对基础研究投入问题的思考

文章首先从公共财政的角度对基础研究的投入进行分析,其次从布什和斯托克斯的科研模式角度对基础研究的投入进行分析。在此基础上对加大我国基础研究的投入提出了相关建议。     

The repeated public goods game: A solution using Tit-for-Tat and the Lindahl point

This paper demonstrates how a repeated public goods problem may be solved by using Tit-for-Tat (TFT) on the Lindahl point. The general solution is developed; geometric and numerical examples are offered.I wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.     

国际货物买卖合同法律适用问题分析

国际货物买卖合同双方当事人可以协议选择有关国际公约、国际惯例以及某一国或某几国的国内法为合同的准据法。若当事人选择的准据法不是一个完整的合同法律体系,应允许当事人再次选择,这样才能更好地体现意思自治原则。在一般情况下,若当事人选择了《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》为合同的准据法,合同的准据法就有可能不是单一的,同时还可能会有国际惯例或国内法为合同的准据法。国际货物买卖合同法律适用问题的复杂性应引起我们的注意。     

公共物品的提供模式及政府管制的效率比较

随着技术水平以及人们收入水平的不断提高,市场力量不断进入到公共物品的提供领域,然而由于公共物品对于社会公平、公正带来的重要影响,政府会对市场提供公共物品时进行有效管制,而最主要的管制模式就是进行价格管理。文章利用Wickstro¨m(2001)的模型,分析了政府在对市场提供公共物品进行管制时的效率问题,指出在成本信息不对称时政府管制的效率可能很低,反而给社会福利造成了比较大的损失,同时企业利润也受到影响。     

评货物所有权移转之立法例——兼论各国立法协调之可能性

货物所有权移转的时间问题 ,是货物买卖中的一个最为重要也是最为敏感的问题。本文采用比较法的研究方法 ,在分析与评价关于货物所有权移转的主要立法例的基础上 ,探讨各国立法协调之可能性。本文认为 ,交付主义为最佳选择模式 ;尽管关于货物所有权移转的时间采取的立法例不尽相同 ,但这绝对不意味着没有协调的可能性。就实际情况而言 ,各国或地区的有关立法对此问题的规定正在走向趋同 ,即采用交付主义或向交付主义靠拢。各国或地区立法之所以具有协调的可能性 ,这是由于当代社会经济的国际化、一体化的特点所决定的     

蒂布特模型启迪下的可流动公共产品供给

中国目前正处于城乡公共产品统筹供给的关键时期,研究符合中国国情的公共产品供给理论具有重要意义。蒂布特模型是关于公共产品供给机制的理论研究,其政策含义是政府要采取促进居民流动的方式来提高公共产品的配置效率。由于该模型所作假设的现实性较弱,其结论和应用有一定局限性。根据流动程度,可以把公共产品划分为可流动公共产品和不可流动公共产品两类,可以通过可流动公共产品的流动来提高公共产品的配置效率。中国目前在城乡可流动公共产品优化配置方面有较大发展空间。     

公共经济的主体选择理论依据和标准

在“公共产品理论”形成之前,古典和新古典理论受到自然法的影响,认为公共产品的提供天然是政府,并认为政府是理性的、至善的、唯一的公共产品的提供者。“所谓市场经济,简而言之就是由民间自由交换实现‘私人物品’的有效率的生产,而由政府负责安排公共物品的供给这样一种特殊的制度安排”。     

公共产品供给机制创新及其法律规制

供给机制不完善是造成公共产品供求矛盾的一个根本原因。现行单向的决策机制、一元的供给主体和垄断性供给方式带来诸多弊端。创新供给机制,建立自下而上多利益中心决策机制、建立包括政府、市场和第三部门在内的多元化供给主体机制和供给方式。法律规制中应赋予不同利益组织参与决策权,主体间供给责任分配。规制法律既有公法还包括私法,并遵循双重利益平衡和充分竞争原则。     

奢华生活里的奢侈品——一场风花雪月的营销

奢侈品是一种超出人们生存与发展需要范围的、具有独特、稀缺、珍奇等特点的消费品，又称为非生活必需品。文章对我国历史上奢靡的消费现象进行了回顾，提出奢侈消费对拉动我国未来经济增长有其积极作用。随着中国经济的快速成长，奢侈品消费时代已悄悄来临。如何把握消费者的消费心理、消费行为，怎样适应中国的奢侈品消费市场，采取适合的营销对策，是一个值得我们深思的问题。     

Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation in Terms of Ecological Goods and Services Versus Subsistence and Tribal Values

It is becoming increasingly clear that scientists, managers, lawyers, public policymakers, and the public must decide how to value what is provided by, and is a consequence of, natural resources. While “Western” scientists have clear definitions for the goods and services that ecosystems provide, we contend that these categories do not encompass the full totality of the values provided by natural resources. Partly the confusion results from a limited view of natural resources derived from the need to monetize the value of ecosystems and their component parts. Partly it derives from the “Western” way of separating natural resources from cultural resources or values, and partly it derives from the false dichotomy of assuming that ecosystems are natural, and anything constructed by man is not natural. In this article, we explore the previous assumptions, and suggest that because cultural resources often derive from, and indeed require, intact and unspoiled natural ecosystems or settings, that these values are rightly part of natural resources. The distinction is not trivial because of the current emphasis on cleaning up chemically and radiologically contaminated sites, on restoration of damaged ecosystems, on natural resource damage assessments, and on long‐term stewardship goals. All of these processes depend upon defining natural resources appropriately. Several laws, regulations, and protocols depend upon natural resource trustees to protect natural resources on trust lands, which could lead to the circular definition that natural resources are those resources that the trustees feel they are responsible for. Where subsistence or tribal peoples are involved, the definition of natural resources should be broadened to include those ecocultural attributes that are dependent upon, and have incorporated, natural resources. For example, a traditional hunting and fishing ground is less valued by subsistence peoples if it is despoiled by contamination or physical ecosystem degradation; an Indian sacred ground is tarnished if the surrounding natural environment is degraded; a traditional homeland is less valued if the land itself is contaminated. Our argument is that intact natural resources are essential elements of many cultural resources, and this aspect requires and demands adequate consideration (and may therefore require compensation).