(moen 1997)COmpetitive Search Equilibrium
微观经济学 第七版 丹尼尔 罗伯特 中央财经大学 chapter_04
替代品和互补品
• 如果价格—消费曲线是向下倾斜的，那么这 两种商品就可以认为是替代品（AB段，P106 ）——食品价格下降导致衣服消费减少，也 许是因为：食物开支上升，购衣开支减少。 • 如果价格—消费曲线是向上倾斜的，那么这 两种商品就可以认为是互补品（BD段，P106 ）。
1. 价格变化
食物价格
$2.00
E
G $1.00 需求曲线
$.50
H
食物 (单位/月）
4
12
20
1.价格变化
• 如果PF下降呢？例如跌至0.5$
• 形成D点，效用对应U3 • 在PF与QF间的关系图对应于H点。 • 把PF所有可能的变化包括进来，并把所 有对应的效用最大化点连起来——
价格变化的影响
Microeconomics
中央财经大学
宋一淼
ogscs@
第4章 个别需求和市场需求
CHAPTER 4
Individual Demand and Market Demand
前言 (preface)
• 第三章中我们探讨了消费者偏好的性质 ，并明白了在既定的约束下，消费者如 何选择一个能使其满足最大化的消费篮 子的。 • 基于以上内容，我们可以进一步地分析 需求，分析每一种需求是如何取决于这 种商品的价格及其他商品的价格和收入 的。
收入 (美元/月)
30
20
正常商品的恩格尔曲线向上 倾斜.
10
食物 (单位/月）
0
4
8
12
16
恩格尔曲线（ Engel curves）
收入 (美元/月)
这里恩格尔曲线上向下倾斜的那部分就是 汉堡成为劣质商品的收入范围 30 劣等的 20
西方经济学名词解释
主题：西方经济学名词解释汇编收藏本贴| 好友分享| 推广拿分点击:2374 | 回复:6 | 标签: 海外文化翻译外贸1、绝对优势（Absolute advantage）如果一个国家用一单位资源生产的某种产品比另一个国家多，那么，这个国家在这种产品的生产上与另一国相有绝对优势。
2、逆向选择（Adverse choice）在此状况下，保险公司发现它们的客户中有太大的一部分来自高风险群体。
3、选择成本（Alternative cost）如果以最好的另一种方式使用的某种资源，它所能生产的价值就是选择成本，也可以称之为机会成本。
4、需求的弧弹性（ Arc elasticity of demand）如果P1和Q1分别是价格和需求量的初始值，P2 和Q2 为第二组值，那么，弧弹性就等于-（Q1-Q2）（P1＋P2）/（P1-P2）（Q1＋Q2）5、非对称的信息（Asymmetric information）在某些市场中，每个参与者拥有的信息并不相同。
例如，在旧车市场上，有关旧车质量的信息，卖者通常要比买者知道得多。
6、平均成本（Average cost）平均成本是总成本除以产量。
也称为平均总成本。
7、平均固定成本( Average fixed cost）平均固定成本是总固定成本除以产量。
8、平均产品（Average product）平均产品是总产量除以投入品的数量。
9、平均可变成本（Average variable cost）平均可变成本是总可变成本除以产量。
10、投资的β(Beta）β度量的是与投资相联的不可分散的风险。
对于一种股票而言，它表示所有现行股票的收益发生变化时，一种收益会如何敏感地变化。
11、债券收益(Bond yield）债券收益是债券所获得的利率。
12、收支平衡图（Break－even chart）收支平衡图表示一种产品所出售的总数量改变时总收益和总成本是如何变化的。
收支平衡点是为避免损失而必的最小数量。
马浩：战略管理与竞争优势培训讲义
需求分析 • 谁是我们的顾客? • 他们需要什么?
2002
Dr. Hao Ma
竞争分析
• 什么推动竞争? • 竞争的焦点? • 竞争的强度? • 如何建立一强大的定位? 关键成功因素
29
奥运会：北京的两次申办经历
2000 OLYMPIAD
北京 32 37 40 43
2002
悉尼 30 30 37 45
重要 大量资源投入
不可逆转
2002
Dr. Hao Ma
15
战略: 企业与环境的联结
企业
目标与使命 资源与能力 结构与系统
ST战RA略TEGY
2002
Dr. Hao Ma
环境
宏观环境 竞争环境
16
企业使命
企业存在的根本原因
业务定位与竞争优势 主导哲学与价值趋向
2002
Dr. Hao Ma
17
企业外部环境分析：
2002
Dr. Hao Ma
22
产业结构一览
完全竞争
集中程度 进入壁垒
很多企业 低/无
产品差异化
无
寡头垄断
双头垄断
垄断
几个企业
两个企业
一个企业
相当高壁垒
极高壁垒
有产品差异化潜能
信息
2002
自由流动
Dr. Hao Ma
信息不完全可得
23
迈克波特:5因素框架
供应商
侃价能力
产业内对手
潜在进入者 威胁
竞争强度
(U.S.), Morgan (U.K.)
GLOBAL SUPPLIERS OF NARROW MODEL RANGE e.g., Volvo, Subaru, Isuzu,
Value maximization,stakeholder theory,and the corporate objective function
Michael C. Jensen
Abstract: In this article, I offer a proposal to clarify what I believe is the proper relation between value maximization and stakeholder theory, which I call enlightened value maximization. Enlightened value maximization utilizes much of the structure of stakeholder theory but accepts maximization of the long-run value of the firm as the criterion for making the requisite tradeoffs among its stakeholders, and specifies long-term value maximization or value seeking as the firm's objective. This proposal therefore solves the problems that arise from the multiple objectives that accompany traditional stakeholder theory. I also discuss the Balanced Scorecard, which is the managerial equivalent of stakeholder theory, explaining how this theory is flawed because it presents managers with a scorecard that gives no score—that is, no single-valued measure of how they have performed. Thus managers evaluated with such a system (which can easily have two dozen measures and provides no information on the tradeoffs between them) have no way to make principled or purposeful decisions. The solution is to define a true (single dimensional) score for measuring performance for the organization or division (and it must be consistent with the organization's strategy), and as long as their score is defined properly, (and for lower levels in the organization it will generally not be value) this will enhance their contribution to the firm.
推荐-战略管理的经典文献 精品
战略管理的经典文献▪Andrews K. (1986). The Concept Of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, Ill: Irwin.Chapters 2,3,4.▪Porter, M. What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 1996, 6.▪Drucker, P. The Theory Of The Business, Harvard Business Review, 1994, 5.▪Hamel, G. Strategy As Revolution, Harvard Business Review, 1996, 4▪Hamel, G. & C. K. Prahalad, Strategic Intent, Harvard Business Review, 1989,3.▪Hamel, G. & C. K. Prahalad, Strategy As Stretch And Leverage, Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 2.▪Rumelt, R. Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (1991). Fundamental Research Issues In Strategy And Economics. Strategic Management Journal. Special Issue. Vol. 12.▪Schoemaker, P. (1990). Strategy, plexity And Economic Rents. Management Science.Special Issue, Vol. 36 (10), 1178-1192.▪Christensen, C., Kenneth R. Andrews, Joseph L. Bower, Richard G. Hamermesh, Michael E. Porter, Business Policy: Text And Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1982 ▪Mintzberg, H.; Bruce Ahlstrand; Joseph Lampel, Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds Of Strategic Management, Free Press, 1998.▪Grant, R. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications, 4th Ed, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 20XX.▪Bettis, R.A. (1991). Strategic Management And The Straightjacket: An Editorial Essay, Organization Science, Vol. 2. 315-319.▪Canella, A. & Paetzold, R. (1994) Pfeffer’S Barriers To The Advance Of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder. Academy Of Management Review, 19(2):331-341.▪Gioia, D. & E. Pitre, (1990). Multiparadigm Perspectives On Theory Building.Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 15. 584-602.▪Pfeffer J. (1993) Barriers To The Advance Of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development As A Dependent Variable. Academy Of Management Review, 18 (4):599-620.▪Ansoff, H.I. (1987). The Emerging Paradigm Of Strategic Behavior. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8. 501-515.▪Daft, R.L. & Lewin, A.Y. (1990). Can Organization Studies Begin To Break Out Of The Normal Science Straightjacket? Organization Science, 1(1).1-9.▪Hambrick, D. (1994) 1993 Presidential Address: What If The Academy Actually Mattered? Academy Of Management Review, 19(1) 11-16.▪Macmillan, I. C. (1991). The Emerging Forum Of Business Policy Scholars.Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12. 161-165.▪Besanko, D., David Dranove, Mark Shanley, The Economics Of Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996The Art And Practice Of Strategic Management▪Ness, J. & T. Cucuzza, Tapping The Full Potential Of Abc, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 4▪Tufano, ., How Financial Engineering Can Advance Corporate Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, 1996, 1▪Gadiesh, O.; James L. Gilbert, How To Map Your Industry's Profit Pool, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Gadiesh, O.; James L. Gilbert, Profit Pools: A Fresh Look At Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Deephouse, D., To Be Different,Or To Be The Same? It's A Question (And Theory) Of Strategy Balance, Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 2▪Grimm, C. & Smith, K. G. (1997). Strategy As Action. Dallas, Tx: Southwest Publishing.▪Henderson, B. The Concept Of Strategy, In The Strategic Management Handbook (Kenneth J. Albert Ed.), Mcgraw-Hill Book pany, 1983: 1-3~4.▪Kaplan, R.; David P. Norton, Having Trouble With Your Strategy? Then Map It, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 5.▪Hambrick, D. (1983). Some Tests Of The Effectiveness And Functional Attributes Of Miles And Snow’S Strategic Types. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 26, 5-26.▪Hatten, K.J., Schendel, D.E., & Cooper, A.C. (1978). A Strategic Model Of The U.S. Brewing Industry: 1952-1971. Academy Of Management Journal. Vol. 21.592-610.▪Barney, J. (1986). Types Of petition And The Theory Of Strategy: Toward An Integrative Framework. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 11, 791-800.▪Hambrick, D., I. Macmillan & D. Day (1982). Strategic Attributes And Performance In The Four Cells Of The Bcg Matrix—A Pims –Based Analysis Of Industrial–Product Businesses. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 25, 510-531.▪Costin, H. Ed., Readings In Strategy And Strategic Planning, Harcourt Brace & pany, 1998.▪Rowe, A., Richard O. Mason, Karl E. Dickel, Richard B. Mann, Robert J. Mockler, Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach (4th Ed.), Addison-WesleyPublishing pany, Inc., 1994▪Luehrman, T., Strategy As A Portfolio Of Real Options, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 5▪Dixit, A. & R. Pindyck, The Options Approach To Capital Investment, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 3▪Mintzberg, H.; Joseph Lampel, Reflecting On The Strategy Process, Sloan Management Review, 1999, 3External And Internal Models Of StrategyIndustry Analysis And Strategy▪Zajac, E. & Bazerman, M. (1991). Blind Spots In Industry And petitor Analysis: Implications Of Interfirm (Mis)Perceptions For Strategic Decisions. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 16 (1): 37-56.▪Porter, M.E. (1981). The Contribution Of Industrial Organization To Strategic Management. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 6,137-156.▪Foss, N, Research In Strategy, Economics, And Michael Porter, Journal Of Management Studies, January 1996.▪Cool, K.O. & Schendel, D.E. (1987). Strategic Group Formation And Performance: U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. Management Science, 33, 1102-1124.▪Nath, D.; Thomas S. Gruca, Convergence Across Alternative Methods For Forming Strategic Groups, Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 9: 745-760▪Peteraf, M.; Mark Shanley, Getting To Know You: A Theory Of Strategic Group Identity, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, Summer Special Issue▪Porter, M., How petitive Forces Shape Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1979,2.▪Sampler, J., Redefining Industry Structure For The Information Age, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 4▪Caves, R. & Ghemawat, P. (1992). Identifying Mobility Barriers. Strategic Management Journal. 13, 1-12.▪Brush, T., P. Bromiley,. & M. Hendrickx (1999). The Relative Influence Of Industry And Corporation On Business Segment Performance: An AlternativeEstimate. Strategic Management Journal. Vol 20 (6)519-548.▪Caves R. & Porter, M. (1977). From Entry Barriers To Mobility Barriers. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 91, 241-261.▪Chang, S.& H.Singh. (2000). Corporate And Industry Effects On Business Unit petitive Position. Strategic Management Journal. Vol 21 739-752.▪Mcgahan, A.M. & M. E. Porter (1997). How Much Does Industry Matter, Really?Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 15-30.▪Peteraf, M.A. & M. Shanley (1997) Getting To Know You: A Theory Of Strategic Group Identity. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, 165-186.▪Porter, M. (1979). The Structure Within Industries And panies Performance.Review Of Economics And Statistics, 61: 214-227.▪Rumelt, R. (1991). How Much Does Industry Matter? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12. 167-185.▪Powell, R. C. (1996). How Much Does Industry Matter? An Alternative Empirical Test. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 323-334.▪Smith K.G., Grimm, C. Young, G., & Wally, S. (1997). Strategic Groups And Rivalrous Firm Behavior: Towards A Reconciliation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 (2).▪Barney, J. & Hoskisson R (1990). Strategic Groups: Untested Assertions And Research Proposals. Managerial And Decision Economics, Vol. 11 (3)▪Harrigan, K. R. (1982). Exit Decisions In Mature Industries. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 25. 707-732.▪Hatten, K. & Schendel, D. Heterogeneity Within An Industry: Firm Conduct In The U.S. Brewing Industry, 1952-1971. Journal Of Industrial Economics. 26, 97-113.▪Mcgee, J. & Thomas, H.(1989). Strategic Groups: A Further ment. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 105-107.▪Nayyar, P. (1989). Strategic Groups: A ment. Strategic Management Journal. 10, 101-104.▪Wiggins R. & Ruefli, R. (1995). Necessary Conditions For The Predictive Validity Of Strategic Groups: Analysis Without Reliance On Clustering Techniques. Academy Of Management Review Vol. 38, 1635-1655.Resource-Based View And Strategy▪Rouse, M.; U. S. Daellenbach, Rethinking Research Methods For The Resource-Based Perspective: Isolating Sources Of Sustainable petitive Advantage, StrategicManagement Journal, 1999, 5▪Collis, D., How Valuable Are Organizational Capabilities?, Strategic Management Journal, 1994, Winter Special Issues▪Barney, J. (20XX). Is The Resource-Based 'View' A Useful Perspective For Strategic Management Research? Yes. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 26 (1) ▪Priem, R.L. & Butler, J.E. (20XX). Is The Resource-Based "View" A Useful Perspective For Strategic Management Research? Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 26 (1)▪Grant, R, (1991). Resource Based Theory Of petitive Advantage: Implications For Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Vol. 33 (3).▪Wernerfelt, B., A Resource-Based View Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 2.▪Wernerfelt, B., The Resource-Based View Of The Firm: Ten Years After, Strategic Management Journal, 1995, 3.▪Mosakowski, E., Managerial Prescriptions Under The Resource-Based View Of Strategy: The Example Of Motivational Techniques, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 12▪Medcof, J., Resource-Based Strategy And Managerial Power In Networks Of Internationally Dispersed Technology Units, Strategic Management Journal, 20XX,11.▪Mahoney, J. T. & Pandian, J. (1992). The Resource-Based View Within The Conversation Of Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, 363-380.▪Barney, J., How A Firm's Capabilities Affect Boundary Decisions, Sloan Management Review, 1999, 3▪Barney, J. (1991). Special Theory Forum, The Resource -Based Model Of The Firm: Origins, Implications And Prospects. The Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 97-98.▪Conner, K. (1991). A Historical parison Of Resource-Based Theory And Five Schools Of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have A New Theory Of The Firm? Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 121-154.▪Liererman, M.; David B. Montgomery, First-Mover (Dis)Advantages: Retrospective And Link With The Resource-Based View, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 12 ▪Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The Cornerstones Of petitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (3): 179-192.▪Miller, D. & Shamsie J. (1996). The Resource-Based View Of The Firm In Two Environments: The Hollywood Film Studies From 1936 To 1965. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 39 (3) 519-543.▪Mcwilliams, A. & Smart, D.L. (1995). The Resource-Based View Of The Firm: Does It Go Far Enough In Shedding The Assumptions Of The S-C-P Paradigm? Journal Of Management Inquiry, 4:309-316.Environment Vs Organization: An Integration▪Evans, P. & T. Wurster, Strategy And The New Economics Of Information, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 5▪Porter, M., Strategy And The Internet, Harvard Business Review, 20XX, 3▪Tapscott, D., Rethinking Strategy In A Networked World Or Why Michael Porter Is Wrong, Strategy & Business (Strategy-Business) (Third Quarter 20XX) ▪Ghoshal, S. & Westney, D. (1991). Organizing petitor Analysis Systems. Strategic Management Journal. 12, 17-31.▪Schoenecker, T.; Arnold C. Cooper, The Role Of Firm Resources And Organizational Attributes In Determining Entry Timing: A Cross-Industry Study, StrategicManagement Journal, 1998, 12▪Jemison, D. (1981). The Contribution Of Organizational Theory To Strategic Management. Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 21.▪Aktouf O. (1992). Management And Theories Of Organizations In The 1990s: TowardA Critical Radical Humanism? Academy Of Management Review. Vol. 17 407-431.▪Bettis, R., Michael A. Hitt, The New petitive Landscape, Strategic Management Journal, 1995, 1▪Smith, K.G., C. Grimm, M. Gannon, & M.J. Chen, (1991). Organizational Information Processing: petitive Responses And Performance In The Us Domestic AirlineIndustry. Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 34, 60-85.▪Rugman, A.; Alain Verbeke, Corporate Strategies And Environmental Regulations: An Organizing Framework, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 4 ▪Hansen, G. & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants Of Firm Performance: The Relative Importance Of Economic And Organizational Factors. StrategicManagement Journal, 10: 399-411.▪Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable petitive Advantage: bining Institutional And Resource-Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18: 697-713.▪Dean, T.; R. L. Brown; C. E. Bamford, Differences In Large And Small Firm Responses To Environmental Context Strategic Implications From A parativeAnalysis Of Business Formations, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 8 ▪Burt, R. (1997). The Contingent Value Of Social Capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42: 339-365.▪Burt, R., R. Hogarth,& C. Michaud (2000). The Social Capital Of French And American Managers. Organizational Science. Vol 11(2): 123-147.▪Galaskiewicz, J. & S. Wasserman. (1993). Social Network Analysis. Sociological Methods & Research. Vol. 22: 3-22.▪Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength Of Weak Ties. American Journal Of Sociology.Vol. 78▪Nahapiet J. & S. Ghoshal (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital And The Organizational Advantage. Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 23: 242-266.▪Tsai, W. & S. Ghoshal. (1998). Social Capital And Value Creation: The Role Of Intrafirm Networks. Academy Of Management Journal. Vol 41 (4) 464-478.▪Teece, D. (1998) Capturing Value From Knowledge Assets. California Management Review. Vol 40 (3).▪Spender, J.; Robert M. Grant, Knowledge And The Firm: Overview, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 5-9▪Tsoukas, H., The Firm As A Distributed Knowledge System : A Constructionist Approach, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 11-25Sustained petitive Advantage▪Ancona, Deborah, Bresman, Henrik, Kaeufer, Katrin, (20XX). The parative Advantage Of X-Teams. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43 (3).▪Dierickx , I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation And Sustainability Of petitive Advantage. Management Science, 35: 99-120.▪Prahalad, C., Gray Hamel, The Core petence Of The Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 1990, 3▪Stabell, C.; ΦYstein D. Fjeldstad, Configuring Value For petitive Advantage: On Chains, Shops, And Networks, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 5▪Bettis R. & Hitt, M. (1995). Technological Transformation And The New petitive Landscape. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16: Special Issue.▪Henderson R. & I. Cockburn. (1994). Measuring petence? Exploring Firm Effects In Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 15 63-84.▪Ross, J., C. Beath, D. Goodhue, Develop Long-Term petitiveness Through It Assets, Sloan Management Review, 1996, 1, Fall: 31-41▪Collis, D. & C. Montgomery, peting On Resources: Strategy In The 1990s, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 4▪Barney, J., Assets Stocks And Sustained petitive Advantage: A ment, Management Science, 1989: 1504-1511▪Black, J.; Kimberly B. Boal, Strategic Resources: Traits, Configurations And Paths To Sustainable petitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 1994: 131-148▪Barney, J. (1997). Gaining And Sustaining petitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley Publishing pany, Inc.▪Amit, R. & P. J. H. Schoemaker, Strategic Assets And Organizational Rent, Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 1▪Amit, R.. & Schoemaker, P.J. (1993). Strategic Assets And Organizational Rent.Strategic Mangement Journal, 14:33-46.▪Irvine, I.; Willam A. Sims, Measuring Consumer Surplus With Unknow Hicksian Demands, The American Economic Review, 1998, 1▪Porter, M., The petitive Advantage Of Nations, Harvard Business Review, 1990,2.▪Barney, J., petitive Organizational Behavior: Toword An Organizationally-Based Theory Of petitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, 1994, 1 ▪Schendel, D., Introduction To "petitive Organizational Behavior: Toword An Organizationally-Based Theory Of petitive Advantage", Strategic ManagementJournal, 1994, 1▪Robinson, W. T.; Claes Fornell; Mary Sullivan, Are Market Pioneers Intrinsically Stronger Than Later Entrants?, Strategic Management Journal, 1992: 609-624 ▪Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources And Sustained petitive Advantage. The Journal Of Management. Vol. 17, 99-120.¨ Barney, J. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be ASource Of Sustained petitive Advantage? Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 11(3)▪Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation And Corporate Strategy: A Review Of Rent Theory And Applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 443-454.▪Kanter, R., Thriving Locally In The Global Economy, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Garvin, D., Leveraging Processes For Strategic Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Hay, D., The Efficiency Of Firms: What Difference Does petition Make?, The American Economic Review, 1998, 5Strategic Change And Impediments To Change▪Kotter, J., Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change. The Case Of A New Venture. Academy Of Managementjournal, 37(1): 9-45.▪Pascarella, P., Charting A Course For Change, Management Review, 1998, 1.▪Markides, C., Strategic Innovation, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1997: 9-23.▪Spender, J., Making Knowledge The Basis Of A Dynamic Theory Of The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 1: 45-62▪Szulanski, G., (1996). Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments To The Transfer Of The Best Practice Within The Firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (1).▪Hamel, G. & C. Prahalad, (1996). peting In The New Economy: Managing Out Of Bounds, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (3).▪Lane, P. & M. Lubatkin, Relative Absorptive Capacity And Interorganizational Learning, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 5▪Christensen, C. & M. Overdorf, Meeting The Challenge Of Disruptive Change, Harvard Business Review, 2000, 2.▪Fiegenbaum, A. Sudharshan, D. & Thomas, H. (1987). The Concept Of Strategic Time Periods In Strategic Group Research. Managerial And Decision Economics. 8,139-148.▪Gersick, C. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change. The Case Of A New Venture. Academy Of Management Journal, 37 (1): 9-45.▪Ginsberg, A. (1988). Measuring And Modeling Changes In Strategy: Theoretical Foundations And Empirical Directions. Strategic Management Journal. 9 (6)559-576.▪Hambrick, D. M. Geletkanycz & J. Fredrickson, J. (1993). Top Executive mitment To The Status Quo: Some Tests Of Its Determinants. StrategicManagement Journal, 14 (6): 401-419.▪Mascarenhas, B (1989). Strategic Group Dynamics. The Academy Of Management Journal. 32 (2) 333-352.▪Miller, D. (1993) The Architecture Of Simplicity. Academy Of Management Review, 18(1): 116-138.▪Mintzberg, H. & Westley, F. (1992). Cycles Of Organizational Change. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 39-60.▪Mitchell, W. & K. Singh, (1993) Death Of The Lethargic: Effects Of Expansion Into New Technical Subfields On Performance In A Firm’S Base Business.Organization Science, 4 (2): 152-180.▪Quinn, J.B. (1980). Strategies For Change. Homewood, Il: Irwin. Chapters 2,3, & 4.▪Smith K.G, & Grimm, C (1987). Environmental Variation, Strategic Change And Firm Performance: A Study Of Railroad Deregulation. Strategic Management Journal.Vol. 8. 363-376.▪Zajac, E.J. & Shortell, S.M. (1989). Changing Generic Strategies: Likelihood, Direction And Performance Implications. Strategic Management Journal. 10 (5) 413-430.Execution Of StrategyMulti-Business Strategy▪Collis, D. & C. Montgomery, Creating Corporate Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3.▪Campbell, A.; Michael Good; Marcus Alexander, Corporate Strategy: The Quest For Parenting Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Campbell, A. & Marcus Alexander, What's Wrong With Strategy, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 6▪Jones, T. & W. Earl Sasser, Why Satisfied Customers Defect, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 6▪Grant, A. & L. Schlesinger, Realize Your Customers' Full Profit Potential, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 5▪Pine Ii, B., Don Peppers, Martha Rogers, Do You Want To Keep Your Customers Forever?, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 2▪Riordan, M., Antipetitive Vertical Integration By A Dominant Firm, The American Economic Review, 1998, 5▪Lamoreaux, N., Partnerships, Corporations, And The Theory Of The Firm, The American Economic Review, 1998, 2▪Rayport, J. & J. Sviokla, Exploiting The Virtual Value Chain, Harvard Business Review, 1995, 6.▪Hagel Ⅲ, J. & Marc Singer, Unbundling The Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 1999, 2▪Landfield-Smith, K. & Michelle R. Greenwood, Developing Co-Operative Buyer-Supplier Relationships: A Case Study Of Toyata, Journal Of Management Studies, 1998, 3▪Birkinshaw, J.; Neil Hood; Stefan Jonson, Building Firm-Specific Advantages In Multinational Corporations: The Role Of Subsidiary Initiative, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 3▪Fast, Globle, And Entreneurial: Supply Chain Management, Hong Kong Style, Harvard Business Review, 1998, 3▪Markides, C., To Diversify Or Not To Diversify, Harvard Business Review, 1997, 6▪Harper, N. & S. Patrick Viguerie, Are You Too Focused? The Mckinsey Quarterly, Special Edition, 20XX.▪Kochhar, R. & M. A. Hitt, Linking Corporate Strategy To Capital Structure: Diversification Strategy, Type And Source Of Financing, Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 6▪Prahalad, C. & Bettis, R. 1986. The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage Between Diversity And Performance. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 7(6).。
A Critical Review of Theories Underlying
74
Kristof de Wulf and Gaby Odekerken-Schröder
marketing in consumer markets is expected to grow as resellers have gained increased power and as communication and information technologies have put individual consumers in more direct contact with resellers and manufacturers (Barnes, 1997; Webster, 1992). Such technological advances enable sellers to recognize individual consumer needs, to directly interact with consumers, to quickly respond to their preferences, and to differentiate product or service offerings towards them (Bennett, 1996; Nielson, 1998; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995a; Spekman, 1988; Wray, Palmer, and Bejou, 1994). In addition, other factors such as eroding repeat purchases, intensified competitive pressures, and the continuing growth of the service economy increase the need to apply relationship marketing in consumer markets (Achrol, 1997; Bejou, 1997; Bennett, 1996; Berry, 1995; Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999; Javalgi and Moberg, 1997; Woodruff, 1997). However, many researchers have noted that systematic conceptual as well as empirical research on consumer relationships is practically lacking (Beatty et al., 1996; Gummesson, 1994; Gwinner, Gremler, and Bitner, 1998; Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999; Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995b). More specifically, the role of theories underlying relationship marketing other than consumer behavior theory has hardly been examined in exploring the nature and development of consumer relationships. For example, Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995b) primarily drew on consumer behavior theories to better understand consumer motivations to engage in relational market behavior, to the neglect of the relational frameworks used for industrial and channel relationships. As an important number of consumer exchange situations reveal similarities with business exchange situations, we do believe that relational theories applied to business exchanges have the potential to provide valuable insights into relational exchanges involving consumers. Several authors indicate that marketing relationships are easier to form in some types of consumer markets than others, expressing the idea that some consumer exchange situations are more “relationship friendly” than others (e.g., Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Christy, Oliver, and Penn, 1996). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no critical assessment has been made of the role that relational theories can play in determining the relative “relationship friendliness” of a particular consumer situation. Such an effort is valuable as it reduces the risk that practitioners waste critical resources by applying relationship marketing strategies to “relationship unfriendly” situations. Moreover, it should enable researchers investigating consumer markets to assess the relevance of each theory to the particular consumer exchange situation they are investigating. Consequently, the objective of this study is to assess the merits of seven theories commonly referred to as cornerstones of relationship marketing in explaining relationship friendliness of consumer exchange situations. We describe the characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the following relational theories: neoclassical microeconomic theory, transaction cost theory (TCT), relational contracting theory, social exchange theory, equity theory, political economy
国内外人力资本激励机制研究综述
国内外人力资本激励机制研究综述［摘要］随着知识经济的兴起以及技术创新在企业中地位的日益提升，20世纪90年代末以来，如何管理和激励知识工作者成为理论与实践面临的重要课题。
本文拟通过对国内外人力资本激励机制的研究文献进行梳理、归纳和分析，试图发现其规律性，为人力资本激励机制理论的进一步研究提供平台。
［关键词］人力资本激励机制；综述；国内外研究1 国外研究情况人力资本激励机制是组织者为了使组织成员的行为与其目标相容并充分发挥每个成员的潜能而执行的一种制度框架。
在国外，激励理论的研究基本上经历了管理学激励理论、经济学激励理论和管理学与经济学相结合3个发展阶段。
管理学激励理论最早可追溯到20世纪初，它以心理学和组织行为学为基础，在经验总结和科学归纳的基础上形成的。
Ｔａｙｌｏｒ（１８９５）所提出的“差别计件工资”以及Ｇａｎｔｔ（１９１０）设计的“任务加奖金制度”是典型的早期激励机制。
２０世纪３０年代梅奥著名的“社会人”命题的提出，把管理理论引入到行为科学，激励问题成为管理理论研究的核心。
之后，一大批社会学家、心理学家投身于激励理论的研究，并提出了诸多著名理论。
管理学激励理论经历了由单一金钱刺激到满足多种需要、由激励条件泛化到激励因素明晰、由激励基础研究到激励过程探索的历史演变过程。
经济学家对激励问题的关注始于20世纪30年代，但对其进行大量研究则是在2０世纪７０年代以后。
７０年代以后，以交易费用、产权理论、企业理论等为核心内容的新制度经济学取得飞速发展，如何解决代理问题成为激励问题的核心研究课题。
Ａｌｃｈｉａｎ＆Ｄｅｍｓｅｔｚ（１９７２）指出，企业实质上是一种“团队生产”方式，即产品是由集体内若干成员协同生产出来的。
由于每一个成员的真实贡献不可能精确度量，从而不能根据各成员的贡献去支付其真实努力的报酬，这给偷懒者提供了“搭便车”的机会，为此，就需要监督者进行监督，而剩余索取权对于激励监督者进行监督具有重要作用。
国际贸易的基本概念与理论
各国间 的贸易 基于绝 对优势
什么是绝对优势呢？
绝对优势是指一个国家比其他国家更有效 率地制造一种产品。
绝对优势来自于自然优势和获得性优势。 自然优势：是超乎人力范围之外的气候、 土壤、矿产等优势。 获得性优势：是在经济发展的过程逐步形 成的特殊技术或技巧等。p43
绝对优势理论简评
亚当·斯密从生产成本的绝对差别出发，认为一国 生产某种商品的成本比别的国家绝对低，即具有绝对 利益的优势时，该商品就可以出口；反之就要进口。
还论述了自由贸易所带来的好处，即互通有无，交 换多余的使用价值；增加社会价值，获取更大利益； 互惠互利，共同富裕。所以对外贸易具有共同利益， 而不是一方得利，一方受损。不难看出，这些论述已 初步勾勒出国际贸易的基本原则。 同时，只说明了具有绝对优势的国家才能参与国际贸 易并获得利益，而解释不了许多没有什么优势的落后 国家仍在进行国际贸易的普遍现象，从而暴露出明显 的缺陷和不足。
4、该学说是建立在劳动价值论基础上的，表现为用 劳动这个生产要素进行比较，是比较劳动成本。
5、局限性。 首先，该学说的假设前提过于苛刻，不符合国际贸易的实 际情况。其次不能解释今天主要发生在发达国家之间的国 际贸易。再次，按照该学说，自由贸易条件下，贸易双方 都可获利，所有国家都应积极实行自由贸易，但实际中， 各国都在不同程度实行保护主义。第四，把多边的经济情 况抽象为静态的、凝固的状态，忽略了动态分析。第五， 掩盖了国际剥削，会导致不合理分工格局。他没有看到国 际贸易具有的不等价交换倾向，对相对落后国家不利；而 且一国生产的相对优势，长期固定在少数几种产品上，对 国家长远利益不利。第六，该学说未能揭示出国际商品交 换所依据的规律，即价值规律的国际内容。认为等量劳动 相交换的原则在国家间贸易时行不通，对商品的交换比例 ，即国际贸易理论中的“贸易条件”问题也缺乏研究。
曼昆_微观经济学_第十章_外部性
曼昆_微观经济学_第十章_外部性寡头经济学原理N1>.格里高利.曼昆著17本章我们将探索这些问题的答案：寡头市场的可能结果是什么？为什么寡头企业很难合作？反托拉斯法如何用来增加竞争？*OLIGOPOLY*集中度的衡量集中度：市场上最大的四家企业供应的产量占市场总产量的百分比集中度越高，竞争越少本章主要关注寡头，这是一种集中度高的市场结构美国一些行业的集中度行业集中度视频游戏机100%网球100%信用卡99%电池94%软饮料93%网络搜索92%谷类早餐92%烟草89%贺卡88%啤酒85%移动电话服务82%汽车79%OLIGOPOLY*寡头寡头：只有少数几个卖者提供相似或相同产品的市场结构寡头的策略行为：一个企业关于价格与产量的决策会影响其他企业，并使他们做出反应。
因此该企业在做决策时需要将这些反应考虑在内博弈论：研究在策略情况下人们如何行为OLIGOPOLY*PQ$01405130101201511020100259080357040604550例子：小镇移动电话的双头小镇有140个居民物品：没有时间限制的移动通话服务和免费手机小镇的需求表两个企业：T-Mobile, Verizon （双头：有两个企业的寡头）每个企业的成本：FC = $0, MC = $10OLIGOPOLY*5045604070358030251002011015120101305140$0QP1,750 1,800 1,750 1,600 1,350 1,000 550–650 –1,400 利润6007008009001,0001,1001,2001,300$1,400成本2,2502,4002,4502,4002,2502,0001,6501,200650$0收益例子：小镇移动电话的双头竞争结果：P = MC = $10Q = 120利润 = $0垄断结果：P = $40Q = 60利润 = $1,800OLIGOPOLY*例子：小镇移动电话的双头双头的一个可能结果：勾结勾结：一个市场上的企业之间就生产的产量或收取的价格达成的协议T-Mobile 和 Verizon 就各自生产垄断产量的一半达成协议：每个企业：Q = 30, P = $40, 利润 = $900卡特尔：联合起来行事的企业集团比如： T-Mobile 和 Verizon 勾结决定的产量主动学习 1勾结与自利*有勾结的双头结果：每个企业都同意生产 Q = 30, 每个企业都得到利润= $900.如果 T-Mobile 违反协定生产Q = 40，市场价格会发生什么变化？T-Mobile 的利润呢？T-Mobile对违反协定感兴趣吗？如果两个企业都违反协定，都生产Q = 40，计算每个企业的利润PQ$0140513010120151102010025903080357040604550如果两个企业都遵守协定，每个企业都得到利润 = $900如果T-Mobile违反协定生产Q = 40：市场产量 = 70, P = $35T-Mobile的利润 = 40 x ($35 – 10) = $1000违反协定时，T-Mobile 的利润更高Verizon 也会做出同样的推断，因此两个企业都会违反协定，分别生产Q = 40:市场产量 = 80, P = $30每个企业的利润 = 40 x ($30 – 10) = $800主动学习 1参考答案*PQ$0140513010120151102010025903080357040604550OLIGOPOLY*勾结与自利如果两个企业都遵守协定，大家都会更好但是每个企业都有违反协定的激励结论：对于寡头企业而言，形成卡特尔并遵守协定是困难的0如果每个企业生产 Q = 40,市场产量 = 80P = $30每个企业的利润 = $800T-Mobile 把产出增加到Q = 50 是否符合它的利益？Verizon 把产出增加的Q = 50 是否符合它的利益？主动学习 2寡头的均衡*PQ$01405130101201511020100259030803570406045如果每个企业生产Q = 40，那每个企业的利润= $800 如果T-Mobile增加产出到 Q = 50:市场产量 = 90, P = $25T-Mobile的利润 = 50 x ($25 – 10) = $750T-Mobile在 Q = 40 时的利润要高于Q = 50 时的利润对Verizon也如此主动学习 2参考答案*PQ$01405130101201511020100259080357040604550OLIGOPOLY*寡头的均衡纳什均衡：相互作用的经济主体在假定所有其他主体所选策略为既定的情况下选择自己最优策略的状态我们双头例子的纳什均衡是每个企业生产Q = 40如果 Verizon 生产 Q = 40, T-Mobile 最好的办法是生产Q = 40.如果T-Mobile 生产 Q = 40, Verizon 最好的办法是生产Q = 40.OLIGOPOLY*市场结果间的比较当寡头企业单独地选择利润最大化的产量时：它们生产的产量大于垄断但小于竞争的产量水平寡头价格低于垄断价格，但高于竞争价格OLIGOPOLY*产量效应与价格效应增加产出对企业的利润有两种影响：产量效应：如果 P > MC，售出更多的产出会增加利润价格效应：提高产量会增加市场产量，这会降低市场价格并减少每一单位售出产品的利润如果产量效应 > 价格效应，企业应该增加产出如果价格效应> 产量效应，企业应该减少产出OLIGOPOLY*寡头的规模随着市场上企业数量的增加，价格效应会变得越来越小寡头市场越来越像竞争市场P 也越接近 MC市场产量越来越接近社会有效率的产量t国际贸易的另一个好处：贸易增加了竞争企业的数量，增加了产量，使价格更接近边际成本OLIGOPOLY*博弈论博弈论帮助我们理解寡头以及参与者之间相互作用并按策略行为的情形占优策略：无论其他参与者选择什么策略，对一个参与者都为最优的策略囚徒困境：两个被捕的囚徒之间的一种特殊“博弈”，说明为什么甚至在合作对双方都有利时，保持合作也是困难的OLIGOPOLY*囚徒困境的例子警察抓住了两个抢劫银行的嫌疑犯Bonnie和Clyde，但只有足够的证据让两人在狱里度过一年警察分别审问了Bonnie和Clyde，向他们每个人提出以下的交易：如果你承认银行抢劫案，并供出合伙者，你就可以得到自由如果你不承认银行抢劫案，但你的合伙者供出了你，你将被判处20年的监禁如果你们两个都承认银行抢劫案，那你们两个都将被判处8年的监禁OLIGOPOLY*囚徒困境的例子坦白保持沉默坦白保持沉默Bonnie的决策Clyde的决策Bonnie 8 年Clyde 8 年Bonnie 2年Bonnie 1 年Bonnie 获得自由Clyde 获得自由Clyde 1 年Clyde 20 年对两人而言，承认罪行是占优策略纳什均衡：两人都认罪OLIGOPOLY*囚徒困境的例子结果： Bonnie 和 Clyde 两人都坦白，都得到8年的刑期如果两人都保持沉默，他们将更好但甚至他们在被捕之前就已经对保持沉默达成协议，自利的逻辑仍会起主导作用，并使他们坦白OLIGOPOLY*作为囚徒困境的垄断当寡头企业想形成一个卡特尔来达到垄断市场的结果时，它们便会成为囚徒困境中的参与者在我们早先的例子中：T-Mobile 和 Verizon 是小镇上的双寡头卡特尔结果能最大化利润：每个企业都同意为消费者生产 Q = 30下面是这个例子的支付矩阵……OLIGOPOLY*囚徒困境中的T-Mobile 与 VerizonQ = 30Q = 40Q = 30Q = 40T-MobileVerizonT-Mobile利润 = $900Verizon利润= $900T-Mobile利润 = $1000T-Mobile利润= $800T-Mobile利润= $750Verizon利润 = $750Verizon利润 = $800Verizon利润= $1000每个企业的占优策略：违反协定，分别生产Q = 40. 0参与者：美国航空公司与联合航空公司选择：机票降价 50% 或者不变如果两家航空公司都降价，每家航空公司的利润= $400 million如果两家航空公司都不降价，每家航空公司的利润 = $600 million如果只有一家航空公司降价，那它的利润 = $800 million，另外一家航空公司的利润 = $200 million画出支付矩阵，并找到纳什均衡主动学习 3机票战争游戏*主动学习 3参考答案*纳什均衡：两家公司都降价降价不降价降价不降价美国航空公司联合航空公司$600 百万$600 百万$200 百万$800 百万$800 百万$200 百万$400 百万$400 百万OLIGOPOLY*囚徒困境的其他例子广告战争两家相互竞争的企业花巨资在电视广告上，希望抢夺对方的生意。
微观经济学原理(第七版)-曼昆-名词解释(带英文)
微观经济学原理曼昆名词解释稀缺性（scarcity)：社会资源的有限性。
经济学(economics)：研究社会如何管理自己的稀缺资源。
效率（efficiency）：社会能从其稀缺资源中得到最多东西的特性.平等（equality)：经济成果在社会成员中公平分配的特性。
机会成本(opportunity cost):为了得到某种东西所必须放弃的东西。
理性人(rational people）：系统而有目的地尽最大努力实现起目标的人。
边际变动(marginal change)：对行动计划微小的增量调整。
激励(incentive）:引起一个人做出某种行为的某种东西。
市场经济（market economy):当许多企业和家庭在物品与劳务市场上相互交易时，通过他们的分散决策配置资源的经济.产权（property rights）:个人拥有并控制稀缺资源的能力。
市场失灵(market failure）：市场本身不能有效配置资源的情况。
外部性(externality)：一个人的行为对旁观者福利的影响.市场势力（market power）：一个经济活动者（或经济活动者的一个小集团）对市场价格有显著影响的能力.生产率(productivity）:一个工人一小时所生产的物品与劳务量。
通货膨胀(inflation)：经济中物价总水平的上升.经济周期(business cycle）：就业和生产等经济活动的波动(就是生产这类经济活动的波动.）循环流向图(circular-flow diagram)：一个说明货币如何通过市场在家庭与企业之间流动的直观经济模型.生产可能性边界（production possibilities frontier)：表示一个经济在可得到的生产要素与生产技术既定时所能生产的产量的各种组合的图形.微观经济学（microeconomics）：研究家庭和企业如何做出决策，以及它们在市场上的相互交易。
宏观经济学(macroeconomics）：研究整体经济现象，包括通货膨胀、失业和经济增长。
战略资源与核心能力的竞争分析PPT课件( 90页)
列举出五项能构成企业持久竞争优势的资源的 充分条件（VRIN资源）： 1. （Valuable）有重要价值的； 2. （Rare）稀缺的； 3. （Imperfectly Imitable）不可模仿的； 4. （Non-Substitutable）不可替代的； 5. 低价获得。
*制造：提高制造质量、降低制造成本的能力； *联盟：通过战略联盟获得关键技术的能力； *标杆瞄准（Benchmarking）：检测柯达与其竞争
者技能的能力。
案例——柯达公司的竞争技能和核心能力
核心能力：柯达将核心能力集中于技术核心能力， 称之为“战略技术”，它们构成竞争优势的来源， 在此技术上柯达的目标是必须保持世界领先。例 如，卤化银材料技术就是柯达的战略技术。卤化 银是照相中的关键物质，是成像过程有效的光敏 催化剂。柯达通过开发新型卤化剂，有效提高了 彩照清晰度。
Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A., "Competing on resources," Harvard Business Review, 1995, 73(4) pp. 118–128.
Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A., "Creating corporate advantage," Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76(3), pp. 70–83.
企业内部的组织能力、资源和知识的积累是解 释企业获得超额收益，保持竞争优势的关键。
企业是能够使其发挥特殊职能的资源集合体， 企业能力：构成组织资源的本质属性
Birger Wernerfelt（1984）： 资源位障碍
李坤望国际经济学第四版课后习题答案(自整理)
资料范本本资料为word版本，可以直接编辑和打印，感谢您的下载李坤望国际经济学第四版课后习题答案(自整理)地点：__________________时间：__________________说明：本资料适用于约定双方经过谈判，协商而共同承认，共同遵守的责任与义务，仅供参考，文档可直接下载或修改，不需要的部分可直接删除，使用时请详细阅读内容第一章1.封闭条件下，中国和美国的小麦与布的交换比率分别为1:4和2:5,那么在两国之间展开贸易后，小麦与布之间的交换比率可能为.A.1:6B.2:6C.3:6D.4:62.在机会成本递增条件下，只要各国在生产同样产品时存在着价格差异，那么比较利益理论就仍然有效。
这种说法是否正确?A.正确B.不正确3.作为新贸易理论的核心基础之一，规模经济意味着随着产量增加，()A.平均成本与边际成本都下降B. 平均成本变化不确定,边际成本下降C. 平均成本下降D.平均成本与边际成本都上升4.以下说法中，()是错误的。
A.绝对优势理论是以机会成本不变为前提的，而相对优势理论则是以机会成本递增为前提的B.相对优势理论可以部分地解释经济技术发展水平和层次不同的国家之间进行贸易的基础C.生产要素禀赋理论用生产要素禀赋的差异解释国际贸易产生的动因D.无论是生产技术差异还是生产要素禀赋差异导致国际贸易产生,都是以两国之间同一产品的价格存在差异为前提第二章1.下列() 属于李嘉图模型的假定前提条件。
A.生产过程中使用资本和劳动力两种要素B.没有运输成本和其他交易成本C.生产要素可以在两国间自由流动D.生产要素非充分利用因此机会成本不变2.下列()不属于重商主义的观点。
A.货币是财富的唯一表现形式B.通过国际贸易可以提高所有贸易参与国的福利水平C.出口意味着贵金属的流入D.进口意味着贵金属的流出3.下列关于技术差异论的表述哪一项是不正确的()A.分为绝对技术差异论与相对技术差异论B.劳动力在国内两个部门之间自由流动，而且机会成本保持不变C.参与贸易的两个国家福利水平都可以得到提高D.一国比另一国家的技术优势越大，则通过国际贸易获得的福利增加越大4.下列哪一条不是重商主义的理论主张()A.贸易不是“零和”的B.多卖少买，保持贸易顺差，是获得财富的基本原则C.国家应干预经济，鼓励出口，限制进口D.金银货币是财富的唯一形态第三章1.假定每单位x产品的生产需要4单位劳动与6单位土地，每单位Y产品的生产需要2单位劳动与4单位土地，如果本国有100 单位劳动与200单位土地,外国有200单位劳动与300单位土地，则根据H-O理论可推出()A. X是土地密集型产品，本国出口X产B. X 是土地密集型产品，品本国出口YC. Y是土地密集型产品，产品本国出口.D.Y是土地密集型产品，X产品本国出2.根据要素禀赋理论，如果美国与中国相比是资本相对丰裕的国家，汽车是资本密集型产品，而纺织品是劳动密集型产品，则与封闭条件下相比，中美两国进行贸易后()。
国际企业管理教学大纲
国际企业管理教学大纲《国际企业管理》教学大纲Syllabus of 《International Business Management》课程代码：MGT301课程名称：国际企业管理课程性质：管理类专业必修所属院系：国际商学院企业管理系教学对象：本科生先修课程：微观经济学、管理学原理、组织行为学、人力资源管理考核方式：平时测验（案例讨论与经典文献阅读成绩），每月一次期中考试：学期论文期末考试：开卷考试，笔试出勤要求：学生缺勤不得多于总课时的四分之一。
教师可以根据考勤情况决定学生是否可以参加考试、是否扣分。
课程简介：本课程帮助学生全面理解和掌握国际企业管理的基本内容和运作机制与方法。
主要内容包括：国际企业经营的基本领域和基本方式、国际贸易理论、国际直接投资理论、国际市场进入战略、国际市场经营战略、全球供应链管理、国际营销管理、国际人力资源管理和国际财务管理等。
从理论联系实践，理论服务于实践，本课程设计了一些以中国企业为蓝本和以中国市场为轴心的案例和内容，最大可能的解释和预期中国“本土化”和“特殊性”问题。
第一章跨国公司与跨国经营【教学目的和要求】：1.了解案例分析方法和本课程的框架教学时数：0.52.国际企业的定义与国际企业管理分析框架教学时数：13.了解跨国公司的战略演进教学时数：0.5【基础知识】：1.国际企业定义2.跨国经营与国际企业管理分析框架区别3.全球化的内涵与跨国公司的战略演进【教学总时数】：2【参考资料】：希尔：Charles W.L.Hill，International Business，2005，中国人民大学出版社【阅读文献】：Samuel J. Palmisano, 2006, The Globally Integrated Enterprise，foreign affairs . May / June【作业与练习】：阅读《The Globally Integrated Enterprise》，要求学生根据阅读情况写作读书笔记，作为阶段测试。
搜寻理论
搜寻和搜寻理论“搜寻（search）”一词最先由乔治·斯蒂格勒（George J.Stigler）提出。
他把“搜寻”定义为：某一买者要购买时，总要询问许多卖者以确定最合适的价格，这样的现象叫做搜寻信息不对称和价格的离散性是搜寻的前提。
如果信息是完全对称的，买者从一开始就知晓商品的价格分布和地理分布，那么买者不需花费任何成本就可以买到使他效用最大化的商品；如果价格不是离散分布而是连续分布，那么买者可以根据已知价格推断未知价格，搜寻的成本和时间都可节省。
但现实并非如此，所以需要搜寻。
斯蒂格勒的搜寻理论这样表述：为了使购买者的效用最大化，他需要不断搜寻更多的价格，直到从购买中得到的预期节约额等于再多拜会一个销售商的代价为止。
然后，他停止搜寻，从他遇到的报价最低的销售商那里购买产品。
搜寻理论把搜寻分为固定样本搜寻和连续搜寻。
该理论认为，人们对信息的搜寻是有成本的。
既然存在搜寻成本，那么，对搜寻者而言，他所面临的选择就是：“搜寻”或“停止搜寻”。
如果搜寻者决定“停止搜寻”，就意味着他在已有的机会集合中选择一项行动，搜寻过程结束；如果搜寻者决定“搜寻”，就意味着他继续搜寻新的选择对象。
必须指出，随着搜寻次数的增加，获得自搜寻的边际收益总是下降的。
当搜寻活动使搜寻的预期边际收益等于边际成本时，搜寻活动才会停止。
这里，搜寻额外价格的预期边际收益是指追加一次搜寻所带来预期最低价格的减少量乘以购买量。
搜寻额外价格的边际成本由时间、交通费用、信息费用构成。
人力资本积累和物质资本积累是推动经济增长和社会进步的两大支柱，但是在二寸一世纪五十年代以前，经济学家仍然把人力资本视为一种均值的自然享赋，直到五十年代中期经济学家在发现工业化国家的产出增长率大大高于劳动和资本投入增长率而形成的增长“残差”(RobertSolwo，1956)时，才一意识把人力资本投入单纯地视为量的增加而不考虑质的改进是有问题的。
上个世纪六十年代初，著名经济学家舒尔兹(TheodoreW.Sch。
Shleifer and Vishny,1997-The Limits of Arbitrage
American Finance AssociationThe Limits of ArbitrageAuthor(s): Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. VishnySource: The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 35-55Published by: Blackwell Publishing for the American Finance AssociationStable URL: /stable/2329555Accessed: 04/11/2009 20:32Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@.Blackwell Publishing and American Finance Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Journal of Finance.。
The information content of the trading process
ELSEVIER Journal of Empirical Finance 4 (1997) 159-186
FINANCE
The information content of the trading process
David Easley a, Nicholas M. Kiefer a, Maureen O'Hara b,,
a Department of Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N Y 14853-4201, USA h Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University, 516 Malott Hall, Ithaca, N Y 14853-4201, USA
Abstract
The trade process is a stochastic process of transactions interspersed with periods of inactivity. The realizations of this process are a source of information to market participants. They cause prices to move as they affect the market maker's beliefs about the value of the stock. We fit a model of the trade process that allows us to ask whether trade size is important, in that large and small trades may have different information content (they do, but this varies across stocks); whether uninformed trade is i.i.d. (it is not); and, whether large buys and large sells are equally informative (they differ only marginally). The model is fitted by maximum likelihood using transactions data on six stocks over 60 days. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.
量子幅度估计算法在期权定价中的应用实证研究
量子幅度估计算法在期权定价中的应用实证研究量子算法在资产管理领域的应用研究课题组衍生品定价一直是金融市场研究的焦点。
通常解法是通过简化场景来处理，例如，传统欧式期权可使用Black-Scholes-Merton（B-S-M）模型直接得到解析解，或是通过蒙特卡洛（Monte Carlo）抽样得到期望数值解。
鉴于只有少量金融衍生产品可以直接求得解析解，大多数产品往往是通过在不确定性分布（如正态或对数正态分布）中重复多次随机抽样来进行数值求解，因此蒙特卡洛模拟被广泛应用。
但随着期权复杂度越来越高，传统定价方法消耗的资源不断增多，运用量子算法对金融衍生品进行定价逐渐成为学界和业界关注的新方向。
量子幅度估计算法（Quantum Amplitude Estimation，QAE）于2002年提出，并不断发展，被认为可有效代替蒙特卡洛方法应用于金融分析，在收敛速度方面较经典算法实现二次方级别加速。
本文针对期权定价经典场景，将量子幅度估计算法应用于我国金融市场的看涨欧式期权定价，以期助力量子算法在金融市场的应用。
一、经典期权定价理论综述期权定价模型纷繁复杂，概括而言，定价模型可以分为离散时间模型与连续时间模型两类，而定价方法又可以分为解析解及数值解两类。
例如，B-S-M及其拓展模型是在连续时间模型假设下求解析解，而二叉树模型、Monte Carlo模型是在离散时间模型下逼近真实的期权价格以求得数值解。
1997年，美国经济学家罗伯特·默顿(Robert C. Merton)和迈伦·斯科尔斯(Myron S. Scholes)因为在创立和发展B-S-M期权定价模型方面的贡献被授予诺贝尔经济学奖。
B-S-M模型简洁易懂，可以通过标的资产现值（）、标的资产价格波动率（）、期权执行价格（X）、期权到期时间（T）和无风险利率（）五个变量快速计算出期权的价值，因而在发表后迅速得到市场的广泛应用。
然而，B-S-M模型建立在一系列严格的前提假设之上，如没有交易费用和税收、金融资产价格随机波动、不存在无风险套利机会等。