集市的人类学研究:理论、民族志、批评

集市是复杂的经济、社会和文化现象,也是人类学的经典议题.本文考察西方人类学集市研究的三种主流范式.其中,经济学范式分析集市上的交易行为和制度过程,旨在厘清集市制度与市场规则之间的概念边界.地理学范式通过对集市分布模式和联结机制的考察,力图超越地方主义和文化孤岛的方法论局限.符号学范式则以集市上信息的流通、符号的挪用与意义的生成为视点,深描出集市的文化图式与精神气质.三种范式不仅深入关照了集市的不同侧面,也反映出人类学集市研究中问题意识的根基与流变.     

消费者行为理论发展脉络

本文尝试性地以消费者人性假定角度为切入点,旨在对消费者行为理论一百多年的发展历史进 行梳理.我们认为,在长期历史发展中,消费者行为研究中人性假定经历了"经济人"、"社会人"与"自由人"的转换,先后形成了实证主义与非实证主义两大范式.实证主义包括理性视角、行为视角、认知视角、动机视角、社会视角、特质视角、态度视角、情境视角.非实证主义范式包括诠释主义和后现代主义两个基本视角.实证主义范式转变为非实证主义范式正是消费者行为理论的历史发展脉络.从本质上说.实证主义范式与非实证主义是相互补充,而非对立关系.顾客体验是未来消费者行为研究主要对象.人类学的方法为消费者行为提供了新的动力.     

不同范式下的企业理论的发展

库恩在1962提出的范式概念,为研究科学思想和学说史提供了重要的分析工具。应用到经济学科,人们发现了几个重要的范式和范式革命。本文试图在不同的经济学范式转换下讨论企业理论的发展和创新,从另一个视角对企业理论进行梳理。随着范式的转换,企业理论的发展经历了从分工到技术的观点,再到现代的契约理论和产权理论的融合。     

卓越管理共同价值的探索:管理圣经《追求卓越》解读新视角

深入挖掘<追求卓越>所隐含的优秀企业卓越管理的共同价值仍具有划时代的意义.本文试图根据<追求卓越>的内在逻辑"人--主体性价值、组织--共享价值驱动、顾客--服务至上"三个环节,进一步从新的视角,探索其对现代管理学理论发展所具有的共同价值:人的主体性管理新范式揭示了管理学范式理论未来发展的趋向;以"自我管理、情感管理、内在激励、组织人格建设"为内涵的精神管理是对传统基于"经济人"假设的"物本管理"模式的超越,是人本管理的一次突破性尝试;"顾客至上"意味着企业管理"以企业为中心"的"利己思维"应转变为"以顾客为中心"的客体思维.     

科学发展观:马克思主义中国化的全新范式——一种社会发展分析范式的新探索

科学发展观以马克思主义实践人学为基本研究范式,实现了社会发展理论的范式转换与革命。它以每个人的全面而自由的发展为社会主义发展的根本任务和最终价值目标,旨在构建一种人与自然、与他人、与社会相协调的和谐社会,是我国马克思主义中国化研究中关于社会发展问题的最新理论成果。文章选择从科学发展观所实现的范式革命入手对科学发展观进行哲学解读,以期达到深化认识科学发展观精神内涵的目的。     

经济话语中的动物隐喻

动物隐喻普遍存在于经济话语中.本文以Lakeoff的概念隐喻为理论框架,通过对政府工作报告、金融词典和商务英语业务字典中大量经济术语和概念的分析,总结归纳出常见的四种动物概念隐喻:"企业是动物"、"投资者是动物"、"市场是动物"、"产品是动物".动物概念隐喻源于人类对动物形体和行为特征,特定文化中的内涵,以及动物在养殖过程中供与产的关系等方面的认知.     

隐喻在教育学中的作用

在教育理论和著述中,有许多概念或思想是以隐喻的方式呈现的。作为一种修辞手段,隐喻能启发我们更好地理解这些概念与思想。隐喻在本质上是一种艺术语言,在科学技术日新月异、教育研究科学化运动不断深入的今天,其价值日益突显。隐喻不仅是语言现象,而且是一种思维方式。作为一种思维方式的隐喻在教育学的历史中发挥了重要作用。     

从“看不见的手”到“市场神话”

本文考察西方现代经济学中流行已久的一个说法,即作为西方现代主流经济理论之核心的市场机制理论乃源于亚当·斯密的"看不见的手"。在缺乏文本支持的条件下,主流经济学者们选择性地解读斯密的"看不见的手"隐喻,并将其转换为"福利经济学第一定理",由此生发出"市场原教旨主义"及其"市场神话"观念。本文对斯密著述中使用的"看不见的手"隐喻进行文本考察,结果表明:斯密多处使用这一隐喻,然而其中竟无一处指涉主流经济理论;西方主流经济学者们关于亚当·斯密的"看不见的手"的那些不实吹捧是缺乏根据且具有误导性的。     

国家·边疆·民族——一个跨越三十年的视觉样本

近代西方体制、概念、知识在20世纪中的进一步舶来使中国的社会情境从以往的"帝国""家族"向"民族国家""国民同胞"转变,不同性质的革命实践也导致了国家形态、边疆领土、边地少数族群的意义被重新界定.本文根据摄影师庄学本在20世纪30年代至60年代所拍摄的系列边疆摄影作品,讨论其摄影经验如何反映中国国家近代化的历史延续与转折,并考察国家转型过程中不断变化的价值取向又如何导致其摄影发生范式转换.此项研究有助于解析中国社会史、政治史以及视觉文化之间的复杂关系,为理解20世纪中国的变迁提供新的视角.     

异化、物化、客体化概念之比较

通过对异化、物化和客体化概念进行分析,说明不同流派的哲学家们为解决人之生存困境问题都进行了不懈的努力,西方马克思主义者,甚至马克思本人认为只有社会和谐,个人才能完满。而别尔嘉耶夫却坚信心灵才是外在世界的基础。别尔嘉耶夫认为,人的内在精神性作为绝对的、原初的"实在"是人的存在的本体论根基,精神作为人的本质特征使人的存在获得了绝对意义和永恒价值。从而为当今物欲横流的社会中的人们找寻自己心灵家园给以启迪。     

服务型制造的起源、概念和价值创造机理

制造与服务的融合,促使传统概念的产品向具有丰富服务内涵的"产品系统"连续谱的演变,以及"新制造业"的涌现。服务型制造是"新制造业"的先进制造模式,是基于制造的服务、面向服务的制造。服务型制造引入顾客成为"合作生产者",通过多企业主体相互提供生产性服务和服务性生产活动,延伸和扩展传统制造价值链,自发实现资源的整合、业务流程的协作和"产品系统"的创新,实现"合作生产者"的价值增值。     

Toward an Evolutionary and Moral Science

Thorstein Veblen asked in 1898 why economics is not an evolutionary science; he also proposed a Darwinian paradigm shift for economics. Among the implications reviewed here was his claim that Darwinian principles applied to social entities as well as to biological phenomena. It is also argued that economists have additional reasons for taking Darwinian evolution seriously. Recent work on the evolution of altruism, cooperation and morality show that we are on the brink of developing an evolutionary-grounded theory of human motivation that breaks from the selfish utility-maximizer lambasted by Veblen. This new theory accepts a biological as well as a cultural foundation for moral dispositions. As noted here, the neglected British institutional economist John A. Hobson — who was an acquaintance of Veblen — foreshadowed this approach.     

人本发展经济学要义——阿马蒂亚·森"以自由看发展"思想的一个理论拓展

发展的实质是人的发展,是人类在自然历史演进中不断追求自由而全面发展的过程,或者说,是人类为维持生存、实现独立自主和获得自由而不断增进其力量和价值的自然历史过程.从人类"理性"追求角度引出基于三层次自由的发展含义,进而给出一个推广了的马克思(三域耦合)社会再生产图式,并以此模型作为基础框架,结合马克思主义关于"人的全面发展"学说及1998年诺贝尔经济学奖获得者阿马蒂亚·森"以自由看发展"的观点,我们可以在宏观动态上描述人类社会经济发展的人本化自由指向,以阐释"发展是拓展人类主体性自由"的人本发展思想,从而使我们得以超越传统发展经济学的局限,构建一种更有普适性和解释力的人本发展经济学理论体系.     

论政府管制研究从公共利益论到租金分析范式的转换

政府干预的公共利益理论存在将应然命题先验地当做实然命题处理的缺陷。政府"应该是",但不必然"是"公共利益最大化者。对于新古典经济学公共利益理论的学理困境、新政治经济学租金分析范式对政府微观干预研究的意义,应予以分析与讨论。对政府管制的研究不可避免地要回答规范性问题,而最有说服力的回答不在于讨论价值观,而是分析管制可能导致的变化对公共利益的影响。租金分析是一个能最大限度地规避争论的研究方法。     

Institutions and Values: A Methodological Inquiry

Economics entails a study of institutions regardless of the school of thought, and it is inherently an analysis of institutional transformation with a vision toward creating positive social change through economic arrangements. However, the conceptions of institutions, identity of individuals, human nature as it pertains to economics, identification of the economic sphere, its concerns, and studying its evolution, all vary substantively across schools of thought. We examine the following issues: (i) the differences in the ontological identity of the individual between heterodox approaches, new institutional economics (NIE), and the neoclassical school; (ii) the central point of divergence between original institutional economics (OIE) and NIE, despite both schools being committed to the project of an “institutionally” centered approach to economics; and (iii) the absence of a cohesive project to explore foundational theoretical congruencies among those heterodox approaches that have a shared vision, values, and a common ontological identity of socially embedded people.     

Phenomena and Epiphenomena in Economics

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has meteorically emerged to dominate contemporary medical methods and practicess. Its proponents argue that it offers a “new paradigm ” for medicine through the prospects of generating “gold standards” of care and democratizing provision by generating more reliable evidence and information. As such, EBM has the theoretical and ontological potentials to act as a catalyst of institutional change. Institutional economics has been sluggish in investigating whether such claims are warranted. This paper, by presenting a theoretical and abstract conceptual analysis, contests that there are sufficient grounds for considering that EBM is capable of promoting the dominance of a particular epistemological orientation in the framing of medical procedures through its invocation of instrumentalism, de-contextualization and reductionism in evidential sources. Thus, far from being the value-neutral, objective scientific evidential “gold standard” and democratic pathways its advocates claim, EBM presents the promise of a more utilitarian foundation for health care.     

Bioeconomics as economics from a Darwinian perspective

Bioeconomics—the merging of views from biology and economics—on the one hand invites the 'export' of situational logic and sophisticated optimization developed in economics into biology. On the other hand, human economic activity and its evolution, not least over the past few centuries, may be considered an instance for fruitfully applying ideas from evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory. The latter perspective is taken in the present paper. Three different aspects are discussed in detail. First, the Darwinian revolution provides an example of a paradigm shift which contrasts most significantly with the 'subjectivist revolution' that took place at about the same time in economics. Since many of the features of the paradigmatic change that were introduced into the sciences by Darwinism may be desirable for economics as well, the question is explored whether the Darwinian revolution can be a model for introducing a new paradigm in economic theory. Second, the success of Darwinism and its view of evolution have induced economists who are interested in an evolutionary approach in economics to borrow, more or less extensively, concepts and tools from Darwinian theory. Particularly prominent are constructions based on analogies to the theory of natural selection. Because several objections to such analogy constructions can be raised, generalization rather than analogy is advocated here as a research strategy. This means to search for abstract features which all evolutionary theories have in common. Third, the question of what a Darwinian world view might mean for assessing long term economic evolution is discussed. Such a view, it is argued, can provide a point of departure for reinterpreting the hedonistic approach to economic change and development. On the basis of such an interpretation bioeconomics may not only go beyond the optimization-cum-equilibrium paradigm currently prevailing in economics. It may also mean adding substantial qualifications to the subjectivism the neoclassical economists, at the turn of the century, were proud to establish in the course of their scientific revolution.