消费伦理观转变的理性反思

消费伦理观具有时代性,不同的时代会有不同的消费伦理观引导着人们。我国长期在崇俭黜奢的消费伦理观的左右下,消费的形式多为生存性的物质消费,具有明显的保守性。随着经济的发展,我国人民的消费观念和消费方式发生了巨大的变革,这种消费伦理观念的变化在给人们的消费方式带来发展的同时出现了一些新的消费观,如享乐主义的消费观、信贷消费观、冲动性消费观等。因此,在社会转型期要继承和发扬传统消费观念中的优秀部分,合理分配消费比例,努力倡导可持续消费和绿色消费,用一种科学、健康的消费伦理观念引导人们的生活。     

青少年消费者民族中心主义对购物意愿影响的实证研究——对理性行为理论的拓展

在经济全球化的今天,我国青少年在购物时是否受到民族中心主义的影响,这种影响的程度如何,对于本土企业的未来发展具有重要的实践意义。本研究以理性行为理论为基础探讨青少年消费者民族中心主义对购物意愿的影响。结果表明加入消费者民族中心主义(CET)是对理性行为模型的有效的拓展。我国青少年消费者民族中心主义的得分总体偏低。CET对购买国产品牌意愿有显著正向影响,对购买国外品牌意愿有显著负向影响。     

电子数据取证若干问题研究

随着计算机科学的普及与发展,特别是我国国民经济和社会信息化进程的全面加快,计算机信息系统的基础性、全局性作用日益增强。与此同时,涉及计算机系统的案件也与日俱增,电子数据取证的正确与否关系到涉及案件的定性与犯罪嫌疑人的定罪量刑问题。通过对电子证据概念、特征的理解,解读电子数据的取证原则,提出现阶段电子数据取证中存在的问题,并有针对性地提出了相应对策。     

互联网金融法律问题论纲—基于金融企业实务的视角

时下国内最热门的话题莫过于互联网金融,究其原因主要是因为互联网金融不仅关涉政府部门、金融机构或互联网企业,也正在改变着社会的方方面面,包括思维方式、行为习惯和商业模式。当变革带给我们巨大便利和实惠的同时,纷繁复杂的互联网金融模式也留下了各种问题和争论,然而,在互联网金融发展的初期,法律层面的问题是我们首先需要面对和解决的。以实务的视角来看,互联网金融区别于传统金融的特征在于金额小、人数多、总量大和涉及面广,因而需要我们树立开放、包容和创新的理念,去探索适合互联网金融的法律规范模式。     

Online selling and contracting: An overview of EU rules

In the second of our series of articles considering the EU’s limited harmonisation of the laws regulating the activities of businesses using the Internet, we look at the rules governing contracting and selling online. We consider the circumstances in which three key EU directives apply, the rights, under these directives, of consumers who contract online and the effect of electronic signatures as used for online contracting.     

‘That wicked rule,that evil doctrine … ’: Reforming the Law on Disclosure in Insurance Contracts

The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, which abolishes the consumer assured's duty to volunteer information, heralds the first successful outcome of the English and Scottish Law Commissions current insurance contract law reform project. This paper outlines the defects of the common law duty of disclosure which the Law Commissions sought to address. It goes on to consider why previous legislative attempts failed, the self‐regulatory measures introduced by the insurance industry as a means of resisting earlier pressure for statutory intervention, and how that resistance broke down. Finally, it examines the scope of the 2012 reforms and the current consultation being undertaken in respect of the duty of disclosure in relation to business insurance. It concludes by assessing the significance of the statute in providing a necessary impetus for future insurance law reforms.     

When it pays to be honest: How a variable period of good conduct can improve incentives in personal bankruptcy proceedings

Consumer bankruptcy regulation in the United States as well as in many other countries allow consumers to petition for a partial debt discharge. Usually, a debt release is possible when the debtor behaves in the creditors’ best interest and after filing for bankruptcy signs over her entire disposable income for a fixed period. Depending on the country the period lasts between three and six years. We show that a fixed period distorts the consumer’s ex-post incentives to work hard. Instead, we suggest to adequately reduce the outstanding claim and to make debt release contingent on payment. When the consumer manages to pay back the reduced amount, the rest of the initial debt should be discharged immediately. In effect, the consumer becomes the residual claimant of her endeavors. The period of good conduct is effectively variable. JEL classification D18. D91. K29     

当代市场经济运行的信用经济本质剖析——美国"次贷"危机引发的经济学暨政策思考之一

美国"次贷"危机爆发深刻揭示了当代市场经济运行中的金融本质特征之一是高度发达的信用经济。负债运行是当代市场经济中微观主体的常态,是社会经济正常运转的必要前提与制约保障。信用经济本质上是债权债务经济,并具有正负"双重"效应。信用经济的核心功能是以时间交错、空间重组的方式极大限度地将现有的暂时闲置的社会资源动员起来,使原有的经济实体规模在本不可能的基础上得以扩张;但这种经济的运行一旦在某个环节出现断裂并引发环环相扣的整体信用关系功能性断裂时,就会引发整个社会经济的连锁反应,使其原来对社会经济的加速度推动作用反方向运行,并由此产生对社会经济的加速度的破坏张力。发挥信用经济正效应,抑制负效应,需要遵循信用经济运行的基本平衡公式,保障信用经济运行的基本约束条件,即债务人的受信在数量、质量、时间上与债权人的授信相平衡,并以此构建监管体系。     

“Opt in” and “opt out” mechanisms in the internet era – towards a common theory

In order to provide for adequate legal protection mainly in mass-transactions on the internet, both the legislature and private parties increasingly, resort to so-called “opt in” and “opt out” mechanisms. Whether or not an “opt in” or an “opt out” mechanism is used is often decided on a case-by-case basis. The same is true regarding the circumstances under which private parties are or should be allowed to resort to “opt out” mechanisms, and if so, what restrictions should safeguard the free will of the addressees of such mechanisms. This paper argues that the existing “opt in” and “opt out” schemes should not be regarded and discussed as isolated phenomena. Rather, they should be analyzed from the viewpoint of a common underlying legal theory which builds on the common character of the underlying regulatory structure of all “opt in” and “opt out” schemes. This requires a complex matrix which comprises not only the opposites of “in” and “out”, but also of “active” and “inactive”, of “preference” and “non-preference” for the respective default rules, as well as of “ex ante” and “ex post” enforcement of the law. It also involves normative, economic, psychological and, last but not least, technical issues.