摘要
本文从理论的内在逻辑一致性和理论与历史事实的相符性两个方面 ,对马克思和诺斯关于制度起源和制度本质的不同解释进行了比较分析。诺斯以自利和机会主义等抽象的人类行为假设为出发点 ,把制度视为孤立个人之间成本—收益计算和平等交易的产物 ,认为制度的本质是自由契约 ;其理论不仅缺少内在的逻辑一致性 ,而且与历史事实和考古事实相悖。马克思从生产实践活动出发 ,将制度的形成归结为一定生产关系以及与这种生产关系相适应并维护这种生产关系的社会机构和规则的确立过程 ,认为制度的本质就是在社会分工协作体系中不同集团、阶层和阶级之间的利益关系 ;马克思的解释不仅构成一个具有严整逻辑的理论体系 。
This paper compares Marx's and North's different explanations about the origin and essence of social institution.At first,it examines the internal logical consistency of these two explanations respectively,then tests their consistency with relevant historical and archaeological facts.This comparison comes to the conclusion that North's explanation,building up on the hypothesis of self interested human behavior,holding that institutions are the outcomes of individuals' cost benefit calculation and free trading,and considering the essence of the institution as free contract,is lack of internal consistency and inconsistent with historical and archeologican facts.Marx's explanation starts from the productive practice of humankind,reduces the origin of social institutions to people's relations in social production and the processes in which people build up social organizations, norms and rules that suits to their existing relations in production and uphold them, holds the essence of institution is the interest relations among different groups,strata and classes in the social system of labor division and coordination.Marx's explanation constitutes a theoretical system with rigorous internal consistency and strongly supported by historical and archaeological facts.
出处
《经济研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2000年第6期58-65,共8页
Economic Research Journal
