【摘要】：產(chǎn)權(quán)理論無(wú)論在理論研究還是在經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)行體制實(shí)踐中都有著極為重要的地位。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們基于自己的階級(jí)利益與學(xué)術(shù)研究方向,繼承并發(fā)展了產(chǎn)權(quán)理論。本文系統(tǒng)地介紹了產(chǎn)權(quán)理論歷史演進(jìn)過(guò)程中的幾種產(chǎn)權(quán)理論學(xué)派:古典政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)派、馬克思主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)和新制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)派,揭示了科斯的產(chǎn)權(quán)理論古典政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)產(chǎn)權(quán)理論以及馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的思想淵源,并從時(shí)代背景、理論基礎(chǔ)、主要內(nèi)容和研究方法四個(gè)方面分別闡述、分析了馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論。本文采用文獻(xiàn)研究法、分析歸納法、比較分析法探討了二者的產(chǎn)權(quán)理論,通過(guò)對(duì)二者產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的比較,分析了二者產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別,指出了我們應(yīng)該毫不動(dòng)搖地堅(jiān)持馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的指導(dǎo)意義,在意識(shí)到科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論局限性的同時(shí),把握科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的借鑒意義。本文在從分析馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的差異與共識(shí)兩個(gè)方面出發(fā)對(duì)其進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)地比較研究,發(fā)現(xiàn)兩種產(chǎn)權(quán)理論既有共識(shí)也存有本質(zhì)性差異。共識(shí)之處在于:第一、二者都認(rèn)為產(chǎn)權(quán)不是單一的權(quán)利,而是“一束”或“一組”權(quán)利;第二、二者都肯定了交易費(fèi)用在市場(chǎng)交易中的作用;第三、二者都肯定了清晰的產(chǎn)權(quán)制度是市場(chǎng)交易的基礎(chǔ)。雖然有上述共識(shí)之處,馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論依然存在著本質(zhì)性差異,從研究方法、研究背景、理論基礎(chǔ)以及主要內(nèi)容的研究都存有差異。內(nèi)容中的差異包括:產(chǎn)權(quán)本質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí)、對(duì)效率的認(rèn)識(shí)以及產(chǎn)權(quán)與法律之間聯(lián)系的認(rèn)識(shí)。雖然,馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論也存在一些需要與時(shí)俱進(jìn)的地方,比如,馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論重視對(duì)產(chǎn)權(quán)建設(shè)宏觀上的把握,面對(duì)新形勢(shì)下深化制度改革出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題無(wú)法有效的解答。這就要求我們要與時(shí)俱進(jìn)的發(fā)展馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論,使之更好的指導(dǎo)中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)建設(shè)。但是不可否認(rèn),隨著我國(guó)改革開(kāi)放的不斷推進(jìn),使得制度改革也在如火如荼進(jìn)行當(dāng)中,正確的理解馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論可以更好的認(rèn)識(shí)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)、企業(yè)發(fā)展以及產(chǎn)權(quán)制度。這些要求我們應(yīng)該堅(jiān)持馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論在宏觀層面對(duì)我國(guó)的指導(dǎo)地位,同時(shí)批判地借鑒科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的微觀意義。最后,本文指出了兩種產(chǎn)權(quán)理論對(duì)我國(guó)社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不同政策含義以及對(duì)我國(guó)社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)建設(shè)的不同指導(dǎo)地位。同時(shí),論述了中共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人不斷面對(duì)新挑戰(zhàn),研究新問(wèn)題,提出新思路,持續(xù)推進(jìn)馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論中國(guó)化,將馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的新發(fā)展運(yùn)用到中國(guó)的具體產(chǎn)權(quán)改革實(shí)踐當(dāng)中,對(duì)我國(guó)進(jìn)一步深化機(jī)制體制改革具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。
[Abstract]:Property right theory plays an important role in both theoretical research and practice of economic operation system. Economists inherited and developed the property right theory based on their own class interests and academic research direction. This paper systematically introduces several schools of property right theory in the course of historical evolution: classical political and economic school, Marxist economics and new institutional economics school. It reveals the ideological origin of the classical political economy property right theory and Marx's property right theory of Coase's property right theory, and expounds respectively from four aspects: the background of the times, the theoretical foundation, the main content and the research method. It analyzes Marx's theory of property right and Coase's theory of property right. This paper discusses the property rights theory of the two countries by means of literature research, inductive analysis and comparative analysis. Through the comparison of the two property rights theories, the paper analyzes the connection and difference between the two property rights theories. It is pointed out that we should unswervingly adhere to the guiding significance of Marx's property right theory and grasp the reference significance of Coase's property right theory while realizing the limitation of Coase's property right theory. Based on the analysis of the difference and consensus between Marx's property right theory and Coase's property right theory, this paper makes a systematic comparative study on them, and finds that the two property right theories have both common and essential differences. The consensus lies in: first, both think that property right is not a single right, but "a bundle" or "a group" rights, second, both affirm the role of transaction costs in market transactions; Third, both affirmed that clear property rights system is the basis of market transactions. In spite of the above consensus, there are still essential differences between Marx's property right theory and Coase's property right theory, including research methods, research background, theoretical basis and main contents. The differences in content include the understanding of the essence of property right, the understanding of efficiency and the relationship between property right and law. Although there are some points in Marx's property right theory that need to keep pace with the times, for example, Marx's property right theory attaches importance to the macroscopic grasp of property right construction, and facing the new situation, the problems arising from deepening the system reform cannot be answered effectively. This requires us to keep pace with the development of Marxist theory of property rights, so as to better guide the socialist economic construction with Chinese characteristics. But there is no denying that with the continuous promotion of reform and opening up in China, institutional reform is also in full swing, a correct understanding of Marx's property rights theory can better understand the market economy, enterprise development and property rights system. These demands that we should insist on the guiding position of Marx's property right theory to our country at the macro level, and at the same time critically draw lessons from the microscopic significance of Coase's property right theory. Finally, this paper points out the different policy meanings of the two kinds of property right theories to the socialist market economy of our country and the different guiding position to the construction of the socialist market economy of our country. At the same time, the paper discusses the new challenges, studies new problems, puts forward new ideas, continuously promotes the localization of Marx's property right theory, and applies the new development of Marx's property right theory to the concrete property right reform practice in China. It is of practical significance to further deepen the institutional reform of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西安建筑科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：F091.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅虎;;“國(guó)企模式”:中國(guó)特色現(xiàn)代國(guó)有企業(yè)的制度路徑[J];現(xiàn)代國(guó)企研究;2017年Z1期

2 何謹(jǐn);;產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)制度頂層設(shè)計(jì)出臺(tái)[J];科技智囊;2017年01期

3 方燁;;保護(hù)產(chǎn)權(quán):利在長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn) 兼顧當(dāng)下[J];中國(guó)民商;2017年01期

4 ;中共中央 國(guó)務(wù)院關(guān)于完善產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)制度依法保護(hù)產(chǎn)權(quán)的意見(jiàn)[J];中國(guó)有色建設(shè);2016年04期

5 謝地;李俊滔;;基于馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的土地價(jià)值侵占問(wèn)題研究[J];現(xiàn)代管理科學(xué);2016年04期

6 韓長(zhǎng)賦;;土地“三權(quán)分置”是中國(guó)農(nóng)村改革的又一次重大創(chuàng)新[J];農(nóng)村工作通訊;2016年03期

7 胡潔;;混合所有制改革中的產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)發(fā)展觀察;2015年06期

8 張軍連;;科斯產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的適用范圍與土地產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的發(fā)展[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2014年31期

9 王敏;;新時(shí)期中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨的產(chǎn)權(quán)觀——從十一屆三中全會(huì)到十八屆三中全會(huì)的考察[J];毛澤東思想研究;2014年02期

10 蔣維兵;;利益與公共權(quán)力的博弈——基于馬克思《關(guān)于林木盜竊法的辯論》的分析[J];三峽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 ;鄧小平做對(duì)了什么？[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)觀察報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王敏;新時(shí)期中國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨關(guān)于產(chǎn)權(quán)的認(rèn)識(shí)與政策[D];西南交通大學(xué);2012年

2 閻云峰;英國(guó)近代憲政視野下的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)理論[D];湖南大學(xué);2009年

3 何華梁;我國(guó)集體企業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)制度改革研究[D];武漢理工大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 汪偉;馬克思主義產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與西方現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)權(quán)理論比較分析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

2 陳福娣;馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與西方現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)權(quán)理論比較分析[D];貴州師范大學(xué);2008年

3 郭超;馬克思產(chǎn)權(quán)理論與西方現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)權(quán)理論比較研究[D];重慶師范大學(xué);2006年

4 羅君麗;科斯經(jīng)濟(jì)思想研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號(hào)：2411771