价值争论：回顾与展望

Controversies on Value: Retrospect and Prospect

传统的劳动价值论由于只承认劳动是价值的唯一源泉,从而对非劳动要素在价值形成中的作用以及所得到的收入难以作出令人满意的数量分析。新古典价值论虽然对各种生产要素在价值决定中的作用以及功能性分配给出了数量解,但其体系存在着难以克服的内在矛盾(循环论证)。斯拉法的价值论把价值的决定与剩余的分配融为一体,从而使其具有不同于前述两种价值理论的独立价值。但斯拉法价值理论既没有考虑到需求对价值的决定作用,也没有考虑到不同部门比较生产力水平对剩余分配的影响,由此使其解释力大为减弱。笔者所创立的广义价值论把分工交换和机会成本内生于价值决定体系,把价值决定与比较利益的分配融为一体,并揭示了比较生产力水平的高低对价值决定的影响,从而成为逻辑上更加严密的独树一帜的价值理论。

Due to its acknowledgment of labor as the sole source of value, the traditional Labor Theory of Value fails to come up with satisfying quantitative analysis in terms of the roles and earnings of non-labor factors. The Neoclassical Theory of Value, though setting quantitative solution to the role of all production factors in value determination and their functional distribution, yet is marked with insurmountably immanent contradiction (argue in a circle). The Sraffian Theory of Value incorporates value determination and distribution of surplus, endowing it with independent value distinct from the former sets of theories of value. The Sraffian Theory of Value, however, is less convincing in that it dose not take into account the decisive role of demand on value, nor does it give weight to the impact of comparative productivity among different sectors on surplus distribution. The General Theory of Value, originally founded by the author, endogenezes labor-division and exchange and opportunity cost into the value determination system, incorporates value determination and distribution of comparative advantage, reveals the impact of level of comparative productivity on value determination, therefore stands out as a unique theory of value with more rigorous logics.