循环累积因果论与资本主义的不平等——从法国调节学派理论看皮凯蒂的《21世纪资本论》
|
摘要
皮凯蒂的《21世纪资本论》对发达资本主义国家财富和收入不平等的历史、现状和未来趋势的考察,以及如何缩小不平等差距的建议,有助于我们全面认识资本主义的不平等。但他的研究存在数据分析充分、理论分析过于简单的倾向,尤其对制度是如何影响分配和经济增长的理论说明存在明显不足。基于法国调节学派这一新马克思主义经济学派的循环累积因果论,对《21世纪资本论》的学术贡献和存在的不足进行剖析,以期加深对不平等及其解决对策的理解。
Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century explained the past, the present and future tendency of capitalist country's wealth and income inequality trends and suggestions of how to reduce the inequality have important theoretical and practical significance of our comprehensive cognition on the capitalist inequality. However, compared to sufficient data analysis in this book, the theoretical analysis has simplistic tendency, especially how to explain the institution affects the distribution system, and how the distribution system affects the economic growth in theoretical analysis. Based on the principle of circular cumulative causation of the French Regulation School which is one of the neo-Marxist economic schools, analyzed the theoretical contributions and deficiencies of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, in order to enhance our understanding of the inequalities and their solutions.
Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century explained the past, the present and future tendency of capitalist country's wealth and income inequality trends and suggestions of how to reduce the inequality have important theoretical and practical significance of our comprehensive cognition on the capitalist inequality. However, compared to sufficient data analysis in this book, the theoretical analysis has simplistic tendency, especially how to explain the institution affects the distribution system, and how the distribution system affects the economic growth in theoretical analysis. Based on the principle of circular cumulative causation of the French Regulation School which is one of the neo-Marxist economic schools, analyzed the theoretical contributions and deficiencies of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, in order to enhance our understanding of the inequalities and their solutions.
引文
[1]王峰明.资本、资本家与资本主义[J].天津社会科学,2015,(3):4-20.
[2]周新城.分配问题不是经济学的中心[J].红旗文稿,2015,(3):19-21.
[3]邱海平.《21世纪资本论》述评[J].山东社会科学,2015,(6):5-10.
[4]吕守军.抓住中间层次剖析当代资本主义——法国调节学派理论体系的演进[J].中国社会科学,2015,(6):62-79.
[5]Robert Boyer.レギュラシオン理論から読む『21世紀の資本論』[J].環,2014,(59).
[6][7][8][14][15][16]皮凯蒂.21世纪资本论[M].巴曙松,等译,北京:中信出版社,2014:329-331、340-343、438-442、71、311-313、312.
[9]宇仁宏幸.制度と調整の経済学[M].京都:ナカニシヤ出版,2009:244.
[10]凡勃伦.有闲阶级论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[11]Young,Allyn A.Increasing Returns and Economic Progress[J].The Economic Journal,1928,Vol.38,No.152:527-542.
[12]Myrdal,Gunnar.An American dilemma:the Negro problem and modern democracy[M].New York:Harper&brothers,1944.
[13]Myrdal,Gunnar.Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions[M].New York:Harper&brothers,1957.
[17]Boyer,R.レギュラシオン理論[M].東京:藤原書店,1990:80.
[18]Wilthagen,T.and F,Tros.The Concept of“Flexicurity”:a New Approach to Regulating Employment and Labour Markets[J].Transfer,2004,Vol.10,No.2:166-186.
[19]Auer,P.What’s in a Name?The Rise(and Fall?)of Flexicurity[J].Journal of Industrial Relations,2010,(52):371-386.
[2]周新城.分配问题不是经济学的中心[J].红旗文稿,2015,(3):19-21.
[3]邱海平.《21世纪资本论》述评[J].山东社会科学,2015,(6):5-10.
[4]吕守军.抓住中间层次剖析当代资本主义——法国调节学派理论体系的演进[J].中国社会科学,2015,(6):62-79.
[5]Robert Boyer.レギュラシオン理論から読む『21世紀の資本論』[J].環,2014,(59).
[6][7][8][14][15][16]皮凯蒂.21世纪资本论[M].巴曙松,等译,北京:中信出版社,2014:329-331、340-343、438-442、71、311-313、312.
[9]宇仁宏幸.制度と調整の経済学[M].京都:ナカニシヤ出版,2009:244.
[10]凡勃伦.有闲阶级论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004.
[11]Young,Allyn A.Increasing Returns and Economic Progress[J].The Economic Journal,1928,Vol.38,No.152:527-542.
[12]Myrdal,Gunnar.An American dilemma:the Negro problem and modern democracy[M].New York:Harper&brothers,1944.
[13]Myrdal,Gunnar.Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions[M].New York:Harper&brothers,1957.
[17]Boyer,R.レギュラシオン理論[M].東京:藤原書店,1990:80.
[18]Wilthagen,T.and F,Tros.The Concept of“Flexicurity”:a New Approach to Regulating Employment and Labour Markets[J].Transfer,2004,Vol.10,No.2:166-186.
[19]Auer,P.What’s in a Name?The Rise(and Fall?)of Flexicurity[J].Journal of Industrial Relations,2010,(52):371-386.