论文部分内容阅读
今年春节前夕,笔者在香港大学参加“走向21世纪的中国经济区域化”国际学术会议,看到久闻大名的张五常教授四本论著。拜读后感到:无论是《卖桔者言》、《中国的前途》,还是《再论中国》、《中国的经济革命》,都是以产权为基点来分析中国经济问题的,充满着作者的民族激情、敏捷思维和辛辣笔调,不愧为产权经济学派的“高手”,实在令人佩服。敬仰之余,又觉得不少观点使人费解,不敢苟同,有必要一一请教,交流思想。好在张五常说过:“希望能够引起有建设性的辩论”,“我对辩论视作家常便饭——就算是再激烈十倍,也从不介于怀。”这与笔者的学术个性倒完全一致。君子和而不同。本文开门见山,先谈一个问题。 张五常写道:(1)“私有产权必须包括三个权利:一、私有的使用权(有‘权’私用,但不一定私用);二、私有的收入享受权;三、自由的转让权。这看来是个浅显的定义,但我要用三年时间才敢肯定。主要的思想障碍,是我想来想去也不明白为什么私有产权要有私人的‘所有权’。当时我遍读西方有关产权的法律书籍,它们都一致认为‘所有权’重要,不可忽略,然而我总是认为‘所有权’在经济上无足轻重。可有可无。”(2)“承包制可以节省交易费用而增加生产活力。所有权并非私有——但这是不重要的”,“彻底的承包制是私
On the eve of the Spring Festival this year, the author participated in the Hong Kong University International Conference on “Regionalization of the Chinese Economy towards the 21st Century” and saw four books written by Professor Zhang Wuchang, who has been known for so long. After reading the book, he felt that both the “The Orange” and “China’s Future” or “China Again” and “China’s Economic Revolution” were all based on property rights to analyze China’s economic problems and filled with the author’s National passion, agile thinking, and spicy notes are worthy of the “masters” of property economics. Apart from admiration, they also feel that many viewpoints are puzzling, and they do not dare to agree. It is necessary to consult and exchange ideas one by one. Fortunately, Zhang Wuchang said: “I hope it can lead to a constructive debate,” and “I treat the debate as a common thing for writers. Even if it is ten times more intense, it never interferes with it.” This is completely down to the author’s academic personality. Consistent. Gentlemen are different. This article is straightforward and first talks about a problem. Zhang Wuchang wrote: (1) “Private property rights must include three rights: First, private use rights (have ’right’ private use, but not necessarily private use); Second, private income enjoyment rights; Third, free This seems to be a superficial definition, but it will take three years for me to affirm it. The main ideological obstacle is that I don’t think about it and I don’t understand why private property rights require private “ownership.” In the western law books on property rights, they all agree that ’ownership’ is important and cannot be ignored. However, I always think that ’ownership’ is economically insignificant. It is optional.“ (2) ”The contract system can save on transaction costs and increase Production dynamism. Ownership is not private - but it is not important, "a thorough contracting system is private