921 book, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Frank Knight distinguished uncertainty and risk. This paper applies Knight's concept of uncertainty to knowledge generated in incumbent organizations to explain the inherent difficulty in assessing potential innovations along with the key role played by knowledge spillover entrepreneurship as a conduit for transforming new knowledge created by an incumbent organization but ultimately commercialized through the creation of a new firm and innovation. Knowledge is inherently uncertain and constitutes what is characterized as the knowledge filter impeding innovative activity in the context of incumbent firms and organizations. The organizational and institutional context and market uncertainty can either facilitate or impede the spillover of knowledge from the firm where it was created to the entrepreneurial startup where it is transformed into innovation. The empirical evidence based on a large, unbalanced panel of 9,126 UK firms constructed from six consecutive waves of a community innovation survey and annual business registry survey during 2002–2014. Implications for managers, scholars, and policymakers are provided.

This paper evaluates the contribution of Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit to the development of economic theory in the 20th century. Our argument in this paper is twofold. First, we contend that this book embodied what had been the common knowledge of early neoclassical economics prior to World War II (WWII). Second, we also argue that embryonic to Knight's account of economics were two divergent approaches to economic thought that emerged after WWII. The first approach, what has come to be known as microeconomics, is characterized by utility maximization under fixed price, income, and institutional parameters that approximate equilibrium. This first approach is distinct from a second approach, referred to as price theory, in which prices are not sufficient statistics, as in microeconomics, but operate as guides to consumption and production decisions under alternative institutional arrangements. This second approach not only represented the continuation of the mainline1 of economic thought from its classical and early neoclassical roots. It also embodies the basis for Knight's understanding of uncertainty, profit and entrepreneurship, as well as its implications for economic organization and social progress.

Frank Knight's theory of monopoly price has received relatively little attention in the literature on Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. We argue that Knight accepted and refined the monopoly price theory of Carl Menger and his followers. Knight highlights the difference between monopoly as an inevitable outcome of departures from perfect competition, and monopoly as a contingent or ‘culture-history fact’. In the latter case, coercive institutional barriers to potential competition shape the choice set of consumers and producers, and provide a crucial method for identifying monopoly gains. There are three benefits to this account of Knight's contributions: it rehabilitates the focus on the institutional determinants of monopoly price, as opposed to the mainstream emphasis on market frictions and imperfections; it opens the way for a Mengerian monopoly price theory that seriously engages the study of institutions; and it adds new evidence and nuance to ongoing debates about Knight's place in economics.