【作者】 丁玉海；

【导师】 朱成全；

【作者基本信息】 东北财经大学 ， 经济学方法论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 法经济学的产生与发展离不开理性主义,从某种程度上而言,法经济学就是经济学、法学与理性主义联姻的结晶。由此,理性主义在法经济学理论中占据着重要的地位,它是法经济学理论体系的根基。但是,由于经济学理性多元化和传统法律价值多样化的影响,对理性含义的理解和选择并非一致,如完全理性、有限理性、工具理性、价值理性、实质理性、形式理性等,为不同的法经济学者在不同研究领域、不同程度上所使用,法经济学理性主义陷入了混乱的状态,并成为了法经济学理论进一步发展的瓶颈。同时,行为法经济学、法律博弈论所观察的“理性反常或反例”不断冲击着法经济学理论的理性主义根基,意识形态理论、社会规范理论也持续削弱着理性主义的“话语权”。由此,法经济学理性主义该往何处去,便成为了法经济学界的热门话题,而重新审视法经济学理性主义便自然成为了一种有意义的探索。基于上述目的,本文运用拉卡托斯的科学研究纲领方法论对法经济学理性主义进行了初步的研究,以期能促进法经济学理性主义研究的深入。首先,本文分析了法经济学理性主义的理论来源。批判了大多数法经济学学者认为的法经济学完全就是经济学帝国主义的产物而无视法学在法经济学产生中发挥作用的错误观点,从而认为法经济学理性主义并非完全是经济学工具理性下的效率唯一而同时也是法学价值理性下价值多维的结果,指出了经济学理性主义和法学理性主义是法经济学理性主义的共同理论来源。其次,本文对法经济学理性主义进行静态的逻辑分析。根据拉卡托斯科学研究纲领方法论,将法经济学理性主义视为一个科学研究纲领,进而将其划分为硬核、保护带和启发法三个有机组成部分。接着分别对法经济学理性主义研究纲领的硬核、保护带和启发法进行相应的逻辑分析,对一致性理性为法经济学理性主义研究纲领的硬核进行了深入地论证,对一致性硬核所附属的保护带进行了相应的分层研究,分别提出了“紫禁城保护带理论”和“外城保护带理论”。同时,对法经济学理性主义研究纲领的启发法进行了相应的逻辑解析,从而从整体了理清了法经济学理性主义研究纲领内部的逻辑体系。再次,本文对法经济学理性主义进行了动态的历史分析。根据马卡伊将法经济学发展划分为五个历史阶段的观点,分别研究了法经济学理性主义研究纲领在五个历史阶段的不同表现。指出了法经济学理性主义研究纲领并非是固步自封、一成不变的,从法经济学孕育期的完全理性到法经济学提出期的现实理性、再到法经济学接受期的模糊理性、又到法经济学质疑期的有限理性、最后到法经济学持续深入期的交互理性,法经济学理性主义研究纲领一直处于自身的不断演变和修正过程之中。不同历史阶段的法经济学学者对法经济学理性主义研究纲领的修正或调整为法经济学理性主义研究纲领的重构奠定相应的理论基础。最后,本文在前文论述的基础上,指出了法经济学理性主义研究纲领重构的必要性。在论述法经济学理性主义研究纲领之替代的意识形态理论和社会规范理论不足的同时,提出了理性主义是法经济学理论的基石,主导着法经济学发展的方向,因此在法经济学发展中,法经济学理性主义研究纲领不可放弃。进而,提出了法经济学理性主义研究纲领重构的初步设想,分别是：一是对法经济学理性主义研究纲领进行内部修正。将法经济学理性定位于一致性理性,因该理性仅保留手段与目的之间的一种形式上的一致性联系,具有较高的弹性,天然地符合法经济学理性主义研究纲领中硬核的标准,能够经得起理性反常反例的反驳和冲击,从而能赋予法经济学理性主义研究纲领广阔的发展空间。同时,通过适当调整法经济学理性主义研究纲领的保护带,放弃非现实的附属假定,重构现实的附属假定,从而维持法经济学理性假设模型的有效性和适用性。二是对法经济学理性主义进行外部整合。因理性因素与非理性因素共同构成行为人的完整意义上的人性结构,理性与非理性融合的行为选择也是现实中行为人决策中的一种常态,所以把非理性从人的精神属性完全剥离出去进行单独的分析和研究,显然是一种思维上的抽象和独裁。由此,指出了在法经济学分析中同样存在着理性与非理性同构的现象,其中理性主导和支配着非理性,非理性则对理性起着调节和补偿作用,进而提出了在坚持法经济学理性主义分析的前提下,要对法经济学理性主义研究纲领进行外部整合,适当融合非理性因素,以避免法经济学理性主义研究纲领走向片面化。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is that birth and development can’t depart from the rationalism, which, in a sense, the law and economics is the result of economics, law and rationalism. So, it is important that the rationalism is in the law and economics and is the base of the later. But, for the influence from pluralism of economic rationality and diversification of traditional law value, there is divergence on the understanding and choice for the definition of rationality, such as the pure rationality, the bounded rationality, the tool rationality, the value rationality, the substantial rationality, the formal rationality which are used by different scholars of law and economics in different study areas and in different degrees, so it suck into the confusion and became the theoretical hamper for further development. Meanwhile, abnormalities and counterexamples against rationality observed by the behavioral law and economics and the law game theory are attacking the rationality base constantly. Also, the ideology theory and the social norms theory are weakening the right of speech of rationality. So, where the rationalism should go that has been a hot issue of the law and economics circle and the resurvey upon the rationalism of law and economics becomes a kind of significant discovery naturally.In accordance with above-mentioned aim, it uses the methodology of scientific research program advanced by Lakatos to study the rationalism of law and economics preliminarily in this dissertation.Firstly, it studies the theoretical resource of rationalism of law and economics in this dissertation. It criticizes the wrong ides that the law and economics is the outcome of imperialism of economics while ignoring the function of law in the course of birth of law and economics, holds that the rationalism of law and economics is the result not from the only efficiency of tool rationality of economics totally but from multidimensional values of value rationality of law and points out that the rationalism of economics and the rationalism of law are common theoretical resources of the rationalism of law and economics.Secondly, it takes the static logic analysis on the rationalism of law and economics in this dissertation. It takes the rationalism of law and economics as a kind of scientific research program and therefore divides into three organic parts as hard core, protective belt and heuristics. Then it takes logic analysis on the hard core, protective belt and heuristics respectively, points out that it shall orientate as the coherence rationality of hard core of scientific program of rationalism of law and economics and shall study on its accessorial protective belts with different levels, that is, the Forbidden City Protective Belt theory and the Outer City Protective Belt theory. Meanwhile, it also takes logic analysis on the heuristics and so in the whole it straightens out the internal logic relations of rationalism of law and economics.Thirdly, it takes the dynamic history study on the rationalism of law and economics in this dissertation. In accordance with Mackaay’s viewpoint on dividing development of law and economics into five different stages, it studies different performances of program of rationalism of law and economics in the above-mentioned stages. It points out that the rationalism is not conservative and complacent or unchangeable, but in the course of change and amendment from pure rationality in the produce offspring period of law and economics to the real rationality in the advance period of law and economics to vague rationality in the acceptance period of law and economics to bound rationality in the question period of law and economics to mutual rationality in the deep development period of law and economics. Amendments or adjustments on the research program of rationalism of law and economics from different scholars in different historic stages settle theoretical basis for reconstructing it.Lastly, it points out that it is necessary to reconstruct the research program of rationalism of law and economics on the above-mentioned articles in the dissertation. While it points out defects of the ideology theory and the social norm theory as the alternative research program of rationalism of law and economics in this dissertation, it also advances that the rationalism is the base of law and economics, which controls the developing direction of law and economics and therefore it shall never give up the research program of rationalism of law and economics in the development of law and economics. Then it puts forward the preliminary plan to reconstruct the rationalism of law and economics, that is, one is to take internal amendment on the rationalism of law and economics. It orientates as the coherence rationality of rationalism of law and economics in that it only keeps a kind of formal coherence relation between means and aim, which has much more elasticity and conforms to the hard core standard of scientific program of rationalism of law and economics, so it can’t be refuted or falsified in order to give much more developing space for rationalism of law and economics. It shall adjust protective belts of scientific program of law and economics properly as giving up unreal accessorial assumes and reconstructing real ones to make the rationality hypothesis effective and applicable. Another is to take outer integration on the rationalism of law and economics. Since it constructs the whole human structure of rationality and non-rationality, and also the action choice for amalgamation of rationality and non-rationality is normal in the decision-making of actor, it is a kind of abstract and dictatorship of thinking obviously that it engages in sole analysis and study through departing from human’s spiritual attribute. So, it points out that there is phenomenon constructed by rationality and non-rationality in the analysis of law and economics, which the rationality controls non-rationality and the later adjusts the former. It advances that shall take outer integration on the rationalism of law and economics through blending into non-rationality factors properly in order to avoiding the research program of rationalism of law and economics sinking into one-sided mistake on the basis that persisting the research program of rationalism of law and economics.更多还原