西方经济学论文例文

经济全球化时代的后发优势与发展中国家的对策 ● 论文报告 ● 作品简介 根据联合国开发计划署发表的1999年度《人类发展报告》，占全球1/5的人口生活在收入水平最高的国家，他们拥有全球国内生产总值的86%，全球出口市场的82%，外国直接投资的68%，全球电话总数的74%；...

提供一篇西方经济学论文，供参考。对边际生产力论文的探讨一、边际生产力理论的局限性边际生产力理论是新古典经济理论的基石。边际生产力理论是用于阐明在生产中相互合作的各种生产要素或资源所得到的报酬的一种方法。通常情况，当其他要素数量不变，而单位某种生产要素离开（或加入）生产过程时所引起的商品产值的减少（或增加）量，就等于该种生产要素一个单位的服务报酬或其他报酬。这里很明显，决定生产要素的报酬是取决于生产过程中的技术条件。在新古典理论中，一般用生产函数来表明这种投入和产出的技术关系。边际生产力理论用数学公式来表达就是：厂商的生产函数是Y=F(x[,1],x[,2],x[,3],x[,4]……)，Y是生产过程中的产出，x[,1],x[,2]……是生产过程中的投入，F是生产函数。一般情况下，生产函数满足下面假设：产出对生产要素的投入满足一阶偏导数大于零，二阶偏导数小于零，即附图。一阶偏导数大于零表示，在其他投入不变的情况下，任何一种生产要素等量增加，必然带来实物产出的增加，即边际产品大于零，这一点是非常容易理解的，可以说是市场经济条件下的一个公理，厂商没有必要在产量减少时增加一种要素的投入量。二阶偏导数小于零也就是生产函数的凸性假设，表明一种生产要素的边际产品会随该要素的投入量增加而递减的，这是一个比一阶导数大于零较强的假定，这就是经济学中常常使用的边际产品递减规律。“实际上这并不是一个规律，而是大多数生产过程所具有的共同特性”。（注：范里安：《微观经济学：现代观点》，上海三联出版社、上海人民出版社，1994年，第395页。）在生产过程中，任何一种要素的报酬超过了在少使用这种要素时损失的产值时，那么就会少使用一单位该种生产要素，并且如果这种不平衡没有消除，就会继续减少使用这种生产要素，直到相等为止，即：附图，（注：实际上应该要素的报酬应该等于要素的边际生产收入(marginal revenue of product)，而不是边际产值(value ofmarginal product)，由于新古典的边际生产力理论主要是研究是完全竞争市场，因此二者在量上是相等。）其中w[,i]是x[,i]这种生产要素的报酬（价格），P为产品的价格。这个结论可以很简单地从给定生产函数和厂商利润最大化的条件下得出。边际生产力理论有两要素形式和多要素形式来说明生产要素的需求量。两要素是指总资本和总劳动，在这种形式下，生产函数的形式是Y=F(L,K)，L、K分别是生产过程中投入的劳动和资本的数量。多要素是指在生产过程中使用的可分辨要素的种类，就是在本文开始部分所采用的那种形式。两要素形式可以使边际生产力理论进行简化，但是这个模型存在着一个致命的弱点，就是如何将一个厂商投入的不同质的劳动和不同质的资本进行加总，（注：加总问题是边际生产力理论所遇到的最大的困难，边际生产力需要一个总量劳动和资本的概念，资本的加总只能通过对其价值（格）进行加总的形式来实现，而资本的价格受到资本的边际生产力（利息率）的影响，即维克赛尔效应，从而使边际生产力理论成为一个循环论证。）这也是在上个世纪剑桥资本争论最为激烈的一个问题。多要素形式避免了对不同的劳动和资本进行加总，但这种形式却远离现实，因为这种形式会使生产函数连续可微分的性质难以成立：许多厂商的投入要素都是固定比例，不可能单独地增减一种生产要素而不增减其他的生产要素，即生产要素之间不存在替代性，这样没有办法得出一种要素的边际生产力，因此边际生产力的理论适用范围非常有限。本文在这里分析的是边际生产力理论的适用范围，因此，在这里采用的是两要素生产模型，将厂商的投入抽象地分为劳动和资本，而如何将异质的资本和劳动加总的问题给抛开，而抽象地认为劳动和资本是同质的。这样边际生产力的模型就可以描述成：对于一个厂商的生产函数Y=F(L,K)，劳动者的报酬也就是工资附图，资本的报酬也就是利润（息）率附图。二、总额相符问题(Adding-up Problem)边际生产力在直觉上非常容易被人接受的，因为它体现了一个基本的经济理论原理，那就是其他要素固定不变时，一种要素投入所带来的边际收益等于边际成本，从而使厂商的利润最大化。但是这里存在着一个问题就是：如果每个要素的每一单位都按照相应的边际生产力得到相应报酬，那么厂商的产量是否等于所有的生产要素的边际产品，这就是Y=MP[,L]×L+MP[,K]×K。在1894年，威克斯蒂德在《论分配法则的协调》中详细地论述了这一观点，“这些分配份额加起来等于每个厂商的净产量。”（注：《帕尔格雷夫经济学词典》第1卷，经济科学出版社，1986年，第22-23页；熊彼特：《经济分析史》（第3卷），商务印书馆，1996年，第407-409页。）这个结论的详细描述是：在生产函数是一次（线性）齐次性时，各种投入的生产要素的边际产品乘以其投入量的总和正好等于其产值，这就是总额相符，也就是欧拉定理(Euler's theorem)，从而使边际生产力在理论上更加完美。如果用产品的价格和生产要素的报酬来表示，就可以得到各种投入要素的报酬总和正好等于总产值。（注：在欧拉定理Y=MP[,L]×L+MR[,K]×K两边同时乘以产品的价格P，就可以得到Y×P=w×L+r×K。）厂商的（超额）利润等于厂商的收入（总产值）减去各种生产要素的报酬总和（总成本），即总额相符，厂商的利润为零。但是这里存在着一个条件，就是生产函数必须是线性齐次的，即生产是规模报酬不变的。在新古典经济理论中，通常用生产函数的齐次性来表示规模报酬。齐次性是一个数学概念，它表明一个函数F(x,y)如果满足条件：P(ax,ay)=a[n]F(x,y)，这个函数就是n次齐次性。如果n=1时，就是一次齐次性，也称为线性齐次性，即F(ax,ay)=aF(x,y)。如果一个生产函数是n次齐次生产函数，那么当n＞1时，该生产函数就是规模报酬递增，n＜1时，是规模报酬递减，n=1时，是规模报酬不变。这就意味着总额相符只有在规模报酬不变时，才能成立。同样可以容易证明出：当n＜1时，即存在规模报酬递减时，厂商的总产值就小于各种生产要素的得到报酬总和，存在着“总额不足”；当n＞1时，即存在规模报酬递增时，厂商的总产值就大于各种生产要素的得到报酬总和，存在着“总额过剩”。那么，谁来弥补“不足”和得到“过剩”呢？很明显，这两种情况下，边际生产力理论存在着重大的缺陷，因为它与规模报酬递增和递减相矛盾，除非可以证明资本主义经济中不存在着这两种情况。在经济中存在规模报酬递减的可能不大，如果存在规模报酬递减，就可以把大企业分割成小企业来生产，而在现实经济中很少出现这种现象。所以一般认为经济是规模报酬不变和递增的。三、规模报酬递增现象的存在性规模报酬递增是现代经济中普遍存在的现象，是经济发展的必然结果。从资本主义发展的历史来看，生产是逐渐集中，大规模生产可以实行分工，采用先进设备，聘请高级专家，节省管理费用，都能提高生产效率，这些足以表明现代化的生产肯定是存在着规模递增现象。斯密最早提出分工会导致专业化，从而提高劳动生产率，而使规模报酬呈递增。斯拉法在《经济学杂志》1926年12月发表了《竞争条件下的报酬规律》，指出“在纯粹竞争的条件下，只要产量增加伴之有内部经济，厂商便不会处于完全均衡状态”，“递增收益也是同完全竞争的假设不协调的”。从此也就揭开了不完全竞争理论的序幕。也有一些经济学家承认存在着规模报酬递增现象，但是“根据复制的观点，不变规模报酬是最自然现象，但这并不等于说其他情况不可能发生……递增的规模报酬通常在一定的产量范围内适用。”用复制来说明不变规模报酬的存在是有疑问的，这种复制是远离现实的，因为在现实世界，人们基本上看不到厂商扩大产量的方法是在原有规模上扩大，而不是去建造新厂复制原来的工厂，范里安这种认为不变规模报酬是犯了形而上学的错误。但是不管怎么很难否认规模报酬递增的存在。四、边际生产力理论对规模报酬递增的解释既然规模报酬递增是现代化生产中必然存在的现象，那么边际生产力理论必然要对这种与其相矛盾的规模报酬递增给以解释。一种解释认为经济中不存在规模报酬递增的现象，之所以产生规模报酬递增，是由于有一种促使规模报酬递增的生产要素被人们忽视了，只要加入新的生产要素，生产函数就不会存在规模递增现象：两种要素的生产函数解释不了现实经济的真实情况，在现代经济中，生产要素也在多元化，科学技术、知识、教育等因素加入到生产函数中去，生产函数成了Y=F(L,K,T,I,E……)，从而使生产函数变得越来越复杂，这样处理之后，生产函数就成为线性齐次性，就可以满足于总额相符，从而就使边际生产力学说更加完美，甚至进一步找出科技、知识、教育等在生产过程中的作用来。这种学说存在着一个明显的错误，根据生产要素的性质，生产要素起着两个方面的作用，一是生产过程的投入物，二是要在生产过程中得到相应的报酬。尽管我们可以通过复杂的计算得出科技、知识和教育的边际生产力，但是是谁根据这些要素的边际生产力而得到它的报酬呢？是工人，还是资本家，还是科学家？另外，科技和知识都是体现在劳动和资本中，不能从劳动和资本中独立出来，生产函数的形式应该是Y=F[L(T,I,E……),K(T,I,E……)]，这样，从数学的逻辑上分析，自变量之间必然是独立的，即有完全的自由度。如果技术、知识、教育和劳动、资本之间存在着相关性，它们就不可能同时作为生产函数的自变量，即同时成为生产要素。因此，用多生产要素的生产函数使之成为线性齐次性，从而可以使之满足总额相符的方法，是存在着逻辑矛盾。

Dollar bounce threatens everything else Since early last year, there has been "a rock-solid relationship" between the dollar and risk appetite, says Jennifer Hughes in the Financial Times. Good news would fuel appetite for risk, weakening the dollar as investors sold safe US holdings to scoop up assets such as stocks or commodities. Bad news has prompted the sale of those assets and investors to seek a safe haven in dollars. The inverse correlation between US stocks and the dollar has been above 90% over the past six months (a 100% correlation would imply that the two trends were in lock-step). Last Friday there was talk that the link might be ending. US employment figures were much better than expected: 11,000 jobs were lost in November, and the jobless rate fell from 10.2% to 10%. The dollar jumped by almost two cents against the euro, as markets brought forward the date they expect an interest rate rise, reversing the trend of falling on good news. If the Federal Reserve does raise rates, it may "dramatically alter the way the US dollar behaves", says M&G's Michael Riddell on Bondvigilantes.co.uk. Between early 2004, when the market began to price in a series of Fed rate hikes, and late 2005, the dollar gained almost 12% against the yen and 7% against sterling and 4% against the euro, at a time when stocks were also climbing.However, on Monday, expectations of rising rates were tempered by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, who said it was too soon to herald a sustainable recovery. And the risk/dollar relationship stayed intact early this week. A strengthening dollar hit commodities – gold has lost 5% from last week's peak. Equities fell too, as global jitters on Tuesday prompted investors to seek out a safe haven in dollars. The key to breaking the correlation is to see "consistently improving data" which would shift rate expectations, as Vassili Serebriakov of Wells Fargo points out. But beyond the payroll data, which may well be a one-off, recent releases have been lacklustre. So it's too early to expect the relationship to end.The underlying reason for the correlation is the carry trade. Since March, investors have been borrowing in dollars at rock-bottom interest rates and investing the money in higher-yielding, riskier assets overseas. It's hard to put an exact figure on the carry trade's impact. But the fact that negative correlations between the dollar and a range of risky asset classes have risen sharply over the past few months suggests that "all assets are driven by the giant dollar carry trade", says Dean Curnutt of Macro Risk Advisors. Short positions in the dollar are also close to historical extremes, which also points to the influence of the carry trade.The danger is that a rise in the dollar will trigger a "stampede" as investors rush to cover their short positions by selling risky investments. Cue a sharp, self-reinforcing rise in the dollar and a "co-ordinated collapse" of risky asset classes, as Nouriel Roubini of New York University points out. In short, the dollar carry trade has become a "huge" bubble. And one factor that could drive the rebound in the dollar is the return of the ongoing credit crunch to the spotlight. The latest concern is sovereign debt. But on top of that, the IMF reckons that banks have probably barely written off half their losses, while the global recovery is fragile. So there is ample scope for new shocks. "I would be extremely surprised if we do not see a serious hiccup," says Philippe Gijsels of Fortis Global Markets. Morever, the US trade deficit is improving rapidly, while the greenback is cheap relative to its long-term trade-weighted average. "The worst days" for the dollar look over, says Capital Economics. But that's bad news for most other investments.The big picture: coffee prices will perk up A rally is brewing in Arabica coffee (the type which accounts for 65%-70% of global consumption), says Maja Wallengren in Barron's. The International Coffee Organisation notes that demand is growing at 1.5%-2% a year. But thanks to poor harvests in Brazil and Colombia, it expects a supply deficit of seven to nine million bags (60kg) in the year that began in October 2009, compared to a two-million-bag deficit the year before. Meanwhile, stocks have fallen fast and now cover less than two weeks' demand from importers. Expect prices to keep climbing in the next few months, says Eugen Weinberg of Commerzbank.Statistic of the week Britain looks on track to drop out of the world's top ten economies by 2015, according to the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Over the past four years we have slipped from fourth to seventh, with China and France overtaking us. Strong economic and population growth, rising exchange rates and growing demand for natural resources mean Brazil, Russia and even Canada are set to eclipse us now.WHEN pundits worry about the distorting effects of cheap money on asset prices, they invariably single out the carry trade as a cause for concern. The term is often used loosely to describe any investment that looks suspiciously profitable. More specifically it refers to a particular sort of foreign-exchange trading: that of borrowing cheaply in a “funding” currency to exploit high interest rates in a “target” currency. The yen has long been a favoured funding currency for the carry trade because of Japan’s permanently low interest rates. As a result of the crisis and near-zero rates in America, the dollar has become one, too.If markets were truly efficient, carry trades ought not to be profitable because the extra interest earned should be exactly offset by a fall in the target currency. That is why high-interest currencies trade at a discount to their current or “spot” rate in forward markets. If exchange rates today were the same as those in forward contracts, there would be an opportunity for riskless profit. Arbitrageurs could buy the high-interest currency today, lock in a future sale at the same price and pocket the extra interest from holding the currency until the forward contract is settled.In practice, the forward market is a poor forecaster. Most of the time exchange rates do not adjust to offset the extra yield being targeted in carry trades. So a simple strategy of buying high-yielding currencies against low-yielding ones can be rewarding for those that pursue it. The profits are volatile, however, and carry trades are prone to infrequent but huge losses. In late 2008 the yen rose by 60% in just two months against the high-yielding Australian dollar, a popular target for carry traders. That made it much more expensive to pay back yen-denominated debt.If efficient-market theory cannot kill the carry trade, why don’t volatile returns, and the occasional massive loss, scare off investors? A new paper* by Òscar Jordà and Alan Taylor of the University of California, Davis, may have the answer. They find that a refined carry-trade strategy—one that incorporates a measure of long-term value—produces more consistent profits and is less prone to huge losses than one that targets the highest yield.The authors first examine returns to a simple carry trade for a set of ten rich-country currencies between 1986 and 2008. Buying the highest yielder of any currency pair produced an average return of 26 basis points (hundredths of a percentage point) per month. That would be fine, except that the standard deviation of returns, a gauge of how variable profits are, was almost 300 basis points. The monthly Sharpe ratio that measures returns against risk was a “truly awful” 0.1 (the higher the ratio, the better the risk-adjusted performance). Worse still, the distribution of monthly profits was negatively skewed: big losses were more likely to occur than windfall gains.