政府与社会组织的互动模式——基于北京市某区的实地调查

在社会管理创新的形势下,来自诸多领域的社会组织与政府的合作已初见端倪。文章通过对北京市某区的实地调查,与政府相关部门及13家社会组织的半结构式访谈,从资金来源、项目实施、注册年检、项目介入四个维度实证研究了政府与社会组织的互动情况,并归纳出了四种合作模式,即强伴生模式、伴生模式、弱伴生模式、无伴生模式。     

兼业背景下贫困地区农户资源配置的特征与效率分析

农户行为具有多重目标。在基本需要得到满足的情况下,追求收入最大化成为农户经营的主要目标。对贫困地区农户进行实证分析的结果表明,由于不能够从小规模的农业生产中获取足够多的收入来改善自身的生活条件,贫困地区农户从事非农生产活动的现象非常普遍,非农活动进而影响了农户在农业生产领域中的资源配置。随着非农就业机会的增多和非农收入比例的提高,样本农户专业化生产没有得到发展,农业生产投入的积极性并没有随之提高,农产品商品率并没有得到相应的提升。因此,在目前资源和制度条件下,非农化过程很难有效提升贫困地区农业部门的效率。     

市场失灵与政府失灵

从某种意义上说,西方经济理论的发展过程就是经济自由主义和国家干预主义此消彼长的过程.经济学的一个中心问题是社会资源配置问题,以亚当·斯密的<国富论>为旗帜的经济自由主义和以凯恩斯的<通论>为旗帜的国家干预主义的主要分歧也集中于此点.但这两种西方经济学的主要思潮都面临着各自无法回避和完全解决的问题--"市场失灵"和"政府失灵".     

浙江省创意指数及指标体系研究

创意经济作为一种新的经济形态,其活力、竞争力以及对经济发展的贡献迫切需要一种新的、科学的指标体系进行评价。在综述全球创意经济竞争力指数体系研究(包括Florida的3Ts指数、欧洲创意指数、全球创意指数、香港创意指数、台湾创意绩效指标系统和上海城市创意指数)的基础上,结合浙江省创意经济发展的特点,构建了浙江省创意指数的基本框架,并通过分析促进创意经济发展的关键要素,提出了产业政策决策的建议。     

长江经济带产业绿色发展水平测度及空间差异分析

以长江经济带产业绿色发展为研究视角,从产业转型升级、自主创新能力、资源利用效率和环境保护4个方面构建长江经济带产业绿色发展评价指标体系,运用2007—2016年长江经带11省（市）面板数据,对长江经济带产业绿色发展水平进行测度,并根据所得数据从空间尺度对长江经济带产业绿色发展水平进行相关分析。结果显示,长江经济带产业绿色发展指数在-0.4～0.37之间。其中,上海最优,四川最差,产业绿色发展整体水平从下游地区到中游地区再到上游地区呈逐渐递减趋势。空间自相关分析显示,Moran's 指数显著为正并呈现空间正相关特征。因此,提升长江经济带产业绿色发展水平,必须发挥下游地区的辐射带动作用,加强下游地区和中、上游地区间的交流合作,构建长江经济带中、上游地区绿色承接产业转型模式,促进区域协同发展。     

企业集团整体上市的市场反应

本文以2003年9月30日至2008年12月31日所有宣告整体上市方案的A股上市公司为样本,运用事件研究法对我国企业集团整体上市的市场反应进行了实证分析.实证分析结论表明:整体上市的宣告具有正的市场反应,且正的市场反应距离宣告日越近越显著,投资者将整体上市的宣告理解为重大利好消息,整体上市增加了上市公司股东的财富.     

浅谈工业自动化控制

随着越来越发达的科学技术,工业控制技术也在加快发展的速度,工厂里生产效率的大幅度提高是离不开日趋完善的工业技术的,其中自动化程度的提高起了决定性的作用,比如送工业控制器PLC和工业PC等的普遍应用,本文主要阐述了对工业自动控制的进一步认识。     

科技项目查新标准化问题

根据科技项目查新工作的特点,分别对查新工作的流程、专利、科研立题,成果报奖、鉴定及发明奖的查新范围,查新报告撰写模式等问题的标准化进行了探讨。     

物流中心选址的一种新模型

本文全面思考与物流中心选址相关的各种因素，综合利用数学模型、层次分析法、Delplli法，通过定量与定性分析，建立了一种新的选址模型。     

Firm Patenting,Innovations, and Government Institutional Support as a Double‐Edged Sword

In 2012, China was ranked fourth in patent filing by region of origin. However, firm innovation quality is not comparable to such quantity. Evidence of this is that no Chinese organization was named as a Thomson Reuters 2011 or 2012 Top 100 Global Innovators. This paradox of firm patenting and innovations in China challenges the traditional understanding of the role of government in industrial innovation. This paper provides a theoretical lens through which to examine traditional protective and strategic patenting motives. Based on institutional theory and the ultimate goals of patenting motives, the paper posits that protective patenting motives are directly law‐based while strategic patenting motives are largely law‐derived. The paper also aims to empirically examine three questions: (1) What is the relative importance of various patenting motives to firm patenting behaviors? (2) What effects do patenting behaviors have on firm product and process innovations? (3) How, if at all, does governmental institutional support affect firm patenting and innovations? This paper uses dominant analysis, structural equation modeling, and regression analysis to analyze the survey data collected from a sample of 270 firms in China. The empirical results provide new evidence about firm patenting, innovations, and government institutional support. First, the order of relative importance of patenting motives to patenting behaviors was found to be (in the descending order of importance) reputation, exchange, blocking, and protection. Second, patenting behaviors were more relevant to product innovations than to process innovations. Third, more importantly, while government institutional support can enhance the effects of protective patenting motives on patenting behaviors, it can mitigate the effects of strategic patenting motives on patenting behaviors. Moreover, government institutional support reduces the positive effect of patenting behaviors on product innovations. These findings suggest that firm patenting and innovations are distinct activities, and that government institutional support acts as a double‐edged sword in firm patenting and innovations: On the one hand government institutional support—an extralegal formal institution—may work alongside the patent system—a law‐based formal institution—to advance science and technology, but on the other hand government institutional support may distract firms from commercializing patented knowledge into new products. This paper primarily contributes to institutional theory, new product development literature, and innovation management practice by revealing the dynamics between two different types of formal institutions—patent system and government institutional support—by establishing an institution‐based view of patenting motives, by empirically distinguishing firm patenting and innovations, and more interestingly by uncovering a double‐edged role of government institutional support in firm patenting and innovations.