Article Robert Malthus, Thomas. 1836, “Introduction”, Principles of Political Economy, 2nd ed. London: W. Pickering (the first edition was published in 1820). was published on June 1, 2021 in the journal Man and the Economy (volume 8, issue 1).

China ist mit seinem riesigen Absatzmarkt ein wichtiger Standort fur Tech-Unternehmen wie Apple oder Zoom – doch die dortige Zensur verscharft sich zunehmend. Wahrend einige Firmen den Balanceakt mit vorauseilendem Gehorsam zu meistern versuchen, gehen andere auf Kollisionskurs.

New Humanism and Global Governance, pp. 309-330 (2018) No AccessChapter 13: The Rule of Law, Market Order and China's Party-State SystemNing WangNing WangThe Ronald Coase Institute, 905 Fieldwood Court, San Jose, CA 95120, USAhttps://doi.org/10.1142/9789813236189_0013Cited by:0 PreviousNext AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsRecommend to Library ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Abstract: In December 2015, Yu Keping, a well-respected high-ranking Chinese official-turned political scientist, currently Dean of the School of Government and Director of the Center for Chinese Government Innovation at Peking University, invented and popularized an interesting metaphor to capture the sweeping prevalence and alarming nature of corruption in China's political system. This is what Yu said, "If a number of officials are corrupted, they must lack political belief or suffer other personal faults. If flocks of officials are corrupted, something must be wrong with the system. It is much like a fishpond. If a few fish died, something might be wrong with the fish. If flocks of fish perished, something must be wrong with water in the pond"… FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails New Humanism and Global GovernanceMetrics History PDF download

Abstract Ronald Coase was a founding father of modern law and economics. Yet, Coase distanced himself from the economic analysis of law, which today dominates the law and economics scholarship, and proposed an alternative research program, which is referred to here as “law and the economy”. As market transaction presumes the delineation of rights, which are primarily defined and enforced by law, law obviously anchors the foundation of a market economy. Moreover, changes in the legal system are a main source of institutional change that reassigns rights and redraws constraints under which rights are exercised, thus fundamentally affecting transaction costs and how the economy works. “Law and the economy” recognizes the law as an integral part of the economy and calls for the study of the economic impact of law.

Abstract What The Theory of Share Tenancy did to share tenancy repeats what Coase did to Pigovian tax. The Theory of Share Tenancy pioneered the empirical study of transaction costs and property rights.

The means nature employs in order to bring about the development of all its predispositions is their antagonism in society, insofar as the latter is in the end the cause of their lawful order. Here I understand by “antagonism” the unsociable sociability of human beings, i. e. their propensity to enter into society, which, however, is combined with a thoroughgoing resistance that constantly threatens to break up this society. The predisposition for this obviously lies in human nature. The human being has an inclination to become socialized, since in such a condition he feels himself as more a human being, i. e. feels the development of his natural predispositions. But he also has a great propensity to individualize (isolate) himself, because he simultaneously encounters in himself the unsociable property of willing to direct everything so as to get his own way, and hence expects resistance everywhere because he knows of himself that he is inclined on his side toward resistance against others. Now it is this resistance that awakens all the powers of the human being, brings him to overcome his propensity to indolence, and, driven by ambition, tyranny, and greed, to obtain for himself a rank among his fellows, whom he cannot stand, but also cannot leave alone. Thus happen the first true steps from crudity toward culture, which really consists in the social worth of the human being; thus all talents come bit by bit to be developed, taste is formed, and even, through progress in enlightenment, a beginning is made toward the foundation of a mode of thought which can with time transform the rude natural predisposition to make moral distinctions into determinate practical principles and hence transform a pathologically compelled agreement to form a society finally into a moral whole. Without these qualities of unsociability from which the resistance arises, which are not at all amiable in themselves, qualities that each of us must necessarily encounter in his selfish pretensions, all talents would, in an arcadian pastoral life of perfect concord, contentment and mutual love, remain eternally hidden in their germs; human beings, as good-natured as the sheep they tended, would give their existence hardly any greater worth than that of their domesticated beasts; they would not fill the void in creation in regard to their end as rational nature. Thanks be to nature, therefore, for the incompatibility, for the spiteful competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess or even to dominate! For without them all the excellent natural predispositions in humanity would eternally slumber undeveloped. The human being wills concord; but nature knows better what is good for his species: it wills discord. He wills to live comfortably and contentedly; but nature wills that out of sloth and inactive contentment he should throw himself into labor and toils, so as, on the contrary, prudently to find out the means to pull himself again out of the latter. The natural incentives to this, the sources of unsociability and thoroughgoing resistance, from which so many ills arise, which, however, impel human beings to new exertion of their powers and hence to further development of their natural predispositions, thus betray the ordering of a wise creator; and not the hand of an evil spirit who might have bungled his splendid undertaking or ruined it in an envious manner. The greatest problem for the human species, to which nature compels him, is the achievement of a civil society universally administering right. Since only in society, and indeed in that society which has the greatest freedom, hence one in which there is a thoroughgoing antagonism of its members and yet the most precise determination and security of the boundaries of this freedom so that the latter can coexist with the freedom of others – since only in it can the highest aim of nature be attained, namely, the development of all the predispositions in humanity,

I am sure I do not have to remind this audience that to an Englishman there is a magic about the name of Virginia. It is therefore a great pleasure for me to have the honor of speaking in the University of Virginia during the inaugural year of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Study of Political Economy. But my feelings do not arise simply from a feeling of kinship. With the formation of this Center we may indeed be participating in the rebirth of political economy. That this should happen in Virginia is singularly appropriate; for Virginia played a part in the birth of political economy. The first political economy club in the English-speaking world, that founded by Andrew Cochrane in the 1740s in Glasgow, which Adam Smith later joined and from the deliberations of which he drew much information and probably some of his doctrines, was composed to a large extent of Virginia merchants. They were engaged in the tobacco trade, owned plantations and had extensive interests in wholesale and retail trade in Virginia. It is therefore fitting that political economy should be given its second chance in Virginia, where, as a glance around this campus will confirm, the eighteenth century has lasted rather longer than in the rest of the world. But there are other features which strengthen one’s sense of the historical appropriateness of the occasion. It is, I think, of interest that Glasgow, which was to play such an important part in the development of our subject, had, in the middle of the eighteenth century, approximately the same population as Charlottesville now. One of those Virginia merchants, as you would expect, was named Buchanan. He owned tobacco plantations and when, through his grounds in Glasgow, he opened an avenue for gentlemen’s houses, he named it Virginia Street and the town house he planned he called Virginia Mansion. Along with his brothers he founded the Buchanan Society for the assistance of apprentices, a sort of eighteenth century fellowship program. The Society also had the task of supporting widows with the name of Buchanan, which must have made Buchanans more attractive as husbands, although not for long.

This chapter examines the life experiences of counter-revolutionaries and ultra-rightists in the Xingkaihu labour reform complex. It was the mass persecution of the 1950s and the subsequent shortage of prison facilities that prompted the boom of labour camps in the northeast, including the establishment of Xingkaihu, a colony directly administered by the Beijing Public Security Bureau. In Xingkaihu, student inmates who were mentally or ideologically unyielding were more assertive than others in articulating their opinions, resisting thought reform, and refusing to entirely submit to camp cadres. The chapter shows that the CCP practice of mixing political prisoners with criminal prisoners in labour camps turned out to be quite insidious, enabling the police to use the latter to monitor and discipline the former.

It’s my great pleasure to participate in this panel on Coase’s legacy at the 27th Annual Conference of the Canadian Law and Economics Association. I took an overnight flight from California and arrived at the airport at 7am this morning. And I already gave a talk at the Asian Institute this morning. And now here I am. It’s hard for me to speak about professor Coase without becoming emotional. He was my boss, my friend, and my co-author for more than 15 years from May 1st, 1998 when we first met at the Italian Village, a restaurant at downtown Chicago, until he passed away on September 2, 2013. The most obvious legacy Coase has left to me is that Coase has become for me a research subject, a rich, under-explored mine of wisdom, humility and ideas. As early as 2003, I published “Coase on the Nature of Economics” (Wang 2003) at Cambridge Journal of Economics. Recently, I started working on a long-term project to publish Coase’s collected works; the first volume will be Coase on Law and Economics (Coase forthcoming). Another related book project is to write an intellectual biography of Coase. In the remaining time I have, I’d like to share with you what I have learned about Coase and Coasian economics. As an excursion, let me share some news with those who are interested in Coase’s life and want to know more about his distinct, Coasian way of doing economics, particularly those who simply cannot wait for my intellectual biography of Coase to become available. The good news is that the Coase files are now available at the Special Collection of the Joseph Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. Coase’s unpublished articles, notes, lectures, correspondence, as well as the materials he collected and used for his research, are all catalogued there. The not so good news is that even though the librarians have done a great job cataloguing, the sheer size of the files is staggering. You better know what you are looking for lest you get yourself trapped in the files. To return to Coase’s legacy, I have to start with a dilemma that I am keenly aware of. The whole Coase project, which I just mentioned and which probably will consume a lot of my attention for the rest of my life, apparently fails to meet

Abstract This paper examines China’s ongoing revolution in higher education. On the bright side, Chinese higher education has enjoyed four decades of remarkable expansion, as measured by college enrollment, post-graduate training, research capacities and various global rankings. In 2007, China’s higher education has become the largest in the world in terms of student enrollment. Yet, after decades of economic liberalization and marketization, Chinese higher education is one of the few areas that remain monopolized by the state. Despite extraordinary progresses Chinese universities have recently made, they have been repeatedly criticized by many insiders (university presidents, college deans, professors, as well as students and their parents) for the lack of academic freedom. It remains to be seen whether China’s universities can transform themselves from an institution of higher education to a home of liberal learning and innovation.