论文部分内容阅读
科斯开创的新制度经济学沿着两个方向发展:其一,阿尔奇安和德姆塞茨、詹森和麦克林以及张五常认为,企业与市场没有本质差别,不存在权威和经济权力关系,因此放弃而不是解决了科斯的企业本质问题;其二,威廉姆森承认企业内存在权威,但没有发展经济权力的含义。本文认为,这两类为资本主义制度辩护的研究,都存在理论内洽性问题,最终成为同义反复,关键原因是它们都基于人类行动的“自由—强制”两分法。经济权力概念对于企业(以及资本主义制度)本质的分析是至关重要的。必须超出新制度经济学研究范式,结合马克思主义的阶级分析方法,明确考虑市场上经济权力对企业内权威关系的决定性影响,才可以内洽性地处理经济权力与企业本质这两个理论问题。
The new institutional economics initiated by Coase developed in two directions: First, Archiean and Demsetz, Jensen and Macklin and Zhang Wuchang believed that there is no essential difference between business and market and there is no relationship between authority and economic power , So to give up rather than solve the problem of Coase’s business nature; Second, Williamson admits the existence of authority within the enterprise, but did not develop the meaning of economic power. This paper argues that both of these two types of studies on the justification of the capitalist system have problems of internal consistency of theory and eventually become synonymous with repetition. The key reason is that they are all based on the “free-mandatory” dichotomy of human actions. The concept of economic power is crucial to the analysis of the nature of the enterprise (and capitalist system). We must go beyond the paradigm of new institutional economics and combine the Marxist class analysis method to explicitly consider the decisive influence of economic power in the market on the authoritative relations within the enterprise before we can deal with the two theoretical issues of economic power and the nature of the enterprise.