转轨背景下制度分析的理论转向

在转轨背景下,通过对制度理论史的考察指出:既有的制度分析范式必须实现一种理论转向。新古典及新制度经济学所采取的均衡制度观,本质上是对制度的一种误解;而旧制度经济学和奥地利学派尽管强调了制度型构的自发演化并否定了群体理性创设制度的可能性,但他们将人类理性排除在制度演化过程之外的观念,同样难以令人信服。转轨现实所需要的是一种能够立足于制度现象的制度理论。这需要在制度研究的范式上,从新古典经济学的机械主义均衡的制度观走向一种制度演化分析的范式。而这种制度范式转向的实现需要两个阶段性转换:(1)从新古典的均衡制度观向演化制度观的转换;(2)从基于达尔文进化论的“无意识演化”向“有意识演化”转换。     

演化经济学——无序态及其整合

20世纪80年代以来演化经济学取得了长足进展,但由于缺少统一的基础性分析框架、对关键性概念的不同理解,演化经济学总体上仍处于一种无序态。要避免这种无序态,演化经济学须在层级区分、层级融合与核心理论构建上取得实质性进展,演化经济学的方法论决定了这种整合将是一个长期的过程,它不仅有赖于演化经济学本身的发展,还依赖于其他相关学科的进展。     

金融市场基于行为人演化建模理论与方法探析

金融市场基于行为人演化建模研究是综合了基于行为人计算经济学、演化经济学、复杂适应系统演化模拟等研究思想与方法 ,通过对行为人演化模拟来探索行为人投资策略经由市场相互作用的、自适应复杂系统演化机制。基于作为经济演化研究工具的行为人计算经济学的内容、特征及其在金融市场中对行为人探索性建模的应用以及对卢卡斯式行为人与人工适应行为人的研究模式和演化方式进行的系统分析与对比研究的结果表明 ,市场交易机制、行为人演化方式方面有许多问题需要进一步探索。     

演化经济学的本体论假设及其实践指导价值

经济学的哲学基础不仅限定了更为具体的经济理论的构造,而且对实际的经济活动也产生了直接的影响。为了使演化经济学动态的、有机的、系统的和开放的世界观具体化,借助正面启示法进一步推动经济演化理论的发展,并在哲学与经济学之间进行富有成效的对话,文章较为系统地论述了演化经济学的六大本体论假设,并说明了这种本体论假设对宏微观经济学体系的建构、我国经济体制改革、创新型国家建设以及脉络主义经济政策均具有实践指导价值。     

经济学中的演化计算方法

经济学中的演化计算包括起源于20世纪40年代的元胞自动机、50年代的系统动力学、80年代的演化经济学、90年代的复杂自适应系统以及复杂网络研究方法。从这些流派的共性来看,经济学中的狭义演化计算应当是以计算模拟为基础,以微观个体为出发点或微观规律为出发点,以研究复杂经济系统的整体演化过程或结局为目的的方法。经济学中的演化计算实现了经济学和数学、计算机科学、管理学、社会科学以及生物学等学科的融合。演化计算方法抛弃了传统经济学中的严格的理性假设,并且从方法论层面上否定了传统的还原论方法。经济学中的演化计算方法在以下几个方面是理论上的重点或热点:新的演化计算理论和工具的出现、复杂网络理论中的计算复杂性分析与快速算法的实现、演化机制的不断探讨以及它和正统经济学在方法论层面的不断比较。     

数字时代的经济学研究

经济学研究本质上是一个从纷繁复杂的经济现象中破解蕴含在其中的信息代码,并运用这些信息造福人类的过程。从“信息观”的角度来看,经济学研究可以划分为提炼假说、理论建模和经验分析三个阶段,而经验分析又包括简约式估计、结构式估计和机器学习三种方法。本文旨在从“信息观”的角度对经济学各类研究方法的适用场景以及在应用过程中容易出现的滥用、误用的问题进行梳理,一方面可以规避经济学研究中的常见陷阱,另一方面则能够根据研究问题和局限条件的差异来选择适合的研究方法。本文在对已有研究方法进行评述的过程中,也尝试对数字经济时代经济学研究所面临的机遇和挑战进行展望。     

演化经济学收入分配问题初探——基于我国目前现状

通过对我国目前存在的收入分配问题的研究,以实现对演化经济学理论的收入分配观和价值理理论进行一些启发性思考,寻求一种“古今中外”相结合的分析方法,提高演化经济学预测和指导现实的能力     

演化经济学收入分配问题初探——基于我国目前现状

通过对我国目前存在的收入分配问题的研究,以实现对演化经济学理论的收入分配观和价值理理论进行一些启发性思考,寻求一种"古今中外"相结合的分析方法,提高演化经济学预测和指导现实的能力     

演化经济学中的广义达尔文主义与连续性假设之争

在演化经济学阵营中,围绕着维特所提出的连续性假设和霍奇逊等人所提出的普遍达尔文主义,存在着不同的观点和争论。这种争论最初起因于经济学使用生物学隐喻的合理性,但在论战中逐步发展成为一种本体论与方法论的争论。在对生物领域和经济领域的本体论一致性的认识上,以及生物领域与经济领域是否存在因果关联上,两者是一致的,但就生物领域与经济领域如何产生因果关联,两者则存在分歧。维特的连续性假设无意中吻合了普遍达尔文主义的诸事有因,而就意向性问题,普遍达尔文主义提供了更为深刻的见解。     

基于CAS理论的内生型产业集群困境分析

CAS理论可以弥补传统经济学方法在产业集群研究上的一些缺陷,受到研究产业集群学者的关注。内生型产业集群是一个复杂系统,这表现在内生型产业集群系统的主体演化性、非线性、层次性和动态性上。内生型产业集群的困境描述主要体现在主体演化的困境、基于非线性、层次性、动态性的困境。对策与建议是发挥系统协同性、层次性作用推动内生型产业集群涌现性的持续出现,发挥主体自适应性、自组织性的作用并结合政府作用推动主体的演进,寻找内生型产业集群最优的动态性运行模式。     

The Narrow and Broad Approaches to Evolutionary Modeling in Economics

Some models in evolutionary economics rely on direct analogies to genetic evolution, assuming a population of firms with routines, technologies, and strategies on which forces of diversity generation and selection act. This narrow conception can build upon previous findings from evolutionary biology. Broader concepts of evolution allow many or just one adaptive entity, instead of necessarily requiring a population. Thus, an institution or a society can also be understood as an evolutionary entity. Both the narrow and broad approaches have been extensively used in the literature, albeit in different literature traditions. I provide an overview of the conception and development of both approaches to evolutionary modeling, and argue that a generalization is needed to realize the full potential of evolutionary modeling.     

解读演化经济学的兴起——兼论演化经济学的现状与未来发展

演化经济学的兴起主要有三个原因:西方主流经济学的范式危机;自然科学的发展;社会科学领域演化思想的积累与发展.演化经济学最近的前沿研究集中于进行演化建模,对复杂性进行测量,讨论技术与制度的协同演化等几个方面.拓展对多时期动态过程的研究,将演化经济学与制度经济学、马克思主义经济学、博弈理论等进行创造性综合,更多关注学科语言的凝炼和理论建模工作是演化经济学的未来发展方向.     

From simplistic to complex systems in economics

The applicability of complex systems theory in economics isevaluated and compared with standard approaches to economictheorising based upon constrained optimisation. A complex systemis defined in the economic context and differentiated from complexsystems in physio-chemical and biological settings. It is explainedwhy it is necessary to approach economic analysis from a network,rather than a production and utility function perspective, whenwe are dealing with complex systems. It is argued that muchof heterodox thought, particularly in neo-Schumpeterian andneo-Austrian evolutionary economics, can be placed within acomplex systems perspective upon the economy. The challengeis to replace prevailing ‘simplistic’ theories,based in constrained optimisation, with ‘simple’theories, derived from network representations in which valueis created through the establishment of new connections betweenelements.     

Market failure vs. system failure as a rationale for economic policy? A critique from an evolutionary perspective

This paper reconsiders the explanation of economic policy from an evolutionary economics perspective. It contrasts the neoclassical equilibrium notions of market and government failure with the dominant evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian and Austrian-Hayekian perceptions. Based on this comparison, the paper criticizes the fact that neoclassical reasoning still prevails in non-equilibrium evolutionary economics when economic policy issues are examined. This is more than surprising, since proponents of evolutionary economics usually view their approach as incompatible with its neoclassical counterpart. In addition, it is shown that this “fallacy of failure thinking” even finds its continuation in the alternative concept of “system failure” with which some evolutionary economists try to explain and legitimate policy interventions in local, regional or national innovation systems. The paper argues that in order to prevent the otherwise fruitful and more realistic evolutionary approach from undermining its own criticism of neoclassical economics and to create a consistent as well as objective evolutionary policy framework, it is necessary to eliminate the equilibrium spirit. Finally, the paper delivers an alternative evolutionary explanation of economic policy which is able to overcome the theory-immanent contradiction of the hitherto evolutionary view on this subject.     

On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account

In the last two decades, there has been a noticeable increase in published research on evolutionary economics. The general perception is that formalization lags behind appreciative work. Notwithstanding, this general reading has yet to be supported by real data analysis. This work presents a survey on evolutionary economics, aimed at exploring the main research paths and contributions using bibliometric methods. The documentation is based on an extensive review of the abstracts from articles published in all economic journals over the past 50 years gathered from the Econlit database. Evolutionary contributions have apparently not converged to an integrated approach. Two rather extreme main research strands emerged: ‘History of Economic Thought and Methodology’ and ‘Games’. Whereas formal approaches have a reasonable and increasing share of published papers, purely empirical-related works are relatively scarce, representing a meagre and stagnant percentage of published works. This highlights the need to redirect the evolutionary research agenda.     

经济地理学与经济学关系的历史考察

经济地理学发展不仅与人文地理的其他分支交互发展,并从包括经济学在内的社会科学内吸收营养。文章通过历史性地考察经济地理学与经济学关系,尝试探索经济地理学未来的发展趋势。通过考察发现:古典经济地理学时期,经济地理学与经济学相互交织、彼此影响;1930、1940时代到1970、1980年代,经济学引领经济地理发展,而经济地理学者没有对主流经济学产生重大影响;1980年代末和1990年代初期,经济地理学吸收经济学相关理论,实现了文化、制度和关系的转向,同时主流经济学则出现了地理化趋势,出现了新经济地理学运动。1980年代以来,演化思想在经济学界逐渐兴盛起来,演化经济学理论已得到越来越多的经济学家的重视,在20世纪90年代,经济地理学家接受了演化经济学的基本概念,开始尝试构建演化经济地理学理论框架。演化经济地理学是经济地理和经济学的下一个交叉点。     

Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: Comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches

The study of the relationships between innovation and the competitiveness of industries is an important topic for both, academic research and economic policy. The huge economics literature flourished in the last couple of decades on the subject broadly falls into two distinct research traditions, namely the mainstream R&D spillovers approach and the evolutionary economics view. Both traditions agree on the important role played by innovation and the inter-sectoral diffusion of advanced knowledge for the competitive performance of industrial sectors. Behind this general agreement, however, the two approaches are radically different. This paper shows that, at a deeper level of analysis, the mainstream and evolutionary views do indeed differ with respect to their theoretical foundations, empirical research and policy implications. In a nutshell, while the mainstream R&D spillover approach is inspired by a traditional view of economic policy based on a market-oriented approach, the evolutionary view is on the contrary consistent with the idea that institutional arrangements and policy interventions do indeed play a fundamental role for shaping innovation patterns and their impacts on the competitiveness of industries.     

The Rate of Change in Evolutionary Systems and Evolutionary Economic Modeling

Evolutionary economics seeks to model socio-economic reality as an evolutionary system. This powerful approach entails the implication of the continuous loss of information through the evolutionary process. The implication corresponds to evolutionary biology, although the systems in evolutionary economics are different from those in evolutionary biology. The issue of the loss of information has not been extensively studied in economics. Many open questions remain: Which knowledge is lost under what circumstances? Can loss of information be harmful to the socio-economic system as a whole in the presence of runaway dynamics caused by, for example, network externalities? How can the development of knowledge in economic systems be studied? The present article examines these questions and more.