|
|
 |
|
|
书面报告一
经济市场有必然的历史基础吗？首先，思考这个议题如何被置入自由主义与马克思主义的思想中。您可能（也可能不会）希望去区分各种不同的自由主义。其次，思考这些关于创造市场的争论，如何被纳进对于以下两个议题的思考当中：
-
市场在由社会主义计划经济转型到市场经济时扮演的角色；或者
-
于某些世界上最贫穷以及最低度发展的国家的经济发展上，市场所扮演的角色。
请注意，我们不要求您对这两个问题有专家级的知识，只需要有相当于一般报纸读者或电视观众的一般性理解即可。请不要在这两个问题外作其他进一步研究，因为这会与本报告的目的有所偏离，本报告的目的是探讨建立研究进程所做的各种典范的可能性。
报告应在12-15页之间（二倍行距），缴交期限为第七堂课开始上课时。
书面报告二
请下列几个议题择一撰写：
-
自由主义典范的最大问题是，他没办法处理解释各种有凝聚力的社会团体的存在，也没办法解释他们经济与社会的角色。许多对于了解这些团体的尝试，包括多元主义以及新统合主义。马克思主义理论则较能够接受凝聚性社会团体的概念，但所承认的团体数量和种类都属有限。那么我们在课程中讨论的社会－文化理论，在关于团体的问题上是否就能做得更好呢？在什么样的程度内，Sahlins, Weber, Polanyi以及Swidler可以有一批核心观念，能对于这类团体作出解释？这种解释与经济阶级或多元主义或新统合主义如何比较？从当代经济学或政治学中找出一个特定问题来阐述你的论证。
-
各国社会之间的边界以及国际竞争场上的边界在本学期课程中所讨论的各种典范中，发挥如何的作用？理论家们只假设国家、经济、与社会之间的关系，是被划入国内社会间的界线里面吗？或者他们能解释国内范围和国际范围的互动吗？假想一种情况（因为全球化或其他理由）国内领域和国际领域的界线日渐弱化且容易跨越，这些典范如何能好好地设定分析架构，以理解政治、社会与经济在全球化时代的关系？在您提出的书面报告中，必须思考至少三个典范，表达出各个典范在面临“无疆界”社会的“新”情境时所具有的优点及缺点。（我们当然也欢迎您对于本问题的预设提出质疑。）
报告应在12-15页之间，缴交期限为最后一堂课开始上课时。
Essay Assignment 1
Do economic markets have necessary historical foundations? First, consider how this issue is addressed in liberal and Marxist thought. You may--or may not--wish to distinguish between variants of liberalism. Secondly, consider how these debates over the creation of markets might be brought to bear in thinking about one of the following two current issues:
-
The role of markets in the transition from planned socialist economies to market economies; or
-
The role of markets in economic development in some of the poorest and least-developed countries in the world.
Note that we do not expect you to have any specialized knowledge about the two current issues; but only an average newspaper reader or TV watcher's conventional understanding. Please do not set out to do further research on these issues. It would be a deviation from the purpose of the essay, which is to explore the potential of the paradigms for setting up research agendas.
The paper should be 12-15 pages (double-spaced) and is due at the beginning of class #7.
Essay Assignment 2
Please choose one of these two topics.
-
A central problem in the liberal paradigm is the difficulty which it has in explaining the existence of cohesive social groups and their role in the economy and in politics. Various attempts to understand such groups include pluralism and neo-corporatism. Marxian theory is more hospitable to notions of cohesive groups but the groups that it recognizes are very limited and very specific. Do the socio-cultural theories which we considered in the course really do any better with respect to groups? To what extent do Sahlins, Weber, Polanyi and Swidler have a single set of core ideas which might provide an explanation of such groups? How would that explanation compare to economic class or to pluralism and neo-corporatism? Pick a particular problem from contemporary economics or politics to illustrate your argument.
-
How do the borders between national societies and the international arena function in the paradigms that we have considered in this seminar? Do the theories work only by assuming that the relationships among state, society and economy are confined within the boundaries of domestic societies? Or can they explain the interaction between domestic and international realms? Imagine that (because of globalization or other reasons) the boundaries between domestic and international realms become weaker and more permeable. How well could these paradigms work to provide analytic frames for understanding relationships between politics, society, and economy in a time of globalization? In your essay consider at least three of the paradigms. Illustrate the strengths and/or weaknesses of each paradigm as it confronts the "new" situation of "borderless" societies. (You are of course welcome to challenge the basic assumptions of the question.)
The essay should be 12-15 pages and it is due at the start of the last class.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
