论“经济人”假定对经济学发展的促进

“经济人”是经济学中的基本假定,经济学发展的历史说明：“经济人”假定是经济学大厦得以建立的基础,在经济分析中追求自身利益最大化比其相反的假设具有更强的解释力。当代经济学正是在经济人假定的基础上大大拓宽了经济学的研究范围,取得了重大成果。     

论"经济人"假定对经济学发展的促进

"经济人"是经济学中的基本假定,经济学发展的历史说明:"经济人"假定是经济学大厦得以建立的基础,在经济分析中追求自身利益最大化比其相反的假设具有更强的解释力.当代经济学正是在经济人假定的基础上大大拓宽了经济学的研究范围,取得了重大成果.     

"经济人"假定的人性基础与方法论问题

“经济人”假定是西方主流经济学中的一个重要前提和分析工具,但经济学的发展逐渐暴露了这一假定的内在缺陷。不论是从人性基础,还是从方法论角度,旧的“经济人”假定都存在着不合理性。中国经济学的重建需要一个新的“经济人”假定。     

为经济人和理性人正名--对有限理性与非理性的批判

亚当·斯密开创的经典经济学里经济人的逻辑的起点 马歇尔1890年在<经济学原理>中提出"经济动机不全是利己的"的命题(1964,P42)对斯密的"经济人"思想进行了修正,新古典经济学于是提出了按效用最大化原则行事的理性人作为经济学的逻辑起点,随后西蒙又提出"完全理性和有限理性"的概念,对理性人假定的合理性提出了疑问,尤其是随着进化博弈论的发展,一时间经济学大厦似乎在风雨中飘摇.难道理性人假定真的错了吗?经济人、理性人以及理性究竟应该是什么含义?经济学的逻辑起点又该是什么呢?     

马克思“社会经济人”假定与西方经济学“经济人”假定之比较

对于人的行为假定是经济学体系形成和发展的逻辑起点,而不同的经济学关于人的行为假定是不同的。马克思主义经济学把人假定为社会经济人,而西方主流经济学把人假定为经济人。马克思主义经济学与西方主流经济学的差别在很大程度上决定于他们各自对人的行为假定的不同。这种不同具体体现在二者存在的基础不同、包含的内容不同以及引起的理论体系和解释力不同等方面。     

谁“偷”了经济人的快乐？

“经济人”是几乎所有的经济学教材开篇就介绍的概念，即指“理性人”“以利己为动机，力图以最小的经济代价去追逐和获得自身的最大经济利益”。对于追逐精神唯美与情感安慰的年轻一族来说，这个词无疑是不受欢迎的。你可以穷的叮当响同时借钱到现场看球赛，也可以富有的流油却常去5元的KTV，反正就是不愿接受“经济人”这个听起采有些“势利”的头衔。     

"经济人"模式在政治学中的再现

公共选择理论把传统的相互隔离开的经济市场和政治市场统一起来,用经济人假定这一经济学的分析方法来研究政治学,打破了西方主流经济学分析政治问题时的传统观念.本文着重讨论经济人假定的分析在政治学中的应用,阐述政治学中的"经济人"模式.     

“经济人”模式在政治学中的再现

公共选择理论把传统的相互隔离开的经济市场和政治市场统一起来,用经济人假定这一经济学的分析方法来研究政治学,打破了西方主流经济学分析政治问题时的传统观念。本文着重讨论经济人假定的分析在政治学中的应用,阐述政治学中的“经济人”模式。     

个体动机与集体选择——一种分析“经济人”理性悖论的框架

规则分析和处境分析的割裂及单极化,导致了"囚徒困境"和"经济人"理性的悖论;主流经济学关于人性的普适主义假定和成本收益分析严重脱离了人的社会性;决定人的行为动机和选择集的约束条件和情景因素是多重的.认清具体的分析对象在特定环境下的约束条件,对个体动机和集体选择的分析才是统一和符合现实的.     

雇主互惠性、内部营销与核心竞争力的相关性研究——基于苏州、无锡与常州中小型民营企业的数据检验

互惠性偏好是行为经济学的一个重要思想,认为在现代经济中经济个体会存在一定程度的利他动机,传统的＂经济人＂假设已不能够合理地分析现实的经济行为。目前,互惠性偏好在中小型民营企业中存在着显著的经济学效应。研究发现：互惠性动机对互惠性行为存在着正向的促进功能,雇主互惠性动机与互惠性行为对内部营销效率的改进与员工忠诚度的提高存在着显著的促进功能,内部营销效率的改进有效地促进了员工忠诚度的提高,内部营销效率的改进和员工忠诚度的提高直接改善了企业核心竞争力的培育效率。互惠性偏好传导效应的实证检验可以为企业加强互惠性文化建设,从而提高企业的运作绩效提供现实性的理论借鉴。     

马克思主义经济学人本思想对财务学研究的启示与拓展

针对财务学的“经济人”假设进行了探讨,认为正是由于公司财务理论研究前提假定的非真实性,导致了当前主流财务学在研究导向、研究方法和研究对象上的失效。马克思经济学人本主义思想为财务学研究如何贴近社会现实提供了一个很好的借鉴思路。财务学本身具有社会属性,在此基础上,财务学研究的领域可以扩展到制度财务学、财务社会学、财务心理学、财务伦理学等方面。     

体验:一种经济学的解读

经济学从对物的研究到对人、人的需求和欲望的研究,与其说是经济学回归人性,不如说是经济学对人类体验的关注和凸显。体验是有益于促发生命感动和经济效用的图景思维活动。凸显体验的经济使其生产、交换、消费等活动的生存与享用价值全面提升。在体验经济中,社会再生产的“过程”呈现为体验与经济的互动,人性在个性化的意义上日趋丰满。体验是经济的新的增长点,体验能提升“经济人”的境界,体验有利于经济效益和社会效益的整体性提高,体验有益于经济创新。     

新制度经济学委托代理理论视野的拓展*

新制度经济学中的委托代理理论基于“经济人理性”假定,设计出了精密、精巧、精致的委托代理制度,有效化解了现代企业中委托人与代理人之间利益冲突并提升了企业运营效率。然而,现代企业实践已经证明,即使委托代理制度十分精密、精巧、精致,仍然没有彻底解决委托人与代理人之间的利益冲突和企业运营效率进一步提升问题。因此,必须拓展既有理论视野,从“经济人理性”假定拓展到“经济人+社会人+家庭人复合理性”假定,这样就能够实现委托代理理论视野的拓展。运用新制度经济学研究方法和双边对称信任数理模型表明：基于委托代理制度,进一步强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度,可以进一步化解他们之间的利益冲突并且改善企业运营效率。基于这一结论,强化委托人与代理人之间双边对称信任度的具体路径是优化社会信任环境系统。     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

Renewable Resource Policy When Distributional Impacts Matter

The standard assumption in bioeconomic resource models is that optimal policies maximize the present value of economic surplus to society. This assumption implies that regulatory agencies should not be concerned with the distributional consequences of management strategies. Both contemporary welfare-theoretic and rent-seeking approaches suggests distributional issues are important in designing resource management policies. This paper explores resource management when the managing agency has preferences defined over the economic welfare of various groups with a direct economic interest in the use of resources. Policy schemes consistent with this approach are derived and compared with standard results.     

论“存在经济人”假设、经济机制设计与效率不减原理

经济分析的主要任务之一是分析经济运行的效率,进行经济机制设计。由于“新经济人”需要有良好经济运行机制的支撑,所以,不能作为经济分析的前提假设。面对当前我国大量存在市场机会主义行为的现实,以“存在‘经济人”’假设替代“经济人”假设和“新经济人”假设,可以既与“人都是自私的、利己的”资产阶级观念划清界限,又避免“新经济人”需要有良好经济运行机制支撑而不能作为经济分析前提假设的困境,并且可以为分析社会主义初级阶段有效防范参与者机会主义行为的市场运行机制提供逻辑起点。“效率不减原理”指出,满足“经济人”真实显示偏好的经济机制并不妨碍“利己利他经济人”,即“新经济人”利己利他偏好的真实显示,保证了“存在‘经济人…假设下所得的机制应用于社会主义初级阶段市场经济实践中效率不减,从而进一步讨论了“存在‘经济人＇”假设对于社会主义初级阶段经济理论创新的意义。     

Early Evolution of the Assumption of Non-satiation

The paper explores the mostly tacit transmission of the assumption of non-satiation from the outset of classical political economy to the advent of marginal analysis in Great Britain. The evolution of the assumption is traced back to contributions to the philosophy of mind in the early British enlightenment, which provided scientific ground not only to the economic agent's insatiable nature but also to a delusional dynamic of association that challenges the causality between acquisitiveness and pleasure. The paper claims that, because there is evidence that such delusional aspect was known to the early political economists, the assumption of non-satiation might have become a mainstay in economics not only for its scientific status but also as a result of a strategic choice that can only be explained within the political, cultural, and social context in which it was made. Had this been the case, the exportability of the assumption through time and space must be further questioned. The consistent inclusion of non-satiation in economic theories, policies, and institutions may have had extraordinary consequences, and may have nurtured rational behaviors that in fact fulfill the assumption itself.     

基于演化博弈的和谐社会构建模型分析

经济学在社会科学中的主导性地位决定了经济和谐是和谐社会构建的基础。以"理性经济人"假设为基础的正统经济理论与和谐社会的本质内容存在着一定程度的差异性,因而不能够为和谐社会的存在性构建起科学的理论体系,而行为经济学为和谐社会的实现提供了现实性的理论依据。互惠性偏好是行为经济学的基础性假设之一,基于互惠性偏好的个体行为博弈可以改善博弈双方的经济利益,从而为演化博弈环境下群体经济行为从自利型向互惠型的演化创造了条件,最终为经济学视角下和谐社会微观经济理论体系的构建提供了坚实的理论基础。     

试论行为金融理论的逻辑起点

理性人在经济活动中能获得有影响的全部信息,并进行正确决策,进而成功地实现自身利益最大化,但这种完美的情形在实际生活中根本不存在。文章以行为金融学中的行为人作为逻辑起点,分析了经济生活中特别是金融市场中一些传统理论难以解释的异常现象。