【作者】 梁建洪；

【导师】 张彤玉；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 政治经济学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 西方主流经济学之所以能够成为主流,在很大程度上得益于它的实证方法。随着社会主义市场经济建设的深入发展,西方主流经济学实证方法越来越成为我国经济研究的重要工具,对它的研究也越来越具有重要的理论和现实意义。主流经济学实证方法是经济学研究在科学形式上取得的重要成果,具有重要的方法论意义,同时它也存在着自身的不足和缺陷。本文旨在对该方法的不足方面做出一点尝试性探索,已冀对它有一个更为全面的认识。本论文共分为三个部分。第一部分首先对西方主流经济学实证方法的基础和外围领域做出了分析和梳理。以马克思主义经济学方法论实践原则为参照,从基本逻辑、对待现实的态度等几个方面对西方主流经济学方法论实证原则进行分析,从两种经济学方法论原则差异上对西方主流经济学实证方法论原则的特征作出比较研究。西方主流经济学实证方法与实证主义哲学和自然科学方法存在着深厚的渊源,本文就此作出专门探讨,对它们之间的关系进行梳理,理出经济学实证方法的嬗变过程,从中对其研究方法上的随附性问题作出探讨。第二部分是本文的核心部分之一。本文认为,西方主流经济学实证方法的根本缺陷在于它的拜物教性质。实证方法本身就是一个研究工具,无所谓缺陷与否,而这一方法一旦置于西方经济学的研究之下,就具有了拜物教的性质,成了西方经济学本身拜物教性质的外在表现形式。这一思维形式从根本上是服从于资产阶级以追求剩余价值为目的的日常经济活动需要的。对于西方主流经济学实证方法拜物教性质的揭示,应当深入到它的基础领域,即资本家的日常经济活动经验中。在这一基本思路下,本文就从资本家孤立化的日常经济活动经验出发,对西方主流经济学孤立化实证方法的拜物教性质做出研究：从资本家数量化的日常经济活动经验出发,对西方主流经济学数量化实证方法的拜物教性质做出探讨。第三部分同样是本文的核心部分。当代西方主流经济学对其实证方法进行了反思,通过数理经济学和计量经济学的多因素分析来弥补孤立化研究的不足；通过博弈论对人与人关系的研究,来弥补人与人关系方面研究的不足；通过对经济学实证方法功能的重新地位,以尽可能弥补这一方法拜物教性质的缺陷。虽然这些反思丰富了研究方法的形式和内容,但从技术上看,西方主流经济学通过偏微分的锁定方法以及博弈论的转换方法,完成了上述研究内容与其已有方法的对接,实质上依然是用老办法研究新问题。经济学实证方法功能的重新定位,也没有从根本上改变其拜物教性质。西方主流经济学实证方法的重构,可以从马克思经济学方法论实践原则那里得到启示。本文最后是把西方主流经济学实证方法的拜物教性质放在中国广阔的历史背景中加以考察的。从诺斯对中国经济走向的暗示与罗素对中国发展方向的期待中,可以更加清楚地认识到拜物教前途的局限,更加坚定中国特色发展方向的信念。本文的创新点是：从经验的角度证明西方主流经济学实证方法的拜物教性质；对马克思经济学与西方经济学不同的方法论原则进行了对比分析；论述了西方经济学实证方法对于自然科学方法的依附附性及其困境；揭示了西方经济学人与人关系研究的物性转变方法；揭示了计量经济学利用偏导数进行孤立化研究的实质。更多还原

【Abstract】 The reason why the Western mainstream economics is prevailing lies to a large extent in its positive methodology. With the in-depth development of the socialist market economy, the positive methodology has increasingly become an important tool for economic research in China, and the research of it is also becoming more and more significant, theoretically and practically. As the important scientific result of economics, it is of great methodological significance. However, it has its own flaws. Thus, this dissertation aims to make a tentative exploration into the imperfect aspects in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of this methodology.This dissertation is composed of three parts. The first chapter is an introduction. The second one analyses the basis and related fields of the positive methodology of the Western mainstream economics. The third chapter takes the positive principle of the Marxist economics as a reference, analyses the positive methodology of Western mainstream economics in respect of the basic logic, realistic attitude, etc., and compare the two schools of economics in terms of methodology. There are deep roots between positive methodology of the Western mainstream economics, positive philosophy, and natural sciences. The fourth chapter specifically explores the relationship between them, analyses their changes and discusses the contingent issues in its research methodology.The second part is the central part containing two chapters. We argue that the fundamental flaw of the positive methodology of Western mainstream economics is fetishism. Positive methodology itself is a research tool—to say nothing of shortcomings. Once applied in Western economics, it is fetishistic and has become an external manifestation of Western economic fetishism. It is basically submitted to the daily economic activities of the bourgeois in pursuit of surplus value. To reveal the fetishistic nature of the Western mainstream economics, we should examine its fundamental fields, that is, the usual economic activities of the capitalists. The fourth chapter starts with the isolated daily economic experiences of capitalists to study the fetishistic nature of isolated positive methodology of Western mainstream economics. The fifth chapter starts from the quantitative daily economics experiences of the capitalists to discuss the fetishistic nature of quantitative positive methodology of Western mainstream economics.The third part contains the sixth and seventh chapters and is still the central part of this dissertation. Contemporary Westemmainstream economics reflected its positive methodology and tried to correct the shortcomings in its isolated research by the multi-factor analysis of mathematical economics and econometrics; overcome its flaws in the study of human relations by game theory; and make up its fetishistic weaknesses by redefining the function of the positive methodology. Although these reflections enriched the form and content of the research methodology, and technically connected the new content with its old method by way of partial differential locking and the conversion method of game theory, in essence, it is still a case of using old methods to study new problems. Such redefinition did not bring a fundamental change to its fetishistic nature. Reconstruction of the positive methodology of Western mainstream economics can find inspiration in the methodological practice principle of Marxist economics.The last chapter examines the fetishistic nature of positive methodology of Western mainstream economics in the broad background of Chinese history. According to North’s suggestion of China’s economic trends and Russell’s expectation for China’s development direction we can more clearly recognize the limitation of the fetishistic nature of the economic methodology and unwaveringly strengthen our conviction for the development direction with Chinese characteristics.The major innovative points of the paper are listed as following:(1) Reveal the fetishistic nature of the Western mainstream economics from the perspective of experience.(2) Make a comparative analysis of the methodology between the Marxist economics and the Western mainstream economics.(3) Analyze the contingent issues between the positive methodology of Western mainstream economics and natural sciences; explore the dilemma of the positive methodology of Western mainstream.(4) Present the physical transformation method of Western mainstream economics in the study of human relations (5) Reveal the essence of econometrics which is actually an isolated research using partial derivative.更多还原