摘要
新古典自由主义经济学以自由市场作为核心,配之以有限政府、道德秩序作为其相应的基础,并认为这样一种组合将能够在创造经济繁荣的过程中保障最大限度的个人自由。但是,新古典自由主义经济学阵营内部,对这些理念及组合的论证,是存在矛盾和冲突的,并没有一种逻辑上一致的分析,可以说是各种分析的杂烩。对于自由市场本质的理解,芝加哥学派和奥地利学派就持有不同的论证思路和观点。前者的论证基于均衡的概念,而后者的论证则是基于对不确定性的认识。至于这类经济学家基于"一致同意"对有限政府的论证,以及对基于纯粹个人主义社会观的所谓"道德秩序"的追求,却充满乌托邦的色彩。他们以"消极自由"的名义为自由市场提供辩护时,不仅使他们不可避免地陷入与自己所倡导的政治自由和道德秩序之间的冲突,而且也与欧美近代以来的主流文明趋势发生对抗。
This is a review article.Friedrich Hayek,Milton Friedman and James Buchanan represent a group of neoliberal economists with a liberalism pedigree.We refer to their thoughts as neoliberalism economics.Given the widespread and far-reaching impact of neoliberalism economics on academia and policymaking,we cannot ignore its major flaws and problems while recognizing its contributions.First,on the nature of the free market,the Chicago and the Austrian Schools hold distinctly different arguments and understandings.The Chicago School s argument is based on the concept of equilibrium and follows the general equilibrium model,but adds harsh assumptions.It emphasizes the optimal nature of market equilibrium and consciously ignores mainstream economists critique of the general equilibrium model and the research achievements of behavioral economics.The Austrian School s argument is based on the understanding of uncertainty according to the market process theory,and is strongly critical of the general equilibrium model,which it believes completely misunderstands of the true nature and function of the market and prices.According to the Austrian School,there is no optimal state in a market full of uncertainty;it is merely a trial-and-error learning process and has adaptive efficiency.Second,neoliberalism economists pursue a“limited government”under the rule of law,arguing that the government s core economic power should be subject to particularly strict regulations,as strict as the rules for protecting the fundamental freedoms of the individual.The core aim of the“limited government”concept is to protect the individual s full private property rights and to counter the“tyranny of the majority”.However,when neoliberalism economists use limited democracy to design such a“limited government”reform plan,they are full of utopian thoughts.This is most prominent in Buchanan s argument,which is based on the consensus concept;he must recognize that the“majority voting”method for analyzing specific problems is a suboptimal choice.How does this prevent the“tyranny of the majority”that neoliberalism economists oppose?In Hayek s plan,restrictions on the candidacy of members of parliament are permitted,which is contrary to the spirit of modern political civilization in the western society.Third,Buchanan regards“moral order”as the social ethical foundation of a market that can maximize individual freedom.However,this“moral order”is based on the ethics of individual exchange,which requires traders to recognize and respect each other s property rights.In this situation,lacking the concept of moral rights based on the sense of community and universal justice is not enough to constitute the moral foundation of the entire market society.In fact,asymmetric information,opportunistic behavioral tendencies and trading relationships extended to non-economic areas inevitably undermine the traditional ties that Hayek and Buchanan cherish to restrict individual behavior.Fourth,in the view of neoliberalism economists,the most important function of the free market is the protection and expansion of individual freedom.Economic efficiency is only a by-product of that freedom.Therefore,they can ignore the huge inequality in the distribution of income and wealth and the wide range of social problems that result from the free market.They are even convinced that the market is also a good way to solve social problems.Such views not only erode the notion of the public sphere,but also shake the foundations of public life.It is not special that a theory has its own dilemma.Truth is relative.Any theoretical structure has problems that must be further resolved.However,one thing is certain:the policy recommendations from those advocates of the“free market”have received much more attention than what they deserve.Therefore,the concerns are the one-sidedness and especially the serious consequences of putting policies with serious theoretical flaws into practice.It is conceited to say that market self-regulation is better than government regulation.A technical academic analysis becoming an ideological assertion may have serious consequences.
作者
杨春学
YANG Chunxue(Capital University of Economics and Business)
出处
《经济研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第10期4-15,共12页
Economic Research Journal
基金
国家社科基金重点项目"经济思想史的知识社会学研究"(14AZD109)的阶段性成果
