谈谈著名经济学家张五常教授的学术贡献及其局限性 Professor Steven Cheung’s academic achievements and limits 邀请世界著名经济学家张五常教授来做报告告诫经济学专业的学生“经济学是失败的，讲授主流经济学的经济学教授是废物 ” ，经济学院同事们的这种勇气和坦诚令人赞赏。商学院微信公众号的编辑找我写一点上周 三 张五常教授讲座的评论，我答应写个短评谈谈著名经济学家张五常教授的学术贡献和局限性。实际上我从未读过张教授的任何学术专著或者学术杂志研究论文，我知道的所有关于张教授的事情都来自他过去的公共演讲。“一叶知秋”，我觉得从张教授的各种演讲中可以得到对张教授工作相当好的了解。 张教授是一个洞察力深刻，能够直接看到经济学问题核心的天才，同时他也非常执着地相信现实事物必然是合理的和有效率的，其存在必有一个简单的理性解释。这种对简明和现实理性的强烈信念非常符合中国哲学中 “大道至简” 的观点。在自然科学界，我们常说“好的科学必然是简单的科学”。如果一个科学理论复杂到让人难以理解，这个理论错误的可能性就很大。不幸的是，当前的科学工作者往往忘记了这一点，制造出了越来越复杂和稀奇古怪的理论。 张教授的佃农理论很好地体现了这种对简洁和现实合理性的信念。当佃农从地主那里租来一块田地，他们之间应该怎样分割农田的收成 / 收入？从当时主流经济学的观点来看，地主应该在支付农民及其农具的边际产品后获得农田的所有剩余收成 / 收入；或者，地主应该收取农田的边际产品，而农民得到所有剩余收成 / 收入。但实际上，在台湾和东亚其他地区，地主收取固定比例的地租，这与主流经济学理论的预言完全不同。因此，主流经济学家认为现实存在的这种收入分配合同是不合理和低效率的。张教授拒绝接受这种教条观点，他提出了一个证明其合理性的解释。因为测定劳动者和土地的边际产品与监督劳动者的努力程度或者不太可能或者成本太高，所以信息不确定性导致地主按比例收租，这种租地合同在信息不确定性的条件下是合理的和有效率的。张教授的这一工作是信息不对称经济学的开创性发现，约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨在这一发现的基础上开始了他的诺贝尔获奖工作（ 2001 年度诺贝尔经济奖）。 张教授此后工作也都表现出这种对现存事物的合理性的强烈信念，就像在佃农理论中表现出来的一样。他直接观察经济现象，把它们与主流经济学的预言相比较，然后从信息不对称、交易成本或现实世界的考虑出发给出更合理、可能也更正确的解释。例如，他对影剧院里最好座位的票相对便宜、先被卖完的解释。后来获得 1991 年度诺贝尔经济奖的罗纳德·科斯，特别欣赏他的工作并大力扶持。张教授的这些突出贡献使他成为新制度经济学发展中的一个重要人物。他对现实事物的合理性及效率的强烈信念，使他极力反对政府除维持法律秩序外对经济的任何干预。 张教授是主流经济学及其对现实世界问题教条态度的激烈批评者。他认为，经济学在处理现实世界问题上是彻底失败的，经济学应该是 “ 实证 ” 科学。华人经济学家经常误用汉语 “实证 ” 一词，张教授也不例外。哲学上实证的英语是实证主义的 Positive, 而不是 empirical （经验的）。大多数华人经济学家把 empirical 误译为实证。我觉得张教授所说的实证，不过是指以证据为基础得出研究结论。我完全同意他这方面的观点，并且认为经济学几乎从一开始就走上了一条错误的发展道路。作为经验科学，经济学应该以物理学或者生物学为榜样，从观察现实世界得到关于现实世界的结论。我也完全赞同张教授对学术界过分强调一流杂志文章发表数量的批评。我一直认为研究论文的价值在于文章本身内在的价值，而不是发表杂志的影响因子。 超人的才华既可以是让人在学术天空翱翔的翅膀，有时也可以成为阻碍人进步的尾巴，这样其主要用处就变成让人翘尾巴。张教授的过人才华和对简洁的强烈信念也带来了他自身的局限。因为他早期事业的成功以及他的个性，张教授对自身信心十足，瞧不起从事主流研究的经济学同行。他看不出自己数学和抽象理论化的能力不足是弱点，这个弱点使他失去获得诺贝尔奖的机会，反而极力贬低数理经济学和使用数学方法的经济学家。他倡导经验（实证）经济学，却认识不到数学在经济学的应用极大地促进了经济学的经验研究。如果他早年认识到自己的弱点并且与数学能力强的经济学家合作，他很有可能已经分享到了诺贝尔奖。因为他数学不强，他不懂得数学作为公理体系不需要现实世界的验证。他错误地把不需要客观世界验证的公理体系例如数学与需要客观世界验证的实验 / 经验科学如物理学和生物学混为一谈，作为他所谓的公理性科学。 张教授对于主流教条的执着反对好像已成为他本身的教条，使他看不见经济学的大画面。与他的 “ 经济学是失败的，经济学家是废物 ” 的断言相反，经济学实际上非常成功地提出了成本效益分析、稀缺资源最优化分配和限制条件下的优化等重要方法和思路。经济学可能太成功了，因为这些方法与思路影响了和渗透到了人类社会的各行各业，以至于人们不再认为这些经济学方法和思路是经济学。任何科学都有其未解决的问题，任何科学都有其错误但时髦的理论，经济学也不例外。 所有经济学概念和结论都有其限制条件和适用范围，即便是张教授大力推崇的需求定律也不例外。 “ 当价格下降时，需求增加 ” 这一关系主要适用于对消费需求的静态比较分析，并且需要消费者没有战略行为。当做动态分析时和分析投资物品时，这一定律可能就不再正确。当我教微观经济学，告诉学生现实世界不存在吉芬物品时，有些学生认为中国的房屋需求随房价上升而增加可以作为吉芬物品的例子，还有黄金也随价格上升而需求增长。实际上，张教授在讲座中也承认需求定律的正确性依赖于正确选择让哪些别的变量恒定和让哪些别的变量变化。如果是这样，被张教授当作垃圾的经济学定理与被他推崇为经济学唯一正确的需求定律之间的差别不过是五十步与一百步之间的差别。 根据张教授自己所述，他至少有 40 多年不读经济学期刊的文章了，因为他认为这些文章完全无用。这一点显示了过人的才华和早期事业的顺利可能成为其后人生事业的负担。乔治· 阿克尔洛夫的诺贝尔获奖文章《柠檬（劣质二手车）市场》曾被三种期刊拒稿。头两种期刊拒绝将他的文章送审，并且告诉阿克尔洛夫， 他们的杂志不发表这样肤浅的文章。第三种杂志的审稿人表示如果阿科尔洛夫的文章正确，整个经济学就会是错误的。张教授 发表《佃农理论》好像比 阿克尔洛夫发表《柠檬市场》顺利得多（不过《柠檬市场》投稿被拒的都是经济学最高水平的杂志）。因为张教授从很早之前就已经不再读新发表的经济学论文了，他好像不知道神经经济学可能已经找到测量效用和其他主观变量的代理指标。经济学在过去 50 年的实际进步超过了张教授自身的进步，也超过了张教授感受到的经济学进步，而张教授为经济学的这些进步做出了重要贡献。我们需要向张教授学习的是他挑战主流经济学、开创新研究领域的勇气和智慧。至于他在演讲中的具体言论和对人对事的具体评论，我们姑且听之，不必过分认真，也可以当成娱乐。 Our colleagues in the school of economics should be commended for their courage and frankness in inviting a world renowned economist to tell their economics students that economics is a failed knowledge and economics professors doing mainstream economics are “feiwu” ( 废物， good-for-nothing). When NUBS Wechat editors asked me to write something about Professor Steven Cheung’s lecture last Wednesday, I agreed to write a short comment on his academic achievements and limits. Actually I haven’t read any books or academic journal papers by Professor Cheung, and all I have read are his often self-promoting public speeches. As the Chinese phrase (that people can) “tell the arrival of autumn from one leaf”, I feel that I have got a pretty good idea of Professor Cheung’s achievements and limits from his public speeches. Professor Cheung is a genius with extraordinary insight that cuts directly into the coreof economic phenomena as well as a powerful single-minded belief that all things that exist must have a simple explanation from rationality and efficiency. This belief resonates well with the Chinese philosophical saying“the greatest understanding is via the utmost simplicity”. In natural science,we used to say “good science is simple science”; if a scientific theory is too complicated for people to comprehend, it is most likely to be wrong.Unfortunately, scientists nowadays seem to have forgotten this and build more and more complicated or outlandish theories. This belief in simplicity and rationality of reality is well demonstrated in his theory of shared tenancy. When a tenant farmer rents a piece of farmland from a landlord, how should they share the output/revenue of land? From the viewpoint of the mainstream economics at the time, the landlord should pay the marginal products of the tenant farmer and his tools and then keep all the remaining output/revenue;or the landlord should charge the marginal products of the land and the tenant farmer keeps the remaining output/revenue. In reality, the tenancy contracts in Taiwan and many East Asian economies tend to be that the landlord takes a fixed proportion of the output/revenue, contrary to the conclusion of the mainstream economics. So many economists at the time considered shared tenancy is not a rational or efficient decision. Professor Cheung rejected such a dogmatic view and provided an analysis of its rationality: it’s impossible or too costly to find out the marginal products of the tenant farmer or the land, or to monitor the efforts of the tenant farmer. Because of the information uncertainty, shared tenancy is a rational and efficient decision. This is a pioneering finding in economics of information asymmetry, from which Joseph Stiglitz started his Nobel Prize (2001) winning work. Later works by Professor Cheung all share this strong belief in the rationality of existing phenomena exemplified by the theory of shared tenancy. He made direction observations of phenomena and compared them with the predictions of mainstream economics and then gave a better and probably correct solution based on information asymmetry, transaction costs, or real world considerations (for example, the reason that the best seats in theatres are relatively cheaper). His works were particularly appreciated and promoted by Ronald Coase who later received Nobel Prize for Economics (1991). These outstanding works made him a key figure in the development of new institutional economics. Because of his strong belief in the rationality and efficiency of all that exist, he objects vehemently to government intervention except maintaining law and order. Professor Cheung is a vocal critic of the mainstream economics and its dogmatic approaches toward real world issues. To him, economics has failed to solve real world issues and economics should be a “shi zheng” ( 实证 ) science. Chinese economists tend to misuse the term “shi zheng” ( 实证 ) and so does he. In philosophy, positive in the sense of positivism is translated into “shi zheng” ( 实证 ), whereas empirical is “jing yan”( 经验 ). Most Chinese economists incorrectly translate empirical into “shi zheng” ( 实证 ). In my view, when Professor Cheung talks about “shi zheng” ( 实证 ), he actually means evidence-based research (conclusion). I agree fully with his view, and I think that economics took a wrong path in its development almost from its very beginning. As an empirical science, economics should model itself in the tradition of physics or biology, drawing conclusions from observations of the real world. However, economics models itself in the image of mathematics and tries to derive conclusions from a few abstract axioms. I also fully agree with his criticism on the academic practice of overemphasis on (the number of top) journal publications. I always think that the value of a research paper lies with its intrinsic value rather than the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which it has been published. Extraordinary talent can be the wings enabling a person to fly in academic sky, but at times it can also become too big a tail for someone, a burden for progress and good only for raising it up. Likewise, Professor Cheung’s talent and single-minded belief in simplicity also brew up his limits. Probably because of being extremely successful in his early career as well as his personality, Professor Cheung is very confident in himself and often looking down upon economists doing the orthodox economics. He could not see his lack of dexterity in mathematics and abstraction for theorization being a weakness, which cost him a Nobel Prize, and instead he belittles mathematical economics and economists using mathematical approaches. He promotes empirical economics, but fails to appreciate that application of mathematics has been the greatest facilitator of empirical research. Had he appreciated his weakness and collaborated with more mathematics minded economists, he might have had shared a Nobel Prize in Economics. Because of his weakness in mathematics, he does not understand that mathematics as an axiomatic system does not need confirmation from the real world. He is wrong in mixing up axiomatic systems such as mathematics with experimental/empirical sciences such as physics and biology which need confirmation from the real world. Professor Cheung’s single-minded objection to the mainstream dogmas seems to have become a dogma of its own, which makes him unable to see the big picture of economics. Contrary to his assertion that “economics is failed and economists are good for nothing”, economics with its concepts of cost-benefit analysis, optimal allocation of scarce resources and optimization under constraints etc has been very successful. Probably too successful, people no longer consider them being economics, because economic thinking has influenced, and become part of, every walk of life. In any science discipline there are unsolved problems and fashionable theories that are actually wrong, which is exactly the reason why some people want to become academics, and economics is no exception. All economics concepts and conclusions have their qualifiers and domains of definition, even for the demand law so much cherished by Professor Cheung, “when price decreases, demand increases”. This relation has its qualifiers, as it is true for comparative static analysis of consumption demand for people without strategic behaviors, but not necessarily for dynamic analysis and for investment goods. When I taught microeconomics and told students that Giffen goods do not exist in real world, some students objected by noting that the demand for houses in China and for gold on world market is increasing when price is increasing. Professor Cheung actually conceded in his talk that the validity of demand law depends on correctly allowing some other variables to change while keeping some other variables constant. From this concession, the difference between those axioms/theorems trashed by him and the demand law praised by him as the only true thing in economics is just one between fifty steps and one hundred steps. According to Professor Cheung himself, he has not read economics journal papers for probably more than 40 years because he thought those papers useless, which shows how an extraordinary talent and easy success in early career can be a big burden. George Akerlof’s Nobel Prize winning paper “The market for lemons” was rejected by three journals in 1960s. Two journals refused to send his paper for review by telling Akerlof that they would not publish a paper of such triviality; and the third journal’s reviewers told him that if his paper was correct, the whole economics would be wrong. It seems that the road to the publication of Professor Cheung’s “Theory of sharedtenancy” was smoother than that of Akerlof’s “The market for lemons” (though the journals that rejected Akerlof’s paper are all top-class in economics). Because Professor Cheung no longer read economics papers since a long time ago, he does not appear to know that neuroeconomics probably has found measurable proxies for utility and other previously subjective quantities. Economics in the past 50 years has progressed more than Professor Cheung has progressed or he has been aware of. He actually contributed to this progress in economics. What we should learn from Professor Cheung is his courage and wisdom in challenging the mainstream economics dogmas and breaking new ground for economic research. His actual words and remarks in his lecture should be taken with a pinch of salt and for entertaining ourselves.
寻正 在读小学的时候，我数学可以拿满分，但语文往往不及格。方块字对中国文化的最大的负面影响就是对理解交流能力的限制，方块字难学，差不多要全靠机械记忆，这就固定了中国人的教育模式，不强调理解与交流，而一心要求学生死记硬背，生搬硬套。语文课中拿高分的人不少人不会交流写作，熟悉我作品的人，相信都了解为什么我对“语文状元”都不屑一顾，他们只能低劣地模仿，并不能完全理解他们自己所写的内容，在生活交流中，也辞不达意，但偏有一付高人的扮相，动不动就激扬文字，指点江山。 你可以指责我有酸葡萄心理，我还真说不清楚是酸葡萄效应，还是现实当中的印证，让我产生对语文状元之类的角色固执的蔑视。我对语文老师的许多说法都不以为然，但与我对语文高手的蔑视相反，我对语文老师还是有足够的尊重，从来都维持着良好的关系：我虽然记得不多，但就活跃课堂气氛而言，还真不是语文高手可以取代的。 在文字中寻求知识，在生活中寻求应用，此乃应用文写作的灵魂。 有一种说法，估计现在仍然有大量的中国人信奉，“熟读唐诗三百首，不会作诗也会吟”。这就是文抄公、语文状元的境界。有人向我推销中文经典教育，就是让孩子去背诵唐诗或者其它中国文化经典，我就客气地拒绝，迫害自己子女的智力，这种事情我做不出来。 我不是没有背过唐诗，对于善意的劝荐，我总会尝试，背过几十首，但现在几乎一首都背不出来了。背诵唐诗是一种极端无聊的精神折磨。后来我读《诗经》，“ 关关雎鸠，在河之洲。窈窕淑女，君子好逑。 ”然后看朱熹这牛人的注解，君子好求，“好”字解为“良好有德”而不是“爱好”，“逑”解为“相称”，而不是“追求”。我就对中国文化经典失去兴趣了，中华文化当中许多被判为精英的人，其实都是文字游戏专家，生活当中的失败者，模仿他们，就是模仿他们的失败，唐诗，绝大多数都是垃圾，从此，我就从背唐诗中解脱了。 如果你要写好应用文，就不要碰唐诗，有害无益。当然，我不是在否定中国文化在唐代的成就，那些大家都说好的诗，还真是好诗——我对好诗的鉴定标准是唯心主义的，读起来顺口，读了就能懂，不需要语文状元脑瓜袋里那些典故或者生僻字就能懂，读了之后能有灵魂上的感触，那就是好诗。好诗是前人创造后给你欣尝的，非得要死记硬背，随时准备模仿抄袭，有违诗人做诗的初衷。 应用文写作的目的是交流，交流的目的是寻求理解 ，这跟 语文教育中的文字游戏 是从根本上不一样，后者 寻求是炫耀与自我光环，读者越是要费尽脑汁才能理解或者还不能理解，他们越成功 。因为这种根本目的不一样，应用写作要求朴实，文字没有歧义，白话文就是根本——所谓白话，就是人民实际生活中使用的语言，因其实用性跟应用写作是一脉相传的。八股文作为应用文格式在中国文化史上是一个极大的进步，然而，新瓶装了旧酒，没有要求文人用白话写作，反而让广大学子颠着小脚赛跑，于是乎天怒人怨，最终被中国文人们贬得一钱不值。 要写好论文，文字的基本功就是学会说话， 用比较刺激的话来说，叫 学会说“人话” ， 不要讲兽语、鸟语、神仙的话、或者死得不能死的古人的话 。唐代诗人当中有一个典范人物，白居易，传说他写诗喜欢找老太太评鉴，老太太不理解他就重写，这就是应用写作的文字基本功。在传统文化中，女性是不读书的，老太太则代表着反应迟钝。 要让反应迟钝的人理解你的写作，这样的要求不仅仅不高，而且是极低：你如果真的象《阿甘正传》中的阿甘那样，智商有限，反而易于写作成功。对于不少望写生畏的学子学者而言，他们眼高手低，正是人们所描述的那样，学瓜了——读书给读傻了：那些因为“四体不勤、五谷不分”的学子学者被人嘲笑，并不真的是因为他缺乏农业常识或者运功能力，而是因为他们在生活中犯傻。 要写好应用文或者学术论文，从文字功夫上说，这就是努力方向：要把你在中国语文教学中死记硬背的东西忘掉，克服动笔就拿腔拿调、装腔作势的恶习，克制自己炫耀自我满足的动机，把自己的读者对象从被人遗忘的角度中拉出来，让他们陪着你写，随时鉴定你的文字。 要想写好应用文，你就得学会普通老百姓的大白话，朴实的话，有的时候，不妨把你的文字读给小朋友听，他们即使听不懂，也不觉得很神奇古怪，你就返朴归真，达标了。 这里，我们就需要举些例子，以说明应用写作的这一基本文字原则。 我们来读一读达尔文《物种起源》（第一版）第一章第一段： When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our oldercultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is,that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individualsof any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vastdiversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which havevaried during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I thinkwe are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to ourdomestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniformas, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have beenexposed under nature. There is, also, I think, some probability in the viewpropounded by Andrew Knight, that this variability may be partly connected withexcess of food. It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposedduring several generations to the new conditions of life to cause anyappreciable amount of variation; and that when the organization has once begunto vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations. No case is onrecord of a variable being ceasing to be variable under cultivation. Our oldestcultivated plants, such as wheat, still often yield new varieties: our oldestdomesticated animals are still capable of rapid improvement or modification. 就较古的栽培植物和家养动物来看，把它们的同一变种或亚变种的各个体进行比较，最引起我们注意的要点之一，便是它们相互间的差异，一般比自然状况下的任何物种或变种的个体间的差异为大。栽培植物和家养动物是形形色色的，它们长期在极不相同的气候和管理下生活，因而发生了变异，如果我们对此加以思索，势必会得出这样的结论：即此种巨大的变异性，是由于我们的家养生物所处的生活条件，不像亲种在自然状况下所处的生活条件那么一致，并且与自然条件有些不同。又如奈物提出的观点，亦有若干可能性；他信为这种变异性也许与食料过剩有部分的关系。似乎很明显，生物必须在新条件下生长数世代才能发生大量变异；并且，生物体制一经开始变异，一般能够在许多世代中继续变异下去。一种能变异的有机体，在培育下停止变异的例子，在记载上还没有见过。最古的栽培植物，例如小麦，至今还在产生新变种；最古的家养动物，至今还能迅速地改进或变异。 达尔文写得比较中规中矩，对一般读者理解有一些挑战，但就学者而言，大多能一目了然，但显然不会是轻松的阅读。就文字功底而言，没有达到白居易的水平，因此，才会对译者造成挑战。这段文字的挑战性在什么地方？复杂句式。 能够使用复杂句式是表达能力的一种体现，使用得适当，句意流畅自然，读来一气呵成，这是为什么学术文章中会大量使用复杂句式的基础。针对同样的信息，复杂句式可以减少文字的使用，但随之而来的，就是增加阅读理解的难度，句式越复杂，理解挑战越大，作者也越容易表达不清，到一定程度，就难以分清是作者写得不清楚，还是读者理解能力有问题。回到本文的中心内容上来，培训自己的文字写作能力，你就不能做达尔文，起码在训练阶段不要做达尔文。 对不少人来说，给达尔文改作业是犯忌讳的事情，但你要真练好作文水平，打破这一个禁忌，也是充满挑战、乐趣、与进步的事情：起码你真正地站在了巨人肩上。以第一句为例，对白居易的读者，达尔文应当这样写： Let’s compare cultivated plantsand animals to those in nature. We look at the individuals of those varietiesor sub-varieties that have been cultivated by human for a long time. There is astriking difference between them and those individuals of varieties andsub-varieties in the wild. They are much more different from each other. 对这样的平白述叙，译起来就十分容易： 让我们来对比动植物，看看那些被人类长期驯化的品种或亚种，它们与野生的品种或亚种之间有一个巨大的差异，那就是，它们个体之间的差异度要远比后者为甚。 我们再看达尔文的第二句： We see a great diversity ofcultivated plants and animals. They can be imagined to gain this diversity fromall ages of different climates and treatment. Then we reach a conclusion aboutthat greater variability among the individuals in cultivated plants andanimals. It is due to the difference in domestic production and life conditionsin the wild. The parent species had experienced somewhat uniform conditions innature. But in domestication, conditions varied and were different. 我们可以再次看到轻松的理解与轻松的翻译： 我们看到了形形色色的驯化动植物品种。可以想见这种多样性来源于以往所有时代不同的气候条件与人为干预。由此我们就得到一个关于驯化品种更多个体差异的一个结论。它来自家庭生产跟自然界所提供的生活条件的不同。自然条件相对比较单一，而在家庭生产中，条件不同并且变化多端。 是的， 如果你能把复杂的句式转化为简单句式，你就可以在写作水平上超越达尔文 ，用同样多的字数，把问题说得更清楚，更自然，更易懂，减轻读者的阅读负担。如果你写出了有价值的作品，在别人翻译你的文字的时候，也更精确。更大的好处是，你写作过程中更不易犯错，因为进行这样的文字处理，你得提纯自己的思想，让自己的思路更加清晰。 把你的文字读给少儿听，如果他们不“啊？”，你就可以继续写。显然，达尔文没有把自己的文章读给小霍勒斯听。只要你听到人质疑你的写作不清晰，你就应当试图从复杂句式中解套，使用朴实的文字，提升自己的交流能力。 我们再看一位牛人的论文，诺贝尔经济学奖获得者科斯的经典之作，《公司的本质》，开篇简介： Economic theory has suffered inthe past from a failure to state clearly its assumptions. Economists inbuilding up a theory have often omitted to examine the foundations on which itwas erected. This examination is, however, essential not only to prevent themisunderstanding and needless controversy which arise from a lack of knowledgeof the assumptions on which a theory is based, but also because of the extremeimportance for economics of good judgment in choosing between rival sets ofassumptions. 科斯的论文写得自然流畅，但经常性的超级复杂句式让读者不太容易回得过气来，挑战我们阅读过程中理解力的极限：这不是好的写作，对读者不友好，就应用文而言，他可以做得更好。如果你读懂了科斯的论文，给科斯改作业并不比给达尔文改作业更困难。 In the past, economic theoryfails to clarify its assumptions. When economists build their theories, theyhave often not examined their theoretical foundations. Such an examination isessential to prevent readers’ misunderstanding and needless controversies. Themisunderstanding and controversies arise from not knowing the fundamentalassumptions. Such an examination is essential for the economists to make goodjudgment between rival sets of assumptions, which is extremely important ineconomics. 要锻炼你的写作能力，不妨从给名人改作业开始，拿着本行业本领域的经典论文，看自己能如何简化那些令人望而生畏，一口气读不完的句子，把作者七弯八拐的话，用朴实的语言写出来。多做做这样的练习，你就会有了写论文、应用文基本的文字功夫。 那么，你来试试达尔文的第一章的第二段？ 经过长久研究这问题之后，据我所能判断的来说，生活条件显然以两种方式发生作用——即直接作用于整个体制或只作用于某些部分，以及间接作用于生殖系统。关于直接作用，我们必须记住，在各种情形下，如近来魏斯曼教授（Prof．weismann）所主张的，以及我在《家养状况下的变异》里所偶然提到的，它有两种因素：即生物的本性和条件的性质。前者似乎更重要；因为，据我们所能判断的来说，在不相似的条件下有时能发生几乎相似的变异；另一方面，在几乎一致的条件下却能发生不相似的变异。这些效果对于后代或者是一定的，或者是不定的。如果在若干世代中生长在某些条件下的个体的一切后代或差不多一切后代，都按照同样的方式发生变异，那未，这效果就可看作是一定的。但是对于这样一定地诱发出来的变化范围，要下任何结论则极端困难。然而许多细微的变化，例如由食物量所得到的大小，由食物性质所得到的色泽，由气候所得到的皮肤和毛的厚度等，则几乎无可怀疑。我们在鸡的羽毛中看到的无数变异的每一变异，必有某一有效的原因；如果同样的原因，经历许多世代，同样地作用于许多个体，那末所有这些个体大概都会按照一样的方式进行变异。制造树瘿的昆虫的微量毒液一注射到植物体内，必然会产生复杂的和异常的树瘿，这事实向我们指出：在植物中树液的性质如果起了化学变化，其结果便会发生何等奇特的改变。 如果你完成了这一作业，你就知道，不少人抱怨达尔文的《物种起源》译得不好，有人信誓旦旦要重译达尔文，结果却不敢动笔，这些不是译者的问题，而是达尔文写得不够好，好的论文，是不需要重译的。这是学习论文写作的努力方向。
科斯（ Ronald H. Coase ）以102岁高龄驾鹤西去了。他是有名的经济学家，诺奖得主，对中国特别友好。王芳老师关于科斯的博文，还上了置顶头条。应该说，科学网对作为经济学家的科斯给予了足够的关注。 大家议论科斯，都知道他成名早，代表作发表于1937年，标题为“企业的性质”，大家也知道当年他才20郎当岁，就提出了至今任为大家津津乐道的交易成本概念，真是天才啊。不过，或许很多对新制度经济学感兴趣的学者，并没有认真阅读科斯的这篇论文。毕竟，这是外文，又那么久远了。 事情就是这么凑巧。我近日收拾办公室的文件，恰巧发现了这篇文章，而且我还在自己的电脑备份里面，找到了当初阅读这篇文章的读书笔记。这是2000年，我选修的一门名为“社会资本”（Social Capital）的专业课上老师列出的必读文献。 从下面的读书笔记看，科斯当年关于企业的微观经济学本质的思考，是系统的，全面的，远远不是仅仅提出一个交易成本那么简单。他的思想也不是凭空出现的，他使用的分析工具，是经济学里传统的由马歇尔（Marshall）发展起来的边际替代的分析方法。 下面是我在2000年所作的读书笔记，聊表我个人对科斯的敬意，并供好事者参考： Ronald H. Coase, “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica 6 (1937): 386-405 The notion that the economic system is being coordinated by the price mechanism gives a very incomplete picture. For a firm, this notion does not fit at all. Outside the firm, price movements direct production, which is coordinated through a series of exchange transactions on the market. Within a firm these market transactions are eliminated, and in place of the complicated market structure with exchange transactions in substituted the entrepreneur-coordinator, who directs production. It is clear that these are alternative methods of coordinating production. However the degree to which the price mechanism is superseded varies greatly. The amount of vertical integration, involving as it does the supersession of the price mechanism, varies greatly from industry to industry and from firm to firm. Thus, the firm is the supersession of the price mechanism. It is, of course, related to an outside network of relative prices and costs, but it is important to discover the exact nature of this relationship. Economists admit that while in one case resources are allocated by means of the price mechanism, in another case this allocation is dependent on the entrepreneur-coordinator. The main reason why it is profitable to establish a firm would seem to be that here is a cost of using the price mechanism. The costs of negotiating and concluding a separate contract for each exchange transaction which takes place on a market must also be taken into account. A technique is devised for minimizing th4 these contract costs; but they are not eliminated. There are other disadvantages of using the price mechanism. It may be desired to make a long-term contract for the supply of some article or service. This may be due to the fact that if one contract is made for a longer period instead of several shorter ones, then certain costs of making each contract will be avoided. Or owing to the risk attitude of the people concerned, they prefer to make a long- rather than a short-term contract. A firm is likely to emerge in those cases where a very short-term contract would be unsatisfactory. It is obviously of more importance in the case services—labor—than it is in the case of buying of commodities. The operation of a market costs something and that, by forming an organization and allowing some authority to direct the resources, certain marketing costs are saved. Why allocation of resource is not done directly by the price mechanism? One entrepreneur may sell his services to another for a certain sum of money, while the payment to his employees may be mainly or wholly a share in profits. Another factor that should be noted is that exchange transactions on a market and the same transactions organized within a firm are often treated differently by governments or other bodies with regulatory powers. It is a tax on market transactions and not on the same transactions organized within the firm. These are the reasons why organizations such as firms exist in a specialized exchange economy in which it is generally assumed that the distribution of resources is organized by the price mechanism. A firm consists of the system of relationships which comes into existence when the direction of resources is dependent on an entrepreneur. A firm becomes larger as additional transactions are organized by the entrepreneur, and it becomes smaller as he abandons the organization of such transactions. The determinant of the size of the firm: 1. As a firm gets larger, there may be decreasing returns to the entrepreneur function. The costs of organizing additional transactions within the firm may rise. A point must be reached where the costs of organizing an extra transaction within the firm are equal to the costs involved in carrying out the transaction in the open market or to the costs of organizing by another entrepreneur. 2. As the transactions which are organized increase, the entrepreneur fails to place the factors of production in the uses where their value is greatest, that is, fails to make the best use of the factors of production. Again, a point must be reached where the loss through the waste of resources is equal to the marketing loss if the transaction was organized by another entrepreneur. 3. the supply of one or more of the factors of production may rise, because the other advantages of a small firm are greater than those of a large firm. The actual point where the expansion of the firm ceases might be determined by a combination of the factors mentioned above. The first two reasons given most probably correspond to the economists phrases of diminishing returns to management. In sum, if we assume that the exchange transactions which take place through the price mechanism are homogeneous, a firm will tend to expand until the costs of organizing gan extra transaction within the firm become equal to the costs of carrying out the same transaction by means of an exchange on the open market or the costs of organizing in another firm. However, the above assumption is not true in the real world. Thus, other things being equal, a firm will tend to be larger: 1. the less the cost of organizing and the slower these costs rise with an increase in the transactions organized; 2. the les likely the entrepreneur is to make mistakes and the smaller the increase in mistakes with an increase in the transaction s organized; 3. the greater the lowering (or the less the rise) in the supply price of factors of production to firms of larger size. The cost of organizing and the losses through mistake swill increase with an increase in the spatial distribution of the transactions organized, in the dissimilarity of the transactions, and in the probability of changes in the relevant prices. As more transactions are organized by an entrepreneur, it would appear that the transactions would tend to be either different in kind or different in place. All changes which improve managerial technique will tend to increase the size of the firm. To determine the size of the firm, we have to consider the marketing costs and the costs of organizing of different entrepreneurs, and then we can determine how many products will be produced by each firm and how much of each it will produce. Is this manageable? When we are considering how large firm will be, the principles of marginalism works smoothly. At the margin, the costs of organizing within the firm will be equal either to the cost of organizing in another firm or to the costs involved in leaving the transaction to be organized by the price mechanism. Business men will be constantly experimenting, controlling, more or less, and in this way equilibrium will be maintained. The above analysis would also appear to have clarified the relationship between initiative and enterprise and management. Initiative means forecasting and operates through the price mechanism by the making of new contracts. Management proper merely reacts to price changes, rearranging the factors of production under its control. Finally, this analysis enables us to state more exactly what is meant by the marginal product of the entrepreneur. 【注】 这是个读书笔记，其中非常大量的句子是直接从原文抄下来的，算是我摘录的要点。如果您读着这些英文句子觉得还挺顺溜，那不是我的英文水平不错，而是原作者的水平高。
标签: 科斯
![[转载]张五常说百岁科斯](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201102/14/220727s7oaed7x7sadmc4q.gif.thumb.jpg)
