【作者】 王蓉；

【导师】 李平；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁大学 ， 西方经济学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 所谓复杂适应性系统主要指大量多样性的行为主体进行相互作用所组成的动态系统。多样性和非线性是任何复杂的适应性系统突变和自组织的强大力量。演化经济学者认为,复杂适应性系统理论可以反映出人类社会经济结构演化的复杂性本质。因此,尝试从复杂适应性系统理论框架来理解制度的演化是一种很有意义的探索。本文通过比较制度演化研究领域具有学派代表性的哈耶克、诺思、格雷夫以及霍奇逊等人的观点,发现他们在理论分析中都不同程度的借鉴了复杂适应性系统理论的基本原理,从而使他们的制度演化研究出现一种趋同的现象。这种趋同性反映出在“制度演化是一个复杂性不断增强的过程”这一基本事实面前,已有的理论分析框架解释力不足,因此,有必要尝试新的分析框架。然而,哈耶克等学者所属学派方法论的局限性制约着他们对复杂适应性系统理论的全面考察。制度演化过程的复杂性本质并不像前辈学者通常认为的那样,可以通过将复杂适应性系统理论的某些观点与已有理论框架进行嫁接来解释。它的完整解释只能在复杂适应性系统理论的框架下进行。在解释制度演化问题之前需要对产生于物理学的复杂适应性系统理论框架进行必要的修正。修正主要集中在两个方面:第一,尝试将复杂适应性系统的自然科学语言转化为经济学语言;第二,尝试在二重演化本体论的规制下建立复杂适应性系统框架,以解释制度演化对行为主体意向性的依赖。复杂适应性系统框架并不是一种方法论的类比,因为行为主体适应性在不同种类系统中本质是不同的。在人类社会经济系统中,行为主体的适应性主要表现为主动地适应。复杂适应性系统的理论核心是多层级结构的不可化约性,这意味着驱动各层级演化的动力是不同的。在社会经济结构的演化过程中,演化动力在微观层级上主要表现为行为主体(组织)主动的适应性学习。学习是行为主体适应环境的基本形式,表现为行为主体感知外界环境的过程。在宏观结构层级上演化动力则是人工选择机制----竞争与合作。在复杂适应性系统中,行为主体之间松散的联系产生了许多不确定性,从而多种探索问题解决方案的行为就会同时进行,形成竞争。竞争会导致反馈,而反馈又会导致创新的适应性行为。因此,竞争机制驱动着系统新奇的突现。但是,竞争并不是唯一的选择机制,行为主体之间联系的维续需要合作机制发生作用。在某个特定时空中,一个获得成功的制度历史大致上是一个有关合作和互补行为不断增加的故事。因此,合作机制维续着复杂系统的稳定性。从表面看,大量的多样性的行为主体之间通过直接或间接的相互作用所引发的不确定性使系统像一片混沌,而在这适应性学习和选择机制的共同推动下,人类社会经济系统的演化在“在混沌的边缘诞生有序”。文章主要尝试使用苏联的历史文献,来验证修正的复杂适应性系统框架如何解释苏联解体这一革命性制度结构变迁过程,并比较这一解释与诺思和霍奇逊解释的不同之处。通过比较分析,我们得出的结论是,复杂适应性系统框架在解释远离平衡态的制度演化问题上——如苏联解体的革命性制度变迁——优于诺思的增量制度变迁的理论框架。而且复杂系统框架可以弥补诺思的制度演化框架无法解释动态演化过程的缺憾。这一优势也可以通过比较霍奇逊的理论框架而得出。另外由于霍奇逊理论基于生物学类比的缺陷,使他的框架在解释苏联解体这一革命性制度变迁时显得力不从心,因为生物系统的演化是漫长的增量的过程;更为重要的是,生物学类比的一个老问题仍然没有得到解决,那就是它无法解释行为个体的意向性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are the Dynamic systems, made up of the interactions of heterogeneous agents. And diversity and nonlinear is strong power of mutation and self-organization of CAS. The evolutionary economists believe that the CAS theory reflects the complex essential of socio-economic structure, so it will be a significant exploration to attempt to understand the evolution of institution under the CAS theory. Through comparative study of some representative scholars’viewpoints, such as Hayke, North, Grave and Hodgson, this paper concludes that a convergence of scholars’researches of the evolution of institution can be found, since the fundamental principle of CAS are used in varying degree by the scholars in their theoretical analysis. And the convergence shows that the known theoretical analytical frames are not enough to interpret the fact that the process of the evolution of institution is seen as the one of the increasing complexity. Thus it might be necessary to take an attempt to replace the old theoretical analytical frames by a new one. However, the limitations of the Methods of Hayke School and others’restrict overall investigation of CAS.The complexity essential of the evolution of institution is not the situation, just like predecessors used to consider, which can be interpreted by the grafting of known theoretical frames and some viewpoints of CAS. Its complete interpretation is only conducted under CAS.In addition, it is necessary to modify the CAS originated from physics before explaining the problem of the evolution of institution. There are two main Modifications as follows. The first place, it is attempted to set up the dialogue platform between the terms of natural sciences and the one of social sciences. The second place, it is attempted to establish the CAS theoretical frame based on the ontology of double evolution in order to interpret the evolution of institution on dependence of agents’intentionality. In fact, CAS is not an analogy of method. The essence of agents’adaptability, which is presented as the active adaptation in socio-economics systems, varies along with different system.The theoretical core of CAS is irreducibleness of Multi-level structure, which means there are different evolutionary dynamic in each level. In Micro level, the evolutionary dynamic is presented as agents’(organizations’) active learning. Learning is a basic form of agents trying acclimatization, shown as the process of the agents apperceiving to the environment. And in Macro level, the evolutionary dynamic is mainly artificial selection: competition and cooperation. Loose relations among agents product many uncertainties, thus various behaviors of exploring solutions are carried out simultaneously, and form competition in complex systems. Competition will cause feedback; meanwhile, innovative adaptive behaviors will be caused by feedback. Accordingly, competition drives the emergences of innovation of system. Yet, competition is not the only selection mechanism, and the sustainable agents’relations need effect of cooperation. In some special space and time, the history of a successful institution is described as a story, which is on the improvements of cooperation and complementary behavior.Hence, the stability of complex systems is sustained by cooperation. To all appearance, the systems look in chaos, because of the uncertainty caused by direct or indirect interactions of heterogeneous agents. Under the combined action of adaptive learning and selection mechanism, the evolution of socio-economic systems is called“Order emerging on the edge of chaos”.In this paper, it is attempted to use the Soviet historical documents to verify the interpretation of disintegration of the Soviet Union, the process of the revolutionary change of institutional structure, under modified CAS, and compare the interpretation with North and Hodgson. After comparative analysis, we draw a conclusion that CAS is superior to North’s theoretical frame of increment institutional changes in interpreting the problems of the evolution of institution far from equilibrium state, such as the revolutionary change of disintegration of the Soviet Union. Moreover, CAS can make up the defects of which North’s theoretical can not interpret the process of dynamic evolution as well as Hodgson. In addition, because of the defects of Hodgson’s theory based on biological analogy, his frames are incapable in interpreting the institutional changes of disintegration of the Soviet Union. The evolution of biological systems is a long incremental process. What’s more, one traditional problem hasn’t been solved that biological analogy can not interpret individual intentionality.更多还原