HEL：
以下是引用Jack&Jones在2004-5-31 2:13:00的发言：
The is no such thing as THE 内在的逻辑.
It seems you are suggesting there should be a universal law governing growth of an economy. This is really naive, ahistorical. Reading North might help. Growth or development is first of all a historical process. Can any 内在的逻辑 explain the rise of the west with taking into consideration of chronological and accicental factors?
There is a kind of law, although it might not be a university law. Otherwise, why do economists study for? Economists attempt to offer some simple models to explain the real world, like ISLM model in the macroeconomics. And the universal law is what economists expect, and by the universal law, thus every move of economy can be predicted and mathematically calculated. How wonderful the world will be? But it's just a dream at current level.
For the random historical events, it is explaining the reason why economists like to use 'ceteris paribus', that is to keep all other conditions constant. For a spedific case, there have existed many studies on the economic shock from the WWI. (It is a kind of trick, why not WWII? Think about it. ;) ) Nick Craft is a big name in this field, who uses some econometric tools to show this point.
Jack&Jones：
以下是引用HEL在2004-5-31 2:53:00的发言：
Thereisakindoflaw,althoughitmightnotbeauniversitylaw.Otherwise,whydoeconomistsstudyfor?Economistsattempttooffersomesimplemodelstoexplaintherealworld,likeISLMmodelinthemacroeconomics.Andtheuniversallawiswhateconomistsexpect,andbytheuniversallaw,thuseverymoveofeconomycanbepredictedandmathematicallycalculated.Howwonderfultheworldwillbe?Butit''sjustadreamatcurrentlevel.
Fortherandomhistoricalevents,itisexplainingthereasonwhyeconomistsliketouse''ceterisparibus'',thatistokeepallotherconditionsconstant.Foraspedificcase,therehaveexistedmanystudiesontheeconomicshockfromtheWWI.(Itisakindoftrick,whynotWWII?Thinkaboutit.;))NickCraftisabignameinthisfield,whousessomeeconometrictoolstoshowthispoint.
Agree with your point in the frist paragraph except universal law is ''desirable'' or possible for economist or whoever.
1.Take for example the design of an organisation. An organisation is desinged at least in part to deal with the constraint of uncertainty , or bounded rationality of human beings on transactions. (see O.Williamson, F. Knight, H.Simon). Acceptance of the the importance of human intentionality is crucial for accounting for the real world. Human intentions , however, are not subject to any universal laws. This is for two reasons: first phychological experiment. As far as I know , no evidecen is convincing enough to be taken as laws! Second, how do we find out human intentionns? Very difficult, because the interaction between outside situation and intentions. Hopkins article on Serra Leon cocoa farmers is an example.
2. To find a universal law, this is just not a good methodology in my opinioni. Popper has said a great deal on this.
Thank you for reminding me of N.Crafts and his way thinking about random historical events, as well as Ceturus Paribus and counterfactual , which I ''m sure you have in mind when writing this.
HEL：
以下是引用Jack&Jones在2004-5-31 3:16:00的发言：
of the the importance of human intentionality is crucial for accounting for the real world. Human intentions , however, are not subject to any universal laws. This is for two reasons: first phychological experiment. As far as I know , no evidecen is convincing enough to be taken as laws! Second, how do we find out human intentionns? Very difficult, because the interaction between outside situation and intentions. Hopkins article on Serra Leon cocoa farmers is an example.
2. To find a universal law, this is just not a good methodology in my opinioni. Popper has said a great deal on this.
Universal law might not be a proper term. However, conditional laws exist to some extent. Price theory may be a good example. Also, retionality is another, although we use to assume it. In psychological field, there might be some laws, if not universal laws. Otherwise, American intellegents won't abuse Iraqies. Moreover, the starting point of Adam Smith's study is from the morality, which with no doubt, is related to psychologics. Demond theory is a sort of customs psycological expectations.
Considering the nature of human being, perhaps there is a universal law, such as the behaviors from hunger,anxiety, and the essential human demand for living.
For methodological point, formating economics, like neo-classical economics is a way to find univerisal laws.
zhuyoung：
HEL兄及J&J兄的讨论给我不少启发。但是我想是否可以通过总结各位大师的学术思想，联系各国的经验和教训，尤其是中国的经验和教训，就此问题进行一下分析。
之所以提出这样的问题，或许许多学友认为此问题没有任何意义。但我以为，在中国的经济转轨中，必须认真对待这些问题。
mjwuwhu：
经济增长的源泉，不同的国家必定有不同的答案。对于增长的研究，国内外都已经在进行，并且进行了好一段时间了。
HEL：
If you are learning the History of Economics, why not from this aspect to think about the question? Why did Adam Smith advocate specification and absolute advantage, rather comparitive advantage? Why was innovation factor so late to be mensioned till Marx and Schumpter? What about production factors, technology, human capital, and insitutions? What is the historical order to link all these pearls?
The secret, as I think, is the natural growth of human society. Doesn't mean insitutional factors are not important, but in that situation, Adam Smith smelt that free market is more powerful than others, and more direct and easy access to achieve. As free market developed at some level, people thought only when variances of absolute advantages among countries, the trade would happen. Richardo broke this idea. He smelt the power and real cases of comparitive advantages. Following this logic, all factors including culture, weather, geogropher, wars, peace, any trivial things can shock the economy and shape the growth to some extent (That can be explained as path dependence in some sort to show the different growth cross countries.) The theories were man-madely structed in different way to emphyze the influence of so-called 'big factors', which some human being, we called scientists, obversed in the real world and/or learned from ancestors. In short, a society like China during the transaction, lagged behind some developed countries at least in Western standards. The growth can be obtained if we put more efforts on one factor or several related factors that are easy to expect and control their mutual relathionships. What did we lose in our history, we add them in. This is the idea from Gerschenkron. But I think, maybe not mean missing. Just mean the different ways to explore the same natural factors.
HEL：
上面这个是我上个星期的想法，会有点倾向于经济转型。但是我今天早上，又想了一遍，经济转型和经济发展源泉是两个问题。要达到经济转型，促进经济发展会有很多道路可以走，任何一个“简单”因素的改变都可以“简单的”达到经济增长的目的。这个简单意味着此因素和其他因素之间的联系比较少，相互影响比较少，或者这种影响比较好控制，也就是能够比较好的掌握和预测影响的方向和结果。
如果要追究经济发展的源泉的话，还是按照我一年前的想法，市场交易是最根本的。那么市场交易是如何建立的？
1. 在社会分工基础上存在剩余的可交换产品（供给）
2. 人类需求
3. 私有产权的保护（还有其他的制度因素）
对生产要素，科技（technology, innovation)，human capital的研究，是针对1的。制度经济学是针对3的。以马尔萨斯为代表的人口学是针对2的。亚当斯密，李嘉图，科斯是研究市场交易本身的。
这个框架大致ok了吧。Any problem?
HEL：
补充一下，任何经济长期发展都是在提高以上三点匹配的效率上取得的。短期经济增长除了这个外，还有其他短期偶然因素的影响。从这个角度来说，凯恩斯研究的就是短期经济发展。
其他的，黑格尔，Eric Jones, Mark Elvin, Max Weber, Marx, Lenin就比较不是从经济角度来研究经济发展的了。他们更多的倾向于社会和历史角度。
HEL：
同时，这也就是为什么很多时候要言必称亚当斯密的原因了。
HEL：
修改一下，应该是社会分工，而不是在社会分工基础上存在剩余的可交换产品。因为在工业社会里，所有的生产的产品都用于交换，而没有所谓的剩余产品。哎，老马的东西就是要特别小心。
zhuyoung：
HEL兄的解释很有启发。
BAUMOL在其新著中解释了资本主义的增长奇迹，其中提到了经济增长的几个基本前提，我觉得很有意义，值得深思：
1、寡头竞争；2、创新活动常规化；3、生产性的创新精神；4、法治；5、技术的自由交易。这可以看作是一个有效运行的自由市场经济存在的一些前提条件。
当然，BAUMOL是一位微观经济学家，故而其研究不免过于考虑增长的微观基础。
但他的研究有一定的说服力。
其研究说明了自由市场机制是一种很好的增长机器。
不知道大家对此有何看法。
HEL：
寡头竞争、创新活动常规化、生产性的创新精神，都有助于进一步的社会精细分工。法治指的就是对私有产权的保护。技术的自由交易是市场运行的结果。
微观经济学是宏观经济学的基础，我个人觉得所有的宏观经济现象都应该有其微观的基础。所以微观应该是根本。应该说BAUMOL的考虑是很精到的。
自由市场机制是一种很好的增长机器--------我估计是人类社会发展历史上最好的经济增长机制。
zhuyoung：
同意HEL的解释。
最近又看了德姆塞茨的文章，觉得比较有意思。参见《经济发展中的主次因素》，载《制度、契约与组织》，经济科学出版社2003。
看来，这个问题的答案是因时因地而有差异。
但是大家是否可以结合中国的国情进行一些分析。
参阅：http://bbs.efnchina.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=92518&id=43636
