物权变动混合模式的经济学分析

受传统法教义学研究的局限，中国有关物权变动模式的争议一直难以消解。争议主要集中于单一模式与混合模式、债权形式主义与物权形式主义的立法选择。传统法教义学研究中的政策学与体系论之间存在着难以协调的冲突与矛盾，双方各执一词难以形成物权变动理论的共识。英美法系并无物权的概念，而是以财产权概念代之。英美法基于法经济学研究的微观视角，为全面理解物权变动的相关理论提供了一个视角，为破解既有争议提供了一种研究方法。借助法经济学研究工具，单一模式符合法律供需平衡、法律制度创新的经济学基本规律；形式主义符合成本与收益、安全与效率的经济学基本规律。结合法律思维与经济分析两种路径，物权变动模式以单一模式为较优选择。在单一模式之下，理论上以物权形式主义的单一模式为最优，在中国既有立法情境中则以债权形式主义模式为可行之道。

Economics Analysis of the Mixed Mode of Real Right Change

Limited by the traditional legal doctrinal study, the disputes about the mode of property change in China have been difficult to resolve. The first mock exam is mainly about the legislative choice of single mode and mixed mode, creditor formalism and real right formalism. There are conflicts and contradictions between policy science and system theory in the study of traditional law dogmatism, and it is difficult for both sides to agree on the theory of property right change. There is no concept of property right in common law system, but instead of property right. Based on the micro perspective of law and economics, British and American law provides a perspective for the comprehensive understanding of the relevant theories of property change, and provides a research method for solving existing disputes. With the aid of the first mock exam, the single mode is in line with the basic law of economics of supply and demand of law and the innovation of legal system. Formalism is consistent with the basic law of economics, which is cost and benefit, safety and efficiency. The first mock exam is to combine the legal thinking and economic analysis. The two way is the single mode. Under the first mock exam, China's the first mock exam of real right is the best one. In the existing legislative context, the creditor’s formalism is the feasible way.