“讨价还价”的背后——对现行市场销售模式的法理批判

当今,讨价还价已经成为市场销售的主要模式。讨价还价虽然与自愿和公平有联系,但并不反映自愿与公平;相反,讨价还价与欺诈联系在一起。从效率的角度看,讨价还价也不能反映真实的市场供需关系;相反,它极大地增加了市场的交易成本以及政府的决策成本和管理成本,也抑制了供应商的生产积极性。商品的价格不只是人与自然的关系,更反映了人与人之间的关系,因此,商品价格的确定就不只在于效率,更在于公平。商品价格的公平性就在于成本加合理利润,因此,成本与利润信息的充分披露可以保证消费者在讨价还价中免于欺诈。集团购买以及标准合同也在一定程度可以弥补消费者讨价还价能力的不足。而作为消除讨价还价的销售模式最为有效也最为现实的办法,莫过于以明码实价的方式代替明码标价的规定。对此,政府的价格调控措施必须有所作为。     

马克思的分配正义思想研究——兼论与罗尔斯分配正义论的比较

如何使财富在全社会实现正义的分配,是构建社会主义和谐社会必须回答的重大问题,研究马克思的分配正义思想对当前我国的分配制度改革有一定的启示。马克思从经济和伦理的范畴探讨了分配和正义的内涵,并且指出实现分配正义的途径。比较马克思这一思想与罗尔斯的分配正义论在前提条件、对象和最终目的上的不同,有助于理解马克思分配正义的最终归宿,以及预测“自由人联合体”分配正义的趋势和走向,有助于寻求马克思分配正义的可能性和现实性。     

Negotiating Effective International Environmental Agreements: Is an Objective Approach to Differential Treatment Possible?

The negotiation of international environmental agreements is rendered less effective and more costly than necessary on account of the incentives for rent seeking. This article argues that the problem of rent seeking in this context is complicated by the legitimate demand for the differential treatment of relevant heterogeneity, when insufficient information is available to distinguish between demands based on legitimate differences and rent-seeking. In order to reduce the overall costliness of the totality of international resource agreements, the general rule should be that differential treatment should be provided only in exceptional circumstances. A corollary to this rule is that differences that do not affect future negotiating costs may be considered in current negotiations. This points to differences that are exogenous to the bargaining process, such as a country's physical location. It is argued that development status of a country is another such factor, since the incentives to pursue development are unlikely to be affected by its recognition in current negotiations. Furthermore, the failure to recognise development status as a legitimate basis for differentiated treatment implicitly rewards the early identification and exploitation of unmanaged resources. Restriction of differential treatment to a small number of such differences enables the focusing of negotiations, and the structuring of discussions. A case study of the Montreal Protocol illustrates how the differential impacts of a uniform standard may be estimated, once the range of impacts is delimited.     

“We feel that our strength is on the factory floor”: Dualism,shop-floor power,and labor law reform in late apartheid South Africa

ABSTRACT

This article explores the transformation of South African labor relations during the 1980s. In 1979, prompted by new shop-floor militancy, the Wiehahn Commission recommended that black workers, previously excluded from state labor machinery, be permitted to join recognized trade unions. Most discussions of this shift in apartheid labor relations focus on the ensuing debate within the black unions, torn between preserving their independence or securing state legitimation. This article looks instead at the related debate about ‘levels of bargaining’: should emergent black unions demand to negotiate at the factory level, where they had secured shop-floor strength through organizing and democratic practice, or pursue the benefits of the corporatist bargaining structures that had long excluded them and had privileged white workers? The eventual drift towards corporatism, I argue, imprinted the character of the South African labor movement into the post-apartheid era. An understandable desire to wield influence at the level of the national political economy eroded the tradition of workers’ control, shop floor democracy, and struggle unionism that black unions had forged during the 1970s and 1980s.     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议问题研究

在认罪认罚案件中,检察机关提出的幅度型或精准型量刑建议都是控辩双方合意的产物,也是审判人员最终作出量刑判决的重要依据,审判人员“一般应当采纳”。但对于检察机关提出精准的量刑建议是否存在理论上的正当性以及实务上的可操作性,理论界和实务界仍存在不同意见,实践中也存在部分审判人员“不愿接受”或“勉强接受”精准量刑建议的情况,影响着认罪认罚从宽制度总体功能的发挥。为解决此问题,有必要从理论上明确检察机关量刑建议权以及法院审判权的性质及关系,使审判人员内心“愿意”采纳精准的量刑建议;在实际操作层面需要加强精准量刑建议本身的合理性和合意性,使审判人员经过审理后,“能够”采纳精准的量刑建议。此外,根据具体情况,还需要明确精准量刑建议的变更和补救问题,促进量刑公正。     

Asymmetric bargaining between Myanmar and China in the Myitsone Dam controversy: social opposition akin to David's stone against Goliath

The Myitsone Dam suspension is an asymmetric negotiation between Naypyitaw and Beijing. The bilateral agreement of the hydropower project was concluded in 2009. However, Myanmar's civil society started to oppose the dam when political opportunities expanded in 2011. The quasi-civilian government in Myanmar was caught in an ‘audience cost dilemma': either to disappoint domestic constituents by fulfilling international obligations, or to compensate the Chinese dam developer for breaching the contract. In September 2011, Myanmar President Thein Sein declared the suspension of the dam throughout his tenure. Unexpectedly, China's state-owned dam company did not sue Naypyidaw. Moreover, Beijing even engaged with societal actors in Myanmar to seek their support for the project. How could Naypyitaw defy Beijing in this Myitsone Dam case? Drawing from 35 interviews with anti-dam campaigners and other stakeholders, as well as secondary data, this article argues that the rise of civil society successfully conditioned Naypyitaw's diplomatic options in the controversy. The change of Beijing's diplomatic strategy confirms that domestic constraint in Myanmar is not rhetorical. The Myitsone Dam case is an example that shows bilateral agreement without domestic endorsement can become China's business risk. Presumably, the dispute has wider implications for other Chinese overseas projects outside Myanmar.     

Explaining postwar wage compression

One of the main problems confronting labor unions during wage bargaining is how to deal with the conflicting demands of different groups of workers over the division of labor market earnings. This article explains how their internal organizational blueprint determines how they deal with this and criticizes the scholarly preoccupation with union density and wage bargaining centralization as explanatory variables for cross-national and temporal variation in wage inequality. It does so based on a critical analysis of collective bargaining in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom during the first four decades of the postwar period.     

One measure cannot trump it all: lessons from NATO’s early burden-sharing debates

This paper calls for a qualitative turn in discussing NATO burden-sharing. The paper takes issue with the numerical burden-sharing narrative in NATO and identifies its two main problems. Despite being simple, the 2% defence spending pledge lacks other basic attributes of any contributory system: fairness and effectiveness. Drawing from concepts of distributive justice, the paper analyses NATO’s first burden-sharing debates and demonstrates that due to their qualitatively different capabilities, the allies agreed on an egalitarian ability-to-pay distributive justice. Furthermore, it shows that the allies refrained from implementing fairness in terms of a one-size-fits-all formula, since this simple numerical approach could not produce fair and effective burden-sharing at the same time. Rather, they developed a dynamic framework for optimal sharing. These formative burden-sharing debates provide valuable lessons learned for the current build-up of NATO’s posture: less focused on formal sharing, more concerned with strategic outputs.     

Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events

This study utilized a justice framework to investigate punished subordinates' attitudinal reactions to specific disciplinary events. Results suggested that personality variables (negative affectivity and belief in a just world) influenced subordinate perceptions of the disciplinary event. In addition, belief in a just world had a direct effect on satisfaction with the supervisor, intention to leave, and organizational commitment. Contrary to expectations, harshness (a distributive aspect of the event) influenced perceptions of procedural justice and attitudes toward the institution (organizational commitment) and the leader (trust in supervisor), in addition to its influence on perceptions of distributive justice. The influence of procedural aspects of the event on attitudinal outcomes varied by dependent variable. The implications for future research and for management are discussed.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.