望麓自卑—湖南大学最具潜力的校园传媒

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 1127|回复: 11

《瞭望》刊文抨击:中央机构部门利益膨胀

[复制链接]
发表于 2006-10-11 13:51:42 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
● 于泽远(北京)

  在中共十六届六中全会举行期间,新华社下属的《瞭望》杂志刊登文章抨击中央政府机构中部门利益现象日益突出,指有些中央部门过于强调、维护与谋取本部门利益,损害了社会公正与大众利益,增添了国家经济及政治风险。

  这篇由中国现代国际关系研究院经济安全研究中心主任江涌撰写的文章指出,中央机构部门利益膨胀突出特征包括:部门利益最大化,部门利益法定化,部门利益国家化,部门利益国际化。而部门利益膨胀的原因在于公共权力市场化,利益集团施加影响,以及财政、立法制度不健全。

  分析人士指出,官方媒体在中共中央全会期间如此严词批评中央部门还比较罕见,联系到官方媒体近日提出要防范某些利益集团通过与政府官员进行“权钱交易”,形成损害公共利益的“特殊利益集团”,预计中共在六中全会后将采取比较具体的措施,防止政府部门和官员成为“特殊利益集团”的代理人,减少眼下公众对于腐败严重、社会不公、贫富差距过大的严重不满。

  新华社不久前发表文章说,在市场经济体制不健全的情况下,中国的金融、电力、交通、电信、能源等垄断行业最容易演变成“特殊利益集团”,因为这些部门长期盘踞公共资源高地并独占利润,把相当一部分应当归社会共享的成果变成部门利益,享受过高的收入和过高的福利。

一些机构挟洋自重

巩固谋取部门利益

  江涌的文章指出,长期以来,中国行政的突出特点是:决策与执行不分,机构设置偏多,职权交叉重叠。在具体行政过程中,凡是能巩固、谋取部门利益的,则积极“作为”;凡是与部门利益相抵触、难以谋取部门利益的,则消极“不作为”。

  同时,一些中央机构打着“与国际接轨”的旗号,利用增进对外交往、加强对外合作等时机,以“接受国际惯例”、“增强国际竞争力”等为借口,挟洋以自重,巩固、谋取部门利益。

  文章指出,众多境外与涉外利益集团,如各国在华商会以及中国外商投资企业协会(商务部下属的行业协会),通过母国政府或政治游说,或收买、利用高干子女、亲属,或聘请一些部门领导与职员做咨询师,或将相关课题并配以丰厚的课题经费,给予各大部委研究机构与学者等途径,对中国相关部门决策与立法施加巨大影响。这是中国大量政经信息外泄、经济高度对外依赖、独立自主的工业体系受损、外企长期保持“超国民待遇”不变以及内外企税率未能统一等一系列重要问题的症结所在。

  而众多行业的民营企业家争当人大代表或政协委员,利用人大与政协这两大政治舞台,来谋取利益;或私下聘请相关专家学者担任独立董事,为其摇旗呐喊,或通过行贿等不正当的利益输送直接影响行政决策。自中央推行宏观调控抑制房地产价格过快增长的政策出台后,有的房地产开发商迅即与一些专家学者、房地产研究机构、部分媒体、甚至官员联手,强占行业话语制高点,并形成一个行业性的“话语链”,以对抗宏观调控。
发表于 2006-10-11 19:22:31 | 显示全部楼层
当作经济人来看 利益最大化没啥错

关键是要有一个能够在承认利益最大化的条件下依旧能正常运作的制度
 楼主| 发表于 2006-10-11 19:25:44 | 显示全部楼层
引用第1楼loiter2006-10-11 19:22发表的“”:
当作经济人来看 利益最大化没啥错

关键是要有一个能够在承认利益最大化的条件下依旧能正常运作的制度

政府机构恐怕不能被看作经济人
发表于 2006-10-11 19:37:22 | 显示全部楼层
经济人的概念并不特指获得‘经济利益’

从此点看,把政府机构看作经济人并没有错
发表于 2006-10-11 19:38:20 | 显示全部楼层
打倒移动,话费太贵!!!
 楼主| 发表于 2006-10-11 19:39:17 | 显示全部楼层
那经济人的具体含义是什么?
发表于 2006-10-11 19:57:34 | 显示全部楼层
经济人
维基百科,自由的百科全书
经济人(希腊语:homo oeconomicus),又称作“经济人假设”,即假定人思考和行为都是目标理性的,唯一地试图获得的经济好处就是物质性补偿的最大化。这常用作经济学和某些心理学分析的基本假设。

[编辑]
来源
来自亚当·斯密《国富论》中的一段话:

我们每天所需要的食物和饮料,不是出自屠户、酿酒家和面包师的恩惠,而是出于他们自利的打算。我们不说唤起他们利他心的话,而说唤起他们利己心的话,我们不说我们自己需要,而说对他们有好处。

之后,西尼尔定量地确立了个人经济利益最大化公理,约翰·穆勒在此基础上总结出“经济人假设”,最后帕累托将“经济人”(Homo Oeconomicus)这个专有名词引入经济学。




------------

Homo economicus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Homo Oeconomicus)
Jump to: navigation, search
Homo economicus, or Economic man, is the concept in some economic theories of man as a rational and "self-interested" actor.

Contents [hide]
1 The model
2 Criticisms
3 Responses
4 Homo sociologicus
5 See also
6 References
7 External links



[edit]
The model
Homo economicus is a term used for an approximation or model of Homo sapiens that acts to obtain the highest possible well-being for himself given available information about opportunities and other constraints, both natural and institutional, on his ability to achieve his predetermined goals. This approach has been formalized in certain social science models, particularly in economics.

Homo economicus is seen as "rational" in the sense that well-being as defined by the utility function is optimized given perceived opportunities. That is, the individual seeks to attain very specific and predetermined goals to the greatest extent with the least possible cost. Note that this kind of "rationality" does not say that the individual's actual goals are "rational" in some larger ethical, social, or human sense, only that he tries to attain them at minimal cost. Only na飗e applications of the Homo economicus model assume that this hypothetical individual knows what is best for his long-term physical and mental health and can be relied upon to always make the right decision for himself. See rational choice theory and rational expectations for further discussion; the article on rationality widens the discussion.

As in social science in general, these assumptions are at best approximations. The term is often used derogatorily in academic literature, perhaps most commonly by sociologists, many of whom tend to prefer structural explanations to ones based on rational action by individuals.

The use of the Latin form Homo economicus is certainly long established; Persky (1995) traces it back to Pareto (1906) but notes that it may be older. The English term economic man can be found even earlier, in John Kells Ingram's A History of Political Economy (1888). The Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.) does not mention Homo economicus, but it is one of a number of phrases that imitate the scientific name for the human species. According to the O.E.D., the human genus name Homo is

Used with L. or mock-L. adjs. in names imitating Homo sapiens, etc., and intended to personify some aspect of human life or behaviour (indicated by the adj.). Homo faber ("feIb@(r)) [H. Bergson L'Evolution Créatrice (1907) ii. 151], a term used to designate man as a maker of tools.) Variants are often comic: Homo insipiens; Homo turisticus. (This is from the CD edition of 2002.)

Note that such forms should logically keep the capital for the "genus" name—i.e., Homo economicus rather than homo economicus. Actual usage is inconsistent.

[edit]
Criticisms
Homo economicus bases his choices on a consideration of his own personal "utility function". Economic man is also amoral, ignoring all social values unless adhering to them gives him utility. Some believe such assumptions about humans are not only empirically inaccurate but unethical.

Economists Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert Simon, and many of the Austrian School criticise Homo economicus as an actor in understanding macroeconomics and economic forecasting. They stress uncertainty and bounded rationality in the making of economic decisions, rather than relying on the rational man who is fully informed of all circumstances impinging on his decisions. They argue that perfect knowledge never exists, which means that all economic activity implies risk.

Empirical studies by Amos Tversky questioned the assumption that investors are rational. In 1995, Tversky demonstrated the tendency of investors to make risk-averse choices in gains, and risk-seeking choices in losses. The investors appeared as very risk-averse for small losses but indifferent for a small chance of a very large loss. This violates economic rationality as usually understood. Further research on this subject, showing other deviations from conventionally-defined economic rationality, is being done in the growing field of experimental or behavioral economics.

Other critics of the Homo economicus model of humanity, such as Bruno Frey, point to the excessive emphasis on extrinsic motivation (rewards and punishments from the social environment) as opposed to intrinsic motivation. For example, it is difficult if not impossible to understand how Homo economicus would be a hero in war or would get inherent pleasure from craftsmanship. Frey and others argue that too much emphasis on rewards and punishments can "crowd out" (discourage) intrinsic motivation: paying a boy for doing household tasks may push him from doing those tasks "to help the family" to doing them simply for the reward.

Altruistic economics rejects the model as unrealistically selfish, arguing that real people have friends to whom they are to a greater or lesser degree altruistic, so it relaxes the restriction that people's utility functions must be independent.

Another weakness is highlighted by sociologists, who argue that Homo economicus ignores an extremely important question, i.e., the origins of tastes and the parameters of the utility function by social influences, training, education, and the like. The exogeneity of tastes (preferences) in this model is the major distinction from Homo sociologicus, in which tastes are taken as partially or even totally determined by the societal environment (see below).

Further critics, learning from the broadly-defined psychoanalytic tradition, criticize the Homo economicus model as ignoring the inner conflicts that real-world individuals suffer, as between short-term and long-term goals (e.g., eating chocolate cake and losing weight) or between individual goals and societal values. Such conflicts may lead to "irrational" behavior involving inconsistency, psychological paralysis, neurosis, and/or psychic pain.

One criticism contends that the Homo economicus model works as a self-fulfilling prophecy if a group of people (a company, a society) accepts its premises, particularly the idea that individuals only ever consider their personal utility function and that—as is often claimed—the "Invisible Hand" works to make these purely self-interested decisions promote the interest of society. Governance structures and social norms of such a group will effectively reward selfishness and discourage or ridicule deviant behavior like altruism, fairness, or teamwork; its idols will be those who most ruthlessly maximize their own utility function. This aspect has risen to wider attention in disciplines like organization science where extrinsic motivation has been found to be not nearly as effective with knowledge workers as it had been for traditional industries, creating a renewed interest in forms of motivation that do not fit into the Homo economicus model. This view however does not account for the fact that acting selfishly is not necessarily the same as acting in a self-interested manner, which can explain altruism to some extent.

The clearest case of a self-fulfilling prophecy concerning Homo economicus has been in the teaching of economics. Several research studies have indicated that those students who take economics courses end up being more self-centered than before they took the courses. For example, they are less willing to co-operate with the other player in a "prisoner's-dilemma"-type game. See, for example, the article by Thomas Frank et al. (1993), cited below.

[edit]
Responses
Economists tend to disagree with these critiques, arguing that it may be relevant to analyze the consequences of enlightened egoism just as it may be worthwhile to consider altruistic or social behavior. Others argue that we need to understand the consequences of such narrow-minded greed even if only a small percentage of the population embraces such motives. Free riders, for example, would have a major negative impact on the provision of public goods. However, economists' supply and demand predictions might obtain even if only a significant minority of market participants act like Homo economicus. In this view, the assumption of Homo economicus can and should be simply a preliminary step on the road to a more sophisticated model.

Yet others argue that Homo economicus is a reasonable approximation for behavior within market institutions, since the individualized nature of human action in such social settings encourages individualistic behavior. Not only do market settings encourage the application of a simple cost/benefit calculus by individuals, but they reward and thus attract the more individualistic people. It can be difficult to apply social values (as opposed to following self-interest) in an extremely competitive market; a company that refuses to pollute (for example) may find itself bankrupt.

Defenders of the Homo economicus model see many critics of the dominant school as using a straw-man technique. For example, it is common for critics to argue that real people do not have cost-less access to infinite information and an innate ability to instantly process it. However, in advanced-level theoretical economics, scholars have found ways of addressing these problems, modifying models enough to more realistically depict real-life decision-making. For example, models of individual behavior under bounded rationality and of people suffering from envy can be found in the literature. It is primarily when targeting the limiting assumptions made in constructing undergraduate models that the criticisms listed above are valid. These criticisms are especially valid to the extent that the professor asserts that the simplifying assumptions are true and/or uses them in a propagandistic way.

The more sophisticated economists are quite conscious of the empirical limitations of the Homo economicus model. In theory, the views of the critics can be combined with the Homo economicus model to attain a more accurate model.

One problem with making the Homo economicus model more sophisticated is that sometimes the model becomes tautologically true, i.e., true by definition. If someone has a "taste" for variety, for example, it becomes difficult if not impossible to distinguish economic rationality from irrationality. In this case, the Homo economicus model may not add any new information at all to our economic understanding.

[edit]
Homo sociologicus
Comparisons between economics and sociology have resulted in a corresponding term Homo sociologicus, to parody the image of human nature given in some sociological models that attempt to limit the social forces that determine individual tastes and social values. (The alternative or additional source of these would be biology.) Hirsch, Michaels, and Friedman (1990, p. 44) say that Homo sociologicus is largely a tabula rasa upon which societies and cultures write values and goals; unlike economicus, sociologicus acts not to pursue selfish interests but to fulfill social roles. This "individual" may appear to be all society and no individual. This suggests the need to combine the insights of Homo economicus models with those of Homo sociologicus models in order to create a synthesis, rather than rejecting one or the other.
 楼主| 发表于 2006-10-11 20:14:28 | 显示全部楼层
如果经济人是作这样解释的话,我更不能认同把政府机构看作经济人,我个人认为,可以把机构里的一个一个具体的人看做经济人,他们可以试图得到物质性补偿的最大化,但作为行使公权力的政府机构,是不能与民争利的,这是两个本质上属性不同的概念。
发表于 2006-10-11 20:21:57 | 显示全部楼层
真的
非常
严重
赞同
时务轩!

借助公共权力谋求个人利益最大化实在算不上合理的事。所谓部门利益最大化落到实处就是个人利益最大化。
发表于 2006-10-11 21:01:17 | 显示全部楼层
胡已经决心向某人的势力全面开刀鸟
发表于 2006-10-11 21:57:00 | 显示全部楼层
中国政府还没有形成成熟的现代政府体系,早着呢
发表于 2006-10-11 23:45:21 | 显示全部楼层
恩 这个行动只能看成是迈向成熟的尝试
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

关闭

每日推荐上一条 /1 下一条

小黑屋|手机版|湖南大学望麓自卑校园传媒 ( 湘ICP备14014987号 )

GMT+8, 2024-11-2 14:21 , Processed in 0.070887 second(s), 21 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表