Chapter 1: Differences of basic tendencies of actors in economic management ... 1 1, human nature hypothesis in economic management ... 12, human nature hypothesis in economic management ... 23, differences of human nature hypothesis and its influence on economic management ... Chapter 2: Differences of actors' relations in economic management .../kloc-. Chapter III Summary and Supplementary Explanation of Economic Management ... 7 Conclusion ... 8 references ...............................................................................................................................................
The first chapter is the difference between the basic tendencies of actors in economic management. The abstract understanding of the basic tendency of actors has formed the hypothesis of human nature in economics and economic management. Economics and economic management have different schools and different understandings of human nature hypothesis, but these different speeches are the same, but there are great differences between the two disciplines. 1. The human nature hypothesis of economic management economics aims at saving costs, expanding output and optimizing resource allocation, and considers the rationality of rules. It can only be analyzed from the most general behavior, so it is assumed that people are economic people, rational people, or people with opportunistic tendencies. Economic man's behavior decision-making starts from his own economic interests and maximizes his net income by comparing the income with the cost. Of course, when we talk about maximization, we all mean to be as large as possible under certain conditions, not infinite, which means that maximization is a conditional extreme value. The basic tendency of rational people is the same as that of economic people, but the economic interests are extended to comprehensive interests and long-term interests. For example, whether the temporary payment is for the long-term benefit or the satisfaction of psychology and prestige. But economics also believes that under the condition of commodity economy, money is generally equivalent, measurable, comparable and objective, so it is an irreplaceable measure to measure the value of trading objects and people (labor goods). Therefore, the basis of comprehensive interests is of course economic interests, and its measure is also the multi-purpose market transaction value. Therefore. The behavior of economics is rational behavior, and rational behavior is the behavior of maximizing interests.
The hypothesis of economic man is especially beneficial to quantitative analysis or modeling with the help of measurable money, but the fundamental reason of the hypothesis of economic man lies in the goal of economics, not for measurement and modeling. The new institutional economics of Marxist economics, which uses less quantitative analysis and modeling, also excavates the hypothesis that man is an economy, which can be proved. Although Marxist economics does not explicitly put forward the hypothesis of human nature, it implies the hypothesis of economic man. Because Marx regards economy as the decisive force of social development, economic foundation as the decisive factor of superstructure, and capitalist's greed for surplus value as its theoretical premise. Undoubtedly, Marx's premise is to pursue the maximization of economic interests, but this premise is more emphasized when analyzing abstract laws and capitalist behavior characteristics; However, when analyzing the behavioral characteristics of workers, it is less emphasized. The new institutional economics still thinks that people's characteristic in economic management is to pursue the interests of thldl.org.cn, but they criticize the rationality of their behavior by hitchhiking. They think that people only have limited rationality, but they think that people are opportunistic and always want to hitchhike. Opportunism is not only pursuing its own interests, but also trying to realize its own interests through tricks. Although not all actors are obvious opportunists, it is difficult to be sure that those people are not so opportunistic. Obviously, the new institutional economics emphasizes the pursuit of economic interests and its means while denying complete rationality. Judging from the basic tendency of actors, this is not much different from the hypothesis of economic man. 2. The human nature of economic management assumes that the goal of economic management is to stimulate people's enthusiasm and improve organizational efficiency. It must take into account the general behavior of the majority and the special behavior of the minority, because the special behavior of the minority is very important to improve organizational efficiency. Because of this, economics insists on the hypothesis of economic man (opportunism), while economic management believes that the pursuit of economic interests is a basic need of human beings, but it belongs to low-level needs among various needs of human beings. Therefore, the hypothesis of human nature in economic management has already surpassed the hypothesis of economic man, and new theories such as complex man, social man and manager have emerged. Along this direction, economic management is separated from economics and developed independently. In the early management thought, people were regarded as a tool to speak, and people were always lazy, lazy and irresponsible. McGregor called this tradition the X theory of human nature hypothesis. The scientific management theory represented by Taylor emphasizes the nature of people's pursuit of economic interests, which makes the hypothesis of human nature in economic management and economics once known. But not long after, Mayo realized from Hawthorne's experiment that people's demands on society and psychology are also very important, so he denied the hypothesis of economic man and put forward the hypothesis of social man. Other representatives of behavioral science theory have strengthened the social man hypothesis from different aspects. Among them, Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory developed the social man hypothesis into a classic and exquisite demand model. The contemporary school of economic management is like a jungle, and so is the assumption of human nature. Among them, Simon, the Nobel Prize winner from 65438 to 0978, expounded the hypothesis of human nature in his decision-making theory. He believes that management is decision-making, and employees at different levels in the organization are making decisions, so they are all managers. 3. The difference of human nature hypothesis and its influence on economic management science. The hypothesis of economic man is simple and easy to analyze, and economics takes it as the core to form an axiomatic system and systematic methods (skills), principles and laws; The assumptions of social people and managers are rich and complex, and it is difficult to form an axiomatic system. On this basis, economic management combined with rich practice has formed many artistic and skillful methods (skills) principles and theorems. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the difference is obvious. Generally speaking, economics is similar to the "bad guy hypothesis" and economic management is similar to the "good guy hypothesis". Contemporary economics and economic management are different schools of thought. However, because the hypothesis of human nature in economics is relatively consistent, there is not much difference between economic principles and empirical analysis, mainly in the application of economic principles (such as the formulation of economic policies) and normative analysis. For example, in economics, there are authoritative textbooks in different times, and non-authoritative textbooks are similar. However, due to the huge differences in human nature assumptions in contemporary economic management, there are almost no classic or authoritative theories, no systematic theoretical framework and no authoritative textbooks. An economist once said that when two economists discuss together, there will be three schools of economics. Borrowing this idea, it can be said that when two economists give lectures together, there will be at least four schools of economic management. The second chapter is the difference between actors in economic management 1. The core of the research on the relationship economics of economic management actors is resource allocation, and division of labor and transaction are the main ways of resource allocation. Trading through the market can transform the actors' self-interest motives into * * * results. That is, to achieve "subjectively for yourself and objectively for society." Therefore, the relationship between actors in economics is mainly reflected in the relationship between market transactions. The direct purpose of market transaction is that both parties can get benefits, so both parties are equal in contractual relationship. People in economics are not only equal in personality and status, but also pay little attention to the hierarchy and subordinate relationship inevitably caused by the differences in division of labor, post responsibilities and personal expertise. This relationship can be summarized as the equivalence of actors. The above-mentioned relationship between people is not clearly pointed out in that textbook, but it is implicit in the general theory of economics. Because the hypothesis of economic man is true for everyone, economic man does not pursue the maximization of interests behind closed doors, but realizes the maximization of interests in exchange. Because everyone has the same tendency, the limit of maximizing their own interests is the maximization of the same interests of others. If everyone is only allowed to make money in the process of pursuing their own interests, and you are not allowed to make profits, there will be no equilibrium between demand and supply in economics, and there will be no equilibrium in which marginal income equals marginal cost. From an economic point of view, the so-called "customer is God" and so on are all marketing strategies used by sellers to realize their own interests, because the relationship between supply and demand is completely equal. These slogans have practical significance because supply exceeds demand in a specific historical period. In fact, customers can also say something nice to the seller in order to achieve their own trading purposes (this situation often appears in the market of debt collection and counter-offer). In short, due to the equality of actors, from the perspective of economics. Both parties to a transaction can formulate or reject each other's terms, and can also adopt strategies to raise each other's status or belittle their own status to achieve their own trading purposes. 2. Actor relationship in economic management science aims at stimulating people's enthusiasm and improving organizational efficiency, and fundamentally respects people and attaches importance to their role. Of course, individuals in economic management (that is, actors, in order to avoid confusion with management subjects, temporarily use the word individual) are also equal in personality. However, economic management has to consider the functions of different levels and individuals in the organization. Some people are divided into leaders, others are divided into executors, and the same person has to play different roles on different occasions, so people should be regarded as different individuals with different division of labor, different abilities and different status. Although people in economic management are equal in personality, their status is unequal. This inequality does not mean the difference between high and low J, but the difference between subject and object, active and passive, and the difference between the role and contribution to the organization. This relationship can be summarized as individual differences. A basic principle of economic management science is to distinguish management subject and management object. Among them, people are not only the core of management subject, but also the core of management amount. Although the same actor may play different roles on different occasions, there are obvious differences in the roles played by specific actors in the same management process. This means that differences between people in economic management are inevitable. In fact, whether it is administrative management or enterprise management, non-management is U-shaped or M-shaped and H-shaped, and bureaucracy is still the basic form of management organization. There are great differences in the abilities and personality characteristics required by different posts in the bureaucratic system, which determines that the differences between people in economic management are obvious. Lawrence. Peter made a wonderful analysis of the difference between people in the bureaucratic system, and even said that he founded a new discipline-hierarchical organization. From the above analysis, we can see that the differential order relationship between people is not clearly put forward in management economics, but it is indeed an implicit premise in management economics. It is precisely because economic managers are people with poor order that employees should have professionalism in the actual management process and "do a job and love a job". Because the unequal experience in real life will dampen people's enthusiasm, economic management also attaches great importance to creating an equal atmosphere for employees psychologically and emotionally, preventing employees from feeling unequal because of their different status and roles, and mobilizing their work enthusiasm.
Management takes the realization of organizational goals as its own goal, and stimulates people's enthusiasm and improves organizational efficiency as a means. We must give consideration to the general behavior of the majority and the special behavior of the minority, because a few special behaviors are very important to improve organizational efficiency. Because of this, economics insists on the hypothesis of economic man (opportunism), while management believes that the pursuit of economic interests is a basic demand of human beings, but it belongs to a low-level demand among various human needs. Therefore, the hypothesis of human nature in management has already surpassed the hypothesis of economic man, and new theories such as complex man, social man and manager have emerged. Along this direction, management is separated from economics and developed independently. In the early management thought, people were regarded as a tool to speak, and people were always lazy, lazy and irresponsible. McGregor called this tradition the X theory of human nature hypothesis. The scientific management theory represented by Taylor emphasizes the nature of people's pursuit of economic interests, which makes the hypothesis of human nature in management and economics once known. But not long after, Mayo realized from Hawthorne's experiment that people's demands on society and psychology are also very important, so he denied the hypothesis of economic man and put forward the hypothesis of social man. Representatives of other behavioral science theories have strengthened the social man hypothesis from different aspects. Among them, Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory developed the social man hypothesis into a classic and exquisite demand model. The contemporary management school is like a jungle, and the assumption of human nature is also like a jungle. Among them, Simon, the Nobel Prize winner from 65438 to 0978, expounded the hypothesis of human nature in his decision-making theory. He believes that management is decision-making, and employees at different levels in the organization are making decisions, so they are all managers. In this sense, management science is not as good as economics science.
Management and economics have different disciplines. The goal of economics is to realize the interests of all mankind or the whole society and the means to achieve the goal under certain resource conditions. Such as micro-macroeconomics, agricultural economics, international economics, regional economics, etc. , to achieve the goal of maximizing wealth in different regions or industries. Econometrics and game theory are the improvement of economic analysis tools. The emergence of institutional economics, family economics and public choice school is the extension and perfection of economic analysis method, which explains economic phenomena from another angle and extends economic analysis method to sociology, political science and other disciplines. In Smith's thought, through social division of labor, exchange and market competition, we can rely on people's subjective behavior for themselves and objective behavior for others to increase the wealth of the whole society. In the world of economics, actors are free and equal. People in society are hierarchical, but equal in economic activities. Of course, the development of economics today is actually more of a partial improvement, some of which involve the roots and some are partial perfection of the original theory. Like the three scholars who studied mechanism design this year, they actually studied how to improve efficiency in an realized organization, rather than traditional pure economics. Chapter III Overview and Supplementary Explanation of Economic Management
Economics pays attention to designing reasonable rules of the game and developing institutional resources, so economics assumes that people are economic people with opportunistic tendencies and their mutual relations are equal. Because the assumptions of economics on people are simplified and consistent, economic theory is systematic, scientific and unified. Economic management focuses on mobilizing people's enthusiasm and developing human resources, so economic management assumes that people are complex people with multiple needs, and the relationship between them is complex and different. Because the assumptions about people in economic management are rich and divergent, economic management is changeable, artistic and diverse. Of course, the difference in theoretical abstraction does not mean the difference in practical application. On the contrary, just as the application of physical and chemical principles is intertwined in industrial production, the principles of economics and management are intertwined in practical application. Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the two in theory. Understanding the differences between the two disciplines is helpful to learn from each other and improve each other, and it is also helpful to the research of the cross or marginal disciplines of the two disciplines.
In fact, the difference between economics and economic management is that there are two different disciplines. Their fundamental difference lies in the hypothesis of human nature in economics and economic management. Man is the subject of economics and economic management, but economics and economic management, as independent disciplines, do not study every specific and different person; Instead, according to their respective academic purposes and research objects, based on people's general and universal behavior characteristics, they make abstract and conceptual assumptions about people for easy analysis. The understanding of human beings obtained from this is the basic assumption of the subject of behavior and the basic premise of further analysis. Therefore, different views or assumptions about actors lead to the fundamental difference between economics and economic management.