第一篇：經(jīng)濟(jì)類論文

中職學(xué)校《市場營銷學(xué)》的教學(xué)思考

張家口機(jī)械工業(yè)學(xué)校席冬英

內(nèi)容提要：市場營銷學(xué)是一門應(yīng)用性很強(qiáng)的學(xué)科，面對(duì)廣大的中職生，如何運(yùn)用現(xiàn)代信息技術(shù)，創(chuàng)新教學(xué)，激發(fā)學(xué)生興趣，取得教學(xué)效果，需要教育工作者積極嘗試、不斷探索。

關(guān)鍵詞：中職學(xué)校市場營銷學(xué)教學(xué)思考

在中等職業(yè)教育中，《市場營銷學(xué)》是一門以培養(yǎng)和提高學(xué)生理解市場營銷基本原理及初步運(yùn)用營銷組合策略為基本能力的學(xué)科，這對(duì)培養(yǎng)能快速適應(yīng)市場經(jīng)濟(jì)變化，具有一定營銷推廣工作能力的適用型人才具有重要的作用。針對(duì)中職生學(xué)習(xí)基礎(chǔ)薄弱的特點(diǎn)，通過近幾年的教學(xué)實(shí)踐與探索，我在《市場營銷學(xué)》教學(xué)方面有以下幾點(diǎn)思考。

一、傳統(tǒng)教學(xué)現(xiàn)存問題

1、學(xué)生素養(yǎng)有待提升

在現(xiàn)有中職學(xué)校教學(xué)中，市場營銷學(xué)課程通常作為一些專業(yè)特點(diǎn)不明顯的綜合類專業(yè)的選修課程，開設(shè)在第二學(xué)年。在教學(xué)實(shí)踐中我發(fā)現(xiàn)，大部分學(xué)生對(duì)該專業(yè)有很大的興趣，但由于學(xué)習(xí)基礎(chǔ)薄弱和未接觸過社會(huì)知識(shí)，對(duì)市場、企業(yè)及企業(yè)管理缺乏基本認(rèn)識(shí)，對(duì)營銷知識(shí)缺乏深入理解的能力，難以掌握營銷的基礎(chǔ)理論，更談不上案例分析與實(shí)際運(yùn)用。

2、教學(xué)目標(biāo)不夠明確

作為一門選修課程，不同專業(yè)對(duì)市場營銷學(xué)課程有不同的訴求，不能以一概全。而在現(xiàn)實(shí)教學(xué)中，大多數(shù)情況下，我們是以一套教材、一本教案、一個(gè)課件面對(duì)所有學(xué)生，既無法體現(xiàn)市場營銷學(xué)的重要性，也無法因材、因?qū)I(yè)施教。

3、就業(yè)市場要求較高

有調(diào)查顯示，市場營銷專業(yè)的用人單位均對(duì)學(xué)生的人際交往能力、語言表達(dá)能力、商品推銷能力、營銷策劃能力和市場調(diào)研能力這五種專業(yè)技能有很高的期望和迫切的需求，但在中職學(xué)校中市場營銷專業(yè)學(xué)生在課程教學(xué)過程中并

沒有專門有針對(duì)性地進(jìn)行重點(diǎn)能力的培養(yǎng)。

二、創(chuàng)新教學(xué)的幾點(diǎn)建議

1、課程設(shè)置進(jìn)一步合理化。

在課程設(shè)置上，既要考慮學(xué)生未來的就業(yè)可能及能力要求，也要考慮到專業(yè)的就業(yè)傾向，可以引導(dǎo)學(xué)生認(rèn)識(shí)市場營銷學(xué)課程與自身專業(yè)及未來發(fā)展之間的聯(lián)系，提高學(xué)生認(rèn)知能力和重視程度。通過課程設(shè)置和時(shí)間的合理化，使學(xué)生具備一定的基本理論知識(shí)，便于其理解營銷的相關(guān)概念和理論。通過介紹專業(yè)特點(diǎn)、就業(yè)方向、學(xué)習(xí)方法及手段引導(dǎo)學(xué)生從依賴性學(xué)習(xí)向自主性學(xué)習(xí)轉(zhuǎn)化。

2、注重專業(yè)能力培養(yǎng)。

應(yīng)注重幫助學(xué)生建立起市場營銷學(xué)的整體理論框架，通過關(guān)鍵理論的講授、案例教學(xué)、實(shí)踐教學(xué)培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的營銷能力，形成學(xué)生對(duì)組織營銷管理的系統(tǒng)性認(rèn)識(shí)。并針對(duì)用人單位的需求對(duì)學(xué)生的人際交往能力、語言表達(dá)能力、商品推銷能力、營銷策劃能力和市場調(diào)研能力這五種專業(yè)技能側(cè)重培養(yǎng)。

3、不斷創(chuàng)新教學(xué)手段

（1）采用“情景式”教學(xué)。“情景式”教學(xué)是模擬教學(xué)的一種，通過借助于對(duì)環(huán)境、角色、活動(dòng)的模擬來幫助學(xué)生理解市場營銷專業(yè)理論知識(shí)，了解市場運(yùn)作規(guī)律，掌握營銷管理方法和操作技能，成為具有創(chuàng)新意識(shí)和合作能力的營銷人才的教學(xué)方法，讓學(xué)生在熟悉知識(shí)點(diǎn)的情況下，扮演不同的情景角色，從而在模擬實(shí)踐中學(xué)習(xí)和運(yùn)用營銷知識(shí)和操作技能，達(dá)到提高學(xué)生實(shí)踐能力的教學(xué)目標(biāo)。

（2）善于運(yùn)用案例啟發(fā)。在教學(xué)過程中，讓學(xué)生圍繞各章節(jié)前的引導(dǎo)案例，綜合運(yùn)用所學(xué)知識(shí)與方法對(duì)其進(jìn)行分析、推理，提出解決方案，并在師生之間、同學(xué)之間進(jìn)行探討、交流的實(shí)踐性教學(xué)形式。通過讓學(xué)生自己分析問題和解決問題的方式，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生主動(dòng)學(xué)習(xí)、獨(dú)立思考、綜合分析和創(chuàng)造性地解決問題的能力。

（3）發(fā)揮多媒體教學(xué)的作用。這是一種通過多媒體教學(xué)軟件演示和解說理論知識(shí)的實(shí)踐性教學(xué)形式。這種方式一般與日常課堂教學(xué)活動(dòng)結(jié)合運(yùn)用，通過圖文并茂的課件演示，可以幫助學(xué)生對(duì)所學(xué)（或即將學(xué)）的知識(shí)建立感性認(rèn)識(shí)，為進(jìn)一步學(xué)習(xí)打好基礎(chǔ)。

（4）積極開展實(shí)踐教學(xué)。提前布置課題，讓學(xué)生進(jìn)行方案策劃，利用課余時(shí)間開展多種形式的專題調(diào)查和實(shí)踐性教學(xué)活動(dòng)。通過組織到商場參觀、廣告分析、市場調(diào)查等活動(dòng)，讓學(xué)生以小組的形式組織完成，既培養(yǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)協(xié)作能力，又有利于同學(xué)之間集思廣益、取長補(bǔ)短。

4、進(jìn)一步改進(jìn)教學(xué)方式

目前，在市場營銷學(xué)教學(xué)中仍以傳統(tǒng)的教師單向授課為主。主要表現(xiàn)在：一般市場營銷課程教學(xué)模式往往以傳統(tǒng)教材為主，以理論講授為重點(diǎn)，強(qiáng)調(diào)概念、注重理論，而對(duì)實(shí)踐性較強(qiáng)的方法技巧、策略不夠重視。這就造成理論與實(shí)踐課之間的失衡，難以取得理想的教學(xué)效果。在遇到實(shí)際問題時(shí)，分析問題、解決問題能力較差。在講授方式上，主要表現(xiàn)為單向的自上而下的垂直傳輸方式，拘泥于書本理論架構(gòu)，“填鴨式”教育痕跡嚴(yán)重，應(yīng)該改變?cè)袀鹘y(tǒng)模式。

在中職學(xué)校教學(xué)中，我們既不能照搬大學(xué)教學(xué)模式，又要面對(duì)中職生現(xiàn)狀，以合理性、可行性原則組織教學(xué)，在提升學(xué)生專業(yè)素養(yǎng)、培養(yǎng)適用性人才上取得實(shí)效。

參考文獻(xiàn)：

1、《市場營銷基礎(chǔ)》，華東師范大學(xué)出版社，作者孫天福

第二篇：經(jīng)濟(jì)類論文

ＷＴＯ與世界貿(mào)易自由化展望

［摘要］ＧＡＴＴ對(duì)世界貿(mào)易自由化的推動(dòng)發(fā)揮了巨大的作用。如今，取代ＧＡＴＴ而成立一年多的ＷＴＯ，為堅(jiān)持全球貿(mào)易秩序化和法制化軌道上運(yùn)行等方面取得一定的成績，但同時(shí)也面臨著種種的考驗(yàn)，如非關(guān)稅壁壘、大國稱霸、區(qū)域貿(mào)易與全球貿(mào)易關(guān)系、保護(hù)民族工業(yè)與自由貿(mào)易關(guān)系等問題有待解決。應(yīng)該 清醒地認(rèn)識(shí)到自由貿(mào)易的必然性和ＷＴＯ能力的局限性。并能客觀地看待中國加入ＷＴＯ問題。［關(guān)鍵詞］國際貿(mào)易組織、關(guān)稅貿(mào)易總協(xié)定、貿(mào)易自由化

一、ＧＡＴＴ與貿(mào)易自由化的進(jìn)展

誕生于１９４７年的ＧＡＴＴ，是世界上國家（地區(qū)）間簽署的、具有約束力的多邊貿(mào)易契約，是一套系統(tǒng)管理各國（地區(qū)）間貿(mào)易行為的多邊貿(mào)易通則。雖然它只是一個(gè)貿(mào)易協(xié)定，但是實(shí)際上早已機(jī)構(gòu)化了，只是法律上從未獲得真正的國際組織的地位。其主要職能是組織多邊貿(mào)易談判和對(duì)締約方之間的貿(mào)易爭端進(jìn)行和作出仲裁。按照其宗旨：在國際貿(mào)易中，通過相互削減關(guān)稅、清除非關(guān)稅壁壘和國際貿(mào)易中的歧視待遇，以實(shí)現(xiàn)提高生活水平、保證充分就業(yè)和實(shí)際收入及有效需要的巨大持續(xù)增長、擴(kuò)大世界資源的充分利用以及發(fā)展商品的生產(chǎn)與交換為目的，在ＧＡＴＴ成立以來的近半個(gè)世紀(jì)中，形成了１０項(xiàng)基本原則，包括非歧視性貿(mào)易原則；關(guān)稅保護(hù)原則；貿(mào)易穩(wěn)定原則；公平競爭原則，反進(jìn)口數(shù)量限制原則；公開與透明度原則；豁免與例外原則；區(qū)域性貿(mào)易原則；對(duì)發(fā)展中國家的優(yōu)惠原則；服裝及紡織品的全外原則等。并主持舉行了８輪全球性多邊貿(mào)易談判，包括決定建立ＷＴＯ的“烏拉圭回合”談判。結(jié)果是，世界工業(yè)品貿(mào)易的關(guān)稅平均稅率由１９４７年的４０％減至目前發(fā)達(dá)國家的４％和發(fā)展中國家的１２％的水平；其締約方由從初創(chuàng)時(shí)的２３國發(fā)展到ＷＴＯ成立前的１２８個(gè)國家和地區(qū)；其成員國的貿(mào)易額自最初只占世界貿(mào)易總量的２５％至今已占全球貿(mào)易的９０％。盡管ＧＡＴＴ只是個(gè)臨時(shí)性的協(xié)定，其締約方仍然實(shí)施關(guān)稅特別是非關(guān)稅保護(hù)，也存在“灰色區(qū)域”，但在過去的近半個(gè)世紀(jì)中，作為管理國際貿(mào)易的唯一多邊協(xié)議，還是把世界貿(mào)易自由化向前推進(jìn)了一大步。１９９５年，全球貿(mào)易在１９９４年取得９．５％的較大幅度增長的基礎(chǔ)上又增長了８％，這與ＧＡＴＴ推動(dòng)是分不開的。

二、過渡期間的ＷＴＯ對(duì)貿(mào)易自由化的推動(dòng)。

已經(jīng)結(jié)束的“烏拉圭回合”產(chǎn)生了多項(xiàng)重要的積極成果，其中之一便是使這ＧＡＴＴ這一準(zhǔn)國際貿(mào)易組織正規(guī)化，決定于１９９５年元旦成立ＷＴＯ。

與ＧＡＴＴ相比，ＷＴＯ所涉及的領(lǐng)域不僅包括工農(nóng)業(yè)產(chǎn)品貿(mào)易，而且還包括服務(wù)貿(mào)易和知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)，其解決貿(mào)易爭端的機(jī)制也更加有效。

在ＷＴＯ成立以來的一年里，經(jīng)歷了不少困難和曲折，但基本上完成了機(jī)構(gòu)建設(shè)；同時(shí)還增加了新成員，包括中國在內(nèi)的二十來個(gè)國家和地區(qū)正在申請(qǐng)加入ＷＴＯ。ＷＴＯ組織規(guī)模不斷擴(kuò)大，表明它對(duì)各國的吸引力增強(qiáng)，目前ＷＴＯ中發(fā)展中國家以及東歐轉(zhuǎn)軌經(jīng)濟(jì)國家已占２／３，有助于發(fā)展中國家在多邊貿(mào)易體系中發(fā)揮更大的作用；組織了新的多邊貿(mào)易談判，并且正在勾畫自身的發(fā)展藍(lán)圖，準(zhǔn)備迎接世界經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展所帶來的各種挑戰(zhàn)。

作為一個(gè)新成立但具有永久性法律效力的ＷＴＯ，剛成立就面臨三大挑戰(zhàn)：鞏固“烏拉圭回合”成果；完成該回合已涉及但尚未完成的談判；研究國際貿(mào)易的新課題。面對(duì)實(shí)施期長達(dá)１０年，對(duì)所有締約方具有普遍適用性、卷帙浩繁、空前復(fù)雜的“烏拉圭回合”的協(xié)議，其實(shí)施難度之大是不難想象的。為此，ＷＴＯ在ＧＡＴＴ原有基礎(chǔ)上建立了一整套管理機(jī)構(gòu)，其中一個(gè)重要的機(jī)構(gòu)就是貿(mào)易制度審議機(jī)制，ＷＴＯ對(duì)各成員方的貿(mào)易政策定期進(jìn)行審議，以確保其透明度和與多邊協(xié)議的一致性；還建立了新的解決爭端機(jī)制，以強(qiáng)化多邊貿(mào)易體系。這一機(jī)制與以往ＧＡＴＴ比較零散的解決爭端機(jī)制相比較具有更高的效率和更強(qiáng)的實(shí)施仲裁結(jié)果的能力，它規(guī)定所有爭端最長必須在１８個(gè)月內(nèi)解決，如果該機(jī)制作出的仲裁結(jié)構(gòu)得不到實(shí)施，有關(guān)方面將會(huì)受到制裁。在１９９５年一年中，它受理的貿(mào)易爭端已超過二十多起，比ＧＡＴＴ任何一年受理的爭端都要多，其中有６起是發(fā)展中國家針對(duì)貿(mào)易大國的。在這些爭端中最引人注目的當(dāng)屬美日汽車貿(mào)易糾紛，盡管此案最終通過雙方談判得以解決，但不能否認(rèn)ＷＴＯ解決爭端機(jī)制的威懾力對(duì)雙方達(dá)成協(xié)議起的促進(jìn)作用。以往在ＧＡＴＴ時(shí)期，貿(mào)易大國常?？梢悦暌曉摻M織作出的裁決而不會(huì)受到懲罰，弱小國家的利益往往因此得不到保護(hù)。在這一問題上，ＷＴＯ有了新進(jìn)展，如１９９５年４月，香港有關(guān)部門將美國對(duì)香港紡織品限制案報(bào)送ＷＴＯ裁決后，使美國取消了對(duì)香港紡織品采取的限制措施；同年７月份，哥斯達(dá)黎加和洪都拉斯就美國對(duì)其內(nèi)衣進(jìn)口采取限制措施向ＷＴＯ起訴，結(jié)果使美國又一次取消了限制措施。

ＷＴＯ在１９９５年還組織了“烏拉圭回合”未完成的４項(xiàng)服務(wù)貿(mào)易談判：金融服務(wù)、勞工流動(dòng)、基礎(chǔ)電信和海運(yùn)談判。在金融服務(wù)談判中，美國堅(jiān)持高要價(jià)，談判一度幾乎破裂，但最終還是在歐盟的倡議下達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)沒有美國參加的臨時(shí)性協(xié)議，這可以說是史無前例的。結(jié)果，３０多個(gè)國家作出了提高其金融市場開放程度的承諾。此外，ＷＴＯ已經(jīng)成立了一個(gè)委員會(huì)專門研究環(huán)境問題，并計(jì)劃把所有新課題提交１９９６年１２月在新加坡召開的ＷＴＯ第一次部長級(jí)會(huì)議講座，以為將來組織新貿(mào)易談判做準(zhǔn)備?？傊?，從ＧＡＴＴ到ＷＴＯ的新舊交替進(jìn)行得還比較平穩(wěn)，為多邊貿(mào)易體系的發(fā)展奠定了基礎(chǔ)。ＷＴＯ在這一年中為堅(jiān)持全球貿(mào)易在秩序化和法制的軌道上運(yùn)行，所作的努力是可貴的。但在一系列問題上，特別是在維護(hù)ＷＴＯ信譽(yù)和權(quán)威方面，這一新生的組織還面臨著嚴(yán)峻的考驗(yàn)。

三、ＷＴＯ在推進(jìn)貿(mào)易自由化過程中的嚴(yán)峻考驗(yàn)

從理論上說，ＧＡＴＴ宗旨是符合通行的國際貿(mào)易理論原則的；從條文上看已為ＷＴＯ的運(yùn)行提供了制度化的保證；從實(shí)踐來觀察，盡管ＷＴＯ已取代了ＧＡＴＴ，但已取得的成績距離其宗旨要求卻相去甚遠(yuǎn)。并且，隨著世界經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化的發(fā)展，一些新的課題擺到了ＷＴＯ的面前，如貿(mào)易與貿(mào)易環(huán)境、貿(mào)易與投資政策以及貿(mào)易與各國企業(yè)的競爭政策等。

首先，ＧＡＴＴ在推進(jìn)貿(mào)易自由化已取得的成績中，削減關(guān)稅最為突出，這也是世界貿(mào)易量增長１０倍的主要原因之一；但同時(shí)，在另一方面，尤其是非關(guān)稅壁壘障礙上，卻無能為力。各國在其經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展中，客觀上有保護(hù)的需要，但由于關(guān)稅減讓太多，不便利其實(shí)現(xiàn)保護(hù)的目的，遂轉(zhuǎn)而大量使用非關(guān)稅壁壘措施。目前全世界關(guān)稅壁壘措施已達(dá)２７００多種，成了貿(mào)易自由化的最大障礙。ＷＴＯ仍然將面對(duì)這塊難啃的硬骨頭。

其次，ＷＴＯ并未消除國際貿(mào)易秩序中存在的各種弊端。最突出的問題之一是，大國左右局面情況依然存在。譬如說，由于少數(shù)貿(mào)易大國的阻撓，貿(mào)易額居世界第１１位的中國至今仍未能成為ＷＴＯ的成員國；由于歐美互不相讓，ＷＴＯ總干事人選拖９個(gè)月才確定下來；另外美國動(dòng)輒采取單方面貿(mào)易報(bào)復(fù)措施，這對(duì)其他國家構(gòu)成了重大威脅；失業(yè)嚴(yán)重、貿(mào)易不平衡等因素導(dǎo)致發(fā)達(dá)國家貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義有增無減，它們以勞工標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、環(huán)境保護(hù)等借口對(duì)廣大發(fā)展中國家推行新型貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義，并在向發(fā)展中國家轉(zhuǎn)讓技術(shù)問題上設(shè)置了種種障礙。過去，由于主要西方國家背離ＧＡＴＴ宗旨，致使發(fā)展中國家負(fù)擔(dān)沉重，兩者之間的貧富差距拉大，至今依然如故；不僅如此，這種行為也使發(fā)達(dá)國家之間不斷爆發(fā)貿(mào)易爭端。這些傾向都對(duì)ＷＴＯ產(chǎn)生破壞性作用。所以，ＷＴＯ面臨的最嚴(yán)峻考驗(yàn)是，當(dāng)主要工業(yè)化貿(mào)易大國缺乏競爭力時(shí)或在自身短期經(jīng)濟(jì)利益受到威脅時(shí)，它們是否仍然愿意尊重ＷＴＯ的規(guī)則，而不憑借其經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力去破壞它。再次，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的“一體化”和集團(tuán)化問題。在世界貿(mào)易的發(fā)展中，區(qū)域性貿(mào)易集團(tuán)成員之間的商品交換量比重在不斷增加，截止１９９４年底，在ＧＡＴＴ秘書處登記的區(qū)域性貿(mào)易規(guī)定已有１０８個(gè)。區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化具有貿(mào)易創(chuàng)造和貿(mào)易轉(zhuǎn)移雙重效應(yīng)，區(qū)域貿(mào)易集團(tuán)在促進(jìn)貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的同時(shí)，也難免具有排它性，這有可能會(huì)帶來貿(mào)易集團(tuán)間的磨擦，甚至動(dòng)搖多邊貿(mào)易體系的基礎(chǔ)。在ＧＡＴＴ第２４條區(qū)域貿(mào)易安排上，允許締約國建立自由貿(mào)易區(qū)和關(guān)稅同盟，而不必按最惠國待遇條款將同等待遇給予非成員國，這是與ＧＡＴＴ的非歧視原則相違背的。盡管規(guī)定了自由貿(mào)易區(qū)和關(guān)稅同盟建立的條件和目的，并在程序上加以規(guī)范和約束，但由于這一規(guī)定本身的歧視性，以及它在規(guī)定上的法律缺陷和漏洞，使一些締約國有可乘之機(jī)，危害其它締約國的貿(mào)易（馮予蜀，第８１頁），特別是發(fā)展中國家。勢(shì)均力敵的區(qū)域化經(jīng)濟(jì)集團(tuán)的存在和發(fā)展，意味著相互抗衡、對(duì)峙、討價(jià)還價(jià)能力的增強(qiáng)，這就削弱了多邊貿(mào)易談判的效果。協(xié)調(diào)區(qū)域貿(mào)易與全球貿(mào)易之間關(guān)系就成了世界貿(mào)易組織成立之后無法回避的問題。ＷＴＯ堅(jiān)持區(qū)域性貿(mào)易與全球貿(mào)易應(yīng)該是互為補(bǔ)充的關(guān)系而不是競爭的關(guān)系，兩者都應(yīng)在ＷＴＯ的框架內(nèi)進(jìn)行，為此，ＷＴＯ成立了６９個(gè)特別工作組，具體負(fù)責(zé)協(xié)調(diào)這兩者之間的關(guān)系。在加拿大倡議下，ＷＴＯ決定１９９６年初成立一個(gè)區(qū)域貿(mào)易集團(tuán)委員會(huì)，以協(xié)調(diào)這些集團(tuán)與多邊貿(mào)易體制的關(guān)系。但其作用還有待于實(shí)踐的檢驗(yàn)。

最后，發(fā)展中國家事實(shí)上為了經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的需要也要對(duì)民族工業(yè)進(jìn)行一定程度的貿(mào)易保護(hù)。甚至一些中等發(fā)達(dá)國家和地區(qū)為了自身利益也設(shè)法在各種程度上游離于自由貿(mào)易原則之外。如１９９６年元旦，ＷＴＯ“政府采購協(xié)議”正式生效，政府作為各國最大的買主，其對(duì)外開放意味著，在政府采購中凡是超過１５萬特別提款權(quán)（ＳＤＲ）的政府采購合同都要對(duì)外招標(biāo)。但簽字國卻只有美、日、加、以、韓、挪、瑞士等１５個(gè)國家，并較之“東京回合”的“政府采購協(xié)議”又少了瑞典、香港和新加坡。專家稱此協(xié)議為“諸邊（Pluralateral）協(xié)議”，以區(qū)別于其他“多邊（Multilateral）協(xié)議”。ＷＴＯ的“政府采購協(xié)議”成為一個(gè)“富人俱樂部”和自由貿(mào)易的一個(gè)死角。究其原因，一方面發(fā)展中國家離政府采購的開放還相當(dāng)遙遠(yuǎn)，即便有個(gè)別國有限開放，也是保護(hù)國內(nèi)工業(yè)優(yōu)先。如印尼立法要求“政府采購”要以最有利的價(jià)格購買外國產(chǎn)品，而且數(shù)額越大的合同，須以對(duì)方反購本國非油產(chǎn)品為條件；另一方面，簽字國對(duì)等開放，由于國力相當(dāng)誰也吃不了虧，但他們更大的胃口是爭奪第三國的政府采購合同。如１９９４年夏，美國雷聲公司與法國湯姆森電子公司在巴西爭奪一個(gè)１４億美元的亞馬遜工程的開辦權(quán)，最后是依靠中央情報(bào)局的幫助，才擊敗了競爭對(duì)手（武躍，１９９６）。

應(yīng)該說，ＷＴＯ解決爭端的能力至今并未受到真正的考驗(yàn)。目前ＷＴＯ正處理在各起爭端最早要到今年初才會(huì)出初步結(jié)果；其受理的最大一起爭端——美日汽車貿(mào)易爭端最終是通過雙邊談判得以解決的；在重大問題上，世界頭號(hào)貿(mào)易大國美國往往拋棄多邊渠道，采用單邊或雙邊的方式解決問題；大國仍企圖操縱ＷＴＯ；新型貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義對(duì)貿(mào)易自由化構(gòu)成威脅。在中國“復(fù)關(guān)”問題上，ＷＴＯ組織作出了一定努力，遺憾的是由于少數(shù)貿(mào)易大國要價(jià)過高，中國仍然被排斥在外。顯然，沒有中國的參加，ＷＴＯ就不是一個(gè)完整的組織。

總之，隨著世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，國際貿(mào)易關(guān)系更加復(fù)雜，貿(mào)易范圍更為廣泛，各國的競爭日趨激烈，這一切都注定ＷＴＯ在推動(dòng)世界貿(mào)易自由化過程中將面臨更嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)。世界貿(mào)易正逐步走向全球化，如要倒退，那無疑將是把世界帶入蕭條。

四、自由貿(mào)易的必然性與ＷＴＯ能力的有限性

就自由貿(mào)易而言，其所以會(huì)成為一種必然，是因?yàn)椋梗澳暌詠硎袌鼋?jīng)濟(jì)在全世界范圍的展開已成為一種不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的歷史趨勢(shì)；ＷＴＯ這一較強(qiáng)大的貿(mào)易自由化組織的推動(dòng)；加之全球經(jīng)濟(jì)“一體化”的進(jìn)程等，都為自由貿(mào)易的開展提供了有利條件。而且，更重要的是，二次世界大戰(zhàn)以來，國際貿(mào)易自由化是生產(chǎn)和資本國際化，國際分工的深度與廣度上的發(fā)展，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的迅速恢復(fù)和發(fā)展，跨國公司的大量出現(xiàn)的結(jié)果，它們反映了世界經(jīng)濟(jì)和生產(chǎn)力發(fā)展內(nèi)在必然性。

但是，貿(mào)易自由化的發(fā)展卻是不平衡的：發(fā)達(dá)國家之間的貿(mào)易自由化超過了它們同發(fā)展中國家的貿(mào)易自由化及發(fā)展中國家之間的貿(mào)易自由化；區(qū)域性經(jīng)濟(jì)集團(tuán)內(nèi)部的貿(mào)易自由化超過了同集團(tuán)外國家的貿(mào)易自由化；就商品而言，工業(yè)制成品的貿(mào)易自由化超過了農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的貿(mào)易自由化；機(jī)器設(shè)備的貿(mào)易自由化超過了工業(yè)消費(fèi)品尤其是“敏感性”的勞動(dòng)密集型產(chǎn)品的貿(mào)易自由化。從而形成了有選擇性的貿(mào)易，并在一定程度上與貿(mào)易保護(hù)相結(jié)合。不平衡發(fā)展的貿(mào)易自由化還具有一定的排它性。就新貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義的特點(diǎn)來看，它主要是發(fā)達(dá)國家在貿(mào)易自由化的基礎(chǔ)上發(fā)展而來的，并與之并存；各國“獎(jiǎng)出限入”的重點(diǎn)從限制進(jìn)口轉(zhuǎn)向獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)出口；以非關(guān)稅壁壘為主，貿(mào)易保護(hù)措施多樣化；被保護(hù)的商品不斷增加；從貿(mào)易保護(hù)制度轉(zhuǎn)向更系統(tǒng)化的管理貿(mào)易制度，強(qiáng)調(diào)政府干預(yù)和管理貿(mào)易，如克林頓動(dòng)員了一大批美國政府機(jī)構(gòu)，為美國企業(yè)制定了第一個(gè)“國家出口戰(zhàn)略”，３年里，美國企業(yè)的業(yè)績證明他是成功的（武躍，１９９６）。又如，歐洲國家政府投資２５０億馬克研制“空中客車”，并每年巨額補(bǔ)貼維持營運(yùn)，到１９９３年其營業(yè)額終于擊敗了波音，成為世界第一。

從發(fā)達(dá)國家新貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義增長的根源來看：主要是因?yàn)槭澜缧援a(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整與利益集團(tuán)間的矛盾；世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的蕭條和不穩(wěn)定增長；國際貿(mào)易與國際收支的不平衡發(fā)展。在這里，由于眾多不同發(fā)展層次的國家存在，產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)的調(diào)整將不斷進(jìn)行下去，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的周期性發(fā)展也將繼續(xù)下去。進(jìn)而，國際經(jīng)濟(jì)的不平衡發(fā)展不僅在發(fā)達(dá)國家之間存在，在發(fā)展中國家之間及它們與發(fā)達(dá)國家之間還將存在，這些根源都將為貿(mào)易保護(hù)的存在提供土壤。

而且還應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)，“烏拉圭回合”的結(jié)果仍然存在不平衡，并且其貿(mào)易自由化措施是逐步實(shí)施的，對(duì)各

國的影響也將逐步發(fā)生和體現(xiàn)出來。發(fā)達(dá)國家特別是歐、美、日將是主要的受益國，因?yàn)槭澜缳Q(mào)易的大部分是它們之間進(jìn)行的。由于１０年內(nèi)徹底取消對(duì)發(fā)展中國家進(jìn)口紡織品和服裝的非關(guān)稅壁壘，一些新興的工業(yè)化國家將從中獲益，一些經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展較為落后的發(fā)展中國家則面臨著更為嚴(yán)峻的考驗(yàn)。關(guān)鍵的問題在于，ＷＴＯ推行的貿(mào)易自由化原則無法解決國家之間經(jīng)濟(jì)技術(shù)水平差距。這樣，在其原則前提下的各種例外就完全有可能使不同類型的國家在認(rèn)可其原則的基礎(chǔ)上，又利用有關(guān)條款筑起新的貿(mào)易壁壘。

不能否認(rèn)的是，美國等發(fā)達(dá)國家仍將主宰著ＷＴＯ。它們憑借其經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力駕馭ＷＴＯ。從克林頓政府主張政府積極參與對(duì)外貿(mào)易事務(wù)，變“自由貿(mào)易”政策為“公平貿(mào)易”政策，并開始實(shí)施戰(zhàn)略貿(mào)易政策，到克氏政府的一系列貿(mào)易行動(dòng)（包括阻撓中國復(fù)關(guān)）和態(tài)度也提醒我們，一旦ＷＴＯ的有關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)其不利，就很難保證不被踐踏，畢竟在國際經(jīng)濟(jì)中，國家利益還是至高無上的。作為一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)“聯(lián)合國”，其所起的作用恐怕不會(huì)比聯(lián)合國強(qiáng)多少，雖然它能在某種程度上起到抑制強(qiáng)權(quán)的作用，但也不能保證不被強(qiáng)權(quán)所利用。有鑒于此，中國對(duì)加入ＷＴＯ應(yīng)有足夠的思想準(zhǔn)備。ＷＴＯ也只是一個(gè)國際組織，實(shí)質(zhì)上是各成員國利益均衡和分配的結(jié)果，它不可能建設(shè)成為一個(gè)具有超國家性質(zhì)的組織機(jī)構(gòu)，因而它無法平衡來自內(nèi)部或外部的沖擊。不僅如此，它還必須面對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)的國際政治變化作出靈活反應(yīng)，否則它就無法生存下去。盡管ＷＴＯ能推進(jìn)貿(mào)易自由化，貿(mào)易保護(hù)也決非是暫時(shí)的，它將與自由貿(mào)易并存于世界貿(mào)易自由化的進(jìn)程之中。ＷＴＯ并不能保證成員國一定能自動(dòng)享受到ＷＴＯ的益處，而只是提供了一個(gè)參與競爭的機(jī)會(huì)。加入ＷＴＯ并不僅僅是單純?yōu)楂@得穩(wěn)定的最惠國待遇等ＷＴＯ所規(guī)定的益處，更為重要的是，通過加入ＷＴＯ將國際貿(mào)易中通行的規(guī)則和規(guī)范適用于中國的對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)和貿(mào)易，引入更高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的國際競爭壓力和動(dòng)力，來促進(jìn)外貿(mào)和與之相配套的經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的全面改革，建立一種開放型的市場機(jī)制和一整套與之相適應(yīng)的規(guī)范和宏觀調(diào)控手段。使國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)和對(duì)外貿(mào)易都能按經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)律和國際慣例辦事，進(jìn)而促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，增強(qiáng)經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力和國際競爭力，逐步邁向自由貿(mào)易。

顯然，即使中國加入了ＷＴＯ，在自由貿(mào)易問題上，中國的國情也不允許一步到位，而只能采取過渡性貿(mào)易政策。即，要恰當(dāng)?shù)匕盐召Q(mào)易的進(jìn)程，對(duì)幼稚工業(yè)還要適度保護(hù)。這一政策既要符合國情，使國際競爭在中國目前所能承受的范圍內(nèi)，又要能有利于發(fā)展中國的生產(chǎn)力，充分發(fā)揮國內(nèi)市場機(jī)制在提高生產(chǎn)效率和資源配置效率中的作用，并與國際市場機(jī)制保持有機(jī)聯(lián)系。逐步向ＷＴＯ所要求的國際規(guī)范靠攏。期間應(yīng)該聯(lián)合大多數(shù)的發(fā)展中國家與貿(mào)易大國的強(qiáng)權(quán)進(jìn)行不懈的斗爭，以維護(hù)ＷＴＯ的信譽(yù)和權(quán)利，保證發(fā)展中國家的自身利益不受或少受侵犯。

總之，盡管有ＷＴＯ的推動(dòng)，世界經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展貿(mào)易自由化將會(huì)是主流的，但貿(mào)易保護(hù)并不會(huì)因此消亡，甚至有可能并行不悖。世界貿(mào)易自由化的進(jìn)程將是非常緩慢、曲折以至有可能會(huì)反復(fù)。

參考文獻(xiàn)

武躍：“政府采購：自由貿(mào)易的雷區(qū)”《國際商報(bào)》１９９７年１月５日。

楊廣志：“周歲看?世貿(mào)?牛刀已初試”《經(jīng)濟(jì)日?qǐng)?bào)》１９９５年１２月１５日。

班瑋：“ＷＴＯ蹣跚周歲”《中華工商時(shí)報(bào)》１９９５年１２月１３日。

任烈：《貿(mào)易保護(hù)的理論依據(jù)研究》中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院博士論文，１９９５年。

馮予蜀：《國際貿(mào)易體制下的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定與中國》對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易出版社，１９９２年。

第三篇：一篇經(jīng)濟(jì)類英文論文(含中文翻譯)

The Problem of Social Cost

社會(huì)成本問題

RONALD COASE 羅納德·科斯

Ronald Coase is Professor Emeritus at University of Chicago LawSchool and a Nobel Laureate in Economics.This article is fromThe Journal of Law and Economics(October 1960).Several passages devoted to extended discussions of legal decisions

have been omitted.羅納德·科斯在芝加哥大學(xué)法學(xué)院名譽(yù)教授和諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)得主。本文是其外法學(xué)與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)雜志（1960年10月）。專門的法律問題的決定的延伸討論的幾個(gè)

段落已被省略。

I.THE PROBLEM TO BE EXAMINED This paper is concerned with those actions of business firms which have harm-ful effects on others.The standard example is that of a factory the smoke from which has harmful effects on those occupying neighbouring properties.The economic analysis of such a situation has usually proceeded in terms of a divergence between the private and social product of the factory, in which economists have largely followed the treatment of Pigou in The Economies of Welfare.The conclusion to which this kind of analysis seems to have led most economists is that it would be desirable to make the owner of the factory li-able for the damage caused to those injured by the smoke, or alternatively, to place a tax on the factory owner varying with the amount of smoke produced and equivalent in money terms to the damage it would cause, or finally, to exclude the factory from residential districts(and presumably from other areas in which the emission of smoke would have harmful effects on others).It is my contention that the suggested courses of action are inappropriate, in that they lead to results which are not necessarily, or even usually, desirable.一、要檢查的問題

本文關(guān)注的是這些行動(dòng)的企業(yè)有傷害他人有用的影響。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的例子是，一個(gè)工廠的煙霧從那些占領(lǐng)鄰近物業(yè)的有害影響。在這種情況下的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析，通常已在工廠的私人和社會(huì)產(chǎn)品之間的分歧方面著手，在經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們基本上遵循治療庇古福利經(jīng)濟(jì)。這種分析的結(jié)論，似乎使大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家是工廠里的煙霧，或者受傷的人造成的損害能夠使雇主，這將是可取的，上放置一個(gè)稅在金錢方面的損害，或最后，它會(huì)導(dǎo)致排除住宅區(qū)（大概是從其他地區(qū)排放的煙霧將有對(duì)他人有害影響）工廠廠主不同的金額產(chǎn)生的煙霧，相當(dāng)于。行動(dòng)的建議的課程是不合適的，因?yàn)樗鼈儗?dǎo)致的結(jié)果是不一定，甚至是通常情況下，可取的，它是我的論點(diǎn)。

II.THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be made.The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong.We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature.To avoid the harm to, B would inflict harm on A.The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.I instanced in my previous article the case of a confectioner the noise and vibrations from whose machinery disturbed a doctor in his work.To avoid harming the doctor would inflict harm on the confectioner.The problem posed by this case was essentially whether it was worth while, as a result of restricting the methods of production which could be used by the confectioner, to secure more doctoring at the cost of a reduced supply of confectionery products.Another example is afforded by the problem of straying cattle which destroy crops on neighbouring land.If it is inevitable that some cattle will stray, all increase in the supply of meat can only be obtained at the expense of a decrease in the supply of crops.The nature of the choice is clear: meat or crops.What answer should be given is, of course, not clear unless we know the value of what is obtained as well as the value of what is sacrificed to obtain it.To give another example, Professor George J.Stigler instances the contamination of a stream.If we assume that the harmful effect of the pollution is that it kills the fish, the question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible.It goes almost without saying that this problem has to be looked at in total and at the margin.二、互惠性的問題

傳統(tǒng)的做法往往掩蓋作出的選擇，自然。這個(gè)問題通常被認(rèn)為作為一個(gè)在B上一個(gè)敵人造成的傷害和什么要決定的是：我們應(yīng)該如何抑制一個(gè)？但這是錯(cuò)誤的。我們正在處理的互惠性質(zhì)的問題。為了避免傷害，B將A上造成的危害，真正的問題，必須決定是：應(yīng)該允許A損害B或應(yīng)允許B傷害嗎？問題是要避免更嚴(yán)重的傷害。我在我以前的文章中實(shí)例化一個(gè)糕點(diǎn)師的噪音和振動(dòng)機(jī)械不安醫(yī)生在他的工作情況。為了避免傷及醫(yī)生會(huì)造成傷害的糕點(diǎn)?；旧线@種情況下所造成的問題是它是否值得，作為一種限制方法可以用于糕點(diǎn)生產(chǎn)的結(jié)果，以爭取更多的糖果產(chǎn)品的供應(yīng)減少，成本篡改。另一個(gè)例子是給予由偏離破壞鄰近土地上的農(nóng)作物的牛的問題。如果這是不可避免的，一些牛會(huì)偏離，只能獲得所有的肉類供應(yīng)增加作物供應(yīng)減少開支。選擇的性質(zhì)是明確的：肉類或農(nóng)作物。應(yīng)給予什么樣的答案是，當(dāng)然，不明確的，除非我們知道得到什么價(jià)值，以及什么犧牲得到它的價(jià)值。給另一個(gè)例如，教授喬治·J.斯蒂格勒實(shí)例流的污染。如果我們假定污染的有害影響是，它殺死的魚，將要決定的問題是：是魚的價(jià)值損失大于或小于流的污染，使產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值。當(dāng)然，幾乎沒有說，這個(gè)問題要看著總保證金。

III.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I propose to start my analysis by examining a case in which most economists would presumably agree that the problem would be solved in a compeletely satisfactory manner: when the damaging business has to pay for all damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly(strictly this means that the operation of a pricing system is without cost).A good example of the problem under discussion is afforded by the case of straying cattle which destroy crops growing on neighbouring land.Let us sup-pose that a farmer and cattle-raiser are operating on neighbouring properties.Let us further suppose that, without any fencing between the properties, an increase in the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd increases the total damage to the farmer’s crops.What happens to the marginal damage as the size of the herd increases is another matter.This depends on whether the cattle tend to follow one another or to roam side by side, on whether they tend to be more or less restless as the size of the herd increases and on other similar factors.For my immediate purpose, it is immaterial what assumption is made about marginal damage as the size of the herd increases.Given that the cattle-raiser is liable for the damage caused, the additional annual cost imposed on the cattle-raiser if he increased his herd from, say, 2 to 3 steers is $3 and in deciding on the size of the herd, he will take this into account along with his other costs.That is, he will not increase the size of the herd unless the value of the additional meat produced(assuming that the cattle-raiser slaughters the cattle)is greater than the additional costs that this will entail, including the value of the additional crops destroyed.Of course, if, by the employment of dogs, herdsmen, aeroplanes, mobile radio and other means, the amount of damage can be reduced, these means will be adopted when their cost is less than the value of the crop which they prevent being lost.Given that the annual cost of fencing is $9, the cattle-raiser who wished to have a herd with 4 steers or more would pay for fencing to be erected and maintained, assuming that other means of attaining the same end would not do so more cheaply.When the fence is erected, the marginal cost due to the liability for damage becomes zero, except to the extent that an increase in the size of the herd necessitates a stronger and therefore more expensive fence because more steers are liable to lean against it at the same time.But, of course, it may be cheaper for the cattle-raiser not to fence and to pay for the damaged crops, as in my arithmetical example, with 3 or fewer steers.It might be thought that the fact that the cattle-raiser would pay for all crops damaged would lead the farmer to increase his planting if a cattle-raiser came to occupy the neighbouring property.But this is not so.If the crop was previously sold in conditions of perfect competition, marginal cost was equal to price for the amount of planting undertaken and any expansion would have reduced the profits of the farmer.In the new situation, the existence of crop damage would mean that the farmer would sell less on the open market but his receipts for a given production would remain the same, since the cattle-raiser would pay the market price for any crop damaged.Of course, if cattle-raising commonly involved the destruction of crops, the coming into existence of a cattle-raising industry might raise the price of the crops involved and farmers would then extend their planting.But I wish to confine my attention to the individual farmer.I have said that the occupation of a neighbouring property by a cattle-raiser would not cause the amount of production, or perhaps more exactly the amount of planting, by the farmer to increase.In fact, if the cattle-raising has any effect, it will be to decrease the amount of planting.The reason for this is that, for any given tract of land, if the value of the crop damaged is so great that the receipts from the sale of the undamaged crop are less than the total costs of cultivating that tract of land, it will be profitable for the farmer and the cattle-raiser to make a bargain whereby that tract of land is left uncultivated.This can be made clear by means of an arithmetical example.Assume initially that the value of the crop obtained from cultivating a given tract of land is $12 and that the cost incurred in cultivating this tract of land is $10, the net gain from cultivating the land being $2.I assume for purposes of simplicity that the farmer owns the land.Now assume that the cattle-raiser starts operations on the neighbouring property and that the value of the crops damaged is $1.In this case $11 is obtained by the farmer from sale on the market and $1 is obtained from the cattle-raiser for damage suffered and the net gain remains $2.Now suppose that the cattle-raiser finds it profitable to increase the size of his herd, even though the amount of damage rises to $3;which means that the value of the additional meat production is greater than the additional costs, including the additional $2 payment for damage.But the total payment for damage is now $3.The net gain to the farmer from cultivating the land is still $2.The cattle-raiser would be better off if the farmer would agree not to cultivate his land for any payment less than $3.The farmer would be agreeable to not cultivating the land for any payment greater than $2.There is clearly room for a mutually satisfactory bargain which would lead to the abandonment of cultivation.* But the same argument applies not only to the whole tract cultivated by the fanner but also to any subdivision of it.Suppose, for example, that the cattle have a well-defined route, say, to a brook or to a shady area.In these circumstances, the amount of damage to the crop along the route may well be great and if so, it could be that the farmer and the cattle-raiser would find it profitable to make a bargain whereby the farmer would agree not to cultivate this strip of land.But this raises a further possibility.Suppose that there is such a well de-fined route.Suppose further that the value of the crop that would be obtained by cultivating this strip of land is $10 but that the cost of cultivation is $11.In the absence of the cattle-raiser, the land would not be cultivated.However, given the presence of the cattle-raiser, it could well be that if the strip was cultivated, the whole crop would be destroyed by the cattle.In which case, the cattle-raiser would be forced to pay $10 to the farmer.It is true that the farmer would lose $1.But the cattle-raiser would lose $10.Clearly this is a situation which is not likely to last indefinitely since neither party would want this to happen.The aim of the farmer would be to induce the cattle-raiser to make a payment in return for an agreement to leave this land uncultivated.The farmer would not be able to obtain a payment greater than the cost of fencing off this piece of land nor so high as to lead the cattle-raiser to abandon the use of the neighbouring property.What payment would in fact be made would depend on the shrewdness of the farmer and the cattle-raiser as bargain-ers.But as the payment would not be so high as to cause the cattle-raiser to abandon this location and as it would not vary with the size of the herd, such an agreement would not affect the allocation of resources but would merely alter the distribution of income and wealth as between the cattle-raiser and the farmer.I think it is clear that if the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly, the reduction in the value of production elsewhere will be taken into account in computing the additional cost involved in increasing the size of the herd.This cost will be weighed against the value of the additional meat production and, given perfect competition in the cattle industry, the allocation of resources in cattle-raising will be optimal.What needs to be emphasized is that the fall in the value of production elsewhere which would be taken into account in the costs of the cattle-raiser may well be less than the damage which the cattle would cause to the crops in the ordinary course of events.This is because it is possible, as a result of market transactions, to discontinue cultivation of the land.This is desirable in all cases in which the damage that the cattle would cause, and for which the cattle-raiser would be willing to pay, exceeds the amount which the farmer would pay for use of the land.In conditions of perfect competition, the amount which the farmer would pay for the use of the land is equal to the difference between the value of the total production when the factors are employed on this land and the value of the additional product yielded in their next best use(which would be what the farmer would have to pay for the factors).If damage exceeds the amount the farmer would pay for the use of the land, the value of the additional product of the factors employed elsewhere would exceed the value of the total product in this use after damage is taken into account.It follows that it would be desirable to abandon cultivation of the land and to release the factors employed for production elsewhere.A procedure which merely provided for payment for damage to the crop caused by the cattle but which did not allow for the possibility of cultivation being discontinued would result in too small an employment of factors of production in cattle-raising and too large an employment of factors in cultivation of the crop.But given the possibility of market transactions, a situation in which damage to crops exceeded the rent of the land would not endure.Whether the cattle-raiser pays the farmer to leave the land uncultivated or himself rents the land by paying the land-owner an amount slightly greater than the farmer would pay(if the farmer was himself renting the land), the final result would be the same and would maximise the value of production.Even when the farmer is induced to plant crops which it would not be profitable to cultivate for sale on the market, this will be a purely short-term phenomenon and may be expected to lead to an agreement under which the planting will cease.The cattle-raiser will remain in that location and the marginal cost of meat production will be the same as before, thus having no long-run effect on the allocation of resources.三、損害賠償責(zé)任的定價(jià)制度 我建議開始我的分析，通過審查案件，其中多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家大概會(huì)同意將在完全令人滿意的方式解決問題的破壞性業(yè)務(wù)時(shí)支付所有所造成的損害和定價(jià)體系工程進(jìn)展順利（嚴(yán)格來說，這意味著定價(jià)制度的運(yùn)作是無成本）。

正在討論的問題的一個(gè)很好的例子是誤入牛毀壞莊稼鄰近土地上生長的情況下給予。讓我們支持對(duì)一個(gè)農(nóng)民和牛募集鄰近物業(yè)經(jīng)營。讓我們進(jìn)一步假設(shè)，沒有任何圍欄之間的屬性，在牛募集的畜群規(guī)模的增加而增加農(nóng)民的作物的總傷害。會(huì)發(fā)生什么情況，以增加畜群的大小的邊際損害的，則是另一回事。這取決于牛是否會(huì)跟隨一個(gè)或是否他們往往是牛群的增加和規(guī)模上其他類似的因素或多或少不安，漫游并排。對(duì)于我的直接目的，它是無關(guān)緊要的假設(shè)邊際損害為增加畜群的大小。

鑒于這是承擔(dān)，造成損害的額外費(fèi)用的牛的序幕征收，如果他增加從2至3閹他的畜群的牛是$3，并在決定牛群的大小，他將考慮到這一點(diǎn)，隨著他的其他費(fèi)用。也就是說，他不會(huì)提高畜群的大小，除非額外的肉產(chǎn)生的價(jià)值（假設(shè)牛的序幕屠宰的牛）的額外費(fèi)用，這將意味著，包括摧毀了其它作物的價(jià)值更大。當(dāng)然，如果就業(yè)的狗，農(nóng)牧民，飛機(jī)，移動(dòng)無線電和其他手段，可以減少損失數(shù)額，這些手段將通過他們的成本是低于價(jià)值的作物，它們可以防止丟失。由于是在擊劍成本是$9，在牛的提出者誰希望有一群4裝載機(jī)或更多將圍籬支付到被架設(shè)和維護(hù)，假設(shè)，其他手段達(dá)到同樣的目的，不是做這樣更便宜。當(dāng)圍欄架設(shè)，由于損害賠償責(zé)任的邊際成本變?yōu)榱愠某潭龋谂Ｈ阂?guī)模的增加，需要一個(gè)更強(qiáng)大，因此更昂貴的圍欄，因?yàn)楦嗟墓Ｓ胸?zé)任向它傾斜在同一時(shí)間。但是，當(dāng)然，這可能是牛募集便宜沒有圍墻受損的作物，在我算術(shù)例如，作為3個(gè)或更少的公牛，并支付。

有人可能會(huì)認(rèn)為牛募集將支付所有損壞莊稼的事實(shí)將導(dǎo)致農(nóng)民增加他的種植牛募集來占據(jù)鄰近物業(yè)。但事實(shí)并非如此。如果以前在完全競爭的條件下出售作物，邊際成本等于價(jià)格進(jìn)行種植量，任何擴(kuò)大農(nóng)民的利潤將減少。在新形勢(shì)下，農(nóng)作物損失的存在就意味著農(nóng)民將在公開市場上出售的，但他的收入為一個(gè)給定的生產(chǎn)將保持不變，因?yàn)榕Ｄ技Ц度魏纹茐淖魑锏氖袌鰞r(jià)格。當(dāng)然，如果養(yǎng)牛通常涉及毀壞莊稼，到一個(gè)養(yǎng)牛業(yè)存在的到來可能會(huì)引發(fā)涉及農(nóng)民將擴(kuò)大其種植的農(nóng)作物的價(jià)格。但我希望把我的個(gè)體農(nóng)民的關(guān)注。

我曾經(jīng)說過，占領(lǐng)鄰近由牛募集的屬性不會(huì)導(dǎo)致農(nóng)民增加的生產(chǎn)量，或者更準(zhǔn)確的種植量。事實(shí)上，如果有任何影響的養(yǎng)牛，它會(huì)減少種植量。這樣做的原因是，任何土地道，如果受損作物的價(jià)值是如此之大，從出售完好作物的收入少于培育，大片土地的總成本，這將是為農(nóng)民和牛的序幕，留下大片土地荒廢，使討價(jià)還價(jià)，即有利可圖。這可以通過一個(gè)算術(shù)例子明確。最初假設(shè)，作物耕種的土地道獲得的價(jià)值是12美元，在培育這一大片土地所需的費(fèi)用是$ 10，$ 2耕種土地的凈收益。我想簡單，農(nóng)民擁有土地的目的?，F(xiàn)在假設(shè)，在牛的提出者開始，損壞農(nóng)作物的價(jià)值$ 1.In這種情況下$ 11獲得由農(nóng)民從銷售市場和$ 1是從的牛的序幕獲得損害遭受的鄰近物業(yè)經(jīng)營凈收益仍然為2美元。現(xiàn)在想，在牛的提出者認(rèn)為它盈利增加他的畜群的大小，即使損壞的數(shù)量上升到3美元;的額外肉類生產(chǎn)的價(jià)值大于的額外費(fèi)用，包括了額外的$ 2支付損壞。但損害的支付總額是$ 3。農(nóng)民耕種土地的凈收益仍然是2元。牛的序幕，將是富裕農(nóng)民都同意，如果不培養(yǎng)他的土地，任何支付不到3美元。農(nóng)民將沒有培養(yǎng)任何大于$ 2支付土地的認(rèn)同。顯然是這將導(dǎo)致放棄種植一個(gè)雙方都滿意的討價(jià)還價(jià)的余地。*但同樣的論點(diǎn)不僅適用于整個(gè)道由電風(fēng)扇培養(yǎng)的，而且也給它的任何細(xì)分。假設(shè)，例如，牛有一個(gè)明確的路線，比方說，一條小溪或陰涼的區(qū)域。在這種情況下，對(duì)沿線作物受損金額也可能是巨大的，如果是這樣，可能是，農(nóng)民和牛募集會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)是有利可圖的討價(jià)還價(jià)，農(nóng)民同意不以培養(yǎng)狹長土地。

但是，這引發(fā)了進(jìn)一步的可能性。假設(shè)有這樣一個(gè)罰款的好路線。進(jìn)一步假設(shè)，作物的價(jià)值將獲得通過培育這個(gè)地帶是10元，但種植成本11元。在牛募集的情況下，土地不會(huì)種植。然而，給予牛募集的存在，它可能是，如果帶鋼培養(yǎng)，整個(gè)作物將牛銷毀。在這種情況下，牛募集將被迫支付10美元的農(nóng)民。這是真正的農(nóng)民將損失$1。但牛的序幕，將失去10美元。顯然，這是一個(gè)情況，這是不可能無限期地持續(xù)下去，因?yàn)槿魏我环蕉疾幌Ｍ@種情況發(fā)生。農(nóng)民的目的是誘導(dǎo)牛募集的支付換取了一項(xiàng)協(xié)議，離開這片土地荒廢。農(nóng)民將無法獲得支付大于圍欄這片土地的成本，也沒有這么高，導(dǎo)致牛募集放棄使用鄰近物業(yè)。哪些付款將在事實(shí)上將取決于作為討價(jià)還價(jià)的精明的農(nóng)民和牛募集。但作為付款就不會(huì)那么高，容易引起牛募集放棄這個(gè)位置，因?yàn)樗粫?huì)隨畜群的大小，這樣的協(xié)議不會(huì)影響資源的分配，但僅僅是改變的分布牛提出者和農(nóng)民之間的收入和財(cái)富。

我認(rèn)為這是明確的，如果牛募集造成的損失承擔(dān)責(zé)任和定價(jià)體系工程進(jìn)展順利，其他地方減少產(chǎn)值將考慮在計(jì)算涉及的額外費(fèi)用，提高畜群的大小。這筆費(fèi)用將額外的肉類生產(chǎn)的價(jià)值權(quán)衡，完美的比賽，在養(yǎng)牛業(yè)，養(yǎng)牛將是最佳的資源分配。需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，牛募集費(fèi)用，將考慮在其他地方的生產(chǎn)價(jià)值的下降可能是小于牛會(huì)導(dǎo)致在日常事件對(duì)農(nóng)作物的損害。這是因?yàn)樗强赡艿?，作為市場交易的結(jié)果，停止種植的土地。在所有情況下的破壞，會(huì)導(dǎo)致牛，牛募集愿意支付超過數(shù)額的農(nóng)民支付土地使用，這是可取的。在完全競爭的條件下，農(nóng)民支付土地使用量等于總生產(chǎn)值之間的差異的因素時(shí)，在這片土地上雇用和其他產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值在他們的未來產(chǎn)生最好的使用（這是什么農(nóng)民將不得不支付的因素）。如果損害超過數(shù)量的農(nóng)民支付土地使用，其他地方就業(yè)的因素更多的產(chǎn)品價(jià)值將超過在此使用的產(chǎn)品總價(jià)值的考慮后損壞。它如下放棄種植的土地，并釋放其他地方生產(chǎn)的因素，這將是可取的。一個(gè)程序，它只是提供付款為牛，但是這并沒有讓被停止種植的可能性造成作物受損將導(dǎo)致太小，養(yǎng)牛和太大的就業(yè)因素的生產(chǎn)要素的就業(yè)在作物的種植。但考慮到市場交易的可能性，這種情況在對(duì)農(nóng)作物的損害超過土地租金，就不能忍受。是否牛募集支付農(nóng)民離開土地荒廢，或自己租土地，由土地所有者支付金額略高于農(nóng)民將支付（如果農(nóng)民自己租用的土地），最終的結(jié)果將是相同的，將最大限度地提高生產(chǎn)的價(jià)值。即使誘導(dǎo)農(nóng)民種莊稼，它不會(huì)是有利可圖的培養(yǎng)，在市場上出售，這將是一個(gè)純粹的短期現(xiàn)象，預(yù)期可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致根據(jù)該協(xié)議將停止種植。牛募集將保持在該位置和肉類生產(chǎn)的邊際成本會(huì)像以前一樣，因此，資源的分配上沒有長期的效果。

IV.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I now turn to the case in which, although the pricing system is assumed to worksmoothly(that is, costlessly), the damaging business is not liable for any of the damage which it causes.This business does not have to make a payment to those damaged by its actions.I propose to show that the allocation of resources will be the same in this case as it was when the damaging business was liable for damage caused.As I showed in the previous case that the allocation of resources was optimal, it will not be necessary to repeat this part of the argument.I return to the case of the farmer and the cattle-raiser.The farmer would suffer increased damage to his crop as the size of the herd increased.Suppose that the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd is 3 steers(and that this is the size of the herd that would be maintained if crop damage was not taken into account).Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 2 steers, up to $5 if the herd were reduced to 1 steer and would pay up to $6 if cattle-raising was abandoned.The cattle-raiser would therefore receive 53 from the farmer if he kept 2 steers instead of 3.This $3 foregone is therefore part of the cost incurred in keeping the third steer.Whether the $3 is a payment which the cattle-raiser has to make if he adds the third steer to his herd(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)or whether it is a sum of money whichhe would have received if he did not keep a third steer(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was not liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)does not affect the final result.In both cases $3 is part of the cost of adding a third steer, to be included along with the other costs.If the increase in the value of production in cattle-raising through increasing the size of the herd from 2 to 3 is greater than the additional costs that have to be incurred(including the $3 damage to crops), the size of the herd will be increased.Otherwise, it will not.The size of the herd will be the same whether the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused to the crop or not.It may be argued that the assumed starting point—a herd of 3 steers—was arbitrary.And this is true.But the farmer would not wish to pay to avoid crop damage which the cattle-raiser would not be able to cause.For example, the maximum annual payment which the farmer could be induced to pay could not exceed $9.the annual cost of fencing.And the farmer would only be willing to pay this sum if it did not reduce his earnings to a level that would cause him to abandon cultivation of this particular tract of land.Furthermore, the farmer would only be willing to pay this amount if he believed that, in the absence of any payment by him, the size of the herd maintained by the cattle-raiser would be 4 or more steers.Let us assume that this is the case.Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 3 steers, up to $6 if the herd were reduced to 2 steers, up to $8 if one steer only were kept and up to $9 if cattle-raising were abandoned.It will be noticed that the change in the starting point has not altered the amount which would accrue to the cattle-raiser if he reduced the size of his herd by any given amount.It is still true that the cattle-raiser could receive an additional $3 from the farmer if he agreed to reduce his herd from 3 steers to 2 and that the $3 represents the value of the crop that would be destroyed by adding the third steer to the herd.Although a different belief on the part of the farmer(whether justified or not)about the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser would maintain in the absence of payments from him may affect the total payment he can be induced to pay, it is not true that this different belief would have any effect on the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser will actually keep.This will be the same as it would be if the cattle-raiser had to pay for damage caused by his cattle, since a receipt foregone of a given amount is the equivalent of a payment of the same amount.It might be thought that it would pay the cattle-raiser to increase his herd above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment.And this may be true.It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer(when the cattle-raiser was liable for damage)in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planting would subsequently be abandoned(including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle-raising).But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not affect the long-run equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the cattle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle.It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them.But the ultimate result(which maximises the value of production)is independent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work without cost.四、無損害賠償責(zé)任的電價(jià)體系

現(xiàn)在我想談?wù)劙钢校m然定價(jià)體系工作的順利開展（即，無成本），損壞業(yè)務(wù)是不會(huì)造成任何損害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。此業(yè)務(wù)并沒有使那些破壞其行動(dòng)付款。我建議，以表明在這種情況下，資源的分配將是相同的，因?yàn)樗瞧茐男缘钠髽I(yè)造成的損失承擔(dān)責(zé)任時(shí)。正如我在前面的例子表明，最佳的資源分配，它不會(huì)是必要的重復(fù)這部分的說法。我回到了農(nóng)民和牛募集的情況下。農(nóng)民會(huì)受到他的牛群的規(guī)模增加作物的傷害增加。假設(shè)牛募集的畜群的大小是3裝載機(jī)（，這將保持對(duì)作物的損害，如果不考慮畜群的大?。?。那么，農(nóng)民將是愿意以支付高達(dá)3美元的牛的提出者是否會(huì)減少他的畜群2裝載機(jī)，高達(dá)500如果牛群被減少到1引導(dǎo)和將支付高達(dá)6元如果養(yǎng)牛被遺棄。牛序幕從農(nóng)民將因此獲得53，如果他保持2裝載機(jī)，而不是3。這個(gè)耗資3損失，因此在保持第三督導(dǎo)所需的費(fèi)用的一部分。無論是3美元，是1支付其中的牛的提出者有，如果他增加了第三次帶領(lǐng)他的羊群（其中它會(huì)是在牛的提出者是否可農(nóng)民對(duì)作物造成的損害）或是否它是1錢，他將已收到的，如果他不保持第三督導(dǎo)（這將是牛募集到農(nóng)民對(duì)作物造成的損害不承擔(dān)任何責(zé)任）的總和，不影響最終結(jié)果。在這兩種情況下$ 3是第三督導(dǎo)，與其他費(fèi)用一起被列入成本的一部分。大于，以將招致包括的$ 3損壞農(nóng)作物的額外成本，通過增加大小鬼從2至3養(yǎng)牛生產(chǎn)價(jià)值的增加是否，牛群的規(guī)模將是增加。否則，它不會(huì)。畜群的大小將是相同的牛募集是否是作物或造成的損失承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

它可能被認(rèn)為是武斷的假定出發(fā)點(diǎn)了3肉牛畜群。這是真實(shí)的。但農(nóng)民不希望要避免牛募集將無法造成的農(nóng)作物損失。例如，可誘導(dǎo)農(nóng)民支付每年最高支付不能超過9美元。擊劍的成本。和農(nóng)民只會(huì)愿意支付這筆如果它沒有減少他的收入水平，將導(dǎo)致他放棄這片土地特別是道種植。此外，農(nóng)民才會(huì)愿意支付這筆款項(xiàng)，如果他相信，在任何由他支付的情況下，牛募集保持畜群的大小是4個(gè)或更多的指導(dǎo)。讓我們假設(shè)是這種情況。那么，農(nóng)民將是愿意以支付高達(dá)3美元的牛的提出者是否會(huì)減少他的牛群3裝載機(jī)，6元如果牛群分別減少2裝載機(jī)，至8元，如果1轉(zhuǎn)向只被保持和上升到$9，如果養(yǎng)牛被遺棄。它將會(huì)看到，在起點(diǎn)的變化并沒有改變的金額將撥歸牛的序幕，如果他任何給定的金額減少了他的畜群規(guī)模。它是仍然真實(shí)，在牛的提出者可以接收從農(nóng)民1額外的$3，如果他同意減少他的牛群3裝載機(jī)2添加第三3美元表示的，將被破壞作物的價(jià)值引導(dǎo)到牛群。雖然部分農(nóng)民對(duì)不同的信仰，對(duì)大小牛群，牛募集將保持在他付款的情況下（是否正當(dāng)與否），可能會(huì)影響他可誘發(fā)支付的總支付，它是不正確的，這種不同的信仰，實(shí)際上將保持牛群牛募集規(guī)模上有任何的影響。這將是相同的，因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)是牛的序幕，如果不得不支付他的牛造成的損害，因?yàn)槭盏揭粋€(gè)給定的金額損失相當(dāng)于支付相同數(shù)額。

它可能會(huì)認(rèn)為這將支付的牛的序幕，以增加他的畜群以上的規(guī)模，他希望保持已經(jīng)取得了一次討價(jià)還價(jià)，以促使農(nóng)民作出更大的支付總額。這可能是真實(shí)的。它在本質(zhì)上是相似的農(nóng)民行動(dòng)（當(dāng)牛募集的損害賠償責(zé)任），在培養(yǎng)上，為土地了與牛募集的協(xié)議的結(jié)果，種植隨后將被拋棄（包括土地，在養(yǎng)牛的情況下不能種植）在所有。但是，這些演習(xí)是達(dá)成協(xié)議的預(yù)賽和不影響長期均衡的位置，這是牛募集與否舉行的關(guān)于他的牛所帶來的農(nóng)作物損失負(fù)責(zé)。

它是要知道是否是因?yàn)闆]有建立這種權(quán)利的初始劃定不可能有沒有市場交易，轉(zhuǎn)讓和重組造成的損害不承擔(dān)責(zé)任或損害商業(yè)。但最終的結(jié)果（產(chǎn)值最大化）是獨(dú)立的法律地位，如果定價(jià)體系被假定為無成本。

V.THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW

The harmful effects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms.An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill.A recent case in Florida which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel.The problem of straying cattle and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination in the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rather a special case, is in fact but one example of a problem which arises in many different guises.To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, I propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases.Let us first reconsider the case of Sturges v.Bridgman which I used as an illustration of the general problem In my article on “The Federal Communica-tions Commission.” In this case, a confectioner(in Wigmore Street)used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business(one had been in opera-tion in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years).A doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises(in Wimpole Street).The confectioner’s machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner’s kitchen.It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner’s machinery made it difficult for the doctor to use his new consulting room.“In particular...the noise prevented him from examining his patients by auscultation for diseases of the chest.He also found it impossible to engage with effect in any occupation which required thought and attention.” The doctor therefore brought a legal action to force the confectioner to stop using his machinery.The courts had lit-tle difficulty in granting the doctor the injunction he sought.“Individual cases of hardship may occur in the strict carrying out of the principle upon which we found our judgment, but the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship, and would at the same time produce a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes.”

The court’s decision established that the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner from using his machinery.But, of course, it would have been possible to modify the arrangements envisaged in the legal ruling by means of a bargain between the parties.The doctor would have been willing to waive his right and allow the machinery to continue in operation if the confectioner would have paid him a sum of money which was greater than the loss of income which he would suffer from having to move to a more costly or less convenient location or from having to curtail his activities at this location or, as was suggested as a possibility, from having to build a separate wall which would deaden the noise and vibration.The confectioner would have been willing to do this if the amount he would have to pay the doctor was less than the fall in income he would suffer if he had to change his mode of operation at this location, abandon his operation or move his confectionery business to some other location.The solution of the problem depends essentially on whether the continued use of the machinery adds more to the confectioner’s income than it subtracts from doctor’s.But now consider the situation if the confectioner had won the case.The confectioner would then have had the right to continue operating his noise and vibration-generating machinery without having to pay anything to the doctor.The boot would have been on the other foot: the doctor would have had to pay the confectioner to induce him to stop using the machinery.If the doctor’s income would have fallen more through continuance of the use of this machinery than it added to the income of the confectioner, there would clearly be room for a bargain whereby the doctor paid the confectioner to stop using the machinery.That is to say, the circumstances in which it would not pay the confectioner to continue to use the machinery and to compensate the doctor for the losses that this would bring(if the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner’s using his machinery)would be those in which it would be in the interest of the doctor to make a payment to the confectioner which would induce him to discontinue the use of the machinery(if the confectioner had the right to operate the machinery).The basic conditions are exactly the same in this case as they were in the example of the cattle which destroyed crops.With costless market transactions, the decision of the courts concerning liability for damage would be without effect on the allocation of resources.It was of course the view of the judges that they were affecting the working of the economic system-and in a desirable direction.Any other decision would have had “a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes,” an argument which was elaborated by examining the example of a forge operating on a barren moor.which was later developed for residential purposes.The judges’ view that they were settling how the land was to be used would be true only in the case in which the costs of carrying out the necessary market transactions exceeded the gain which might be achieved by any rearrangement of rights.And it would be desirable to preserve the areas(Wimpole Street or the moor)for residential or professional use(by giving non-industrial users the right to stop the noise, vibration, smoke, etc., by injunction)only if the value of the additional residential facilities obtained was greater than the value of cakes or iron lost.But of this the judges seem to have been unaware.The reasoning employed by the courts in determining legal rights will often seem strange to an economist because many of the factors on which the decision turns are, to an economist, irrelevant.Because of this, situations which are, from an economic point of view, identical will be treated quite differently by the courts.The economic problem in all cases of harmful effects is how to maximise the value of production.In the case of Bass v.Gregory fresh air was drawn in through the well which facilitated the production of beer but foul air was expelled through the well which made life in the adjoining houses less pleasant.The economic problem was to decide which to choose: a lower cost of beer and worsened amenities in adjoining houses or a higher cost of beer and improved amenities.In deciding this question, the “doctrine of lost grant” is as relevant as the colour of the judge’s eyes.But it has to be remembered that the immediate question faced by the courts is not what shall be done by whom but who has the legal right to do what.It is always possible to modify by transactions on the market the initial legal delimitation of rights.And, of course, if such market transactions are costless, such a rearrangement of rights will always take place if it would lead to an increase in the value of production.五、存在問題的再目錄

業(yè)務(wù)活動(dòng)的有害影響，可以承擔(dān)各種各樣的形式。早期的英國案例，涉及建筑，阻礙氣流，阻礙了風(fēng)車的運(yùn)作。在佛羅里達(dá)州的一個(gè)最近的案例涉及建筑的小屋投下了陰影，鄰近酒店的游泳池和日光浴地區(qū)。誤入牛和破壞性的作物，這是前兩個(gè)部分的詳細(xì)檢查，雖然它可能已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)，而成為一個(gè)特殊的情況的問題，實(shí)際上是一個(gè)問題，在許多不同的形式出現(xiàn)的一個(gè)例子。為了闡明我的論點(diǎn)的本質(zhì)，并展示其普遍適用性，我建議重新參考四個(gè)實(shí)際案例來說明。

首先，讓我們重新斯特奇斯訴布里奇曼的情況下，我在我的文章“聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)。”在這種情況下的一般問題的說明，糕點(diǎn)（Wigmore街道）使用了迫擊炮和杵在與他的業(yè)務(wù)（一直在歌劇中，60歲以上和其他在同一位置超過26年）的連接。醫(yī)生后來占據(jù)鄰近樓宇（在Wimpole街）。糕點(diǎn)機(jī)械醫(yī)生造成任何傷害，直到8年后，他第一次占領(lǐng)的前提下，他建立了一個(gè)在他對(duì)糕點(diǎn)的廚房花園年底診室。它然后被發(fā)現(xiàn)，糕點(diǎn)的機(jī)械噪聲和振動(dòng)造成難以醫(yī)生用他的新診室?！坝绕涫?。。噪音阻止他檢查他的病人聽診胸部疾病。他還發(fā)現(xiàn)了它不可能與從事任何職業(yè)，這需要思想和注意力的效果?！耙虼?，醫(yī)生帶來了法律的行動(dòng)，以迫使糕點(diǎn)停止使用他的機(jī)械。法院給予他尋求醫(yī)生的禁令點(diǎn)燃地幔困難?！霸趪?yán)格執(zhí)行的原則后，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)我們的判斷，個(gè)別情況下可能會(huì)發(fā)生困難，但這一原則的否定甚至?xí)?dǎo)致更多的個(gè)人困難，將在同一時(shí)間產(chǎn)生不利影響的發(fā)展后1土地作住宅用途?！?/p>

讓我們先來法院的判決確定，醫(yī)生的權(quán)利，以防止糕點(diǎn)師用他的機(jī)械。但是，當(dāng)然，這將有可能修改在法律裁決的安排設(shè)想通過各方之間的討價(jià)還價(jià)。醫(yī)生會(huì)愿意放棄他的權(quán)利，并讓機(jī)器繼續(xù)運(yùn)作，如果糕點(diǎn)師將付給他一筆錢，這是大于收入的損失，他將遭受不利影響或移動(dòng)到較為昂貴的不太方便的位置，或從他在這個(gè)位置，以減少活動(dòng)，或者是作為一種可能性的建議，從建立一個(gè)單獨(dú)的墻，這將緩和的噪聲和振動(dòng)。糕點(diǎn)會(huì)一直愿意這樣做，如果他將不得不支付醫(yī)生的金額小于收入下降，他將遭受如果他改變他的運(yùn)作模式，在這個(gè)位置放棄他的行動(dòng)或移動(dòng)他的糖果業(yè)務(wù)一些其他的位置。問題的解決，根本上取決于是否繼續(xù)使用的機(jī)械增加了更多的糕點(diǎn)師的收入比從醫(yī)生的減去。但現(xiàn)在考慮的情況，如果糕點(diǎn)師曾贏得了這場官司。糕點(diǎn)，然后將有權(quán)利繼續(xù)他的噪音和振動(dòng)產(chǎn)生的機(jī)械操作，而無需支付任何費(fèi)用醫(yī)生。引導(dǎo)已在另一只腳：醫(yī)生將不得不支付的糕點(diǎn)，以誘使他停止使用機(jī)器。如果醫(yī)生的收入將通過繼續(xù)使用這種機(jī)器比它添加到糕點(diǎn)的收入下降，顯然是有，據(jù)此醫(yī)生支付的糕點(diǎn)停止使用的機(jī)械討價(jià)還價(jià)的余地。也就是說，的情況下，在其中它會(huì)不支付的糕點(diǎn)繼續(xù)使用機(jī)械和以彌補(bǔ)的損失，這會(huì)帶來醫(yī)生（如果醫(yī)生不得不以防止對(duì)糕點(diǎn)的用他的機(jī)器的權(quán)利）將是它會(huì)在醫(yī)生的利益作出支付的糕點(diǎn)，這將促使他停止使用的機(jī)器（如糕點(diǎn)有經(jīng)營權(quán)的機(jī)械）。正是在這種情況下的基本條件相同，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)谂?，莊稼被毀的例子?；ㄥX的市場交易中，有關(guān)損害賠償責(zé)任的法院的決定將是沒有對(duì)資源分配的影響。這是當(dāng)然的法官認(rèn)為，他們影響的經(jīng)濟(jì)體系，在一個(gè)理想的方向工作。有任何其他決定“后，土地開發(fā)作住宅用途1的不利影響，”這是一個(gè)貧瘠的荒野上通過檢查一個(gè)鐵匠鋪操作系統(tǒng)的例子闡述論點(diǎn)。后來發(fā)展為住宅用途。法官認(rèn)為，他們要使用的土地是如何被解決，將是真實(shí)的，只有在案件中，開展必要的市場交易的成本超過可能被重排的任何權(quán)利方面所取得的收益。，這將是可取的，如果只保留價(jià)值的住宅或?qū)I(yè)領(lǐng)域（Wimpole街或沼地）（非工業(yè)用戶有權(quán)停止禁令的噪聲，振動(dòng)，煙霧等，通過）獲得額外的住宿設(shè)施是大于蛋糕或丟失的鐵的價(jià)值。但法官似乎已經(jīng)不知道。

在確定的法律權(quán)利由法院聘請(qǐng)的推理往往會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家似乎很奇怪，因?yàn)樵S多因素上決定輪流，一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，不相干的。正因?yàn)槿绱?，這是的情況下，從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來看，相同的將被視為完全不同的法院。在所有情況下的有害影響的經(jīng)濟(jì)問題是如何最大限度地提高生產(chǎn)的價(jià)值。在巴斯訴格雷戈里新鮮空氣的情況下制定通過的好，這有利于生產(chǎn)的啤酒，但污濁的空氣，通過在毗鄰的房子不太愉快的生活以及開除。經(jīng)濟(jì)問題是決定選擇：啤酒更低的成本和惡化，毗鄰的房屋或設(shè)施的啤酒和改進(jìn)設(shè)施的成本較高。在決定這個(gè)問題，“批丟失的教義”，是法官的眼睛顏色有關(guān)。但要記住，法院所面臨的切身問題不應(yīng)當(dāng)由誰來做什么，但誰擁有合法權(quán)利做什么。它始終是可能的修改市場上交易的初始權(quán)利的法律劃界。當(dāng)然，如果這樣的市場交易是無成本，這樣的權(quán)重排總是會(huì)發(fā)生，如果它會(huì)導(dǎo)致增加產(chǎn)值。

VI.THE COST OF MARKET TRANSACTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

The argument has proceeded up to this point on the assumption(explicit in Sections III and IV and tacit in Section V)that there were no costs involved in carrying out market transactions.This is, of course, a very unrealistic assump-tion.In order to carry out a market transaction it is necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading up to a bargain, to draw up the contract, to undertake the inspection needed to make sure that the terms of the contract are being observed and so on.These operations are often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost.In earlier sections, when dealing with the problem of the rearrangement of legal rights through the market, it was argued that such a rearrangement would be made through the market whenever this would lead to an increase in the value of production.But this assumed costless market transactions.Once the costs of carrying out market transactions are taken into account it is clear that such a rearrangement of rights will only be undertaken when the increase in the value of production consequent upon the rearrangement is greater than the costs which would be involved in bringing it about.When it is less, the granting of an injunction(or the knowledge that it would be granted)or the liability to pay damages may result in an activity being discontinued(or may prevent its being started)which would be undertaken if market transactions were costless.In these conditions the initial delimitation of legal rights does have an effect on the efficiency with which the economic system operates.One arrangement of rights may bring about a greater value of production than any other.But unless this is the arrangement of rights established by the legal system, the costs of reaching the same result by altering and combining rights through the market may be so great that this optimal arrangement of rights, and the greater value of production which it would bring, may never be achieved.The part played by economic considerations in the process of delimiting legal rights will be discussed in the next section.In this section, I will take the initial delimitation of rights and the costs of carrying out market transactions as given.It is clear that an alternative form of economic organisation which could achieve the same result at less cost than would be incurred by using the market value of production to be raised.As I explained many years ago, the firm represents such an alternative to organising production through market transactions.Within the firm individual bargains between the various cooperating factors of production are eliminated and for a market transaction is substituted an administrative decision.The rearrangement of production then takes place without the need for bargains between the owners of the factors of production.A landowner who has control of a large tract of land may devote his land to various uses taking into account the effect that the interrelations of the various activities will have on the net return of the land, thus rendering unnecessary bargains between those undertaking the various activities.Owners of a large building or of several adjoining properties in a given area may act in much the same way.In effect, using our earlier terminology, the firm would acquire the legal rights of all the parties and the rearrangement of activities would not follow on a rearrangement of rights by contract, but as a result of an administrative decision as to how the rights should be used.It does not, of course, follow that the administrative costs of organizing a transaction through a firm are inevitably less than the costs of the market transactions which are superseded.But where contracts are peculiarly diffi-cult to draw up and an attempt to describe what the parties have agreed to do or not to do(e.g.the amount and kind of a smell or noise that they may make or will not make)would necessitate a lengthy and highly involved docu-ment, and, where, as is probable, a long-term contract would be desirable, it would be hardly surprising if the emergence of a firm or the extension of the activities of an existing firm was not the solution adopted on many occasions to deal with the problem of harmful effects.This solution would be adopted whenever the administrative costs of the firm were less than the costs of the market transactions that it supersedes and the gains which would result from the rearrangement of activities greater than the firm’s costs of organising them.I do not need to examine in great detail the character of this solution since I have explained what is involved in my earlier article.But the firm is not the only possible answer to this problem.The admin-istrative costs of organising transactions within the firm may also be high, and particularly so when many diverse activities are brought within the control of a single organisation.In the standard case of a smoke nuisance, which may affect a vast number of people engaged in a wide variety of activities, the adminis-trative costs might well be so high as to make any attempt to deal with the problem within the confines of a single firm impossible.An alternative solution is direct government regulation.Instead of instituting a legal system of rights which can be modified by transactions on the market, the government may im-pose regulations which state what people must or must not do and which have to be obeyed.Thus, the government(by statute or perhaps more likely through an administrative agency)may, to deal with the problem of smoke nuisance, used(e.g.that smoke preventing devices should be installed or that coal or oil should not be burned)or may confine certain types of business to certain districts(zoning regulations).The government is, in a sense, a superfirm(but of a very special kind)since it is able to influence the use of factors of production by administrative decision.But the ordinary firm is subject to cheeks in its operations because of the competition of other firms, which might administer the same activities at lower cost and also because there is always the alternative of market transactions as against organisation within the firm if the administrative costs become too great.The government is able, if it wishes, to avoid the market altogether, which a firm can never do.The firm has to make market agreements with the owners of the factors of production that it uses.Just as the government can conscript or seize property, so it can decree that factors of production should only be used in such-and-such a way.Such authoritarian methods save a lot of trouble(for those doing the organising).Furthermore, the government has at its disposal the police and the other law enforcement agencies to make sure that its regulations are carried out.It is clear that the government has powers which might enable it to get some things done at a lower cost than could a private organisation(or at any rate one without special governmental powers).But the governmental admin-istrative machine is not itself costless.It can, in fact, on occasion be extremely costly.Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the restrictive and zoning regulations, made by a fallible administration subject to political pres-sures and operating without any competitive check, will necessarily always be those which increase the efficiency with which the economic system operates.Furthermore, such general regulations which must apply to a wide variety of cases will be enforced in some cases in which they are clearly inappropriate.From these considerations it follows that direct governmental regulation will not necessarily give better results than leaving the problem to be solved by the market or the firm.But equally there is no reason why, on occasion, such governmental administrative regulation should not lead to an improvement in economic efficiency.This would seem particularly likely when, as is normally the case with the smoke nuisance, a large number of people are involved and in which therefore the costs of handling the problem through the market or the firm may be high.There is, of course, a further alternative which is to do nothing about the problem at all.And given that the costs involved in solving the problem by regulations issued by the governmental administrative machine will often be heavy(particularly if the costs are interpreted to include all the consequences which follow from the government engaging in this kind of activity), it will no doubt be commonly the case that the gain which would come from regulating the actions which give rise to the harmful effects will be less than the costs involved in government regulation.The discussion of the problem of harmful effects in this section(when the costs of market transactions are taken into account)is extremely inadequate.But at least it has made clear that the problem is one of choosing the appro-priate social arrangement for dealing with the harmful effects.All solutions have costs and there is no reason to suppose that government regulation is called for simply because the problem is not well handled by the market or the firm.Satisfactory views on policy can only come from a patient study of how, in practice, the market, firms and governments handle the problem of harmful effects.Economists need to study the work of the broker in bring-ing parties together, the effectiveness of restrictive covenants, the problems of the large-scale real-estate development company, the operation of government zoning and other regulating activities.It is my belief that economists, and policy-makers generally, have tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation.But this belief, even if justified, does not do more than suggest that government regulation should be curtailed.It does not tell us where the boundary line should be drawn.This, it seems to me, has to come from a detailed investigation of the actual results of handling the problem in different ways.But it would be unfortunate if this investigation were undertaken with the aid of a faulty economic analysis.The aim of this article is to indicate what the economic approach to the problem should be.六、考慮市場交易成本

參數(shù)已進(jìn)行到這一點(diǎn)（在第三節(jié)和第四節(jié)和第五節(jié)默契在明確）有開展市場交易不涉及成本的假設(shè)。當(dāng)然，這是一個(gè)非常不現(xiàn)實(shí)的假設(shè)。為了進(jìn)行市場交易，這是必要的，發(fā)現(xiàn)它是一個(gè)愿望，處理，告知人有意愿來處理和在什么條件下，進(jìn)行討價(jià)還價(jià)的談判，起草合同，進(jìn)行必要的檢查，以確保合同條款等正在觀察。無論如何，以防止將進(jìn)行無成本定價(jià)體系工作的世界中，許多交易，這些操作往往非常昂貴，充分昂貴。

在前面的章節(jié)中，與重排，通過市場的合法權(quán)益的問題進(jìn)行處理時(shí)，有人認(rèn)為，這種重排，將通過市場時(shí)，這將導(dǎo)致產(chǎn)值的增加。但這種假設(shè)不花錢的市場交易。一旦考慮到進(jìn)行市場交易的成本很顯然，這樣的權(quán)重排時(shí)，將只進(jìn)行重排后的生產(chǎn)值增加大于這將帶來約涉及的費(fèi)用。當(dāng)它是少，授予強(qiáng)制令（或?qū)⒈皇谟璧闹R(shí)）或支付損害賠償?shù)呢?zé)任，可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致被停止活動(dòng)的（或可能妨礙其正在啟動(dòng)），如果市場交易是無成本的，將進(jìn)行。在這種情況下，初步劃定的合法權(quán)利，也有經(jīng)濟(jì)體制與經(jīng)營效率的影響。一個(gè)安排的權(quán)利，可能會(huì)帶來更大的價(jià)值比任何其他的生產(chǎn)。但除非這是規(guī)定的權(quán)利的法律制度安排，達(dá)到相同的結(jié)果，改變，并通過市場相結(jié)合的權(quán)利的成本可能是最佳的安排，這種權(quán)利和生產(chǎn)更大的價(jià)值，它會(huì)帶來如此巨大，可能永遠(yuǎn)無法實(shí)現(xiàn)。經(jīng)濟(jì)上的考慮在劃定的法律權(quán)利的過程中發(fā)揮的部分將在下一節(jié)中討論。在本節(jié)中，我將采取初步劃定的權(quán)利和進(jìn)行市場交易，給定的費(fèi)用。

這是另一種形式的經(jīng)濟(jì)組織可以以更低的成本實(shí)現(xiàn)相同的結(jié)果，將利用市場發(fā)生將使產(chǎn)值提高。正如我解釋了很多年前，該公司表示這種通過市場交易來組織生產(chǎn)的替代。在企業(yè)內(nèi)部生產(chǎn)要素之間的各種合作的個(gè)人討價(jià)還價(jià)被淘汰，市場交易取代行政決定。然后重新安排生產(chǎn)，而不需要對(duì)生產(chǎn)要素的所有者之間討價(jià)還價(jià)的地方。一個(gè)地主有一大片土地的控制，考慮各種用途的土地純收益的效果，各項(xiàng)活動(dòng)的相互關(guān)系，將有可能把自己的土地，從而使開展的各項(xiàng)活動(dòng)之間的不必要的討價(jià)還價(jià)。大型建筑，或在某一領(lǐng)域的幾個(gè)毗鄰物業(yè)的業(yè)主可能在大致相同的方式行事。效果，在使用我們前面的術(shù)語，該公司將收購所有各方和重排的活動(dòng)不會(huì)按照一個(gè)由合同權(quán)利的重排的合法權(quán)益，但作為一個(gè)行政決定的權(quán)利應(yīng)該如何使用。

當(dāng)然，它不遵循，通過企業(yè)組織交易的行政費(fèi)用是不可避免的比被取代的市場交易成本。但合同是獨(dú)有很難邪教組織制訂和試圖說明什么各方都同意這樣做或不這樣做（如氣味或噪音，他們可能不會(huì)讓的數(shù)量和種類）將須漫長和高度參與的實(shí)況，并在那里，是可能的，長期的合同將是可取的，這將是不足為奇的，如果出現(xiàn)公司或擴(kuò)建現(xiàn)有企業(yè)的活動(dòng)是不是解決問題的方法通過多次處理有害影響的問題。該解決方案將通過時(shí)，該公司的行政費(fèi)用不到的，它取代了市場交易的成本和收益，這將導(dǎo)致重排的活動(dòng)大于組織他們公司的成本。我不需要非常詳細(xì)的檢查，因?yàn)槲乙呀忉屵^什么是我以前的文章中涉及的這一解決方案的特點(diǎn)。

但該公司沒有這個(gè)問題的唯一可能的答案。該公司籌辦事務(wù)內(nèi)的行政成本，也可能是高的，尤其是當(dāng)許多不同的活動(dòng)，在一個(gè)單一的組織控制。在煙霧滋擾的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的情況下，這可能會(huì)影響廣大的人在從事各種各樣的活動(dòng)，行政成本可能如此之高，使一個(gè)范圍內(nèi)來處理這個(gè)問題的任何企圖單個(gè)企業(yè)是不可能的。另一種方法是政府直接調(diào)控。提起的權(quán)利的法律制度，這可以通過交易市場上的修改，而不是政府可能提高對(duì)法規(guī)，這說明人們必須或不能做，哪些必須遵守。因此，政府（法規(guī)或者更可能通過行政機(jī)關(guān)），處理與一定的生產(chǎn)方法應(yīng)該或不應(yīng)該被用來（應(yīng)安裝防止設(shè)備的egthat煙霧或煙霧滋擾的問題，法令煤或石油不應(yīng)該被燒毀）或某些地區(qū)區(qū)劃法規(guī)可能限制某些類型的業(yè)務(wù)。

從某種意義上說，政府是一個(gè)superfirm（但一個(gè)非常特殊的一種），因?yàn)樗悄軌蛲ㄟ^行政決定影響生產(chǎn)要素的使用。但普通的公司是在其他公司的競爭，這可能會(huì)以較低的成本管理同樣的活動(dòng)，也因?yàn)槠洳僮鞯哪橆a，因?yàn)榭偸怯刑娲袌鼋灰祝瑢?duì)組織在企業(yè)內(nèi)部，如果行政成本成為太大了。政府是可以的，如果它希望，以避免完全的市場，堅(jiān)決不能做。該公司擁有市場的協(xié)議，它使用的生產(chǎn)要素的所有者。正如政府可以征兵或扣押財(cái)產(chǎn)，所以它可以法令，生產(chǎn)要素只應(yīng)在和這樣一種方式使用。這種專制的方法節(jié)省了很多麻煩（那些做主辦）。此外，政府已在其處置的警察和其他執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)，以確保其法規(guī)進(jìn)行。

很顯然，政府有可能使其能夠在較低的成本比私人組織（或在任何率沒有特殊的政府權(quán)力之一）做一些事情的權(quán)力。但政府的行政機(jī)本身并不是無成本的。事實(shí)上，它可以是上一次極其昂貴的。此外，也沒有理由認(rèn)為，限制和區(qū)劃法規(guī)，1犯錯(cuò)誤行政受到政治壓力措施和經(jīng)營沒有任何競爭力的檢查，一定會(huì)永遠(yuǎn)是那些提高效率與經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的運(yùn)作。此外，這樣的一般規(guī)定必須適用于種類繁多的情況下將被強(qiáng)制在某些情況下，他們顯然是不合適的。從這些方面考慮，政府直接監(jiān)管不一定會(huì)提供更好的結(jié)果比離開市場或企業(yè)要解決的問題。但同樣沒有任何理由為什么，有時(shí)，這種政府的行政法規(guī)不應(yīng)導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)效率的改善。這似乎特別容易時(shí)，通常是煙霧滋擾的情況下，大量的人參與和因此在處理的問題，通過市場或公司的成本可能很高。

當(dāng)然，這是在所有有關(guān)問題做了進(jìn)一步的替代。并給予解決的問題，由政府行政機(jī)發(fā)出的規(guī)例所涉及的費(fèi)用往往是沉重的（特別是如果費(fèi)用被解釋為包括從政府從事這類活動(dòng)的后續(xù)的一切后果），它不會(huì)無疑是通常的情況下，增益來調(diào)節(jié)而引起的有害影響的行動(dòng)將少于政府監(jiān)管所涉及的費(fèi)用。

在本節(jié)（當(dāng)市場交易成本的考慮）的有害影響的問題的討論是非常不足。但它至少已明確表示，問題是選擇合適的處理的有害影響的社會(huì)安排。所有的解決方案成本，并沒有任何理由假設(shè)政府監(jiān)管，干脆就叫市場或企業(yè)，因?yàn)檫@個(gè)問題沒有得到很好的處理。令人滿意的政策意見只能來自病人的研究了如何在實(shí)踐中，市場，企業(yè)和政府處理的有害影響的問題。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家需要研究的經(jīng)紀(jì)人帶來的各方一起工作的限制性條款的效力，大型房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)公司，政府區(qū)劃和其他規(guī)管活動(dòng)的運(yùn)作問題。這是我的信念，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和決策者，都傾向于高估的優(yōu)勢(shì)，從政府監(jiān)管。但這樣的信念，即使有理，不會(huì)做多建議應(yīng)削減政府的監(jiān)管。它并沒有告訴我們應(yīng)制定邊界線。這一點(diǎn)，在我看來，有來自一個(gè)詳細(xì)的調(diào)查，以不同的方式處理問題的實(shí)際效果。但它會(huì)是不幸的，如果這個(gè)調(diào)查是一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的援助承諾。這篇文章的目的是要表明，經(jīng)濟(jì)的解決問題的方法應(yīng)該是什么。

VII.THE LEGAL DELIMITATION OF RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC

PROBLEM

The discussion in Section V not only served to illustrate the argument but also afforded a glimpse at the legal approach to the problem of harmful effects.The cases considered were all English but a similar selection of American cases could easily be made and the character of the reasoning would have been the same.Of course, if market transactions were costless, all that matters(questions of equity apart)is that the rights of the various parties should be well-defined and the results of legal actions easy to forecast.But as we have seen, the situation is quite different when market transactions are so costly as to make it difficult to change the arrangement of rights established by the law.In such cases, the courts directly influence economic activity.It would therefore seem desirable that the courts should understand the economic consequences of their decisions and should, insofar as this is possible without creating too much uncertainty about the legal position itself, take these consequences into account when making their decisions.Even when it is possible to change the legal delimitation of rights through market transactions, it is obviously desirable to reduce the need for such transactions and thus reduce the employment of resources in carrying them out.A thorough examination of the presuppositions of the courts in trying such cases would be of great interest but I have not been able to attempt it.Nevertheless it is clear from a cursory study that the courts have often recognized the economic implications of their decisions and are aware(as many economists are not)of the reciprocal nature of the problem.Furthermore, from time to time, they take these economic implications into account, along with other factors, in arriving at their decisions.The American writers on this subject refer to the question in a more explicit fashion than do the British.Thus, to quote Prosser on Torts, a person may make use of his own property or...conduct his own affairs at the expense of some harm to his neighbours.He may operate a factory whose noise and smoke cause some discomfort to others, so long as he keeps within reasonable bounds.It is only when his conduct is unreasonable,in the light of its utilitliy and the harm which results [italics added], that it becomes a nuisance....As it was said in an ancient case in regard to candle-making in a town,“Le utility del chose excusera le noisomeness del stink.”

The world must have factories, smelters, oil refineries, noisy ma-chinery and blasting, even at the expense of some inconvenience to those in the vicinity and the plaintiff may be required to accept some not unreasonable discomfort for the general good.The standard British writers do not state as explicitly as this that a comparison between the utility and harm produced is an element in deciding whether a harmful effect should be considered a nuisance.But similar views, if less strongly expressed, are to be found.The doctrine that the harmful effect must be substantial before the court will act is, no doubt, in part a reflection of the fact that there will almost always be some gain to offset the harm.And in the reports of individual cases, it is clear that the judges have had in mind what would be lost as well as what would be gained in deciding whether to grant an injunction or award damages.Thus, in refusing to prevent the destruction of a prospect by a new building, the judge stated: I know no general rule of common law, which...says, that building so as to stop another’s prospect is a nuisance.Was that the case, there could be no great towns;and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town...The problem which we face in dealing with actions which have harmful effects is not simply one of restraining those responsible for them.What has to be decided is whether the gain from preventing the harm is greater than the loss which would be suffered elsewhere as a result of stopping the action which produces the harm.In a world in which there are costs of rearranging the rights established by the legal system, the courts, in cases relating to nuisance, in effect, making a decision on the economic problem and determining how resources are to be employed.It was argued that the courts are conscious of this and that they often make, although not always in a very explicit fashion, a comparison between what would be gained and what lost by preventing actions which have harmful effects.But the delimitation of rights is also the result of statutory enactments.Here we also find evidence of an appreciation of the reciprocal nature of the problem.While statutory enactments add to the list of nuisances, action is also taken to legalize what would otherwise be nuisances under the common law.The kind of situation which economists are prone to consider as requiring corrective government action is, in fact, often the result of government action.Such action is not necessarily unwise.But there is a real danger that extensive government intervention in the economic system may lead to the protection of those responsible for harmful effects being carried too far.七、作者權(quán)利的法律界定及經(jīng)濟(jì)問題

在第五節(jié)的討論不僅有助于說明的論點(diǎn)，但也給予一瞥法律途徑的有害影響的問題?？紤]案件都是英語，但類似的選擇了美國的情況下可以很容易地和推理的性質(zhì)本來相同。當(dāng)然，如果市場交易是無成本，所有這些事項(xiàng)除了股權(quán)問題是，各方的權(quán)利，應(yīng)該是定義和法律行動(dòng)的結(jié)果很容易預(yù)測的。但是，正如我們所看到的，情況是完全不同的市場交易時(shí)，是如此昂貴，使其難以改變法律規(guī)定的權(quán)利的安排。在這種情況下，法院直接影響經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)。因此，這似乎是可取的，法院應(yīng)了解他們的決定的經(jīng)濟(jì)后果，只要這是可能的，沒有創(chuàng)造太多的法律地位本身的不確定性，應(yīng)考慮到這些后果時(shí)，他們的決定。即使它是可能改變法律劃定的權(quán)利，通過市場交易，這顯然是可取的，以減少此類交易的需要，從而減少就業(yè)資源，在執(zhí)行。

一個(gè)前提，法院在這種情況下試圖徹底檢查，將是極大的興趣，但我一直無法嘗試。盡管如此，它是從一個(gè)粗略的研究清楚，法院經(jīng)常承認(rèn)他們的決定對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響，并意識(shí)到問題的互惠性質(zhì)（如許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家都沒有）。此外，不時(shí)，他們考慮到這些經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響，加上其他因素，在到達(dá)他們的決定。對(duì)這一問題的美國作家，是指比英國更明確的方式問題。因此，引用普羅瑟侵權(quán)，可能使一個(gè)人使用自己的財(cái)產(chǎn)。。進(jìn)行自己的事情，在犧牲一些傷害他的鄰居。他可能操作的工廠，其噪音和煙霧，給他人造成一些不適，只要他保持在合理的范圍之內(nèi)。

世界必須有工廠，冶煉廠，煉油廠，嘈雜的馬奇內(nèi)里和爆破，甚至不惜犧牲一些不便，給那些在附近，原告可能會(huì)被要求接受一些不講理的不適，在總體上是好的。

標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的英國作家沒有明確說明，產(chǎn)生的效用和傷害之間的比較是在決定是否應(yīng)被視為滋擾產(chǎn)生有害作用的元素。但類似的看法，如果那么強(qiáng)烈的表達(dá)，都可以找到。該學(xué)說的有害影響，法院將采取行動(dòng)之前，必須是實(shí)質(zhì)性的，是毫無疑問的一部分，將有幾乎總是會(huì)有一些增益，以抵消傷害的事實(shí)反映。在個(gè)別情況的報(bào)告，很顯然，法官已經(jīng)在頭腦里將失去什么在決定是否授予強(qiáng)制令或判給損害賠償，以及將獲得什么。因此，在拒絕一個(gè)新的建設(shè)，以防止破壞的前景，法官說：我知道沒有普通法的一般規(guī)則。。說，該建筑物，以阻止他人的前景是造成滋擾。的情況下，不可能有偉大的城鎮(zhèn)，而我在這個(gè)鎮(zhèn)的所有新建筑物必須給予禁令。

我們?cè)谔幚懋a(chǎn)生有害影響的行動(dòng)所面臨的問題是不是簡單地抑制那些對(duì)他們負(fù)責(zé)。已決定是否從防止危害的增益大于將停止行動(dòng)而產(chǎn)生的危害結(jié)果作為其他地方遭受的損失。在這個(gè)世界上，其中有重新安排的法律制度規(guī)定的權(quán)利的費(fèi)用，法院，有關(guān)滋擾的案件，實(shí)際上，經(jīng)濟(jì)問題上作出的決定，并確定資源是如何被聘用。有人認(rèn)為，法院都意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)，他們往往在一個(gè)非常明確的時(shí)尚，什么將得到什么失去防止產(chǎn)生有害影響的行動(dòng)之間的比較，雖然并不總是。但劃定權(quán)利也是法定的成文法則的結(jié)果。在這里，我們也可以找到證據(jù)互惠性質(zhì)的問題表示贊賞。雖然法定成文法加入的滋擾列表，還采取行動(dòng)合法化，否則將根據(jù)普通法的滋擾。什么樣的情況經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家很容易認(rèn)為需要糾正的政府行動(dòng)，事實(shí)上，往往是政府行為的結(jié)果。這種行動(dòng)并不一定是不明智的。但有一個(gè)真正的危險(xiǎn)，可能導(dǎo)致廣泛的政府干預(yù)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制來保護(hù)那些負(fù)責(zé)進(jìn)行太遠(yuǎn)的有害影響。

第四篇：讀書筆記(經(jīng)濟(jì)類)

由勞倫·勃蘭特和托馬斯·羅斯基主編的《偉大的中國經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型》是迄今為止解釋“中國奇跡”最全面的著作，是理解中國經(jīng)濟(jì)增長在世界經(jīng)濟(jì)格局中地位的最重要參考書。這部里程碑式的專著為中國過去30年舉世矚目的高速經(jīng)濟(jì)增長提供了一個(gè)全面而深入的綜合分析。我通過閱讀這本書，對(duì)我國經(jīng)濟(jì)有了進(jìn)一步的了解，并且對(duì)我國經(jīng)濟(jì)未來的發(fā)展有了很高的期望值?，F(xiàn)在談?wù)勛x完這本書，我的一部分感觸與想法。

首先這本書留給我印象最深的就是其寫作思路，在講每一章節(jié)的過程中都會(huì)秉承一種思路：先整體敘述一下每一章節(jié)的背景，然后針對(duì)所要敘述的內(nèi)容進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)的搜集，經(jīng)過對(duì)搜集到的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行整理，得到數(shù)據(jù)在進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步整理，使其成我們熟悉的折線圖、柱狀圖、數(shù)據(jù)表等形式，讓我們有直觀的了解，最后還會(huì)給出經(jīng)過分析得到的結(jié)論，這樣一種看似簡單易行，卻寫得處處細(xì)心、耐讀的一種寫法、思路，實(shí)則讓人佩服，并且給讀者一個(gè)條理很清晰的脈絡(luò)。比如說作者在闡述：“中國農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展——?dú)v史教訓(xùn)、今年的成就、未來的挑戰(zhàn)”一節(jié)中，首先作者引用過去農(nóng)業(yè)在一些國家不被重視，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟(jì)的平衡增長被打破，說明農(nóng)業(yè)對(duì)那些國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長起到了不可或缺的作用，那么作者就提出了一個(gè)問題：那么農(nóng)業(yè)對(duì)發(fā)展中國家的中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)又會(huì)有什么樣的影響呢？因此作者從這一問題出發(fā)，對(duì)中國農(nóng)業(yè)的過去、現(xiàn)在以及未來進(jìn)行了相應(yīng)的回顧、總結(jié)、分析以及展望。具體的思路就是把中國的農(nóng)業(yè)以改革開放為界限，將改革開放之前的農(nóng)業(yè)從食物生產(chǎn)的困難、結(jié)構(gòu)型停滯、政策和制度的不完善、農(nóng)產(chǎn)品定價(jià)及市場化的不科學(xué)、非農(nóng)業(yè)體制、政策及農(nóng)業(yè)停滯方面進(jìn)行了深入的剖析，闡述了改革開放之前的農(nóng)業(yè)困境；對(duì)于改革時(shí)期的農(nóng)業(yè)，作者分析了當(dāng)時(shí)農(nóng)業(yè)的現(xiàn)狀，主要從糧食部門的改革以及糧食部門之外農(nóng)業(yè)部門的改革，及其改革從走出農(nóng)場開始，又進(jìn)行了生產(chǎn)和市場環(huán)境的改革，又受到了市場開放和專業(yè)化的影響，使得農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展從開放時(shí)期的停滯不前到改革時(shí)期的進(jìn)步有了明顯的體現(xiàn)。其中著重提到了產(chǎn)權(quán)改革以及政策的選擇譬如：物價(jià)政策、引入市場政策、貿(mào)易政策等對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展產(chǎn)生了巨大的推動(dòng)效果；最后作者對(duì)中國農(nóng)業(yè)在未來發(fā)展中存在的挑戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行了深刻的分析，讓我們總有一種沖動(dòng)：讓時(shí)光飛速到20年后，讓我們看看我們國家的農(nóng)業(yè)到底是一個(gè)什么狀態(tài)，會(huì)有什么樣的格局，如何從一個(gè)對(duì)我國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)較小的行業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變成對(duì)我國影響深遠(yuǎn)的行業(yè)呢。

《偉大的中國經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型》這本書在談?wù)撐覈?jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的過程中，深入的剖析了影響我國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的諸多因素，比如人口因素、勞動(dòng)力因素、環(huán)境資源、農(nóng)業(yè)工業(yè)的發(fā)展對(duì)其的影響等多個(gè)方面，還談到了全球化下我國經(jīng)濟(jì)的各種狀態(tài)以及對(duì)未來我國經(jīng)濟(jì)的預(yù)測等內(nèi)容。讓我印象最深、最想繼續(xù)深思下去的部分應(yīng)該是當(dāng)下最熱的全球化問題?！秱ゴ蟮闹袊?jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型》一書中，關(guān)于全球化問題主要介紹了中國從1978年以來對(duì)外貿(mào)易和投資的漸進(jìn)開放過程。主要回顧了1978年到2001年間中國貿(mào)易和投資政策的歷史改革，并說明了一些重要政策改變對(duì)貿(mào)易和投資擴(kuò)張的影響。其中入世標(biāo)志著中國在這一領(lǐng)域政策演變的一個(gè)重要分水嶺，因此討論了中國加入WTO條款的主要特點(diǎn)，并評(píng)價(jià)了我國迄今為止在履行義務(wù)方面所取得的進(jìn)展。最后闡述了中國的發(fā)展具有全球影響力，以及面對(duì)日漸突出的全球化趨勢(shì)，我們國家應(yīng)做好的準(zhǔn)備等等。經(jīng)過思考，針對(duì)全球化問題，我有以下的想法。

在全球化的推動(dòng)下，世界格局發(fā)生了大變革、大調(diào)整、大發(fā)展，尤其是新興國家群體性崛起，美歐日困境，俄羅斯之冬等格局的變化。中國不僅加入了WTO的行列，還是“金磚四國”、“靈貓六國”等多個(gè)組織之中，由此我們也可以看出在全球化的大潮下，我國國際地位的提高，當(dāng)然經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力肯定也得到了肯定并取得了飛速的進(jìn)步與發(fā)展。中國發(fā)展到這個(gè)階段，突然出現(xiàn)在世界地平線上，突然躋身于全球俱樂部中，可能自己還沒有足夠的思想準(zhǔn)備，但方方面面的壓力都出來了，這是成長的煩惱，也是前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)。

2000年前后，世界開始流行“中國威脅論”，100年前，世界上最流行的是“美國威脅論”，因?yàn)槊绹菚r(shí)候正是發(fā)展最快的時(shí)候，正在全面超越英國和歐洲列強(qiáng)。那時(shí)候圍堵美國的急先鋒，一個(gè)是英國，一個(gè)是德國，尤其是英國，還同祖同宗。但看到美國發(fā)展得快，又要過去投資，分享它的成長，時(shí)冷時(shí)熱，這樣的狀態(tài)持續(xù)了多少年？50年，直到美國完全超過英國，兩國的關(guān)系就變得非常簡單了，小布什說他要打伊拉克，布萊爾說他第一個(gè)報(bào)名，地緣政治最終取決于一個(gè)因素——實(shí)力。歷史給我們很好的啟示，我們可以預(yù)見，中美關(guān)系、中日關(guān)系、中歐關(guān)系，在未來的二三十年，將是這么一個(gè)鋸齒般的關(guān)系，既不會(huì)天天是蜜月期，也不會(huì)降到冰點(diǎn)。對(duì)今天的中國來說，最重要的是自己堅(jiān)定不移地

2成長，保持發(fā)展，保持穩(wěn)定，推進(jìn)改革。中國在面對(duì)全球化的趨勢(shì)下應(yīng)該怎么繼續(xù)讓經(jīng)濟(jì)繼續(xù)健康、穩(wěn)定的發(fā)展下去呢？

我個(gè)人認(rèn)為可以采取的措施主要有：要不斷改革體制機(jī)制，讓我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)在不斷的體制改革中發(fā)展；國家要重視政策的建立與調(diào)整，尤其是貨幣制度，讓我們國家的各種政策能在經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的潮流中發(fā)揮積極、有效地作用；繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大對(duì)外開放，積極參加國際競爭，并保持或者需要進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)我們?cè)趪H上的話語權(quán)；主動(dòng)熟悉全球化的規(guī)則，加強(qiáng)國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)安全防范，畢竟防微杜漸是一種積極的心理；加快產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整，提高產(chǎn)品的科技含量，也就需要我們要加強(qiáng)創(chuàng)新能力，畢竟科學(xué)技術(shù)是第一生產(chǎn)力；發(fā)揮政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)大國的優(yōu)勢(shì)，積極倡導(dǎo)建立全球化的新規(guī)則，以至于我們?cè)谌蚧瘷M行的時(shí)代能夠運(yùn)籌帷幄；加大科教的投入，創(chuàng)造知識(shí)資源，以樹立應(yīng)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的根本之策；要不斷促進(jìn)各產(chǎn)業(yè)的結(jié)構(gòu)和結(jié)構(gòu)內(nèi)部調(diào)整，使得我們國家的產(chǎn)業(yè)能夠高效、有序的健康發(fā)展。

針對(duì)以上的諸多措施，我主要闡述一下在改革體制機(jī)制方面，國家應(yīng)該如何對(duì)待。

我國要在經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的今天保持經(jīng)濟(jì)的持續(xù)健康發(fā)展首要任務(wù)是需要不斷改革體制機(jī)制。中國有一首兒歌，“兩只老虎，一只沒有耳朵，一只沒有尾巴，跑得快。”中國社會(huì)有兩只老虎，一只叫改革，一只叫社會(huì)問題，它們可能都在跑，我們要讓改革這只老虎跑得比另外一只老虎快一點(diǎn)兒，這樣我們就可以實(shí)現(xiàn)未來10年的發(fā)展目標(biāo)，并保持我們經(jīng)濟(jì)在全球化下持續(xù)的發(fā)展。

中國過去30年的奇跡，始于一個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)的市場化改革，農(nóng)業(yè)，從農(nóng)村的包產(chǎn)到戶開始，結(jié)果是什么呢？20世紀(jì)80年代，美國人寫過一本書，書名是《誰來養(yǎng)活8億中國人》，說中國這個(gè)國家人很多，耕地又很少，中國人將來吃不飽飯，天下大亂。今天中國不止8億人，13億人了，可能有一半人在減肥，至少吃飯不再是問題。同樣的一片土地，同樣的人群，會(huì)有這么大的變化。中國的改革從農(nóng)業(yè)的市場化開始，隨后擴(kuò)展到輕工業(yè)、重工業(yè)等各個(gè)領(lǐng)域。金融行業(yè)推動(dòng)市場化改革能帶來的變化，行業(yè)規(guī)模從500億到上萬億的爆炸式增長，除了市場環(huán)境

3等客觀因素以外，與其他行業(yè)的市場化改革一樣，每個(gè)從業(yè)者積極性的調(diào)動(dòng)帶來了行業(yè)潛能的釋放。

今天的中國，也仍然有很多領(lǐng)域需要市場化，也可以市場化。金融領(lǐng)域是一個(gè)典型，大量企業(yè)找不著資金，大量資金找不著企業(yè)。這是因?yàn)榻鹑谑袌霾粔虬l(fā)達(dá)，不夠有效，不夠市場化。醫(yī)療領(lǐng)域可能是另一個(gè)典型，一大群病人找不著醫(yī)院看病，一大群醫(yī)學(xué)院的畢業(yè)生找不著工作，也是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)領(lǐng)域不夠市場化。改革，可以有很多宏大的頂層設(shè)計(jì)，也可以從經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)一些明顯市場化不足的領(lǐng)域做起，我們相信，這些領(lǐng)域的逐步市場化改革，釋放出的生產(chǎn)力，可以成為中國經(jīng)濟(jì)未來10年發(fā)展和轉(zhuǎn)型的重要?jiǎng)恿Α?/p>

當(dāng)然，改革開放30年后的今天，改革也不再像30年前那樣順理成章，因?yàn)槟菚r(shí)候不改革就沒有飯吃。中國在遭遇前所未有的金融危機(jī)的關(guān)鍵時(shí)刻，經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的大潮下，今天的改革涉及利益的重新調(diào)整和分配，涉及國有企業(yè)改革，建立現(xiàn)代企業(yè)制度，從根本上轉(zhuǎn)換企業(yè)經(jīng)營機(jī)制，提高企業(yè)在國際上的競爭實(shí)力；深化行政管理體制的變革一是進(jìn)一步轉(zhuǎn)變政府職能，實(shí)現(xiàn)政企分開。而是政府機(jī)構(gòu)要金庫能的精簡、高效、統(tǒng)一。三是要是權(quán)利和利益脫鉤，并加強(qiáng)監(jiān)督，從源頭上消除腐?。贿M(jìn)一步建立和完善市場體系，實(shí)行“走出去”的開放戰(zhàn)略；還要注重建立與完善與社會(huì)主義市場經(jīng)濟(jì)體制相適應(yīng)的法律體系。這完全是一個(gè)系統(tǒng)性的工程，或許還需要我們有足夠的智慧，能夠設(shè)計(jì)好改革的帕累托改進(jìn)，讓參與改革的每個(gè)人，都能從改革中合理地受益，包括在政府和市場的人才之間建立起有規(guī)則的旋轉(zhuǎn)門機(jī)制，才能更好地推進(jìn)市場化改革。

通過閱讀《偉大的中國經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型》這本書，我了解到我國經(jīng)濟(jì)從過去幾十年到現(xiàn)在甚至未來的發(fā)展情況，讓我對(duì)我國經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展，甚至是和經(jīng)濟(jì)有關(guān)的政治、資源等其他方面的發(fā)展也有了進(jìn)一步的了解，而且對(duì)我而言，讀完這本書讓我有了關(guān)注我國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)和興趣。

201140704411統(tǒng)計(jì)張美玲

第五篇：經(jīng)濟(jì)類畢業(yè)論文

世紀(jì)國際貿(mào)易發(fā)展中電子商務(wù)作用及策略分析

孫 王月

（哈爾濱技師學(xué)院，黑龍江 哈爾濱

150000）

國際貿(mào)易在世紀(jì)是知識(shí)性經(jīng)濟(jì)，電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展為國際貿(mào)

易提供了全球性、無紙化、智能化、低碳化、瞬間性和簡易性的環(huán)境。

國家競爭力由傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易競爭發(fā)展為網(wǎng)絡(luò)貿(mào)易競爭，使貿(mào)易交易在空 間上與時(shí)間上的限制減少，企業(yè)與企業(yè)、國家與國家之間在決策和

發(fā)展上面對(duì)更大的挑戰(zhàn)，如何做好網(wǎng)絡(luò)貿(mào)易；如何規(guī)范國際網(wǎng)絡(luò)市 場；如何在國家政策上把電子商務(wù)平臺(tái)規(guī)整，是國家新的研究課題，也是企業(yè)貿(mào)易發(fā)展最關(guān)心的問題

。國際貿(mào)易的現(xiàn)狀

1.1 國際貿(mào)易壟斷化。

1.1.1 國際貿(mào)易關(guān)稅保護(hù)政策：國家通過關(guān)稅來限制進(jìn)出口從 而保護(hù)本國的工業(yè)產(chǎn)品和農(nóng)副產(chǎn)品。

1.1.2 國家對(duì)進(jìn)出口產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行限額：國家通過減少對(duì)消費(fèi)品、奢 侈品的進(jìn)口，來減少對(duì)國有產(chǎn)品的沖擊力。

1.1.3 國際貿(mào)易外匯的管制和升值。

1.1.4 國家對(duì)外貿(mào)企業(yè)生產(chǎn)進(jìn)出口產(chǎn)品的代替品方面給予多種 優(yōu)惠，使它們不被外國產(chǎn)品所排擠。

1.2 國際貿(mào)易知識(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)化。

國際貿(mào)易知識(shí)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)化對(duì)現(xiàn)在社會(huì)的沖擊力很大，隨著高科技的發(fā)展，高新產(chǎn)品層出不窮，知識(shí)貿(mào)易競爭越演越烈。二十一世紀(jì)是 人才的競爭，從而表現(xiàn)出知識(shí)型產(chǎn)品所占比重的分量。知識(shí)作為現(xiàn) 在社會(huì)的生產(chǎn)因素，它的生產(chǎn)、傳遞都是由網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息完成。知識(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)

化產(chǎn)業(yè)作為未來發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)產(chǎn)業(yè)，是全球化經(jīng)濟(jì)的新型動(dòng)力火車。這是國際貿(mào)易向信息產(chǎn)業(yè)化轉(zhuǎn)變的趨勢(shì)，使貿(mào)易企業(yè)在庫存、管理、采購等等方面的成本大大減少。

1.3 國際貿(mào)易的協(xié)調(diào)化。國際貿(mào)易關(guān)注點(diǎn)由自然資源轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橹?/p>

識(shí)資源，高科技領(lǐng)域的談判已代替原有傳統(tǒng)談判，降低了談判成本。高科技在國際貿(mào)易上的協(xié)調(diào)已成為不變的事實(shí)。電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展及作用

電子商務(wù)自 1995 年以來發(fā)展至今，發(fā)展速度較快，其的商業(yè)價(jià) 值巨大。各國陸續(xù)出臺(tái)各種措施、綱要來發(fā)展這個(gè)新興產(chǎn)業(yè)，從而提 升自己在國際上的競爭力。電子商務(wù)打破了傳統(tǒng)商務(wù)活動(dòng)對(duì)交易時(shí) 間、地理和支付方式等方面的限制，使國際貿(mào)易交易更為便捷、安

全。在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展較快的今天便捷、可靠、安全、迅速是國際貿(mào)易所追

求的方向，國際貿(mào)易企業(yè)可以在最短的時(shí)間內(nèi)得到最有利于自己貿(mào)

易發(fā)展的信息。電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展改變了人類的生活模式，沒有了各

種壁壘的限制，企業(yè)可以更為方便的交易、交流來獲得自己所需要的信息。

2.1 業(yè)務(wù)上。企業(yè)之間的商務(wù)活動(dòng)可以由互聯(lián)網(wǎng)直接進(jìn)行，縮短

了業(yè)務(wù)的營運(yùn)周期，提高了效率。

2.2

業(yè)務(wù)和消費(fèi)者

。BTOC

在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上的實(shí)行，使消費(fèi)者直接與

企業(yè)進(jìn)行買賣，消費(fèi)者的消費(fèi)成本大大降低，消費(fèi)者對(duì)各企業(yè)有了

自己的認(rèn)知，企業(yè)同樣一手獲得消費(fèi)者的信息，為企業(yè)產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展

提供了寶貴的資源。

2.3

信息。

電子商務(wù)提供世界經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展最前沿的信息，讓貿(mào)易企

業(yè)了解了未來自己開拓新的市場的發(fā)展方向，同樣企業(yè)也借鑒信息

來提高自己的服務(wù)質(zhì)量。

2.4 網(wǎng)上的管理。通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)使企業(yè)與分公司的連接更加緊密，減少了一些突發(fā)事故的發(fā)生率。

電子商務(wù)貿(mào)易交易是時(shí)代的產(chǎn)物，科技的發(fā)展帶動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)

展

。各時(shí)期工業(yè)、經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展都有利與弊，時(shí)代進(jìn)步了但也有不足，電子商務(wù)是順應(yīng)時(shí)代而產(chǎn)生的，國際貿(mào)易根據(jù)時(shí)代的步伐步步跟

進(jìn)，如

B2B、B2C、C2C、C2G……各種營銷模式的出現(xiàn)。雖然 2008 年

經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)給各國經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來重創(chuàng)，但國際危機(jī)期間

B2B 仍然是發(fā)展的主題，B2C仍突破新高。復(fù)蘇后的經(jīng)濟(jì)將出現(xiàn)新氣象，對(duì)國際貿(mào)易

網(wǎng)上貿(mào)易的交易帶來新的血液。

隨著

internet 使用人數(shù)的增加，網(wǎng)上購物、網(wǎng)上支付的消費(fèi)者越

來越多，網(wǎng)購已成為了一種流行趨勢(shì)，市場的占有比重分量逐年增

加，電子商務(wù)網(wǎng)站也在逐年跟進(jìn)，例如阿里巴巴、京東……這些網(wǎng)站

提供各種網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)，給商業(yè)人士、私企、個(gè)體在國際貿(mào)易中提供了很

。消費(fèi)者、生產(chǎn)者、供應(yīng)者也得到自己有利的商業(yè)信息，都找到自己相處融洽的合作伙伴

。市場的競爭力同樣也更加嚴(yán)峻，產(chǎn)品的隔代更新速度加快、使用壽命縮短；信息更替速度更加迅速。

各種網(wǎng)站提供空間給予企業(yè)展示自己企業(yè)形象的機(jī)會(huì)，通過廣告信

息來提高了企業(yè)的知名度，節(jié)省了資源，保護(hù)了環(huán)境

?，F(xiàn)在都提倡低

碳效應(yīng)，低碳生活讓我們居住、工作的環(huán)境新鮮，從而帶動(dòng)我們的好

心情，使我們工作心情愉悅、激情永存，貿(mào)易量自然增加。如何利用電子商務(wù)來發(fā)展國際貿(mào)易

國際貿(mào)易長期發(fā)展中面對(duì)不同領(lǐng)域的沖擊，各時(shí)期都有自己的發(fā)展特色。二十一世紀(jì)是人才、知識(shí)、科技的競爭，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在 21 世紀(jì)

發(fā)展尤為突出。

3.1 政策環(huán)境。各國相繼出臺(tái)法律制度、政策標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和方案措施來

規(guī)范電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展，使國際貿(mào)易在一個(gè)安全、可靠的環(huán)境下生存

發(fā)展。網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易是貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)交易發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)，是現(xiàn)在各國的競爭重

點(diǎn)。美國、歐洲早在二十世紀(jì)末就提出了關(guān)于電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展綱要。

3.2 信息基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。各大型網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的出現(xiàn)，移動(dòng)通信業(yè)務(wù)的發(fā)

展，寬帶速度的提高，3G 業(yè)務(wù)都為電子商務(wù)提供了良好的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)

施，便捷了國際貿(mào)易交易。

3.3 安全。各國都投入大量的人力、財(cái)力、物力保護(hù)交易的安全

進(jìn)行，如電子簽名、保護(hù)密碼等高科技技術(shù)出現(xiàn)，國際貿(mào)易交易的安

全性正一步步的提升。

3.4 交易。支付方式上如數(shù)字錢包、貨幣的出現(xiàn)，因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者需

求的不同又相繼出現(xiàn)儲(chǔ)蓄卡、貨到付款等多種多樣的支付方式，讓

國際貿(mào)易交易更加的便捷、多彩多姿。

3.5 運(yùn)輸。物流在傳統(tǒng)國際貿(mào)易中處于滯后狀態(tài)，電子商務(wù)的發(fā)

展帶動(dòng)了物流的產(chǎn)業(yè)地位的提升。傳統(tǒng)的供應(yīng)鏈供銷之間是脫節(jié)，供應(yīng)商難以得到準(zhǔn)確無誤的銷售計(jì)劃，使采購、生產(chǎn)處于滯后地位。

而電子商務(wù)的出現(xiàn)改善了這種現(xiàn)象，傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易交易中的弊端有所改

變，國際貿(mào)易交易進(jìn)入新紀(jì)元，出現(xiàn)了新的產(chǎn)業(yè)———第三方物流。

電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展帶動(dòng)了國際服務(wù)貿(mào)易，服務(wù)行業(yè)作為新興的產(chǎn)

業(yè)發(fā)展極為迅速，國際服務(wù)貿(mào)易把國際貿(mào)易拓展化，是企業(yè)出口產(chǎn)

品的一面鏡子；是網(wǎng)絡(luò)貿(mào)易交易好壞的憑證。

國際貿(mào)易在網(wǎng)絡(luò)貿(mào)易

交易中如何做好，如何面對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)經(jīng)久不衰蓬勃發(fā)展，需要我們?nèi)ヌ?/p>

索網(wǎng)絡(luò)的奧妙。

總而言之，國際貿(mào)易在電子商務(wù)這個(gè)積極蓬勃的氛

圍中會(huì)展現(xiàn)更耀眼的光芒。

[1]

井道龍

.加快流通領(lǐng)域電子商務(wù)發(fā)展的重要意義

[J].蚌埠黨校學(xué)

報(bào)，2010

（）

.[2]周卞.電子商務(wù)發(fā)展應(yīng)用前景分析[J].漣鋼科技與管理，2008（1）.[3]

彭今

.關(guān)于國際貿(mào)易發(fā)展形勢(shì)下我國貿(mào)易發(fā)展的討論

[J].經(jīng)營管理

者，2008

（）

.[4]張莉“.十二五”時(shí)期國際服務(wù)貿(mào)易發(fā)展趨勢(shì)及我國的對(duì)策[J].國際

貿(mào)易，2011（1）.摘 要：

世紀(jì)全球進(jìn)入了新的經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代，信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)使全球經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)入了數(shù)字化時(shí)代，產(chǎn)品一瞬間就可以在世界各地進(jìn)行交易，電子商

務(wù)的發(fā)展開始席卷全球，新的經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài)為各國經(jīng)濟(jì)策略的制定開創(chuàng)了一個(gè)新的方向。電子商務(wù)的發(fā)展使國際貿(mào)易交易的時(shí)間縮短、空間

更加廣闊。

關(guān)鍵詞：國際貿(mào)易；電子商務(wù)；策略及作用