“差序格局”的不同阐释与再定位——“义”“利”混合之“人情”实践

对“差序格局”的不同阐释,都确认了义务、工具、情感(即义、利、情)三种关系要素。仅有的两个成熟理论模型,分别沿着“情——利”之一维或“情/义”之二维来进行关系分类,且均倾向于将“情”视作“差序格局”的核心性要素。本文则认为,将“情”包容于其中之“义”在价值层面上是“差序格局”之核心性要素,现实中“义利之辨”既紧张又交融的混合关系构成了“差序格局”的内在张力,且这种“义”“利”混合之“人情”实践决定了关系之“差序”进退。此种差序关系的不可分类性根本不同于西方个人主义文化中“情感性关系”与“工具性关系”的二元关系分类。     

也说“園(园)”

“園(园)”是风景园林学科的“元概念”之一。 现有对“園”的解释主要基于“囗”与“袁”组合的象形认 知,却存在谬误,且未能触及其本质。训诂是传统小学中 用来对汉字进行追本溯源的方法,将训诂学用于厘清“園 (园)”最为原始的音、形、义及其后世流变,揭示“園” 源于“圓”“圜”,最初是与“祀天”功能相关的“自然空 间”。从殷商至战国,“袁”逐渐代替“圓”“圜”中的 “員”“睘”讹为“園”,继承并扩大其字义。简化字“园” 亦有与“祀天”相关的“圓”“圜”的渊源,隐含了古人宇宙 观、时空观的传承。“天人合一”“人与天调”始终是“園 (园)”的基本内涵,是当今风景园林之“元”。     

THE "REAL" CHINESE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) FOR THE PRE-REFORM PERIOD 1952–77

This paper develops an econometric method based on the relationship between GDP and NMP to estimate an unknown Chinese GDP series of 1952–77 using recently available Chinese GDP data of 1978–90 and a reconstructed NMP series of 1952–90. In this manner, a long-term (1952–90) series of China's GDP has been obtained for long-term analyses. A reassessment of Chinese economic performance of 1952–90 using this series suggests that the paper's estimate provides a reasonable reflection of both the Chinese pre-and post-reform economic growth in terms of production structure, growth pattern and policy changes. A series of China's per capita GDP in U.S. dollars which is comparable to the World Bank's estimate for the early 1980s has also been obtained.     

On the Likelihood and Welfare Effects of "Stop–and–go" Policies

Baleiras and Santos (2000) show that "stop–and–go" policies may be inherent in the institutional set–up rather than result from the wrong timing of expansionary vs. contractionary policies or any form of players' irrationality. We use this set–up, involving ultrarational players and perfect foresight, to show that stop–and–go policies are more likely (in a statistical sense) than the opposite type of phenomenon. Moreover, it is shown that having the voters' and the business community's preferences concerning the cycle converge to the socially optimal cycle pattern may entail a welfare loss.