享年次高的诺贝尔奖得主——新制度经济学大师罗纳德·科斯

1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主、英国和美国(双重国籍)经济学家和法学家罗纳德·科斯是交易成本理论、科斯定理和科斯猜想的首创者,法律经济学和新制度经济学的开山鼻祖,产权理论和产权经济学的奠基人,他开启了产权理论、法律经济学和新制度经济学三个领域的研究方向。科斯是国际经济学界的泰斗级大师和巨匠,他在阐述经济组织产生的原理、交易成本分析以及推动法学、经济史和组织理论的发展方面作出重要贡献,发展了新古典经济学,开创了现代企业理论。科斯一生都关切和热爱中国,一直密切关注着中国的经济改革,其经济理论和深邃思想对中国的经济改革影响巨大而深远。     

Smith,Marshall and Young on division of labour and economic growth

The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the theory of division of labour and economic growth proposed by Adam Smith and developed by Alfred Marshall and Allyn Young. In their approach division of labour is the main engine of growth and plays a central role in capital accumulation and technological progress. We suggest that, according to their theory: 1) economic growth is endogenous; 2) it has the nature of a cumulative, path-dependent process; and 3) it can be described as a disequilibrium process, supported by competitive forces. We argue that these aspects make the contributions of Smith, Marshall and Young still insightful for the development of growth theory, even in the light of the modern approach of endogenous growth theory.     

Missing links in Marshall's early thoughts on education

Over the period 1867?-?73 Marshall integrated his thoughts on education reform with his work on psychology, and then economics. Around 1872, when the static method proved problematic with regard to long-term wage differentials, Marshall took his developing position concerning education and incorporated it into his emerging vision of political economy, the result being the germ of much of Book IV of the Principles. In addition, looking at Marshall's early study of psychology in conjunction with his writings on education provides further reason to doubt that Marshall ever embraced a wholly materialist philosophy.     

Management and the representative firm revisited: the modern significance of Marshall's evolutionary economics

In an essay written in honour of Peter Swann, it is second nature to discuss some aspects of the economics of innovation, as that is the very challenging area of economic life where he has added so much to our understanding. I will attempt to do this by posing the problem of how innovation fits into the theory of value. Innovation research continues apace, but its broader systemic implications for how we understand the dynamics of capitalism are in danger of being overlooked. But two important economists, Schumpeter and Marshall, have seen the problem differently and built innovation into their theoretical schemes from the start. Marshall's theory of evolutionary change provides a natural focus for our discussion, and this is reflected in his treatment of management, in his use of the representative firm and in the variation-cum-selection dynamics of his open competitive process. We treat each of these topics and show how his evolutionary dynamics can be expressed in the Fisher/Price dynamics of evolutionary change. More generally, the key to economic development is the uneven nature of innovation and it is the uneven nature that gives economic transformation its evolutionary character. This, I suggest, is the proper legacy of Marshalls economics.     

回归地理特性 探讨海权本质

凝聚社会共识、辅助政治决策者们制定国家政策方针,在这样的目标牵引之下,各个地缘政治学派从诞生至今的一百多年来,对国际政治格局的发展产生了深远的影响,然而它们也总是陷入到备受推崇与饱受批判的两极评价之中。马汉在19世纪末提出的海权论同样无法摆脱这样的命运。同时从另一方面来看,与陆权和空权不同,海权从理论诞生的初始至今,就是一个超越了单纯的军事范畴,而更加广泛地涵盖了经济、政策、社会等各种因素的地缘政治概念。因此,海权虽然成为了一个人人嚷嚷上口的地缘政治概念,但是其具体的概念定义却在众口纷纭的争议之中,一直没能够在理论上得以清晰。作者从回归海洋地理特性的角度出发,分析了海洋所具有的不可分割、不可人居、不可据守、不可筑防、隔陆成岛的地缘广阔性、连续性、单一性和媒介性,在厘清海洋这些不同于陆地的独特地缘特性之后,进而指出所谓海权,从本质上来说是指一个国家跨洋联结大陆的意志和能力,具体表现为三个方面互相支撑的内容:一是一个国家自身在开放经济上的组织、发展能力和政策意志,二是在军事斗争上以海军为主轴的战略支撑能力和政策意志,三是国家和社会公众对于信息资源的开发、利用能力与政策意志。     

Progress beyond growth: Some insights from Marshall's final book

Alfred Marshall had a very challenging project to write a treatise in two or more volumes that could contain his main interests and reflections. Instead of that treatise, Marshall published three books (Principles of Economics, Industry and Trade and Money Credit and Commerce). They cover only in part the ground that the treatise should have contained. That is why Marshall went on with the idea of publishing another final book. In this paper, we give a brief summary of the structure and the contents of this book, focusing more in detail on some subjects particularly interesting and meaningful.     

丁尼生心路历程之“永恒之路”

"永恒"这个主题一直在宗教哲学中备受关注。阿尔弗雷德·丁尼生(1809-1892)是继诗人华兹华斯后的桂冠诗人,毕生创作了499首诗歌。其131首的组诗《悼念集》被视为英国文学史上最优秀的哀歌之一。此诗为了缅怀其挚友A.H.哈勒姆而作,不仅传达了诗人对不朽的精神追求,以及其人生哲学,还呈现出诗人探索"永恒"问题的心路历程。     

The wages‐and‐profits fund: Classical remnants in Marshall's early theory of distribution

Abstract

This paper traces the development of Marshall's theory of wages from the late 1860s to the publication of the first edition of the Principles of Economics (1890). Section one attempts to unravel Marshall's recollections of early intellectual influences, many of which were often distorted or wrong. Specifically, J. S. Mill's, Fleeming Jenkin's and J. H. von Thünen's influence on Marshall's early theory of distribution is explored in this context. In section two, analyses of Marshall's theory of wages in Economics of Industry (1879) and in other published writings is presented. This section draws attention to the similarity between Marshall's treatment of wages and the classical wage fund doctrine. In the final section, we re‐examine Marshall's defence of his theory of value and distribution in the Economics of Industry in the face of criticism of it by American economists S. M. MacVane and J. L. Laughlin in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.     

From Social Theory to Explaining Sickonomics: A Response to Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine

This response shows that, in their reply to my critique of their work, Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis generally maintain the impression that there is a single, widely accepted definition of methodological individualism, but they do not identify it. They assert that social structures (undefined but seemingly specified to exclude law and institutions) have ‘analytical priority’ and logically (but tacitly) imply that individuals should have no part in the analysis of social or economic phenomena. They mischaracterise Hodgson's (2011) position on Marshall by quoting just one part-sentence out of context. Fine, Milonakis and Hodgson agree that the intellectual roots of the predominance of technique over substance in modern economics can partly be traced to the 1870–1900 period, but disagree on what they are.