第一篇：經濟類英文頂級期刊目錄

American Economic Review

Econometrica

Journal of Political Economy Quarterly Journal of Economics Review of Economic Studies 一流期刊：

Economic Journal

Games and Economic Behavior International Economic Review Journal of Econometrics

Journal of Economic Theory Journal of Finance

Journal of Labor Economics Journal of Monetary Economics Rand Journal of Economics

Review of Economics and Statistics Journal of Financial Economics Review of Financial Studies

第二篇：國內英文學術期刊目錄

國內英文學術期刊目錄

序 號

英文刊名

中文刊名

Academic Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University

西安交通大學學報(英)

Acta Anatomica Sinica

聲學學報(英)

Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica

生物化學與生物物理學報(英)

Acta Mathematica Scientia

地質學報(英)

Acta Mathematica Sinica

數學物理學報(英)

Acta Mathematicae Applicatae Sinica

應用數學學報(英)

Acta Mechanica Sinica(English Series)

力學學報(英)

Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica

固體力學學報(英)

Acta Metallurgica Sinica

金屬學報(英)

Acta Meteorologica Sinica

氣象學報(英)

Acta Oceanologica Sinica

海洋學報(英)

Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica

中國藥理學報(英)

Acta Seismologica Sinica

地震學報(英)14

Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

大氣科學進展(英)

Aerospace China

中國航天(英)

Agricultural Science & Technology

農業科學與技術(英)

Agricultural Sciences in China

中國農業科學(英)

Algebra Colloquium

代數集刊(英)

Analysis in Theory and Applications

分析、理論與應用(英)

Annals of Differential Equations

微分子方程年刊(英)

Applied Geophysics

應用地球物理(英)

Applied Mathematics and Mechanics

應用數學和力學(英)

Applied Mathematics B: Journal of Chinese Universities

高校應用數學學報B 輯(英)

Asian Journal of Andrology

亞洲男性學雜志(英)

Biomedical and Environmental Sciences

生物醫學與環境科學(英)

Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

中國科學院院刊(英)

Cell Research

細胞研究(英)

Cellular & Molecular Immunology

細胞與分子免疫(英)

Chemical Research in Chinese Universities

高等學校化學研究(英)

China & World Economy

中國與世界經濟(英)

China Chemical Reporter

中國化工報導(英)

China City Planning Review

城市規劃(英)

China Coal

中國煤炭(英)

China Foundry

中國鑄造(英)

China Ocean Engineering

中國海洋工程(英)36

China Oil & Gas

中國油氣(英)

China Particuology

中國顆粒學報(英)

China Petroleum Processing and Petrochemical Technology

中國煉油與石油化工(英)

China Standardization

中國標準化(英)

China Tibetology

中國藏學(英)

China Welding

中國焊接(英)

China's Refractories

中國耐火材料(英文)

Chinese Annals of Mathematics,Series B

數學年刊B 輯(英)

Chinese Chemical Letters

中國化學快報(英)

Chinese Forestry Siience and Technology

中國林業科技(英)

Chinese Geographical Science

中國地理科學(英)

Chinese Journal of Aeronautics

中國航空學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics

中國天文和天體物理學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Biomedical Engineering

中國生物醫學工程學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Cancer Research

中國癌癥研究(英)

Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering

中國化學工程學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics

化學物理學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Chemistry

中國化學(英)

Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology

中國腫瘤臨床(英)

Chinese Journal of Electronics

中國電子雜志(英)

Chinese Journal of Geochemistry

中國地球化學學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine

中國結合醫學雜志(英)

Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering

機械工程學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Nuclear Physics

核物理(英)

Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology

中國海洋湖沼學報(英)

Chinese Journal of Polar Science

極地研究(英)62

Chinese Journal of Polymer Science

高分子科學(英)

Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment

中國人口·資源與環境(英)

Chinese Journal of Reactive Polymers

離子交換與吸附(英)

Chinese Journal of Structural Chemistry

結構化學

Chinese Journal of Traumatology

中華創傷雜志(英)

Chinese Medical Journal

中華醫學雜志(英)

Chinese Medical Sciences Journal

中國醫學科學雜志(英)

Chinese Optics of Letters

中國光學通訊(英)

Chinese Physics

中國物理(英)

Chinese Physics Letters

中國物理快報(英)

Chinese Quarterly Journal of Mathematics

數學季刊(英)

Chinese Railways

中國鐵路(英)

Chinese Science Bulletin

科學通報(英)

CIC China Communicatins

中國通信學報(英)

Communication of Pure and Applied Analysis

純粹與應用分析通訊(英)

Communications in Nonlinear Science & Numerical Simulation

非線性科學與數值模擬通訊(英)

Communications in Theoretical Physics

理論物理通訊(英)

Computer Aided Drafting, Design and Manufacturing

計算機輔助繪圖設計與制造(英)

Contemporary International Relations

現代國際關系(英)

Continental Dynamics

大陸動力學(英)

Developmental & Reproductive Biology

發育與生殖生物學學報(英)

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

地震工程與工程振動(英)

Earthquake Research in China

中國地震研究(英)

Ecological Economy

生態經濟(英)

Electricity

電氣(英)

Electronic Science and Technology of China

中國電子科技(英)

Engineering Sciences

中國工程科學(英)

Entomologia Sinica

中國昆蟲科學(英)

Episodes

地質幕(英)

Experimental Petroleum Geology

石油實驗地質(英)

Eye Science

眼科學(英)

Forecasting

預測(英)

Forestry and Society

林業與社會(英)

Forestry Studies in China

中國林學(英)

Frontiers of Agriculture in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·農學

Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·建筑與土 木工程

Frontiers of Biology in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·生物學

Frontiers of Business Research in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·工商管理 研究

Frontiers of Chemical Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·化學工程

Frontiers of Chemistry in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·化學

Frontiers of Computer Science in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·計算機科 學

Frontiers of Earth Science in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·地球科學

Frontiers of Economics in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·經濟學

Frontiers of Education in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·教育學

Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·電氣與電 子工程

Frontiers of Energy and Power Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·能源與動 力工程

Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·環境科學 與工程

Frontiers of Forestry in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·林學

Frontiers of History in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·歷史學

Frontiers of Law in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·法學

112

Frontiers of Literary Studies in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·文學研究

113

Frontiers of Materials Science in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·材料科學

114

Frontiers of Mathematics in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·數學

115

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·機械工程

116

Frontiers of Medicine in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·醫學

117

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·哲學

118

Frontiers of Physics in China

中國高等學校學術文摘·物理學

119

Genomics、Proteomics & Bioinformatics

基因組蛋白質組與生物信息學報(英)

120

Geospatial Information Science

地球空間信息科學學報(英)

121

Geotectonica et Metallogenia

大地構造與成礦學(英)

122

Global Geology

世界地質(英)

123

High Technology Letters

高技術通訊(英)

124

Immunology in China

中國免疫學雜志(英)

125

Insect Science

中國昆蟲科學(英)126

International Journal of Automation and Computing

國際自動化與計算雜志(英)

127

International Journal of Marine Science and Application

哈爾濱工程大學學報(英)

128

International Journal of Medicine

世界醫學雜志(英)

129

International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials

礦物冶金與材料學報(英)

130

International Journal of Plant Engineering and Management

國際設備工程與管理(英)

131

International Journal of Sediment Research

國際泥沙研究(英)

132

Journal of Acupuncture and Tuina Science

針灸推拿醫學(英)

Journal of Ancient Civilizations

古代文明雜志(英)

134

Journal of Asian Natural Products Research

亞洲天然物產研究(英)

135

Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology

北京理工大學學報(英)

136

Journal of Bionic Engineering

仿生工程學報(英)

137

Journal of Central South University of Technology

中南工業大學學報(英)

138

Journal of China Ordnance

兵工學報(英)

139

Journal of China University of Geosciences

中國地質大學學報(英)

140

Journal of China University of Mining & Technology 中國礦業大學學報(英)

141

Journal of Chinese Geography

中國地理(英)

142

Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences

中國藥學(英)

143

Journal of Chongqing University

重慶大學學報(英)

144

Journal of Coal Science & Engineering(China)

煤炭學報(英)

145

Journal of Computational Mathematics

計算數學(英)

146

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

計算機科學技術學報(英)

147

Journal of Control Theory and Applications

控制理論與應用(英)

148

Journal of Donghua University

東華大學學報(英)

149

Journal of Earth Science

地球科學學刊

150

Journal of Earthqueake Prediction Research

地震預報(英)

151

Journal of Electronic Science and Technology of China

中國電子科技

152

Journal of Electronics(China)

電子科學學刊(英)

153

Journal of Environmental Sciences

環境科學學報(英)

154

Journal of Forestry Research

林業研究(英)

155 Journal of Geographical Sciences

地理學報(英)

156

Journal of Geoscientific Research in Northeast Asia

東北亞地學研究(英)

157

Journal of Geriatric Cardiology

老年心臟病學雜志(英)

158

Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology

哈爾濱工業大學學報(英)

159

Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology

華中科技大學學報(醫學英德文

(Medical Science)

版)

160

Journal of Hydrodynamics

水動力學研究與進展(英)

161

Journal of Integrative Plant Biology

植物學報(英)

162

Journal of Iron and Steel Research

鋼鐵研究學報(英)

163

Journal of Materials Science & Technology

材料科學技術(英)

164

Journal of Medical Colleges of PLA

解放軍軍醫大學學報(英)

165

Journal of Microbiology and Immunology

中華微生物學和免疫學雜志(英)

166

Journal of Mountain Science

山地科學學報(英)

167

Journal of Nanjing Medical University

南京醫科大學學報(英)

168

Journal of Natural Gas Chemistry

天然氣化學(英)

169

Journal of Northeast Agricultural University

東北農業大學學報(英)

170

Journal of Ocean University of China

中國海洋大學學報(自然科學英 文版)

171

Journal of Otology

中華耳科學雜志(英)

172

Journal of Partial Differential Equations

偏微分方程(英文)

173

Journal of Rare Earths 稀土學報(英)

174

Journal of Reproduction and Contraception

生殖與避孕(英)

175

Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University

上海交通大學學報(英)

176

Journal of Shanghai Second Medical University

上海第二醫科大學學報(外文版)

177

Journal of Shanghai University

上海大學學報(英)

178

Journal of Southeast University

東南大學學報(英)

179

Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University

西南交通大學學報(英)

180

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics

系統工程與電子技術(英)181

Journal of Systems Science and Complexity

系統科學與復雜性學報(英)

182

Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering

系統科學與系統工程學報(英)

183

Journal of Thermal Science

熱科學學報(英)

184

Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine

中醫雜志(英)

185

Journal of Tropical Meteorology

熱帶氣象學報(英)

186

Journal of Wuhan University of Technology(Materials Science Edition)

武漢理工大學學報材料科學(英)

187

Journal of Zhejiang University Science

浙江大學學報(英)

188

Marine Science Bulletin

海洋科學通報(英)

189

Materials Science and Technology

材料科學與工藝(英)

190

Molecular Plant

分子植物(英)

191

Natural Disaster Reduction in China

中國減災(英)

192

Neural Regeneration Research

中國神經再生研究(英)

193

Neuroscience Bulletin

神經科學通報(英)

194

Northeastern Mathematical Journal

東北數學(英)

195

Nuclear Science and Techniques

核科學與技術(英)

196

Numerical Mathematics A Journal of Chinese Universities English Series

高等學校計算數學學報(英)

197

Optoelectronics Letters

光電子快報(英)

198

Pedosphere

土壤圈(英)

199

Petroleum Forum

油氣論壇(英)

200

Petroleum Science

石油科學(英)

201

Plasma Science and Technology

等離子體科學和技術(英)

202

Progress in Natural Science

自然科學進展(英文)

203

Rare Metals

稀有金屬(英)

204

Rice Science

水稻科學(英)

205

Science Foundation in China

中國科學基金(英)

206

Science in China Series A

中國科學A 輯(英)

207

Science in China Series B

中國科學B 輯(英)

208

Science in China Series C

中國科學C 輯(英)

209

Science in China Series D

中國科學D 輯(英)

210

Science in China Series E

中國科學E 輯(英)

211

Science in China Series F

中國科學F 輯(英)

212

Science in China Series G

中國科學G 輯(英)

213

Scientia Geologica Sinica

中國地質科學(英)

214

Semiconductor Photonics and Technology

半導體光子學與技術(英)

215

Social Sciences in China

中國社會科學(英)

216

South China Journal of Cardiology

嶺南心血管病雜志(英)

217

The Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology

中德臨床腫瘤學雜志(英)

218

The Journal of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications

中國郵電高校學報(英)

219

Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics

南京航空航天大學學報(英)

220

Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China

中國有色金屬學報(英)

221

Transactions of Tianjin University

天津大學學報(英)

222

Tsinghua Science and Technology

清華大學學報自然科學版(英)

223

Virologica Sinica

中國病毒學(英)

224

Water Science and Engineering

水科學與水工程

225

World Journal of Acupuncture-Moxibustion

世界針灸雜志(英)

226

World Journal of Gastroenterology

世界胃腸病學雜志(英)227

Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences

武漢大學學報(英)

第三篇：一篇經濟類英文論文(含中文翻譯)

The Problem of Social Cost

社會成本問題

RONALD COASE 羅納德·科斯

Ronald Coase is Professor Emeritus at University of Chicago LawSchool and a Nobel Laureate in Economics.This article is fromThe Journal of Law and Economics(October 1960).Several passages devoted to extended discussions of legal decisions

have been omitted.羅納德·科斯在芝加哥大學法學院名譽教授和諾貝爾經濟學獎得主。本文是其外法學與經濟學雜志（1960年10月）。專門的法律問題的決定的延伸討論的幾個

段落已被省略。

I.THE PROBLEM TO BE EXAMINED This paper is concerned with those actions of business firms which have harm-ful effects on others.The standard example is that of a factory the smoke from which has harmful effects on those occupying neighbouring properties.The economic analysis of such a situation has usually proceeded in terms of a divergence between the private and social product of the factory, in which economists have largely followed the treatment of Pigou in The Economies of Welfare.The conclusion to which this kind of analysis seems to have led most economists is that it would be desirable to make the owner of the factory li-able for the damage caused to those injured by the smoke, or alternatively, to place a tax on the factory owner varying with the amount of smoke produced and equivalent in money terms to the damage it would cause, or finally, to exclude the factory from residential districts(and presumably from other areas in which the emission of smoke would have harmful effects on others).It is my contention that the suggested courses of action are inappropriate, in that they lead to results which are not necessarily, or even usually, desirable.一、要檢查的問題

本文關注的是這些行動的企業有傷害他人有用的影響。標準的例子是，一個工廠的煙霧從那些占領鄰近物業的有害影響。在這種情況下的經濟分析，通常已在工廠的私人和社會產品之間的分歧方面著手，在經濟學家們基本上遵循治療庇古福利經濟。這種分析的結論，似乎使大多數經濟學家是工廠里的煙霧，或者受傷的人造成的損害能夠使雇主，這將是可取的，上放置一個稅在金錢方面的損害，或最后，它會導致排除住宅區（大概是從其他地區排放的煙霧將有對他人有害影響）工廠廠主不同的金額產生的煙霧，相當于。行動的建議的課程是不合適的，因為它們導致的結果是不一定，甚至是通常情況下，可取的，它是我的論點。

II.THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be made.The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong.We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature.To avoid the harm to, B would inflict harm on A.The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.I instanced in my previous article the case of a confectioner the noise and vibrations from whose machinery disturbed a doctor in his work.To avoid harming the doctor would inflict harm on the confectioner.The problem posed by this case was essentially whether it was worth while, as a result of restricting the methods of production which could be used by the confectioner, to secure more doctoring at the cost of a reduced supply of confectionery products.Another example is afforded by the problem of straying cattle which destroy crops on neighbouring land.If it is inevitable that some cattle will stray, all increase in the supply of meat can only be obtained at the expense of a decrease in the supply of crops.The nature of the choice is clear: meat or crops.What answer should be given is, of course, not clear unless we know the value of what is obtained as well as the value of what is sacrificed to obtain it.To give another example, Professor George J.Stigler instances the contamination of a stream.If we assume that the harmful effect of the pollution is that it kills the fish, the question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible.It goes almost without saying that this problem has to be looked at in total and at the margin.二、互惠性的問題

傳統的做法往往掩蓋作出的選擇，自然。這個問題通常被認為作為一個在B上一個敵人造成的傷害和什么要決定的是：我們應該如何抑制一個？但這是錯誤的。我們正在處理的互惠性質的問題。為了避免傷害，B將A上造成的危害，真正的問題，必須決定是：應該允許A損害B或應允許B傷害嗎？問題是要避免更嚴重的傷害。我在我以前的文章中實例化一個糕點師的噪音和振動機械不安醫生在他的工作情況。為了避免傷及醫生會造成傷害的糕點。基本上這種情況下所造成的問題是它是否值得，作為一種限制方法可以用于糕點生產的結果，以爭取更多的糖果產品的供應減少，成本篡改。另一個例子是給予由偏離破壞鄰近土地上的農作物的牛的問題。如果這是不可避免的，一些牛會偏離，只能獲得所有的肉類供應增加作物供應減少開支。選擇的性質是明確的：肉類或農作物。應給予什么樣的答案是，當然，不明確的，除非我們知道得到什么價值，以及什么犧牲得到它的價值。給另一個例如，教授喬治·J.斯蒂格勒實例流的污染。如果我們假定污染的有害影響是，它殺死的魚，將要決定的問題是：是魚的價值損失大于或小于流的污染，使產品的價值。當然，幾乎沒有說，這個問題要看著總保證金。

III.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I propose to start my analysis by examining a case in which most economists would presumably agree that the problem would be solved in a compeletely satisfactory manner: when the damaging business has to pay for all damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly(strictly this means that the operation of a pricing system is without cost).A good example of the problem under discussion is afforded by the case of straying cattle which destroy crops growing on neighbouring land.Let us sup-pose that a farmer and cattle-raiser are operating on neighbouring properties.Let us further suppose that, without any fencing between the properties, an increase in the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd increases the total damage to the farmer’s crops.What happens to the marginal damage as the size of the herd increases is another matter.This depends on whether the cattle tend to follow one another or to roam side by side, on whether they tend to be more or less restless as the size of the herd increases and on other similar factors.For my immediate purpose, it is immaterial what assumption is made about marginal damage as the size of the herd increases.Given that the cattle-raiser is liable for the damage caused, the additional annual cost imposed on the cattle-raiser if he increased his herd from, say, 2 to 3 steers is $3 and in deciding on the size of the herd, he will take this into account along with his other costs.That is, he will not increase the size of the herd unless the value of the additional meat produced(assuming that the cattle-raiser slaughters the cattle)is greater than the additional costs that this will entail, including the value of the additional crops destroyed.Of course, if, by the employment of dogs, herdsmen, aeroplanes, mobile radio and other means, the amount of damage can be reduced, these means will be adopted when their cost is less than the value of the crop which they prevent being lost.Given that the annual cost of fencing is $9, the cattle-raiser who wished to have a herd with 4 steers or more would pay for fencing to be erected and maintained, assuming that other means of attaining the same end would not do so more cheaply.When the fence is erected, the marginal cost due to the liability for damage becomes zero, except to the extent that an increase in the size of the herd necessitates a stronger and therefore more expensive fence because more steers are liable to lean against it at the same time.But, of course, it may be cheaper for the cattle-raiser not to fence and to pay for the damaged crops, as in my arithmetical example, with 3 or fewer steers.It might be thought that the fact that the cattle-raiser would pay for all crops damaged would lead the farmer to increase his planting if a cattle-raiser came to occupy the neighbouring property.But this is not so.If the crop was previously sold in conditions of perfect competition, marginal cost was equal to price for the amount of planting undertaken and any expansion would have reduced the profits of the farmer.In the new situation, the existence of crop damage would mean that the farmer would sell less on the open market but his receipts for a given production would remain the same, since the cattle-raiser would pay the market price for any crop damaged.Of course, if cattle-raising commonly involved the destruction of crops, the coming into existence of a cattle-raising industry might raise the price of the crops involved and farmers would then extend their planting.But I wish to confine my attention to the individual farmer.I have said that the occupation of a neighbouring property by a cattle-raiser would not cause the amount of production, or perhaps more exactly the amount of planting, by the farmer to increase.In fact, if the cattle-raising has any effect, it will be to decrease the amount of planting.The reason for this is that, for any given tract of land, if the value of the crop damaged is so great that the receipts from the sale of the undamaged crop are less than the total costs of cultivating that tract of land, it will be profitable for the farmer and the cattle-raiser to make a bargain whereby that tract of land is left uncultivated.This can be made clear by means of an arithmetical example.Assume initially that the value of the crop obtained from cultivating a given tract of land is $12 and that the cost incurred in cultivating this tract of land is $10, the net gain from cultivating the land being $2.I assume for purposes of simplicity that the farmer owns the land.Now assume that the cattle-raiser starts operations on the neighbouring property and that the value of the crops damaged is $1.In this case $11 is obtained by the farmer from sale on the market and $1 is obtained from the cattle-raiser for damage suffered and the net gain remains $2.Now suppose that the cattle-raiser finds it profitable to increase the size of his herd, even though the amount of damage rises to $3;which means that the value of the additional meat production is greater than the additional costs, including the additional $2 payment for damage.But the total payment for damage is now $3.The net gain to the farmer from cultivating the land is still $2.The cattle-raiser would be better off if the farmer would agree not to cultivate his land for any payment less than $3.The farmer would be agreeable to not cultivating the land for any payment greater than $2.There is clearly room for a mutually satisfactory bargain which would lead to the abandonment of cultivation.* But the same argument applies not only to the whole tract cultivated by the fanner but also to any subdivision of it.Suppose, for example, that the cattle have a well-defined route, say, to a brook or to a shady area.In these circumstances, the amount of damage to the crop along the route may well be great and if so, it could be that the farmer and the cattle-raiser would find it profitable to make a bargain whereby the farmer would agree not to cultivate this strip of land.But this raises a further possibility.Suppose that there is such a well de-fined route.Suppose further that the value of the crop that would be obtained by cultivating this strip of land is $10 but that the cost of cultivation is $11.In the absence of the cattle-raiser, the land would not be cultivated.However, given the presence of the cattle-raiser, it could well be that if the strip was cultivated, the whole crop would be destroyed by the cattle.In which case, the cattle-raiser would be forced to pay $10 to the farmer.It is true that the farmer would lose $1.But the cattle-raiser would lose $10.Clearly this is a situation which is not likely to last indefinitely since neither party would want this to happen.The aim of the farmer would be to induce the cattle-raiser to make a payment in return for an agreement to leave this land uncultivated.The farmer would not be able to obtain a payment greater than the cost of fencing off this piece of land nor so high as to lead the cattle-raiser to abandon the use of the neighbouring property.What payment would in fact be made would depend on the shrewdness of the farmer and the cattle-raiser as bargain-ers.But as the payment would not be so high as to cause the cattle-raiser to abandon this location and as it would not vary with the size of the herd, such an agreement would not affect the allocation of resources but would merely alter the distribution of income and wealth as between the cattle-raiser and the farmer.I think it is clear that if the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly, the reduction in the value of production elsewhere will be taken into account in computing the additional cost involved in increasing the size of the herd.This cost will be weighed against the value of the additional meat production and, given perfect competition in the cattle industry, the allocation of resources in cattle-raising will be optimal.What needs to be emphasized is that the fall in the value of production elsewhere which would be taken into account in the costs of the cattle-raiser may well be less than the damage which the cattle would cause to the crops in the ordinary course of events.This is because it is possible, as a result of market transactions, to discontinue cultivation of the land.This is desirable in all cases in which the damage that the cattle would cause, and for which the cattle-raiser would be willing to pay, exceeds the amount which the farmer would pay for use of the land.In conditions of perfect competition, the amount which the farmer would pay for the use of the land is equal to the difference between the value of the total production when the factors are employed on this land and the value of the additional product yielded in their next best use(which would be what the farmer would have to pay for the factors).If damage exceeds the amount the farmer would pay for the use of the land, the value of the additional product of the factors employed elsewhere would exceed the value of the total product in this use after damage is taken into account.It follows that it would be desirable to abandon cultivation of the land and to release the factors employed for production elsewhere.A procedure which merely provided for payment for damage to the crop caused by the cattle but which did not allow for the possibility of cultivation being discontinued would result in too small an employment of factors of production in cattle-raising and too large an employment of factors in cultivation of the crop.But given the possibility of market transactions, a situation in which damage to crops exceeded the rent of the land would not endure.Whether the cattle-raiser pays the farmer to leave the land uncultivated or himself rents the land by paying the land-owner an amount slightly greater than the farmer would pay(if the farmer was himself renting the land), the final result would be the same and would maximise the value of production.Even when the farmer is induced to plant crops which it would not be profitable to cultivate for sale on the market, this will be a purely short-term phenomenon and may be expected to lead to an agreement under which the planting will cease.The cattle-raiser will remain in that location and the marginal cost of meat production will be the same as before, thus having no long-run effect on the allocation of resources.三、損害賠償責任的定價制度 我建議開始我的分析，通過審查案件，其中多數經濟學家大概會同意將在完全令人滿意的方式解決問題的破壞性業務時支付所有所造成的損害和定價體系工程進展順利（嚴格來說，這意味著定價制度的運作是無成本）。

正在討論的問題的一個很好的例子是誤入牛毀壞莊稼鄰近土地上生長的情況下給予。讓我們支持對一個農民和牛募集鄰近物業經營。讓我們進一步假設，沒有任何圍欄之間的屬性，在牛募集的畜群規模的增加而增加農民的作物的總傷害。會發生什么情況，以增加畜群的大小的邊際損害的，則是另一回事。這取決于牛是否會跟隨一個或是否他們往往是牛群的增加和規模上其他類似的因素或多或少不安，漫游并排。對于我的直接目的，它是無關緊要的假設邊際損害為增加畜群的大小。

鑒于這是承擔，造成損害的額外費用的牛的序幕征收，如果他增加從2至3閹他的畜群的牛是$3，并在決定牛群的大小，他將考慮到這一點，隨著他的其他費用。也就是說，他不會提高畜群的大小，除非額外的肉產生的價值（假設牛的序幕屠宰的牛）的額外費用，這將意味著，包括摧毀了其它作物的價值更大。當然，如果就業的狗，農牧民，飛機，移動無線電和其他手段，可以減少損失數額，這些手段將通過他們的成本是低于價值的作物，它們可以防止丟失。由于是在擊劍成本是$9，在牛的提出者誰希望有一群4裝載機或更多將圍籬支付到被架設和維護，假設，其他手段達到同樣的目的，不是做這樣更便宜。當圍欄架設，由于損害賠償責任的邊際成本變為零除的程度，在牛群規模的增加，需要一個更強大，因此更昂貴的圍欄，因為更多的公牛有責任向它傾斜在同一時間。但是，當然，這可能是牛募集便宜沒有圍墻受損的作物，在我算術例如，作為3個或更少的公牛，并支付。

有人可能會認為牛募集將支付所有損壞莊稼的事實將導致農民增加他的種植牛募集來占據鄰近物業。但事實并非如此。如果以前在完全競爭的條件下出售作物，邊際成本等于價格進行種植量，任何擴大農民的利潤將減少。在新形勢下，農作物損失的存在就意味著農民將在公開市場上出售的，但他的收入為一個給定的生產將保持不變，因為牛募集支付任何破壞作物的市場價格。當然，如果養牛通常涉及毀壞莊稼，到一個養牛業存在的到來可能會引發涉及農民將擴大其種植的農作物的價格。但我希望把我的個體農民的關注。

我曾經說過，占領鄰近由牛募集的屬性不會導致農民增加的生產量，或者更準確的種植量。事實上，如果有任何影響的養牛，它會減少種植量。這樣做的原因是，任何土地道，如果受損作物的價值是如此之大，從出售完好作物的收入少于培育，大片土地的總成本，這將是為農民和牛的序幕，留下大片土地荒廢，使討價還價，即有利可圖。這可以通過一個算術例子明確。最初假設，作物耕種的土地道獲得的價值是12美元，在培育這一大片土地所需的費用是$ 10，$ 2耕種土地的凈收益。我想簡單，農民擁有土地的目的。現在假設，在牛的提出者開始，損壞農作物的價值$ 1.In這種情況下$ 11獲得由農民從銷售市場和$ 1是從的牛的序幕獲得損害遭受的鄰近物業經營凈收益仍然為2美元。現在想，在牛的提出者認為它盈利增加他的畜群的大小，即使損壞的數量上升到3美元;的額外肉類生產的價值大于的額外費用，包括了額外的$ 2支付損壞。但損害的支付總額是$ 3。農民耕種土地的凈收益仍然是2元。牛的序幕，將是富裕農民都同意，如果不培養他的土地，任何支付不到3美元。農民將沒有培養任何大于$ 2支付土地的認同。顯然是這將導致放棄種植一個雙方都滿意的討價還價的余地。*但同樣的論點不僅適用于整個道由電風扇培養的，而且也給它的任何細分。假設，例如，牛有一個明確的路線，比方說，一條小溪或陰涼的區域。在這種情況下，對沿線作物受損金額也可能是巨大的，如果是這樣，可能是，農民和牛募集會發現是有利可圖的討價還價，農民同意不以培養狹長土地。

但是，這引發了進一步的可能性。假設有這樣一個罰款的好路線。進一步假設，作物的價值將獲得通過培育這個地帶是10元，但種植成本11元。在牛募集的情況下，土地不會種植。然而，給予牛募集的存在，它可能是，如果帶鋼培養，整個作物將牛銷毀。在這種情況下，牛募集將被迫支付10美元的農民。這是真正的農民將損失$1。但牛的序幕，將失去10美元。顯然，這是一個情況，這是不可能無限期地持續下去，因為任何一方都不希望這種情況發生。農民的目的是誘導牛募集的支付換取了一項協議，離開這片土地荒廢。農民將無法獲得支付大于圍欄這片土地的成本，也沒有這么高，導致牛募集放棄使用鄰近物業。哪些付款將在事實上將取決于作為討價還價的精明的農民和牛募集。但作為付款就不會那么高，容易引起牛募集放棄這個位置，因為它不會隨畜群的大小，這樣的協議不會影響資源的分配，但僅僅是改變的分布牛提出者和農民之間的收入和財富。

我認為這是明確的，如果牛募集造成的損失承擔責任和定價體系工程進展順利，其他地方減少產值將考慮在計算涉及的額外費用，提高畜群的大小。這筆費用將額外的肉類生產的價值權衡，完美的比賽，在養牛業，養牛將是最佳的資源分配。需要強調的是，牛募集費用，將考慮在其他地方的生產價值的下降可能是小于牛會導致在日常事件對農作物的損害。這是因為它是可能的，作為市場交易的結果，停止種植的土地。在所有情況下的破壞，會導致牛，牛募集愿意支付超過數額的農民支付土地使用，這是可取的。在完全競爭的條件下，農民支付土地使用量等于總生產值之間的差異的因素時，在這片土地上雇用和其他產品的價值在他們的未來產生最好的使用（這是什么農民將不得不支付的因素）。如果損害超過數量的農民支付土地使用，其他地方就業的因素更多的產品價值將超過在此使用的產品總價值的考慮后損壞。它如下放棄種植的土地，并釋放其他地方生產的因素，這將是可取的。一個程序，它只是提供付款為牛，但是這并沒有讓被停止種植的可能性造成作物受損將導致太小，養牛和太大的就業因素的生產要素的就業在作物的種植。但考慮到市場交易的可能性，這種情況在對農作物的損害超過土地租金，就不能忍受。是否牛募集支付農民離開土地荒廢，或自己租土地，由土地所有者支付金額略高于農民將支付（如果農民自己租用的土地），最終的結果將是相同的，將最大限度地提高生產的價值。即使誘導農民種莊稼，它不會是有利可圖的培養，在市場上出售，這將是一個純粹的短期現象，預期可能會導致根據該協議將停止種植。牛募集將保持在該位置和肉類生產的邊際成本會像以前一樣，因此，資源的分配上沒有長期的效果。

IV.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I now turn to the case in which, although the pricing system is assumed to worksmoothly(that is, costlessly), the damaging business is not liable for any of the damage which it causes.This business does not have to make a payment to those damaged by its actions.I propose to show that the allocation of resources will be the same in this case as it was when the damaging business was liable for damage caused.As I showed in the previous case that the allocation of resources was optimal, it will not be necessary to repeat this part of the argument.I return to the case of the farmer and the cattle-raiser.The farmer would suffer increased damage to his crop as the size of the herd increased.Suppose that the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd is 3 steers(and that this is the size of the herd that would be maintained if crop damage was not taken into account).Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 2 steers, up to $5 if the herd were reduced to 1 steer and would pay up to $6 if cattle-raising was abandoned.The cattle-raiser would therefore receive 53 from the farmer if he kept 2 steers instead of 3.This $3 foregone is therefore part of the cost incurred in keeping the third steer.Whether the $3 is a payment which the cattle-raiser has to make if he adds the third steer to his herd(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)or whether it is a sum of money whichhe would have received if he did not keep a third steer(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was not liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)does not affect the final result.In both cases $3 is part of the cost of adding a third steer, to be included along with the other costs.If the increase in the value of production in cattle-raising through increasing the size of the herd from 2 to 3 is greater than the additional costs that have to be incurred(including the $3 damage to crops), the size of the herd will be increased.Otherwise, it will not.The size of the herd will be the same whether the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused to the crop or not.It may be argued that the assumed starting point—a herd of 3 steers—was arbitrary.And this is true.But the farmer would not wish to pay to avoid crop damage which the cattle-raiser would not be able to cause.For example, the maximum annual payment which the farmer could be induced to pay could not exceed $9.the annual cost of fencing.And the farmer would only be willing to pay this sum if it did not reduce his earnings to a level that would cause him to abandon cultivation of this particular tract of land.Furthermore, the farmer would only be willing to pay this amount if he believed that, in the absence of any payment by him, the size of the herd maintained by the cattle-raiser would be 4 or more steers.Let us assume that this is the case.Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 3 steers, up to $6 if the herd were reduced to 2 steers, up to $8 if one steer only were kept and up to $9 if cattle-raising were abandoned.It will be noticed that the change in the starting point has not altered the amount which would accrue to the cattle-raiser if he reduced the size of his herd by any given amount.It is still true that the cattle-raiser could receive an additional $3 from the farmer if he agreed to reduce his herd from 3 steers to 2 and that the $3 represents the value of the crop that would be destroyed by adding the third steer to the herd.Although a different belief on the part of the farmer(whether justified or not)about the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser would maintain in the absence of payments from him may affect the total payment he can be induced to pay, it is not true that this different belief would have any effect on the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser will actually keep.This will be the same as it would be if the cattle-raiser had to pay for damage caused by his cattle, since a receipt foregone of a given amount is the equivalent of a payment of the same amount.It might be thought that it would pay the cattle-raiser to increase his herd above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment.And this may be true.It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer(when the cattle-raiser was liable for damage)in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planting would subsequently be abandoned(including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle-raising).But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not affect the long-run equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the cattle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle.It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them.But the ultimate result(which maximises the value of production)is independent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work without cost.四、無損害賠償責任的電價體系

現在我想談談案中，雖然定價體系工作的順利開展（即，無成本），損壞業務是不會造成任何損害承擔責任。此業務并沒有使那些破壞其行動付款。我建議，以表明在這種情況下，資源的分配將是相同的，因為它是破壞性的企業造成的損失承擔責任時。正如我在前面的例子表明，最佳的資源分配，它不會是必要的重復這部分的說法。我回到了農民和牛募集的情況下。農民會受到他的牛群的規模增加作物的傷害增加。假設牛募集的畜群的大小是3裝載機（，這將保持對作物的損害，如果不考慮畜群的大小）。那么，農民將是愿意以支付高達3美元的牛的提出者是否會減少他的畜群2裝載機，高達500如果牛群被減少到1引導和將支付高達6元如果養牛被遺棄。牛序幕從農民將因此獲得53，如果他保持2裝載機，而不是3。這個耗資3損失，因此在保持第三督導所需的費用的一部分。無論是3美元，是1支付其中的牛的提出者有，如果他增加了第三次帶領他的羊群（其中它會是在牛的提出者是否可農民對作物造成的損害）或是否它是1錢，他將已收到的，如果他不保持第三督導（這將是牛募集到農民對作物造成的損害不承擔任何責任）的總和，不影響最終結果。在這兩種情況下$ 3是第三督導，與其他費用一起被列入成本的一部分。大于，以將招致包括的$ 3損壞農作物的額外成本，通過增加大小鬼從2至3養牛生產價值的增加是否，牛群的規模將是增加。否則，它不會。畜群的大小將是相同的牛募集是否是作物或造成的損失承擔責任。

它可能被認為是武斷的假定出發點了3肉牛畜群。這是真實的。但農民不希望要避免牛募集將無法造成的農作物損失。例如，可誘導農民支付每年最高支付不能超過9美元。擊劍的成本。和農民只會愿意支付這筆如果它沒有減少他的收入水平，將導致他放棄這片土地特別是道種植。此外，農民才會愿意支付這筆款項，如果他相信，在任何由他支付的情況下，牛募集保持畜群的大小是4個或更多的指導。讓我們假設是這種情況。那么，農民將是愿意以支付高達3美元的牛的提出者是否會減少他的牛群3裝載機，6元如果牛群分別減少2裝載機，至8元，如果1轉向只被保持和上升到$9，如果養牛被遺棄。它將會看到，在起點的變化并沒有改變的金額將撥歸牛的序幕，如果他任何給定的金額減少了他的畜群規模。它是仍然真實，在牛的提出者可以接收從農民1額外的$3，如果他同意減少他的牛群3裝載機2添加第三3美元表示的，將被破壞作物的價值引導到牛群。雖然部分農民對不同的信仰，對大小牛群，牛募集將保持在他付款的情況下（是否正當與否），可能會影響他可誘發支付的總支付，它是不正確的，這種不同的信仰，實際上將保持牛群牛募集規模上有任何的影響。這將是相同的，因為它會是牛的序幕，如果不得不支付他的牛造成的損害，因為收到一個給定的金額損失相當于支付相同數額。

它可能會認為這將支付的牛的序幕，以增加他的畜群以上的規模，他希望保持已經取得了一次討價還價，以促使農民作出更大的支付總額。這可能是真實的。它在本質上是相似的農民行動（當牛募集的損害賠償責任），在培養上，為土地了與牛募集的協議的結果，種植隨后將被拋棄（包括土地，在養牛的情況下不能種植）在所有。但是，這些演習是達成協議的預賽和不影響長期均衡的位置，這是牛募集與否舉行的關于他的牛所帶來的農作物損失負責。

它是要知道是否是因為沒有建立這種權利的初始劃定不可能有沒有市場交易，轉讓和重組造成的損害不承擔責任或損害商業。但最終的結果（產值最大化）是獨立的法律地位，如果定價體系被假定為無成本。

V.THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW

The harmful effects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms.An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill.A recent case in Florida which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel.The problem of straying cattle and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination in the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rather a special case, is in fact but one example of a problem which arises in many different guises.To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, I propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases.Let us first reconsider the case of Sturges v.Bridgman which I used as an illustration of the general problem In my article on “The Federal Communica-tions Commission.” In this case, a confectioner(in Wigmore Street)used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business(one had been in opera-tion in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years).A doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises(in Wimpole Street).The confectioner’s machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner’s kitchen.It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner’s machinery made it difficult for the doctor to use his new consulting room.“In particular...the noise prevented him from examining his patients by auscultation for diseases of the chest.He also found it impossible to engage with effect in any occupation which required thought and attention.” The doctor therefore brought a legal action to force the confectioner to stop using his machinery.The courts had lit-tle difficulty in granting the doctor the injunction he sought.“Individual cases of hardship may occur in the strict carrying out of the principle upon which we found our judgment, but the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship, and would at the same time produce a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes.”

The court’s decision established that the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner from using his machinery.But, of course, it would have been possible to modify the arrangements envisaged in the legal ruling by means of a bargain between the parties.The doctor would have been willing to waive his right and allow the machinery to continue in operation if the confectioner would have paid him a sum of money which was greater than the loss of income which he would suffer from having to move to a more costly or less convenient location or from having to curtail his activities at this location or, as was suggested as a possibility, from having to build a separate wall which would deaden the noise and vibration.The confectioner would have been willing to do this if the amount he would have to pay the doctor was less than the fall in income he would suffer if he had to change his mode of operation at this location, abandon his operation or move his confectionery business to some other location.The solution of the problem depends essentially on whether the continued use of the machinery adds more to the confectioner’s income than it subtracts from doctor’s.But now consider the situation if the confectioner had won the case.The confectioner would then have had the right to continue operating his noise and vibration-generating machinery without having to pay anything to the doctor.The boot would have been on the other foot: the doctor would have had to pay the confectioner to induce him to stop using the machinery.If the doctor’s income would have fallen more through continuance of the use of this machinery than it added to the income of the confectioner, there would clearly be room for a bargain whereby the doctor paid the confectioner to stop using the machinery.That is to say, the circumstances in which it would not pay the confectioner to continue to use the machinery and to compensate the doctor for the losses that this would bring(if the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner’s using his machinery)would be those in which it would be in the interest of the doctor to make a payment to the confectioner which would induce him to discontinue the use of the machinery(if the confectioner had the right to operate the machinery).The basic conditions are exactly the same in this case as they were in the example of the cattle which destroyed crops.With costless market transactions, the decision of the courts concerning liability for damage would be without effect on the allocation of resources.It was of course the view of the judges that they were affecting the working of the economic system-and in a desirable direction.Any other decision would have had “a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes,” an argument which was elaborated by examining the example of a forge operating on a barren moor.which was later developed for residential purposes.The judges’ view that they were settling how the land was to be used would be true only in the case in which the costs of carrying out the necessary market transactions exceeded the gain which might be achieved by any rearrangement of rights.And it would be desirable to preserve the areas(Wimpole Street or the moor)for residential or professional use(by giving non-industrial users the right to stop the noise, vibration, smoke, etc., by injunction)only if the value of the additional residential facilities obtained was greater than the value of cakes or iron lost.But of this the judges seem to have been unaware.The reasoning employed by the courts in determining legal rights will often seem strange to an economist because many of the factors on which the decision turns are, to an economist, irrelevant.Because of this, situations which are, from an economic point of view, identical will be treated quite differently by the courts.The economic problem in all cases of harmful effects is how to maximise the value of production.In the case of Bass v.Gregory fresh air was drawn in through the well which facilitated the production of beer but foul air was expelled through the well which made life in the adjoining houses less pleasant.The economic problem was to decide which to choose: a lower cost of beer and worsened amenities in adjoining houses or a higher cost of beer and improved amenities.In deciding this question, the “doctrine of lost grant” is as relevant as the colour of the judge’s eyes.But it has to be remembered that the immediate question faced by the courts is not what shall be done by whom but who has the legal right to do what.It is always possible to modify by transactions on the market the initial legal delimitation of rights.And, of course, if such market transactions are costless, such a rearrangement of rights will always take place if it would lead to an increase in the value of production.五、存在問題的再目錄

業務活動的有害影響，可以承擔各種各樣的形式。早期的英國案例，涉及建筑，阻礙氣流，阻礙了風車的運作。在佛羅里達州的一個最近的案例涉及建筑的小屋投下了陰影，鄰近酒店的游泳池和日光浴地區。誤入牛和破壞性的作物，這是前兩個部分的詳細檢查，雖然它可能已經出現，而成為一個特殊的情況的問題，實際上是一個問題，在許多不同的形式出現的一個例子。為了闡明我的論點的本質，并展示其普遍適用性，我建議重新參考四個實際案例來說明。

首先，讓我們重新斯特奇斯訴布里奇曼的情況下，我在我的文章“聯邦通信委員會。”在這種情況下的一般問題的說明，糕點（Wigmore街道）使用了迫擊炮和杵在與他的業務（一直在歌劇中，60歲以上和其他在同一位置超過26年）的連接。醫生后來占據鄰近樓宇（在Wimpole街）。糕點機械醫生造成任何傷害，直到8年后，他第一次占領的前提下，他建立了一個在他對糕點的廚房花園年底診室。它然后被發現，糕點的機械噪聲和振動造成難以醫生用他的新診室。“尤其是。。噪音阻止他檢查他的病人聽診胸部疾病。他還發現了它不可能與從事任何職業，這需要思想和注意力的效果。“因此，醫生帶來了法律的行動，以迫使糕點停止使用他的機械。法院給予他尋求醫生的禁令點燃地幔困難。“在嚴格執行的原則后，我們發現我們的判斷，個別情況下可能會發生困難，但這一原則的否定甚至會導致更多的個人困難，將在同一時間產生不利影響的發展后1土地作住宅用途。“

讓我們先來法院的判決確定，醫生的權利，以防止糕點師用他的機械。但是，當然，這將有可能修改在法律裁決的安排設想通過各方之間的討價還價。醫生會愿意放棄他的權利，并讓機器繼續運作，如果糕點師將付給他一筆錢，這是大于收入的損失，他將遭受不利影響或移動到較為昂貴的不太方便的位置，或從他在這個位置，以減少活動，或者是作為一種可能性的建議，從建立一個單獨的墻，這將緩和的噪聲和振動。糕點會一直愿意這樣做，如果他將不得不支付醫生的金額小于收入下降，他將遭受如果他改變他的運作模式，在這個位置放棄他的行動或移動他的糖果業務一些其他的位置。問題的解決，根本上取決于是否繼續使用的機械增加了更多的糕點師的收入比從醫生的減去。但現在考慮的情況，如果糕點師曾贏得了這場官司。糕點，然后將有權利繼續他的噪音和振動產生的機械操作，而無需支付任何費用醫生。引導已在另一只腳：醫生將不得不支付的糕點，以誘使他停止使用機器。如果醫生的收入將通過繼續使用這種機器比它添加到糕點的收入下降，顯然是有，據此醫生支付的糕點停止使用的機械討價還價的余地。也就是說，的情況下，在其中它會不支付的糕點繼續使用機械和以彌補的損失，這會帶來醫生（如果醫生不得不以防止對糕點的用他的機器的權利）將是它會在醫生的利益作出支付的糕點，這將促使他停止使用的機器（如糕點有經營權的機械）。正是在這種情況下的基本條件相同，因為他們在牛，莊稼被毀的例子。花錢的市場交易中，有關損害賠償責任的法院的決定將是沒有對資源分配的影響。這是當然的法官認為，他們影響的經濟體系，在一個理想的方向工作。有任何其他決定“后，土地開發作住宅用途1的不利影響，”這是一個貧瘠的荒野上通過檢查一個鐵匠鋪操作系統的例子闡述論點。后來發展為住宅用途。法官認為，他們要使用的土地是如何被解決，將是真實的，只有在案件中，開展必要的市場交易的成本超過可能被重排的任何權利方面所取得的收益。，這將是可取的，如果只保留價值的住宅或專業領域（Wimpole街或沼地）（非工業用戶有權停止禁令的噪聲，振動，煙霧等，通過）獲得額外的住宿設施是大于蛋糕或丟失的鐵的價值。但法官似乎已經不知道。

在確定的法律權利由法院聘請的推理往往會經濟學家似乎很奇怪，因為許多因素上決定輪流，一個經濟學家，不相干的。正因為如此，這是的情況下，從經濟角度來看，相同的將被視為完全不同的法院。在所有情況下的有害影響的經濟問題是如何最大限度地提高生產的價值。在巴斯訴格雷戈里新鮮空氣的情況下制定通過的好，這有利于生產的啤酒，但污濁的空氣，通過在毗鄰的房子不太愉快的生活以及開除。經濟問題是決定選擇：啤酒更低的成本和惡化，毗鄰的房屋或設施的啤酒和改進設施的成本較高。在決定這個問題，“批丟失的教義”，是法官的眼睛顏色有關。但要記住，法院所面臨的切身問題不應當由誰來做什么，但誰擁有合法權利做什么。它始終是可能的修改市場上交易的初始權利的法律劃界。當然，如果這樣的市場交易是無成本，這樣的權重排總是會發生，如果它會導致增加產值。

VI.THE COST OF MARKET TRANSACTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

The argument has proceeded up to this point on the assumption(explicit in Sections III and IV and tacit in Section V)that there were no costs involved in carrying out market transactions.This is, of course, a very unrealistic assump-tion.In order to carry out a market transaction it is necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading up to a bargain, to draw up the contract, to undertake the inspection needed to make sure that the terms of the contract are being observed and so on.These operations are often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost.In earlier sections, when dealing with the problem of the rearrangement of legal rights through the market, it was argued that such a rearrangement would be made through the market whenever this would lead to an increase in the value of production.But this assumed costless market transactions.Once the costs of carrying out market transactions are taken into account it is clear that such a rearrangement of rights will only be undertaken when the increase in the value of production consequent upon the rearrangement is greater than the costs which would be involved in bringing it about.When it is less, the granting of an injunction(or the knowledge that it would be granted)or the liability to pay damages may result in an activity being discontinued(or may prevent its being started)which would be undertaken if market transactions were costless.In these conditions the initial delimitation of legal rights does have an effect on the efficiency with which the economic system operates.One arrangement of rights may bring about a greater value of production than any other.But unless this is the arrangement of rights established by the legal system, the costs of reaching the same result by altering and combining rights through the market may be so great that this optimal arrangement of rights, and the greater value of production which it would bring, may never be achieved.The part played by economic considerations in the process of delimiting legal rights will be discussed in the next section.In this section, I will take the initial delimitation of rights and the costs of carrying out market transactions as given.It is clear that an alternative form of economic organisation which could achieve the same result at less cost than would be incurred by using the market value of production to be raised.As I explained many years ago, the firm represents such an alternative to organising production through market transactions.Within the firm individual bargains between the various cooperating factors of production are eliminated and for a market transaction is substituted an administrative decision.The rearrangement of production then takes place without the need for bargains between the owners of the factors of production.A landowner who has control of a large tract of land may devote his land to various uses taking into account the effect that the interrelations of the various activities will have on the net return of the land, thus rendering unnecessary bargains between those undertaking the various activities.Owners of a large building or of several adjoining properties in a given area may act in much the same way.In effect, using our earlier terminology, the firm would acquire the legal rights of all the parties and the rearrangement of activities would not follow on a rearrangement of rights by contract, but as a result of an administrative decision as to how the rights should be used.It does not, of course, follow that the administrative costs of organizing a transaction through a firm are inevitably less than the costs of the market transactions which are superseded.But where contracts are peculiarly diffi-cult to draw up and an attempt to describe what the parties have agreed to do or not to do(e.g.the amount and kind of a smell or noise that they may make or will not make)would necessitate a lengthy and highly involved docu-ment, and, where, as is probable, a long-term contract would be desirable, it would be hardly surprising if the emergence of a firm or the extension of the activities of an existing firm was not the solution adopted on many occasions to deal with the problem of harmful effects.This solution would be adopted whenever the administrative costs of the firm were less than the costs of the market transactions that it supersedes and the gains which would result from the rearrangement of activities greater than the firm’s costs of organising them.I do not need to examine in great detail the character of this solution since I have explained what is involved in my earlier article.But the firm is not the only possible answer to this problem.The admin-istrative costs of organising transactions within the firm may also be high, and particularly so when many diverse activities are brought within the control of a single organisation.In the standard case of a smoke nuisance, which may affect a vast number of people engaged in a wide variety of activities, the adminis-trative costs might well be so high as to make any attempt to deal with the problem within the confines of a single firm impossible.An alternative solution is direct government regulation.Instead of instituting a legal system of rights which can be modified by transactions on the market, the government may im-pose regulations which state what people must or must not do and which have to be obeyed.Thus, the government(by statute or perhaps more likely through an administrative agency)may, to deal with the problem of smoke nuisance, used(e.g.that smoke preventing devices should be installed or that coal or oil should not be burned)or may confine certain types of business to certain districts(zoning regulations).The government is, in a sense, a superfirm(but of a very special kind)since it is able to influence the use of factors of production by administrative decision.But the ordinary firm is subject to cheeks in its operations because of the competition of other firms, which might administer the same activities at lower cost and also because there is always the alternative of market transactions as against organisation within the firm if the administrative costs become too great.The government is able, if it wishes, to avoid the market altogether, which a firm can never do.The firm has to make market agreements with the owners of the factors of production that it uses.Just as the government can conscript or seize property, so it can decree that factors of production should only be used in such-and-such a way.Such authoritarian methods save a lot of trouble(for those doing the organising).Furthermore, the government has at its disposal the police and the other law enforcement agencies to make sure that its regulations are carried out.It is clear that the government has powers which might enable it to get some things done at a lower cost than could a private organisation(or at any rate one without special governmental powers).But the governmental admin-istrative machine is not itself costless.It can, in fact, on occasion be extremely costly.Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the restrictive and zoning regulations, made by a fallible administration subject to political pres-sures and operating without any competitive check, will necessarily always be those which increase the efficiency with which the economic system operates.Furthermore, such general regulations which must apply to a wide variety of cases will be enforced in some cases in which they are clearly inappropriate.From these considerations it follows that direct governmental regulation will not necessarily give better results than leaving the problem to be solved by the market or the firm.But equally there is no reason why, on occasion, such governmental administrative regulation should not lead to an improvement in economic efficiency.This would seem particularly likely when, as is normally the case with the smoke nuisance, a large number of people are involved and in which therefore the costs of handling the problem through the market or the firm may be high.There is, of course, a further alternative which is to do nothing about the problem at all.And given that the costs involved in solving the problem by regulations issued by the governmental administrative machine will often be heavy(particularly if the costs are interpreted to include all the consequences which follow from the government engaging in this kind of activity), it will no doubt be commonly the case that the gain which would come from regulating the actions which give rise to the harmful effects will be less than the costs involved in government regulation.The discussion of the problem of harmful effects in this section(when the costs of market transactions are taken into account)is extremely inadequate.But at least it has made clear that the problem is one of choosing the appro-priate social arrangement for dealing with the harmful effects.All solutions have costs and there is no reason to suppose that government regulation is called for simply because the problem is not well handled by the market or the firm.Satisfactory views on policy can only come from a patient study of how, in practice, the market, firms and governments handle the problem of harmful effects.Economists need to study the work of the broker in bring-ing parties together, the effectiveness of restrictive covenants, the problems of the large-scale real-estate development company, the operation of government zoning and other regulating activities.It is my belief that economists, and policy-makers generally, have tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation.But this belief, even if justified, does not do more than suggest that government regulation should be curtailed.It does not tell us where the boundary line should be drawn.This, it seems to me, has to come from a detailed investigation of the actual results of handling the problem in different ways.But it would be unfortunate if this investigation were undertaken with the aid of a faulty economic analysis.The aim of this article is to indicate what the economic approach to the problem should be.六、考慮市場交易成本

參數已進行到這一點（在第三節和第四節和第五節默契在明確）有開展市場交易不涉及成本的假設。當然，這是一個非常不現實的假設。為了進行市場交易，這是必要的，發現它是一個愿望，處理，告知人有意愿來處理和在什么條件下，進行討價還價的談判，起草合同，進行必要的檢查，以確保合同條款等正在觀察。無論如何，以防止將進行無成本定價體系工作的世界中，許多交易，這些操作往往非常昂貴，充分昂貴。

在前面的章節中，與重排，通過市場的合法權益的問題進行處理時，有人認為，這種重排，將通過市場時，這將導致產值的增加。但這種假設不花錢的市場交易。一旦考慮到進行市場交易的成本很顯然，這樣的權重排時，將只進行重排后的生產值增加大于這將帶來約涉及的費用。當它是少，授予強制令（或將被授予的知識）或支付損害賠償的責任，可能會導致被停止活動的（或可能妨礙其正在啟動），如果市場交易是無成本的，將進行。在這種情況下，初步劃定的合法權利，也有經濟體制與經營效率的影響。一個安排的權利，可能會帶來更大的價值比任何其他的生產。但除非這是規定的權利的法律制度安排，達到相同的結果，改變，并通過市場相結合的權利的成本可能是最佳的安排，這種權利和生產更大的價值，它會帶來如此巨大，可能永遠無法實現。經濟上的考慮在劃定的法律權利的過程中發揮的部分將在下一節中討論。在本節中，我將采取初步劃定的權利和進行市場交易，給定的費用。

這是另一種形式的經濟組織可以以更低的成本實現相同的結果，將利用市場發生將使產值提高。正如我解釋了很多年前，該公司表示這種通過市場交易來組織生產的替代。在企業內部生產要素之間的各種合作的個人討價還價被淘汰，市場交易取代行政決定。然后重新安排生產，而不需要對生產要素的所有者之間討價還價的地方。一個地主有一大片土地的控制，考慮各種用途的土地純收益的效果，各項活動的相互關系，將有可能把自己的土地，從而使開展的各項活動之間的不必要的討價還價。大型建筑，或在某一領域的幾個毗鄰物業的業主可能在大致相同的方式行事。效果，在使用我們前面的術語，該公司將收購所有各方和重排的活動不會按照一個由合同權利的重排的合法權益，但作為一個行政決定的權利應該如何使用。

當然，它不遵循，通過企業組織交易的行政費用是不可避免的比被取代的市場交易成本。但合同是獨有很難邪教組織制訂和試圖說明什么各方都同意這樣做或不這樣做（如氣味或噪音，他們可能不會讓的數量和種類）將須漫長和高度參與的實況，并在那里，是可能的，長期的合同將是可取的，這將是不足為奇的，如果出現公司或擴建現有企業的活動是不是解決問題的方法通過多次處理有害影響的問題。該解決方案將通過時，該公司的行政費用不到的，它取代了市場交易的成本和收益，這將導致重排的活動大于組織他們公司的成本。我不需要非常詳細的檢查，因為我已解釋過什么是我以前的文章中涉及的這一解決方案的特點。

但該公司沒有這個問題的唯一可能的答案。該公司籌辦事務內的行政成本，也可能是高的，尤其是當許多不同的活動，在一個單一的組織控制。在煙霧滋擾的標準的情況下，這可能會影響廣大的人在從事各種各樣的活動，行政成本可能如此之高，使一個范圍內來處理這個問題的任何企圖單個企業是不可能的。另一種方法是政府直接調控。提起的權利的法律制度，這可以通過交易市場上的修改，而不是政府可能提高對法規，這說明人們必須或不能做，哪些必須遵守。因此，政府（法規或者更可能通過行政機關），處理與一定的生產方法應該或不應該被用來（應安裝防止設備的egthat煙霧或煙霧滋擾的問題，法令煤或石油不應該被燒毀）或某些地區區劃法規可能限制某些類型的業務。

從某種意義上說，政府是一個superfirm（但一個非常特殊的一種），因為它是能夠通過行政決定影響生產要素的使用。但普通的公司是在其他公司的競爭，這可能會以較低的成本管理同樣的活動，也因為其操作的臉頰，因為總是有替代市場交易，對組織在企業內部，如果行政成本成為太大了。政府是可以的，如果它希望，以避免完全的市場，堅決不能做。該公司擁有市場的協議，它使用的生產要素的所有者。正如政府可以征兵或扣押財產，所以它可以法令，生產要素只應在和這樣一種方式使用。這種專制的方法節省了很多麻煩（那些做主辦）。此外，政府已在其處置的警察和其他執法機構，以確保其法規進行。

很顯然，政府有可能使其能夠在較低的成本比私人組織（或在任何率沒有特殊的政府權力之一）做一些事情的權力。但政府的行政機本身并不是無成本的。事實上，它可以是上一次極其昂貴的。此外，也沒有理由認為，限制和區劃法規，1犯錯誤行政受到政治壓力措施和經營沒有任何競爭力的檢查，一定會永遠是那些提高效率與經濟體制的運作。此外，這樣的一般規定必須適用于種類繁多的情況下將被強制在某些情況下，他們顯然是不合適的。從這些方面考慮，政府直接監管不一定會提供更好的結果比離開市場或企業要解決的問題。但同樣沒有任何理由為什么，有時，這種政府的行政法規不應導致經濟效率的改善。這似乎特別容易時，通常是煙霧滋擾的情況下，大量的人參與和因此在處理的問題，通過市場或公司的成本可能很高。

當然，這是在所有有關問題做了進一步的替代。并給予解決的問題，由政府行政機發出的規例所涉及的費用往往是沉重的（特別是如果費用被解釋為包括從政府從事這類活動的后續的一切后果），它不會無疑是通常的情況下，增益來調節而引起的有害影響的行動將少于政府監管所涉及的費用。

在本節（當市場交易成本的考慮）的有害影響的問題的討論是非常不足。但它至少已明確表示，問題是選擇合適的處理的有害影響的社會安排。所有的解決方案成本，并沒有任何理由假設政府監管，干脆就叫市場或企業，因為這個問題沒有得到很好的處理。令人滿意的政策意見只能來自病人的研究了如何在實踐中，市場，企業和政府處理的有害影響的問題。經濟學家需要研究的經紀人帶來的各方一起工作的限制性條款的效力，大型房地產開發公司，政府區劃和其他規管活動的運作問題。這是我的信念，經濟學家和決策者，都傾向于高估的優勢，從政府監管。但這樣的信念，即使有理，不會做多建議應削減政府的監管。它并沒有告訴我們應制定邊界線。這一點，在我看來，有來自一個詳細的調查，以不同的方式處理問題的實際效果。但它會是不幸的，如果這個調查是一個錯誤的經濟分析的援助承諾。這篇文章的目的是要表明，經濟的解決問題的方法應該是什么。

VII.THE LEGAL DELIMITATION OF RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC

PROBLEM

The discussion in Section V not only served to illustrate the argument but also afforded a glimpse at the legal approach to the problem of harmful effects.The cases considered were all English but a similar selection of American cases could easily be made and the character of the reasoning would have been the same.Of course, if market transactions were costless, all that matters(questions of equity apart)is that the rights of the various parties should be well-defined and the results of legal actions easy to forecast.But as we have seen, the situation is quite different when market transactions are so costly as to make it difficult to change the arrangement of rights established by the law.In such cases, the courts directly influence economic activity.It would therefore seem desirable that the courts should understand the economic consequences of their decisions and should, insofar as this is possible without creating too much uncertainty about the legal position itself, take these consequences into account when making their decisions.Even when it is possible to change the legal delimitation of rights through market transactions, it is obviously desirable to reduce the need for such transactions and thus reduce the employment of resources in carrying them out.A thorough examination of the presuppositions of the courts in trying such cases would be of great interest but I have not been able to attempt it.Nevertheless it is clear from a cursory study that the courts have often recognized the economic implications of their decisions and are aware(as many economists are not)of the reciprocal nature of the problem.Furthermore, from time to time, they take these economic implications into account, along with other factors, in arriving at their decisions.The American writers on this subject refer to the question in a more explicit fashion than do the British.Thus, to quote Prosser on Torts, a person may make use of his own property or...conduct his own affairs at the expense of some harm to his neighbours.He may operate a factory whose noise and smoke cause some discomfort to others, so long as he keeps within reasonable bounds.It is only when his conduct is unreasonable,in the light of its utilitliy and the harm which results [italics added], that it becomes a nuisance....As it was said in an ancient case in regard to candle-making in a town,“Le utility del chose excusera le noisomeness del stink.”

The world must have factories, smelters, oil refineries, noisy ma-chinery and blasting, even at the expense of some inconvenience to those in the vicinity and the plaintiff may be required to accept some not unreasonable discomfort for the general good.The standard British writers do not state as explicitly as this that a comparison between the utility and harm produced is an element in deciding whether a harmful effect should be considered a nuisance.But similar views, if less strongly expressed, are to be found.The doctrine that the harmful effect must be substantial before the court will act is, no doubt, in part a reflection of the fact that there will almost always be some gain to offset the harm.And in the reports of individual cases, it is clear that the judges have had in mind what would be lost as well as what would be gained in deciding whether to grant an injunction or award damages.Thus, in refusing to prevent the destruction of a prospect by a new building, the judge stated: I know no general rule of common law, which...says, that building so as to stop another’s prospect is a nuisance.Was that the case, there could be no great towns;and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town...The problem which we face in dealing with actions which have harmful effects is not simply one of restraining those responsible for them.What has to be decided is whether the gain from preventing the harm is greater than the loss which would be suffered elsewhere as a result of stopping the action which produces the harm.In a world in which there are costs of rearranging the rights established by the legal system, the courts, in cases relating to nuisance, in effect, making a decision on the economic problem and determining how resources are to be employed.It was argued that the courts are conscious of this and that they often make, although not always in a very explicit fashion, a comparison between what would be gained and what lost by preventing actions which have harmful effects.But the delimitation of rights is also the result of statutory enactments.Here we also find evidence of an appreciation of the reciprocal nature of the problem.While statutory enactments add to the list of nuisances, action is also taken to legalize what would otherwise be nuisances under the common law.The kind of situation which economists are prone to consider as requiring corrective government action is, in fact, often the result of government action.Such action is not necessarily unwise.But there is a real danger that extensive government intervention in the economic system may lead to the protection of those responsible for harmful effects being carried too far.七、作者權利的法律界定及經濟問題

在第五節的討論不僅有助于說明的論點，但也給予一瞥法律途徑的有害影響的問題。考慮案件都是英語，但類似的選擇了美國的情況下可以很容易地和推理的性質本來相同。當然，如果市場交易是無成本，所有這些事項除了股權問題是，各方的權利，應該是定義和法律行動的結果很容易預測的。但是，正如我們所看到的，情況是完全不同的市場交易時，是如此昂貴，使其難以改變法律規定的權利的安排。在這種情況下，法院直接影響經濟活動。因此，這似乎是可取的，法院應了解他們的決定的經濟后果，只要這是可能的，沒有創造太多的法律地位本身的不確定性，應考慮到這些后果時，他們的決定。即使它是可能改變法律劃定的權利，通過市場交易，這顯然是可取的，以減少此類交易的需要，從而減少就業資源，在執行。

一個前提，法院在這種情況下試圖徹底檢查，將是極大的興趣，但我一直無法嘗試。盡管如此，它是從一個粗略的研究清楚，法院經常承認他們的決定對經濟的影響，并意識到問題的互惠性質（如許多經濟學家都沒有）。此外，不時，他們考慮到這些經濟的影響，加上其他因素，在到達他們的決定。對這一問題的美國作家，是指比英國更明確的方式問題。因此，引用普羅瑟侵權，可能使一個人使用自己的財產。。進行自己的事情，在犧牲一些傷害他的鄰居。他可能操作的工廠，其噪音和煙霧，給他人造成一些不適，只要他保持在合理的范圍之內。

世界必須有工廠，冶煉廠，煉油廠，嘈雜的馬奇內里和爆破，甚至不惜犧牲一些不便，給那些在附近，原告可能會被要求接受一些不講理的不適，在總體上是好的。

標準的英國作家沒有明確說明，產生的效用和傷害之間的比較是在決定是否應被視為滋擾產生有害作用的元素。但類似的看法，如果那么強烈的表達，都可以找到。該學說的有害影響，法院將采取行動之前，必須是實質性的，是毫無疑問的一部分，將有幾乎總是會有一些增益，以抵消傷害的事實反映。在個別情況的報告，很顯然，法官已經在頭腦里將失去什么在決定是否授予強制令或判給損害賠償，以及將獲得什么。因此，在拒絕一個新的建設，以防止破壞的前景，法官說：我知道沒有普通法的一般規則。。說，該建筑物，以阻止他人的前景是造成滋擾。的情況下，不可能有偉大的城鎮，而我在這個鎮的所有新建筑物必須給予禁令。

我們在處理產生有害影響的行動所面臨的問題是不是簡單地抑制那些對他們負責。已決定是否從防止危害的增益大于將停止行動而產生的危害結果作為其他地方遭受的損失。在這個世界上，其中有重新安排的法律制度規定的權利的費用，法院，有關滋擾的案件，實際上，經濟問題上作出的決定，并確定資源是如何被聘用。有人認為，法院都意識到這一點，他們往往在一個非常明確的時尚，什么將得到什么失去防止產生有害影響的行動之間的比較，雖然并不總是。但劃定權利也是法定的成文法則的結果。在這里，我們也可以找到證據互惠性質的問題表示贊賞。雖然法定成文法加入的滋擾列表，還采取行動合法化，否則將根據普通法的滋擾。什么樣的情況經濟學家很容易認為需要糾正的政府行動，事實上，往往是政府行為的結果。這種行動并不一定是不明智的。但有一個真正的危險，可能導致廣泛的政府干預經濟體制來保護那些負責進行太遠的有害影響。

第四篇：UT∕DALLAS經濟管理類國際公認權威(頂級)期刊目錄(24種)

UT/DALLAS 界定的24種期刊

Number Journals 1 Academy of Management Journal 2 Academy of Management Review 3 Administrative Science Quarterly 4 Information Systems Research Journal of Accounting and Economics 6 Journal of Accounting Research ABS Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * SCI

SSCI Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 Journal of Consumer Research 8 Journal of Finance Journal of Financial Economics Journal of International Business Studies Journal of Marketing Journal of Marketing Research 13 Journal of Operations Management 14 Journal on Computing 15 Management Science Manufacturing and Service Operations Management Marketing Science 18 MIS Quarterly Operations Research 20 Organization Science Production and Operations Management 22 Strategic Management Journal 23 The Accounting Review The Review of Financial Studies

Grade Four * Grade Four Grade Four Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four Grade Three Grade Four *

Grade Three Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Three Grade Four * Grade Four * Grade Four *

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y 一區 Y 三區

Y

Y

Y

Y 二區 Y

Y 一區

Y

Y

Y

金融時報45種期刊

Number Journals ABS SCI SSCI 1 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice(Baylor University, Waco, Texas)Grade Four Harvard Business Review(Harvard Business School Publishing)Grade Four Human Resource Management(John Wiley and Sons)Grade Four Journal of Applied Psychology(American Psychological Association)Grade Four Journal of Business Venturing(Elsevier)Grade Four Journal of Consumer Psychology(Elsevier)Grade Four Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis Grade Four Journal of Financial Economics(Elsevier)Grade Four Journal of International Business Studies(Academy of International Business)Grade Four Journal of Management Studies(Wiley)Grade Four Journal of Operations Management(Elsevier)Grade Four 一區 12 Organization Studies(SAGE)Grade Four Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes(Academic Press)Grade Four Quarterly Journal of Economics(MIT)Grade Four Review of Accounting Studies(Springer)Grade Four Academy of Management Journal(Academy of Management, Ada, Ohio)Grade Four * Academy of Management Review(Academy of Management)Grade Four * Accounting, Organisations and Society(Elsevier)Grade Four * Accounting Review(American Accounting Association)Grade Four * Administrative Science Quarterly(Cornell University)Grade Four * American Economic Review(American Economic Association, Nashville)Grade Four * Econometrica(Econometric Society, University of Chicago)Grade Four * 一區 23 Information Systems Research(Informs)Grade Four * Journal of Accounting and Economics(Elsevier)Grade Four *

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y 25 Journal of Accounting Research(University of Chicago)Grade Four * Journal of Consumer Research(University of Chicago)Grade Four * Journal of Finance(Blackwell)Grade Four * Journal of Marketing(American Marketing Association)Grade Four * Journal of Marketing Research(American Marketing Association)Grade Four * Journal of Political Economy(University of Chicago)Grade Four *

Management Science(Informs)Grade Four *

Marketing Science(Informs)Grade Four *

MIS Quarterly(Management Information 33 Systems Research Centre, Unviersity of Grade Four * Minnesota)

Operations Research(Informs)Grade Four * 二區 35 Organization Science(Informs)Grade Four *

Review of Financial Studies(Oxford University Press)Grade Four *

Strategic Management Journal(John Wiley and Sons)Grade Four *

Academy of Management Perspectives(AMP)Grade Three

California Management Review(UC Berkely)Grade Three

Contemporary Accounting Research(Wiley)Grade Three

Journal of Business Ethics(Kluwer Academic)Grade Three

Rand Journal of Economics(The Rand Corporation)Grade Three

Sloan Management Review(MIT)Grade Three

Journal of the American Statistical 44 Association(American Statistical Association)Grade Four 一區 45 Production and Operations Management(POMS)Grade Three 一區

Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

第五篇：推薦核心期刊目錄

尊敬的老師：

您感覺自己的文章不適合在我刊發表，我們可以給您推薦到其他核心刊物上，國外ISTP,EI檢索，人大復印轉載都可以代寫代發，以便減少您的時間和費用。以下雜志為您提供發表機會。

【【代辦專利】】：醫學，教育，機械，電子，體育，英語，法律，體育

教育類

《教育探索 》 ISSN： 1002-0845 CN： 23-1134/G4 郵發代號： 14-26

1《教學與管理》太原師范學院國際標準刊號ISSN1004-5872，國內統一刊號CN14-1024/G4 可代寫

《中國成人教育》是國家教育部主管、教育部職業教育與成人教育司中國成人教育協會主辦的國家級中文核心期刊，半月刊，國際標準刊號:ISSN1004-6577，國內統一刊號:CN37-1214/G4，郵發代號:24-96可代寫

《職教論壇》雜志是由江西科技師范學院主辦，受教育部職成司指導、面向全國公開發行的職業技術教育綜合性刊物。全國中文核心期刊，國內刊號：CN 36-1078/G4 國際刊號：ISSN 1001-7518

《高教探索》主辦 廣東省高等教育學會 周期：雙月 ISSN： 1673-9760 CN： 44-1109/G4 郵發代號： 46-297

《當代教育科學 》 書評欄目 自己文章/ 代寫發。包過，定金后三天左右查稿。體育、英語可以安排。《教學與管理》《外語教學》《教育與職業》《中國職業技術教育》《現代中小學教育》《黑龍江高教研究》《思想戰線》《理論與改革》《江蘇高教》《中國教育學刊》等

學報類

《華中師范大學學報》

《內蒙古師范大學學報》

《蘭州教育學院學報》等

社科類

《甘肅社會科學》甘肅社會科學院 ISSN： 1003-3637 CN 62-1093/C 郵發代號： 54-2 可代寫

《 理論月刊》 主辦： 湖北省社會科學聯合會 月刊 ISSN： 1004-0544 CN： 42-1286/C 郵發代號： 38-176

《蘭州學刊》國家新聞出版總署批準（CSSCI）來源期刊，由蘭州市委宣傳部主管；蘭州市社科院、蘭州市社科聯主辦的綜合性學術理論期刊。ISSN： 1005-3492CN： 62-1015/C郵發代號： 54-71 可代寫

《人民論壇》是由人民日報社主管主辦，為全國中文核心期刊、。國際刊號：ISSN1004-3381國內刊號：CN11-2961/D郵發代號 2-15 可代寫

《江漢論壇》 湖北省社會科學院 月刊 開本： 大16開 ISSN： 1003-854X CN：42-1018/C 郵發代號： 38-226 哲學 的稿子 優先

《齊魯學刊》 山東曲阜師范大學ISSN： 1001-022X CN： 37-1085/C 郵發代號： 24-014

《 求索》主辦： 湖南省社會科學院 月刊 ISSN： 1001-490X CN： 43-1008/C 郵發代號： 42-36 可代寫

《社會科學家》雜志由桂林市委主管，桂林市社會科學界聯合會主辦,是全國中文核心期刊，中國人文社會科學核心期刊，全國旅游經濟類核心期刊，中文社會科學引文索引（CSSCI）國際統一刊號ISSN1002—3240 國內統一刊號CN45—1008/C 郵發代號:48-48

《河北法學》是由中共河北省委政法委員會主管，河北政法職業學院、河北省法學會主辦的法學研究專業刊物，月刊，全國中文核心期刊、中國人文社會科學核心期刊、中文社會科學引文索引(CSSCI)來源期刊，國內刊號CN 13-1023/D，國際刊號ISSN 1002-3933，郵發代號18-68。

《學術探索》《甘肅社會科學》《湖南社會科學》《湖北社會科學》《寧夏社會科學》《當代文壇》《西南師范大學學報》《中國人才》

經濟類

《 中國國情國力 》ISSN：1004-2008 CN：11-2840/C 郵發代號： 82-460

可代寫

《經濟問題》雜志由山西省社會科學院主辦，北大中文核心期刊，中文社會科學引文索引（CSSCI）來源期刊，中國人文社會科學核心期刊，國際刊號：ISSN 1004-972X，國內刊號：CN 14-1058/F，郵發代號：22-60

《統計與決策》雜志由湖北省統計局主管、湖北省統計局統計科學研究所主辦，是全國中文核心期刊，全國首屆優秀經濟期刊，中文社會科學引文索引（CSSCI）來源期刊，國內統一刊號：CN 42-1009/C國際統一刊號：ISSN 1002-6487郵發代號：38-150 可代寫

《生產力研究》雜志創辦于1986年，是中國生產力學會、山西省生產力學會主辦的全國性的經濟學學術性刊物，（CSSCI）來源期刊擴展板。國內刊號：CN 14-1145/F國際刊號：ISSN 1004-2768郵發代號：22-10 可代寫

《城市發展研究》2008年被北京大學圖書館《中國核心期刊要目總覽》（2008年版）確定為中國經濟、經濟計劃與管理的中文核心期刊，并被編入《中文核心期刊要目總覽》2008年出版(即第五版)。同時入選2010-2011年南大CSSCI來源核心期刊。

《特區經濟》主辦： 深圳市社會科學院 月刊 ISSN： 1004-0714 CN： 44-1032/F

可代寫

《中國經貿導刊》 雜志（半月刊）是由國家發展和改革委員會主辦，全國中文核心期刊。

國際刊號： ISSN 1007-9777 國內刊號： CN 11-3876/F 郵發代號：2-864 可代寫

《財會通訊》

主辦：湖北省會計學會 ISSN： 1002-8072 CN： 42-1103/F 郵發代號： 38-216 可代寫

《商業時代》主辦： 中國商業經濟學會 ISSN： 1002-5863 CN： 11-4105/F 郵發代號： 2-207 可代寫

《開發研究》主辦： 甘肅省社會科學院周期。雙月出版地：甘肅省蘭州市ISSN： 1003-4161CN： 62-1005/C郵發代號： 54-48中文核心期刊

《 華東經濟管理》 安徽經濟管理學院 月刊 ISSN： 1007-5097 CN： 34-1014/F 郵發代號： 26-65

《會計之友》 《財會月刊》《企業經濟》《浙江金融》《經濟問題》《吉林農業科學》《經濟縱橫》雙核心《世界經濟》雙核心《財經理論與實踐》雙核心《財經問題研究》等

雙核心《財經問題研究》

農業，經濟 類

《世界農業》、《農業經濟》《生態經濟》《林業經濟》《中南林業科技大學學報》《湖北農業科學》

計算機 電子 工程類

《制造業自動化》 主辦： 機械部北京機械工業自動化研究所周期： 月刊 中文核心期刊(2008)可代寫

《 計算機仿真》 主辦 中國航天科工集團公司第十七研究所

月刊 ISSN： 1006-9348 CN： 11-3724/TP 郵發代號： 82-773 可代寫

《煤炭技術》由 黑龍江科技學院;哈爾濱煤礦機械研究所主辦ISSN： 1008-8725 CN： 23-1393/TD郵發代號14-252 可代寫 發計算機 信息技術 測繪工程的文章

《中國高校科技與產業化》雜志創刊于1987年，國際標準刊號ISSN1671-8615, 國內標準刊號：CN11-4828/N，是教育部主管、教育部科技發展中心主辦的面向國內外公開發行的中央級綜合性科技月刊。年內可發

《煤礦機械》《煤礦開采》《計算機應用》《電子元件與材料》《計算機科學》《油氣田地面工程》《電子器件》《電焊機》《計算機測量與控制》《計算機應用與軟件》《科學技術與工程》《鑄造技術》《農機化研究》《食品與機械》《混凝土》等

文學類

《作家》雜志由吉林省作家協會主辦，全國中文核心期刊，國內外公開發行。國際刊號：ISSN1006-4044，國內刊號：CN22-1028/I，郵發代號：12-81。可代寫

《山花》、《長城》《大舞臺》《芒種》《短篇小說》《文藝評論》《電影文學》《語文建設》等

新聞傳播類

《新聞愛好者》由 河南日報報業集團主辦ISSN： 1003-1286CN： 41-1025/G2郵發代號： 36-94

《 傳媒 》《當代電視》《新聞戰線》綜合類的北大核心，題目和內容跟媒體掛鉤就可以，正常安排14年下半年，可以代寫，2周左右下發通知

《中國高校科技與產業化》雜志創刊于1987年，國際標準刊號ISSN1671-8615, 國內標準刊號：CN11-4828/N，是教育部主管、教育部科技發展中心主辦的面向國內外公開發行的中央級綜合性科技月刊。年內可發

人才類《中國人才》綜合性人才類的核心期刊

醫學類：《中國老年學雜志》《中國婦幼保健》《中華醫院感染學雜志》《中國中醫基礎醫學》《中國醫院藥學雜志》《中國病原生物學雜志》《中國老年學雜志》《醫學影像學雜志》《中醫藥管理雜志》《中國現代醫生》《浙江中醫雜志》等

體育類 《體育學刊》《體育文化導刊》《武漢體育學院學報》《廣州體育學院學報》 音樂類 《天津音樂學院學報》《文藝評論》《電影文學》《山花》、《長城》《大舞臺》《芒種》 《戲劇文學》等

高級別核心期刊可發： 《圖書管》《圖書與情報》《中國高教研究》《外語教學與研究》《湖南科技大學學報》可以代寫代發4-6個月拿書 《東岳論叢》《民族研究》《上海金融》《金融理論與實踐》

可以推薦的浙大目錄(南大/雙核心）： 《中華老年醫學雜志 》 《 中國老年學雜志》 《 中國教育學刊 》 《云南社會科學 》 《 學術界》 《學術論壇 》 《學術探索 》 《 統計與決策 》 《思想戰線》 《社會科學家 》 《 山西財經大學學報 》 《山東社會科學》 《求索 》 《齊魯學刊》 《農村經濟》 《 理論與改革》 《理論學刊》 《華中師范大學學報》 《河北學刊》 《貴州民族研究》 《貴州社會科學》 《高教探索》 《甘肅社會科學 》 《 編輯之友》等

統計源科技核心： 《北華大學學報》《自動化儀器儀表》《電子設計工程》等

另可發普刊介紹 教育類

《教育教學論壇》 《中國校外教育》 《教育學》《職業教育研究》 《當代職業教育》 《吉林教育》 《廣西教育》 《河南教育》 《時代教育》 《藝術教育》 《中國教師》 《教育周刊》 《學周刊》 《教育研究》 《東西南北。教育觀察》 《文學教育》《成功教育》 《現代企業教育》 《現代教育》 《黑河教育》 《生活教育》 《大學教育》 《教育界》《科學教育》《科教文匯》等 《教書育人? 教師新概念》（80頁碼)郵發代號14-280 《教書育人?校長參考》（80頁碼)郵發代號14-299 《教書育人?高教論壇》（112頁碼）郵發代號14-3

音樂類 《音樂時空》 《音樂大觀》 《通俗歌曲》

法律類 《法制與社會》 《法制與經濟》 《法制博覽》

經濟 金融類 《時代金融》《財經界》《現代企業教育》《中外企業文化》《經營管理者》《商周刊》《知識經濟》《進出口經理人》等

文學類 藝術類 《文學界》《青年文學家》《劍南文學》《青春歲月》《藝術時尚》《藝術研究》 《東方文化周刊》《文藝生活》《藝海》《湘潮》《西江月》《民風》等

房地產 建筑類

《中國市場》 《中華民居》 《房地產導刊》《中國建材科技》國家級期刊，等

學報類

《齊齊哈爾大學學報》《佳木斯教育學院學報》《重慶科技學院學報》《天津市經理學院學報》 《湖北函授大學學報》 《長江大學學報》《內蒙古民族大學學報》 《赤峰學院學報》 《長春教育學院學報》 《信陽師范學院學報》 《邢臺學院學報》 《洛河職業技術學院學報》 《太原城市職業技術學院學報》 《廊坊師范學院學報》 《淮海工學院》《廣西民族師范學院學報》《長春工業大學學報》《梧 州學院學報》《石家莊學院學報》《湖北警官學院學報 》《黑龍江教育學院學報 》《云南社會主義學院學報》《山東農業工程學院學報 》《吉林工程技術師范學院學報》《哈爾濱職業技術

學院學報 》《鄭州鐵路學院學報》《合作醫學專科學報 》等 體育類：

《體育世界》 《體育博覽》 《搏擊》 《體育論壇》 《武術科學》 《當代體育科技》 《體育時空》 《體育研究與教育》 《成都體育學院學報》

電子類 《電子制作》 《中國電子商務》 《電子軟件與工程》 《電子測試》《消費電子》《中國電子技術與軟件工程》《計算機光盤軟件與應用》《信息與電腦》《數字化用戶》《價值工程》等

科技類及其他

《中國科技博覽》 《中國科技信息》 《投資與合作》《科技資訊》 《科技創新導報》 《中國科教創新導刊》 《劍南文學》 《價值工程》《現代經濟信息》 《商場現代文化》 《中國外資》 《財經屆》 《消費導刊》 《法制與社會》 《企業家天地》 《現代營銷》《改革與開放》《中國市場》 《計算機光盤軟件與應用》《信息與電腦》 《中小企業管理與科技》 《化學工程與裝備》 《新財經》 《企業研究》 《新聞傳播》 《英語畫刊》 《江西圖書管學刊》 《河南圖書管學刊》《新聞前哨 》 《旅游縱覽》 醫學類

《健康必讀》、《醫學新知》、《求醫問藥》、《吉林醫學》 《維吾爾醫藥》 《醫學信息》 《醫藥前沿》 《實用中醫》 《中醫藥管理雜志》 《中國現代醫生》 《中外醫藥》 《中國臨床研究》 《中華民族民間醫藥》 《中國衛生產業》 《中國生化藥物雜志》可代寫、《中國組織工程研究與臨床康復》代寫發、《湖南中醫藥大學學報》、《中國老年學雜志》 《中國實驗方劑學》 《現代預防醫學》 《中國實用護理雜志》、《中國藥業》代寫發 《中國初級衛生保健》代寫發

《中國基層醫藥》、代寫發：《海峽藥學》 《河北醫學》 《海南醫學》 《齊魯護理》 《全科護理》 有需要者，來電具體咨詢

人大復印轉載經濟管理類文章

可代寫代發代轉 有EI/ISTP國外檢索論文可以推薦發表

另有

高級別期刊，費用高，能承擔費用的可以安排

《人民日報》《光明日報》現在安排，沒有職稱院校要求，可以代寫,包過，時間8-9月份

編輯：劉洋 電話：*** QQ：2045987094 投稿郵箱： 2045987094@qq.com