论文部分内容阅读
自凯恩斯革命迄今,西方经济学一直没有重新迎来其令人激动的年代,反而由于它面对不断变幻的经济现实的解释和预测力日益削弱而处尴尬之境。传统的凯恩斯结构及其变种与各种新自由主义流派的复兴发展并不能淹没整体上经济理论创新的滞后性与危机色彩。这种危机性集中表现于理论上缺乏沟通宏微观分析的基础结构、沉溺于滥用数学的智力游戏而偏离其学说宗旨(艾克纳,1991年);实践上则在滞胀等现实矛盾的挑战面前无能为力。然而这种整体危机性又正是经济学处于范式突破与革命的前夕的表征,各种新流派试图提出足以引领经济学走出危机的新框架来实现西方经济学的当代革命。新制度主义或称新制度经济学(New In—stitutional Economics)就是本世纪六七十年代以来在美国兴起的一个令人瞩目的新流派(它在分析框架及与新古典正统经济学的关系上区别于加尔布雷思(J·Galbraith)为代
Since the Keynesian Revolution to date, Western economics has not been able to welcome its exciting era again. Instead, it has become embarrassed by its diminishing interpretation and predictability in the ever-changing economic reality. The traditional Keynesian structure and its variants and the revival of various neo-liberal genres do not overwhelm the lag and crisis of overall economic theoretical innovation. This crisis has been characterized by a lack of theoretical infrastructure to communicate macro- and micro-analyzes, indulging in the misuse of mathematical intellectual games and departing from the tenets of its doctrine (Eckner, 1991); in practice, in the face of the realities of stagflation and other realities Powerless. However, this kind of overall crisis is exactly the manifestation of economics on the eve of paradigm breakthrough and revolution. All kinds of new schools try to come up with a new framework enough to lead economics out of the crisis to realize the contemporary revolution in western economics. Neoinstitutionalism, or New In-stitutional Economics, is a notable new genre that has emerged in the United States since the 1960s and 1970s (in terms of its analytical framework and its relation to neoclassical orthodox economics Different from Galbraith (J Galbraith) on behalf of