论幸福悖论的成因与启示

从幸福与收入的关系来看,幸福悖论的成因是:达到临界收入后,收入的功能目的(必然性)向手段(可能性)的转换、收入边际效用递减与收入的负外部性凸显以致人们对收入的公平性和可持续性等需要递增、个人自我实现与带来收入的工作的偏离等导致幸福悖论。揭开幸福悖论的面纱,可以清楚地看到,我国现阶段只有大力发展经济,同时克服经济发展的负外部性,重建公共家园,即关注民生、创造社会财富,把社会进步与个人自我实现有机地结合起来,实现幸福的帕累托最优,才能真正踏上幸福经济之路。     

追寻正义:中国法律社会学的危机与出路

与经典社会理论的分析不同,法治实践在中国形成了一系列悖论特征,在劳动法、财产法、合同法、金融法、公司法和环境法等领域,形成了一种内外有别,呈现身份和产权差序化格局的法律体系。无论是形式主义或实体主义理论都不能完整把握其性质。中国法律社会学不能直接套用西方的某派学说或者盲目坚持本土主义、实践主义的学术路径。要对改革时期中国的法治运动在全球和国家层面形成的特殊结构与悖论逻辑,在社会理论层面展开更为切实而深刻的分析,并在正义和规范层面对法治发展做出前瞻性的批判、反思和引导,这将是未来中国法律社会学突破学术困境、探索新路的关键。     

全球生产网络效应、集群封闭性及其“升级悖论”——基于大陆台商笔记本电脑产业集群的分析

全球生产网络中战略隔绝机制的存在,使得依托跨国公司战略空间集聚效应所形成的产业集群具有内在的封闭性,由此导致当地集群的“升级悖论”:集群内企业沿某一特定产品—技术路径升级越快,当地根植性与当地产业关联被弱化的可能性也就越大。本文进一步以大陆台商笔记本电脑产业集群为例,对战略隔绝机制所产生的特定影响及其现实意义作了说明。     

Harmonic sequence paradox

Summary. Informal evidence suggests that individuals are willing to pay only a finite and, typically, very low price for a specific lottery that converges to an infinite payment with probability one. The established decision theories (expected value, expected utility theory, cumulative prospect theory) cannot satisfactorily explain this low willingness to pay. The presented paradox strengthens the original and the super St. Petersburg paradox.Received: 27 Spetember 2004, Revised: 15 January 2005, JEL Classification Numbers: C91, D81.I am grateful to Peter Wakker, whose suggestions helped to simplify significantly the exposition of the main idea, and to the participants of a brown-bag seminar at CERGE-EI (June 23, 2004, Prague), notably Dirk Engelmann and Andreas Ortmann, who suggested interesting testable explanations for the paradox.     

走出"血色樊篱"--对"女性文学"概念界说的质疑

通过对20世纪特别是90年代以来学术界关于"女性文学"这一概念内涵理解及界说的大致梳理,重点对90年代该概念内涵的界说所存在的悖论提出质疑,从而提出界定一部(或一篇)文学作品是否属于"女性文学",主要应以作品内涵而不是以作者性别为依据.     

The fossil episode

Agriculture sector output (biocarbon) is a good substitute for oil in energy production but oil cannot be used as food. This one-way substitutability is analyzed in a dynamic general equilibrium model. It features three endogenous phases: a pure fossil, a mixed fossil and biocarbon and an absorbing biocarbon fuel only phase. In the latter two, the demand for biocarbon as fuel leads to increasing food prices. Depending on how easily capital and labor can reallocate, food prices increase by between 40% and 240%. The model is also used to analyze climate consequences of biocarbon fuel polices and of the shale revolution.     

Coalition-enhancing fiscal policies in an open economy: A CES framework of Gale’s transfer paradox

The motivation of our paper comes from David Gale’s seminal work in 1974. He constructed an example of the “transfer paradox” based on three Leontief functions. The transfer paradox is that when there is a set of agents in the home country and that the home country is trading with other countries, then certain public lump-sum tax transfer plans could make all agents in the home country better off. Our contributions are as follows. First, we show that such an example can be constructed with three smooth CES utility functions. Second, we establish the three crucial conditions for the existence of the transfer paradox: (1) the donor (a taxpayer) has stronger preference for the foreign good than the recipient; (2) the donor is ex-ante wealthier than the recipient; (3) the elasticity of substitution of the foreign country’s preference is strictly less than one.     

A resolution of St. Petersburg paradox

The St. Petersburg paradox is the oldest paradox in decision theory and has played a pivotal role in the introduction of increasing concave utility functions embodying risk aversion and decreasing marginal utility of gains. All attempts to resolve it have considered some variants of the original set-up, but the original paradox has remained unresolved, while the proposed variants have introduced new complications and problems. Here a rigorous mathematical resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox is suggested based on a probabilistic approach to decision theory.     

Reply to Alan Day Haight

Alan Day Haight is incorrect in understanding Piketty’s paradox as a “dynamic version” of Keynes’ paradox of thrift. Keynes’ paradox of thrift deals with equilibrium conditions relating to the flows of savings and investment. In contrast, the capital output ratio central to Piketty’s paradox deals with a stock (capital) relative to a flow (output). Balanced growth cannot be considered an “equilibrium” condition without specifying an adjustment mechanism whereby balanced growth is re-established when the capital-output ratio becomes unbalanced. As illustrated by the Harrod-Domar case this unbalancing can be particularly degenerative when idle capacity develops.