回到“定分”经济学： 法律经济学对科斯定理的误读与澄清

科斯定理面世至今，不管是在经济学界还是法学界，均存在对该定理的诸多理论误读。从科斯一以贯之的理论逻辑出发，基于一般化的交易成本概念和比较制度分析进路，科斯定理的重点是科斯第二定理（或科斯定律），即一种“经济的法律分析”。但基于新古典经济学的最优化思维，波斯纳错将科斯第一定理视作科斯定理的核心和重点，不仅将该定理内在的财富最大化视为法律（包括立法和司法）的应然目标，也将最优化模型视为法学研究的基本方法。这是一种将法律视为新古典经济学最优理论之新殖民地的“法律的经济分析”。该理论不仅与科斯经济学背道而驰，还导致了国内法学界在科斯定理上的误判和误用。基于此，我们应该回归科斯所提倡的一种基于比较制度分析的定分经济学。

Back to the Economic Theory of Rights Delimitation: Coase Theorem's Misunderstanding and Clarification in Economic Analysis of Law

At present, there are some great differences in how to understand Coase Theorem in China. Based on Coase''s consistent theoretical logic, the keystone of Coase Theory is the second Theorem, a legal analysis of the economy. However, based on optimizing the model of neoclassical economics, Judge Posner thinks the Coase Theorem is the first Theorem, a theory based on zero transaction cost assumption. Based on the first Coase Theorem and its optimizing thought, Judge Posner considers the wealth maximization is the final objective of the legislation and justice. Comparing with the Coase thought of legal analysis of the economy, this is a thought of an economic analysis of law, so Posner''s understanding of Coase Theorem is a problematical thought. Once this theory which is looked like the foundation of law and economics is applied in China, there will be some misunderstanding and mistakes about Coase Theorem. Therefore, we should back to Coase''s Economics in Definition Rights in the future.