经济学大师罗纳德·科斯逝世,其理论对中国的经济改革影响深远 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

经济学大师罗纳德·科斯逝世,其理论对中国的经济改革影响深远# China - 中国研究

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

1 楼

美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站今晨发布消息称，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
·科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学的鼻祖，产权理论的奠基人，其理
论对中国的经济改革影响深远。
科斯教授由于“发现并阐明了交易费用和产权在经济组织和制度结构中的重要性及
其在经济活动中的作用”的杰出贡献，于1991年获得了诺贝尔经济学奖。他于1910年在
伦敦出生，后于伦敦经济学院就读、任教。
1950年移民到美国，先后于布法罗大学和弗吉尼亚大学任教，之后一直担任芝加哥
大学教授和《法学与经济学杂志》主编。1982年科斯教授从芝加哥大学法学院退休。近
几年，科斯教授还通过科斯基金会，组织并资助了2008年芝加哥国际会议“中国经济体
制改革30年”，以及2010年芝加哥研讨会“工业的生产结构”。　在2008年芝加哥国际
会议上，学者（来自中国和北美地区的经济学家，社会学家，政治学家，经济历史学家
以及法学家等），中国的政府官员及企业家们共聚一堂，对具有中国特色的市场经济转
型进行了深入探讨。2010年，芝加哥研讨会对中国工业的生产结构进行了讨论。

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

2 楼

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/coaseinmemoriam
Ronald H. Coase, Founding Scholar in Law and Economics, 1910-2013
in Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics
Ronald H. Coase, Founding Scholar in Law and Economics, 1910-2013
By Sarah Galer and Jeremy Manier
University Of Chicago News Office
September 2, 2013
Ronald H. Coase helped create the field of law and economics, through
groundbreaking scholarship that earned him the 1991 Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economics and through his far-reaching influence as a journal editor.
Coase, who spent most of his academic career at the University of Chicago
Law School, died at the age of 102 on Sept. 2 at St. Joseph’s Hospital in
Chicago. He was believed to be the oldest living Nobel laureate.
Coase, the Clifton R. Musser Professor Emeritus of Economics, is best known
for his 1937 paper, “The Nature of the Firm,” which offered groundbreaking
insights about why firms exist and established the field of transaction
cost economics, and “The Problem of Social Cost,” published in 1961, which
is widely considered to be the seminal work in the field of law and
economics. The latter set out what is now known as the Coase Theorem, which
holds that under conditions of perfect competition, private and social costs
are equal.
“That Ronald Coase is among the most influential and best-cited economists
in the past 50 years is not debatable,” said Law School Professor Emeritus
William M. Landes and Sonia Lahr-Pastor, JD '13, in “Measuring Coase’s
Influence.” They presented the paper at a 2009 conference titled “Markets,
Firms and Property Rights: A Celebration of the Research of Ronald Coase.”
“Among the highest aspirations of the University of Chicago is the drive to
create new fields of study that change our world for the better,” said
University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer. “Ronald Coase embodied
that ideal. His groundbreaking scholarship made impacts on law and policy
that people around the globe continue to feel today. As a scholar, a
colleague and a mentor, his historic contributions enriched our intellectual
community and the world at large.”
“Ronald Coase achieved what most academics can only dream of – immortality
,” said Michael H. Schill, dean of the University of Chicago Law School. “
His scholarship fundamentally changed the way lawyers approach issues of
when and how government should intervene in the economy, and when and how
private contracts should govern. His work could not be more relevant to many
of the debates we are enmeshed in today.
“Our great law school has contributed much to the world of law and
jurisprudence,” Schill said. “Ronald’s contributions were among the most
important.”
His intellectual impact continued late into his life, when at the age of 101
, he published his final book, How China Became Capitalist, co-authored with
former student Ning Wang, PhD’02.
Coase’s enduring legacy at the University of Chicago is reflected in the
Law School’s Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics, named in honor
of Coase and donors Richard and Ellen Sandor, who gave UChicago $10 million
in support of law and economics scholarship.
"Ronald Coase inspired a new way of thinking about law and about the
application of economics," said Omri Ben-Shahar, the Leo and Eileen Herzel
Professor of Law and Kearney Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute. "His
insights are simple but at the same time profound. They are accessible to
first-year students, and their implications continue to provoke cutting-edge
research. We will continue to develop the field that he inspired, and to
build on the vitality of his ideas."
“Professor Coase’s research on property rights provided the academic
underpinning for the establishment of the Acid Rain Program in the United
States in the early 1990s, which virtually eliminated acid rain pollution in
America,” said Richard Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of
Environmental Financial Products, LLC. “Personally, he has been a source of
inspiration and mentoring to me for over 40 years. Professor Coase provided
me with unwavering intellectual support to carry on my ideas as both an
academic and a practitioner.
“The Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at the University of
Chicago will continue to support and expand Coase's legacy in areas such as
the environment, health care and education,” Sandor said.
A ‘lucky chance’ leads to economics
Coase graduated from the London School of Economics with a B.Com. in
economics in 1932 after spending his final year of studies in the United
States on a Sir Ernest Cassel Traveling Scholarship. During that year abroad
, he focused on the structure of American automotive industry and why some
work was performed inside firms and some by the marketplace. These ideas
became the basis of “The Nature of the Firm.”
Sir Arnold Plant, a British economist at the London School of Economics, was
a major influence on Coase while he was a student there. Until meeting him
in his senior year, Coase had never taken an economics course, only
accounting and business. Plant introduced Coase to Adam Smith’s “invisible
hand” and to the idea that competitive economic systems could be
coordinated by the pricing system. In an autobiographical essay written for
the Nobel organization, Coase writes that Plant “changed my life,”
influencing his ideas, helping his achieve the Cassel Traveling Scholarship
and setting him on the path to becoming an economist.
“My life has been a lucky chance at all points,” Coase said in a 2012
interview with the UChicago News Office.
Coase believed the incentives of private parties to resolve disputes in
their own best interests, even if there needs to be adjudication by courts,
should result in an efficient, mutually beneficial solution that is always
preferable to government intervention. This theory, known as the Coase
Theorem, has been applied to such issues as the sale of rights to broadcast
on portions of the electromagnetic spectrum and the problem of pollution;
while countless other economists have applied it to virtually every area of
human activity.
“Ronald Coase discovered many of the foundational ideas of modern economics
,” said Douglas Baird, the Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor
of Law, in a 2006 lecture on “Coase’s Journey.”
“When I teach Property, the first thing I cover on Day 1 is the ‘Coase
Theorem,’ and the last thing we talk about on the final day is the same
thing,” Schill said. “Ronald’s insights infused all of my scholarship and
the scholarship of many, many professors throughout the world in countless
fields.”
Coase reminisced about “The Nature of the Firm” in a 2009 video address
recorded as part of a Law School celebration of his 100th birthday and the
50th anniversary of the publication of “The Problem of Social Cost.” In
his unhurried, thoughtful cadence, Coase said he was surprised by how much
it is cited since it was “little more than an undergraduate essay.”
He disputed his onetime characterization of firms as having diminishing
rates of return as they grow larger, calling the growth a sociological issue
, not an economic problem.
“I learned a great deal about how large organizations operate during my
World War work when I was in the Cabinet office,” he said of his changed
opinion. During World War II, Coase served as a statistician with the
Central Statistical Office of the Offices of the British War Cabinet.
‘What an exhilarating event!’
In his personal essay for Nobel, Coase described being invited to UChicago
to defend a 1959 paper he had written on the Federal Communications
Commission to a group of skeptical UChicago economists. In that evening
gathering at Law School Professor Aaron Director’s home, he was able to
persuade them to his view that as long as legal rights are properly defined,
efficient solutions will prevail. He was asked to write an article for The
Journal of Law and Economics, which Director had recently founded. The
outcome was “The Problem of Social Cost.”
“Had it not been for the fact that these economists at the University of
Chicago thought that I had made an error in my article on The Federal
Communications Commission, it is probable that ‘The Problem of Social Cost
’ would never have been written,” Coase said
George Stigler, PhD’38, an economist at UChicago and 1982 Nobel Prize
winner, later wrote in his 1988 book, Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist,
about that night: “We strongly objected to this heresy. Milton Friedman [
UChicago economist and 1976 Nobel laureate] did most of the talking, as
usual. He also did much of the thinking, as usual. In the course of two
hours of argument, the vote went from 21 against and one for Coase to 21 for
Coase.
“What an exhilarating event! I lamented afterward that we had not had the
clairvoyance to tape it.”
Coase was hired at the UChicago Law School in 1964.
“It was the first law school, to my knowledge, that had an economist
teaching full time,” said University Professor Gary Becker, the 1992 Nobel
laureate in economics, at a luncheon in honor of Coase’s 100th birthday,
according to The University of Chicago Magazine. Coase took over The Journal
of Law and Economics after Director retired in 1965 until 1982, and
according to Becker he “really made it into a major and influential journal
.”
Creating a field of study
“I used the journal to change views,” Coase told the UChicago News Office
in 2012. “I wanted to use the journal to create a subject, and I did.”
Becker said that when he first met Coase in 1970, Coase “didn’t say a lot,
but I began to realize that every time he did say something, it was really
profound.”
Coase was born in a suburb of London in December 1910, the only child of a
Post Office telegraphist and his wife. While his parents were more
interested in sports than scholarship, both having left school as the age of
12, Coase was always drawn to academic endeavors. However, in his youth due
to leg braces he had to wear, he was sent to a school for “physical
defectives” and because of the school’s curriculum, started his academic
education later than other children.
After graduating from the London School of Economics, he held positions at
the Dundee School of Economics and the University of Liverpool before
joining the faculty of the LSE in 1935. He continued at the London School of
Economics and was appointed Reader in Economics with special reference to
public utilities in 1947.
Coase held both a Sir Ernest Cassel Traveling Scholarship and a Rockefeller
Fellowship. He was also a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences, in Stanford, California.
In 1951 Coase migrated to the United States and held positions at the
Universities of Buffalo and Virginia prior to coming to the Law School in
1964. He taught regulated industries and economic analysis and public policy
. Coase was the editor of the Journal of Law and Economics from 1964 to 1982
. Among his many books are The Firm, the Market and the Law (1988) and
Essays on Economics and Economists (1994).
In 1977 Coase was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University. Coase was a Fellow of the British Academy, the European
Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was a member of
the Honour Committee of Euroscience. He held honorary doctorate degrees from
the University of Cologne, Yale University, Washington University, the
University of Dundee, the University of Buckingham, Beloit College and the
University of Paris. In 2003, Coase was the winner of The Economist’s
Innovation Award in the category of “No Boundaries.”
An endlessly active mind
Coase’s more recent work continued to look into the complicated nature of
the firm, as well as the emergence of capitalism outside government control.
In his 2012 book How China Became Capitalist, Coase and his co-author, Wang
, traced the market transformation China experienced over the past 35 years.
The book argued that the changes came not from deliberate actions taken by
Chinese leadership, as often claimed by Beijing, but from “marginal
revolutions.”
“China became capitalist while it was trying to modernize socialism,”
Coase and Wang wrote. “The story of China is the quintessence of what Adam
Ferguson called ‘the products of human action but not human design.’ A
Chinese proverb puts it more poetically: ‘The flowers planted on purpose do
not blossom; the willows no one cared for have grown into big shade trees.
’”
Even before his last book Coase enjoyed a towering reputation in China,
Richard Sandor said.
“With the exception of Milton Friedman, no other Western economist is as
revered and respected among Chinese scholars and policymakers,” Sandor said
. “Coase always believed that ultimately China's respect for new ideas and
education will provide a fertile ground for law and economics scholarship in
that country.”
Coase said in 2012 that his main scholarly talent was to identify solutions
that were in plain sight.
“I’ve never done anything that wasn’t obvious, and I didn’t know why
other people didn’t do it,” he said. “I’ve never thought the things I
did were so extraordinary.”
Coase was preceded in death by his wife, Marion Ruth. The Law School will
host a memorial to Coase later this fall, at a date and time to be announced.

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

3 楼

陈平谈科斯：当科斯定理遭遇中国实践

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
【9月3日，美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站宣布，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
•科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学鼻祖、产权理论奠基人，其理
论对中国的经济改革影响深远。中国改革开放三十周年之际，当时已98岁高龄的科斯教
授，亲自倡议并主持召开“中国经济制度变革三十周年国际学术研讨会”。不仅如此，
他的学生也活跃在中国经济学界，比如周其仁、张五常等。
科斯曾说，自己有生之年没有到过中国是莫大遗憾。尽管以他命名的“科斯定理”在中
国政界、学界声名赫赫，但是科斯也认为这是自己的学术成果中被曲解最多的部分。逝
者已矣，但科斯所留下的那些曾经对中国改革开放事业产生过重要影响的学术遗产，值
得我们进一步思考。观察者网特邀请知名经济学家陈平教授，谈谈一个他所理解的科斯】
观察者网：陈平教授，我们知道刚刚逝世的经济学家科斯教授，曾获得过1991年诺贝尔
经济学奖，也被称为制度经济学的开山鼻祖。那么您能否谈谈，在您看来，科斯教授真
正的学术贡献是什么？
陈平教授：我认为科斯对经济学的贡献主要有三条：
其一，科斯教授提出了新古典经济学运作的制度基础问题。但是提出好的问题，不等于
发现解决问题的正确答案。因此，科斯的间接贡献是，证明了“优化思维无法理解制度
的多样性问题”。
其二，科斯提出产权可以交易，例如广播频道的拍卖，成为行政配置资源以外的第二种
资源配置方法。
其三，科斯将价格理论引入对制度问题的考察，从而将新古典经济学的适用范围推到极
致，但从另一方面来说，这样反而显示出了新古典经济学的局限性。
对科斯著名的批评来自萨缪尔逊，他指出两方交易有无穷解，而不可能有唯一解。但唯
一解正是科斯在1960年所写成的关于“社会成本”的论文之基础）。为了捍卫自己的观
点，科斯在其1988年所著的《The Firm, the Market, and the Law》一书中，被逼得
从均衡论退到演化论，说“不愿进行产权交易的人是不能生存的”，但这恰恰违背大量
历史案例。例如：中国的长城，如今的巴勒斯坦问题。不能交易的东西就是边界的起源
。科斯理论如成立，世界上既无战争、冲突，也不需要国家和组织。因此，其实他的理
想是最大的无政府主义的乌托邦。
观察者网：我们知道，科斯本人从未将“科斯定理”整理成文字，反而是其他人在不断
为“科斯定理”下定义。科斯本人多次直接说明，包括在其最初的作品《企业的本质》
中指出，“科斯定理”应理解为“交易成本不为零时，财产权的初始分配将影响最终资
源配置”。但是国内学者更多的是强调对“科斯定理”的另一种解释，即“交易成本为
零时，私下交易可以解决外部性问题”。科斯曾抱怨道：“我的论点是说明将正的交易
成本引入经济分析的必要，从而使我们得以研究现实的世界。但这并不是我的文章的效
果。各种杂志上充斥的是关于交易成本为零的科斯定理的讨论。”
那么，这种甚至引起了科斯本人愤怒的、国内经济学家的曲解，我们应该怎样理解？背
后的学术动因是什么？是否还有一些学术之外的因素在干扰经济学家们的语言？
陈平教授：国内对科斯最大的曲解，是把他宣传成亚当•斯密以后最伟大的，甚
至可以和马克思媲美的经济学家。实际上，科斯是争议最大的诺奖经济学家。公开否定
科斯的诺奖经济学家并不少见，包括萨缪尔逊、赫维茨，还有先赞扬后反对的布坎南，
曾经运用科斯定理进行分析、后来又对此产生怀疑的诺斯。
因此，从这个角度来说，科斯最大的贡献，是引起新古典经济学大家之间的大论战，特
别是造成新古典经济学的价格理论与制度理论的冲突。
而科斯自己之所以不愿为“科斯定理”下定义，是因为他本人的思想其实是混乱的。科
斯注意观察案例，但是观察的结果是多样的、而不是唯一性的。有些结果和他的信念相
冲突，让他时常处于尊重事实还是放弃最初信念的矛盾之中。这样，科斯一方面反对黑
板经济学，另一方面又坚持价格理论。
最能体现他的这种自相矛盾的，还是他在1988年写的那本《The Firm, the Market,
and the Law》。在该书的开头，他引用了Frank Knight的话，说人性有两面：一是追
求安全，例如火烫了手就会缩回来。但是，一旦有了安全，就和小孩一样，去惹事生非。
那么科斯从中得出了什么结论呢？
卓越的经济学家，就会开始讨论人性的矛盾性，也就是复杂性理论和心理学。但是科斯
却跳过了这些，开始回答价格论（即安全论或避险论）去了。老师的思维混乱如此，也
难怪弟子们读不懂。
其实张五常的学术研究基本否定了“科斯定理”，但是在科斯看到之后却大为称赞。这
是科斯的可爱之处，也是张五常感谢科斯知遇之恩的原因。
从某种角度而言，张五常比科斯更优秀，因为他只差一步，就可以颠覆整个新古典经济
学了。大家知道，狭义相对论有个洛伦茨变换；在爱因斯坦的物理学里它只干了一件事
，就是放弃以太假说；而张五常发现科斯理论等价于投资和消费的对称性，这个发现非
常伟大，可惜张五常不知道普里戈金的耗散结构理论。什么是生命起源？就是“对称破
缺”。历史和时间箭头就是打破时间的对称性。
对此，我的研究成果就是：什么是劳动分工？就是打破空间的对称性。工业革命又打破
时间和空间的对称性，才有经济发展的不平衡和新陈代谢。新古典经济学的致命弱点是
假设交易的对称性。请问有钱人和穷人，大企业和小个体户的谈判能力是对等的吗？拿
大刀和拿机关枪的战争是对等的吗？“社会契约”是有钱人与穷人或印第安人平等谈判
达成的？还是在武力制衡下达成的不平等协议？
观察者网：陈平老师，此前您在谈到美国的医疗黑洞时曾经提到。美国话语权所创造出
的一个神话是，西方的法制可以保障社会的富裕和公平。而这个神话的一个重要理论支
柱就是科斯的交易成本理论。他认为，市场产权的自由交易可以降低交易成本，解决社
会冲突，而无需政府和民众的干预。但是研究发现，美国的交易成本占GDP的比例在一
百年来翻了一番。那么造成这种局面的根本原因是什么，是理论本身出了问题，还是理
论很美好、现实太复杂？
陈平教授：我必须强调，尽管有局部的参考意义，从整体而言，“科斯定理”本身是错
误的。之所以说是局部的成功，是因为技术进步，例如交通和通讯的单位成本确实会降
低，但是这种降低是有极限的，即必然大于零。与此同时，技术进步带来的市场发展，
同样将大大提高社会分工的复杂性和网络效应，其效应大于上述促使成本下降的因素，
从而使交易成本增加。
人类进化和工业革命的历史也反映了这一点：能源消耗是增加还是减少？人的活动范围
是增加还是减少？这也是为什么中国的整体论，以及现代科学的复杂系统论和热力学，
优于分析科学的还原论的原因。一加一大于一，整体大于部分之和。
观察者网：在2008年时，科斯教授主办了—场以中国为主题的会议。他注意到，很多中
国学者从未与本国政策制定者或企业家进行过对话，他们学到的只是科斯所说的“黑板
经济学”，即一套套的理论与各种数据之间的数学关系。很多中国学者“学了博弈论和
计量经济学，然后便回国了，但他们对现实经济世界的运作并没有一个基本的了解”。
陈平教授，不知道科斯所注意到的这种情形在国内的经济学界是否非常普遍？这些学者
又在社会上、媒体上产生了怎样的影响？当前的企业、社会和媒体普遍存在着“崇拜”
“旅美经济学家”标签的情况，这种现象是否有值得我们反思的部分？
陈平教授：新古典经济学真正的基础是小农经济学，是农产品价格的供求波动研究。新
古典经济学家没有一个搞过工业：凯恩斯只做过金融投机和财政，哈耶克和熊彼特正是
研究过工业之后，才注意到“迂回生产”、“长波”和“创造性毁灭”。
国内迷信科斯的经济学家主要有两种人，一是只有农村经验，看见农民种自留地积极性
比大田高，就断言私有制效率高于公有制。那么又该如何解释中国的这套效率位居全球
首位的铁路系统呢？我自己就当过5年铁路工人，铁路是半军事化指挥，如何做产权交
易？我还做过5年氢弹和平利用，这比大工业还要复杂，严密的劳动分工加理论协调。
从这些经验就可以看出“科斯定理”的局限性所在。
此外另一种人，他们大多只有学院教书经验，社会调查只是走马观花、先入为主。我认
识索罗斯，他是学哲学出身，实践告诉他金融市场是非均衡的，所以明确反对新古典经
济学的均衡论。我们这些从国内走出的学生，大部分是数理背景好，才能过美国的考试
关；毕业后就教书、跟着西方主流文献走，高度脱离实践；这样既不了解西方社会，也
不了解中国实际。
其实，他们所能做的只是在普及西方经济学，或是在改进国内学术界的方法论上有贡献
。而他们身上所反映出的问题，其实也是美国经济学教育的问题。我之前也曾说过，中
国经济学界的教师考核和培养还是仿照那套缺乏反思的、在金融危机下已经破产了的英
美模式，也正是在这样的培养和评价体系下，才有了今天中国学术界的怪相：全世界的
经济学家都承认中国发展突破了英美模式，改变了世界，要反思西方中心论，批评华盛
顿共识；只有中国的主流经济学和主流媒体在高唱美国模式的赞歌，为华盛顿共识辩护
，否定中国经验，甚至把中国的成就看作危机。
因此，中国应该开展第二次“实践检验真理”的大讨论，只是这次检验的重点，是西方
中心论和新古典经济学的教条！
同时，我建议各大学要给老师和学生减负。经济学家必须拿出三分之一的时间到工厂、
农村基层调查，少纸上谈兵。说实在的，经济学在实践方面的进步，远远落在生态学、
医学和工程学之后，更别说物理学了。经济学的自由派大师，例如芝加哥的卢卡斯和科
斯，连能量守恒和热力学都不懂，还号称自己的一般均衡论是模仿物理学，其实不过是
“永动机”理论。
观察者网：陈平教授，您指出了“科斯定理”的种种局限，而从现在主流舆论所宣传的
观点来看，似乎科斯对中国的改革开放、特别是市场化事业做出了巨大的贡献。那么您
认为，科斯对中国的真正贡献是什么？
陈平教授：我认为，科斯对中国经济改革的主要贡献是在以下两个方面。
第一，科斯提出产权可以交易，从而鼓励内地学习香港的经验，通过拍卖土地使用权来
筹集基础建设经费，避免了西方大量借债的办法所造成的市场化初期外债风险。
第二，他所提出的交易成本的概念，使改革初期各级政府纷纷检查和废除以往在计划经
济体制下制定的法规，简化行政手续，提高效率，有利于招商引资。
但是，在改革进入深水区的今天，科斯的这套“交易成本理论”的负面后果也正不断显
现：
一方面，在真实的市场交易中，往往并不是两方谈判，而是一方与多方谈判，这样无法
产生理论上的最优解。最现实的案例就是，今天中国城市化进程中的征地补偿不断攀升
，基础设施建设成本不断上涨，速度下降。从长远来看，如不依据劳动价值论的角度解
决土地定价问题，将彻底动摇社会主义的统筹优越性，让房地产泡沫挤出制造业，重蹈
西方金融危机和虚拟经济的覆辙。
另一方面，在市场化进程中，以监管增加交易成本的理由搞自由化，导致食品、药品、
采矿等一系列市场欺骗的危机。
历史证明，劳动分工越复杂，科学技术交叉应用中的副作用也越明显，因此市场监管的
复杂性和必要性也随之增加。劳动分工最早、需要监管的就是交通、铁路；而如今日益
复杂化、高科技化的航空、食品、制药、金融，哪个行业不需要监管？在现实中，科斯
本人提出的交易成本接近为零的行业仅仅是股票市场，而金融危机证明放弃金融监管的
代价是放大金融风险，造成的损失数以万亿美元。因此，科斯自己也承认，他没有理论
创新，只是把价格理论（需求曲线斜率向下）用于产权交易。他忘记了，污染交易的需
求曲线不可能向下，金融市场追涨杀跌的需求曲线是曲线不是直线。
观察者网：那么，在今天需要继续推进改革，同时也需要走出一条不同于欧美、日本，
乃至“亚洲四小龙”、“亚洲四小虎”的道路的今天，我们应该如何面对科斯的遗产？
陈平教授：2007年，我曾在日本演化经济学会上演讲，明确指出科斯的交易成本理论是
永动机理论和极端还原论。劳动分工和生命起源都是耗散过程，交易成本就是物理学的
废热和熵，在演化过程中的总趋势是增加而非减少，否则不会有生态危机和全球变暖危
机。
生物物种的竞争优劣，是看结构功能能否适应环境和竞争者的挑战。没有一个生物学家
或医生判断人的健康，只依据排泄量（交易成本）的多少来看病。古典经济学的研究视
野里没有结构，只有成本和价格的理论，这是极为荒唐的；而造成这种状况的原因，就
是所谓“方法论的个人主义”。人是社会动物，人的经济学也不能是“鲁滨逊经济学”。
中国启蒙运动以来，学习西方社会科学最大的弊病是急用先学，追潮流、贴标签。只对
中国的现实问题病急乱投医，追随胜利者，追随主流时髦，很少有人认真在基础研究上
下功夫。这是中国学术界和德国、法国、和以色列学术界的巨大差距。
从新中国的实践来看，只有毛泽东的实践论突破西方中心论的思维。而邓小平的实践虽
然突破了西方模式，但是中国的学者其实并没有深刻理解“邓小平理论”。中国还需要
花极大的努力，才能依据中国实践，检验西方理论，为人类作出自己的贡献。
张五常对突破“科斯定理”也提出了很好的设想；林毅夫也把生物学的观念和政府的战
略作用引入新古典经济学的框架；史正富的“三维市场经济”发展了马克思的政治经济
学，这都是推动中国经济学发展的良好开端。我自己也曾经仔细检验过所有科斯提供的
案例，其实没有一个有优化解或唯一解。
但是，如果不正面批评新古典经济学和新制度经济学的谬误，不在方法论上突破牛顿力
学的单线决定论思维，就不会走出这次金融危机带来的经济学的危机。
计量经济学家David Hendry认为，计量经济学是炼金术，是前科学；其实新古典经济学
和新制度经济学也是前科学。他们提出好的问题，做了许多观察，但是骨子里仍然是意
识形态主导，不愿承认私有制和市场经济的代价，他们所使用的方法论还是均衡论和还
原论。
长远来看，新古典经济学不可能发展出一套真的经得起长期实践检验的科学理论。经济
学的未来是回到演化论、非均衡论，这就需要发展劳动价值论，并且同时必须否定供求
均衡论。世界发展是不平衡的。平衡在物理学上是“热寂”，温差都没有了，生命消失
、人类灭亡之后，哪里还会有“经济”呢？

D*a2013-09-03 07:09

4 楼

陈平自己脑子一团浆糊

【在 m***e 的大作中提到】

: 陈平谈科斯：当科斯定理遭遇中国实践
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: --
: 【9月3日，美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站宣布，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
: •科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学鼻祖、产权理论奠基人，其理
: 论对中国的经济改革影响深远。中国改革开放三十周年之际，当时已98岁高龄的科斯教
: 授，亲自倡议并主持召开“中国经济制度变革三十周年国际学术研讨会”。不仅如此，
: 他的学生也活跃在中国经济学界，比如周其仁、张五常等。
: 科斯曾说，自己有生之年没有到过中国是莫大遗憾。尽管以他命名的“科斯定理”在中

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

5 楼

我即将长眠，祝你们成功——科斯在“中国经济改革国际研讨会”结束时的讲话

I now have the very pleasant task of welcoming you to this Conference on
China’s Economic Transformation. When Steven Cheung wrote in 1982 his
pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the question “
Will China go capitalist?” a question thathe answered in the affirmative, I
was one of the few people who agreed with him. But I thought in terms of
100 or 200 years, not 25or 30 years. What happened in China was a complete
surprise to me,its scale, its character and speed –– which means that I
did not understand what was going on. I therefore determined to hold an
conference that would uncover the facts about this extraordinary series of
events. We sought out those best able to inform us,academics, businessmen,
government officials, about the facts about what happened. I think we
succeeded. We have a series of fine papers that greatly enlighten us about
what has happened in the years since 1978. As we intent to publish an edited
version of these papers (and of the discussions) in a book, they will
inform a much wider audience. Of course, although we will learn a great deal
about what happened, it is not to be expected, although some things will be
made clear, that there will be complete agreement in the views expressed –
– nor is it desirable that there should be. A subject in which everyone
says the same thing is a dead subject and one which will not progress.
Competition in the market for ideas is as valuable as in the market for
goods. The truth is found as are sult of the clash of ideas. And it will be
so at this conference.
Our first paper by Steven Cheung will be delivered by him on DVD .It is long
(about 2 hours) and I decided to divide it into two parts, each about an
hour in length with an interval with refreshments in between. Unfortunately,
one of our important discussants, Professor Mundell, will not be able to
attend on the first day but will give his views on Tuesday morning. I should
explain here that while I speak as though I organized this conference, in
fact all I did was to have the idea that such a conference would be a good
thing. The actual organization of the conference was carried out by Ning
Wang, assisted more recently by Lennon Choy and Marjorie Holme. I have been
largely a spectator and admirer of their work. I should also say that,
approaching 98 years of age later this year, I get extremely tired and
almost certainly will not be able to attend all the sessions. But those who
present papers at sessions I do not attend should realize that my absence is
in no sense of judgment on the worth of their papers.
I now turn to Steven Cheung’s talk. I came to know Steven when he came to
Chicago from UCLA in 1967 on a fellowship and was later in 1968 appointed
an assistant professor.I don’t remember how we met. But when we did, we
formed an immediate bond and we had the most enjoyable and productive talks
together. Unfortunately for Chicago, he decided to leave Chicago and go to
the University of Washington where he had as colleagues Douglass North and
Yoram Barzel. However, our relationship did not end and Steve wrote a series
of splendid articles published in the Journal of Law and Economics of which
I was editor. Then, in 1981, Steve received an offer from the University of
Hong Kong. I urged him to accept. I thought it would be a fine place to
observe what was happening in China. Just how valuable it would be I did not
then realize. But you will learn from his talk what he has gained from his
close observation of events in China over the years. I won’t hold up this
really important talk any longer. So here we have Steven Cheung speaking on
China’s Economic Transformation.

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

6 楼

美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站今晨发布消息称，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
·科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学的鼻祖，产权理论的奠基人，其理
论对中国的经济改革影响深远。
科斯教授由于“发现并阐明了交易费用和产权在经济组织和制度结构中的重要性及
其在经济活动中的作用”的杰出贡献，于1991年获得了诺贝尔经济学奖。他于1910年在
伦敦出生，后于伦敦经济学院就读、任教。
1950年移民到美国，先后于布法罗大学和弗吉尼亚大学任教，之后一直担任芝加哥
大学教授和《法学与经济学杂志》主编。1982年科斯教授从芝加哥大学法学院退休。近
几年，科斯教授还通过科斯基金会，组织并资助了2008年芝加哥国际会议“中国经济体
制改革30年”，以及2010年芝加哥研讨会“工业的生产结构”。　在2008年芝加哥国际
会议上，学者（来自中国和北美地区的经济学家，社会学家，政治学家，经济历史学家
以及法学家等），中国的政府官员及企业家们共聚一堂，对具有中国特色的市场经济转
型进行了深入探讨。2010年，芝加哥研讨会对中国工业的生产结构进行了讨论。

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

7 楼

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/coaseinmemoriam
Ronald H. Coase, Founding Scholar in Law and Economics, 1910-2013
in Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics
Ronald H. Coase, Founding Scholar in Law and Economics, 1910-2013
By Sarah Galer and Jeremy Manier
University Of Chicago News Office
September 2, 2013
Ronald H. Coase helped create the field of law and economics, through
groundbreaking scholarship that earned him the 1991 Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economics and through his far-reaching influence as a journal editor.
Coase, who spent most of his academic career at the University of Chicago
Law School, died at the age of 102 on Sept. 2 at St. Joseph’s Hospital in
Chicago. He was believed to be the oldest living Nobel laureate.
Coase, the Clifton R. Musser Professor Emeritus of Economics, is best known
for his 1937 paper, “The Nature of the Firm,” which offered groundbreaking
insights about why firms exist and established the field of transaction
cost economics, and “The Problem of Social Cost,” published in 1961, which
is widely considered to be the seminal work in the field of law and
economics. The latter set out what is now known as the Coase Theorem, which
holds that under conditions of perfect competition, private and social costs
are equal.
“That Ronald Coase is among the most influential and best-cited economists
in the past 50 years is not debatable,” said Law School Professor Emeritus
William M. Landes and Sonia Lahr-Pastor, JD '13, in “Measuring Coase’s
Influence.” They presented the paper at a 2009 conference titled “Markets,
Firms and Property Rights: A Celebration of the Research of Ronald Coase.”
“Among the highest aspirations of the University of Chicago is the drive to
create new fields of study that change our world for the better,” said
University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer. “Ronald Coase embodied
that ideal. His groundbreaking scholarship made impacts on law and policy
that people around the globe continue to feel today. As a scholar, a
colleague and a mentor, his historic contributions enriched our intellectual
community and the world at large.”
“Ronald Coase achieved what most academics can only dream of – immortality
,” said Michael H. Schill, dean of the University of Chicago Law School. “
His scholarship fundamentally changed the way lawyers approach issues of
when and how government should intervene in the economy, and when and how
private contracts should govern. His work could not be more relevant to many
of the debates we are enmeshed in today.
“Our great law school has contributed much to the world of law and
jurisprudence,” Schill said. “Ronald’s contributions were among the most
important.”
His intellectual impact continued late into his life, when at the age of 101
, he published his final book, How China Became Capitalist, co-authored with
former student Ning Wang, PhD’02.
Coase’s enduring legacy at the University of Chicago is reflected in the
Law School’s Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics, named in honor
of Coase and donors Richard and Ellen Sandor, who gave UChicago $10 million
in support of law and economics scholarship.
"Ronald Coase inspired a new way of thinking about law and about the
application of economics," said Omri Ben-Shahar, the Leo and Eileen Herzel
Professor of Law and Kearney Director of the Coase-Sandor Institute. "His
insights are simple but at the same time profound. They are accessible to
first-year students, and their implications continue to provoke cutting-edge
research. We will continue to develop the field that he inspired, and to
build on the vitality of his ideas."
“Professor Coase’s research on property rights provided the academic
underpinning for the establishment of the Acid Rain Program in the United
States in the early 1990s, which virtually eliminated acid rain pollution in
America,” said Richard Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of
Environmental Financial Products, LLC. “Personally, he has been a source of
inspiration and mentoring to me for over 40 years. Professor Coase provided
me with unwavering intellectual support to carry on my ideas as both an
academic and a practitioner.
“The Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at the University of
Chicago will continue to support and expand Coase's legacy in areas such as
the environment, health care and education,” Sandor said.
A ‘lucky chance’ leads to economics
Coase graduated from the London School of Economics with a B.Com. in
economics in 1932 after spending his final year of studies in the United
States on a Sir Ernest Cassel Traveling Scholarship. During that year abroad
, he focused on the structure of American automotive industry and why some
work was performed inside firms and some by the marketplace. These ideas
became the basis of “The Nature of the Firm.”
Sir Arnold Plant, a British economist at the London School of Economics, was
a major influence on Coase while he was a student there. Until meeting him
in his senior year, Coase had never taken an economics course, only
accounting and business. Plant introduced Coase to Adam Smith’s “invisible
hand” and to the idea that competitive economic systems could be
coordinated by the pricing system. In an autobiographical essay written for
the Nobel organization, Coase writes that Plant “changed my life,”
influencing his ideas, helping his achieve the Cassel Traveling Scholarship
and setting him on the path to becoming an economist.
“My life has been a lucky chance at all points,” Coase said in a 2012
interview with the UChicago News Office.
Coase believed the incentives of private parties to resolve disputes in
their own best interests, even if there needs to be adjudication by courts,
should result in an efficient, mutually beneficial solution that is always
preferable to government intervention. This theory, known as the Coase
Theorem, has been applied to such issues as the sale of rights to broadcast
on portions of the electromagnetic spectrum and the problem of pollution;
while countless other economists have applied it to virtually every area of
human activity.
“Ronald Coase discovered many of the foundational ideas of modern economics
,” said Douglas Baird, the Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor
of Law, in a 2006 lecture on “Coase’s Journey.”
“When I teach Property, the first thing I cover on Day 1 is the ‘Coase
Theorem,’ and the last thing we talk about on the final day is the same
thing,” Schill said. “Ronald’s insights infused all of my scholarship and
the scholarship of many, many professors throughout the world in countless
fields.”
Coase reminisced about “The Nature of the Firm” in a 2009 video address
recorded as part of a Law School celebration of his 100th birthday and the
50th anniversary of the publication of “The Problem of Social Cost.” In
his unhurried, thoughtful cadence, Coase said he was surprised by how much
it is cited since it was “little more than an undergraduate essay.”
He disputed his onetime characterization of firms as having diminishing
rates of return as they grow larger, calling the growth a sociological issue
, not an economic problem.
“I learned a great deal about how large organizations operate during my
World War work when I was in the Cabinet office,” he said of his changed
opinion. During World War II, Coase served as a statistician with the
Central Statistical Office of the Offices of the British War Cabinet.
‘What an exhilarating event!’
In his personal essay for Nobel, Coase described being invited to UChicago
to defend a 1959 paper he had written on the Federal Communications
Commission to a group of skeptical UChicago economists. In that evening
gathering at Law School Professor Aaron Director’s home, he was able to
persuade them to his view that as long as legal rights are properly defined,
efficient solutions will prevail. He was asked to write an article for The
Journal of Law and Economics, which Director had recently founded. The
outcome was “The Problem of Social Cost.”
“Had it not been for the fact that these economists at the University of
Chicago thought that I had made an error in my article on The Federal
Communications Commission, it is probable that ‘The Problem of Social Cost
’ would never have been written,” Coase said
George Stigler, PhD’38, an economist at UChicago and 1982 Nobel Prize
winner, later wrote in his 1988 book, Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist,
about that night: “We strongly objected to this heresy. Milton Friedman [
UChicago economist and 1976 Nobel laureate] did most of the talking, as
usual. He also did much of the thinking, as usual. In the course of two
hours of argument, the vote went from 21 against and one for Coase to 21 for
Coase.
“What an exhilarating event! I lamented afterward that we had not had the
clairvoyance to tape it.”
Coase was hired at the UChicago Law School in 1964.
“It was the first law school, to my knowledge, that had an economist
teaching full time,” said University Professor Gary Becker, the 1992 Nobel
laureate in economics, at a luncheon in honor of Coase’s 100th birthday,
according to The University of Chicago Magazine. Coase took over The Journal
of Law and Economics after Director retired in 1965 until 1982, and
according to Becker he “really made it into a major and influential journal
.”
Creating a field of study
“I used the journal to change views,” Coase told the UChicago News Office
in 2012. “I wanted to use the journal to create a subject, and I did.”
Becker said that when he first met Coase in 1970, Coase “didn’t say a lot,
but I began to realize that every time he did say something, it was really
profound.”
Coase was born in a suburb of London in December 1910, the only child of a
Post Office telegraphist and his wife. While his parents were more
interested in sports than scholarship, both having left school as the age of
12, Coase was always drawn to academic endeavors. However, in his youth due
to leg braces he had to wear, he was sent to a school for “physical
defectives” and because of the school’s curriculum, started his academic
education later than other children.
After graduating from the London School of Economics, he held positions at
the Dundee School of Economics and the University of Liverpool before
joining the faculty of the LSE in 1935. He continued at the London School of
Economics and was appointed Reader in Economics with special reference to
public utilities in 1947.
Coase held both a Sir Ernest Cassel Traveling Scholarship and a Rockefeller
Fellowship. He was also a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences, in Stanford, California.
In 1951 Coase migrated to the United States and held positions at the
Universities of Buffalo and Virginia prior to coming to the Law School in
1964. He taught regulated industries and economic analysis and public policy
. Coase was the editor of the Journal of Law and Economics from 1964 to 1982
. Among his many books are The Firm, the Market and the Law (1988) and
Essays on Economics and Economists (1994).
In 1977 Coase was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University. Coase was a Fellow of the British Academy, the European
Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was a member of
the Honour Committee of Euroscience. He held honorary doctorate degrees from
the University of Cologne, Yale University, Washington University, the
University of Dundee, the University of Buckingham, Beloit College and the
University of Paris. In 2003, Coase was the winner of The Economist’s
Innovation Award in the category of “No Boundaries.”
An endlessly active mind
Coase’s more recent work continued to look into the complicated nature of
the firm, as well as the emergence of capitalism outside government control.
In his 2012 book How China Became Capitalist, Coase and his co-author, Wang
, traced the market transformation China experienced over the past 35 years.
The book argued that the changes came not from deliberate actions taken by
Chinese leadership, as often claimed by Beijing, but from “marginal
revolutions.”
“China became capitalist while it was trying to modernize socialism,”
Coase and Wang wrote. “The story of China is the quintessence of what Adam
Ferguson called ‘the products of human action but not human design.’ A
Chinese proverb puts it more poetically: ‘The flowers planted on purpose do
not blossom; the willows no one cared for have grown into big shade trees.
’”
Even before his last book Coase enjoyed a towering reputation in China,
Richard Sandor said.
“With the exception of Milton Friedman, no other Western economist is as
revered and respected among Chinese scholars and policymakers,” Sandor said
. “Coase always believed that ultimately China's respect for new ideas and
education will provide a fertile ground for law and economics scholarship in
that country.”
Coase said in 2012 that his main scholarly talent was to identify solutions
that were in plain sight.
“I’ve never done anything that wasn’t obvious, and I didn’t know why
other people didn’t do it,” he said. “I’ve never thought the things I
did were so extraordinary.”
Coase was preceded in death by his wife, Marion Ruth. The Law School will
host a memorial to Coase later this fall, at a date and time to be announced.

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

8 楼

陈平谈科斯：当科斯定理遭遇中国实践

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
【9月3日，美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站宣布，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
•科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学鼻祖、产权理论奠基人，其理
论对中国的经济改革影响深远。中国改革开放三十周年之际，当时已98岁高龄的科斯教
授，亲自倡议并主持召开“中国经济制度变革三十周年国际学术研讨会”。不仅如此，
他的学生也活跃在中国经济学界，比如周其仁、张五常等。
科斯曾说，自己有生之年没有到过中国是莫大遗憾。尽管以他命名的“科斯定理”在中
国政界、学界声名赫赫，但是科斯也认为这是自己的学术成果中被曲解最多的部分。逝
者已矣，但科斯所留下的那些曾经对中国改革开放事业产生过重要影响的学术遗产，值
得我们进一步思考。观察者网特邀请知名经济学家陈平教授，谈谈一个他所理解的科斯】
观察者网：陈平教授，我们知道刚刚逝世的经济学家科斯教授，曾获得过1991年诺贝尔
经济学奖，也被称为制度经济学的开山鼻祖。那么您能否谈谈，在您看来，科斯教授真
正的学术贡献是什么？
陈平教授：我认为科斯对经济学的贡献主要有三条：
其一，科斯教授提出了新古典经济学运作的制度基础问题。但是提出好的问题，不等于
发现解决问题的正确答案。因此，科斯的间接贡献是，证明了“优化思维无法理解制度
的多样性问题”。
其二，科斯提出产权可以交易，例如广播频道的拍卖，成为行政配置资源以外的第二种
资源配置方法。
其三，科斯将价格理论引入对制度问题的考察，从而将新古典经济学的适用范围推到极
致，但从另一方面来说，这样反而显示出了新古典经济学的局限性。
对科斯著名的批评来自萨缪尔逊，他指出两方交易有无穷解，而不可能有唯一解。但唯
一解正是科斯在1960年所写成的关于“社会成本”的论文之基础）。为了捍卫自己的观
点，科斯在其1988年所著的《The Firm, the Market, and the Law》一书中，被逼得
从均衡论退到演化论，说“不愿进行产权交易的人是不能生存的”，但这恰恰违背大量
历史案例。例如：中国的长城，如今的巴勒斯坦问题。不能交易的东西就是边界的起源
。科斯理论如成立，世界上既无战争、冲突，也不需要国家和组织。因此，其实他的理
想是最大的无政府主义的乌托邦。
观察者网：我们知道，科斯本人从未将“科斯定理”整理成文字，反而是其他人在不断
为“科斯定理”下定义。科斯本人多次直接说明，包括在其最初的作品《企业的本质》
中指出，“科斯定理”应理解为“交易成本不为零时，财产权的初始分配将影响最终资
源配置”。但是国内学者更多的是强调对“科斯定理”的另一种解释，即“交易成本为
零时，私下交易可以解决外部性问题”。科斯曾抱怨道：“我的论点是说明将正的交易
成本引入经济分析的必要，从而使我们得以研究现实的世界。但这并不是我的文章的效
果。各种杂志上充斥的是关于交易成本为零的科斯定理的讨论。”
那么，这种甚至引起了科斯本人愤怒的、国内经济学家的曲解，我们应该怎样理解？背
后的学术动因是什么？是否还有一些学术之外的因素在干扰经济学家们的语言？
陈平教授：国内对科斯最大的曲解，是把他宣传成亚当•斯密以后最伟大的，甚
至可以和马克思媲美的经济学家。实际上，科斯是争议最大的诺奖经济学家。公开否定
科斯的诺奖经济学家并不少见，包括萨缪尔逊、赫维茨，还有先赞扬后反对的布坎南，
曾经运用科斯定理进行分析、后来又对此产生怀疑的诺斯。
因此，从这个角度来说，科斯最大的贡献，是引起新古典经济学大家之间的大论战，特
别是造成新古典经济学的价格理论与制度理论的冲突。
而科斯自己之所以不愿为“科斯定理”下定义，是因为他本人的思想其实是混乱的。科
斯注意观察案例，但是观察的结果是多样的、而不是唯一性的。有些结果和他的信念相
冲突，让他时常处于尊重事实还是放弃最初信念的矛盾之中。这样，科斯一方面反对黑
板经济学，另一方面又坚持价格理论。
最能体现他的这种自相矛盾的，还是他在1988年写的那本《The Firm, the Market,
and the Law》。在该书的开头，他引用了Frank Knight的话，说人性有两面：一是追
求安全，例如火烫了手就会缩回来。但是，一旦有了安全，就和小孩一样，去惹事生非。
那么科斯从中得出了什么结论呢？
卓越的经济学家，就会开始讨论人性的矛盾性，也就是复杂性理论和心理学。但是科斯
却跳过了这些，开始回答价格论（即安全论或避险论）去了。老师的思维混乱如此，也
难怪弟子们读不懂。
其实张五常的学术研究基本否定了“科斯定理”，但是在科斯看到之后却大为称赞。这
是科斯的可爱之处，也是张五常感谢科斯知遇之恩的原因。
从某种角度而言，张五常比科斯更优秀，因为他只差一步，就可以颠覆整个新古典经济
学了。大家知道，狭义相对论有个洛伦茨变换；在爱因斯坦的物理学里它只干了一件事
，就是放弃以太假说；而张五常发现科斯理论等价于投资和消费的对称性，这个发现非
常伟大，可惜张五常不知道普里戈金的耗散结构理论。什么是生命起源？就是“对称破
缺”。历史和时间箭头就是打破时间的对称性。
对此，我的研究成果就是：什么是劳动分工？就是打破空间的对称性。工业革命又打破
时间和空间的对称性，才有经济发展的不平衡和新陈代谢。新古典经济学的致命弱点是
假设交易的对称性。请问有钱人和穷人，大企业和小个体户的谈判能力是对等的吗？拿
大刀和拿机关枪的战争是对等的吗？“社会契约”是有钱人与穷人或印第安人平等谈判
达成的？还是在武力制衡下达成的不平等协议？
观察者网：陈平老师，此前您在谈到美国的医疗黑洞时曾经提到。美国话语权所创造出
的一个神话是，西方的法制可以保障社会的富裕和公平。而这个神话的一个重要理论支
柱就是科斯的交易成本理论。他认为，市场产权的自由交易可以降低交易成本，解决社
会冲突，而无需政府和民众的干预。但是研究发现，美国的交易成本占GDP的比例在一
百年来翻了一番。那么造成这种局面的根本原因是什么，是理论本身出了问题，还是理
论很美好、现实太复杂？
陈平教授：我必须强调，尽管有局部的参考意义，从整体而言，“科斯定理”本身是错
误的。之所以说是局部的成功，是因为技术进步，例如交通和通讯的单位成本确实会降
低，但是这种降低是有极限的，即必然大于零。与此同时，技术进步带来的市场发展，
同样将大大提高社会分工的复杂性和网络效应，其效应大于上述促使成本下降的因素，
从而使交易成本增加。
人类进化和工业革命的历史也反映了这一点：能源消耗是增加还是减少？人的活动范围
是增加还是减少？这也是为什么中国的整体论，以及现代科学的复杂系统论和热力学，
优于分析科学的还原论的原因。一加一大于一，整体大于部分之和。
观察者网：在2008年时，科斯教授主办了—场以中国为主题的会议。他注意到，很多中
国学者从未与本国政策制定者或企业家进行过对话，他们学到的只是科斯所说的“黑板
经济学”，即一套套的理论与各种数据之间的数学关系。很多中国学者“学了博弈论和
计量经济学，然后便回国了，但他们对现实经济世界的运作并没有一个基本的了解”。
陈平教授，不知道科斯所注意到的这种情形在国内的经济学界是否非常普遍？这些学者
又在社会上、媒体上产生了怎样的影响？当前的企业、社会和媒体普遍存在着“崇拜”
“旅美经济学家”标签的情况，这种现象是否有值得我们反思的部分？
陈平教授：新古典经济学真正的基础是小农经济学，是农产品价格的供求波动研究。新
古典经济学家没有一个搞过工业：凯恩斯只做过金融投机和财政，哈耶克和熊彼特正是
研究过工业之后，才注意到“迂回生产”、“长波”和“创造性毁灭”。
国内迷信科斯的经济学家主要有两种人，一是只有农村经验，看见农民种自留地积极性
比大田高，就断言私有制效率高于公有制。那么又该如何解释中国的这套效率位居全球
首位的铁路系统呢？我自己就当过5年铁路工人，铁路是半军事化指挥，如何做产权交
易？我还做过5年氢弹和平利用，这比大工业还要复杂，严密的劳动分工加理论协调。
从这些经验就可以看出“科斯定理”的局限性所在。
此外另一种人，他们大多只有学院教书经验，社会调查只是走马观花、先入为主。我认
识索罗斯，他是学哲学出身，实践告诉他金融市场是非均衡的，所以明确反对新古典经
济学的均衡论。我们这些从国内走出的学生，大部分是数理背景好，才能过美国的考试
关；毕业后就教书、跟着西方主流文献走，高度脱离实践；这样既不了解西方社会，也
不了解中国实际。
其实，他们所能做的只是在普及西方经济学，或是在改进国内学术界的方法论上有贡献
。而他们身上所反映出的问题，其实也是美国经济学教育的问题。我之前也曾说过，中
国经济学界的教师考核和培养还是仿照那套缺乏反思的、在金融危机下已经破产了的英
美模式，也正是在这样的培养和评价体系下，才有了今天中国学术界的怪相：全世界的
经济学家都承认中国发展突破了英美模式，改变了世界，要反思西方中心论，批评华盛
顿共识；只有中国的主流经济学和主流媒体在高唱美国模式的赞歌，为华盛顿共识辩护
，否定中国经验，甚至把中国的成就看作危机。
因此，中国应该开展第二次“实践检验真理”的大讨论，只是这次检验的重点，是西方
中心论和新古典经济学的教条！
同时，我建议各大学要给老师和学生减负。经济学家必须拿出三分之一的时间到工厂、
农村基层调查，少纸上谈兵。说实在的，经济学在实践方面的进步，远远落在生态学、
医学和工程学之后，更别说物理学了。经济学的自由派大师，例如芝加哥的卢卡斯和科
斯，连能量守恒和热力学都不懂，还号称自己的一般均衡论是模仿物理学，其实不过是
“永动机”理论。
观察者网：陈平教授，您指出了“科斯定理”的种种局限，而从现在主流舆论所宣传的
观点来看，似乎科斯对中国的改革开放、特别是市场化事业做出了巨大的贡献。那么您
认为，科斯对中国的真正贡献是什么？
陈平教授：我认为，科斯对中国经济改革的主要贡献是在以下两个方面。
第一，科斯提出产权可以交易，从而鼓励内地学习香港的经验，通过拍卖土地使用权来
筹集基础建设经费，避免了西方大量借债的办法所造成的市场化初期外债风险。
第二，他所提出的交易成本的概念，使改革初期各级政府纷纷检查和废除以往在计划经
济体制下制定的法规，简化行政手续，提高效率，有利于招商引资。
但是，在改革进入深水区的今天，科斯的这套“交易成本理论”的负面后果也正不断显
现：
一方面，在真实的市场交易中，往往并不是两方谈判，而是一方与多方谈判，这样无法
产生理论上的最优解。最现实的案例就是，今天中国城市化进程中的征地补偿不断攀升
，基础设施建设成本不断上涨，速度下降。从长远来看，如不依据劳动价值论的角度解
决土地定价问题，将彻底动摇社会主义的统筹优越性，让房地产泡沫挤出制造业，重蹈
西方金融危机和虚拟经济的覆辙。
另一方面，在市场化进程中，以监管增加交易成本的理由搞自由化，导致食品、药品、
采矿等一系列市场欺骗的危机。
历史证明，劳动分工越复杂，科学技术交叉应用中的副作用也越明显，因此市场监管的
复杂性和必要性也随之增加。劳动分工最早、需要监管的就是交通、铁路；而如今日益
复杂化、高科技化的航空、食品、制药、金融，哪个行业不需要监管？在现实中，科斯
本人提出的交易成本接近为零的行业仅仅是股票市场，而金融危机证明放弃金融监管的
代价是放大金融风险，造成的损失数以万亿美元。因此，科斯自己也承认，他没有理论
创新，只是把价格理论（需求曲线斜率向下）用于产权交易。他忘记了，污染交易的需
求曲线不可能向下，金融市场追涨杀跌的需求曲线是曲线不是直线。
观察者网：那么，在今天需要继续推进改革，同时也需要走出一条不同于欧美、日本，
乃至“亚洲四小龙”、“亚洲四小虎”的道路的今天，我们应该如何面对科斯的遗产？
陈平教授：2007年，我曾在日本演化经济学会上演讲，明确指出科斯的交易成本理论是
永动机理论和极端还原论。劳动分工和生命起源都是耗散过程，交易成本就是物理学的
废热和熵，在演化过程中的总趋势是增加而非减少，否则不会有生态危机和全球变暖危
机。
生物物种的竞争优劣，是看结构功能能否适应环境和竞争者的挑战。没有一个生物学家
或医生判断人的健康，只依据排泄量（交易成本）的多少来看病。古典经济学的研究视
野里没有结构，只有成本和价格的理论，这是极为荒唐的；而造成这种状况的原因，就
是所谓“方法论的个人主义”。人是社会动物，人的经济学也不能是“鲁滨逊经济学”。
中国启蒙运动以来，学习西方社会科学最大的弊病是急用先学，追潮流、贴标签。只对
中国的现实问题病急乱投医，追随胜利者，追随主流时髦，很少有人认真在基础研究上
下功夫。这是中国学术界和德国、法国、和以色列学术界的巨大差距。
从新中国的实践来看，只有毛泽东的实践论突破西方中心论的思维。而邓小平的实践虽
然突破了西方模式，但是中国的学者其实并没有深刻理解“邓小平理论”。中国还需要
花极大的努力，才能依据中国实践，检验西方理论，为人类作出自己的贡献。
张五常对突破“科斯定理”也提出了很好的设想；林毅夫也把生物学的观念和政府的战
略作用引入新古典经济学的框架；史正富的“三维市场经济”发展了马克思的政治经济
学，这都是推动中国经济学发展的良好开端。我自己也曾经仔细检验过所有科斯提供的
案例，其实没有一个有优化解或唯一解。
但是，如果不正面批评新古典经济学和新制度经济学的谬误，不在方法论上突破牛顿力
学的单线决定论思维，就不会走出这次金融危机带来的经济学的危机。
计量经济学家David Hendry认为，计量经济学是炼金术，是前科学；其实新古典经济学
和新制度经济学也是前科学。他们提出好的问题，做了许多观察，但是骨子里仍然是意
识形态主导，不愿承认私有制和市场经济的代价，他们所使用的方法论还是均衡论和还
原论。
长远来看，新古典经济学不可能发展出一套真的经得起长期实践检验的科学理论。经济
学的未来是回到演化论、非均衡论，这就需要发展劳动价值论，并且同时必须否定供求
均衡论。世界发展是不平衡的。平衡在物理学上是“热寂”，温差都没有了，生命消失
、人类灭亡之后，哪里还会有“经济”呢？

D*a2013-09-03 07:09

9 楼

陈平自己脑子一团浆糊

【在 m***e 的大作中提到】

: 陈平谈科斯：当科斯定理遭遇中国实践
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
: --
: 【9月3日，美国芝加哥大学法律学院官方网站宣布，1991年诺贝尔经济学奖得主罗纳德
: •科斯去世，享年102岁。科斯教授是新制度经济学鼻祖、产权理论奠基人，其理
: 论对中国的经济改革影响深远。中国改革开放三十周年之际，当时已98岁高龄的科斯教
: 授，亲自倡议并主持召开“中国经济制度变革三十周年国际学术研讨会”。不仅如此，
: 他的学生也活跃在中国经济学界，比如周其仁、张五常等。
: 科斯曾说，自己有生之年没有到过中国是莫大遗憾。尽管以他命名的“科斯定理”在中

m*e2013-09-03 07:09

10 楼

我即将长眠，祝你们成功——科斯在“中国经济改革国际研讨会”结束时的讲话

I now have the very pleasant task of welcoming you to this Conference on
China’s Economic Transformation. When Steven Cheung wrote in 1982 his
pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on the question “
Will China go capitalist?” a question thathe answered in the affirmative, I
was one of the few people who agreed with him. But I thought in terms of
100 or 200 years, not 25or 30 years. What happened in China was a complete
surprise to me,its scale, its character and speed –– which means that I
did not understand what was going on. I therefore determined to hold an
conference that would uncover the facts about this extraordinary series of
events. We sought out those best able to inform us,academics, businessmen,
government officials, about the facts about what happened. I think we
succeeded. We have a series of fine papers that greatly enlighten us about
what has happened in the years since 1978. As we intent to publish an edited
version of these papers (and of the discussions) in a book, they will
inform a much wider audience. Of course, although we will learn a great deal
about what happened, it is not to be expected, although some things will be
made clear, that there will be complete agreement in the views expressed –
– nor is it desirable that there should be. A subject in which everyone
says the same thing is a dead subject and one which will not progress.
Competition in the market for ideas is as valuable as in the market for
goods. The truth is found as are sult of the clash of ideas. And it will be
so at this conference.
Our first paper by Steven Cheung will be delivered by him on DVD .It is long
(about 2 hours) and I decided to divide it into two parts, each about an
hour in length with an interval with refreshments in between. Unfortunately,
one of our important discussants, Professor Mundell, will not be able to
attend on the first day but will give his views on Tuesday morning. I should
explain here that while I speak as though I organized this conference, in
fact all I did was to have the idea that such a conference would be a good
thing. The actual organization of the conference was carried out by Ning
Wang, assisted more recently by Lennon Choy and Marjorie Holme. I have been
largely a spectator and admirer of their work. I should also say that,
approaching 98 years of age later this year, I get extremely tired and
almost certainly will not be able to attend all the sessions. But those who
present papers at sessions I do not attend should realize that my absence is
in no sense of judgment on the worth of their papers.
I now turn to Steven Cheung’s talk. I came to know Steven when he came to
Chicago from UCLA in 1967 on a fellowship and was later in 1968 appointed
an assistant professor.I don’t remember how we met. But when we did, we
formed an immediate bond and we had the most enjoyable and productive talks
together. Unfortunately for Chicago, he decided to leave Chicago and go to
the University of Washington where he had as colleagues Douglass North and
Yoram Barzel. However, our relationship did not end and Steve wrote a series
of splendid articles published in the Journal of Law and Economics of which
I was editor. Then, in 1981, Steve received an offer from the University of
Hong Kong. I urged him to accept. I thought it would be a fine place to
observe what was happening in China. Just how valuable it would be I did not
then realize. But you will learn from his talk what he has gained from his
close observation of events in China over the years. I won’t hold up this
really important talk any longer. So here we have Steven Cheung speaking on
China’s Economic Transformation.