第一篇：中文翻譯英文012.12.30

1.hanfanying

2.許多人離開家去找食物 Many people lefts their homes to go in search of food

3.她與2000年畢業不久成為了一名老師She graduated in 2000 and before long she became a teacher

4.他走到人群的面前He made hies way to the crowd

5.她張貼出一張有關學校組織去法國旅游的布告 She put up a notice about the school trip to France

6.她去牛津上大學的消息簡直好得令人無法相信 The news that she went to Oxford University is too good the true

1.上大學時他們相遇并相愛了They met and fell in love at allege

2.我不知道他為什么不喜歡他的女婿I don’t know why he doesn’t like his son-in-law

3.我很榮幸你們請我在大會上講話I am flattered that you asked me to speak at the meeting

4.這會時一個乞丐眼成為一個百萬富翁This will make a beggar a millionaire in a minute

1.他們的婚禮將在教堂舉行Their marriage ceremony will be performed in the church

2.冰淇淋經常用作正餐之后的一種甜點Ice cream is usually served as dessert after the main course

3.士兵們裝扮成了普通老板姓The soldiers disguised themselves as ordinary people

4.公共汽車太擠了我幾乎賺不過身來The bus so full chat i could hardly turn around

5.這個氣球是有帆布制成的形狀像個猴子The balloon is made of canvas and it’s shape like monkey

1.在一個朋友家小住幾天給他寫一封感謝信是禮貌的做法It is polite to write a thank-you letter after staying for a few days with a friend

2.她把手指放在嘴唇前示意大家安靜下來She put her finger to her lips a sign to be quite

3.他們每年可以享受30天的帶薪年假They can enjoy a 30 day paid holiday every year

4.當我告訴他你要來她先的很驚訝She expressed when i toldher you were coming

5.恰恰相反許多學生更加珍惜課外與老師之間的交流On the contrary many student appreciate all the more communication with their teacher out of class

1.他們已把兒子撫養長大能自食其力了They have brought up their to sand on their own feet

2.我們請專家來擔任政府顧問Experts were brought in to advise the government

3.因為這場大雨我們只好把野營推遲了We had to put off the camping as a result of the heavy rain

4.煤可以轉化為煤氣Coal can be converted to gas

5.這是語法練習的答案This is the key to the grammar exercises

1.他在購買服裝上花了很多錢She sends a lot of money on clothes

2.計算機在辦公室中起到重要作用 computers play an important role in office work

3.努力工作可以達到成功hard work leads to success

4.他們投身于我國的西部大開發they devote themselves to the development of the western part of our country

5.簡參加多項學?；顒觠ane takes part in many school activities

1.各組人民都沉在節日的氣氛之中different varieties of people are in festival atmosphere

2.除非馬上還清欠款否則我和你打官司i’ll take you to court unless you pay up immediately

3.我沒有注意到周圍的事物i was not aware of my surroundings

1.她偶爾不得不吃安眠藥occasionally she had to take sleeping pills

2.這本字典的新版本還未發行the new version of this dictionary is not in use yet

3.承蒙足下推薦我已獲得這份工作i got the job thanks to recommendation

4.她終于嫁給了最執著追求的她的人she eventually married the most persistent one of her admirers

5.她能很快記住許多資料she can memorize facts very quickly

1.我仍然堅持我的觀點i still insist on my viewpoint

2.到時候我們會人通知你we will inform you in due course

3.我們既不打籃球也不打排球we are going play neither basketball nor volleyball

4.我總是開著窗戶睡覺除非天氣非常冷菜關上窗戶i always keep the window open when i sleep unless it is very cold

5.你或是你的父親今天必須見這位年輕人either you or your father must see this young man today

Yingfahan

1.before long she was disappointed and unable to find a job so she took to the streets to do everything she could to earn money不久他沒有找到工作使他很失望因此流露街頭盡可能維持生計

2.The mother having heard of her daughter’s whereabouts went to the poor parts of the city in search of her daughter 媽媽聽到有女兒的消息后媽媽趕往貧窮的城市尋找女兒

3.Concerned for her mother’s safety the young woman ran to the bedroom and shook her mother awake and said it’s me 他考慮到媽媽的安全跑到了臥室搖醒了媽媽說是我是我4.In the eyes of Americans Thanksgiving Day is an important festival just next to Christmas

5.It dates back to the arrival of some of the first European settlers in the New world who survived their first cold winter with the help of their native Indian neighbors那些早期的移民在印度安人的幫助下他們在那里度過了第一個寒冬

6.Many days before the festival shops supermarkets and restaurants decorate their show windows with colorful lights and exhibits and promise great discounts 在節日的前幾天商店超市和飯店五彩繽紛的燈和美不勝收的展品裝飾櫥窗還說要降價

7.The lonely old folks could enjoy temporary happiness while they joined the celebration activities 當孤寡老人參加慶祝活動時獲得短暫愉快

8.He thought that the key to feeding people was to have more rice and produce it more quickly他認為人們吃飯的關鍵有更多的大米和更快的生產

9.Which could give a higher yield than either of the original plants它可以給更高的收益率比原先任何植物

10.As a result of yuan long ping’s discovery Chinese discovery Chinese rice production rose by 45.5%in the 1900s由于袁隆平的發現中國的水稻產量咋20世紀90年代增長了45.5%

11.But if you probe a little deeper you will find that personal circumstances and a better quality of lite are the two most compelling factors driving people away from their offices如果你再深入研究你會發現個人的境況和更好的生活質量是促使人們離開辦公室的兩個最值得關注的原因

12.On an overcrowded tube i was commuters were being pushed around tempers were being fraved and a few people were crying 我在擁擠的地鐵里上下班的人推推擠擠有些人發脾氣有些人呼喊

13.As a Chinese learn of english your problems when it comes to writing probably have to do with organization of content and basic sentence structure對學習英語的中國人來說寫作時你會遇到內容組織和基本句子結構等一些問題

14.In that case you work in a specific field with specific challenges that may not be covered in this course你在一個特殊的環境里工作有特定的寫作挑戰二我們的課程不可能滿足所有學生的要求

15.You will then save the new version and carry on with occasional editing and improving每次編輯環節之后你的文本會有所改進你應該保存這些新版本并繼續不時的編輯和改進

16.Of course you will have to allow yourself some time to put what you have learned into practice and practice eventually makes you perfect 當然你你不得不把你自己學到的東西運用實踐最終你使你自己更完美

17.If you say the word communication most people think of work and sentences 說起交流大多數人想到單詞和句子

18.Although these are very important we communicate with more than just spoken and written words.indeed body positions are part of what we call body language雖然這些單詞和句子很重要但我們并不只是用口語和書面語交流身勢語是我們說話的一部分

19.We see examples of unconscious body language very often yet there is also learned body language which varies

from culture to culture我們經?？吹綗o意識的身勢語但也有習得的身勢語習得的身勢語在不同的文化中各不相同 20.The internet chat room is a new and popular forum in which people meet new friends from around the word stories of chatters falling in love are very common 網絡聊天室是一個新的流行的論壇，使人們認識新朋友來自世界各地的故事，也愛是很常見的21.However some experts say chat chatting can be addictive and they point out that problem lies in the chatters然而一些專家說聊天可能上癮，他們指出問題在于聊天者本人

第二篇：AE濾鏡英文-中文翻譯

一.3D Channel 三維通道

1.3D Channel Extract 提取三維通道 2.Depth Matte 深度蒙版 3.Depth of Field 場深度 4.Fog 3D 霧化 5.ID matte ID蒙版

二.Audio 音頻 1.Backwards 倒播

2.Bass/Treble 低音和高音 3.Delay 延遲

4.Flange/Chorus 變調和合聲 5.High-Low Pass 高低音過濾 6.Modulator 調節器

7.Parametric EQ EQ參數 8.Reverb 回聲

9.Stereo Mixer 立體聲混合 10.Tone 音質

三.Blur/Sharpen 模糊與銳化 1.Box Blur 方形模糊 2.Channel Blur 通道模糊 3.Compound Blur 混合模糊 4.Directional Blur 方向模糊 5.Fast Blur 快速模糊 6.Gaussian Blur 高斯模糊 7.Lens Blur 鏡頭模糊 8.Radial Blur 徑向模糊

9.Reduce Interlace Flicker 減少交錯閃爍(與高斯模糊相似)10.Sharpen 銳化

11.Smart Blur(沒什么效果的模糊效果)12.Unsharp Mask 反遮罩銳化

四.Channel 通道

1.Alpha Levels Alpha色階 2.Arithmetic 運算 3.Blend 混合

4.Calculations 計算

5.Channel Combiner 通道組合 6.Compound Arithmetic 復合計算 7.Invert 反相

8.Minimax 擴亮擴暗

9.Remove Color Matting 刪除蒙版顏色 10.Set Channels 設置通道 11.Set Matte 設置蒙版

12.Shift Channels 轉換通道 13.Solid Composite 實色合成

五.Color Correction 顏色修正 1.Auto Color 自動顏色

2.Auto Contrast 自動對比度 3.Auto Levels 自動色階

4.Brightness/Contrast 亮度和對比度 5.Broadcast Colors 廣播級顏色 6.Change Color 轉換色彩

7.Change to Color 定向轉換色彩 8.Channel Mixer 通道混合 9.Color Balance 色彩平衡

10.Color Balance(HLS)色彩平衡HLS 11.Color Link 色彩鏈接

12.Color Stabilizer 色彩穩定器 13.Colorama 彩光 14.Curves 曲線 15.Equalize 均衡 16.Exposure 暴光

17.Gamma/Pedestal/Gain 伽馬/基色/增益 18.Hue/Saturation 色調/飽合度 19.Leave Color 保留顏色 20.Levels 色階

21.Levels(Individual Controls)色階(個別控制)22.Photo Filter 圖片過濾 23.PS Arbitrary Map 映象

24.Shadow/Highlight 陰影/亮光 25.Tint 色彩

六.Distort 扭曲

1.Bezier Warp 貝塞爾曲線彎曲 2.Bulge 凹凸鏡

3.Corner Pin 邊角定位 4.Displacenent Map 置換 5.Liquify 液化 6.Magnify 放大

7.Mesh Warp 網格變形 8.Mirror 鏡像 9.Offset 位移

10.Optics Compensation 鏡頭變形 11.Polar Coordinates 極坐標轉換 12.Reshape 形變 13.Ripple 波紋 14.Smear 涂抹 15.Spherize 球面化 16.Transform 變換

17.Turbulent Displace 劇烈置換 18.Twirl 扭轉 19.Warp 彎曲

20.Wave Warp 波浪變形

七.Expression Controls 表達式控制 1.Angle Control 角度控制

2.Checkbox Control 檢驗盒控制 3.Color Control 色彩控制 4.Layer Control 層控制 5.Point Control 點控制 6.Slider Control 游標控制

八.Generate 產生(以前叫渲染)1.4-Color Gradient 四色漸變 2.Advanced Lightning 高級閃電 3.Audio Spectrum 聲譜 4.Audio Waveform 聲波 5.Beam 光束

6.Cell Pattern 單元圖案 7.Checkerboard 棋盤格 8.Circle 圓形 9.Ellipse 橢圓

10.Eyedropper Fill 滴管填充 11.Fill 填充 12.Fractal 分形 13.Grid 網格

14.Lens Flare 鏡頭光暈 15.Lightning 閃電

16.Paint Bucket 油漆桶 17.Radio Waves 電波 18.Ramp 漸變 19.Scribble 涂寫 20.Stroke 描邊 21.Vegas 勾畫

22.Write-on 書寫(有遮罩的功能)

九.Keying 鍵控

1.Color Difference Key 色彩差異鍵控< 2.Color Key 色彩鍵控 3.Color Range 色彩范圍 4.Difference Matte 差異蒙版 5.Extract 提取

6.Inner/Outer Key 輪廓鍵控

7.Linear Color Key 線性色彩鍵控 8.Luma Color Key 亮度鍵控 9.Spill Suppressor 溢色抑制

十.Matte 蒙版工具

1.Matte Choker 蒙版清除 2.Simple Choker 簡單清除

十一.Noise/Grain 雜色/噪點 1.Add Grain 添加顆粒

2.Dust/Scratches 蒙塵與劃痕 3.Fractal Noise 分形噪波 4.Match Grain 匹配噪點 5.Median 中值 6.Noise 雜色

7.Noise Alpha Alpha雜色 8.Noise HLS HLS雜色

9.Noise HLS Auto 自動HLS雜色 10.Remove Grain 清除噪點

十二.Paint繪畫 1.Paint 繪畫

2.Vector Paint 矢量繪畫

十三.Perspective 透視 1.3D Glasses 3D視覺 2.Basic 3D 基礎三維 3.Bevel Alpha Alpha導角 4.Bevel Edges 邊緣導角 5.Drop Shadow 投影

6.Radial Shadow 徑向投影

十四.Simulation 仿真 1.Card Dance 卡片動畫 2.Caustics 腐蝕 3.Foam 水泡

4.Particle Playground 粒子游樂場 5.Shatter 爆碎

6.Wave World 水波 十五.Stylize 風格化

1.Brush Strokes 畫筆描邊 2.Color Emboss 彩色浮雕 3.Emboss 浮雕

4.Find Edges 查找邊緣 5.Glow 輝光 6.Mosaic 馬賽克

7.Motion Tile 運動拼貼

8.Posterize 多色調(相當有16位色32位色)9.Roughen Edges 粗糙邊緣 10.Scatter 擴散

11.Strobe Light 閃光燈 12.Texturize 紋理化 13.Threshold 閾值

十六.Text 文字

1.Basic Text 基本文字 2.Numbers 數字

3.Path Text 路徑文字 4.Timecode 時間代碼

十七.Time 時間 1.Echo 重影

2.Posterize Time 招貼畫 3.Time Difference 時間差異 4.Time Displacement 時間置換 5.Timewarp 時間扭曲

十八.Transition 切換

1.Block Dissolve 塊面溶解 2.Card Wipe 卡片擦拭 3.Gradient Wipe 漸變擦拭 4.Iris Wipe 星形擦拭 5.Linear Wipe 線性擦拭 6.Radial Wipe 徑向擦拭 7.Venetian Blinds 百葉窗

十九.Utility 效用 1.Cineon Converter 2.Color Profile Converter 3.Grow Bounds 4.HDR Compander 5.HDR Highlight Compression

第三篇：英文采訪稿(附中文翻譯)

STUDENT NUMBER: A12120272 NAME: Shilei CLASS: English 1202

Inorder to find out what the life it was in the past in China, I intervewed a grangpa in our shool’s little park, who is at about his 60s.Q(Question): Hello, nice to meet you.Thank you for accepting my interview.A(Answer): Nice to meet you too.Q: Em, you look like about at 60s, right? Would you like to tell me when people mostly used bikes? A:Yeah, I was born in 1953 and I’m 61years old now.Actually, you know China was been named of “The Kingdom of Bicycle” in the past.I remember my grandpa told me that bicycle was introduced in China in the late 19th century.Then in 1960s, 1970s, when I was a young man, bicycle along with sewing machine and watch became the necessary three-major-items of marriage.Bicycle became really popular in the 1980s, it was the most important and most universal vehicle at that moment, the famous brands included “Yong jiu”, “Fenghuang”, “Feige”.The flow of thousands of bicycles during the rush hour was extremly awesome which made China became “The Kingdom of Bicycle”.You might cannot realize that kind of feeling, but you have to know who had a bicycle at that time woule be jealous by others, especially our young guys.Q: But a bicycle must be very expensive at that time, right? A: Certainly!One bicycle costed about 200 yuanat that time while people’s salary just a few dozen yuan.It’s very precious.Q: Em, what about bus? When buses appeared? And how the buses of today compare with the buses when you were young? A: Haerbin’s buses were developed in the 1950s.When I was young , buses in Haerbin were still not widespread, just several bus-lines were operated.What’s more, the buses’ environment and situation were not very well when compared with the buses of today.Q: Well, I got it.How life was in your 20s’, 30s’, and 40s’? And every day life how it changed when you grew older? A: In my 20s’ , what I remember most was that you had to take the tickets or certificates to buy all the things you wanted and needed , and the number of those stuff was fixed by government, so you couldn’t buy a lot even you had money.Like the liquor, you had to buy it in state-run stores with certificate.If you wanted more, you might suppose to borrow the certificate from other family which was begrudge to buy the liquor , for the numeber of liquor was limited.And later, the individual business appeared and became more and more, so you could buy anything with money in stores.Since followed the policy of reform and opening, our daily lives became more and more colorful.Q: Do you rememberhow life changed when tall building were built? A：Em...In fact, the tall building didn’t bring much impact on our lives.At the beginning, we might feel shocked or wondering, but later we gradually accustomed to it.You can see, there are tall building everywhere nowadays.Q: What do you miss about the old days and what you do not miss? A: What I miss...May be the simplicity and kindness of those people, besides, at that time, they worked harder and braver.But I enjoy the high life quality of today, comprehensive health care system, varieties of entertainments, convenient public transit, etc.You know, the life in the old days is difficult.A: Yeah, sure it is.Alright then, thank to your narration, I know more details about the life in the old days, thank you!Q：It’s my pleasure!為了了解過去中國的生活是什么樣的，我在學校的小公園里采訪了一位60多歲的老爺爺。

問：您好，很高興見到您，謝謝您能夠接受我的采訪。

答：認識你也很高興。

問：你看起來大概60歲左右對嗎？您能不能跟我講一下人們用自行車最多是在什么時候呢？ 答：當然。我出生于1953年，今年都61歲了。事實上，中國在過去被稱為“自行車王國”呢。我記得我的姥爺告訴我自行車是在19世紀后期引進中國的。在六、七十年代，那時候我還年輕，自行車和縫紉機、手表是年輕人結婚必備的“三大件”。自行車真正流行起來是在80年代，那個時候自行車是最重要、最普遍的交通工具，出名的牌子有“永久”、“鳳凰”、“飛鴿”。那個時候上下班高峰期自行車流非常壯觀，中國也因此被稱為“自行車王國”。你們現在可能體會不到那種感覺，但是在那個時候擁有一輛自行車是讓人非常羨慕嫉妒的，特別是我們年輕人。

問：但是那個時候一輛自行車肯定很貴對吧？

答：那是肯定的！一輛自行車要200塊錢左右，而那個時候人們的工資只有十幾、幾十塊。所以自行車很珍貴。

問：嗯，那公交車呢，公交車什么時候出現？今天的公交車跟你們年輕時候的比起來又怎么樣呢？

答：哈爾濱的公交應該是在50年代發展起來吧。我年輕的時候，公交還不是很普及，只有幾條線路投入運行。而且，公交車的環境和狀況跟如今的比起來都很差。

問：嗯，那您20歲、30歲、40歲的時候生活是怎樣的呢?隨著您的年長，日常生活有哪些變化呢？

答：我20歲的時候，印象最深刻的是你買任何東西都需要票或者證。因為所有東西的數量是有國家按人口規定好的，所以即使你有錢你也買不了很多。像酒，你要拿著證去供銷社買。如果你還想要的話，你就要借其他人的證去買。因為每家酒的數量是一定的，但是有的人家舍不得買。后來個體商戶出現了而且越來越多，就可以拿錢買任何想要的東西。自從改革開放政策的實行，我們的生活變得越來越豐富多彩。

問：您能給我講講當高樓大廈建起來的時候生活發生了哪些改變嗎？

答：嗯....事實上，高樓大廈并沒有給我們的生活帶來很大影響。剛開始，我們看到可能會感嘆會迷惑，但是后來慢慢就習慣了。你看現在到處都是高樓林立。

問：那對于過去的日子有哪些是您非常懷念的，哪些是不怎么懷念的呢？

答：嗯....要說懷念的話，應該是懷念過去人們的淳樸善良吧，而且那時候人們也更加勤勞勇敢。但是我更享受現在的高品質生活，完善的醫療體系，多樣的娛樂活動，便利的公共交通等等，這些都是過去不能比的。你要知道過去的生活很艱苦。

問：是的，肯定比現在要苦。好的，非常感謝您抽出時間接受采訪，通過您的講述我對以前的生活知道了更多細節，謝謝！

答：不用謝，很高興能幫到你。

第四篇：激勵機制英文文獻和中文翻譯

How to Motivate Every Employee

---James·Cameron

Incentive is the core of human resource management.Production and management in the enterprise management, human resources is economic resources with a variety of thoughts, feelings, the most dynamic summation also love that economic resources, but also the soul of enterprise in this organism, therefore, human resources production and management resources than other more important resources, and decisions not only affect the production and operation of enterprises of other economic resources, the value and use, and the province is the enterprise strength of several important components of quality of human resources as a result of production and management in the enterprise economic resources of the status and role, so the effectiveness of corporate governance or the ultimate ideal to achieve the objective should be: every enterprise employees will be able to give top priority to the overall interests of enterprises and business goals , the interests of all willing to contribute their own.Employees of such a mental state of thinking and Normal under oath in order to reflect the difficult, but it is entrepreneurs, managers should be pursued and the ultimate challenge, it is necessary to approach such a state, only through an effective internal incentives.Therefore, the most important task of enterprise management is the human resources management.Traditional personnel management and labor is different from a modern human resources management performance of the main features of the “strategic” level:(one)at the strategic guiding ideology of modern human resource management is “people-oriented” management;(two)the strategic objectives modern human resources management in order to “obtain a competitive advantage,” the objectives of management;(three)the scope of the strategy, the modern human resources management is the “full participation in” democratic management;(four)measures in the strategy of modern human resources management is the use of “systematic scientific methods and human art” contingency management.And non-human resources management, compared to human resources management through the “incentives” to achieve, it is the core of human resources management.The so-called “incentive” to meet people from the multi-level and diversified needs of different employees and reward performance standards set value, a maximum staff to stimulate enthusiasm and creativity to achieve the objectives of the Organization.An enterprise of how the use of human resources is determined by many complex factors in the result of the coupling, but the role of management incentives is one of the most important factors.Unlike other non-human resources of the fundamental characteristics of human resources is that it attached to the staff and the existence of the human body, personal moment with the staff can not be separated, such other person or organization to use human resources, both by its natural all the people of “positive take the initiative ”can be achieved with.Therefore, human resources management can “people-oriented” and effectively to stimulate the enthusiasm of employees, to maximize the staff's initiative and creativity, has become the decision of the merits of enterprise production and management of key performance factors and human resources management business success core of the problem.Employee incentive measures.Incentives for the management of human resources management in particular, the importance of self-evident.Incentives can be adopted by all of, the enterprises need to attract them;also can make the most of the employees to perform their talents and wisdom;work so as to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency.Incentive not only to make employees feel at ease, and actively work to play it so staff recognition and acceptance of the enterprise goals

and values, the enterprise have a strong sense of belonging.According to the United States, Professor William James of Harvard University study, in the absence of incentive environment, the potential for staff to play out only a small part of that is 20%-30%, first-served basis just to keep their rice bowls;and in a good incentive mechanism for the environment, the same staff can play a potential 80%-90%, it can be seen, so that each employee is always a good incentive environment is the management of human resources development and the pursuit of the ideal state.So how do we inspire employees to effectively correct the times?

First,Adhere to people-centered, respect for human nature, and establish and implement the “employee-centric” management concept.“People-oriented, respect for humanity” as a modern management philosophy, emphasizing the ultimate goal of management-to improve the economic efficiency of enterprises on the people behind the management of behavior is no longer a cold cold command type, the compulsory type.But carrying out an incentive, trust, caring, emotional, manager of human nature embodies a high degree of understanding and attach importance to managers as employees can not be purely “economic man” in order to meet their survival needs and material interests of the management an opportunity to but to pay attention to the employees respect the spirit of self-actualization needs at higher level in order to provide creative work and encouraging personality to play to mobilize the enthusiasm of employees, in the equal exchange of lead and establish the concept of corporate management;the external control into self-control, so that each employee to form their own sense of corporate loyalty and a sense of responsibility, so that the value of employees to achieve personal and business survival and development into a passer-by, if the enterprises do not know how to be people-oriented, and lack of basic understanding of human nature and respect for , to the neglect of the personal value of human resources to enable employees to achieve long-term needs of the individual values can not be met or even depression, will not be able to retain the best talent, companies will lose competitiveness.Therefore, we must do the following:

Staff carry out regular surveys to understand the extent possible, a matter of concern to employees, especially those relevant to their work, and to win the support and loyalty of staff, and staff to guide the spirit of innovation, attract and retain employees, companies should strive to collect the following the desired information staff: the fairness of work;organizational learning;communication;degree of flexibility and concern;Customer Center;trust and delegation of authority;the effectiveness of management;job satisfaction, the adequacy of support, was placed in a suitable role , and whether or not to feel valuable.Focus on staff remuneration, benefits, working conditions, as well as flexible, to facilitate the preferential arrangements.Enterprises should change with the times, in addition to the traditional emphasis on staff remuneration, welfare and the improvement of working conditions but also the possibility of other incentives, such as the provision of day care;serving University;tuition grants;shorter working hours in summer;the implementation of employee stock option plan;set up a remote post office and so on.Second, the implementation of a comprehensive compensation strategy to motivate employees to fully.The so-called “comprehensive compensation strategy”, which means the company will pay the salaries of employees classified as “external” and “inherent” in two categories, a

combination of the two is the “full pay”, “external pay ”referring primarily to provide their employees with quantifiable monetary value, for example, the basic wage bonuses, stock options, pension, medical insurance and so on,“ internal pay ”refers to those provided to employees can not be quantified the performance of monetary value of various currencies.For example, work satisfaction, for the completion of its work to facilitate the provision of personal tools, training opportunities, attractive corporate culture, good interpersonal relations, coordination of the work environment, as well as individual recognition, appreciation and so on, external salaries and pay their own internal incentives have different functions.Their contact with each other, complement each other, constitute a complete system of remuneration, practice has proved that as a result of staff-to-business expectations and needs to be comprehensive, which includes not only material needs, but also spiritual needs, and thus the implementation of “full pay” strategy, is an effective model of staff motivation.Third,incentives should be fair, just and eliminate incentives for “big”.Fair and impartial is a fundamental principle of motivation.If you do not fair, improper Prize Award, improper punishment and punishment, not only can not receive the desired results, but will result in many negative consequences, it is necessary to impartial and incorruptible, regardless of affinity, regardless of distance, will be treated equally in order to promote the enthusiasm of the staff along the right direction virtuous circle, as proposed by the United States manage the academic award as the criteria.Only by doing so can enhance the cohesion and centripetal force.At the same time, incentives are clearly ancient times people believed in the basic management principles.In fact if the additional money as wages, as it is unrelated to individual performance and reward, employees feel they deserve it, rather than the result of the efforts, so that people can not be stimulated and motivated.Therefore, the smart managers should do everything possible to reward and recognize performance combine it with the cause of loyalty, dedication to the cause of the close combination of fact, the staff inside the imbalance is that they do good , there are dedicated, but work with people who do not receive the same treatment.This is often not satisfied with the staff and leadership reasons, incentives to companies linked to behavior and employee benefits, the higher the protection of personal value, the greater their income, and through incentives to create a fair competitive environment to increase the comparability of results, and promote up groups.To sum up, the management of enterprises in the use of incentives should be people-oriented, pay attention to and strengthen the strong spirit of enterprise and development of mining resources to improve the workers compensation which the degree of non-material rewards, in the determination and implementation of policies and work rules and regulations in, and strive to embody the principle of fair and equitable.Employees should not blindly encourage unrealistic earnings expectations increase, otherwise you will enable enterprises to individual workers or groups of incentives and constraints arising from the difficulties, the effectiveness of decline, more difficult.中文翻譯：

如何激勵每一位員工

---詹姆斯·卡梅隆

激勵是人力資源管理的核心。

在企業生產經營管理中，人力資源是企業各種經濟資源中具有思想、感情、最求和能動性的亦喜愛那個經濟資源，也是企業這一有機體的靈魂，因此，人力資源是比其它生產經營資源更為重要的一項資源，它不僅影響和決定了企業其他生產經營經濟資源的價值和使用狀況，而且其本省就是企業實力幾家質量的重要組成部分之一，由于人力資源在企業生產經營經濟資源中的地位和作用，所以企業管理工作成效的極致或者說要達到的理想境界的目標應該是：企業內的每一個員工都能將企業的整體利益放在首位，并為企業的目標、利益甘愿貢獻自己的一切。職工的這樣一種思想和精神狀態在宣誓中師很難以體現的，但卻是企業家、管理者孜孜以求和所要挑戰的極限，要趨近這樣的一種狀態，只有通過企業內部的有效激勵。因此，企業管理工作的重中之重是人力資源管理。與傳統勞動人事管理不同，現代人力資源管理的主要特征表現在“戰略性”層面上：（1）在戰略指導思想上，現代人力資源管理是“以人為本”的管理；（2）在戰略目標上，現代人力資源管理是為了“獲取競爭優勢”的目標管理；（3）在戰略范圍上，現代人力資源管理是“全員參加”的民主管理；（4）在戰略措施上，現代人力資源管理是運用“系統化科學方法和人文藝術”的權變管理。與非人力資源管理相比較，人力資源管理是通過“激勵”來實現的，它是人力資源管理的核心。所謂“激勵”，就是從滿足人的多層次、多元化需要出發，針對不同員工設定績效標準和獎勵值，一最大限度地激發員工工作積極性和創造性去實現組織的目標。一個企業的人力資源利用效果如何，是由許多復雜因素耦合作用的結果，但其中管理的激勵作用是最重要的因素之一。

人力資源不同于其他非人力資源的根本特征就是，它依附于員工的人體而存在，與員工個人須臾不可分離，其他人或組織要使用人力資源，都要經由它的天然所有這個人的“積極主動”配合才能實現。因此，人力資源管理工作能否“以人為本”，有效激發員工的積極性，最大限度地發揮員工的主觀能動性和創造性，就成為決定企業生產經營績效優劣的關鍵因素和企業人力資源管理成功與否的核心問題。

企業員工激勵的措施。

激勵對管理特別是人力資源管理的重要性自不待言。通過激勵能把所有才能的、本企業所需要的人吸引過來；也可以使本企業員工最充分地發揮其才能和智慧；從而保持所從事工作的有效性和高效率。激勵不僅在于能使職工安心，積極地工作，它還發揮使職工認同和接受本企業的目標和價值觀，對企業產生強烈的歸屬感。據美國哈佛大學的教授威廉·詹姆士研究，在缺乏激勵的環境中，人員的潛力只發揮出了一小部分，即20%—30%，剛剛能保住飯碗即止；而在良好的激勵機制環境中，同樣的人員即可發揮出潛力的80%—90%，由此可見，使每位員工始終處于良好的激勵環境中是人力資源開發和管理所追求的理想狀態。那么，如何才能正確有效地激發員工的時期呢？ 首先、堅持以人為本，尊重人性，樹立并貫徹“以員工為中心”的管理觀念。

“以人為本，尊重人性”作為現代管理理念，強調把管理的最終目的——提高企業經濟效益放在人的背后，管理行為不再是冰冷冷的命令型、強制型。而是貫徹著激勵、信任、關心、情感，體現著管理者對人性的高度理解和重視，管理者不能把員工視為單純的“經濟人”，以滿足其生存需要

和物質利益作為管理契機，而是要注重員工的尊重，自我實現等高層次精神需求，以提供創造性的工作，鼓勵個性的發揮來調動員工的積極性，在平等的引導和交流中，建立起企業的經營理念；將外部控制轉化為自我控制，使每個員工自發地形成對企業的忠誠感和責任感，進而使員工的個人價值實現和企業的生存發展歸為一途，如果企業不懂得以人為本，對人性缺乏基本的了解和尊重，忽視了人才的個人價值，使員工實現個人價值的需求長期得不到滿足甚至壓抑，就無法留住最好的人才，企業也將因此失去競爭力。為此，必須做到以下幾點：

經常開展員工調查，盡可能了解員工所關心的事，尤其是與其工作相關的事，以贏得員工的支持和忠誠，并可引導員工的創新精神，吸引并留住員工，企業應致力于收集以下員工所期望的信息：工作中的公平性；組織學習；溝通；靈活性和關心度；顧客中心；信任和授權；管理的有效性；工作滿意程度，被支持的充分性，被安置角色的合適性，是否感覺到有價值。

著力于員工報酬、福利、工作條件的改善以及靈活、便利性的優惠安排。企業應隨著時代的變化，除了注重傳統意義上的員工報酬、福利和工作條件的改善以外，還可以實施其他的優惠措施，如提供日托；在職大學學習；學費補助；縮短夏季工作時間；實施員工股票期權計劃；設置遠程辦公崗位等等。

其次、實施全面薪酬戰略，給員工以充分的激勵。

所謂“全面薪酬戰略”，即公司將支付給員工的薪酬分為“外在”和“內在”的兩大類，兩者的結合即為“全面薪酬”，“外在的薪酬”主要指為員工提供可量化的貨幣性價值，比如，基本工資獎金、股票期權、退休金、醫療保險等等，“內在的薪酬”則是指那些給員工提供的不能以量化的貨幣形式表現的各種貨幣價值。比如，對工作的滿意度，為完成工作而提供個人便利工具，培訓的機會，吸引人的公司文化，良好的人際關系，相互配合的工作環境，以及公司對個人的表彰、謝意等，外在的薪酬和內在的薪酬各自具有不同的激勵功能。它們互相聯系，互為補充，構成完整的薪酬體系，實踐證明，由于員工對企業的期望和需求是全面的，其中既包括物質需求，又包括精神需求，因而實施“全面薪酬”戰略，是員工激勵的有效模式。

第三、獎勵應公平、公正、杜絕獎勵“大鍋飯”

公平公正是激勵一個基本原則。如果不公平公正，獎不當獎，罰不當罰，不僅收不到預期的效果，反而會造成許多消極后果，要鐵面無私，不論親疏，不分遠近，一視同仁，以促進員工的積極性沿著好的方向良性循環，就像美國管理學界提出的獎勵準則那樣。只有這樣做，才能增強企業的凝聚力和向心力。同時，獎勵分明是從古至今人們所信奉的基本管理原則。如果把獎金當成實際上的附加工資，當成是與個人表現無關的報酬，員工就覺得這是他們應得的，而不是努力的結果，這樣就不能激人上進。因此，聰明的管理者應盡一切可能把報酬和績效表彰結合起來，把它與對事業的忠誠，對事業的奉獻緊密結合起來，實際上，員工內心最不平衡的事是，自己干得好，有奉獻，卻與不干活的人待遇一樣。這也常是員工與領導不滿意的原因，要把公司獎勵行為與員工利益掛鉤，保障個人創造價值越高，其收益越大，并通過獎勵創造公平的競爭環境，增加成績的可比性，促進群體向上。

綜上所述，企業在使用激勵管理時，應以人為本，注重和強化企業內部精神極力資源的挖掘和開發，提高職工報酬當中非物質報酬的程度，在判定和落實各項政策和規章制度的工作中，力求體現公平和公正性原則。不宜盲目地助長員工預期目標收益不切實際地增加，否則就會使企業對職工個體或群體的激勵措施產生困難和制約，有效性下降，難度增加。

第五篇：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?；旧线@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?，F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?。Ｄ敲?，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?！痹谶@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?！坝绕涫恰?。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?！耙虼?，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?！霸趪栏駡绦械脑瓌t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?？紤]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。