报酬递增思想何以中断
|
摘要
报酬递增思想可以追溯到古希腊的柏拉图、亚里士多德、色诺芬,在斯密、穆勒等古典经济学家的体系中,以及在马歇尔的体系中,它都扮演着重要的角色。然而在新古典经济学中,报酬递增思想在很长一段时间内是缺失的。直到二十世纪80年代,伴随着新增长理论、新贸易理论等理论的兴起,报酬递增思想才重新回到主流经济学的视野中。因此从二十世纪初期到二十世纪80年代这段时期可以视为是报酬递增思想的“中断时期”,为何会产生这一中断?此即本文研究的主旨所在。
以“马歇尔为中心”,来展开对报酬递增思想中断原因的分析,可以视为是本文的创新点。笔者以“马歇尔为中心”作为落脚点,是基于这样两方面的考虑：
第一、从字面上来看,“报酬递增思想何以中断”中的“中断”一词含有两层含义：一方面它意味着报酬递增思想的一个从有到无的过程,另一方面还包含着一个从无到有的复兴过程。从有到无必然存在一个转折,从无到有也必然存在一个转折。对中断原因的解释必然离不开对转折点的考察,而这两个个转折点都与马歇尔密切相关。本文所重点研究的是第一个转折。
第二、理解这一转折的关键在于区分两种不同的语境,即马歇尔的语境和新古典的语境。这可以视为是本文研究的一个创新点。立足于思想史发展的视角,动态地审视报酬递增和竞争之间的关系,可以避免站在成熟的新古典范式上来看待马歇尔思想这种“后视之见”。很多人以为,既然马歇尔是新古典经济学的开创者,那么马歇尔的经济思想和研究方法就与新古典经济学是等价的,这其实是对马歇尔的误读。这种误读主要体现在两个方面：一方面,是对马歇尔的具体经济思想存在的误读,如对报酬递增、竞争的解释。另一方面,是对马歇尔研究经济学的方法的误读。提到马歇尔的研究方法,人们几乎条件反射式地会想到其静态的局部均衡分析法,然而这却是马歇尔非常谨慎使用的方法,在他的研究中时刻保持着对现实的关注,他一直认为“经济学家的麦加在于经济生物学”。马歇尔研究方法中的现实性、动态性在今天的主流经济学中很少被提及。
正是以如上视角作为切入点,本文的研究才对报酬递增思想中断的原因作出了富有启发性的解释,并得出了如下结论：
报酬递增和竞争之间的关系融洽与否,是考察报酬递增思想在经济学中立足与否的一条重要线索。为保持两者的融洽性,马歇尔试图从两个方面来达到这一目的：一、对竞争的特殊理解；二、试图通过构建动态学的分析范式来解释、容纳报酬递增思想。在马歇尔的体系中,“市场的不完美性”与第一方面相对应。“具有外部经济特征的报酬递增”、“企业生命周期理论”与第二方面相对应。报酬递增思想的中断与新古典经济学对马歇尔思想的这两个方面的背离有重大的关系。新古典经济学对马歇尔经济学实现了“两大背离”,即对马歇尔的竞争理论的背离和方法论的背离。“两大背离”的原因在很大程度上是经济学的科学化所必需。因为科学化要求精确化,精确化一般要求形式化,而在有限的数学工具的约束下,形式化又必须对现实作出极强的简化。正是这“两大背离”构成了报酬递增思想被新古典经济学抛弃的原因。具体而言：
第一、从对竞争理论的背离来看：
马歇尔对竞争的理解是现实层面的,古典经济学意义上的。因为在马歇尔的竞争理论中,消费者的需求并非是完全有弹性的,这样来自需求的限制就构成了对企业层面的报酬递增的抑制。当企业的内部规模经济不能导致垄断时,报酬递增和竞争均衡的共存就成为了可能。
在马歇尔的时代,伴随着边际革命的产生,竞争理论正经历着从古典意义上的竞争向新古典经济学中的完全竞争理论的转变。在竞争理论的演变过程中,完全竞争理论确立了其在新古典经济学中的主导地位,它去除了古典经济学以及马歇尔经济学中竞争的现实性、动态性特征,而退化为一种抽象的、静态的研究假设。报酬递增与完全竞争的冲突,以及完全竞争对于证明边际分配理论的不可或缺性,使得报酬递增思想被排除在了主流经济学之外。而生产函数规模报酬不变的良好性质与完全竞争的完美结合,则为证明边际分配理论的合法性起了重要的作用,这也被广泛地认为是市场经济合法性的证明。在竞争理论的这一转变过程中,古老的报酬递增思想就因与完全竞争的冲突而被驱逐出了新古典经济学的研究视野。此即报酬递增思想中断的原因之一。
第二、从对方法论的背离来看：
马歇尔在《经济学原理》中反复强调,静态的局部均衡分析是难以处理报酬递增问题的。为了避免得出报酬递增会导致垄断这一与现实不符的结论,即马歇尔所提及的“古诺错误”,他转向了从生物学寻求帮助,从而避免了纯粹演绎法的方法论层面的不足。马歇尔在《经济学原理》中一直试图构建一种动态的理论,以容纳报酬递增等动态性的问题。他所构建的“具有外部经济特征的报酬递增”、“企业生命周期理论”,其背后隐含的就是其动态的分析范式,这在某种程度上可以视为是在进行构建“经济生物学”的尝试。在《经济学原理》中,事实上包含了静态分析(经济力学)和动态分析(经济生物学)两种不同的分析范式。因此,马歇尔的方法论呈现出明显的二元性。局部均衡分析属于前一种范式,而对报酬递增的分析属于后一种范式。马歇尔体系中的动态学是报酬递增与竞争能够相容的一个关键所在。对马歇尔的这一方法论特征的挖掘,尤其是对他的经济生物学的研究,可以视为是本文研究的一个创新点。事实上,马歇尔对动态学的强调和其现实主义关怀密切相关。了解马歇尔的现实关怀,对于理解马歇尔研究经济学的初衷、职业历程、对经济学的整体看法、研究经济学的基本方法、以及对具体经济问题的看法是非常有帮助的。马歇尔的世界观指引了他的现实关怀,他的现实关怀指引了他研究经济学的方法,对这些问题的探究使笔者对他所论述的报酬递增与竞争的关系的相容性有了更深刻的理解。
不幸的是,在马歇尔之后,一方面,由于欧美社会科学中产生了反对使用生物学知识的源自意识形态层面的运动,另一方面,由于二十世纪二、三十年代围绕着报酬递增的大争论,使得经济学的发展走向了一条“去经济生物学”的进路。作为在大争论中扮演重要角色的人物,斯拉法、庇古、罗宾斯等人无疑使得新古典经济学走向了一条“去经济生物学,近经济力学”的道路。这使得主流经济学抛弃了马歇尔在动态分析范式上的尝试,并在完全竞争、规模报酬不变等基本假定的基础上,优先发展了马歇尔的静态学分析范式。而报酬递增问题属于动态学研究的范畴,在静态分析范式下,它是没有立足之地的。方法论的这一转变使得马歇尔对报酬递增与竞争进行调和的种种努力付之一炬。大多数新古典经济学家都放弃了构建动态经济学的尝试,即便有个别的经济学家(如克拉克、希克斯、奈特、熊彼特等人)承诺要构建动态经济学,不过这些学者的承诺或者是仅停留在了口头上,或者是做了一些不完美的尝试,但他们基本都没有涉及对报酬递增问题的分析。所以,在新古典经济学形式化大发展的时期,静态范式是占主导地位的,其中的动态学分析是非常薄弱的。在新古典经济学抛弃马歇尔的动态学、经济生物学,转向静态学分析范式的过程中,报酬递增思想就在主流经济学中消失了。因此,对马歇尔的方法论上的这一背离是报酬递增思想中断的另一重要原因。
鉴于报酬递增问题在新经济时代是如此重要,而报酬递增思想又有其古老的传统,因此本文的研究是具有现实意义和理论意义的。
现实意义：一方面,可以加深人们对报酬递增思想,尤其是马歇尔的报酬递增思想的理解,从而在一定程度上化解在新经济时代人们对报酬递增现象的一些困惑。另一方面,对报酬递增问题的深入理解,可以为制定相关的政策提供一定的现实指导。
理论意义：首先,本文的研究可以使我们理清报酬递增思想演进的脉路,并对报酬递增思想的复兴提供一些启示。其次,本文的研究可以对经济学的发展提供一些启发。现代主流经济学所面临的形式化困境,使得重读马歇尔的思想遗产成为必要。经济学发展的高级阶段究竟路在何方,本文对报酬递增思想中断原因的解释,或许会对提供一些间接性的启发。
The idea of increasing returns could be traced back to Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon in ancient Greece, and it could also be found in the works of classical economists, such as Smith, Mill, and it plays an important role in Marshall's system. However, in neoclassical economics, the idea of increasing returns lost. It's not until the 1980s that the thought of increasing returns came back to mainstream economics in New Growth and New Trade theory. Therefore, it could be concluded that the period between the beginning of the twentieth century and the 1980s can be called "The suspension period" of the idea of increasing returns. Why this suspension happens? That is the question to be answered in this paper.
In explaining why the idea of increasing returns disappears, the "Marshall-centered" approach can be viewed as an innovation in this paper. Two points make the "'Marshall-centered" approach necessary:
Firstly, the word "suspension" has two meanings:on one hand, it means a process that the thought of increasing returns continued for a long time and then disappeared. On the other hand, it means a process of recovery. There is a turning point in each process. The turning point should be invested, and Marshall is the exact turning point.
Secondly, the key is to the turning point is the distinction between two different contexts:the context of Marshallian economics and neoclassical economics. This could be seen as an innovation point of this paper. This research is based on the development of intellectual history, and by examining the relationship between increasing returns and competition dynamically:an improper view is to look at Marshall backward from the standpoint of neoclassical economics. Many authors hold that since Marshall is the founder of neo-classical economics, then neoclassical economics and the Marshallian economics is the same, while in fact it's a misreading of Marshall. This misunderstanding is mainly reflected in two aspects:on one hand, many authors misunderstood some key words of Marshall, such as increasing returns and competing. On the other hand, many economists misunderstood Marshall's methods. The static partial equilibrium analysis is commonly known to be Marshall's distinguishable method, but Marshall was very cautious to this approach, and he paid more attention to reality in his whole life. He insisted that has been that "the Mecca of the economist is economic biology". Reality and dynamics, the distinguishing features of Marshall's method is rarely mentioned in modern mainstream economics.
Based on this point, this paper reached the following conclusions:whether increasing returns and competition is harmonious is an important clue to examine whether increasing returns could exist in economics. Marshall tried two ways to accomplish this harmony:First, a special interpretation of competition; Second, trying to establish dynamic analysis paradigm to accommodate increasing returns in his system. In Marshall's system, "market imperfections" corresponds to the first; "'increasing returns with external economies" and the "life cycle theory of firm" correspond to the second. The interruption of the thought of increasing returns is closely related to the departure from these two aspects. Compared to Marshallian economics, neoclassical economics experienced "two deviations":the change in the theory of competition and methodology. The "two deviations" are necessary in order to make economics more scientific. Science requires precision, and precision requires formalization, and under the constraints of limited mathematical tools, formalization must leads to abstract of reality. It is exactly the "two deviations" make the idea of increasing returns abandoned by the neoclassical economics. To be specific:
First, the deviation from Marshall's competition theory:
Marshall thought competition is a kind of reality, and his interpretation is the same with classical economics. In Marshall's theory of competition, consumer demand is not fully flexible, so that the restrictions from the demand constitute suppressions to internal economies. When internal economies of scale do not lead to monopoly, it is possible for increasing returns and competition to coexist.
In Marshall's time, accompanied by marginal revolution, competition theory was undergoing a change, that is, a change from the competition of classical economics to the theory of perfect competition in neoclassical economics. The theory of perfect competition established its dominant position in neo-classical economics; it's different from the competition in Marshall's economics. In Marshall's economics, competition is realistic and dynamical, while the competition in neo-classical economics is just an abstract and static assumption. The confliction between increasing returns and competition, and the necessity that perfect competition provide for the marginal distribution theory, made the idea of increasing returns abandon by the mainstream economics. The perfect combination between the good nature of the production function of constant returns to scale and perfect competition is necessary to prove the legitimacy of the marginal distribution theory, which was widely seen as proof of the legality of the market economy. During the change of competition theory, the old idea of increasing returns was expelled from the neo-classical economics for its confliction with perfect competition.. Namely, this is one reason why the idea of increasing returns is abandoned.
Second, the deviation from Marshall's methodology:
Marshall repeatedly emphasized in his Principles of Economics that static partial equilibrium analysis is difficult to deal with the problem of increasing returns, that's his character of methodology. In order to avoid the unrealistic conclusion of monopoly deduced from increasing returns, which Marshall named "Cournot dilemma", he turned to seek help from Biology, and then he avoided the defect of purely deductive methodology. In Marshall's Principles of Economics, in order to accommodate the dynamical problems such as increasing returns, he tried to establish a dynamic theory. The "increasing returns with external economies" and "life cycle theory of firm" correspond to his dynamic analysis paradigm and economic biology. Therefore, Marshall's methodology has obvious binary features. The exploration of Marshall's methodology, especially his economic biology can be seen as another innovation of this paper. In his Principles of Economics, in fact, contains both static analysis (economic mechanics) and dynamic analysis (economic biology). The partial equilibrium analysis belongs to the former, the analysis of increasing returns belong to the latter. The dynamics in Marshall's system is a key that makes increasing returns and competition compatible. In fact, Marshall's emphasis on dynamics is closely related to his realism care. To understand Marshall's realism care is helpful to understand the original intention of his economics study, his vocational course, the overall view of economics, the basic economic method, as well as his views on specific economic issues. Marshall's view of the world guides his realism care, and his realism care guides his methodology. Based on this point, a more profound understanding of the compatibility between increasing returns and competition could be realized.
Unfortunately, after the Marshall, economics witnessed a development far from "economic biology". On the one hand, in the social sciences of Europe and the United States, an ideological movement against the use of biological knowledge happened. On the other hand, during the 1920s-1930s. a controversy about increasing returns happened. Sraffa, Pigou and Robbins. as important participants in the controversy, leaded neo-classical economics go to way close to economic mechanics and far from economic biology. This made mainstream economics abandon Marshall's attempt to establish dynamic analysis paradigm. Under the assumptions of perfect competition and constant returns to scale, mainstream economics gives priority to Marshall's static analysis paradigm. Increasing returns belongs to the scope of the dynamics, and static analysis paradigm could not deal with it. The methodological shift made Marshall's efforts of reconciling increasing returns and competitive vanished. Most neoclassical economists abandoned the attempt to build a dynamic economics, though some economists (e.g., Clarke, Hicks, Knight, Schumpeter, and others) committed to building dynamic economics, but they didn't succeed, and they didn't involve the analysis of increasing returns. Therefore, in neo-classical economics to formal period of great development, static paradigm is dominant; the dynamic analysis is very poor. After neoclassical economics abandoned Marshall's dynamics (economic biology), and changed to static analysis paradigm, increasing returns thinking disappeared in mainstream economics. Thus, methodological shift is another important reason for the interruption of the idea of increasing returns.
Since the problem of increasing returns is an important phenomenon in new era, and the idea of increasing returns has its ancient tradition, this paper must has both practical and theoretical significance:
The practical significance is that:on the one hand, it may deepen the thinking of increasing returns, especially Marshall's idea of increasing returns, and can resolve some confusion in new era. On the other hand, it may provide some practical guidance to the relevant policy.
As to the theoretical significance:Firstly, this study allows us to understand how the idea of increasing returns evolves, and it could provide some inspiration to the revival of the idea of increasing returns. Secondly, this paper may provide some inspiration for the development of the economics. The formal predicament faced by modern mainstream economics made it necessary to revisit Marshall's intellectual legacy. Where is economics going in the future? The explanation to the interruption of the idea of increasing returns may perhaps provide some indirect inspiration.
以“马歇尔为中心”,来展开对报酬递增思想中断原因的分析,可以视为是本文的创新点。笔者以“马歇尔为中心”作为落脚点,是基于这样两方面的考虑：
第一、从字面上来看,“报酬递增思想何以中断”中的“中断”一词含有两层含义：一方面它意味着报酬递增思想的一个从有到无的过程,另一方面还包含着一个从无到有的复兴过程。从有到无必然存在一个转折,从无到有也必然存在一个转折。对中断原因的解释必然离不开对转折点的考察,而这两个个转折点都与马歇尔密切相关。本文所重点研究的是第一个转折。
第二、理解这一转折的关键在于区分两种不同的语境,即马歇尔的语境和新古典的语境。这可以视为是本文研究的一个创新点。立足于思想史发展的视角,动态地审视报酬递增和竞争之间的关系,可以避免站在成熟的新古典范式上来看待马歇尔思想这种“后视之见”。很多人以为,既然马歇尔是新古典经济学的开创者,那么马歇尔的经济思想和研究方法就与新古典经济学是等价的,这其实是对马歇尔的误读。这种误读主要体现在两个方面：一方面,是对马歇尔的具体经济思想存在的误读,如对报酬递增、竞争的解释。另一方面,是对马歇尔研究经济学的方法的误读。提到马歇尔的研究方法,人们几乎条件反射式地会想到其静态的局部均衡分析法,然而这却是马歇尔非常谨慎使用的方法,在他的研究中时刻保持着对现实的关注,他一直认为“经济学家的麦加在于经济生物学”。马歇尔研究方法中的现实性、动态性在今天的主流经济学中很少被提及。
正是以如上视角作为切入点,本文的研究才对报酬递增思想中断的原因作出了富有启发性的解释,并得出了如下结论：
报酬递增和竞争之间的关系融洽与否,是考察报酬递增思想在经济学中立足与否的一条重要线索。为保持两者的融洽性,马歇尔试图从两个方面来达到这一目的：一、对竞争的特殊理解；二、试图通过构建动态学的分析范式来解释、容纳报酬递增思想。在马歇尔的体系中,“市场的不完美性”与第一方面相对应。“具有外部经济特征的报酬递增”、“企业生命周期理论”与第二方面相对应。报酬递增思想的中断与新古典经济学对马歇尔思想的这两个方面的背离有重大的关系。新古典经济学对马歇尔经济学实现了“两大背离”,即对马歇尔的竞争理论的背离和方法论的背离。“两大背离”的原因在很大程度上是经济学的科学化所必需。因为科学化要求精确化,精确化一般要求形式化,而在有限的数学工具的约束下,形式化又必须对现实作出极强的简化。正是这“两大背离”构成了报酬递增思想被新古典经济学抛弃的原因。具体而言：
第一、从对竞争理论的背离来看：
马歇尔对竞争的理解是现实层面的,古典经济学意义上的。因为在马歇尔的竞争理论中,消费者的需求并非是完全有弹性的,这样来自需求的限制就构成了对企业层面的报酬递增的抑制。当企业的内部规模经济不能导致垄断时,报酬递增和竞争均衡的共存就成为了可能。
在马歇尔的时代,伴随着边际革命的产生,竞争理论正经历着从古典意义上的竞争向新古典经济学中的完全竞争理论的转变。在竞争理论的演变过程中,完全竞争理论确立了其在新古典经济学中的主导地位,它去除了古典经济学以及马歇尔经济学中竞争的现实性、动态性特征,而退化为一种抽象的、静态的研究假设。报酬递增与完全竞争的冲突,以及完全竞争对于证明边际分配理论的不可或缺性,使得报酬递增思想被排除在了主流经济学之外。而生产函数规模报酬不变的良好性质与完全竞争的完美结合,则为证明边际分配理论的合法性起了重要的作用,这也被广泛地认为是市场经济合法性的证明。在竞争理论的这一转变过程中,古老的报酬递增思想就因与完全竞争的冲突而被驱逐出了新古典经济学的研究视野。此即报酬递增思想中断的原因之一。
第二、从对方法论的背离来看：
马歇尔在《经济学原理》中反复强调,静态的局部均衡分析是难以处理报酬递增问题的。为了避免得出报酬递增会导致垄断这一与现实不符的结论,即马歇尔所提及的“古诺错误”,他转向了从生物学寻求帮助,从而避免了纯粹演绎法的方法论层面的不足。马歇尔在《经济学原理》中一直试图构建一种动态的理论,以容纳报酬递增等动态性的问题。他所构建的“具有外部经济特征的报酬递增”、“企业生命周期理论”,其背后隐含的就是其动态的分析范式,这在某种程度上可以视为是在进行构建“经济生物学”的尝试。在《经济学原理》中,事实上包含了静态分析(经济力学)和动态分析(经济生物学)两种不同的分析范式。因此,马歇尔的方法论呈现出明显的二元性。局部均衡分析属于前一种范式,而对报酬递增的分析属于后一种范式。马歇尔体系中的动态学是报酬递增与竞争能够相容的一个关键所在。对马歇尔的这一方法论特征的挖掘,尤其是对他的经济生物学的研究,可以视为是本文研究的一个创新点。事实上,马歇尔对动态学的强调和其现实主义关怀密切相关。了解马歇尔的现实关怀,对于理解马歇尔研究经济学的初衷、职业历程、对经济学的整体看法、研究经济学的基本方法、以及对具体经济问题的看法是非常有帮助的。马歇尔的世界观指引了他的现实关怀,他的现实关怀指引了他研究经济学的方法,对这些问题的探究使笔者对他所论述的报酬递增与竞争的关系的相容性有了更深刻的理解。
不幸的是,在马歇尔之后,一方面,由于欧美社会科学中产生了反对使用生物学知识的源自意识形态层面的运动,另一方面,由于二十世纪二、三十年代围绕着报酬递增的大争论,使得经济学的发展走向了一条“去经济生物学”的进路。作为在大争论中扮演重要角色的人物,斯拉法、庇古、罗宾斯等人无疑使得新古典经济学走向了一条“去经济生物学,近经济力学”的道路。这使得主流经济学抛弃了马歇尔在动态分析范式上的尝试,并在完全竞争、规模报酬不变等基本假定的基础上,优先发展了马歇尔的静态学分析范式。而报酬递增问题属于动态学研究的范畴,在静态分析范式下,它是没有立足之地的。方法论的这一转变使得马歇尔对报酬递增与竞争进行调和的种种努力付之一炬。大多数新古典经济学家都放弃了构建动态经济学的尝试,即便有个别的经济学家(如克拉克、希克斯、奈特、熊彼特等人)承诺要构建动态经济学,不过这些学者的承诺或者是仅停留在了口头上,或者是做了一些不完美的尝试,但他们基本都没有涉及对报酬递增问题的分析。所以,在新古典经济学形式化大发展的时期,静态范式是占主导地位的,其中的动态学分析是非常薄弱的。在新古典经济学抛弃马歇尔的动态学、经济生物学,转向静态学分析范式的过程中,报酬递增思想就在主流经济学中消失了。因此,对马歇尔的方法论上的这一背离是报酬递增思想中断的另一重要原因。
鉴于报酬递增问题在新经济时代是如此重要,而报酬递增思想又有其古老的传统,因此本文的研究是具有现实意义和理论意义的。
现实意义：一方面,可以加深人们对报酬递增思想,尤其是马歇尔的报酬递增思想的理解,从而在一定程度上化解在新经济时代人们对报酬递增现象的一些困惑。另一方面,对报酬递增问题的深入理解,可以为制定相关的政策提供一定的现实指导。
理论意义：首先,本文的研究可以使我们理清报酬递增思想演进的脉路,并对报酬递增思想的复兴提供一些启示。其次,本文的研究可以对经济学的发展提供一些启发。现代主流经济学所面临的形式化困境,使得重读马歇尔的思想遗产成为必要。经济学发展的高级阶段究竟路在何方,本文对报酬递增思想中断原因的解释,或许会对提供一些间接性的启发。
The idea of increasing returns could be traced back to Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon in ancient Greece, and it could also be found in the works of classical economists, such as Smith, Mill, and it plays an important role in Marshall's system. However, in neoclassical economics, the idea of increasing returns lost. It's not until the 1980s that the thought of increasing returns came back to mainstream economics in New Growth and New Trade theory. Therefore, it could be concluded that the period between the beginning of the twentieth century and the 1980s can be called "The suspension period" of the idea of increasing returns. Why this suspension happens? That is the question to be answered in this paper.
In explaining why the idea of increasing returns disappears, the "Marshall-centered" approach can be viewed as an innovation in this paper. Two points make the "'Marshall-centered" approach necessary:
Firstly, the word "suspension" has two meanings:on one hand, it means a process that the thought of increasing returns continued for a long time and then disappeared. On the other hand, it means a process of recovery. There is a turning point in each process. The turning point should be invested, and Marshall is the exact turning point.
Secondly, the key is to the turning point is the distinction between two different contexts:the context of Marshallian economics and neoclassical economics. This could be seen as an innovation point of this paper. This research is based on the development of intellectual history, and by examining the relationship between increasing returns and competition dynamically:an improper view is to look at Marshall backward from the standpoint of neoclassical economics. Many authors hold that since Marshall is the founder of neo-classical economics, then neoclassical economics and the Marshallian economics is the same, while in fact it's a misreading of Marshall. This misunderstanding is mainly reflected in two aspects:on one hand, many authors misunderstood some key words of Marshall, such as increasing returns and competing. On the other hand, many economists misunderstood Marshall's methods. The static partial equilibrium analysis is commonly known to be Marshall's distinguishable method, but Marshall was very cautious to this approach, and he paid more attention to reality in his whole life. He insisted that has been that "the Mecca of the economist is economic biology". Reality and dynamics, the distinguishing features of Marshall's method is rarely mentioned in modern mainstream economics.
Based on this point, this paper reached the following conclusions:whether increasing returns and competition is harmonious is an important clue to examine whether increasing returns could exist in economics. Marshall tried two ways to accomplish this harmony:First, a special interpretation of competition; Second, trying to establish dynamic analysis paradigm to accommodate increasing returns in his system. In Marshall's system, "market imperfections" corresponds to the first; "'increasing returns with external economies" and the "life cycle theory of firm" correspond to the second. The interruption of the thought of increasing returns is closely related to the departure from these two aspects. Compared to Marshallian economics, neoclassical economics experienced "two deviations":the change in the theory of competition and methodology. The "two deviations" are necessary in order to make economics more scientific. Science requires precision, and precision requires formalization, and under the constraints of limited mathematical tools, formalization must leads to abstract of reality. It is exactly the "two deviations" make the idea of increasing returns abandoned by the neoclassical economics. To be specific:
First, the deviation from Marshall's competition theory:
Marshall thought competition is a kind of reality, and his interpretation is the same with classical economics. In Marshall's theory of competition, consumer demand is not fully flexible, so that the restrictions from the demand constitute suppressions to internal economies. When internal economies of scale do not lead to monopoly, it is possible for increasing returns and competition to coexist.
In Marshall's time, accompanied by marginal revolution, competition theory was undergoing a change, that is, a change from the competition of classical economics to the theory of perfect competition in neoclassical economics. The theory of perfect competition established its dominant position in neo-classical economics; it's different from the competition in Marshall's economics. In Marshall's economics, competition is realistic and dynamical, while the competition in neo-classical economics is just an abstract and static assumption. The confliction between increasing returns and competition, and the necessity that perfect competition provide for the marginal distribution theory, made the idea of increasing returns abandon by the mainstream economics. The perfect combination between the good nature of the production function of constant returns to scale and perfect competition is necessary to prove the legitimacy of the marginal distribution theory, which was widely seen as proof of the legality of the market economy. During the change of competition theory, the old idea of increasing returns was expelled from the neo-classical economics for its confliction with perfect competition.. Namely, this is one reason why the idea of increasing returns is abandoned.
Second, the deviation from Marshall's methodology:
Marshall repeatedly emphasized in his Principles of Economics that static partial equilibrium analysis is difficult to deal with the problem of increasing returns, that's his character of methodology. In order to avoid the unrealistic conclusion of monopoly deduced from increasing returns, which Marshall named "Cournot dilemma", he turned to seek help from Biology, and then he avoided the defect of purely deductive methodology. In Marshall's Principles of Economics, in order to accommodate the dynamical problems such as increasing returns, he tried to establish a dynamic theory. The "increasing returns with external economies" and "life cycle theory of firm" correspond to his dynamic analysis paradigm and economic biology. Therefore, Marshall's methodology has obvious binary features. The exploration of Marshall's methodology, especially his economic biology can be seen as another innovation of this paper. In his Principles of Economics, in fact, contains both static analysis (economic mechanics) and dynamic analysis (economic biology). The partial equilibrium analysis belongs to the former, the analysis of increasing returns belong to the latter. The dynamics in Marshall's system is a key that makes increasing returns and competition compatible. In fact, Marshall's emphasis on dynamics is closely related to his realism care. To understand Marshall's realism care is helpful to understand the original intention of his economics study, his vocational course, the overall view of economics, the basic economic method, as well as his views on specific economic issues. Marshall's view of the world guides his realism care, and his realism care guides his methodology. Based on this point, a more profound understanding of the compatibility between increasing returns and competition could be realized.
Unfortunately, after the Marshall, economics witnessed a development far from "economic biology". On the one hand, in the social sciences of Europe and the United States, an ideological movement against the use of biological knowledge happened. On the other hand, during the 1920s-1930s. a controversy about increasing returns happened. Sraffa, Pigou and Robbins. as important participants in the controversy, leaded neo-classical economics go to way close to economic mechanics and far from economic biology. This made mainstream economics abandon Marshall's attempt to establish dynamic analysis paradigm. Under the assumptions of perfect competition and constant returns to scale, mainstream economics gives priority to Marshall's static analysis paradigm. Increasing returns belongs to the scope of the dynamics, and static analysis paradigm could not deal with it. The methodological shift made Marshall's efforts of reconciling increasing returns and competitive vanished. Most neoclassical economists abandoned the attempt to build a dynamic economics, though some economists (e.g., Clarke, Hicks, Knight, Schumpeter, and others) committed to building dynamic economics, but they didn't succeed, and they didn't involve the analysis of increasing returns. Therefore, in neo-classical economics to formal period of great development, static paradigm is dominant; the dynamic analysis is very poor. After neoclassical economics abandoned Marshall's dynamics (economic biology), and changed to static analysis paradigm, increasing returns thinking disappeared in mainstream economics. Thus, methodological shift is another important reason for the interruption of the idea of increasing returns.
Since the problem of increasing returns is an important phenomenon in new era, and the idea of increasing returns has its ancient tradition, this paper must has both practical and theoretical significance:
The practical significance is that:on the one hand, it may deepen the thinking of increasing returns, especially Marshall's idea of increasing returns, and can resolve some confusion in new era. On the other hand, it may provide some practical guidance to the relevant policy.
As to the theoretical significance:Firstly, this study allows us to understand how the idea of increasing returns evolves, and it could provide some inspiration to the revival of the idea of increasing returns. Secondly, this paper may provide some inspiration for the development of the economics. The formal predicament faced by modern mainstream economics made it necessary to revisit Marshall's intellectual legacy. Where is economics going in the future? The explanation to the interruption of the idea of increasing returns may perhaps provide some indirect inspiration.
引文
1约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[M].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：977。
1 熊彼特.从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965：95。
1 Giacoma Becattini. The return of the'white elephant'[A], in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:18.
1转引自杨小凯.经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[A].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003：9。
2沃尔德罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997：48。
1 G.J.Stigler. The successes and failures of professor Smith [J]. Journal of Political Economy. Vol.84,1976: 1209-1210.
2舒尔茨.报酬递增的源泉[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001：16。
3张五常.分工理论何以遭受忽视?[EB/OL].http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47841 af7010009ok.html.2007。
1 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:307.
2 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.32, No.127. Sep.,1922:311.
3 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:314.
4 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:313.
5 A. C. Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128, Dec.,1922:459.
1 A. C.Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128,Dec.,1922:461.
1 熊彼特认为“斯拉法的批评,并没有凯恩斯在导言中所说的具有那么大的破坏性。斯拉法只是指出,在纯粹竞争的条件下,只要产量的增加伴随内部经济,厂商就不会处于完全均衡状态”。见约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996：425-426。
2早在1924年,内维尔·凯恩斯也认为马歇尔对代表性企业的论述是不能令人满意的。
3森林中的树木是马歇尔的《经济学原理》中经典的生物类比,马歇尔以森林比喻产业,以其中的树木比喻企业,以此来说明企业的发展与树木的成长一样存在盛衰的过程。正如个别的树木不会再森林中一种成长,个别企业也不会一种成长,从而导致垄断。
4 D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal Vol.40, No.157. Mar.,1930:84.
5参见D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157, Mar.,1930:84-86.
4梅纳德凯恩斯虽然没有参与到这场争论中,不过他在自己编写的《马歇尔传》中也支持了马歇尔,认为马歇尔对于垄断、报酬递增的分析、当外部经济存在条件下关于报酬递增的结论与他对竞争力量的推崇之间并无矛盾。
5 Robertson. Sraffa, Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157.1930:79-116.
1马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：150。
2熊彼特.艾尔弗雷德马歇尔[A].从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[C].北京：商务印书馆,1965：102。
1斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论rMl.北京：华夏出版社,2008：67。
2斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2008：67。3斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2008：69。
4 J. M. Clark. Toward a Concept of Workable Competition[J]. American Economic Review, Vol.30, No.2, Part 1. 1940:241-256.
5 W.J.Baumol. Contestable markets:an uprising in the theory of industry structure[J]. American Economic Review, Vol.72, No.1,1982(5):1-15.
1萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：185。
1 纳尔逊.最近关于经济变迁的演化理论[A].转载于库尔特多普菲编.贾根良等译.演化经济学纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：151。
1 纳尔逊.最近关于经济变迁的演化理论[A]转载于库尔特多普菲编.贾根良等译.演化经济学纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：155。
1 邓翔.收益递增与劳动分工理论回顾[J].四川工业学院学报,增刊-0093-03,2003：94。
3另有说法认为马歇尔冲突指的是规模经济与“完全竞争”之间的冲突关系,究竟马歇尔冲突中所涉及的“竞争”指的是“完全竞争”还是含义比较广泛的“竞争”概念,对于我们了解这一命题的由来是非常关
键的。后文对对此作出回应。
1 刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：1。
2刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：51。
3刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：166。
4刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：16。
1亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：15。
1 约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：150。2约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：152。
3约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：167。
1 当然,笔者并非认为斯密没有提及“合”,而是没有明确地提出。笔者猜测,斯密定理中所提到的“市场范围”在很大程度上可以视为“合”。
2马克思.资本论第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：362。
3马克思.资本论第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：362。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：315。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：371。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：371。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：303。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：315。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：320。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：321。
1杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：274。
2杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：273,275,277。
3 Currie (1997)在“从杨格宏观报酬递增的视角看索罗主义和新增长理论”一文中也持这一观点。贾根良(1999)认为研究报酬递增问题的两条思路中,以杨格为代表的结构主义思路是整体主义的方法。
4杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：280。
1沃尔德·罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997：37-38.
2汪丁丁,罗卫东,叶航.历史视角的经济学：是否必要?如何可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2003(9)：36.
1 对于这一点的深入探讨,可以参见wolfe(1954),Moss(1984)的贡献.
2约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：583。
3穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：365。
1 熊彼特.资本主义、社会主义与民主[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2000：140。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：235。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：235。
4 Brian J. Loasby,The Mind and Method of the Economist:A Critical Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century[M]. Edward Elgar,1989:55.
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：147。
1转引自晏智杰.边际革命和新古典经济学[A].北京：北京大学出版社,2003：368。
2 Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. Macmillan,1923:257.
3约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第3卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：383。4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：338。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：8。
2斯宾塞.社会静力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：43。
1古诺.财富理论的数学原理研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：56-57。
2转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[c].北京：商务印书馆,1996：326。
3瓦尔拉斯.纯粹经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：16。
1转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996：327。
2转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996：328。
3约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：579。4克拉克.财富的分配[Ml.北京：人民日报出版社,2010,40。
5转引自约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：580。
6奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：56-57。
1 希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：76。
1希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：77。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：77。
1张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[Ml.北京：华夏出版社,2009：20。
2他极力强调纯粹竞争与完全竞争是不同的。他以纯粹竞争为分析的起点,然而正如很多人所指出的,他的纯粹竞争与完全竞争是相同的。
3张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：197-198。
1琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3。
2琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3。
3琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3-4。
1琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：12。
2琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：19。
3琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：257。
1本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[A].北京：华夏出版社,2010：551。
1 Wicksteed.Philip Henry. An essay on the co-ordination of the laws of distribution[J]. Bristol Selected
Pamphlets,1894:35.
1张旭昆.论威克斯蒂德收入分配理论的历史地位[A].载于经济思想史评论,第四辑[Cl.北京：经济科学出版社,2009：81-82。
2转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：286。
3转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：321。
1转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：323。
2张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：181。
3张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：183。
1生产函数的一次齐次性和平均成本不随着产品的投入产出的比例变化而变化(或平均成本不变)的关系证明如下q=f(K,L), f(aK,aL)=bq设要素投入由初始的k,L变为aK,aL, K,L的价格分别为PK,PL且保持不变,则AC0=(KPK+L PL)/q, AC,=a (KPK+L PL)/bq要满足AC0=AC1则a/b=1,则f(aK,aL)=aq。所以在均衡点要求平均成本不变,规模报酬不变。
2这与熊彼特在《经济分析史》(第三卷,第406页)和萨缪尔森在《经济分析基础》中所认为的耗尽定理是个均衡命题,而不是在每一点都成立的观点是一致的。
3本图转引自张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].上海：三联书店,1958：168。
1熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：408。
2萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：51。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：51。
1萨缪尔森.经济分析基础fMl.沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：52。
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：416。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：52。
4科尔奈(1971)注意到斯密对于资本主义经济“看不见的手”的描述是真实的。但是经过100多年,当
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：60。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：61。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：133。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：49。
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：546。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：542-543。
3当然,马歇尔对报酬递增的分析中所体现的古典特色也是不容忽视的,不过此处不讨论这一问题。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
2 Alfred Marshall, Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29, Mar.,1898:49-50.
1代表性企业(representitive firm)这一概念明确地出现在《经济学原理》的第二版,而不是第一版中,罗宾斯(1928)以此为依据,说明代表性企业这一概念因为是后来加上的,所以在马歇尔的整个理论体系中不具有重要性。而这种批评是不合理的。Guillebaud研究了马歇尔的《原理》的八个版本之间的变化,并于1961年出版了《原理》的集注版,对这些变化做了详细的记录。正如他的研究(1942,1961)表明,在《原理》第一版论述报酬递增条件下寻求正常供给价格时马歇尔就已提到了“我们必须选择能够具有正常能力以便于获得产业组织的内部经济和外部经济的平均份额的有代表性的企业(representitive business)”,可见罗宾斯的批评是不成立的。
2 A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[A]. London:Macmillan,1925:406-407.
3 Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[M]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:634.
4 Giacoma Becattini. The return of the 'white elephant'[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:21.
1 梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1998：207-208。
2转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:315。
3转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:314。
4转引自Peter Groenewegen, A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:314。
1转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:271。
2梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M],南京：江苏人民出版社,1998：22。
1收录于A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[M]. London:Macmillan.1925:359-360.
2其实,第四章提到的马歇尔的竞争理论也可以放在其动态学的背景下来理解。
1不过,熊彼特在《经济发展理论》和《经济分析史》中都提到,穆勒的静态和动态的分法可能引自孔德,而孔德是从动物学家德·布兰维尔那里借用来的。这样看来,穆勒的静态和动态分析法与生物学有很大的关系,而近一个半世纪之后,马歇尔又重申了经济学的高级阶段与生物学的密切关系。
2约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：259-260。
3约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：319。
4约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：319。
1 Alfred Marshall. "Principles of economics", ninth(variorum) edition, C.W. Guillebaud, Volume 2, London: Macmillan,1961:40.
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：9。事实上"economic dynamics"应译为“经济动力学”,而不是“经济力学”。笔者下文会详细说明理由。
3布劳格.经济理论的回顾[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009：327。
1马歇尔在最初写作《经济学原理》的时候,计划将全书写为两卷,后来他放弃了这一计划。2转引自阿莱桑德罗 隆卡吉里亚.皮埃罗斯拉法传[Al.北京：华夏出版社,2009：11。
3托德·G巴克霍尔兹.已故西方经济学家思想的新解读——现代经济思想导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：143-146。
1 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29. Mar.,1898:37.
2 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
1 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
2 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
3 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
4所以商务版将" The Mecca of the economist is economic biology rather than economic dynamics"中的economic dynamics翻译为“经济力学”误解了马歇尔的本意。
5 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
6 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No,29 Mar.,1898:42.
7 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:43.
1 内维尔·凯恩斯.政治经济学的范围与方法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001：93。
2 Hutter (1994)说明了这种有机隐喻的德国根源可以追溯到18世纪甚至更早。大量的德国社会科学家在生物有机体和社会有机体之间进行了广泛的比较。随着德国历史学派的出现,产生了极度依赖有机隐喻的现象。详见J·M·Hodgson.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007:90。
3 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:43. 4 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:44.
5《经济学原理》总共出版了八版,前四版出版的年份分别是1890,1891,1895,1898年。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：8-9。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：2。事实上,“自然界没有飞跃”这一名言出现在《原理》的八个版本的封面上,可见他自始至终都强调连续性。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：1。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：2。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fM].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：5。
6马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：5。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：10。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
3收录于A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[A]. London:Macmillan.1925:490.
4需指出,这种列举是不全面的,仅仅是依据从字面上来看比较明显的一些例证。而对于一些在含义层面上,经济学与生物学的相似性的例证,限于篇幅,此处没有列举,但并不表明这些例证不存在。如马歇尔自己所指明的,第六篇第十二章就是其动态分析的一种尝试。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
1斯宾塞.社会静力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：254。
2 J.K.Whitaker.The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall[C]. New York:The Free Press,1975:151.
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：370。
2详见第四章的分析。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
1 内维尔·凯恩斯,政治经济学的范围与方法[Ml.北京：华夏出版社,2001：93。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：486。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：606。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：484。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：484。
6马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：485。
1 Alfred Marshall, The Old Generation of Economists and the New[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 11. No.2, Jan.,1897:119.
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：506。
1转引自霍奇逊.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化fA].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007：103。
1在斯拉法这篇文章的语境中,完全竞争(只出现一次)、自由竞争(出现了三次)、完全市场(只出现一次)基本上是同义语。
2 D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa. G F. Shove,Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157, Mar.,1930:87.
3 D. H. Robertson, Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove,Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.40, No.157. Mar.,1930:88.
1约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：426。
2转引自杰弗里·M·Hodgson.经济学是如何忘记历史的：社会科学中的历史特性问题[A].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008：134.
3马克·布劳格.凯恩斯以前100位杰出的经济学家[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,1992：137。
4琼·罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：5.
1 Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. London:Macmillan,1923:115.
2 A.C. Pigou. An Analysis of Supply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No.150,1928:239-240.
1莱昂内尔罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：20。
1转引自Neil Hart. Marshall's Dilemma [Al.Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.37, No.4,2003:1139.
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：314。
1 本·塞利格曼现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：402。
1 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：70。
2克拉克认为在经济社会发展过程中,有五种变动在不断地发生：1.人口持续增长；2.人们不断产生新的欲望；3.资本不断增加；4.生产组织形式不断变化,效率低的工厂被淘汰,效率高的仍存在；5.生产方法不断改善。在静态的假设下,上述五种变化被假定是完全静止的。
3转引自施蒂格勒,生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：255。
1克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：61。
2克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：35。
3克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：71-72。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：10。
2奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：41。
3奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：12。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：11。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：123。
2奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：243。
3奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：144。
1熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：312。
1熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000：70。
1 希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：103。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：104。
1 希克斯.价值与资本M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：111。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：113。
3希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：115。
4本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：413。
1本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：471。
2另外,罗宾斯1930年的文章On a certain ambiguity in the conception of stationary equilibrium,也注意到了这一点。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：186。
1 正如克拉克所言,在静态中没有利润,利润是进步的结果,利润理论属于动态理论。
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：317。
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M]北京：商务印书馆,2009：9。
1杨小凯,经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003：9。
2杨小凯与保罗·米尔格罗姆的讨论[EB/OL].http://wenku.baidu.com/view/0cfba892daef5ef7ba0d3c0f. html,2001
[1]A. Alchian. Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory[J]. The Journal of Political Economy,Vol.58, Issue,Jun.1950:211-221.
[2]A. C. Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128, Dec.,1922:458-465.
[3]A. C. Pigou, D. H. Robertson. Those Empty Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol. 34, No.133, Mar.,1924:16-31.
[4]A. C. Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[M]. London:Macmillan,1925.
[5]A.C. Pigou. The Laws of Diminishing and Increasing Cost[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.37, No.146, Jun.,1927:188-197.
[6]A. C. Pigou. An Analysis of Supply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No. 150,1928:238-257.
[7]A.C. Pigou. Alfred Marshall and current thought[M]. Macmillan,1955.
[8]A.J. Youngson. Marshall on economic growth[J]. The Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol.13,1956(2):1-18.
[9]Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No. 29 Mar.,1898:37-59.
[10]Alfred Marshall. Principles of Economics[M]. London:Macmillan,1920.
[11]Alfred Marshall. Mechanical and Biological analogies in Economics[A]. In A.C. Pigou, Memorials of Alfred Marshall[C]. London:Macmillan.1925:312-318.
[12]Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. London:Macmillan,1923.
[13]Alfred Marshall. Principles of economics[M]. ninth (variorum) edition, C.W. Guillebaud, Volume 2, London:Macmillan,1961.
[14]Alfred Marshall. The early economic writings of Alfred Marshall. 1867-1890[C]. edited and introduced by J. K. Whitaker, London:Macmillan, 1975.
[15]Alfred Marshall. Official papers[M]. edited by J.M. Keynes. Bristol:Overstone Press.,1925.
[16]Alfred Marshall. Official papers of Alfred Marshall:a supplement[M]. edited by Peter D. Groenewegen, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[17]Allyn A.Young. Some Limitations of the Value Concept [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,25,1911(3):409-428.
[18]Allyn A.Young. Increasing Returns and Economic Progress[J]. The Economic Journal,Vol.38,No.152.Dec.,1928:527-542.
[19]AL Levine. Increasing returns, the competitive model and the enigma that was Alfred Marshall[J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Volume 27, Issue 3,November,1980:260-275.
[20]Arrow.K.J., Debreu.G. Existence of an equilibrium for a comperitive economy[J]. Econometrica 22,1954:265-90.
[21]Andrea Lavezzi. Smith, Marshall and Young on Division of Labor and Economic Growth[Z]. Working Paper,2003:1-28.
[22]Arthur Twining Hadley. Some fallacies in the theory of distribution [J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.7, No.28 Dec.,1897:477-486.
[23]Arthur, W. Brian. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy[M]. The University of Michigan Press,1994.
[24]Avinash K. Dixit, Joseph E. Stiglitz. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity[J]. The American Economic Review,1977:297-308.
[25]Blitch Charles. Allyn Young:The Peripatetic Economist[M]. Macmillan, London, 1995.
[26]Blitch Charles. Kaldor's lecture notes from Allyn Young's London School of Economics class,1928-29[J]. History of Political Economy,(1990)22(3): 443-463.
[27]Brian J. Loasby. Whatever happened to Marshall's theory of value? [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol.25, No.1,1978:1-12.
[28]Brian J. Loasby. The Mind and Method of the Economist:A Critical Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century[M]. Edward Elgar,1989.
[29]Brian J. Loasby. Firms, Markets, and the Principle of Continuity[A]. In Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. edited by J. K. Whitaker. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[30]Brian J. Loasby. Marshall's theory of firm[A]. in Backhouse and Greed(ed.)From Classical Economics to The Theory of Firm[C]. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar, 1999.
[31]Brian J. Loasby. Efficiency and Time[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:202-220.
[32]Brinley Thomas, Alfred Marshall on economic biology[J]. Review of Political Economy,3.1(1991):1-14.
[33]Bruce Glassburner. Alfred Marshall on Economic History and Historical Development[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.69, No.4, Nov.,1955: 577-595.
[34]Camille Limoges, Claude Menard. Organization and the division of labor[A]. in Philip Mirowski, edits Natural images in economic thought[C]. New York and Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994:336-359.
[35]Charles J. Bullock. The Variation of Productive Forces[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.16, No.4 Aug.,1902:473-513.
[36]Clark, N. G., C. Juma. Long-Run Economics:An Evolutionary Approach to Economic Growth[M]. London:Pinter,1987.
[37]C. E Ferguson. An Analogy between Marshall and Keynes-Metroeconomica, Vol. 10,1958:3-6.
[38]C. W. Guillebaud. The Evolution of Marshall's Principles of Economics[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.208, Dec.,1942:330-349.
[39]C. W. Guillebaud. Marshall's Principles of Economics in the Light of Contemporary Economic Thought [J]. Economica, Vol.19, No.74, May,1952: 111-130.
[40]D. H. Robertson, Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157,Mar.,1930: 79-116.
[41]D. H. Robertson Some Marshallian Concepts[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.69, No.274, Jim.,1959:382-384.
[42]David B. Augretsch, Oliver Falck, Stephan Heblich. It's all in Marshall:The Impact of External Economics on Regional Dynamics[Z]. CES ifo Working Paper No.2094:1-40.
[43]David Reisman. Alfred Marshall's mission[M]. Macmillan,1990.
[44]David Reisman. Alfred Marshall:progress and politics[M]. St. Martin's Press, 1987.
[45]D. C. Hague. Alfred Marshall and the Competitive Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.68, No.272,Dec.,1958:673-690.
[46]Edward H. Chamberlin. Proportionality, Divisibility and Economies of Scale[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 62,1948(2):229-262.
[47]F. H. Knight. Cost of Production and Price over Long and Short Periods[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.29, No.4,Apr.,1921:304-335.
[48]F. H. Knight. Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.38, No.4,Aug.,1924:582-606.
[49]F. H. Knight. On Decreasing Cost and Comparative Cost[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.39, No.2,Feb.,1925:331-333.
[50]F. H. Knight. A Note on Professor Clark's illustration of Marginal Productivity[J]. Journal of Political Economy. Vol.33, No.5, Oct.,1925: 550-553.
[5I]Foley.V. The division of labor in Plato and Smith[J]. History of Political Economy, 1974,6(2),220-242.
[52]F. Y. Edgeworth. Contributions to the Theory of Railway Rates[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.21, No.83, Sep.,1911:346-370.
[53]G. B. Richardson. Adam Smith on competition and increasing returns[A]. in Andrew S.Skinner and Thomas Wilson eds, Essays on Adam Smith[C]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1975:350-360.
[54]G. F. Shove. Varying Costs and Marginal Net Products[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No.150,Jun.,1928:258-266.
[55]G. F. Shove. The Place of Marshall's Principles in the Development of Economic Theory[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.208,Dec.,1942:294-329.
[56]Geoffrey M. Hodgson.The Mecca of Alfred Marshall[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.103, No.417.Mar.,1993:406-415.
[57]Geoffrey M. Hodgson. Alfred Marshall versus the historical school? [J]. Journal of Economic Studies, Vol.32No.4,2005:331-348.
[58]Geoffrey M. Hodgson. Marshall, Schumpeter and the shifting boundaries of economics and sociology[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa, Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:93-115.
[59]George J. Stigler. The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.59, No.3, Jun.,1951: 185-193.
[60]George J. Stigler. Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.65, No.1, Feb.,1957:1-17.
[61]George J. Stigler. Alfred Marshall's Lectures on Progress and Poverty[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.12, No. 1.Apr.,1969:181-183.
[62]George J. Stigler. The Place of Marshall's Principles in the development of economics[A]. In John K.Whitaker (eds), Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1990:1-13.
[63]H Brems. Marshall on mathematics [J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.18, No.2,Oct.,1975:583-585.
[64]Hendrick S-Houthakker, Economics and Biology:Specialization and Speciation [J]. Kyklos, Volume 9, Issue 2,1956(5):181-189.
[65]Henry L. Moore. Paradoxes of Competition[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.20, No.2, Feb.,1906:211-230.
[66]Giacoma Becattini. The return of the'white elephant'[A], in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:13-31.
[67]G. pursell, Unity in the Thought of Alfred Marshall[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.72, No.4, Nov.,1958:588-600.
[68]Hirofumi Uzawa. Optimum Technical Change in An Aggregative Model of Economic Growth[J]. International Economic Review, Vol.6, No.1, Jan.,1965: 18-31.
[69]Howard S. Ellis, William Fellner. External Economies and Diseconomies[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.33, No.3, Sep.,1943:493-511.
[70]Ingrid H. Rima. Increasing Returns, New Growth Theory, and the Classicals[J]. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.1, Autumn, 2004:171-184.
[71]J. M. Clark. Toward a Concept of Workable Competition[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.30, No.2, Part 1 Jun.,1940:241-256.
[72]Jacob Viner. Cost Curves and Supply Curves[J]. The Economic Journal,1931: 23-46.
[73]Jacob Viner. Marshall's Economics, in Relation to the Man and to His Times[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.31, No.2,Jun.,1941:223-235.
[74]James A. Maxwell. Some Marshallian Concepts, Especially the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.68, No.272, Dec.,1958:691-698.
[75]Jan Horst Keppler, Jerome Lallement. The Origins of the U-Shaped Average Cost Curve-Understanding the Complexities of the Modern Theory of the Firm[J]. History of Political Economy,38:4,2006:733-774.
[76]Jaques Kerstenetzky. Alfred Marshall on big business[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2010(34):569-586.
[77]Joel Mokyr. Evolutionary Biology, Technological Change, and Economic History[J]. Bulletin of Economic Research, Volume 43, Issue 2, April 1991: 127-149.
[78]James E. Hartley. Retrospectives the origins of the representative agent[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.10,NO.2, Spring,1996:169-177.
[79]Joan Robinson. Imperfect Competition and Falling Supply Price[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.42, No.168,Dec.,1932:544-554.
[80]Joan Robinson. What is Perfect Competition?[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.49, No.1,Nov.,1934:104-120.
[81]John Cunningham Wood. Alfred Marshall:critical assessments,1-4[C]. Croom Helm,1982.
[82]John Foster. Economics and the Self-Organization Approach:Alfred Marshall Revisited? [J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.103, No.419,Jul.,1993:975-991.
[83]John Hicks. The assumption of constant returns to scale[J]. Cambridge Journal of economics,1989(13):9-17.
[84]John K.Whitaker. The Marshallian System in 1881:Distribution and Growth[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.84, No.333, Mar.,1974:1-17.
[85]John K.Whitaker. Some neglected aspects of Alfred Marshall's economic and social thought[J]. History of Political Economy, Vol.9, No.1,1977:161-197.
[86]John K.Whitaker. The Cambridge background to imperfect competition[A]. in R.G. Feiwel, The economics of imperfect competition and employment[C]. London:Macmillan,1989.
[87]John K.Whitaker. What happened to the second volume of the Principles? [A]. In John K. Whitaker, Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1990:193-222.
[88]John K. Whitaker. The correspondence of Alfred Marshall.Vol.1,1868-1890 [C]. Cambridge University Press,1996.
[89]John K. Whitaker. Alfred Marshall's Principles and Industry and Trade:two books or one? Marshall and the Joint Stock Company [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:137-157.
[90]John Maloney. The professionalization of economics:Alfred Marshall and the dominance of orthodoxy[M]. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswuck,1991.
[91]John M.Gowdy. Biological analogies in economics:a comment[J]. Journal of post Keynesian Economics, vol.v,No.4,1983:676-678.
[92]John Nightingale. Solving Marshall's problem with the biological analogy:Jack Downie's Competitive Process[A]. In G M Hodgson, Economics and biology[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing.1995:75-94.
[93]J.D Hammond. Alfred Marshall's methodology[J]. Methodus, June.1991: 95-101.
[94]John Laurent, John Nightingale. Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics [C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2001.
[95]J. M. Keynes. Alfred Marshall:1842-1924[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.34, No. 135,Sep.,1924:311-372.
[96]Jones G. Social Darwinism and English Thought[M]. Brighton:Harvester Press, 1980.
[97]Joseph Schumpeter. The Instability of Capitalism[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol. 38, No.151, Sep.,1928:361-386.
[98]Joseph Schumpeter. Alfred Marshall's Principles:A Semi-Centennial Appraisal[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.31,No.2,Jun.,1941: 236-248.
[99]J. N. Wolfe. The Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.64, No.254 Jun..1954:337-349.
[100]J. N. Wolfe. Some Marshallian Concepts:A Comment[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.69, No.276, Dec.,1959:807-809.
[101]J. H. Davies. The Industry and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.65, No.260, Dec.,1955:710-712.
[102]J. Laurence Laughlin, Marshall's Theory of Value and Distribution[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.1, No.2, Jan.,1887:227-232.
[103]J.S, Metcalfe. Marshall, Schumpeter and Hayek on the evolution of capitalism[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa. Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:116-144.
[104]J.S. Metcalfe. Alfred Marshall's Mecca:Reconciling the Theories of Value and Development[J]. THE ECONOMIC RECORD, VOL.83, SPECIAL ISSUE. SEPTEMBER,2007:1-22.
[105]Katia Caldari. AM's idea of progress and sustainable development[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Volume 26, Number4, December.2004: 519-536.
[106]Katia Caldari, Fabio Masini. Alfred Marshall and the British economic tradition[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (ed), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:166-187.
[107]Kenneth J. Arrow. The Economic Implications of Learning by Do ing [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.29, No.3, Jun.,1962:155-173.
[108]Kornai,R.H. Anti-Equilibrim:An Economic Systems Theory and the Task of Research[M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland,1971.
[109]Krishna Bharadwaj. Marshall on Pigou's Wealth and Welfare[J]. Economica, New Series. Vol.39, No.153, Feb.,1972:32-46.
[110]Lauchlin Currie. Implications of an Endogenous Theory of Growth in Allyn Young's Macroeconomic Concept of Increasing Returns[J]. History of Political Economy 29:3,1997:413-443.
[111]Lionel Robbins. The Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No. 151, Sep.,1928:387-404.
[112]Lionel Robbins. On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.158, Jun.,1930:194-214.
[113]Lionel Robbins. Remarks Upon Certain Aspects of the Theory of Costs[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No.173, Mar.,1934:1-18.
[114]L. S. Moss. Biological theory and technological entrepreneurship in Marshall's writings[J]. Eastern Economic Journal,1982:3-13.
[115]L. S. Moss. The history of the theory of the firm from Marshall to Robinson and Chamberlain:the source of positivism in economics[J]. Economica,51, August, 1984:307-318.
[116]L. S. Moss. Evolutionary Change and Marshall's Abandoned Second Volume[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 69, Issue 1, 2010(1):359-374.
[117]Macchovec, F. M. Perfect Competition and the Transformation of Economics[M]. London and New York,Routledge,1995.
[118]Marchionatti R. Pareto and Political Economy as a Science:Methodological Revolution and Analytical Advances in Economic Theory in the 1890s[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.105, No.6,December,1997: 1322-1348.
[119]Marchionatti R. On the methodological foundations of modern microeconomics: Frank Knight and the "cost controversy" in the 1920s[J]. History of Political Economy,2003(35):49-75.
[120]Marchionatti R. What Don't Economists Know Now That Marshall Knew a Century Ago? A Note on Marshall's "Sophisticated Informality" [J]. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.26, No.3, Spring,2004:441-460.
[121]Marchionatti R. The'increasing returns and competition'dilemma:from Marshall to Pigou[A]. in Tiziano Raffaelli.Giacomo Becattini and Marco Dardi (eds),The elgar companion to Alfred Marshall[C]. Edward Elgar,2006.
[122]Marco Dardi. Alfred Marshall's partial equilibrium:dynamics in disguise [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:84-112.
[123]Mario Morroni. Overcoming Cournot's dilemma on increasing returns and competition[Z]. Discussion Papers,2010.
[124]Martin Currie and Ian Steedman. Wrestling with time:problems in economics theory[M]. Manchester University Press,1990.
[125]Martin L. Weitzman. Increasing Returns and the Foundations of Unemployment Theory[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.92, No.368, Dec.,1982:787-804.
[126]Michel Quere. Increasing Returns and Competition:Learning From a Marshallian Perspectitive[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003: 182-201.
[127]Milton S. Heath. The Variorum Edition of Marshall's'Principles'[J]. Southern Economic Journal, Vol.30, No. ⒓,1963 (7):60-67.
[128]Morroni, M. Knowledge, Scale and Transactions in the Theory of the Firm[M]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.2006.
[129]Nahid Aslanbeigui. The cost controversy:Pigouvian economics in disequilibrium[J]. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought volume 3, Issue 2,1996:275-295.
[130]Neil Hart. Review[J]. Labour History,No.65,Nov.,1993:248-250.
[131]Neil Hart. Marshall's theory of value:the role of external economies[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1996:53-369.
[132]Neil Hart. Equilibrium and time:Marshall's dilemma[J]. Journal of Economic Methodology Volume 3, Issue 2,1996:285-306.
[133]Neil Hart. Marshall and the development of'neoclassical'Economics [J]. International Journal of Applied Economics and Economitrica, Vol.10, No. 3:2002(7-9):351-368.
[134]Neil Hart. Marshall's Dilemma:Equilibrium versus Evolution[J].Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.37, No.4,2003:1139-1160.
[135]Neil Hart. From the Representative Firm to the Equilibrium Firm:Why Marshall was not a Marshallian [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003: 158-181.
[136]Neil B.Niman. Biological analogies in Marshall's work[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,(1991):19-36.
[137]Neil B.Niman. The evolutionary firm and Cournot's dilemma[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2004,(28):273-289.
[138]Nicolai Juul Foss. The suppression of evolutionary approaches in economics: The case of Marshall and monopolistic competition [J]. Methodus,1991:65-72.
[139]Nicolai Juul Foss. The Biological Analogy and the Theory of the Firm:Marshall and Monopolistic Competition[J]. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.28, No. 4,Dec.,1994:1115-1136.
[140]Nicolai Juul Foss. Theories of the firm:contractual and competence perspectives[J]. Journal of evolutionary economics, Vol.3, No.2,1993:127-144.
[141]Nicholas Kaldor. The Equilibrium of the Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No.173 Mar.,1934:60-76.
[142]Nicholas Kaldor. Alternative Theories of Distribution[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.23, No.2,1955:83-100.
[143]Nicholas Kaldor. The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.82, No.328 Dec.,1972:1237-1255.
[144]Nicholas Kaldor. What is Wrong With Economic Theory[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.89, No.3 Aug.,1975:347-357.
[145]P. Ray. On Marshall's Statics and Dynamics[J]. The Indian Economic Journal, Vol.20,1934(4):761-771.
[146]Patrik Aspers. The economic sociology of Alfred Marshall:An overview[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1999:651-667.
[147]Paul J. McNulty. A Note on the History of Perfect Competition[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.4, Part 1 Aug.,1967:395-399.
[148]Paul Krugman. Increasing returns and economic geography[J]. Journal of Political Economy,Vol.99, No.3 Jun.,1991:483-499.
[149]Paul A. David. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY [J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.75, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May,1985:332-337.
[150]Paul M. Romer. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.94, No.5,Oct.,1986:1002-1037.
[151]Paul M. Romer. Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.77, No.2,1987 (5): 56-62.
[152]Paul M. Romer. Endogenous Technological Change[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.98, No.5, Part 2:The Problem of Development:A Conference of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise Systems, Oct.,1990:71-102.
[153]Paul M. Romer. The Origins of Endogenous Growth[J]. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.8, No.1, Winter,1994:3-22.
[154]Peter Dooley. Alfred Marshall:fitting the theory to the facts[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1985(9):245-255.
[155]Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[M]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1995.
[156]Peter D.Groenewegen. The Evolutionary Economics of Alfred Marshall:An Overview[A]. In John Laurent and John Nightingale (eds), Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2001:49-62.
[157]Peter Groenewegen (ed). Alfred Marshall:critical responses, London and New York:Routledge,1998.
[158]Peter Groenewegen. English Marginalism:Jevons, Marshall, and Pigou[A]. in Warren J Samuels,Jeff E. Biddle,and John B. Davis, a companion to the history of economic thought[C]. Blackwell Publishing,2003.
[159]Peter Groenewegen. Competition and evolution:The Marshallian conciliation enterprise[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:113-136.
[160]Peter Groenewegen. Alfred Marshall's use of Adam Smith:Coming To grips with an aspect of Alfred Marshall's citation practice[J]. Euro.J. History of Economic Thought,14:2,273-289,June,2007:273-289.
[161]Peter Groenewegen. Marshall's treatment of technological change in Industry and Trade[J]. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 2010(17): 1253-1269.
[162]Peter Newman. The Erosion of Marshall's Theory of Value[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.74, No.4,1960:587-599.
[163]Piero Sraffa. The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.36, No.144,1926:535-550.
[164]Pratten. Marshall on tendencies, equilibrium, and the statical method[J]. History of Political Economy,1998,30(1):121-63.
[165]Prendergast, R., Increasing returns and competitive equilibrium—the content and development of Marshall's theory[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,16, December,1992:447-62.
[166]Prendergast, R. Marshallian external economies[J]. The Economic Journal,103 (March),1993:454-458.
[167]R.A. Jenner. The Dynamic Factor in Marshall's Economic System[J]. Western Economics of Journal, Vol.3, No.1.Nov.,1964:21-38.
[168]R. H. Coase. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica, NewSeries,Vol.4, No.16.Nov.,1937:386-405.
[169]R. H. Coase. The Appointment of Pigou as Marshall's Successor[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.15, No.2,Oct.,1972:473-485.
[170]R. H. Coase. Marshall on Method[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.18, No.1,Apr.,1975:25-31.
[171]R. W. Souter. The Nature and Significance of Economic Science in Recent Discussion[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.47, No.3,May,1933: 377-413.
[172]Ragnar Frisch. On the Notion of Equilibrium and Disequilibrium[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.3, No.2,Feb.,1936:100-105.
[173]Redvers Opie, Marshall's Time Analysis[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.41, No. 162, Jun.,1931:199-215.
[174]Renee Prendergast. increasing returns and competitive equilibrium-the content and development of Marshall's theorry[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1992(16):447-462.
[175]Richard Arena. on the relation between economics and sociology:Marshall and Schumpeter[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:65-92.
[176]Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003.
[177]Richard R. Nelson. Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.33, No.1, Mar.,1995:48-90.
[178]Robert E. Lucas. On the mechanics of economic development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,Volume 22, Issue 1, July 1988:3-42.
[179]Roger E.Backhouse. Schumpeter on Marshall:a reconsideration[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:48-61.
[180]Roger S. Frantz. Two minds:intuition and analysis in the history of economic thought[M]. Springer,2005.
[181]Samuel Hollander. The Representative Firm and Imperfect Competition[J]. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol.27, No.2, May,1961: 236-241.
[182]Shackle, G. L. S. The years of high theory:invention and tradition in economic thught 1926-1939[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge U.P.,1967.
[183]Simon J. Cook. The intellectual foundations of Alfred Marshall's economic science[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[184]Stigler, G.J. Production and Distribution Theories. The formative Period[M]. New York:Macmillan,1941.
[185]Stigler, G.J. Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated [J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.65, No.1, Feb.,1957:1-17.
[186]Stigler, G.J. the successes and failures of professor Smith[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1976, Vol.84:1199-1213.
[187]Stephen Pratten. Marshall on Tendencies, Equilibrium, and the Statical Method[J]. History of Political Economy,30:1,1998:121-163.
[188]Talcott Parsons, Economics and Sociology:Marshall in Relation to the Thought of His Time, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.46, No.2, Feb.,1932: 316-347.
[189]Tamotsu Nishizawa. Alfred Marshall and the historical-ethical approach[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:147-165.
[190]Thorstein Veblen. Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.12, No.4,Jul.,1898:373-397.
[191]Tibor Scitovsky, Two Concepts of External Economies[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.62, No.2,Apr.,1954:143-151.
[192]Tiziano Raffaelli. Marshall's Evolutionary Economics[M]. New Fetter Lane, London,2003.
[193]Tiziano Raffaelli. Marshall's Metaphors on Method[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,Volume 29, Issue 2,2007:135-151.
[194]Tiziano Raffaeli. The general pattern of Marshallian evolution[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:36-47.
[195]Tiziano Raffaelli, Giacomo Becattini, Marco Dardi. The elgar companion to Alfred MarshallC]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2006.
[196]Tiziano Raffaelli. Requirements and Pattern of Marshallian Evolution[A]. in Richard Arena and Michel Quire eds, The Economics of Alfred Marshall: Revisiting Marshall's Legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:254-268.
[197]Ulrich Witt. Evolutionary concepts in economics and biology[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol.16,2006:473-476.
[198]W.Brian Arthur. Complexity and the Economy[J]. New Series, Vol.284, No. 5411,Apr.2,1999:107-109.
[199]W.Brian Arthur. Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.99, No.394 Mar.,1989: 116-131.
[200]Wilfred J. Ethier. National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.72, No. 3, Jun.,1982:389-405.
[201]William J. Baumol. Contestable Markets:An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.72, No.1, Mar.,1982:1-15.
[202]Viner.J. Cost curves and supply curves[J]. Journal of Economics,Volume 3. Number 1,1931:23-46.
[203]Y.C. Devadhar. Alfred Marshall on cooperation Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics[Z]. Volume 42, Issue 4, October,1971:285-301.
[204]阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔.经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[205]阿列桑德洛·荣卡格利亚.西方经济思想史[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2009.
[206]阿莱桑德罗·荣卡格利亚.皮埃罗·斯拉法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010.
[207]阿瑟·庇古.福利经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[208]柏拉图.理想国[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[209]本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010.
[210]彼得·格罗尼维根.翱翔的鹰——阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔传[M].北京：华夏出版社,2011.
[211]彼得·格罗维根尼.阿尔弗雷德 马歇尔[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009.
[212]布莱恩·阿瑟.报酬递增和经营买卖的新世界[J].经济资料译丛,1997(4)：19-24.
[213]柴志贤,黄祖辉.国外空间经济研究的最新进展及发展趋势[J].经济评论,2006(1)：155-160.
[214]陈平.劳动分工的制约与起源[J].经济学季刊2002(2)：227-248.
[215]陈银娥.新古典主义的开创者——马歇尔[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,2006.
[216]崔晨秋.论马歇尔的企业家理论[D],硕士学位论文,河北大学,2005.
[217]大卫.李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,1962.
[218]戴维·沃尔什.知识与国家财富：经济学说探索的历程[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[219]邓翔.收益递增与劳动分工理论回顾[J].四川工业学院学报,增刊-0093-03,2003：93-95.
[220]丁宝山,任建平编.产业经济辞典[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1991.
[221]ErnstMay.生物学思想发展的历史[M].成都：四川教育出版社,1990.
[222]E. RayCanterbery.经济学简史[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[223]弗兰克 奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[224]高凯山,徐创风.知识经济的收益递增与持续增长[J].兰州大学学报(社会 科学版)2000(5)：32-35.
[225]古诺.财富理论的数学原理研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[226]华民.新经济是报酬递增的经济[J].经济研究参考,2001(47)：40.
[227]黄有光.从综观经济学到生物学[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2010.
[228]黄有光,张定胜.高级微观经济学[M].上海：格致出版社,2008.
[229]罗伯特·特里芬.垄断竞争与一般均衡理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[230]纪玉山,江中蛟.知识经济与边际收益递增[J].经济评论,2000(4)：16-19.
[231]贾根良.星星之火,可以燎原——报酬递增对经济学意味着什么?[J].经济社会体制比较,1998(6)：23-25.
[232]贾根良.报酬递增经济学：回顾与展望(一)[J].南开经济研究,1998(6)：29-34.
[233]贾根良.报酬递增经济学：回顾与展望(二)[J].南开经济研究,1999(1)：10-16.
[234]贾根良.劳动分工、制度变迁与经济发展[M].天津：南开大学出版社,1999.
[235]杰克·J·弗罗门.经济演化[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2003.
[236]杰弗里M-Hodgson.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[237]杰弗里M Hodgson.经济学是如何忘记历史的：社会科学中的历史特性问题[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[238]斯坦利 杰文斯.政治经济学理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
[239]蒋自强等.经济思想通史(第三卷)[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,1999.
[240]肯尼思 阿罗.信息经济学[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1989.
[241]库尔特·多普菲.演化经济学：纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[242]库尔特·多普菲.经济学的演化基础[C].北京：北京大学出版社出版,2011.
[243]李永采.柏拉图分工理论述论[J].兰州学刊,2000(2)：33-35.
[244]林金忠.分工理论的历史演变与消失[J].中国经济问题,2007(2)：31-37.
[245]刘春,邹树梁.虚拟企业与马歇尔冲突论析[J].管理现代化,2002(4)：20-22.
[246]刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986.
[247]刘成昆.马歇尔的森林与产业结构的优化升级[N].珠海特区报,2009-2-4.
[248]刘明宇,翁瑾.经济学关于空间结构研究的综述[J].当代财经,2006(6)：13-16.
[249]李志远.内、外部收益递增,动态性与集群发展：浙江台州汽摩配产业集群研究[D],硕士学位论文,清华大学,2006.
[250]刘东丽.马歇尔人力资本思想研究[D],硕士学位论文,河北大学,2006.
[251]刘辉煌,周琳.关于分工的经济学：历史回顾与近期发展[J].财经理论与实践,2004(7)：11-16.
[252]龙欢.从马歇尔难题看中国产业组织政策[J].现代经济探讨2001(60)：30-32.
[253]龙自云.知识经济中的收益递增与竞争影响[J].商业时代,2004(21)：4-5.
[254]陆剑,裴琪.规模报酬递增和新贸易理论的发展[J].世界经济研究,2006(9)：11-18.
[255]罗宾斯.经济思想史：伦敦经济学院讲演录[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[256]罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[257]罗伯特J.巴罗,哈维尔·萨拉伊马丁.经济增长[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[258]罗卫东编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007.
[259]吕静.马歇尔[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[260]马健.生物学影响下的经济学——从经济生物学到演化经济学[J].经济论坛,2009(7)：25-27.
[261]马克·布劳格.凯恩斯以前100位杰出的经济学家[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,1992.
[262]马克·布劳格.经济学方法论的新趋势[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2000.
[263]马克·布劳格.经济理论的回顾[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[264]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975.
[265]马克斯·H-博伊索特.知识资产[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[266]梅纳德·凯恩斯.马歇尔传[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990.
[267]梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1998.
[268]门格尔.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2006.
[269]苗长虹.马歇尔产业区理论的复兴及其理论意义[J].地域研究与开发,2004(2)：1-6.
[270]Nassau William Senior.政治经济学大纲[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[271]纳尔逊,温特.经济变迁的演化理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[272]内维尔·凯恩斯.政治经济学的范围与方法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001.
[273]牛文涛,张学海,郑现伟.基于马歇尔冲突的我国煤炭产业竞争现状分析[J].煤炭经济研究,2009(3)：40-42.
[274]潘刚.国内分工理论研究的新进展与再思考[J].江苏社会科学2008(2)：82-89.
[275]皮特·J·鲍勒.进化思想史[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1999.
[276]钱学锋,梁琦.分工与集聚的理论渊源[J].江苏社会科学,2007(2)：70-76.
[277]乔安·罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961.
[278]RobertSkidelsky.凯恩斯传：1883-1946[M].上海：三联书店,2006.
[279]单兴,陈恩.马歇尔产业区对发展苏南经济的启示[J].江苏论坛,2003(1)：37-38.
[280]石士钧.马歇尔供给理论再探讨[J].财贸研究,1985(2)：59-62.
[281]色诺芬.经济论雅典的收入[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
[282]斯蒂格勒.产业组织和政府管制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1996.
[283]斯蒂芬·马丁.高级产业经济学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2003.
[284]宋亦平.分工、协作和企业演进——一个一般理论及对知识社会企业规制的分析[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2002.
[285]苏东水.产业经济学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000.
[286]谭崇台.发展经济学的新发展[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002.
[287]陶军锋.劳动分工、专业化人力资本积累与收益递增——内生增长理论研究[D].博士学位论文,中国社会科学研究院,2003.
[288]汤敏,茅于轼主编.现代经济学前沿专题(第三集)[C].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[289]特伦斯.W.哈奇森.经济学的革命与发展[M].北京：北京大学出版社, 1992.
[290]托德·G.巴克霍尔兹.已故西方经济学家思想的新解读——现代经济思想导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[291]WilliamBreit, RogerL. Ransom.经济学家的学术思想[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[292]瓦尔拉斯.纯粹经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[293]汪斌,董赟.从古典到新兴古典经济学的专业化分工理论与当代产业集群的演进[J].学术月刊,2005(2)：29-36.
[294]王春宇.分工、专业化与产业集群研究[D].博士学位论文,辽宁大学,2006.
[295]王德勇,李友华.分工理论的演进与农村城镇化的实践要求[J].商业研究2005(4)：91-93.
[296]王建军.分工理论的演进与新发展[J].煤炭经济研究2005(10)：36-38.
[297]王拓.分工经济思想的发展——从亚当 斯密到新兴古典经济学[J].当代财经,2003(11)：13-17.
[298]王仲君.马歇尔的报酬递减律与新经济[J].经济问题,2004(11)：6-8.
[299]王仲君.马歇尔的新古典报酬学说要义[J].苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),2003(2)：22-26.
[300]汪丁丁.网络产生递增收益的两条根本途径[J].IT经理世界,2000(11)：122-124.
[301]汪丁丁.近年来经济发展理论的简述与思考[J].经济研究,1994(7)：66-80.
[302]汪丁丁,罗卫东,叶航.历史视角的经济学：是否必要?如何可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2003(9)：32-41.
[303]王廷惠.竞争与垄断：过程竞争理论视角的分析[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
[304]王澎涛.阿弗里德 马歇尔国际贸易理论研评[D].硕士学位论文,对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[305]王翼龙.从经济学的力学隐喻到经济学的生物学隐喻[J].经济学动态,2000(12)：69-72.
[306]魏婕,任保平.西方经济学报酬递增理论的新发展述评[J].重庆工商大学 学报(社会科学版)第28卷第2期,2011(4)：38-43.
[307]沃尔德 罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997.
[308]沃特 白芝浩,物理与政治——或“自然选择”与“遗传”原理应用于政治社会之思考[M].上海：三联书店,2008.
[309]邬义钧,邱钧.产业经济学[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1997.
[310]西奥多.W.舒尔茨.报酬递增的源泉[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[311]谢芳.规模报酬递增理论的文献综述[J].现代商贸工业,2009(10)：19-20.
[312]许倩.“知识经济”冲击传统经济学——从报酬递减到报酬递增[J].发展研究,2001(4)：10-12.
[313]亚当 斯密.国民财富的性质和原因研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[314]颜明池.空运业的马歇尔冲突剖析——寻求空运业竞争与规模经济的均衡,民航经济与技术,1994(1)：10-13.
[315]杨小凯,张永生.新贸易理论及内生与外生比较优势理论的新发展：文献综述[Z].2001(7)：1-18.
[316]杨小凯.经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[317]杨小凯.当代经济学与中国经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[318]杨慧玲.劳动协作及报酬递增——关于分工的政治经济学分析系统[D].博士学位论文,西南财经大学,2008.
[319]殷德生.报酬递增,动态比较优势与产业内贸易——基于新贸易理论和新增长理论的综合[D].博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2005.
[320]殷德生.新增长理论中的报酬递增与市场结构[J].经济评论,2006(1)：58-63.
[321]殷德生.报酬递增与市场结构难题的研究进展[J].当代财经,2006(3)：21-26.
[322]殷德生.新贸易理论中的报酬递增与市场结构[J].社会科学,2006(11)：50-57.
[323]袁正.分工的一般理论与古典增长框架[J].经济学家,2005(6)：103-108.
[324]约翰 贝茨 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[325]约翰 贝茨 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010.
[326]约翰希克斯.价值与资本,北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[327]约翰·希克斯.经济史理论,北京：商务印书馆,1987.
[328]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第1、3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
[329]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[330]约瑟夫·熊彼特.从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965.
[331]约翰·伊特维尔,默里·米尔盖特,彼得·纽曼.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典中译本,1-4卷[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996.
[332]约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[C].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[333]张静敏.马歇尔两难的解决与我国产业组织战略的选择[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(2)：105-109.
[334]张健君.马歇尔价值理论中的时间因素[J].经济纵横,1986(9)：59-61.
[335]张乐和.马歇尔及其供求均衡论述评[J].武汉交通管理干部学院学报(社会科学版),1994(3-4)：24-29.
[336]张日波.马歇尔论经济生物学[J].经济学动态,2011(10)：154-159.
[337]张日波.分工思想何以被忽视——以马歇尔为中心的思想史考察[J].经济理论与经济管理2012(1)：28-35.
[338]张巍,韩冰.报酬递增在主流经济学中何以缺失[J].经济学家,2002(5)：62-67.
[339]张旭昆.论威克斯蒂德收入分配理论的历史地位[A].载于顾海良,颜鹏飞主编.经济思想史评论,第四辑[C].北京：经济科学出版社,2009：71-83.
[340]赵桂琴.论马歇尔冲突[J].中国人民大学学报(社会科学版),1998(2)：17-20.
[341]赵明亮.分工理论：从古希腊思想到新国际体系的研究述评[J].产经评论,2010(5)：14-23.
[342]仲伟周.从经济生物学看中国经济体制改革[J].汉中师范学院学报(社会科学版),1996(4)：17-22.
[343]朱富强.分工效率：演进主义的观点[J].上海经济研究,2004(1)：28-35.
[344]杨小凯与保罗·米尔格罗姆的讨论[EB/OL].http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ Ocfba 892 daef5ef7baOd3c0f.html,2001.
[345]曾欢.西方科学主义思潮的历史轨迹：以科学统一为研究视角[M].北京： 世界知识出版社,2009.
[346]邹薇,庄子银.分工、交易与经济增长[J].中国社会科学,1996(3)：4-14.
1 熊彼特.从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965：95。
1 Giacoma Becattini. The return of the'white elephant'[A], in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:18.
1转引自杨小凯.经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[A].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003：9。
2沃尔德罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997：48。
1 G.J.Stigler. The successes and failures of professor Smith [J]. Journal of Political Economy. Vol.84,1976: 1209-1210.
2舒尔茨.报酬递增的源泉[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001：16。
3张五常.分工理论何以遭受忽视?[EB/OL].http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_47841 af7010009ok.html.2007。
1 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:307.
2 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.32, No.127. Sep.,1922:311.
3 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:314.
4 J. H. Clapham. Of Empty Economic Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.127, Sep.,1922:313.
5 A. C. Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128, Dec.,1922:459.
1 A. C.Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128,Dec.,1922:461.
1 熊彼特认为“斯拉法的批评,并没有凯恩斯在导言中所说的具有那么大的破坏性。斯拉法只是指出,在纯粹竞争的条件下,只要产量的增加伴随内部经济,厂商就不会处于完全均衡状态”。见约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996：425-426。
2早在1924年,内维尔·凯恩斯也认为马歇尔对代表性企业的论述是不能令人满意的。
3森林中的树木是马歇尔的《经济学原理》中经典的生物类比,马歇尔以森林比喻产业,以其中的树木比喻企业,以此来说明企业的发展与树木的成长一样存在盛衰的过程。正如个别的树木不会再森林中一种成长,个别企业也不会一种成长,从而导致垄断。
4 D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal Vol.40, No.157. Mar.,1930:84.
5参见D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157, Mar.,1930:84-86.
4梅纳德凯恩斯虽然没有参与到这场争论中,不过他在自己编写的《马歇尔传》中也支持了马歇尔,认为马歇尔对于垄断、报酬递增的分析、当外部经济存在条件下关于报酬递增的结论与他对竞争力量的推崇之间并无矛盾。
5 Robertson. Sraffa, Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157.1930:79-116.
1马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：150。
2熊彼特.艾尔弗雷德马歇尔[A].从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[C].北京：商务印书馆,1965：102。
1斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论rMl.北京：华夏出版社,2008：67。
2斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2008：67。3斯蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2008：69。
4 J. M. Clark. Toward a Concept of Workable Competition[J]. American Economic Review, Vol.30, No.2, Part 1. 1940:241-256.
5 W.J.Baumol. Contestable markets:an uprising in the theory of industry structure[J]. American Economic Review, Vol.72, No.1,1982(5):1-15.
1萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：185。
1 纳尔逊.最近关于经济变迁的演化理论[A].转载于库尔特多普菲编.贾根良等译.演化经济学纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：151。
1 纳尔逊.最近关于经济变迁的演化理论[A]转载于库尔特多普菲编.贾根良等译.演化经济学纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004：155。
1 邓翔.收益递增与劳动分工理论回顾[J].四川工业学院学报,增刊-0093-03,2003：94。
3另有说法认为马歇尔冲突指的是规模经济与“完全竞争”之间的冲突关系,究竟马歇尔冲突中所涉及的“竞争”指的是“完全竞争”还是含义比较广泛的“竞争”概念,对于我们了解这一命题的由来是非常关
键的。后文对对此作出回应。
1 刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：1。
2刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：51。
3刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：166。
4刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986：16。
1亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：15。
1 约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：150。2约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：152。
3约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：167。
1 当然,笔者并非认为斯密没有提及“合”,而是没有明确地提出。笔者猜测,斯密定理中所提到的“市场范围”在很大程度上可以视为“合”。
2马克思.资本论第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：362。
3马克思.资本论第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社,1975：362。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：315。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：371。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：371。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：303。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：315。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：320。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：321。
1杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：274。
2杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：273,275,277。
3 Currie (1997)在“从杨格宏观报酬递增的视角看索罗主义和新增长理论”一文中也持这一观点。贾根良(1999)认为研究报酬递增问题的两条思路中,以杨格为代表的结构主义思路是整体主义的方法。
4杨格.报酬递增与经济进步[A].罗卫东主编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007：280。
1沃尔德·罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997：37-38.
2汪丁丁,罗卫东,叶航.历史视角的经济学：是否必要?如何可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2003(9)：36.
1 对于这一点的深入探讨,可以参见wolfe(1954),Moss(1984)的贡献.
2约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：583。
3穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：365。
1 熊彼特.资本主义、社会主义与民主[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2000：140。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：235。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：235。
4 Brian J. Loasby,The Mind and Method of the Economist:A Critical Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century[M]. Edward Elgar,1989:55.
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：147。
1转引自晏智杰.边际革命和新古典经济学[A].北京：北京大学出版社,2003：368。
2 Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. Macmillan,1923:257.
3约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第3卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：383。4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：338。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：8。
2斯宾塞.社会静力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：43。
1古诺.财富理论的数学原理研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：56-57。
2转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[c].北京：商务印书馆,1996：326。
3瓦尔拉斯.纯粹经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：16。
1转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996：327。
2转引自约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996：328。
3约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：579。4克拉克.财富的分配[Ml.北京：人民日报出版社,2010,40。
5转引自约翰·伊特维尔编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典(第1卷)[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996：580。
6奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：56-57。
1 希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：76。
1希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：77。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：77。
1张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[Ml.北京：华夏出版社,2009：20。
2他极力强调纯粹竞争与完全竞争是不同的。他以纯粹竞争为分析的起点,然而正如很多人所指出的,他的纯粹竞争与完全竞争是相同的。
3张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：197-198。
1琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3。
2琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3。
3琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：3-4。
1琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：12。
2琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：19。
3琼罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：257。
1本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[A].北京：华夏出版社,2010：551。
1 Wicksteed.Philip Henry. An essay on the co-ordination of the laws of distribution[J]. Bristol Selected
Pamphlets,1894:35.
1张旭昆.论威克斯蒂德收入分配理论的历史地位[A].载于经济思想史评论,第四辑[Cl.北京：经济科学出版社,2009：81-82。
2转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：286。
3转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：321。
1转引自施蒂格勒.生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：323。
2张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：181。
3张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009：183。
1生产函数的一次齐次性和平均成本不随着产品的投入产出的比例变化而变化(或平均成本不变)的关系证明如下q=f(K,L), f(aK,aL)=bq设要素投入由初始的k,L变为aK,aL, K,L的价格分别为PK,PL且保持不变,则AC0=(KPK+L PL)/q, AC,=a (KPK+L PL)/bq要满足AC0=AC1则a/b=1,则f(aK,aL)=aq。所以在均衡点要求平均成本不变,规模报酬不变。
2这与熊彼特在《经济分析史》(第三卷,第406页)和萨缪尔森在《经济分析基础》中所认为的耗尽定理是个均衡命题,而不是在每一点都成立的观点是一致的。
3本图转引自张伯伦.垄断竞争理论[M].上海：三联书店,1958：168。
1熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：408。
2萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：51。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：51。
1萨缪尔森.经济分析基础fMl.沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：52。
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：416。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：52。
4科尔奈(1971)注意到斯密对于资本主义经济“看不见的手”的描述是真实的。但是经过100多年,当
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：60。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：61。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)fMl.北京：商务印书馆,2009：133。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：49。
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：546。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：542-543。
3当然,马歇尔对报酬递增的分析中所体现的古典特色也是不容忽视的,不过此处不讨论这一问题。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
2 Alfred Marshall, Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29, Mar.,1898:49-50.
1代表性企业(representitive firm)这一概念明确地出现在《经济学原理》的第二版,而不是第一版中,罗宾斯(1928)以此为依据,说明代表性企业这一概念因为是后来加上的,所以在马歇尔的整个理论体系中不具有重要性。而这种批评是不合理的。Guillebaud研究了马歇尔的《原理》的八个版本之间的变化,并于1961年出版了《原理》的集注版,对这些变化做了详细的记录。正如他的研究(1942,1961)表明,在《原理》第一版论述报酬递增条件下寻求正常供给价格时马歇尔就已提到了“我们必须选择能够具有正常能力以便于获得产业组织的内部经济和外部经济的平均份额的有代表性的企业(representitive business)”,可见罗宾斯的批评是不成立的。
2 A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[A]. London:Macmillan,1925:406-407.
3 Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[M]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:634.
4 Giacoma Becattini. The return of the 'white elephant'[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:21.
1 梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1998：207-208。
2转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:315。
3转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:314。
4转引自Peter Groenewegen, A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:314。
1转引自Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[A]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 1995:271。
2梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M],南京：江苏人民出版社,1998：22。
1收录于A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[M]. London:Macmillan.1925:359-360.
2其实,第四章提到的马歇尔的竞争理论也可以放在其动态学的背景下来理解。
1不过,熊彼特在《经济发展理论》和《经济分析史》中都提到,穆勒的静态和动态的分法可能引自孔德,而孔德是从动物学家德·布兰维尔那里借用来的。这样看来,穆勒的静态和动态分析法与生物学有很大的关系,而近一个半世纪之后,马歇尔又重申了经济学的高级阶段与生物学的密切关系。
2约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：259-260。
3约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：319。
4约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：319。
1 Alfred Marshall. "Principles of economics", ninth(variorum) edition, C.W. Guillebaud, Volume 2, London: Macmillan,1961:40.
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：9。事实上"economic dynamics"应译为“经济动力学”,而不是“经济力学”。笔者下文会详细说明理由。
3布劳格.经济理论的回顾[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009：327。
1马歇尔在最初写作《经济学原理》的时候,计划将全书写为两卷,后来他放弃了这一计划。2转引自阿莱桑德罗 隆卡吉里亚.皮埃罗斯拉法传[Al.北京：华夏出版社,2009：11。
3托德·G巴克霍尔兹.已故西方经济学家思想的新解读——现代经济思想导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：143-146。
1 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29. Mar.,1898:37.
2 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
1 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
2 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
3 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
4所以商务版将" The Mecca of the economist is economic biology rather than economic dynamics"中的economic dynamics翻译为“经济力学”误解了马歇尔的本意。
5 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:39.
6 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No,29 Mar.,1898:42.
7 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:43.
1 内维尔·凯恩斯.政治经济学的范围与方法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001：93。
2 Hutter (1994)说明了这种有机隐喻的德国根源可以追溯到18世纪甚至更早。大量的德国社会科学家在生物有机体和社会有机体之间进行了广泛的比较。随着德国历史学派的出现,产生了极度依赖有机隐喻的现象。详见J·M·Hodgson.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007:90。
3 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:43. 4 Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.8, No.29 Mar.,1898:44.
5《经济学原理》总共出版了八版,前四版出版的年份分别是1890,1891,1895,1898年。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：8-9。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：2。事实上,“自然界没有飞跃”这一名言出现在《原理》的八个版本的封面上,可见他自始至终都强调连续性。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：1。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：2。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)fM].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：5。
6马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：5。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：10。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：3。
3收录于A.C.Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[A]. London:Macmillan.1925:490.
4需指出,这种列举是不全面的,仅仅是依据从字面上来看比较明显的一些例证。而对于一些在含义层面上,经济学与生物学的相似性的例证,限于篇幅,此处没有列举,但并不表明这些例证不存在。如马歇尔自己所指明的,第六篇第十二章就是其动态分析的一种尝试。
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[Ml.北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
2马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：288
1斯宾塞.社会静力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：254。
2 J.K.Whitaker.The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall[C]. New York:The Free Press,1975:151.
1马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：370。
2详见第四章的分析。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：372。
1 内维尔·凯恩斯,政治经济学的范围与方法[Ml.北京：华夏出版社,2001：93。
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：486。
3马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：606。
4马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：484。
5马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：484。
6马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：485。
1 Alfred Marshall, The Old Generation of Economists and the New[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 11. No.2, Jan.,1897:119.
2马歇尔.经济学原理(下册)[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：506。
1转引自霍奇逊.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化fA].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007：103。
1在斯拉法这篇文章的语境中,完全竞争(只出现一次)、自由竞争(出现了三次)、完全市场(只出现一次)基本上是同义语。
2 D. H. Robertson. Piero Sraffa. G F. Shove,Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157, Mar.,1930:87.
3 D. H. Robertson, Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove,Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal. Vol.40, No.157. Mar.,1930:88.
1约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：426。
2转引自杰弗里·M·Hodgson.经济学是如何忘记历史的：社会科学中的历史特性问题[A].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008：134.
3马克·布劳格.凯恩斯以前100位杰出的经济学家[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,1992：137。
4琼·罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961：5.
1 Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. London:Macmillan,1923:115.
2 A.C. Pigou. An Analysis of Supply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No.150,1928:239-240.
1莱昂内尔罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009：20。
1转引自Neil Hart. Marshall's Dilemma [Al.Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.37, No.4,2003:1139.
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：314。
1 本·塞利格曼现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：402。
1 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：70。
2克拉克认为在经济社会发展过程中,有五种变动在不断地发生：1.人口持续增长；2.人们不断产生新的欲望；3.资本不断增加；4.生产组织形式不断变化,效率低的工厂被淘汰,效率高的仍存在；5.生产方法不断改善。在静态的假设下,上述五种变化被假定是完全静止的。
3转引自施蒂格勒,生产和分配理论[A].北京：华夏出版社,2008：255。
1克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：61。
2克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：35。
3克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010：71-72。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：10。
2奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：41。
3奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：12。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：11。
1奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：123。
2奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：243。
3奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005：144。
1熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：312。
1熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000：70。
1 希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：103。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：104。
1 希克斯.价值与资本M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：111。
2希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：113。
3希克斯.价值与资本[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：115。
4本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：413。
1本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010：471。
2另外,罗宾斯1930年的文章On a certain ambiguity in the conception of stationary equilibrium,也注意到了这一点。
3萨缪尔森.经济分析基础[M].沈阳：东北财经大学出版社,2006：186。
1 正如克拉克所言,在静态中没有利润,利润是进步的结果,利润理论属于动态理论。
2熊彼特.经济分析史(第3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994：317。
1 马歇尔.经济学原理(上册)[M]北京：商务印书馆,2009：9。
1杨小凯,经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003：9。
2杨小凯与保罗·米尔格罗姆的讨论[EB/OL].http://wenku.baidu.com/view/0cfba892daef5ef7ba0d3c0f. html,2001
[1]A. Alchian. Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory[J]. The Journal of Political Economy,Vol.58, Issue,Jun.1950:211-221.
[2]A. C. Pigou. Empty Economic Boxes:A Reply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.32, No.128, Dec.,1922:458-465.
[3]A. C. Pigou, D. H. Robertson. Those Empty Boxes[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol. 34, No.133, Mar.,1924:16-31.
[4]A. C. Pigou. Memorials of Alfred Marshall[M]. London:Macmillan,1925.
[5]A.C. Pigou. The Laws of Diminishing and Increasing Cost[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.37, No.146, Jun.,1927:188-197.
[6]A. C. Pigou. An Analysis of Supply[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No. 150,1928:238-257.
[7]A.C. Pigou. Alfred Marshall and current thought[M]. Macmillan,1955.
[8]A.J. Youngson. Marshall on economic growth[J]. The Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol.13,1956(2):1-18.
[9]Alfred Marshall. Distribution and Exchange[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No. 29 Mar.,1898:37-59.
[10]Alfred Marshall. Principles of Economics[M]. London:Macmillan,1920.
[11]Alfred Marshall. Mechanical and Biological analogies in Economics[A]. In A.C. Pigou, Memorials of Alfred Marshall[C]. London:Macmillan.1925:312-318.
[12]Alfred Marshall. Industry and Trade[M]. London:Macmillan,1923.
[13]Alfred Marshall. Principles of economics[M]. ninth (variorum) edition, C.W. Guillebaud, Volume 2, London:Macmillan,1961.
[14]Alfred Marshall. The early economic writings of Alfred Marshall. 1867-1890[C]. edited and introduced by J. K. Whitaker, London:Macmillan, 1975.
[15]Alfred Marshall. Official papers[M]. edited by J.M. Keynes. Bristol:Overstone Press.,1925.
[16]Alfred Marshall. Official papers of Alfred Marshall:a supplement[M]. edited by Peter D. Groenewegen, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[17]Allyn A.Young. Some Limitations of the Value Concept [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,25,1911(3):409-428.
[18]Allyn A.Young. Increasing Returns and Economic Progress[J]. The Economic Journal,Vol.38,No.152.Dec.,1928:527-542.
[19]AL Levine. Increasing returns, the competitive model and the enigma that was Alfred Marshall[J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Volume 27, Issue 3,November,1980:260-275.
[20]Arrow.K.J., Debreu.G. Existence of an equilibrium for a comperitive economy[J]. Econometrica 22,1954:265-90.
[21]Andrea Lavezzi. Smith, Marshall and Young on Division of Labor and Economic Growth[Z]. Working Paper,2003:1-28.
[22]Arthur Twining Hadley. Some fallacies in the theory of distribution [J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.7, No.28 Dec.,1897:477-486.
[23]Arthur, W. Brian. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy[M]. The University of Michigan Press,1994.
[24]Avinash K. Dixit, Joseph E. Stiglitz. Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity[J]. The American Economic Review,1977:297-308.
[25]Blitch Charles. Allyn Young:The Peripatetic Economist[M]. Macmillan, London, 1995.
[26]Blitch Charles. Kaldor's lecture notes from Allyn Young's London School of Economics class,1928-29[J]. History of Political Economy,(1990)22(3): 443-463.
[27]Brian J. Loasby. Whatever happened to Marshall's theory of value? [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol.25, No.1,1978:1-12.
[28]Brian J. Loasby. The Mind and Method of the Economist:A Critical Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century[M]. Edward Elgar,1989.
[29]Brian J. Loasby. Firms, Markets, and the Principle of Continuity[A]. In Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. edited by J. K. Whitaker. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[30]Brian J. Loasby. Marshall's theory of firm[A]. in Backhouse and Greed(ed.)From Classical Economics to The Theory of Firm[C]. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar, 1999.
[31]Brian J. Loasby. Efficiency and Time[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:202-220.
[32]Brinley Thomas, Alfred Marshall on economic biology[J]. Review of Political Economy,3.1(1991):1-14.
[33]Bruce Glassburner. Alfred Marshall on Economic History and Historical Development[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.69, No.4, Nov.,1955: 577-595.
[34]Camille Limoges, Claude Menard. Organization and the division of labor[A]. in Philip Mirowski, edits Natural images in economic thought[C]. New York and Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994:336-359.
[35]Charles J. Bullock. The Variation of Productive Forces[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.16, No.4 Aug.,1902:473-513.
[36]Clark, N. G., C. Juma. Long-Run Economics:An Evolutionary Approach to Economic Growth[M]. London:Pinter,1987.
[37]C. E Ferguson. An Analogy between Marshall and Keynes-Metroeconomica, Vol. 10,1958:3-6.
[38]C. W. Guillebaud. The Evolution of Marshall's Principles of Economics[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.208, Dec.,1942:330-349.
[39]C. W. Guillebaud. Marshall's Principles of Economics in the Light of Contemporary Economic Thought [J]. Economica, Vol.19, No.74, May,1952: 111-130.
[40]D. H. Robertson, Piero Sraffa, G. F. Shove. Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.157,Mar.,1930: 79-116.
[41]D. H. Robertson Some Marshallian Concepts[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.69, No.274, Jim.,1959:382-384.
[42]David B. Augretsch, Oliver Falck, Stephan Heblich. It's all in Marshall:The Impact of External Economics on Regional Dynamics[Z]. CES ifo Working Paper No.2094:1-40.
[43]David Reisman. Alfred Marshall's mission[M]. Macmillan,1990.
[44]David Reisman. Alfred Marshall:progress and politics[M]. St. Martin's Press, 1987.
[45]D. C. Hague. Alfred Marshall and the Competitive Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.68, No.272,Dec.,1958:673-690.
[46]Edward H. Chamberlin. Proportionality, Divisibility and Economies of Scale[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 62,1948(2):229-262.
[47]F. H. Knight. Cost of Production and Price over Long and Short Periods[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.29, No.4,Apr.,1921:304-335.
[48]F. H. Knight. Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.38, No.4,Aug.,1924:582-606.
[49]F. H. Knight. On Decreasing Cost and Comparative Cost[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.39, No.2,Feb.,1925:331-333.
[50]F. H. Knight. A Note on Professor Clark's illustration of Marginal Productivity[J]. Journal of Political Economy. Vol.33, No.5, Oct.,1925: 550-553.
[5I]Foley.V. The division of labor in Plato and Smith[J]. History of Political Economy, 1974,6(2),220-242.
[52]F. Y. Edgeworth. Contributions to the Theory of Railway Rates[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.21, No.83, Sep.,1911:346-370.
[53]G. B. Richardson. Adam Smith on competition and increasing returns[A]. in Andrew S.Skinner and Thomas Wilson eds, Essays on Adam Smith[C]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1975:350-360.
[54]G. F. Shove. Varying Costs and Marginal Net Products[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No.150,Jun.,1928:258-266.
[55]G. F. Shove. The Place of Marshall's Principles in the Development of Economic Theory[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.208,Dec.,1942:294-329.
[56]Geoffrey M. Hodgson.The Mecca of Alfred Marshall[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.103, No.417.Mar.,1993:406-415.
[57]Geoffrey M. Hodgson. Alfred Marshall versus the historical school? [J]. Journal of Economic Studies, Vol.32No.4,2005:331-348.
[58]Geoffrey M. Hodgson. Marshall, Schumpeter and the shifting boundaries of economics and sociology[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa, Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:93-115.
[59]George J. Stigler. The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.59, No.3, Jun.,1951: 185-193.
[60]George J. Stigler. Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.65, No.1, Feb.,1957:1-17.
[61]George J. Stigler. Alfred Marshall's Lectures on Progress and Poverty[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.12, No. 1.Apr.,1969:181-183.
[62]George J. Stigler. The Place of Marshall's Principles in the development of economics[A]. In John K.Whitaker (eds), Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1990:1-13.
[63]H Brems. Marshall on mathematics [J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.18, No.2,Oct.,1975:583-585.
[64]Hendrick S-Houthakker, Economics and Biology:Specialization and Speciation [J]. Kyklos, Volume 9, Issue 2,1956(5):181-189.
[65]Henry L. Moore. Paradoxes of Competition[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.20, No.2, Feb.,1906:211-230.
[66]Giacoma Becattini. The return of the'white elephant'[A], in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:13-31.
[67]G. pursell, Unity in the Thought of Alfred Marshall[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.72, No.4, Nov.,1958:588-600.
[68]Hirofumi Uzawa. Optimum Technical Change in An Aggregative Model of Economic Growth[J]. International Economic Review, Vol.6, No.1, Jan.,1965: 18-31.
[69]Howard S. Ellis, William Fellner. External Economies and Diseconomies[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.33, No.3, Sep.,1943:493-511.
[70]Ingrid H. Rima. Increasing Returns, New Growth Theory, and the Classicals[J]. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.27, No.1, Autumn, 2004:171-184.
[71]J. M. Clark. Toward a Concept of Workable Competition[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.30, No.2, Part 1 Jun.,1940:241-256.
[72]Jacob Viner. Cost Curves and Supply Curves[J]. The Economic Journal,1931: 23-46.
[73]Jacob Viner. Marshall's Economics, in Relation to the Man and to His Times[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.31, No.2,Jun.,1941:223-235.
[74]James A. Maxwell. Some Marshallian Concepts, Especially the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.68, No.272, Dec.,1958:691-698.
[75]Jan Horst Keppler, Jerome Lallement. The Origins of the U-Shaped Average Cost Curve-Understanding the Complexities of the Modern Theory of the Firm[J]. History of Political Economy,38:4,2006:733-774.
[76]Jaques Kerstenetzky. Alfred Marshall on big business[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2010(34):569-586.
[77]Joel Mokyr. Evolutionary Biology, Technological Change, and Economic History[J]. Bulletin of Economic Research, Volume 43, Issue 2, April 1991: 127-149.
[78]James E. Hartley. Retrospectives the origins of the representative agent[J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.10,NO.2, Spring,1996:169-177.
[79]Joan Robinson. Imperfect Competition and Falling Supply Price[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.42, No.168,Dec.,1932:544-554.
[80]Joan Robinson. What is Perfect Competition?[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.49, No.1,Nov.,1934:104-120.
[81]John Cunningham Wood. Alfred Marshall:critical assessments,1-4[C]. Croom Helm,1982.
[82]John Foster. Economics and the Self-Organization Approach:Alfred Marshall Revisited? [J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.103, No.419,Jul.,1993:975-991.
[83]John Hicks. The assumption of constant returns to scale[J]. Cambridge Journal of economics,1989(13):9-17.
[84]John K.Whitaker. The Marshallian System in 1881:Distribution and Growth[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.84, No.333, Mar.,1974:1-17.
[85]John K.Whitaker. Some neglected aspects of Alfred Marshall's economic and social thought[J]. History of Political Economy, Vol.9, No.1,1977:161-197.
[86]John K.Whitaker. The Cambridge background to imperfect competition[A]. in R.G. Feiwel, The economics of imperfect competition and employment[C]. London:Macmillan,1989.
[87]John K.Whitaker. What happened to the second volume of the Principles? [A]. In John K. Whitaker, Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall[C]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1990:193-222.
[88]John K. Whitaker. The correspondence of Alfred Marshall.Vol.1,1868-1890 [C]. Cambridge University Press,1996.
[89]John K. Whitaker. Alfred Marshall's Principles and Industry and Trade:two books or one? Marshall and the Joint Stock Company [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:137-157.
[90]John Maloney. The professionalization of economics:Alfred Marshall and the dominance of orthodoxy[M]. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswuck,1991.
[91]John M.Gowdy. Biological analogies in economics:a comment[J]. Journal of post Keynesian Economics, vol.v,No.4,1983:676-678.
[92]John Nightingale. Solving Marshall's problem with the biological analogy:Jack Downie's Competitive Process[A]. In G M Hodgson, Economics and biology[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing.1995:75-94.
[93]J.D Hammond. Alfred Marshall's methodology[J]. Methodus, June.1991: 95-101.
[94]John Laurent, John Nightingale. Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics [C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2001.
[95]J. M. Keynes. Alfred Marshall:1842-1924[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.34, No. 135,Sep.,1924:311-372.
[96]Jones G. Social Darwinism and English Thought[M]. Brighton:Harvester Press, 1980.
[97]Joseph Schumpeter. The Instability of Capitalism[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol. 38, No.151, Sep.,1928:361-386.
[98]Joseph Schumpeter. Alfred Marshall's Principles:A Semi-Centennial Appraisal[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.31,No.2,Jun.,1941: 236-248.
[99]J. N. Wolfe. The Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.64, No.254 Jun..1954:337-349.
[100]J. N. Wolfe. Some Marshallian Concepts:A Comment[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.69, No.276, Dec.,1959:807-809.
[101]J. H. Davies. The Industry and the Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.65, No.260, Dec.,1955:710-712.
[102]J. Laurence Laughlin, Marshall's Theory of Value and Distribution[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.1, No.2, Jan.,1887:227-232.
[103]J.S, Metcalfe. Marshall, Schumpeter and Hayek on the evolution of capitalism[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa. Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:116-144.
[104]J.S. Metcalfe. Alfred Marshall's Mecca:Reconciling the Theories of Value and Development[J]. THE ECONOMIC RECORD, VOL.83, SPECIAL ISSUE. SEPTEMBER,2007:1-22.
[105]Katia Caldari. AM's idea of progress and sustainable development[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Volume 26, Number4, December.2004: 519-536.
[106]Katia Caldari, Fabio Masini. Alfred Marshall and the British economic tradition[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (ed), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:166-187.
[107]Kenneth J. Arrow. The Economic Implications of Learning by Do ing [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.29, No.3, Jun.,1962:155-173.
[108]Kornai,R.H. Anti-Equilibrim:An Economic Systems Theory and the Task of Research[M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland,1971.
[109]Krishna Bharadwaj. Marshall on Pigou's Wealth and Welfare[J]. Economica, New Series. Vol.39, No.153, Feb.,1972:32-46.
[110]Lauchlin Currie. Implications of an Endogenous Theory of Growth in Allyn Young's Macroeconomic Concept of Increasing Returns[J]. History of Political Economy 29:3,1997:413-443.
[111]Lionel Robbins. The Representative Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.38, No. 151, Sep.,1928:387-404.
[112]Lionel Robbins. On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.40, No.158, Jun.,1930:194-214.
[113]Lionel Robbins. Remarks Upon Certain Aspects of the Theory of Costs[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No.173, Mar.,1934:1-18.
[114]L. S. Moss. Biological theory and technological entrepreneurship in Marshall's writings[J]. Eastern Economic Journal,1982:3-13.
[115]L. S. Moss. The history of the theory of the firm from Marshall to Robinson and Chamberlain:the source of positivism in economics[J]. Economica,51, August, 1984:307-318.
[116]L. S. Moss. Evolutionary Change and Marshall's Abandoned Second Volume[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 69, Issue 1, 2010(1):359-374.
[117]Macchovec, F. M. Perfect Competition and the Transformation of Economics[M]. London and New York,Routledge,1995.
[118]Marchionatti R. Pareto and Political Economy as a Science:Methodological Revolution and Analytical Advances in Economic Theory in the 1890s[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.105, No.6,December,1997: 1322-1348.
[119]Marchionatti R. On the methodological foundations of modern microeconomics: Frank Knight and the "cost controversy" in the 1920s[J]. History of Political Economy,2003(35):49-75.
[120]Marchionatti R. What Don't Economists Know Now That Marshall Knew a Century Ago? A Note on Marshall's "Sophisticated Informality" [J]. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.26, No.3, Spring,2004:441-460.
[121]Marchionatti R. The'increasing returns and competition'dilemma:from Marshall to Pigou[A]. in Tiziano Raffaelli.Giacomo Becattini and Marco Dardi (eds),The elgar companion to Alfred Marshall[C]. Edward Elgar,2006.
[122]Marco Dardi. Alfred Marshall's partial equilibrium:dynamics in disguise [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:84-112.
[123]Mario Morroni. Overcoming Cournot's dilemma on increasing returns and competition[Z]. Discussion Papers,2010.
[124]Martin Currie and Ian Steedman. Wrestling with time:problems in economics theory[M]. Manchester University Press,1990.
[125]Martin L. Weitzman. Increasing Returns and the Foundations of Unemployment Theory[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.92, No.368, Dec.,1982:787-804.
[126]Michel Quere. Increasing Returns and Competition:Learning From a Marshallian Perspectitive[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003: 182-201.
[127]Milton S. Heath. The Variorum Edition of Marshall's'Principles'[J]. Southern Economic Journal, Vol.30, No. ⒓,1963 (7):60-67.
[128]Morroni, M. Knowledge, Scale and Transactions in the Theory of the Firm[M]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.2006.
[129]Nahid Aslanbeigui. The cost controversy:Pigouvian economics in disequilibrium[J]. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought volume 3, Issue 2,1996:275-295.
[130]Neil Hart. Review[J]. Labour History,No.65,Nov.,1993:248-250.
[131]Neil Hart. Marshall's theory of value:the role of external economies[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1996:53-369.
[132]Neil Hart. Equilibrium and time:Marshall's dilemma[J]. Journal of Economic Methodology Volume 3, Issue 2,1996:285-306.
[133]Neil Hart. Marshall and the development of'neoclassical'Economics [J]. International Journal of Applied Economics and Economitrica, Vol.10, No. 3:2002(7-9):351-368.
[134]Neil Hart. Marshall's Dilemma:Equilibrium versus Evolution[J].Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.37, No.4,2003:1139-1160.
[135]Neil Hart. From the Representative Firm to the Equilibrium Firm:Why Marshall was not a Marshallian [A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003: 158-181.
[136]Neil B.Niman. Biological analogies in Marshall's work[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,(1991):19-36.
[137]Neil B.Niman. The evolutionary firm and Cournot's dilemma[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2004,(28):273-289.
[138]Nicolai Juul Foss. The suppression of evolutionary approaches in economics: The case of Marshall and monopolistic competition [J]. Methodus,1991:65-72.
[139]Nicolai Juul Foss. The Biological Analogy and the Theory of the Firm:Marshall and Monopolistic Competition[J]. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.28, No. 4,Dec.,1994:1115-1136.
[140]Nicolai Juul Foss. Theories of the firm:contractual and competence perspectives[J]. Journal of evolutionary economics, Vol.3, No.2,1993:127-144.
[141]Nicholas Kaldor. The Equilibrium of the Firm[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No.173 Mar.,1934:60-76.
[142]Nicholas Kaldor. Alternative Theories of Distribution[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.23, No.2,1955:83-100.
[143]Nicholas Kaldor. The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.82, No.328 Dec.,1972:1237-1255.
[144]Nicholas Kaldor. What is Wrong With Economic Theory[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.89, No.3 Aug.,1975:347-357.
[145]P. Ray. On Marshall's Statics and Dynamics[J]. The Indian Economic Journal, Vol.20,1934(4):761-771.
[146]Patrik Aspers. The economic sociology of Alfred Marshall:An overview[J]. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1999:651-667.
[147]Paul J. McNulty. A Note on the History of Perfect Competition[J]. Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.4, Part 1 Aug.,1967:395-399.
[148]Paul Krugman. Increasing returns and economic geography[J]. Journal of Political Economy,Vol.99, No.3 Jun.,1991:483-499.
[149]Paul A. David. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY [J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.75, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May,1985:332-337.
[150]Paul M. Romer. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.94, No.5,Oct.,1986:1002-1037.
[151]Paul M. Romer. Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.77, No.2,1987 (5): 56-62.
[152]Paul M. Romer. Endogenous Technological Change[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.98, No.5, Part 2:The Problem of Development:A Conference of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise Systems, Oct.,1990:71-102.
[153]Paul M. Romer. The Origins of Endogenous Growth[J]. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.8, No.1, Winter,1994:3-22.
[154]Peter Dooley. Alfred Marshall:fitting the theory to the facts[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1985(9):245-255.
[155]Peter Groenewegen. A soaring eagle:Alfred Marshall 1842-1924[M]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,1995.
[156]Peter D.Groenewegen. The Evolutionary Economics of Alfred Marshall:An Overview[A]. In John Laurent and John Nightingale (eds), Darwinism and Evolutionary Economics[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2001:49-62.
[157]Peter Groenewegen (ed). Alfred Marshall:critical responses, London and New York:Routledge,1998.
[158]Peter Groenewegen. English Marginalism:Jevons, Marshall, and Pigou[A]. in Warren J Samuels,Jeff E. Biddle,and John B. Davis, a companion to the history of economic thought[C]. Blackwell Publishing,2003.
[159]Peter Groenewegen. Competition and evolution:The Marshallian conciliation enterprise[A]. in Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:113-136.
[160]Peter Groenewegen. Alfred Marshall's use of Adam Smith:Coming To grips with an aspect of Alfred Marshall's citation practice[J]. Euro.J. History of Economic Thought,14:2,273-289,June,2007:273-289.
[161]Peter Groenewegen. Marshall's treatment of technological change in Industry and Trade[J]. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 2010(17): 1253-1269.
[162]Peter Newman. The Erosion of Marshall's Theory of Value[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.74, No.4,1960:587-599.
[163]Piero Sraffa. The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.36, No.144,1926:535-550.
[164]Pratten. Marshall on tendencies, equilibrium, and the statical method[J]. History of Political Economy,1998,30(1):121-63.
[165]Prendergast, R., Increasing returns and competitive equilibrium—the content and development of Marshall's theory[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,16, December,1992:447-62.
[166]Prendergast, R. Marshallian external economies[J]. The Economic Journal,103 (March),1993:454-458.
[167]R.A. Jenner. The Dynamic Factor in Marshall's Economic System[J]. Western Economics of Journal, Vol.3, No.1.Nov.,1964:21-38.
[168]R. H. Coase. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica, NewSeries,Vol.4, No.16.Nov.,1937:386-405.
[169]R. H. Coase. The Appointment of Pigou as Marshall's Successor[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.15, No.2,Oct.,1972:473-485.
[170]R. H. Coase. Marshall on Method[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.18, No.1,Apr.,1975:25-31.
[171]R. W. Souter. The Nature and Significance of Economic Science in Recent Discussion[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.47, No.3,May,1933: 377-413.
[172]Ragnar Frisch. On the Notion of Equilibrium and Disequilibrium[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.3, No.2,Feb.,1936:100-105.
[173]Redvers Opie, Marshall's Time Analysis[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.41, No. 162, Jun.,1931:199-215.
[174]Renee Prendergast. increasing returns and competitive equilibrium-the content and development of Marshall's theorry[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1992(16):447-462.
[175]Richard Arena. on the relation between economics and sociology:Marshall and Schumpeter[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:65-92.
[176]Richard Arena, Michel Quere. The economics of Alfred Marshall:revisiting Marshall's legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003.
[177]Richard R. Nelson. Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.33, No.1, Mar.,1995:48-90.
[178]Robert E. Lucas. On the mechanics of economic development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,Volume 22, Issue 1, July 1988:3-42.
[179]Roger E.Backhouse. Schumpeter on Marshall:a reconsideration[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:48-61.
[180]Roger S. Frantz. Two minds:intuition and analysis in the history of economic thought[M]. Springer,2005.
[181]Samuel Hollander. The Representative Firm and Imperfect Competition[J]. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol.27, No.2, May,1961: 236-241.
[182]Shackle, G. L. S. The years of high theory:invention and tradition in economic thught 1926-1939[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge U.P.,1967.
[183]Simon J. Cook. The intellectual foundations of Alfred Marshall's economic science[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[184]Stigler, G.J. Production and Distribution Theories. The formative Period[M]. New York:Macmillan,1941.
[185]Stigler, G.J. Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated [J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.65, No.1, Feb.,1957:1-17.
[186]Stigler, G.J. the successes and failures of professor Smith[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1976, Vol.84:1199-1213.
[187]Stephen Pratten. Marshall on Tendencies, Equilibrium, and the Statical Method[J]. History of Political Economy,30:1,1998:121-163.
[188]Talcott Parsons, Economics and Sociology:Marshall in Relation to the Thought of His Time, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.46, No.2, Feb.,1932: 316-347.
[189]Tamotsu Nishizawa. Alfred Marshall and the historical-ethical approach[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:147-165.
[190]Thorstein Veblen. Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.12, No.4,Jul.,1898:373-397.
[191]Tibor Scitovsky, Two Concepts of External Economies[J]. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.62, No.2,Apr.,1954:143-151.
[192]Tiziano Raffaelli. Marshall's Evolutionary Economics[M]. New Fetter Lane, London,2003.
[193]Tiziano Raffaelli. Marshall's Metaphors on Method[J]. Journal of the History of Economic Thought,Volume 29, Issue 2,2007:135-151.
[194]Tiziano Raffaeli. The general pattern of Marshallian evolution[A]. In Yuichi and Tametsu Nishizawa (eds), Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution[C]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2008:36-47.
[195]Tiziano Raffaelli, Giacomo Becattini, Marco Dardi. The elgar companion to Alfred MarshallC]. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.2006.
[196]Tiziano Raffaelli. Requirements and Pattern of Marshallian Evolution[A]. in Richard Arena and Michel Quire eds, The Economics of Alfred Marshall: Revisiting Marshall's Legacy[C]. Palgrave Macmilan,2003:254-268.
[197]Ulrich Witt. Evolutionary concepts in economics and biology[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol.16,2006:473-476.
[198]W.Brian Arthur. Complexity and the Economy[J]. New Series, Vol.284, No. 5411,Apr.2,1999:107-109.
[199]W.Brian Arthur. Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events[J]. The Economic Journal, Vol.99, No.394 Mar.,1989: 116-131.
[200]Wilfred J. Ethier. National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.72, No. 3, Jun.,1982:389-405.
[201]William J. Baumol. Contestable Markets:An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol.72, No.1, Mar.,1982:1-15.
[202]Viner.J. Cost curves and supply curves[J]. Journal of Economics,Volume 3. Number 1,1931:23-46.
[203]Y.C. Devadhar. Alfred Marshall on cooperation Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics[Z]. Volume 42, Issue 4, October,1971:285-301.
[204]阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔.经济学原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[205]阿列桑德洛·荣卡格利亚.西方经济思想史[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2009.
[206]阿莱桑德罗·荣卡格利亚.皮埃罗·斯拉法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010.
[207]阿瑟·庇古.福利经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[208]柏拉图.理想国[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[209]本·塞利格曼.现代经济学主要流派[M].北京：华夏出版社,2010.
[210]彼得·格罗尼维根.翱翔的鹰——阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔传[M].北京：华夏出版社,2011.
[211]彼得·格罗维根尼.阿尔弗雷德 马歇尔[M].北京：华夏出版社,2009.
[212]布莱恩·阿瑟.报酬递增和经营买卖的新世界[J].经济资料译丛,1997(4)：19-24.
[213]柴志贤,黄祖辉.国外空间经济研究的最新进展及发展趋势[J].经济评论,2006(1)：155-160.
[214]陈平.劳动分工的制约与起源[J].经济学季刊2002(2)：227-248.
[215]陈银娥.新古典主义的开创者——马歇尔[M].南昌：江西人民出版社,2006.
[216]崔晨秋.论马歇尔的企业家理论[D],硕士学位论文,河北大学,2005.
[217]大卫.李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].北京：商务印书馆,1962.
[218]戴维·沃尔什.知识与国家财富：经济学说探索的历程[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[219]邓翔.收益递增与劳动分工理论回顾[J].四川工业学院学报,增刊-0093-03,2003：93-95.
[220]丁宝山,任建平编.产业经济辞典[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1991.
[221]ErnstMay.生物学思想发展的历史[M].成都：四川教育出版社,1990.
[222]E. RayCanterbery.经济学简史[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[223]弗兰克 奈特.风险、不确定性和利润[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[224]高凯山,徐创风.知识经济的收益递增与持续增长[J].兰州大学学报(社会 科学版)2000(5)：32-35.
[225]古诺.财富理论的数学原理研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005.
[226]华民.新经济是报酬递增的经济[J].经济研究参考,2001(47)：40.
[227]黄有光.从综观经济学到生物学[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2010.
[228]黄有光,张定胜.高级微观经济学[M].上海：格致出版社,2008.
[229]罗伯特·特里芬.垄断竞争与一般均衡理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
[230]纪玉山,江中蛟.知识经济与边际收益递增[J].经济评论,2000(4)：16-19.
[231]贾根良.星星之火,可以燎原——报酬递增对经济学意味着什么?[J].经济社会体制比较,1998(6)：23-25.
[232]贾根良.报酬递增经济学：回顾与展望(一)[J].南开经济研究,1998(6)：29-34.
[233]贾根良.报酬递增经济学：回顾与展望(二)[J].南开经济研究,1999(1)：10-16.
[234]贾根良.劳动分工、制度变迁与经济发展[M].天津：南开大学出版社,1999.
[235]杰克·J·弗罗门.经济演化[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2003.
[236]杰弗里M-Hodgson.演化与制度：论演化经济学和经济学的演化[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[237]杰弗里M Hodgson.经济学是如何忘记历史的：社会科学中的历史特性问题[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[238]斯坦利 杰文斯.政治经济学理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1984.
[239]蒋自强等.经济思想通史(第三卷)[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,1999.
[240]肯尼思 阿罗.信息经济学[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1989.
[241]库尔特·多普菲.演化经济学：纲领与范围[C].北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[242]库尔特·多普菲.经济学的演化基础[C].北京：北京大学出版社出版,2011.
[243]李永采.柏拉图分工理论述论[J].兰州学刊,2000(2)：33-35.
[244]林金忠.分工理论的历史演变与消失[J].中国经济问题,2007(2)：31-37.
[245]刘春,邹树梁.虚拟企业与马歇尔冲突论析[J].管理现代化,2002(4)：20-22.
[246]刘涤源.阿·马歇尔经济学说提要[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1986.
[247]刘成昆.马歇尔的森林与产业结构的优化升级[N].珠海特区报,2009-2-4.
[248]刘明宇,翁瑾.经济学关于空间结构研究的综述[J].当代财经,2006(6)：13-16.
[249]李志远.内、外部收益递增,动态性与集群发展：浙江台州汽摩配产业集群研究[D],硕士学位论文,清华大学,2006.
[250]刘东丽.马歇尔人力资本思想研究[D],硕士学位论文,河北大学,2006.
[251]刘辉煌,周琳.关于分工的经济学：历史回顾与近期发展[J].财经理论与实践,2004(7)：11-16.
[252]龙欢.从马歇尔难题看中国产业组织政策[J].现代经济探讨2001(60)：30-32.
[253]龙自云.知识经济中的收益递增与竞争影响[J].商业时代,2004(21)：4-5.
[254]陆剑,裴琪.规模报酬递增和新贸易理论的发展[J].世界经济研究,2006(9)：11-18.
[255]罗宾斯.经济思想史：伦敦经济学院讲演录[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[256]罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[257]罗伯特J.巴罗,哈维尔·萨拉伊马丁.经济增长[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[258]罗卫东编.经济学基础文献选读[C].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007.
[259]吕静.马歇尔[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[260]马健.生物学影响下的经济学——从经济生物学到演化经济学[J].经济论坛,2009(7)：25-27.
[261]马克·布劳格.凯恩斯以前100位杰出的经济学家[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,1992.
[262]马克·布劳格.经济学方法论的新趋势[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2000.
[263]马克·布劳格.经济理论的回顾[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[264]马克思.资本论(第1卷)[M].北京：人民出版社,1975.
[265]马克斯·H-博伊索特.知识资产[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[266]梅纳德·凯恩斯.马歇尔传[M].北京：商务印书馆,1990.
[267]梅纳德·凯恩斯.精英的聚会[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,1998.
[268]门格尔.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2006.
[269]苗长虹.马歇尔产业区理论的复兴及其理论意义[J].地域研究与开发,2004(2)：1-6.
[270]Nassau William Senior.政治经济学大纲[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[271]纳尔逊,温特.经济变迁的演化理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[272]内维尔·凯恩斯.政治经济学的范围与方法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2001.
[273]牛文涛,张学海,郑现伟.基于马歇尔冲突的我国煤炭产业竞争现状分析[J].煤炭经济研究,2009(3)：40-42.
[274]潘刚.国内分工理论研究的新进展与再思考[J].江苏社会科学2008(2)：82-89.
[275]皮特·J·鲍勒.进化思想史[M].南昌：江西教育出版社,1999.
[276]钱学锋,梁琦.分工与集聚的理论渊源[J].江苏社会科学,2007(2)：70-76.
[277]乔安·罗宾逊.不完全竞争经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1961.
[278]RobertSkidelsky.凯恩斯传：1883-1946[M].上海：三联书店,2006.
[279]单兴,陈恩.马歇尔产业区对发展苏南经济的启示[J].江苏论坛,2003(1)：37-38.
[280]石士钧.马歇尔供给理论再探讨[J].财贸研究,1985(2)：59-62.
[281]色诺芬.经济论雅典的收入[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
[282]斯蒂格勒.产业组织和政府管制[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1996.
[283]斯蒂芬·马丁.高级产业经济学[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2003.
[284]宋亦平.分工、协作和企业演进——一个一般理论及对知识社会企业规制的分析[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2002.
[285]苏东水.产业经济学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2000.
[286]谭崇台.发展经济学的新发展[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002.
[287]陶军锋.劳动分工、专业化人力资本积累与收益递增——内生增长理论研究[D].博士学位论文,中国社会科学研究院,2003.
[288]汤敏,茅于轼主编.现代经济学前沿专题(第三集)[C].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[289]特伦斯.W.哈奇森.经济学的革命与发展[M].北京：北京大学出版社, 1992.
[290]托德·G.巴克霍尔兹.已故西方经济学家思想的新解读——现代经济思想导论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[291]WilliamBreit, RogerL. Ransom.经济学家的学术思想[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[292]瓦尔拉斯.纯粹经济学要义[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[293]汪斌,董赟.从古典到新兴古典经济学的专业化分工理论与当代产业集群的演进[J].学术月刊,2005(2)：29-36.
[294]王春宇.分工、专业化与产业集群研究[D].博士学位论文,辽宁大学,2006.
[295]王德勇,李友华.分工理论的演进与农村城镇化的实践要求[J].商业研究2005(4)：91-93.
[296]王建军.分工理论的演进与新发展[J].煤炭经济研究2005(10)：36-38.
[297]王拓.分工经济思想的发展——从亚当 斯密到新兴古典经济学[J].当代财经,2003(11)：13-17.
[298]王仲君.马歇尔的报酬递减律与新经济[J].经济问题,2004(11)：6-8.
[299]王仲君.马歇尔的新古典报酬学说要义[J].苏州科技学院学报(社会科学版),2003(2)：22-26.
[300]汪丁丁.网络产生递增收益的两条根本途径[J].IT经理世界,2000(11)：122-124.
[301]汪丁丁.近年来经济发展理论的简述与思考[J].经济研究,1994(7)：66-80.
[302]汪丁丁,罗卫东,叶航.历史视角的经济学：是否必要?如何可能?[J].浙江社会科学,2003(9)：32-41.
[303]王廷惠.竞争与垄断：过程竞争理论视角的分析[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
[304]王澎涛.阿弗里德 马歇尔国际贸易理论研评[D].硕士学位论文,对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[305]王翼龙.从经济学的力学隐喻到经济学的生物学隐喻[J].经济学动态,2000(12)：69-72.
[306]魏婕,任保平.西方经济学报酬递增理论的新发展述评[J].重庆工商大学 学报(社会科学版)第28卷第2期,2011(4)：38-43.
[307]沃尔德 罗普.复杂——诞生于秩序与混沌边缘的科学[M].北京：三联书店,1997.
[308]沃特 白芝浩,物理与政治——或“自然选择”与“遗传”原理应用于政治社会之思考[M].上海：三联书店,2008.
[309]邬义钧,邱钧.产业经济学[M].北京：中国统计出版社,1997.
[310]西奥多.W.舒尔茨.报酬递增的源泉[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[311]谢芳.规模报酬递增理论的文献综述[J].现代商贸工业,2009(10)：19-20.
[312]许倩.“知识经济”冲击传统经济学——从报酬递减到报酬递增[J].发展研究,2001(4)：10-12.
[313]亚当 斯密.国民财富的性质和原因研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[314]颜明池.空运业的马歇尔冲突剖析——寻求空运业竞争与规模经济的均衡,民航经济与技术,1994(1)：10-13.
[315]杨小凯,张永生.新贸易理论及内生与外生比较优势理论的新发展：文献综述[Z].2001(7)：1-18.
[316]杨小凯.经济学：新兴古典与新古典框架[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[317]杨小凯.当代经济学与中国经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997.
[318]杨慧玲.劳动协作及报酬递增——关于分工的政治经济学分析系统[D].博士学位论文,西南财经大学,2008.
[319]殷德生.报酬递增,动态比较优势与产业内贸易——基于新贸易理论和新增长理论的综合[D].博士学位论文,华东师范大学,2005.
[320]殷德生.新增长理论中的报酬递增与市场结构[J].经济评论,2006(1)：58-63.
[321]殷德生.报酬递增与市场结构难题的研究进展[J].当代财经,2006(3)：21-26.
[322]殷德生.新贸易理论中的报酬递增与市场结构[J].社会科学,2006(11)：50-57.
[323]袁正.分工的一般理论与古典增长框架[J].经济学家,2005(6)：103-108.
[324]约翰 贝茨 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
[325]约翰 贝茨 克拉克.财富的分配[M].北京：人民日报出版社,2010.
[326]约翰希克斯.价值与资本,北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[327]约翰·希克斯.经济史理论,北京：商务印书馆,1987.
[328]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史(第1、3卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
[329]约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济发展理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[330]约瑟夫·熊彼特.从马克思到凯恩斯十大经济学家[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965.
[331]约翰·伊特维尔,默里·米尔盖特,彼得·纽曼.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典中译本,1-4卷[C].北京：经济科学出版社,1996.
[332]约翰·穆勒.政治经济学原理[C].北京：商务印书馆,2009.
[333]张静敏.马歇尔两难的解决与我国产业组织战略的选择[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1997(2)：105-109.
[334]张健君.马歇尔价值理论中的时间因素[J].经济纵横,1986(9)：59-61.
[335]张乐和.马歇尔及其供求均衡论述评[J].武汉交通管理干部学院学报(社会科学版),1994(3-4)：24-29.
[336]张日波.马歇尔论经济生物学[J].经济学动态,2011(10)：154-159.
[337]张日波.分工思想何以被忽视——以马歇尔为中心的思想史考察[J].经济理论与经济管理2012(1)：28-35.
[338]张巍,韩冰.报酬递增在主流经济学中何以缺失[J].经济学家,2002(5)：62-67.
[339]张旭昆.论威克斯蒂德收入分配理论的历史地位[A].载于顾海良,颜鹏飞主编.经济思想史评论,第四辑[C].北京：经济科学出版社,2009：71-83.
[340]赵桂琴.论马歇尔冲突[J].中国人民大学学报(社会科学版),1998(2)：17-20.
[341]赵明亮.分工理论：从古希腊思想到新国际体系的研究述评[J].产经评论,2010(5)：14-23.
[342]仲伟周.从经济生物学看中国经济体制改革[J].汉中师范学院学报(社会科学版),1996(4)：17-22.
[343]朱富强.分工效率：演进主义的观点[J].上海经济研究,2004(1)：28-35.
[344]杨小凯与保罗·米尔格罗姆的讨论[EB/OL].http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ Ocfba 892 daef5ef7baOd3c0f.html,2001.
[345]曾欢.西方科学主义思潮的历史轨迹：以科学统一为研究视角[M].北京： 世界知识出版社,2009.
[346]邹薇,庄子银.分工、交易与经济增长[J].中国社会科学,1996(3)：4-14.