摘要
导言在过去20年左右的时间里,由彭慕兰(Kenneth Pomeranz)发起的“大分流”争论极大地拓宽了经济史的研究范围。简要来说,他认为,19世纪初之前,中国长江下游地区民众的生活水平完全可以与西欧经济更为发达地区的相提并论。同时,英国有更利于工业化的条件,因为其地表煤层和他命名的“隐地”(ghostacres,海外殖民领地上现成的资源生产地)使得本土土地得以用于工业用途。这一论点促使许多其他历史学家试图在全球而不是民族国家层面上,衡量国家之间的工资和物价,以及其他经济指标,如职业结构。
Previously,institutional economists have attributed Western economic growth primarily to democratic institutions;however,from a social history perspective,a comparison of early modern England and China reveals that the legal system was an important part of the state's establishment of authority,and that the ordinary people made comprehensive use of a suite of dispute resolution mechanisms,including the courts,to deal with debt disputes.In this way the ordinary people would develop a sense of legal awareness,and they would expect the law to provide institutional security for their dispute resolution,which could lead to economic savings in transaction costs.By the 18th century,the formalization of the credit market in England had intensified,and a new type of public court was established to deal with debt litigation.Laws are not just rules,they are the way in which social relations are organized.Institutional arrangements are not only about economic growth,but also about how different members of society participate in the economy.
出处
《国际社会科学杂志（中文版）》
2024年第3期40-51,5,10,共14页
International Social Science Journal（Chinese Edition）
