报酬递增在主流经济学中何以缺失

作为传统经济学基本假设之一的报酬递减假设，与越来越多的经济部门中呈现的报酬递增现象相背离。报酬递增在现实和理论中一直都存在着，但却没有被纳入主流经济学的框架，其主要原因是经济学方法论存在问题。传统经济学的分析框架无法提供报酬递增理论的生存土壤，从而使得报酬递增这一鲜活的经济现实在主流经济理论中找不到恰当的解释。随着经济学方法论的完善，报酬递增理论将会以真实、完整的面目示人。     

马歇尔的"报酬递减律"与新经济

报酬递减趋势本身是有所区分的,以产量来衡量的个量报酬在不同报酬递减趋势中是相似的,但在一定条件下,以价值来衡量的总量报酬却因产量递减而呈增势;报酬递减趋势在长期内会被报酬递增趋势所阻遏,且两种趋势的作用会不断地互相抵消和互为消长,结果便形成报酬不变律。这是马歇尔"报酬递减律"的基本观点。新经济在强劲的报酬递增倾向的另一面,却是报酬递减。因而,马歇尔的报酬递减学说在新经济发展中依然有其理论活力。     

知识经济与收益递增

发达国家正在步入知识经济时代,发展中国家离知识经济时代似乎还比较遥远,但必须迎接知识经济的挑战。“迎接知识经济的挑战”与“进入知识经济时代”并不是一回事,因为在经济日益全球化的时代,不具备知识经济时代条件的国家,并不等于可以免受知识经济的威胁。有的学认为,随着知识经济时代在发达国家的现实化,全球经济系统将面临一次新的国际分工,在这次分工中,知识经济国家将进一步摆脱物质生产的拖累,成为向全球经济提供知识、技术、智能和思想的“头脑国家”,而另一部分无法进入这一时代的国家,将成为利用这些知识、技术、智能和思想进行物质生产的“躯干国家”。显然,发展中国家必须攻克发达国家的“技术壁垒”,迎接知识经济的挑战,否则,而是在发达国家因知识经济极大扩张了自己的国际竞争优势的条件下,发展中国家如何通过战略性努力,避免国际竞争地位的进一步恶化或改变自己被动地位的问题。因此迎接知识经济的挑战,是发展中国家不容犹豫的选择,知识经济是全球化经济,任何国家也无法逃避。     

试论知识经济对传统经济学理论的挑战

关于知识经济时代已经到来这个不争的事实，人们正在越来越多地揭示出其特征。但如何准确地认识知识经济的定义、内涵、理论意义等等一系列学术问题，仍然是难题。本文试图从现实和理论互动的角度对上述问题做些有益的探讨。     

浅谈知识经济对传统经济学理论的挑战

关于知识经济时代已经到来这个不争的事实，人们正在越来越多地揭示出其特征。但如何准确地认识知识经济的定义、内涵、理论意义等等一系列学术问题，仍然是难题。人们已能清晰地感到它的存在，但它何以存在，如何存在，存在何用仍然是人们所不能透悟的。笔者的愿望就是要从现实和理论互动的角度对上述问题做些有益的思考。[第一段]     

知识经济时代:传统经济学面临挑战

知识经济的迅猛发展 ,引起了整个社会生产和生活的巨大变革 ,传统经济学也面临挑战 ,在诸如经济学的基本假设、基本原理、微观和宏观经济等方面都显示了一些新的经济现象和经济规律 ,它表明 ,传统经济学需要修正、补充和创新。     

企业知识理论浅议

人类社会正从后工业经济时代进入知识经济时代。在这个以知识和信息的生产、分配、传播和使用为基础的全新的经济形态,知识正取代资本成为时代最稀缺的资源。企业的生产要素投入——已不是简单的物理形态,而是更高级的知识的形态。换而言之,是知识而不是资本成为企业的最关键投入要素。企业的竞争优势源泉也将从原来的有形的物的形态转向无形的知识形态。时代在变革,企业理论也应反映这种变革。随着知识经济时代的到来,企业理论也正从传统以交易成本为基础的企业理论向以知识为基础的企业理论演变,从而使企     

New structural economics meets European transition

This paper explores whether new structural economics, and more broadly Structuralist approaches, could add to our understanding of transition in Central and Eastern Europe – and ultimately asks whether new structural economics and transition economics might be extended or integrated into a dynamic model of structural transformation that could better account for this particular development experience and provide policy guidance for the future. We have presented three perspectives – new structural economics, transition economics and the Neo-Schumpetarian approach – all of them emphasising different aspects of structural transformation. Their relative explanatory power depends on the context – for example, the extent of distortions in the economy, the quality of the institutions and where a country finds itself relative to the world technology frontier – and the questions we are interested in understanding. We suggest that, to date, the Neo-Schumpetarian approach offers the most promising and persuasive story line to think about this difficult challenge.     

Volatility in the knowledge economy

Summary. We seek to explain the economic volatility of the last 6 years, in particular the rapid expansion and contraction of the knowledge sectors. Our hypothesis is that these sectors amplify the business cycle due to their increasing returns to scale, growing faster than others in an upswing and contracting faster in a downswing. To test this hypothesis we postulate a general equilibrium model with two sectors: one with increasing returns that are external to the firm and endogenously determined - the knowledge sector - and the other with constant returns to scale. We introduce a new measure of volatility of output, a real beta, and derive a resolving equation, from which we prove that the increasing return sectors exhibit more volatility then other sectors. We validate the main results on US macro economic data of real GDP by industry (2-3 digits SIC codes) of the 1977-2001 period, and provide policy conclusions.Received: 18 March 2002, Revised: 16 February 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D5, D58, E10, L50, L52, O38, O51.Correspondence to: Graciela Chichilnisky     

Second best welfare economics in the mixed economy

The general problem of measuring welfare for large government projects is considered in a context where the government may interfere with the private market sector in a variety of ways. Measures are decomposed into a pure efficiency part and a pure equity part and it is shown that the efficiency part is measured by integrals under ‘uncompensated’ market demand functions. It is also shown that the efficiency part may be further decomposed into second best contributions due to commodity taxation, monopoly power and quantity constraints.     

Galtung meets Daly: A framework for addressing inequity in ecological economics

Since World War II, economic growth has been the leading policy goal in efforts to eradicate poverty. There is strong evidence that this strategy has gone hand in hand with increasing inequity and environmental degradation. We need concepts that will help us understand the inadequacies of the current economic system. We propose drawing from the ideas of sociologist Johan Galtung on social power structures, and those of economist Herman Daly on the physical features of the economy. A fusion of these perspectives creates a novel framework for analysis and a basis to formulate alternatives to the current growth strategy.     

Pastoral economics within the framework of a social economy

Eucken, in his paradigm of a functionally competitive social market economy, established the basis for a free market economy which institutionalizes concerns for economic and social justice. The Bishops’ Pastoral (and also the Lay Letter) on the U.S. economy approach the concept of a social and just economy from a Christian moral tradition. A community of interests between these two approaches, as well as Donaldson’s synthesis of Nozick’s and Rawl’s theories of justice, causes a moral-economic dialogue and cross fertilization to emerge. The Bishops postulate that the evolution of a just and fair market economy, as the guarantor of freedom, human dignity, and justice, cannot be left to chance but needs to be consciously guided. Therefore, they emphasize the integration of economic theories and policies with notions of “fairness” and “justice,” advocating a holistic approach in viewing the economic system as an organic whole. This paper shows that the broad economic guidelines, which Bishops suggest, fall within the framework of a functional market economy, i.e., a social market economy. It does not deal with the religious and biblical arguments of the Pastoral Letter.     

Embedded economics: The irrelevance of Christian fictive domestic economy

When reading the New Testament, the modern historically-minded interpreter would do well to keep in view that early Christian traditions emerged in the advanced agrarian societies of the first-century, eastern Mediterranean. In these societies, kinship and political institutions, roles, and norms determined economic and religious institutional behavior. That is, religious and economic structures were always embedded in either the kin group or the political group. Hence, to understand the “economic” assumptions and behaviors described in the New Testament, the interpreter must develop scenarios that fit the document’s historical and social context; the alternative is a necessarily anachronistic and ethnocentric reading. This essay articulates some basic perspectives entailed in historically and culturally sensitive interpretations of Old Testament and New Testament passages dealing with “economics”. The methodology employed here is a broadly based “social scientific criticism,” focusing on reading theory and cultural anthropology.