新制度经济学的边界——三种代表性观点及其比较

在新制度经济学的边界问题上,新制度经济学家(威廉姆森和芮切特)、旧制度经济学家(霍奇森)以及经济思想史家(卢瑟福)不仅边界刻画依据不完全相同,而且他们对新制度经济学智力成果的描述也存在着很大的差异。新制度经济学家认为,某种制度分析是否属于新制度经济学关键是看该理论是否假定环境存在着不确定性、人是否具有有限理性,是否明确地或隐含地以交易费用为正为前提。而新制度经济学的边界在旧制度经济学家和经济思想史家那里被进一步放宽。他们深入到本体论层面,认为某种制度分析只要坚持方法论个人主义,那么它就属于新制度经济学的内容。而新制度经济学家的边界刻画更能准确、客观地反映新制度经济学的智力成果。

The Border of New Institutional Economics: Three Representative Views and a Comparison among Them

Regarding issues on the border of new institutional economics,new institutional economists(Williamson,O.E.and Richter,Rudolf),old institutional economists(Hodgson,Geoffrey) and historians of economics(Rutherford,Malcolm)express some differences not only in the basis of depicting the border of new institutional economists but also in reflecting the intellectual achievement of new institutional economics.New institutional economists believe,when deciding whether some kind of institutional analysis belongs to new institutional economics,the key is whether the theoretical hypotheses include uncertainty,limited rationality and explicitly or implicitly positive transaction costs.In fact,old institutional economists and historians of economics further broaden the border of new institutional economics.They penetrate into the ontological lay and think some kind of institutional analysis belongs to new institutional economics as long as it insists the individualistic methodology.However,the border defined by new institutional economists is rather accurate and objective in reflecting the intellectual achievement of new institutional economics.