论文部分内容阅读
瓦利斯和诺思(1986)对美国交易费用总量的变动趋势进行了测算,得出了引人关注的结论。随后诺思和瓦利斯等人对这个测算结果进行了系统的解释,但是无论是这个测算结果本身还是他们所提出的观点都受到了不少学者的质疑。在把诺思和瓦利斯等新制度经济学家得出的实证结论、理论解释与新兴古典经济学理论模型的结论和思想观点进行比较的基础上,发现不仅瓦利斯和诺思(1986)的测算结果与新兴古典经济学模型对交易费用变化趋势的预测是吻合的,而且两位作者在解释这一测算结果成因时所提出的核心观点与新兴古典经济学模型背后的思想也是基本一致的。这些发现一方面支持了诺思和瓦利斯的观察结果和理论解释,同时也表明新兴古典经济学事实上为人们研究交易费用、经济增长和制度变迁三者关系提供了一个重要的形式化分析框架。相对于新制度经济学的非形式化分析范式,这个分析框架有助于消除人们在有关讨论中所出现的概念混淆和逻辑不严密等问题,更清晰地展现交易费用总量、产出水平和制度安排三者的互动关系,因而在制度经济学研究领域具有应用前景。
Wallis and North (1986) measured the trend of changes in the total transaction costs in the United States, drawing interesting conclusions. Later, North and Wallis et al. Gave a systematic explanation of the measurement results, but neither the measurement results nor their opinions have been questioned by many scholars. On the basis of comparing the empirical conclusions and theoretical interpretations drawn from the new institutional economists such as North and Wallis and the conclusions and ideological points of the new classical economics theory model, we find that not only Wallis and North (1986) ) Are in good agreement with the predictions of the emerging classical economics model on the trend of transaction costs, and the core views put forward by the authors in explaining the causes of this calculation result are basically in line with the thinking behind the emerging classical economics model of. These findings not only support the observations and theoretical explanations of North and Wallis on the one hand, but also show that emerging classical economics actually provides an important formal analysis of the relationship between transaction costs, economic growth and institutional changes frame. Compared with the non-formal analysis paradigm of new institutional economics, this analytical framework helps to eliminate issues such as confusion and misunderstanding of concepts that have emerged in the discussions and to show more clearly the total amount of transaction costs, the level of output and Institutional arrangements of the three interactive relationship, and therefore has the application prospect in the field of institutional economics.