摘要
传统的危机态主要是以产能危机为核心特质的危机形态;而现代的危机态则是以信用危机为核心特质的危机形态。这两种危机态在发生机制、传导机制等方面存在着本质上的差异,这使得经典的危机"中心—边缘"结构假说在解释此次美国金融危机时陷入了理论困惑,但两种危机态的"中心—边缘"危机转移规律是不变的。我国应当在世界金融体系不断解构与升级的进程中准确地定位,加强监管,防范风险,从金融制度、金融工具乃至产业发展等方面采取积极有效的策略加以应对。
A traditional crisis usually demonstrates as a crisis in production capacity, but a modern crisis generally demonstrates as a credit crisis. There are fundamental differences in the generative mechanisms and transmission mechanisms of the two kinds of crises, which have made the classical "center-periphery" structural hypothesis invalid in explaining the current financial crisis in the US. However, the classical "center-periphery" crisis-transferring mechanism does not change in both kinds of crises. In the process of destructing and ever-escalating of the world financial system, China should locate itself appropriately such that it can strengthen regulation and prevent risks; specifically, China needs to cope with current situation with active and effective strategies in aspects such as financial institutions, financial tools, and industrial development.
出处
《经济理论与经济管理》
CSSCI
北大核心
2009年第1期44-50,共7页
Economic Theory and Business Management
基金
教育部人文社会科学研究项目(07JC790018)
国家自然科学基金项目(70703003)
关键词
“中心-边缘”结构
金融危机
传统危机态
现代危机态
the "centerperiphery" structural hypothesis
financial crisis
traditional crisis
modern crisis