以马克思劳动价值论为指导调节收入分配

改革开放以来我国社会主义市场经济快速发展,但随之而来的我国居民收入差距问题也日益显现,因此,我们必须采取积极有效的措施来扭转这种不良趋势.以马克思劳动价值论为理论基础,不断完善我国的收入分配制度.这对于逐步缩小收入差距,努力实现社会的公平和正义,积极构建社会主义和谐社会具有重要意义.     

“马克思主义劳动价值论与收人分配问题”学术研讨会观点综述

2001年3月21日、23日上午，中国马克思主义研究基金会和中共中央党校马克思主义研究所共同召开了“马克思主义劳动价值论与收入分配问题”学术研讨会。来自中央党校、中国马克思主义研究基金会、中央编译局、国家税务总局、北京大学、中国人民大学的专家、学者以及中央党校进修部部分学员共20多人参加了会议。研讨会由中央党校副校长、中国马克思主义研究基金会第一副会长刘海藩主持。与会者就马克思劳动价值论与收入分配论的关系．坚持劳动价值论要不要考虑生产要素的作用，生产劳动的涵义和应用问题．劳动生     

马克思主义公正观及其对实现社会公正的启示

我国社会主义核心价值观的确立离不开马克思主义公正观的指引。因此,正确地解读马克思主义公正观对于我国构建公平正义的和谐社会具有十分重要的指导意义。目前,我国正处在新的历史阶段,解决社会领域涌现出的不公正问题,实现社会公平正义是新时期全面建成小康社会的关键。因此,必须深入研究马克思主义公正观,促进经济持续稳定发展,全面深化政治改革,构建完备的社会管理体制,推动树立社会主义核心价值观。     

以“公正优先”破解企业分配困局

通过分析公正与效率的因果逻辑,澄清了企业分配,效率优先的误区;针对国有企业长期存在的分配不公,效率低下的问题,提出了破解企业分配困局的应对之策:坚持公正优先原则,建立岗效合璧薪酬分配制度。     

有关劳动和劳动价值论的两点思考

究竟是什么样的劳动在创造价值 ?作为生产要素应不应该参与价值分配 ?这是深化对劳动和劳动价值论的认识必须搞清楚的问题。有关这方面的探讨促进着理论的发展 ,更有着重要的现实意义。     

马克思劳动价值论的界定及其时代启示

马克思的劳动价值论不同于古典政治经济学中的劳动价值论,更是与后来西方经济学中出现的几种价值论有着明确的界限。本文界定了马克思劳动价值论与古典劳动价值论、生产要素价值论、效用价值论、供求价值论和价格论的理论界限。深入理解马克思劳动价值论与西方经济学各种价值论的界限及其内在的历史逻辑,我们可以得到关于如何推进马克思主义政治经济学时代化的不少启发。     

新时期关于深化马克思主义劳动价值论的若干思考

党中央提出要在新的历史条件下深化对劳动和劳动价值论的认识,但是学术界在讨论中,出现了借深化为名,行否定和扭曲之实的不良倾向。我们认为,劳动价值论在今天市场经济的条件下依然是科学的,但我们需要从以下三个方面出发加以坚持和发展:科学看待社会主义条件下私营企业主的管理劳动问题,大力发展服务劳动价值论,正确发挥劳动价值论在收入分配领域中的指导作用。     

劳动价值论与社会主义市场经济条件下的收入分配

生产要素参与分配及其通过市场决定生产要素所有者的收益,不仅是市场经济原则的体现,也是市场经济有效运行的必要条件。如果排斥生产要素参与收益分配,生产要素价格不能在充分的市场竞争中形成,生产要素价格就不能承担起配置社会资源的功能,市场这种资源配置方式就会失去相应的利益机制作支撑,市场在资源配置中起基础作用的经济体制也就难以建立起来。     

社会公正测量的五个维度

社会正义体现为应然正义与实然正义的统一程度,对社会正义的研究,分别遵循应然正义与实然正义两个脉络,从而形成规范性研究和实证性研究.无论从理论发展的需要来看,还是从制定社会政策、调节社会矛盾和促进社会和谐的现实需要出发,都应加强对社会公正的实证研究.以分配正义为核心的社会公正,应着眼于五个维度进行测量:分配对象、分配客体、分配原则、分配空间和分配时间.五个维度彼此融合,紧密相系.对社会公正的五维测量,会更全面地描述和解释社会公正的实现状况及人们的主观认知,也会为社会政策的制定、调整与优化提供参考.     

马克思主义公正观及其对生态环境的启示

公正的思想是马克思主义理论的一个有机组成部分。但是,长期以来,由于种种因素的影响,人们对于马克思主义的公正思想没有给予应有的重视,本文分析了马克思主义公正思想的基本要点和生态环境的现状,试图从生态环境遭到严重破坏的现状中看出马克思主义公正观的要点,以期用马克思主义公正观的观点来指导生态环境的保护和建设,从而为建设生态文明社会打下良好的基础。     

Why outcomes matter: reclaiming distributive justice

ABSTRACT

A significant strain of libertarian thinking is hostile to the idea that distributions of wealth and/or income (economic outcomes) can be judged according to antecedently determined normative standards. The general conceptual argument can be seen in the works of F. A. Hayek and Robert Nozick, both of whom argued that when governments step in to adjust outcomes, they coercively and intentionally distort the terms on which individuals make their individual decisions. By contrast, the coercion that comes with market exchanges, in that it is beyond the intentions of market actors, is not an affront to freedom, rightly understood. The proper role of government is thus to protect these exchanges (economic procedures) and leave outcomes – whatever they are – unaltered. I argue here that this critique of distributive justice turns on a false distinction between economic procedures and economic outcomes, and that reconceptualizing this distinction allows us not only to overcome objections to outcome-based distributive justice, but also to reconsider how the legitimacy of a system of ownership is determined.     

Economic justice and economic power: An inquiry into distributive justice and political stability

We characterize and study the relationship between income redistributions that are just and stable. We assume that for a given economy there exists a set of possible income redistributions, the constitution of the economy. The choice of redistribution is in the hands of the agents, who decide by majority vote. A stable redistribution is one that majority vote cannot alter when each agent tries to maximize his income. A just redistribution is defined thus: in the set of all possible redistributions it is the one that leads to an income distribution which, when viewed as a lottery, optimizes the expected von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function of the agents of the economy. We assume that all agents have the same utility function, that is, the same attitude toward risk. We postulate a trade-off between efficiency and egalitarianism and derive and analyze conditions for just and stable redistributions. We look for the characteristics of initial income distributions that make just and stable redistributions identical. In an example we show how a certain tax schedule on productive work implies certain income redistributions. This work was completed when I, as a research fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, was a guest of the Fakultät für Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Universität Mannheim. I would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Fakultät, and the Sonderforschungsbereich 5, Universität Mannheim, for their support.     

Quantifying distributive justice: An approach to environmental and risk-related public policy

The most fundamental philosophical objection to cost-benefit analysis is that it fails to account for the distinction between more-necessary and less-necessary benefits. For example, it provides no way to avoid trading off a few cancer deaths in exchange for a more cost-effective but also more hazardous technology which provides cheaper paper or plastic products for the many. Since unjust distribution of benefits and burdens results primarily from the failure to prefer more-necessary goods (such as health and safety) over less-necessary ones (such as cheaper plastic razors), we shall see that a correct calculation of the rate at which marginal utilities diminish in value (as they become less necessary to their users) can determine degrees of necessity and thus the most just possible distribution of benefits and burdens. One way to measure the rate of diminishing marginal utility is provided by the wealth effect in occupational risk studies. Wealthier workers will not assume the same risk in exchange for a given salary increment (which to them is not very necessary) as poorer workers would assume for that same salary increment (which to them is more necessary). It is therefore possible to construct a mathematical model for the effect of necessity/non-necessity on quantitative decision principles for environmental and risk-related public policy, thus making such decisions more distributively just than traditional cost-benefit analysis would allow.     

深化对劳动和劳动价值论的认积

新技术革命和知识经济的蓬勃发展,需要深化对劳动和劳动价值论的认识.为此,要拓宽劳动范畴的内涵和外延,拓宽生产劳动者的概念,更新价值创造的观念.深化对劳动和劳动价值论认识有主要的理论和现实意义.     

少年司法价值理念之哲思

少年司法是严峻司法制度中显现“人性之光”的绿洲，是以少年违法犯罪处理为中心的法律制度总称。其根据少年身心特点，以保护为出发点，采取刑事与行政相结合的方式建立的处理少年违法犯罪行为的现代法律制度。随着我国少年司法工作的深入开展，应不断推进理念制度创新，以更好地保护少年合法权益，促进社会和谐。     

程序正义的理论困境与现实悖论

程序正义有利于平衡各种相互冲突的利益,确保正义理念最大限度地实现。单从理论上遵循自主、公正、理性三原则进行的制度设计以达到程序正义的目标,在实践中却受到来自人性的弱点和程序自身的干扰,造成理论与现实的脱节。同时也体现出程序正义并不能独立存在而有赖于实质正义的评判标准,但是二者并不能一劳永逸地实现社会正义,殊途同归,还须回归制度建设的道路上来,在制度建设中贯彻正义之原则以最终趋向程序正义。     

Civic implications of restorative justice theory: Citizen participation and criminal justice policy

Restorative justice, a normative theory and reform movement emphasizing dialogue and reconciliation between victim, offender, and community, is a widespread, if experimental, part of the practice of criminal justice in the United States. This essay argues that restorative justice draws connections between civic engagement and punishment practices that distinguish it as a normative theory of criminal justice. Advocates of restorative justice expect the growth of non-punitive attitudes and the weakening of support for incarceration to emerge from a public and lay-oriented context of adjudication. The role of lay participation in achieving social change, although prominent in restorative justice critiques of mainstream criminal justice norms and practices, has not been clearly articulated in practical terms. Significant ambiguities remain regarding the degree of lay participation, scope of authority, and the focus of restorative justice forums. The essay argues that an adequate assessment of restorative justice experiments should include an analysis of their impact on public attitudes towards crime and crime control policy and not simply on their impact on the specific victims and offenders involved. The link between less incarceration and restorative justice forums is public willingness to grant them the authority to hear and sanction offenses that would ordinarily receive incarceration. Whether and how they can influence broader public attitudes, then, is a critical test of restorative justice effectiveness.     

和谐社会的价值:对秩序与公正的追求

在构建和谐社会的进程中,公共行政人员应确立合理的公共秩序和社会公正的价值导向,才能把一切不和谐因素消解在萌芽之中。政府应在提高公务员素质和能力、提高政府行政能力以及完善市民社会三个方面去践行,最终实现中华民族的大和谐,实现和谐社会的稳定合理的社会秩序和社会公正。     

A distributive N-amendment game with endogenous agenda formation

In this paper I analyze a 3-person voting game in which players sequentially choose amendments to a bill and then vote sophisticatedly on the resulting agenda. This game differs from previous work on endogenous agenda formation in that the number of items on the agenda is not fixed. Players keep making proposals until they can do no better. I find that there is a nonempty set of minimax equilibrium outcomes to the game, and that this set contains the simple von Neumann–Morgenstern stable set.     

以社会主义核心价值体系引领大学班级建设

面对当前高校班级建设现状,深入分析社会主义核心价值体系在班级建设中的指导意义,依据学生当前思想状况及整体育人环境。按照班级建设的目标,遵照大学生的思想教育规律,最大限度的发挥社会主义核心价值体系在大学班级建设中的指导作用,特别是注意将社会主义核心价值体系融入班级建设的各项工作中,协同有序、科学合理的建立起相对系统、完善的班级运行机制。