马克思的企业理论与西方新制度学派的企业理论之比较

A Comparative Study of Enterprise Theories of Marx and Those of Western Neoinstitutional School

本文认为：马克思将劳动生产率的提高和社会生产力的发展看作是企业产生的根本原因是符合实际的，新制度学派抛开了企业的生产功能，将节约交易费用作为企业产生的唯一原因，使其理论陷入了困境；马克思以提高劳动生产率为主线，分析了企业规模扩张的原因，而新制度学派用交易费用范畴说明企业规模扩张的界限，同时肯定了管理费用对企业规模的影响，这是符合事实的，但是，他们认为决定企业规模的只有交易费用一个因素，却是错误的；马克思认为，资本所有者与雇佣劳动者之间的雇佣劳动关系是资本主义企业内部最基本的关系，而新制度学派则把分析的重点放在了资本所有者与企业经营管理者之间的委托—代理关系上；马克思从旧的社会分工出发，阐述企业作为一个科层等级制组织存在的原因，而新制度学派着重从契约的不完全性角度论述企业作为科层等级制组织存在的原因。

Abstract The author points out that Marx was right when he regarded increase of productivity and social yield capacity as the basic cause for the rise of enterprises. The neoinstitutional school, on the contrary, ignored the productive function of enterprises and considered economizing the cost of dealings the only reason why enterprises came into being, which led their theories to a difficult position. Marx' analysis of the reasons for enterprises to expand rested on an increase of productivity, while the neoinstitutional school used the notion of dealing cost to explain the extent of expansion. They were right in admitting that cost of management could affect the scale of enterprises.However, they were wrong to believe that dealing cost was the only aspect that could affect the scale of enterprises. Marx said that the basic relation inside capitalist enterprises was that of employment, while neoinstitutional school emphasized the relation of client and agent between the owner of capital and the manager of enterprise. Marx explained the reason for enterprises to exist as a hierarchical organization from the point of view of social division of work, while neoinstitutional school elaborated on the incompleteness of the social contract as the reason for the existence of the enterprise as a hierarchical organization. This argument, however, is not sound enough.