本文選題：馬克思 + 諾斯��； 參考：《東南大學》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：新制度經(jīng)濟學一改西方經(jīng)濟學的傳統(tǒng),將制度引入經(jīng)濟分析中,認為制度內(nèi)生于經(jīng)濟發(fā)展過程。其實早于新制度經(jīng)濟學100年的時候,馬克思就把制度分析和經(jīng)濟分析聯(lián)系起來,型構(gòu)了其偉大的社會發(fā)展理論---歷史唯物主義,闡明了人類社會發(fā)展規(guī)律,指明了未來社會的發(fā)展趨勢。道格拉斯·C·諾斯無疑是新制度經(jīng)濟學的杰出代表,他因“用經(jīng)濟理論和數(shù)量方法來解釋經(jīng)濟和制度變遷從而在經(jīng)濟史方面的新的研究”與福格爾共同獲得了1993年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學獎,也曾自認為是“馬克思理論的篤信者”,后來又自認為超越了馬克思。本文對兩種制度變遷理論進行了比較分析,認為兩者的制度范疇、歷史背景、假設前提和方法論、制度的本質(zhì)和起源、制度的功能、制度變遷的動力和路徑、所有制(產(chǎn)權(quán))理論都不相同,諾斯并未超越馬克思。馬克思從整體主義的方法論出發(fā),更多關(guān)注社會基本經(jīng)濟制度的變遷。本文“重返”馬克思,對其未來社會公有制理論作了梳理,認為其完全勝任中國特色社會主義建設的指導思想,增強了改革過程的制度自信和理論自信。諾斯的制度理論有為資本和私有制辯護的痕跡,與馬克思理論有本質(zhì)區(qū)別,但這不妨礙其在“市場交易已成為最普遍的經(jīng)濟關(guān)系形式”(林崗,2000)條件下,對制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化的成功研究。我國改革進程也是制度變遷,而且是生產(chǎn)關(guān)系的基本點---所有制不發(fā)生根本變化的條件下制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化,諾斯的制度變遷理論亦有用武之地。特別在應對傳統(tǒng)文化阻礙“開放進入的社會秩序”形成、既得利益群體阻撓改革進程方面,諾斯的“路徑依賴”理論、漸進式制度變遷理論提供了良好的借鑒。通過本文的研究,作者認為：一、馬克思主義社會發(fā)展理論在當代仍具有強大的生命力,從對資本主義的批判角度,對整個人類社會未來發(fā)展的預測角度比諾斯維護私有產(chǎn)權(quán)和資本主義制度的理論更為宏觀、更為全面、更為科學；歷史唯物主義為中國特色社會主義建設提供了理論指導,馬克思未來社會所有制理論為我國社會主義所有制改革提供了理論依據(jù)。二、中國歷史悠久,傳統(tǒng)文化影響源遠流長,區(qū)域范圍廣、地區(qū)差異大,要建立中國特色社會主義,必須突破傳統(tǒng)“有限進入的社會秩序”之路徑依賴,兼顧各階層、各地區(qū)利益,發(fā)展非人際關(guān)系化交換所需的社會條件,這些制度的邊際調(diào)整和變化,諾斯的研究頗具現(xiàn)實意義。三、社會主義市場經(jīng)濟的目標模式是讓市場在資源配置中發(fā)揮決定性作用；而基于勞動產(chǎn)權(quán)的股份制將是社會主義公有制的實現(xiàn)方式,也是向未來社會過渡的公有制模式
[Abstract]:The new institutional economics changed the tradition of western economics and introduced the institution into the economic analysis and thought that the institution was born in the process of economic development. In fact, as early as 100 years before the new institutional economics, Marx linked institutional analysis with economic analysis, constructed his great social development theory--historical materialism, and clarified the law of human social development. It points out the development trend of the future society. Douglas C. North is no doubt an outstanding representative of the new institutional economics. He won the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics with Vogel for "explaining economic and institutional changes in terms of economic theory and quantity, and thus new research in economic history." he also considered himself "a believer in Marx's theory." Later he thought he had surpassed Marx. This paper makes a comparative analysis of the two theories of institutional change, and concludes that their institutional category, historical background, hypothetical premise and methodology, the essence and origin of institution, the function of institution, the motive force and path of institutional change, and so on. Ownership (property rights) theory is different, North did not surpass Marx. Starting from the methodology of holism, Marx paid more attention to the changes of social basic economic system. This article "returns" Marx, has made the comb to its future social public ownership theory, thinks that it is completely competent for the guiding ideology of the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics, has strengthened the system confidence and the theory confidence in the reform process. North's institutional theory has traces of defending capital and private ownership, which is essentially different from Marx's theory, but this does not prevent it from becoming the most common form of economic relations under the condition that "market transactions have become the most common form of economic relations" (Lin Gang 2000). A successful study of the marginal adjustment and change of institutions. The reform process of our country is also institutional change, and it is the basic point of production--The marginal adjustment and change of system under the condition that ownership does not change fundamentally. North's theory of institutional change also has the opportunity of exerting his ability. Especially in dealing with the traditional culture hindering the formation of "open into the social order" and the vested interest groups obstructing the reform process, North's "path dependence" theory and the gradual institutional change theory provide a good reference. Through the research of this paper, the author thinks: first, Marxist social development theory still has strong vitality in the contemporary era, from the angle of criticizing capitalism, The prediction of the future development of human society as a whole is more macroscopic, comprehensive and scientific than North's theory of safeguarding private property rights and the capitalist system. Historical materialism provides theoretical guidance for the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Marx's theory of future social ownership provides a theoretical basis for socialist ownership reform in China. Second, China has a long history, has a long history of traditional culture, has a wide range of regions and wide regional differences. In order to establish socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to break through the path dependence of the traditional "limited access social order" and take into account all classes. The interests of various regions, the social conditions needed for the development of non-interpersonal exchange, and the marginal adjustment and change of these systems are of great practical significance to North's study. Third, the target mode of socialist market economy is to let the market play a decisive role in the allocation of resources, and the joint-stock system based on labor property rights will be the way to realize socialist public ownership and the mode of public ownership in the transition to the future society.
【學位授予單位】：東南大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：A81

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐明君;;馬克思與羅默的剝削理論比較研究[J];東南大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2012年03期

2 郭飛;;深化中國所有制結(jié)構(gòu)改革的若干思考[J];中國社會科學;2008年03期

3 吳志峰;;兩種制度變遷理論的比較研究——馬克思社會發(fā)展理論與諾斯制度變遷理論的比較[J];廣西經(jīng)濟管理干部學院學報;2008年01期

4 劉國光;;關(guān)于分配與所有制關(guān)系若干問題的思考[J];高校理論戰(zhàn)線;2007年10期

5 陸劍杰;;哲學視野中的中國經(jīng)濟學爭論[J];南京政治學院學報;2007年04期

6 劉文超;李輝;;諾思是否超越了馬克思——比較兩種不同的社會制度變遷理論[J];探索;2006年02期

7 葉航,汪丁丁,羅衛(wèi)東;作為內(nèi)生偏好的利他行為及其經(jīng)濟學意義[J];經(jīng)濟研究;2005年08期

8 劉燦,武建奇;《資本論》中生產(chǎn)、交易及其費用相關(guān)思想初探[J];當代經(jīng)濟研究;2005年01期

9 劉鳳義;;新制度學派與馬克思經(jīng)濟學:關(guān)于企業(yè)理論方法論的比較[J];政治經(jīng)濟學評論;2004年02期

10 呂天奇;馬克思與西方學者產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的觀點綜述與分析[J];西南民族大學學報(人文社科版);2004年03期

，

本文編號：1802716