经济学文献综述写作
新制度经济学文献综述
新制度经济学文献综述S引言新制度经济学发轫于罗纳德·科斯的两篇宏文，《企业的性质》（1937），《社会成本问题》（1960）。
前者成为后来的交易成本经济学，契约理论，委托代理理论的开端。
后者将外部性问题引入新古典经济学，并开创了产权经济学，与企业理论相结合后又有了企业的所有权治理结构理论。
而新制度经济学的另一个与这一系列理论联系不甚密切的是制度变迁理论，主要代表人物是道格拉斯·诺斯和罗伯斯·托马斯。
本文拟就新制度经济学的早期经典文献做一梳理。
试图厘清新制度经济学早期关注的问题的探索过程及其脉络。
、交易费用与交易成本经济学新制度经济学最核心、最具原创性的概念就是交易费用。
通过它，新制度经济学将经济学从完美的经典物理的世界带回了有摩擦力的现实世界。
新制度经济学的各个分支，不论是交易费用经济学，企业理论，产权理论，还是宪政经济学，制度变迁理论都是以此作为出发点的。
这一概念如此重要，但到目前为止，交易费用仍没有统一的定义，每个经济学家根据他研究的主题，以便于说明问题，采取了各不相同的定义。
科斯的在《企业的性质》（1937）中首先提出交易费用这一概念，他指的是市场机制运行的成本，也即发现价格的成本，具体包括谈判费用和签约费用。
肯尼思·阿罗（1969）给交易成本下的定义是“经济系统的运行成本”，巴泽尔则认为是“产权换手的成本”。
张五常在《企业的契约性质》（1983）中对科斯的交易费用做了极大地拓展，他认为发现价格的成本包括了信息费用，考核费用，谈判费用和签约费用，而且交易成本并不等于发现价格的成本，除此之外，他将代理成本（包括监督成本）也纳入了交易成本范畴。
在文章的结尾处，张五常这样写道：“沿着科斯的思路贯穿着这些转变，我强调了发现价格的费用，包括信息费用、考核费用和谈判费用。
但这些费用发生变化时，不同的契约就产生了。
我并不主张价格决定就是关系到契约或组织形式的所有选择的那种唯一的交易费用。
文献综述范本
文献综述一、引言产业集群是近年来学术界较为关心的一个话题，关于产业集群的建设、升级问题引起了多方的关注。
然而对于产业集群的研究较多的集中于工业集群，作为城市基础的商业集群却较少引起大家的关注，很少有文献涉及。
为了推动当地的经济文化建设，政府往往作为促进者、推动者以及管理者参与商业集群的建设、发展。
但是政府究竟该为商业集群做些什么，应该从哪方面着手以及在商业集群中政府到底该扮演什么角色等问题仍没有得到研究解决。
在本综述中主要阐述了产业集群的定义、形成、竞争优势，商业集群的定义、分类以及政府在产业集群中的作用的文献资料。
二、产业集群（一）产业集群的理论流派有关产业集群的研究最早可以追溯到19世纪末马歇尔关于外部经济理论的研究。
而后，1909年韦伯的工业群理论，1934年科斯的交易费用理论，以及1991年克鲁格曼的规模收益递增理论，20世纪中后期波特的新竞争理论等，都从不同侧面对产业集群的形成及其特征的内在机理进行了探讨和研究[1]。
、随后人们随产业集群的认识不断深化，产业集群的理论也不断趋于深化。
（二）产业集群的定义由于研究背景及目的的不同，国外的学者对于产业集群给出了多种不同的定义，目前学术界尚无统一的说法[3]。
例如迈克尔波特一起竞争优势理论为基础，认为产业集群是某一特定产业的中小企业和机构大量聚集在一定的地域范围内，而形成的稳定的、具有持续竞争优势的集合体。
水平的产业集群“包括一批对竞争起重要作用的、相互联系的产业和其他实体。
例如，它们包括零部件、机器和服务等专业化投入的供应商和专业化基础设施的提供者。
”，垂直的产业集群指“经常向下延伸至销售渠道和客户，并从侧面扩展到辅助性产品的制造商，以及与技能技术或投入相关的产业公司。
”。
最后，产业集群“还包括提供专业化培训、教育、信息研究和技术支持的政府和其他机构——例如大学、标准的制定机构、智囊团、职业培训提供者和贸易联盟等。
”[2]。
横向、纵向的关联企业在一定区域内共同存在，依赖其相似性和互补性，使得人才、技术、信息、政策及相关要素等资源得到充分共享。
文献综述、述评范文
文献综述、述评范文我国现金股利政策研究文献综述股利政策一直是上市公司财务管理的重要环节之一，长期以来也是公司财务领域的研究热点和难点。
早在1976年被称之为“股利之谜”，围绕上市公司股利政策的研究结论层出不穷。
一、影响现金股利政策的因素国内关于上市公司选择现金股利政策的动机和影响因素的研究成果较多，由于选取的样本和采用的研究力一法不同，结论一也不尽相同。
吕民江和王克敏(1999)研究发现对于现金股利分配的公司，其股利支付水平主要受前期股利支付额和当期盈利水平及其变化；同时现金股利分配主要受到公司规模、股东权益、盈利能力、流动能力、代理成本、国有及法人控股程度及负债率等因素影响，而且公司的股票股利支付额与现金股利支付水平相互影响。
林海(2000)实证分析结果表明现金股利发放水平与收益存在相关关系，上市公司的收益水平越高，相应的股利支付水平也越高，而且收益水平较高的上市公司的现金股利与股票股利存在着相互替代关系。
杨淑娥等(2000)实证研究结果表明现金股利主要受货币资金余额和可供分配利润两因素影响。
陈国辉和赵春光(2000)研究结论表明对现金股利有解释作用的因素主要有股票股利、净资产收益率、利润增长率和股票市价。
赵春光等(2001)实证研究结果认为上市公司是否分配现金股利与是否分配股票股利、上年度是否分配现金股利和企业规模有关;每股现金股利大小与股票价格、市盈率、主营业务利润、是否分配股票股利有关。
吕长江和韩慧博(2001)实证研究结果认为在影响股利分配倾向的各因素中，盈利能力和经营风险是最主要的因素，盈利能力与发放现金股利概率呈二项式变动，经营风险与其呈.相反方向变动。
原红旗（2001）实证研究结论发现我国现金股利政策是代理问题没有得到解决的产物，上市公司控股股东存在以现金股利从上市公司转移现金的行为；上市公司留存资金存在浪费行为，并非是股东利益最大化:规模大的公司倾向于选择现金股利。
李志彤和陈敏（2001）研究结果表明：现金股利主要受净利润和可供分配利润两因素影响；另外还存在上市公司通过现金股利政策来调节其净资产收益率并使之达到再融资标准的行为。
文献综述范文 文献综述范文例文2000字【精彩3篇】
文献综述范文文献综述范文例文2000字【精彩3篇】（经典版）编制人：__________________审核人：__________________审批人：__________________编制单位：__________________编制时间：____年____月____日序言下载提示：该文档是本店铺精心编制而成的，希望大家下载后，能够帮助大家解决实际问题。
文档下载后可定制修改，请根据实际需要进行调整和使用，谢谢!并且，本店铺为大家提供各种类型的经典范文，如总结报告、心得体会、应急预案、演讲致辞、合同协议、规章制度、条据文书、教学资料、作文大全、其他范文等等，想了解不同范文格式和写法，敬请关注!Download tips: This document is carefully compiled by this editor. I hope that after you download it, it can help you solve practical problems. The document can be customized and modified after downloading, please adjust and use it according to actual needs, thank you!Moreover, our store provides various types of classic sample essays, such as summary reports, insights, emergency plans, speeches, contract agreements, rules and regulations, documents, teaching materials, complete essays, and other sample essays. If you would like to learn about different sample formats and writing methods, please pay attention!文献综述范文文献综述范文例文2000字【精彩3篇】文献综述是对某个专题领域进行理解和阅读，搜索大量研究资料后经过归纳整理、综合研究分析形成的学术论文，以下是人见人爱的本店铺分享的3篇《文献综述范文文献综述范文例文2000字》，亲的肯定与分享是对我们最大的鼓励。
农业经济学的英文文献综述,很全的。
U NDERSTANDING I NTERNATIONAL T RADE INA GRICULTURAL P RODUCTS:O NE H UNDRED Y EARS OFC ONTRIBUTIONS BY A GRICULTURAL E CONOMISTST IM J OSLING,K YM A NDERSON,A NDREW S CHMITZ,AND S TEFAN T ANGERMANNThe study of international trade in agricultural products has developed rapidly over the pastfifty years.In the1960s the disarray in world agriculture caused by domestic price support policies became thefocus of analytical studies.There followed attempts to measure the distortions caused by policies alsoin developing countries and to model their impact on world agricultural markets.Tools were advancedto explain the trends and variations in world prices and the implications of market imperfections.Challenges for the future include analyzing trade based on consumer preferences for certain productionmethods and understanding the impact of climate change mitigation and adaptation on trade.Key words:agricultural trade;commodity prices;trade policy;agricultural trade distortions;measure-ment of agricultural protection;modeling agricultural trade.JEL Codes:F13,F55,Q17.The study of the economics of international trade in agricultural and food products is a rela-tively new area of specialization in the agricul-tural economics profession.Certainly the three mainstream areas that dominated thefirstfifty years of the American Agricultural Economics Association(AAEA)—production economics, marketing,and policy—each acknowledged the existence of international trade,but they largely ignored the analytical challenge of understanding the behavior of international markets and their role in resource-use effi-ciency and income distribution.By contrast, most agricultural economists trained since the1960s have been exposed to interna-tional trade theory and recognize the per-Tim Josling is Professor Emeritus,Food Research Institute,and Senior Fellow,Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies, Stanford University.Kym Anderson is the George Gollin Professor of Economics and former executive director of the Centre for International Economic Studies at the University of Adelaide; Andrew Schmitz is the Ben Hill Griffin,Jr.Eminent Scholar and a professor of Food and Resource Economics,University of Florida,Gainesville;a research professor,University of California, Berkeley;and an adjunct professor,University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.Stefan Tangermann is Professor Emeritus,University of Göttingen and former Director for Trade and Agriculture at OECD.We would like to thank the many members of the Inter-national Agricultural Trade Research Consortium(IATRC)who responded to an informal poll on the most influential writings in agricultural trade in their experience.vasive influence of international economic events on domestic markets and policies. Trade agreements have evolved to where they constrain domestic policy,and interna-tional commodity prices are usually trans-mitted at least to some extent back to the farm level.Even the“newer”areas of agri-cultural and applied economics,such as envi-ronmental and resource economics,develop-ment economics,and consumer economics,are influenced by the institutions of international trade.This review aims to document the growth of the study of international agricultural mar-kets and institutions by identifying some of the main contributions of the profession to our understanding of the key issues.It is a subjective assessment of the development of professional thinking on several of the main areas where contributions have been made to the understanding of the nature of inter-national trade in agriculture and food com-modities.Each of these advances illustrates the cumulative contributions made by economists working in universities and research agen-cies of national and international institu-tions.We apologize at the outset to the many whose work we have not been able to mention.Amer.J.Agr.Econ.92(2):424–446;doi:10.1093/ajae/aaq011Received December2009;accepted January2010©The Author(2010).Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.All rights reserved.For permissions,please e-mail:journals.permissions@ at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded fromJosling et al.Understanding International Trade in Agricultural Products425Changing Trade Issues over the Past Ten DecadesAgricultural economists,by the nature of their discipline,are attracted to the issues of the day. It follows that those who work on international trade issues in the main respond to emerg-ing trade situations that demand analysis and explanation.Theoretical developments and improvements in analytical technique often accompany these attempts to understand and explain current problems.As a backdrop to the more detailed discussion of the contributions of economists to the study of international agri-cultural trade,we therefore begin by tracing the evolution of trade issues over the100years since the founding of theAAEA.This will illus-trate the tumultuous nature of the changes that have called out to be addressed by economists, as well as the dramatic advances in theoretical and analytical tools that have been developed to understand these issues.Agricultural trade historically has been a significant share of total commerce,and for many countries has played a dominant role in determining foreign policy.As late as1890, agricultural exports accounted for75%of the total exports from the United States(Johnson 1977,p.298).By the time the AAEA came into existence in1909,the export share was about 50%,and that share fell steadily until the1940s before reviving in the immediate postwar era to about20%.For the world as a whole,agri-cultural trade has steadily declined as a share of total trade in goods and services and is now less than8%,even though it has been increas-ing faster than world agricultural production. Yet trade in agricultural products remains very important for both high-income and develop-ing countries,and agricultural trade policies typically are among the most sensitive in any international trade negotiations.Thefirst two decades of the AAEA,from 1909to1929,was a period of steady decline in trade from the high point of the nineteenth-century globalization period to the growth of protectionist movements and the collapse of European empires in the devastation of World War I.Though the founding fathers of the AAEA were well aware of the geopol-itics of the period and the impact on agri-cultural tradeflows,few books or articles by agricultural economists stand out as dealing systematically with trade issues during that ernment intervention in agricul-tural markets was not on the horizon,and agricultural tariffs were generally low relative to barriers to trade in manufactured goods and services.During the1920s,the situation began to change.With domestic farm policy emergingas a way to boost rural incomes,pressure grewto use trade policy as part of the strategy.The McNary-Haughen Act was an early attemptto use trade policy to influence domestic mar-kets,and the same trend toward protectionismwas occurring in other countries.1The book by Edwin Nourse(1924)introduced a more holis-tic view of world markets as well as a cogent explanation of their significance for U.S.agri-culture.At this time,trade theorists began to expand on the determinants of trade,and thesignificance of resource endowments emergedas a major factor in the explanation of tradeflows.By the third decade of the AAEA’s exis-tence,trade policy was a matter of high polit-ical interest and international contention.TheGreat Depression was widespread and pro-tracted in part because of increased trade pro-tection,and agricultural trade was not spared.The1930Smoot-Hawley tariff bill was origi-nally designed as an agricultural tariff increasebut ended up more generally applied to all goods.Did the profession sit idly by while theworld trade system disintegrated and economic autarchy reigned?It is not easy tofind sem-inal articles from this period on agriculturaltrade and the collapse of markets,with the notable exception of T.W.Schultz’s,who wroteon world agricultural trade and the serious implications for U.S.markets(Schultz1935).The fourth decade was not one of major contributions to the agricultural economics lit-erature in the area of trade.Wartime condi-tions were not conducive to academic pursuits,since many members of the profession wereco-opted into government posts and presum-ably made contributions that may never be revealed.2However,the postwar trading sys-tem was being constructed in the1940s,and agricultural issues were often at the heart of the discussion.3The debates between such notable economists as James Meade and Keynes and1Agricultural economists commented on these issues,in the con-texts of both domestic policy and the trade system.Afine exampleis the study by Black(1928),who warned of the consequences ofthis policy.2An exception was Henry C.Taylor’s book on world agriculturaltrade,emphasizing the importance of the European market(Taylorand Taylor1943).3The debate on managing commodity markets is an example;see the discussion below of the writings by Davis(1942)and Tsouand Black(1944).at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded from426April2010Amer.J.Agr.Econ.their American counterparts explicitly dealt with the inclusion of agricultural trade in the postwar system but were notable for their assumption that these issues were of such a high political importance that the arguments for freer markets were unlikely to prevail.Mean-while the theory of international trade took major steps forward:Samuelson’s(1948)arti-cle on factor price equalization appeared,and the basis was laid for modern trade theory. The decade of the1950s saw the start of a serious professional interest in agricultural and commodity trade.D.Gale Johnson published a book on the inconsistency between U.S.trade and agricultural policies:the one advocating open markets,the other maintaining protec-tive barriers(Johnson1950).For twenty years Johnson refined this message and had a pro-found impact on the profession(if not on policy),as is detailed below.Condliffe(1951) included some insightful comments about agri-cultural trade in his book The Commerce of Nations,in addition to showing the complexi-ties of trade regulations at that time(Condliffe 1951).4The link between commodity trade and economic development and growth also began to be considered during this period.In fact this was the start of development economics as the colonial system disintegrated.Even the begin-nings of the political economy of agricultural trade can be traced to this period.Kindleberger (1951)introduced interest-group analysis into the explanation of national tariff policies,set-ting the stage for later political economy work on agricultural trade.By the start of the1960s the issue of agri-cultural commodity trade became a significant international concern.The1960s saw sharp increases in agricultural protection in indus-trial countries.The trade system staggered under the burden of the disposition of sur-pluses built up under high price supports. Developing countries saw a different side of this with their requests for market access(on concessional terms)rebuffed by strong domes-tic political forces and their export earnings depressed by low commodity prices in interna-tional markets.Much of the professional writ-ing in the United States on agricultural trade in 4Condliffe influenced a generation of students at Berkeley, including Hillman,who began to ask systematic questions about the issues facing agricultural trade.Hillman(1996)shows some frus-tration over the lack of earlier studies on trade,declaring:“[A]bout the only works relating to agricultural trade were a1920s book by Nourse and Gale Johnson’s work on the trade policy dilemma of US agriculture.”this period focused on how to increase exports,either commercially or through food aid.The1960s saw another development thathas had a profound impact on agricultural trade:the rebirth of regional economic integra-tion and somewhat less ambitious free trade areas.European economists,as well as theirNorth American counterparts,were intriguedby the bold experiment of the European Eco-nomic Community(EEC)but were concernedabout the protectionist Common AgriculturalPolicy(CAP)that formed an integral partof the agreement.The tensions between theEEC(later the EU)and the United Statesover agricultural trade were a major theme for economists during this period and indeed untilthe mid-1990s,when the World Trade Orga-nization(WTO)internalized some of theseconflicts.Both trade theory and the theory of eco-nomic integration were developing rapidly,asreal-world events challenged accepted expla-nations.In the1960s,trade theorists paid increasing attention to international capital movements within the context of standardtrade theory:Capital movements could be a substitute for product trade.5Agricultural eco-nomics as a whole stuck close to its microeco-nomic roots and to a“closed economy”viewof the agricultural sector.There was still a dis-connect between the teaching of agricultural marketing and domestic policy on the one handand teaching about the functioning of the inter-national trade and monetary system on the other.This meant that the profession was some-what slow in responding to the emerging tradeissues of the1960s.6By the1970s a host of new issues had arisenwhich emphasized the importance of external economic events.A sharp rise in oil prices, together with droughts in India,Africa,and the USSR,caused agricultural commodity marketsto spike upward.Two devaluations of the dollar5Schmitz and Helmberger(1970)then developed a modelin which they demonstrate that capital movements and producttrade can be complements,in that increased capital movementsbring about increased product trade.Their examples chosen werefor agriculture and natural resource industries and presaged thegrowth of agricultural and food trade linked to foreign direct investment that has continued to this day.6In an editorial introduction to the otherwise impressive col-lection of articles on agricultural economics published by theAmerican Economics Association(AEA)in1969,the editorsadmit that the“decision to emphasize a limited number of topicsresulted in the exclusion of a number of areas in which agricultural economists have specialized.Among the more importantfields thathave been excluded[is]...international trade”(AEA1969,p.xvi).D.Gale Johnson was on the selection committee for this volume,so presumably he found inadequate material in this area to include.at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded fromJosling et al.Understanding International Trade in Agricultural Products427and the virtual abandonment of the Bretton Woods monetary system added more shocks to markets.Increased macroeconomic instabil-ity and chaotic commodity market behavior showed up the dysfunctionality of domestic policies.D.Gale Johnson’s seminal bookWorld Agriculture in Disarray and his work on sugar markets encapsulated this situation(Johnson 1973,1974).G.Edward Schuh(1974)reminded the profession of the importance of macroeco-nomics to agricultural markets and the signif-icance of exchange rates to agricultural trade patterns.And,in an extensive survey of“tra-ditional”fields of agricultural economics from the1940s to the1970s(Martin1977),policies related to agricultural trade were deemed wor-thy of a full section,authored masterfully by D.Gale Johnson(Johnson1977).The1980s ushered in a remarkable period of conflicts over agricultural trade and of policy reform that sowed the seeds for their rec-onciliation.The reform of multilateral trade rules for agriculture had to await the neces-sary changes in domestic policy,but this reform eventually emerged from a mix of budget pressures and paradigm shifts.7The Interna-tional Agricultural Trade Research Consor-tium(IATRC,discussed in a later section) became a focus for work on trade.It was also a period when economists were becoming increasingly sophisticated in the art of building models of markets and estimating behavioral parameters.The international trade literature in general was changing over this period,with an examination of imperfect competition mod-els and of the importance of geography,the study of the political economy of protection, and the issue of regional integration.Agricul-tural economists became adept at translating and applying these new areas of exploration into the world of agricultural product trade and associated policies,as discussed below.The decade of the1990s saw a signifi-cant change in the international rules gov-erning national trade policies for agriculture makes.That set of changes made this an active decade for agricultural trade professionals. Despite the signing of the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade(GATT)in1947 by the advanced industrial countries,and the progressive reduction of tariffs on imports of manufactures,there had been little progress on reducing agricultural trade barriers.The 7Policy dialogue in international bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development contributed signifi-cantly to the paradigm shift,and this dialogue was an extension of the academic discussions of the time.changing paradigms of economic policy that started in the mid-1980s led eventually in1995to the full incorporation of agriculture intothe successor to the GATT,the World Trade Organization.8Multimarket and economy-wide models became still more sophisticated.This was an age of detailed empirical workon agricultural trade rather than one of con-ceptual improvements.But agricultural tradewas becoming mainstream in agricultural eco-nomics curricula,and domestic policy coursesin the United States and the EU began to include some“open economy”issues.Mean-while,agricultural trade itself was changingwith the globalization of the food industry, posing novel challenges for economists.It is clearly too early to judge the lasting nature of contributions since the beginning ofthe new millennium,but the expansion of the range of trade issues connected with environ-mental,consumer,animal welfare,water,and climate change issues has greatly broadenedthe focus of agricultural trade analysts.Recent concerns over the impact of price spikes onfood security and of the use of agriculturalcrops as biomass for fuel have kept agricul-tural trade issues high on the international agenda.Rapid growth in processed and high-value agricultural and food products,and a revolu-tionary spread of retail supermarkets accom-panied the“second wave”of globalization inthe modern era,so that it is no longer fancifulto talk of a global market for farm prod-ucts.Some economists focus on WTO issues, which have become a significant subfield of agricultural trade research and analysis.Oth-ers take a development view:Much empiricalwork on agricultural trade now is done by those examining developing-country issues,includ-ing questions such as the use of trade policyas an element in food security or antipoverty programs.Still others study regional or bilat-eral trade arrangements in all their glory, pondering the balance between the benefitsof partial liberalization and the costs of giv-ing preferred access to high-cost producers.Many contributions are now made by those working in(or with)multilateral institutions (such as the World Bank,the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],and the United Nations Confer-ence on Trade and Development[UNCTAD]),8However,trade negotiations have continued to pivot on thethorny issue of liberalization of farm product trade,as evidencedby the current problems in the WTO’s Doha Round.at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded from428April2010Amer.J.Agr.Econ.often in collaborative studies.This seems to reflect a shift in the way in which agricultural trade research has been organized,a topic to which we return at the end of the paper.As a way of highlighting the ways in which the profession has responded to these chang-ing events,we organize our subjective survey around six areas.Each area is an example of a cumulative advance in understanding,starting with one or two articles and books and devel-oping into a body of more or less accepted wisdom.Contribution#1:Understanding the behavior of international commodity pricesOne of the most persistent questions in agri-cultural trade is whether there are consistent long-run trends in international market prices for agricultural commodities.On the one hand, supply constraints(limited land area)in the face of demand growth(population and per capita income)could push farm product prices ever higher.On the other hand,as consumers spend a high share of rising incomes on non-food items(the Engel effect),economic growth will cause a shift in demand away from basic foods.Relatively rapid agricultural productiv-ity growth will lower the costs of farm produc-tion and hence tend to lower farm prices.The evidence for much of this century appeared to point to a declining price trend.9However,the significance of this trend became a matter of considerable controversy in the1960s.The variability of prices has also been a major topic for investigation over the years. High prices in the early1970s brought this issue to the fore,and a more recent price spike in 2007–8has renewed concerns about the corro-sive economic impact of market instability.Pri-mary product prices in international markets are notoriously more volatile than prices for other products.How much of the price volatil-ity is due to the characteristics of markets(e.g., supply shocks from weather or disease)and how much to government intervention became a subject for study in the1970s and1980s. Commodity Prices and the Terms of Trade The behavior of prices of agricultural com-modities on world markets has been an understandable obsession with economists.Of specific interest to agricultural trade analysis is 9This is in contrast to recent evidence for the period from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth century(Williamson2008).the trend in the relative price of agricultural products compared with nonagricultural prod-ucts.The terms of trade for agricultural(andother primary)products have featured promi-nently in debates about the possible bias ofthe trade system toward particular groups of countries.The debate on whether the economic system generated outcomes that were stacked against developing countries was highly visiblein the1960s.Prebisch(1950)and Singer(1950)had come independently to the conclusion thatthere was a structural reason for the observed decline in the price of agriculture relativeto manufactured goods,reinforcing the ten-dency due to the different income elasticities. Imperfect markets in industrial goods allowed manufacturers to retain much of the benefitsfrom productivity increases rather than pass-ing them on to consumers,whereas agricultural productivity gains were passed directly to con-sumers(or at least processors)in the formof lower prices.As a consequence,the termsof trade turned progressively against the rural “periphery”in favor of the industrial“center.”The concept proved powerful in political termsand was a major motivation for the foundingof UNCTAD in1964and the calls for a New International Economic Order by developing countries in the1970s.The Prebisch/Singer hypothesis has donebetter as a political call to arms than as a statis-tical conclusion.A major revision of the datathat had originally been used was publishedby Grilli and Yang(1988),which broadly con-firmed a downward trend.10But other analysts disagreed with the interpretation of the data: Trends in prices over the past100years areby no means smooth.There have indeed beensharp declines in agricultural prices(particu-larly in1920)but also periods where the trendis upward(over thefirst part of the twenti-eth century),when it disappears(from1920until the late1970s),and when a strong down-ward trend begins(until1990)(Ocampo andParra2002).Cashin and Mc Dermott(2002, 2006)confirm these results and reject boththe existence of a long-run trend and the evidence of structural changes in the series used.The past decade has seen a recovery of prices,and many argue that the trend maybe upward for at least a few more years to come.Moreover,the link between terms oftrade and economic development has become10Their data have since been updated to2000by Pfaffenzeller, Newbolt,and Rayner(2007).at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded fromJosling et al.Understanding International Trade in Agricultural Products429more blurred.Identification of“primary prod-uct exporters”with“developing countries”looks increasingly dated:For many key farm commodities,high-income countries are the major exporters,and for many developing countries—especially in Asia—manufactured goods now dominate their exports.The recent revival of the idea that agricul-tural prices may be on a long-term upward trend owes much to three phenomena:rapid growth in emerging countries,particularly in China,India,and Brazil,with its implication for dietary improvements;the extraordinary increase in oil prices in2007,which raised energy costs in agriculture and led to gov-ernmental mandates and subsidies for biofu-els;and the apparent stagnation in technical advance in agriculture as a result of declin-ing research expenditures.Contributions to the understanding of these price movements have been somewhat contradictory.Somefind a sig-nificant role for speculation(Gilbert2008); others for biofuel policies(OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization[FAO]2008). But what seems generally agreed is that agri-cultural commodity prices now have a direct link with the price of petroleum,once it exceeds a threshold level at which biofuels become a privately profitable substitute for fossil fuels. International Price ShocksThe importance of commodity pricefluctua-tions and of the domestic policy responses to them was made apparent in the1970s.The quadrupling of petroleum prices in1973–74 and their doubling again in1979–80,when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Coun-tries(OPEC)coordinated major reductions in supply,triggered a renewed focus on analyzing the consequences of such nonfarm shocks for the agricultural sector.Initially the focus of this literature was on analyzing the impact on con-sumers andfirms,as producers faced sharply higher energy costs.But the magnitude of the petroleum price stimulated massive and rapid exploration for and exploitation of new energy reserves.Such supply reactions were incorpo-rated in the analysis of price impacts,leading to what became known as the“Dutch Disease”literature that sought initially to explain the effects on other sectors of the Dutch economy following the discovery and exploitation of nat-ural gasfields off the coast of the Netherlands. Gregory(1975)made an early contribution to this literature on the impact of nonfarm sector booms:He found that the direct effect is a rise in the demand for labor in the booming nonfarm sector that will initially draw workersfrom other sectors to the booming sector butthat this is followed by an indirect impact on agriculture and other sectors as the change inreal income in the economy affects the demandfor all products.The same core theory has been used to ana-lyze the inter-and intrasectoral and tax policy impacts of agricultural commodity price boomsand busts.In the context of sub-SaharanAfrica,it was common practice for governments totax away windfalls from export price booms, either for depositing in a stabilization fund tobe drawn on to support farmers during periodsof price collapses or to boost treasury coffersso as to allow the boom to be shared withthe rest of the society,including nonboomingfarm industries.But recent analysis has castdoubt upon the ability of governments to effectsuch transfers.Trade economists have also been concernedwith the impact of storage policies on inter-national market price stability and on the optimal storage policy for an open economy.The early theoretical work on stabilization was stimulated by Hueth and Schmitz(1972),who showed the distributional effects in both a closed and an open economy from price stabi-lization brought about through storage.Feder, Just,and Schmitz(1977)analyzed storage poli-cies under trade uncertainty and showed cases where trade would be greatly reduced under ahigh degree of uncertainty.Just et al.(1978) analyzed the welfare implications of storagefrom an international perspective using non-linear assumptions,and Newberry and Stiglitz (1981)expanded the framework for optimal policy intervention under instability for open economies.The persuasive nature of their argu-ments,that private and public storage are code-termined and so the latter might just take theplace of the former,together with the return tolower prices in world markets,has effectively dropped the topic of intergovernmental stor-age agreements from the policy agenda sincethe1980s.11Domestic Policies and Market InstabilityThe argument that governments may exac-erbate international marketfluctuations bytheir own attempts to stabilize domestic prices11The topic did not totally disappear:Williams and Wright (1991),for instance,added additional insights into the welfareimpacts of commodity storage in both trade and no-trade situations.at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen on April 26, Downloaded from。
空间经济学研究的文献综述
空间经济学研究的文献综述作者：段云诺来源：《今日财富》2019年第31期空间经济学研究的是关于资源在空间的配置和经济活动的空间区位问题。
空间经济学的研究具有重要意义，论文理清空间经济学的理论脉络，总结了近几年来空间经济学的研究成果和新的进展。
一、空间经济学主要理论综述（一）基于外生化分析的空間经济学理论在早期，经济空间对经济增长的影响被忽略了，亚当斯密的绝对优势理论和李嘉图的比较优势理论把空间视为中性，空间经济学思想并没有形成一个独立的分支。
古典区位论是空间经济学的理论基础。
古典区位论主要包括杜能的农业区位论、韦伯的工业区位论、空间市场理论、服务业区位理论等。
古典区位论基于完全竞争的市场结构，运用静态的局部均衡和一般均衡分析方法，把价格、市场、利润等引入分析框架，研究单个厂商的最优空间区位选择。
空间经济学已经成为经济学中的独立分支。
新古典区位论从网络的视角研究企业区位选择的问题，认为现实中的经济区位选择是网络体系的构成。
新古典区位论放宽了古典区位论的假设条件，构建了区位论的一般均衡分析框架。
国贸理论打破了假设条件，即要素在空间可以自由流动，研究国界对国际专业化与贸易的影响。
古典区位论和新古典区位论的研究都限于既定空间，仍属于外生化分析。
（二）基于内生化分析的空间经济学理论新经济地理学探究空间发展不均衡的原因，D-S模型在处理规模收益递增和不完全竞争的问题上提供了技术支持。
假设资源约束，生产者生产规模越大，则成本越低，而消费者产品品种越多越能得到较多的效用，于是形成了一个矛盾。
可用资源的增加和扩大的人口规模，可以一定程度上解决这个矛盾，规模经济本身可以产生贸易。
在此基础上，克鲁格曼在论文《经济地理与收益递增》中提出了中心外围模型，首次把空间因素成功的纳入到主流经济学的分析框架中。
中心外围模型的主要观点是在贸易成本很高的初始条件下，人口和生产稳定分散分布，当贸易成本逐渐减低，刚开始人口和生产的区位不会发生变化，但当贸易的成本低于某一个临界值时，工业人口向某个区域开始迁移，工业生产随之集聚，工业核心区和农业边缘区很快形成。
超边际经济学近期文献综述(下)(一)
超边际经济学近期文献综述（下）(一)张定胜（2000）将内生比较利益引进这类李嘉图模型，将刘易斯早期的二元经济思想大大发扬了。
刘易斯1950年代提出二元经济现象是从完全自给自足的社会发展到完全商业化社会的过渡期中，一个社会中部分人卷入商业化和分工，而另一部分人却仍在自给自足状况。
因此，二元经济不是工业和农业之间的二元，而是商业化部门和非商业化部门的二元。
但刘易斯不知道超边际分析，而超边际分析是将其原创性思想数学化的关键。
所以刘易斯只好退而求其次，用边际分析研究工业-农业二元结构。
张定胜用超边际分析证明，当交易效率极低时，所有国家都在非商业化的自给自足状态。
如果A国交易效率改进，B国交易效率仍低，则A国出现国内分工和贸易，而B国仍处于自给自足状况。
当B国交易效率稍微改进，使得部分居民可以卷入国际贸易，但这微小改进不足以将所有居民卷入国际分工，所以部分居民仍在自给自足状态。
这就形成了一国内有两部分人，一部分人（比如沿海大城市的居民）与外国贸易，生产力较高，大部分收入来自市场，而另一部分人自给自足，没有来自市场的收入，生产力低，看起来象潜在失业或不充分就业(Underemployment)。
由于这种二元经济的存在，贸易条件对B国不利，大部分国际贸易的好处被A国获取。
收入分配的不平等度在这两类二元经济中相对于自给自足上升。
随着两国交易效率的进一步改进，A，B二国都完全卷入国际和国内分工，所有人的生产活动完全商业化，二元经济消失，收入分配的不平等度下降。
张定胜还证明，二元经济消失时，欠发达国家变成发达国，这时欠发达国的国际贸易条件有可能恶化，但其从分工得到的好处及人均真实收入却会上升。
最近的经验证据(Sen,1998)说明，新加坡和泰国的国际贸易条件不断恶化(出口品相对进口品越来越便宜)，但二国的人均真实收入却不断上升。
张定胜用超边际分析论证道，以前说贸易条件恶化会使人均收入下降是因为只用了边际分析。
如果用超边际分析，当分工网络扩大时，全社会总生产力增加，只要这种正面的网络效果超过贸易条件恶化的负面效果则贸易条件恶化和从分工和贸易得到的好处增加可以同时发生。
文献综述的六种写作思路（建议收藏）
文献综述的六种写作思路（建议收藏）文章来源：计量经济学（ID：Mr-lufly）文献综述是什么？文献看了一大堆，怎么梳理，怎么写成文献综述？文献综述从何处落笔，写什么，怎么展开论述？文献综述有什么写作思路？这一箩筐的问题，想必每个学术新手都遇到过。
那么，今天就来说说，文献综述的这点事！文献综述就是确定选题后，对选题相关研究领域的文献进行广泛阅读和理解的基础上，进行归纳整理、综合分析和评论思考。
具体来说，包括这个领域的研究历程、研究现状（主要学术观点、前人研究成果、研究水平、研究焦点、存在的问题及可能的原因等）、新水平、新动态、新技术和新发现、发展前景和展望等，并提出自己的思考、评论和研究思路。
文献综述要注意两点：（1）大量阅读文献在撰写综述前一定要全面搜集资料，如果不能系统全面地把握研究现状，或片面理解他人研究结果，盲目地认为某问题或领域尚未被研究，就会使得自己的研究变成一种重复性劳动，或者脑洞开的太大，论文可行性不高。
（2）综合分析综述不能仅仅是将前人的观点罗列出来而未进行系统分类、归纳和提炼。
如果是“综”而不“述”，那么即便是内容有一定的系统性，充其量也只是陈述了他人的观点，达不到通过分析、评说而发现和确立论文选题的目的。
写文献综述可以采用“填充法”，简而言之就是画导图、列框架、不断细化内容。
具体如下：01即确定论文选题，围绕这个选题查找、阅读、挖掘文献信息02一个导图（思维导图）围绕论文选题，在阅读文献的基础上，列一个文献综述的大纲，再按照大纲一步步把内容填充进去。
尽管每个学校的要求不尽相同，但是通常毕业论文文献综述的结构是：引言/研究背景———主体/研究现状———小结/研究目的与意义———研究内容———参考文献在这个框架的基础上，进一步细化：（一）引言/背景引言不用太长，表明研究背景即可。
现实素材：统计数据、生产生活实例、政策法规等理论素材：基础理论研究的焦点、关键点、文献计量学分析等示例1：《糖肾方改善C57BLKS/J db/db小鼠脂代谢紊乱的作用及相关机制研究》，利用统计数据指出研究背景，引出主题。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
经济学文献综述写作
一、文献综述的含义
文献综述（以下简称综述），不同于学术论文或科研论文。
学术论文或科研论文是作者亲自对某一具体课题进行研究后所做的文章。
综述是一种综合性或专题性的情报资料，属于三次文献。
具体地说，是指对某一专题的近期文献，经过阅读、摘选、融会贯通、分析、对比、归纳、加工、整理而成的综合评述。
文献综述有两大特点，一是“综”，即收集“百家”之言，综合分析整理；二是“述”，即结合作者的观点和实践经验对文献的观点、结论进行叙述和评论。
文献综述虽不是科学论著，但在科学研究中的作用却不容低估。
通过阅读近期原始文献而写成的综述，可以反映某一领域或某一专题的新动态、新进展、新水平、新发现、新趋向以及未来展望。
因此，综述被看作是新知识突破和新技术推广应用的开始。
毕业论文文献综述的写作是毕业论文写作过程中的重要一环，毕业生在进入毕业论文写作之前，应该先写一篇有关的综述，以便掌握该专题的最新信息，从而为选定研究论题和修订研究计划提供有益的信息和依据。
二、收集资料：文献综述写作的基础
收集文献资料是写作文献综述的基础。
因此，收集的文献资料力求广泛与全面，且尽可能收集与研究论题有关的原始文献，同时也应收集相关的权威的综述性文章。
一般地，收集文献的方法有两种：一是通过各种检索工具，如文献索引、文摘杂志进行检索。
选择文献时，应由近及远，主要应用近2～3年内的文献，这样才能体现出文献综述的新观点、新水平。
二是从其它文章的参考文献追溯。
即从一篇或数篇最新发表、有权威性的论著或综述，及这些文章所附的参考文献中寻找所需资料，这是一种较为快速而方便的方法。
收集到的文献如何阅读取舍?通常，阅读文献大致有三个步骤：
(1)筛选文章。
主要方法是“三看”。
一看题目。
文章的题目是反映文章主要内容的概括语。
看题目可以从文中选取自己感兴趣的或是需要的内容。
二看作者。
是指先看研究专题中有名望的专家写的文章。
一般地说，由于专家经验丰富，对新理论、新方法的分辨力强，尤其对不同观点的理论和学说，其倾向的学说有较大的可信性，所以这种文章中的观点、论说的可*性较大。
三看摘要。
通过摘要可以概括了解该文的主要研究方法、论据以及最后结论。
(2) 粗读。
对收集到的文献进行粗略阅读，也可运用“三看”方法。
先看前言，明确其解决和回答的问题；再看材料与方法，了解其采用的研究手段；后看小结，看其结论是否正确，或对自己所综述的范围有无参考价值。
有时论文的题目似与拟写综述有关，实际内容却不符合需要，这些文章就应舍去不要。
如果内容符合需要，则应在这些文章上作出标记，同时将其题目、作者、姓名、刊载期刊的名称、卷、页和年份详细记录下来，以便在写作中反复核对和务求正确领会原作的叙述。
(3)精读。
对重要的文章依照粗读的提示，再深入细致读全文，并做好文摘卡片或笔记，或在复印件上划出记号，作好标记。
精读过程中要将相关的、类似的内容，分别归类；对结论不一致的文献，要对比分析，按一定的评价原则，作出判断。
三、基于文献资料的综述的写作
如何基于文献资料写作文献综述?一般分四步来写作：
首先是决定文献综述的类型。
综述的类型根据写作目的和收集到的资料情况不同而不同，通常可分以下四种。
(1) 简介式综述。
即按内容特点分别综合介绍原文献所论述的事实、数据、论点等，一般不加评述。
这类综述适用于某些学术、技术问题的概要介绍，尤其是某些问题刚发现而尚无定论时，较宜使用这一种形式。
(2) 动态性综述。
即对某一领域或某一专题的发展动态，按照其自身的发展阶段，由远及近地介绍其主要进展，一直到目前的发展程度。
这类综述最适宜介绍学术、技术的进展状况。
(3) 成就性综述。
即将有关文献汇集分类，把某一方面或某一项目有关的各种内容从原始文献中摘出，分门别类地进行叙述。
这类综述适用于介绍新方法、新技术、新论点和新成就。
(4) 争鸣性综述。
即对某一领域或某一专题学术观点上存在的分歧，进行分类归纳和综合，按不同见解分别叙述。
叙述中可表述作者倾向性的意见。
在此需要说明的是，毕业论文写作中的文献综述大体可以按照简介式综述或争鸣性综述进行组织撰写。
可以在分别归纳介绍学者们的不同观点的基础上，表明自己的倾向性的意见或观点，还可以提出自己的观点与看法。
但是需要注意的是文献综述既不同于科研论文，又不同于简单的文献报道。
它要把来自不同作者的研究成果和科学观点熔于一炉，并加以分析评论。
第二是拟写文献综述的提纲。
在确定题目和广泛阅读文献的基础上，就应着手拟定写作提纲，即所谓“搭架子”。
将所收集到的资料，按提纲加工成文，要做到层次分明，有纲有目。
拟写提纲的方法一般为将准备综述的主要内容，以简要的形式列出主要标题和小标题，在相应的标题下再列出拟叙述和讨论的问题及准备应用什么文献，使文章大体有一个轮廓。
通过这个初步提纲就可能发现，有些小标题之下资料充足，有些小标题下资料明显不足，而另一些小标题下资料尚未弄清难以应用等等。
这时就需要对不足的文献进一步查找，有疑问的文献重新核对甚至要修改提纲，直至使提纲及相应文献资料渐臻完善为止。
在此需要说明的是，毕业论文专题文献综述的写作，不需要另立题目，题目标注为“文献综述”即可，其提纲标题可与论文的提纲一级标题相对应，然后将所查阅资料一一归纳填充，如确有心得可加上一些适当的评述，但不能将写作者个人观点取代原作者观点，而且必须让读者分清哪些是写作者的看法，哪些是原作者的观点。