[推荐] 本人珍藏的Nobel Lectures in Economic Sciences (1969 - 2004)

赞!谢谢分享!

thanks

好人啊

谢了

good

The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1992

"for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour"

Gary S. Becker

USA

University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA

b. 1930

Press Release: The Sveriges Riksbank (Bank of Sweden) Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for 1992

13 October 1992

THIS YEAR's LAUREATE HAS EXTENDED THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO NEW AREAS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND RELATIONS. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, 1992, to Professor Gary S. Becker, University of Chicago, USA, for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behavior and interaction, including nonmarket behavior. Gary Becker's research contribution consists primarily of having extended the domain of economic theory to aspects of human behavior which had previously been dealt with - if at all - by other social science disciplines such as sociology, demography and criminology. In so doing, he has stimulated economists to tackle new problems. Gary Becker's research program is founded on the idea that the behavior of an individual adheres to the same fundamental principles in a number of different areas. The same explanatory model should thus, according to Becker, be applicable in analyzing highly diverse aspects of human behavior. The explanatory model which Becker has chosen to work with is based on what he calls an economic approach, which he has applied to one area after another. This approach is characterized by the fact that individual agents - regardless of whether they are households, firms or other organizations - are assumed to behave rationally, i.e., purposefully, and that their behavior can be described as if they maximized a specific objective function, such as utility or wealth. Gary Becker has applied the principle of rational, optimizing behavior to areas where researchers formerly assumed that behavior is habitual and often downright irrational. Becker has borrowed an aphorism from Bernard Shaw to describe his methodological philosophy: "Economy is the art of making the most of life". Becker's applications of his basic model to different types of human behavior can be accounted for by distinguishing among four research areas: (i) investments in human capital; (ii) behavior of the family (or household), including distribution of work and allocation of time in the family; (iii) crime and punishment; and (iv) discrimination on the markets for labor and goods. Human Capital Gary Becker's most noteworthy contribution is perhaps to be found in the area of human capital, i.e., human competence, and the consequences of investments in human competence. The theory of human capital is considerably older than Becker's work in this field. His foremost achievement is to have formulated and formalized the microeconomic foundations of the theory. In doing so, he has developed the human-capital approach into a general theory for determining the distribution of labor income. The predictions of the theory with respect to the wage structure have been formulated in so-called human-capital- earnings functions, which specify the relation between earnings and human capital. These contributions were first presented in some articles in the early 1960s and were developed further, both theoretically and empirically, in his book, Human Capital, written in 1964. The theory of human capital has created a uniform and generally applicable analytical framework for studying not only the return on education and on-the-job training, but also wage differentials and wage profiles over time. Other important applications, pursued by various economists, include a breakdown into components of the factors underlying economic growth, migration, as well as investments and earnings in the health sector. The human-capital approach also helps explain trade patterns across countries; in fact, differences in the supply of human capital among countries have been shown to have more explanatory power than differences in the supply of real capital. Practical applications of the theory of human capital have been facilitated dramatically by the increased availability of microdata, for example, panel data, on wages and different characteristics of labor. This development has also been stimulated by Becker's theoretical and empirical studies. It is hardly an overstatement to say that the human-capital approach is one of the most empirically applied theories in economics today. Household and Family Gary Becker has carried out an even more radical extension of the applicability of economic theory in his analysis of relations among individuals outside of the market system. The most notable example is his analysis of the functions of the family. These studies are summarized in his book, A Treatise on the Family, written in 1981. A basic idea in Becker's analysis is that a household can be regarded as a "small factory" which produces what he calls basic goods, such as meals, a residence, entertainment, etc., using time and input of ordinary market goods, "semi-manufactures", which the household purchases on the market. In this type of analysis, prices of basic goods have two components. The first is comprised of the direct costs of purchasing intermediate goods on the market. The second is the time expenditure for production and consumption of the good in question for a specific good, this time expenditure is equivalent to wages multiplied by the time spent per unit of the good produced in the household. This implies that an increase in the wage of one member of the household gives rise not only to changed incentives for work on the market, but also to a shift from more to less time-intensive product on and consumption of goods produced by the household, i.e., basic goods. Instead of an analysis in terms of the traditional dichotomy between work and leisure, Becker's model provides a general theory for the household's allocation of time, as exemplified in the essay, A Theory of the Allocation of Time, from 1965. This approach has turned out to be a highly useful foundation for examining many different issues associated with household behavior. Becker has gone even further. He has formulated a general theory for behavior of the family - including not only the distribution of work and the allocation of time in the family, but also decisions regarding marriage, divorce and children. As real wages increase, along with the possibilities of substituting capital for labor in housework, labor is released in the household, so that it becomes more and more uneconomical to let one member of the household specialize wholly in household production (for instance, child care). As a result, some of the family's previous social and economic functions are shifted to other institutions such as firms, schools and other public agencies. Becker has argued that these processes explain not only the increase in married women's job participation outside the home, but also the rising tendency toward divorce; see his article, Human Capital and the Rise and Fall of Families (coauthored by N. Tomes), 1986. Alongside Becker's analysis of the distribution of labor and allocation of time in the household, his most influential contribution in the context of the household and the family is probably his studies on fertility, which were initiated in an essay entitled, An Economic Analysis of Fertility, 1960. Parents are assumed to have preferences regarding both the number and educational level of their children, where the educational level is affected by the amount of time and other resources that parents spend on their children. Investments in children's human capital may then be derived as a function of income and prices. As wages rise, parents increase their investments in human capital, combined with a decrease in the number of children. Becker uses this theory to explain, for example, the historical decline in fertility in industrialized countries, as well as the variations in fertility among different countries and between urban and rural areas. In particular, the highly extensive family policy in Sweden, to which Becker often refers, suggests the merits of an economic approach to the analysis of these issues. Crime and Punishment The third area where Gary Becker has applied the theory of rational behavior and human capital is "crime and punishment". A criminal, with the exception of a limited number of psychopaths, is assumed to react to different stimuli in a predictable ("rational") way, both with respect to returns and costs, such as in the form of expected punishment. Instead of regarding criminal activity as irrational behavior associated with the specific psychological and social status of an offender, criminality is analyzed as rational behavior under uncertainty. These ideas are set forth, for example, in Becker's essay, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 1968, and in Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, 1974. Empirical studies related to this approach indicate that the type of crime committed by a certain group of individuals may to a large extent be explained by an individual's human capital (and hence, education). These empirical studies have also shown that the probability of getting caught has a more deterrent effect on criminality than the term of the punishment. Economic Discrimination Another example of Becker's unconventional application of the theory of rational, optimizing behavior is his analysis of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. This was Becker's first significant research contribution, published in his book entitled, The Economics of Discrimination, 1957. Discrimination is defined as a situation where an economic agent is prepared to incur a cost in order to refrain from an economic transaction, or from entering into an economic contract, with someone who is characterized by traits other than his/her own with respect to race or sex. Becker demonstrates that such behavior, in purely analytical terms, acts as a "tax wedge" between social and private economic rates of return. The explanation is that the discriminating agent behaves as if the price of the good or service purchased from the discriminated agent were higher than the price actually paid, and the selling price to the discriminated agent is lower than the price actually obtained. Discrimination thus tends to be economically detrimental not only to those who are discriminated against, but also to those who practice discrimination. Becker's Influence Gary Becker's analysis has often been controversial and hence, at the outset, met with scepticism and even distrust . Despite this, he was not discouraged, but persevered in developing his research, gradually gaining increasing acceptance among economists for his ideas and methods.

A not insignificant influence may also be discerned in other social sciences. Various aspects of demography constitute one example, particularly in regard to fertility, parents' efforts to ensure their children's education and development, as well as inheritance. Additional examples are research on discrimination in the labor market, and crime and punishment. But Becker has also had an indirect impact on scientific approaches in social sciences other than economics; more frequently than in the past, sociologists and political scientists work with models based on theories of "rational choice".

The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1992

Presentation Speech by Professor Assar Lindbeck of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, December 10, 1992. Translation of the Swedish text

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen, Gary Becker has made it his task to extend the analytical domain of what he calls "an economic approach" to various social issues. Now it is important to bear in mind that what Becker calls "an economic approach" does not mean that individuals are assumed to strive solely for economic gain. Non-pecuniary, and indeed also altruistic, aspects are part of Becker's analysis alongside of pecuniary aspects. Therefore, the analysis should perhaps more appropriately be characterized as a theory of rational choice, i.e. of purposeful behavior, rather than as a traditional "economic approach."

Such a concept of research might perhaps, when looked at superficially, seem trivial. But that is precisely what it is not. Human behavior in the areas where Becker has conducted his studies has hitherto often been assumed to be unexplained, habitual behavior, rather than founded on rational calculations. Moreover, had Becker's approach been trivial, it would hardly have given rise to the amount of criticism and protest it was plagued with when first launched.

An important application of Becker's model of analysis is his studies of education and on-the-job training, i.e. investments in human capital, as they are now called. With the aid of this concept, Becker has developed, and empirically tested, an explicit theory of the wage structure in society and its development over time. Researchers after Becker have used the same method of analysis, to explain among other things, such as diverse phenomena as economic growth, the composition of trade, and investment in the sphere of health.

Another of Becker's important contributions is his analysis of the role of the family, or the household, in society. In traditional theory, the household was supposed to have a choice between income, and by means of this income, consumption of purchased consumer goods on the one hand, and leisure on the other hand. Becker's basic idea is rather to look upon the household as "a small factory" producing services for the members of the household with an input of time and purchased consumer goods, the latter being regarded as intermediate inputs in the production process taking place in the household.

This analysis is an interesting example of how a new angle to an old question can lead to completely new insights. In the context of this alternative approach, a wage rise for example, leads to a shift to less time-consuming production of the services produced within the household. Rising wages on the open market make it more costly to have one member of the family specializing in household production (e.g. child care). Therefore, parts of the earlier social and economic functions of the family are moved to other institutions such as businesses, schools, day care centers for children and various public institutions. This development constitutes a stimulus to work outside the home, a stimulus that also makes parents choose to have fewer children, investing rather in more education for the children they choose to have. Becker uses his theory to explain the historical decline of fertility in the industrialized countries, and the differences in fertility between countries, and between urban and rural areas.

Becker has also applied his theory to the area of "crime and punishment." He assumes that, except for a limited number of psychopaths, individuals who behave criminally react in predictable ways to different stimuli in the form of benefits and costs of criminal activities. This theory seems to provide realistic predictions about what groups of citizens can be expected to commit specific types of crime. The empirical studies conducted in connection with this theory also indicate that an increase in the probability of being convicted has a more discouraging effect on criminality than has the harshness of the punishment.

Yet another application concerns discrimination, with regard to race and sex, on the job and housing markets. Becker shows that such behavior works, purely analytically, as a "tax wedge," i.e. a marginal tax, between social and private economic returns. Discrimination, therefore, tends to harm economically, not only the party subjected to discrimination but also the party carrying out discrimination.

I now turn to you, Professor Becker: You have always chosen important social issues for your research agenda, such as population growth, the role of the family in society, the importance of education and on-the-job training, crime and punishment, and discrimination. You have, thanks to your creative and often provocative research strategy, widened the domain of models of "rational choice." It is a pleasure to convey to you the warmest congratulations from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and to ask you to receive, from the hands of His Majesty the King, the 1992 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

From Nobel Lectures, Economics 1991-1995, Editor Torsten Persson, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1997

Gary S. Becker – Autobiography

I was born in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, a little coal mining town in Eastern Pennsylvania, where my father owned a small business. He had first gone into business for himself after leaving Montreal and his family for the United States when he was only sixteen-years old. He moved many times in the eastern United States before settling in Pottsville in the mid-1920s. My two sisters, Wendy and Natalie, and brother, Marvin, were also born there. However, when I was four or five we moved to Brooklyn, New York, where my father became a partner in another business. I went to elementary school and high school in Brooklyn. I was a good student, but until age sixteen was more interested in sports than intellectual activities. At that time I had to decide between being on the handball and math teams since they met during the same time period. It was indicative of my shift in priorities that I chose math, although I was better at handball. My father had left school in Montreal after the 8th grade because he was eager to make money. My mother - whose family emigrated from Eastern Europe to New York City when she was six months old - also left after the 8th grade because girls were not expected to get much education. There were only a few books in our house, but my father kept up with the political and financial news, and my older sister read a lot. After my father lost most of his sight, I had the task of reading him stock quotations and other reports on financial developments. Perhaps that stimulated my interest in economics, although I was rather bored by it. We had many lively discussions in the house about politics and justice. I believe this does help explain why by the time I finished high school, my interest in mathematics was beginning to compete with a desire to do something useful for society. These two interests came together during my freshman year at Princeton, when I accidentally took a course in economics, and was greatly attracted by the mathematical rigor of a subject that dealt with social organization. During the following summer I read several books on economics. To be financially independent more quickly, I decided at the end of my first year to graduate in three years, a seldom used option at Princeton. I had to take a few extra courses during the next year, and I chose reading courses in modern algebra and differential equations for the summer afterwards. For the equations course, I was given a set of unpublished lectures that emphasized existence proofs and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations. I learned a lot about such proofs, but very little about actually solving one of these equations. Still, my heavy investment in mathematics at Princeton prepared me well for the increasing use of mathematics in economics. I began to lose interest in economics during my senior (third) year because it did not seem to deal with important social problems. I contemplated transferring to sociology, but found that subject too difficult. Fortunately, I decided to go to the University of Chicago for graduate work in economics. My first encounter in 1951 with Milton Friedman's course on microeconomics renewed my excitement about economics. He emphasized that economic theory was not a game played by clever academicians, but was a powerful tool to analyze the real world. His course was filled with insights both into the structure of economic theory and its application to practical and significant questions. That course and subsequent contacts with Friedman had a profound effect on the direction taken by my research. While Friedman was clearly the intellectual leader, Chicago had a first class group of economists who were doing innovative research. Especially important to me were Gregg Lewis's use of economic theory to analyze labor markets, T.W. Schultz's pioneering research on human capital, Aaron Director's applications of economics to anti-trust problems, and industrial organization more generally, and L.J. Savage's research on subjective probability and the foundation of statistics. I published two articles in 1952, based on my research at Princeton. But I realized shortly after arriving in Chicago that I had to begin to learn again what economics is all about. I published nothing else until an article written with Friedman and a book based on my Ph.D. dissertation came out in 1957. The book contains the first systematic effort to use economic theory to analyze the effects of prejudice on the earnings, employment and occupations of minorities. It started me down the path of applying economics to social issues, a path that I have continued to follow. The book was very favorably reviewed in a few major journals, but for several years it had no visible impact on anything. Most economists did not think racial discrimination was economics, and sociologists and psychologists generally did not believe I was contributing to their fields. However, Friedman, Lewis, Schultz, and others at Chicago were confident I had written an important book. Support by the people I respected so highly was crucial to my willingness to persevere in the face of much hostility. After my third year of graduate study I became an Assistant Professor at Chicago. I had a light teaching load and could concentrate mainly on research. However, I felt that I would become intellectually more independent if I left the nest and had to make it on my own. After three years in that position, I turned down a much larger salary from Chicago to take a similar appointment at Columbia combined with one at the National Bureau of Economic Research, then also located in Manhattan. I have always believed this was the correct decision, for I developed greater independence and self-confidence than seems likely if I remained at Chicago. For twelve years I divided my time between teaching at Columbia and doing research at the Bureau. My book on human capital was the outgrowth of my first research project for the Bureau. During this period I also wrote frequently cited articles on the allocation of time, crime and punishment, and irrational behavior. At Columbia I began a workshop on labor economics and related subjects--anything that interested us was "related." This involved transplanting the workshop system of supervising doctoral research from Chicago - where it originated. After a few years, Jacob Mincer joined the Columbia department and became co-director of the workshop. We had a very exciting atmosphere and attracted most of the best students at Columbia. Both Mincer and I were doing research on human capital before this subject was adequately appreciated in the profession at large, and the students found it fascinating. We were also working on the allocation of time, and other subjects in the forefront of research. I married for the first time in 1954, and have two daughters from that marriage, Judy and Catherine. To provide a better family atmosphere I lived in the suburbs and commuted to Columbia and the Bureau. Eventually, I began to tire of commuting and decided either to move into New York or to leave Columbia for another university. I also was beginning to feel intellectually stale. My decision to leave was hastened by the student riots in 1968. I believed that Columbia should take a firm hand and uphold the right to free inquiry without student intimidation. The central administration wanted to do this, but it was incompetent, and was opposed by many faculty who behaved no better than the students. In 1970, I returned to Chicago, and found the atmosphere there very stimulating. The department was still powerful, especially after it had added George Stigler and Harry Johnson. Stigler and I soon became close friends, and he had a very large effect on my subsequent intellectual development. We wrote two influential papers together: a controversial one on the stability of tastes, and an early treatment of the principle-agent problem. Stigler also renewed my interest in the economics of politics; I had published a short paper on this subject in 1958. In the 1980s I published two articles that developed a theoretical model of the role of special interest groups in the political process. But mainly I worked on the family after returning to Chicago. I had much earlier used economic theory to try to understand birth rates and family size. I now began to consider the whole range of family issues: marriage, divorce, altruism toward other members, investments by parents in children, and long term changes in what families do. A series of articles in the 1970s culminated in 1981 in A Treatise on the Family . Since I continued to work on this subject, a greatly expanded edition was published in 1991. I have tried not only to understand the determinants of divorce, family size, and the like, but also the effects of changes in family composition and structure on inequality and economic growth. Most of my research on the family, and that by students and faculty at Chicago and elsewhere, was presented at the Workshop in Applications of Economics that Sherwin Rosen and I run. For a long time my type of work was either ignored or strongly disliked by most of the leading economists. I was considered way out and perhaps not really an economist. But younger economists were more sympathetic. They may disagree with my analysis, but accept the kind of problems, studied as perfectly legitimate. During the past ten years I have received much tangible evidence of this shift in professional opinion, including the presidency of the American Economic Association, the Seidman Award, and the first social science Award of Merit from the National Institute of Health. In 1983, the Sociology Department at Chicago offered me a joint appointment. I was happy to accept because this was an outstanding department. Its invitation to me gave a signal to the sociology profession that the rational choice approach was a respectable theoretical paradigm. James Coleman and I shortly thereafter began an interdisciplinary faculty seminar on rational choice in the social sciences that has been far more successful than we anticipated. Until 1985, I had published only technical books and technical articles in professional journals. At that time, I was surprised by being asked to write a monthly column for Business Week magazine. Since I feared that I could not write for a general audience, I was inclined to turn the offer down. Finally, however, I agreed to do some columns on an experimental basis. It was a wise decision, for I was forced to learn how to write about economic and social issues without using technical jargon, and in about 800 words per column. Doing this has enormously improved my capacity to discuss important subjects briefly and in simple language. The pressure of having to do a column every month also makes me stay abreast of many subjects that interest the business and professional readers of the magazine. I married for the second time in 1980 to Guity Nashat - my first wife died in 1970. This gave me two stepsons, Michael and Cyrus, to go with two daughters. Guity is the one who overcame my reluctance to do the Business Week columns. She is an historian of the Middle East with professional interests that overlap my own: on the role of women in economic and social life, and the causes of economic growth. The personal and professional compatibility she provides has made my life so much better.

From Les Prix Nobel 1992.

Gary S. Becker – Banquet Speech

Gary S. Becker's speech at the Nobel Banquet, December 10, 1992

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to express my gratitude to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the superb honor conferred on me. It is not necessary to have special reasons to be happy to be here, but I do feel especially pleased. This Prize gives recognition in the most influential way possible to all economists who endured many obstacles, criticisms, and even ridicule to study and analyze broader aspects of behavior than is traditional in economics.

During the first half of this century economics became more of a systematic science, but it also became increasingly isolated from the study of society, law and government. I was fortunate to have had outstanding teachers, several who later won this Prize. They supported my desire to use economic theory to try to understand discrimination against minorities and other questions that were much broader than those that had become the core of economics. I am grateful for their insights and encouragement.

I am not revealing any professional secrets when I state that not very long ago this type of research was not popular among most economists and other social scientists. But attitudes are changing, and there are now thriving schools of scholars in many fields using what is called the economic approach to analyze nonmarket and social behavior.

Economics is a very young science in comparison with the physical and biological sciences. Still, much is now known about economic and social life, although perhaps even more remains to be learned. For the economic and social world is mysterious, and it sometimes changes quickly and in surprising fashion. Every time we peel away some of the mystery, deeper challenges rise to the surface.

Economics surely does not provide a romantic vision of life. But the widespread poverty, misery, and crises in many parts of the world, much of it unnecessary, are strong reminders that understanding economic and social laws can make an enormous contribution to the welfare of people.

FromLes Prix Nobel 1992.