Victory margins and the paradox of voting

This paper addresses a simple question: why do people vote? Though simple, this question remains unanswered despite the considerable attention it has received. In this paper, I show that purely rational–instrumental factors explain a large fraction of turnout variations, provided that the effect of the margin of victory on implemented policy is considered. I extend Myerson's models of elections based on Poisson games, and show that, when platforms are responsive to vote shares, the predictions of the model become consistent with several stylized facts, including the secular fall in turnout rates in the US.     

悖论思维对创造力的“过犹不及”效应研究

悖论思维帮助个体发现对立事物间的联系,有利于创造性想法或创意的生成,但过高水平的悖论思维极易导致认知过载,使个体无暇顾及需要想象力和灵感的创造性活动。基于"过犹不及效应",本文提出悖论思维对员工创造力产生非线性影响。同时,根据能力-动机-机会(AMO)的理论框架,探索个人学习能力在这一关系中的中介作用,以及领导调节聚焦行为的调节作用。本文认为:悖论思维与员工创造力呈倒U型关系,个人学习能力在上述关系中起中介传导作用,领导促进型聚焦行为强化了变量间的间接关系,而领导防御型聚焦行为削弱了变量间的间接关系。通过对313名员工的三阶段调查分析,数据支持了本研究提出的假设。虽然适度的悖论思维有助于员工提升学习能力,但过度的悖论思维反而会降低员工学习效率进而削弱员工创造力,领导调节聚焦行为决定了员工是否能完成学习能力到创造力的转化。研究结论为员工创造力的影响因素研究提供了新思路,引导企业通过甄选员工和调整领导行为来激发员工创造力。     

知识产权法“利益平衡说”之反思： 自然法与功利主义之比较

“利益平衡说”被认为是知识产权法之基本原则或基本精神,旨在平衡权利人个人利益与社会公共利益之冲突,并以此解释知识产权法的制度构成。依自然法理论,知识产权之正当性因其自然获得性,相关权利与限制是确定权利的正当边界,维护以个人权利为基础之社会契约。功利主义理论则认为知识产权保护是实现社会效用之必要工具,经由排他性权利及其限制来达至社会效用最大化。无论限制或保护权利均有可能产生对权利或社会效用的正面或负面作用。由此,利益平衡的二元价值目标论值得商榷。知识产权法的根本问题是以个人权利为导向还是以社会效用为终极价值之选择问题。     

基于钻石模型对江苏省电子产业的核心竞争力分析

电子产业作为江苏省的支柱产业之一,其发展对江苏省具有重要意义。根据波特的“钻石模型”,从生产要素、需求条件、企业的战略与竞争的时空背景、相关与支持性产业、政府支持、机遇六个方面对江苏省电子产业的核心竞争力进行了分析,以期通过分析,明确江苏省电子产业的地位,为正确制定江苏省电子产业发展战略,提升江苏省电子产业竞争力提供研究基础。     

埃尔斯伯格悖论评析

主观期望效用理论认为个体的概率分布可以由行为的偏好导出,并且理性人的行为选择应该遵循主观期望效用理论,但是,埃尔斯伯格悖论显示了没有一个主观的概率测度,而且实际行为的选择并不总是和该理论的结果相一致。因此,围绕埃尔斯伯格悖论,展开了行为决策理论应该是规范的还是描述的争论。     

技术标准对产业竞争力的影响研究

技术标准对经济和产业的发展起到了很大的作用。文章以波特的钻石模型为分析框架,研究技术标准与产业竞争力的关系,探讨技术标准对产业竞争力的影响机理。     

中印电影产业国际竞争力的比较研究

随着经济全球化的不断发展,电影产业对一国经济的发展起着越来越重要的作用。同属于发展中国家的中国和印度,电影产业的发展却存在较大差异。基于"钻石模型"理论,从需求、资源、相关支持产业以及企业战略、结构和政府五个方面剖析了中印电影出口存在的差异及成因,提出了改革电影体制,落实政策法规;缩小文化差异,打破文化隔阂;完善资源整合,改革营销策略;刺激国内需求,形成规模效应等对策建议。     

Does institutional quality resolve the Lucas Paradox?

The Lucas Paradox observes that capital flows predominantly to relatively rich countries, contradicting the neoclassical prediction that it should flow to poorer capital-scarce countries. In an influential study, Alfaro, Kalemli-Ozcan, and Volosovych (AKV) argue that cross-country variation in institutional quality can fully explain the Paradox, contending that if institutional quality is included in regression models explaining international capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development is no longer statistically significant. We replicate AKV’s results using their cross-sectional IFS capital flow data. Motivated by the importance of conducting inference in statistically adequate models, we focus on misspecification testing of alternative functional forms of their empirical model of capital flows. We show that their resolution of the Paradox relies on inference in a misspecified model. In models that do not fail basic misspecification tests, even though institutional quality is a significant determinant of capital inflows, a country’s level of economic development also remains a significant predictor. The same conclusions are reached using an extended dataset covering more recent IFS international capital flow data, first-differenced capital stock data and additional controls.     

Approaching paradox: Loving and hating mega-events

This paper examines the role of paradoxes in research and proposes strategies of engaging with them. For this purpose, it analyses the ways in which six paradoxes are constitutive of sports mega-events such as the Olympic Games: the universalism paradox, the compliance paradox, the winner's paradox, the participation paradox, the uniqueness paradox and the passion paradox. It then develops three strategies of how researchers and practitioners can approach paradox. The first, exploration, examines the consequences and effects of the ambiguity of paradoxes. The second, differentiation, enquires into the spatio-temporal and social make-up of paradoxes. The third, reframing, recasts paradoxes by shifting theoretical perspectives. Instead of pressing to resolve paradoxes, researchers and practitioners alike should make productive use of their ambiguity.