论邓小平的效率与公平观

效率与公平,既是一个重要的经济问题,又是一个重要的伦理问题.如何处理好二者的关系,历来都被人们所关注.改革开放以来,邓小平对这一问题有很多论述,概括起来就是在个人收入分配中,要体现效率优先,兼顾公平的原则.这一思想已被党的十四届三中全会确认为坚持以按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存制度必须体现的重要原则.深入学习、贯彻这一原则,对于加快建立社会主义市场经济体制和合理的个人收入分配制度,充分调动广大劳动者的积极性,促进生产力发展,逐步实现共同富裕,具有重要的理论意义和实践意义.     

改革开放以来个人收入分配制度的创新与共同富裕目标的实现(英文)

中共十一届三中全会以来,为了实现共同富裕的目标,对个人收入分配制度进行了艰辛的探索,先后提出了建立多种形式的经济责任制,认真贯彻按劳分配原则;以按劳分配为主体,其他分配方式为补充;以按劳分配为主体,多种分配方式并存的制度,体现效率优先,兼顾公平的原则;把按劳分配和按生产要素结合起来;确立劳动、资本、技术和管理等生产要素按贡献参与分配的原则,完善按劳分配为主体,多种分配方式并存的分配制度,以共同富裕为目标,扩大中等收入者比重,提高低收入者水平。其出发点和归宿点都是为了调劳动者和要素所有者的积极性和创造性,为创造更多的社会财富,保证实现最广大人民的根本利益和共同富裕目标的实现。     

社会主义市场经济收入分配机制探析──兼论效率优先、兼顾公平

社会主义市场经济收入分配机制探析──兼论效率优先、兼顾公平刘锡军不同的体制构成不同收入分配机制的特征，其分配的功效也不同。在过去计划经济高度集权的时期，国家作为整个劳动者代表行使分配主权，宏观和微观分配权利集国家一身，体现的是一元分配主体特征；国家作...     

和谐社会需要公平与效率并重

效率优先、兼顾公平是针对平均主义带来效率低下的传统体制的弊端提出的我国一定时期收入分配的指导方针,现已成为影响和谐社会关系的重大隐患。维护社会公平和正义是社会主义和谐社会的题中之义,必须加大社会公平的分量,使分配原则转向效率与公平并重,保证中国社会的安全运行和健康发展。     

论建国以来我国分配伦理观的变迁与重构

自建国以来,我国的分配伦理观经历了一个由“平均主义”到“效率主义”,再到“效率优先、兼顾公平”的变迁过程。鉴于当前我国社会收入差距不断扩大,贫富悬殊的问题已经形成,必须重构分配伦理观,逐步实现分配伦理观由“效率优先、兼顾公平”向“效率与公平并重”过渡,最后实现“公平”。     

“工效挂钩”与公平分配

本文把分配公平界定为按投入及其产出效率进行分配,据此对“工效挂钩”作出了公平判断。作者指出,迄今为止我国的按劳分配实践,包括建国以后实行的产品经济型按劳分配,以及目前正在用商品经济型按劳分配(“工效挂钩”为其主要内容)替代产品经济型按劳分配的工资改革,都是在克服旧的分配不公的同时产生了新的分配不公。“工效挂钩”中的分配不公源出于社会劳动计量不准、级差收入剔除不净以及社会扣除不公。本文分别提出了缓解的途径,但根本的克服还有赖于深化改革的长期过程。     

收入差距的理论分析--两种分配方式的机理与结果

从理论上讲 ,收入分配 (按劳分配和按生产要素分配 )的结果势必导致收入差距的存在。由于实行两种分配方式而形成的收入差距不仅是合理的 ,而且是公平的 ,因而能够调动劳动者和生产要素所有者的积极性和创造性 ,有利于经济效率的增长。     

按生产要素分配的客观必然性

分配问题始终是社会再生产过程中一个重要的理论问题和实践问题，它关系着人们的切身利益，是经济发展最重要、最深厚的动力源。在深化经济体制改革，建立社会主义市场经济体制的过程中，必须十分重视并处理好这个问题。党的十五大报告提出要“把按劳分配和按生产要素分配结合起来，坚持效率优先、兼顾公平”。这既提出了我国社会主义初级阶段必须遵循的分配原则，也第一次把按生产要素分配写进了党的纲领性文件。本文就按生产要素分配的客观必然性问题作些浅探。一、按生产要素分配与市场机制的一致性从经济运行机制来看，可以说，按劳分配…     

试析按劳分配与按生产要素分配理论的逻辑衔接

从市场经济的视角对马克思主义按劳分配理论作了内涵上的解析.认为,计划经济条件下的按劳分配实践只是对这一理论的时代性应用,而远远未能包含该理论的本质内容.从市场经济的视角看,按劳分配理论本身就体现着达到最优化分配的市场原则.因而,在市场经济条件下体现这一原则的分配方法,必然要通过按生产要素分配来进行.通过对马克思以后的经济学家关于按生产要素分配思想的分析,认为按生产要素分配是马克思主义按劳分配理论在社会主义市场经济体制下的体现.     

效率与公平关系在教育中的意义

效率与公平的关系是社会经济生活中客观存在的一种关系。１９９３年１１月召开的党的十四届三中全会对效率与公平关系作了新的选择，提出要实行“效率优先、兼顾公平”的原则。而教育作为一种产业，必然也存在资源投入与产出的数量与质量之比，即效率问题。所以社会主义教...     

Hukou identity and fairness in the ultimatum game

Theory and Decision - The hukou system is a mandatory household registration system in China that assigns an individual either an urban/non-agricultural hukou or a rural/agricultural hukou based on...     

Axiomatizing bounded rationality: the priority heuristic

This paper presents an axiomatic framework for the priority heuristic, a model of bounded rationality in Selten’s (in: Gigerenzer and Selten (eds.) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox, 2001) spirit of using empirical evidence on heuristics. The priority heuristic predicts actual human choices between risky gambles well. It implies violations of expected utility theory such as common consequence effects, common ratio effects, the fourfold pattern of risk taking and the reflection effect. We present an axiomatization of a parameterized version of the heuristic which generalizes the heuristic in order to account for individual differences and inconsistencies. The axiomatization uses semiorders (Luce, Econometrica 24:178–191, 1956), which have an intransitive indifference part and a transitive strict preference component. The axiomatization suggests new testable predictions of the priority heuristic and makes it easier for theorists to study the relation between heuristics and other axiomatic theories such as cumulative prospect theory.     

Process fairness,outcome fairness,and dynamic consistency: Experimental evidence for risk and ambiguity

Literature on fairness preferences distinguishes between outcome fairness, concerning the final allocation of payoffs, and process fairness, concerning the expected allocation of payoffs. It is not obvious, however, whether process fairness can consistently be implemented. Once uncertainty is resolved and outcomes are determined, the ex-ante procedurally fair decision maker may become consequentialist ex-post, and reconsider her choice on the basis of the observed outcomes. We present experimental evidence on dynamic consistency of social preferences under both known risk and ambiguity. A significant share of people subscribe to process fairness both before and after the resolution of uncertainty.     

立法价值效益优先论

立法价值是指立法能够满足社会主体的需要和利益的属性 ,它本身是一种多重的体系。其本质及其意义都内在地表征了效益的价值目标。在我国现阶段的立法中 ,应把立法的效益价值放在优先的地位。立法效益价值的实质在于立法是一种稀缺的资源 ,它本身要耗费一定的成本并且以取得立法收益为目的。要实现立法的效益价值需要确立立法效益价值观、优化配置各种立法资源并要考虑社会对立法的接受能力     

教育公平缺失的多维度透视

教育公平是社会公平的基础。推进教育公平,事关社会各个阶层的利益。文章对我国社会已存在的教育公平缺失现象进行剖析和透视,有益于在消除缺失和推进公平的进程中作更深入的探索。     

Differential marginality,van den Brink fairness,and the Shapley value

We revisit the characterization of the Shapley value by van den Brink (Int J Game Theory, 2001, 30:309–319) via efficiency, the Null player axiom, and some fairness axiom. In particular, we show that this characterization also works within certain classes of TU games, including the classes of superadditive and of convex games. Further, we advocate some differential version of the marginality axiom (Young, Int J Game Theory, 1985, 14: 65–72), which turns out to be equivalent to the van den Brink fairness axiom on large classes of games.     

On fairness of equilibria in economies with differential information

The paper proposes a notion of fairness which overcomes the conflict arising between efficiency and the absence of envy in economies with uncertainty and asymmetrically informed agents. We do it in general economies which include, as particular cases, the main models of differential information economies, providing in this framework a natural competitive equilibrium notion which satisfies the fair criterion. The analysis is conducted allowing the presence of large traders, which may cause the lack of perfect competition.     

Ensuring scientific integrity in research: Aspects of fairness and justice

The procedures established by the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation reflect an inclination to keep lawyers and legalistic procedures out of scientific misconduct cases. Although misconduct cases resolved at the agencies’ Washington headquarters probably reflect a greater degree of concern with due process, their published procedures require institutions to resolve misconduct cases with virtually no guidance as to the demands of procedural due process.

A number of deficiencies in the handling of misconduct cases under PHS rules at the institutional level are discussed anecdotally on the basis of the author's experience in representing both whistle blowers and accused scientists in misconduct cases.

It is inevitable that some misconduct cases will be heard by the federal courts, and that some of the legalistic trappings of due process will be imposed by the courts. Lawyers and scientists should work together to develop techniques for resolving cases in a way that meets due process requirements without smothering science in a legalistic straight‐jacket.