How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two: One to change the bulb and one to assume the existence of a ladder.
Eight: One to screw in the light bulb and seven to hold everything else constant.
None: They are all waiting for the invisible hand.
Alcon and Solarz: 'The Autistic Economist'
Yale Economic Review, Summer 2006
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
PhD Proposal
For some reasons, I didn't add anything during the past 5 months. 5 months already...time flies.
And for some reasons, I need a change. Change? Yes, I can.
Got my PhD proposal finished. Post here to mark the milestone. But abstract only, the whole document has >5000 words (pretty long as a proposal)
***********************************************************
The Normative and Practical Content of Deliberative Monetary Valuation:
An Investigation into the Ideological Beliefs Influencing and Subjective Factors Associated with the Articulation of Environmental Values in Deliberative Settings
PhD Research Proposal
Alex Lo
Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences,
The Australian National University
Abstract
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) is a hybrid approach built upon the theory of deliberative democracy. It seeks to articulate money values of non-marketed public goods from small group deliberation. Yet current practice falls short of theoretical coherence and appear at odds with the deliberative political ideals. This creates a thin and fragile integrative basis for value plurality. A study is proposed to assess the present state of knowledge and examine the potential of a political model. This will involve separate investigation of the perceptions of practitioners and citizen deliberators concerning DMV processes and outcomes. The study will ascertain the ways in which deliberative value is defined in theory and its meanings in actual deliberation. For the former, data will be sought from a practitioners survey based on Q methodology. Deliberative forums are being planned for the latter. Two discussion groups are designed in accordance with democratic and decision-analytic principles respectively. They will be compared to distinguish the political strand of DMV from its more common counterpart of analytic deliberation. Two groups of local citizens will participate in a series of discussions about a water planning issue in Australia. Verbal protocols will be employed for analyzing the participant interviews to understand how people make sense of the valuation questions. Findings are expected to shed light on the principles and roles of DMV, and the potential of applying verbal protocol analysis to DMV research.
And for some reasons, I need a change. Change? Yes, I can.
Got my PhD proposal finished. Post here to mark the milestone. But abstract only, the whole document has >5000 words (pretty long as a proposal)
***********************************************************
The Normative and Practical Content of Deliberative Monetary Valuation:
An Investigation into the Ideological Beliefs Influencing and Subjective Factors Associated with the Articulation of Environmental Values in Deliberative Settings
PhD Research Proposal
Alex Lo
Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences,
The Australian National University
Abstract
Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) is a hybrid approach built upon the theory of deliberative democracy. It seeks to articulate money values of non-marketed public goods from small group deliberation. Yet current practice falls short of theoretical coherence and appear at odds with the deliberative political ideals. This creates a thin and fragile integrative basis for value plurality. A study is proposed to assess the present state of knowledge and examine the potential of a political model. This will involve separate investigation of the perceptions of practitioners and citizen deliberators concerning DMV processes and outcomes. The study will ascertain the ways in which deliberative value is defined in theory and its meanings in actual deliberation. For the former, data will be sought from a practitioners survey based on Q methodology. Deliberative forums are being planned for the latter. Two discussion groups are designed in accordance with democratic and decision-analytic principles respectively. They will be compared to distinguish the political strand of DMV from its more common counterpart of analytic deliberation. Two groups of local citizens will participate in a series of discussions about a water planning issue in Australia. Verbal protocols will be employed for analyzing the participant interviews to understand how people make sense of the valuation questions. Findings are expected to shed light on the principles and roles of DMV, and the potential of applying verbal protocol analysis to DMV research.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
"Don't Become a Scientist!"
This is an article I came across elsewhere in the forum. It's about early academic career, one of unsecure, unstable, and underpaid. Worse, reresearch budget cuts are coming. Even worse, there are traditionally fewer vacancies in social sciences than science.
-----------------------------------------
Don't Become a Scientist!
Jonathan I. Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.
Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover themysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learnhow the world works? Forget it!
Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you aresmart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as anundergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation,you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should noteven consider going to graduate school in science. Do something elseinstead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or somethingelse which appeals to you.
Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you fromfollowing a career path which was successful for me? Because times havechanged (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American scienceno longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school inscience it is in the expectation of spending your working life doingscientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve importantand interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed,probably when it is too late to choose another career.
American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobsfor them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the pricedrops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes theform of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs.Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaininga real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) mostyoung scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have noprospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoralposition and move every two years. For many more details consult the YoungScientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of theWashington Monthly.
As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent AssistantProfessorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduateschool (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinksis brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was heoffered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility ofit six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new jobevery two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for anotherAssistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctortypically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27(computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrialdemand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence,ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeedin any of these other professions.
Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biologicalsciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate studentstipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family onthat income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district andall the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.
Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to goto medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns twoto three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a goodsenior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in orderto have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probablywon't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas,and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independentcollaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of scienceentirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not dothis at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientificjob market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers inother fields.
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; someuniversity (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences)will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.
Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because yourproposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity,but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflectingcriticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems.They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in aproposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, howeveroriginal and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that originalideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet beenproved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they canbe, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you findthat it is not what you wanted after all.
What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyonewho does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue anothercareer. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations.Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence ofa reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it.If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people fromIndia and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I haveknown more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physicsthan by drugs.
If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try topersuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientistsis entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduateeducation is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies arebemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when theythemselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. Theycould reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand,but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for manyyears the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage ofscientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). Theresult is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensiblyrefuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak Americanstudents and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.
Source is here:
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
-----------------------------------------
Don't Become a Scientist!
Jonathan I. Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.
Are you thinking of becoming a scientist? Do you want to uncover themysteries of nature, perform experiments or carry out calculations to learnhow the world works? Forget it!
Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you aresmart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as anundergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation,you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should noteven consider going to graduate school in science. Do something elseinstead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or somethingelse which appeals to you.
Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you fromfollowing a career path which was successful for me? Because times havechanged (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American scienceno longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school inscience it is in the expectation of spending your working life doingscientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve importantand interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed,probably when it is too late to choose another career.
American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobsfor them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the pricedrops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes theform of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs.Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaininga real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) mostyoung scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have noprospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoralposition and move every two years. For many more details consult the YoungScientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of theWashington Monthly.
As examples, consider two of the leading candidates for a recent AssistantProfessorship in my department. One was 37, ten years out of graduateschool (he didn't get the job). The leading candidate, whom everyone thinksis brilliant, was 35, seven years out of graduate school. Only then was heoffered his first permanent job (that's not tenure, just the possibility ofit six years later, and a step off the treadmill of looking for a new jobevery two years). The latest example is a 39 year old candidate for anotherAssistant Professorship; he has published 35 papers. In contrast, a doctortypically enters private practice at 29, a lawyer at 25 and makes partner at31, and a computer scientist with a Ph.D. has a very good job at 27(computer science and engineering are the few fields in which industrialdemand makes it sensible to get a Ph.D.). Anyone with the intelligence,ambition and willingness to work hard to succeed in science can also succeedin any of these other professions.
Typical postdoctoral salaries begin at $27,000 annually in the biologicalsciences and about $35,000 in the physical sciences (graduate studentstipends are less than half these figures). Can you support a family onthat income? It suffices for a young couple in a small apartment, though I know of one physicist whose wife left him because she was tired of repeatedly moving with little prospect of settling down. When you are in your thirties you will need more: a house in a good school district andall the other necessities of ordinary middle class life. Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy.
Of course, you don't go into science to get rich. So you choose not to goto medical or law school, even though a doctor or lawyer typically earns twoto three times as much as a scientist (one lucky enough to have a goodsenior-level job). I made that choice too. I became a scientist in orderto have the freedom to work on problems which interest me. But you probablywon't get that freedom. As a postdoc you will work on someone else's ideas,and may be treated as a technician rather than as an independentcollaborator. Eventually, you will probably be squeezed out of scienceentirely. You can get a fine job as a computer programmer, but why not dothis at 22, rather than putting up with a decade of misery in the scientificjob market first? The longer you spend in science the harder you will find it to leave, and the less attractive you will be to prospective employers inother fields.
Perhaps you are so talented that you can beat the postdoc trap; someuniversity (there are hardly any industrial jobs in the physical sciences)will be so impressed with you that you will be hired into a tenure track position two years out of graduate school. Maybe. But the general cheapening of scientific labor means that even the most talented stay on the postdoctoral treadmill for a very long time; consider the job candidates described above. And many who appear to be very talented, with grades and recommendations to match, later find that the competition of research is more difficult, or at least different, and that they must struggle with the rest.
Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because yourproposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity,but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflectingcriticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems.They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in aproposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, howeveroriginal and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that originalideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet beenproved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they canbe, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you findthat it is not what you wanted after all.
What can be done? The first thing for any young person (which means anyonewho does not have a permanent job in science) to do is to pursue anothercareer. This will spare you the misery of disappointed expectations.Young Americans have generally woken up to the bad prospects and absence ofa reasonable middle class career path in science and are deserting it.If you haven't yet, then join them. Leave graduate school to people fromIndia and China, for whom the prospects at home are even worse. I haveknown more people whose lives have been ruined by getting a Ph.D. in physicsthan by drugs.
If you are in a position of leadership in science then you should try topersuade the funding agencies to train fewer Ph.D.s. The glut of scientistsis entirely the consequence of funding policies (almost all graduateeducation is paid for by federal grants). The funding agencies arebemoaning the scarcity of young people interested in science when theythemselves caused this scarcity by destroying science as a career. Theycould reverse this situation by matching the number trained to the demand,but they refuse to do so, or even to discuss the problem seriously (for manyyears the NSF propagated a dishonest prediction of a coming shortage ofscientists, and most funding agencies still act as if this were true). Theresult is that the best young people, who should go into science, sensiblyrefuse to do so, and the graduate schools are filled with weak Americanstudents and with foreigners lured by the American student visa.
Source is here:
http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
Monday, January 5, 2009
Read two theoretical writings
本來這個月是用來閉關苦讀，可以種種事情令我不能集中，總覺得不在狀態
不過，在過去的三個星期也能夠把兩本對我的工作比較重要著作看過大半，我的目的很明確：在開始研究之前要先把其理論脈絡用清楚，不然無法知道所得的結果在學術上有何意義，更無法從根本地解答當前問題。
第一本是John O'Neill 的"Market, Deliberation and Environment" (Routledge, 2007)
雖然這本書的內容都十分有趣而且重要，但大都已經被其他人及作者自己在其他articles討論過，這本書似乎是作者自己的論文總結，沒什麼創新觀點。主要是圍繞經濟價值的謬誤，及deliberative democracy的優劣。當中有一點是值得深思，有些人 - 包括Clive和我 - 都主張用deliberative institution去articulate 環境價值，即是透過半公開、實驗形式的小組討論去為某一環境物品定價，然而O'Neill卻似乎反對一切定價行為，他所提出的論據不無道理，例如很多公共財產都有道德價值，根本不適宜被冠上幣值。但我在想是不是一定是all or nothing，到底問題是出在幣值本身，還是它背後理論假設及運作模式? 是否可以將後二者來點改變，然後重新定義環境價值(monetary)? 有沒有中間路線呢?
第二本是我supervisor，另一位John，John Dryzek的"Discursive Democract" (Cambridge, 1990)
此書為該領域的奠基著作之一，它提出了一套新的民主理論，此一理論即為上文提及的deliberative institution 的基礎。大意是公共決策該由collective, public communication而始，而非individualistic, aggregative voting，再簡單點說就是talk before vote，視public dialogue為最主要的決策原素，而非次於majority voting。另一個重要觀點是(inter)subjectivism取代objectivism，就是說在政策層面上，科學化、重結果的reasoning不應被用作處理公共資源的絕對準則，這兩者都或多或多了假設了某種特定的價值觀，例如經濟學裡的『效率』，取而代之的是communicative rationality，其主要主張為: the only authority is better arguments (not material gains)。這套理論最大優點是容納多元價值，但我仍是沒法從中找到適當的理論途徑去解讀從deliberative institution所產生的monetary value，即是以group的形式、經過商議及專家討論後所同意的willingness-to-pay是代表著什麼? (WTP in market is price, which is easy to understand)。另外deliberative institution又是否exclusive of strategic reasoning? 但別忘記有時候strategic reasoning也是多元價值的表達形式之一。
在我的研究領域內，提出、測試及解釋可容納多元價值的制度是一個新方向，但多元價值卻與傳統經濟系統合不來，要經濟利益老是屈於其他價值之下也不合民主原則，且是難於實行，用一套independent-of-all的approach i.e. communicative rationalization似乎比較合理，但如何可以做到? 如何解讀?
Neverheless, I can see there is one possible way to interpret. It stems from the theory of communicative action by Jurgen Habermas, the leading philosophy in 20th century (from which Dryzek and others developed the idea of deliberative democracy). Communicative rationality is that it is tied to subject-subject relation between interacting individuals, rather than subject-object relation between monologically acting individuals presumed by instrument rationality underpinning economics. So, value from deliberative institutions should be understood as a matter of intersubjectivity, not exclusively objectivity nor subjectivity. It is the interaction among people as a group that forms the value, not isolated individuals; not uncontested economic nor ethical interests, but the interplay between them.
不過，在過去的三個星期也能夠把兩本對我的工作比較重要著作看過大半，我的目的很明確：在開始研究之前要先把其理論脈絡用清楚，不然無法知道所得的結果在學術上有何意義，更無法從根本地解答當前問題。
第一本是John O'Neill 的"Market, Deliberation and Environment" (Routledge, 2007)
雖然這本書的內容都十分有趣而且重要，但大都已經被其他人及作者自己在其他articles討論過，這本書似乎是作者自己的論文總結，沒什麼創新觀點。主要是圍繞經濟價值的謬誤，及deliberative democracy的優劣。當中有一點是值得深思，有些人 - 包括Clive和我 - 都主張用deliberative institution去articulate 環境價值，即是透過半公開、實驗形式的小組討論去為某一環境物品定價，然而O'Neill卻似乎反對一切定價行為，他所提出的論據不無道理，例如很多公共財產都有道德價值，根本不適宜被冠上幣值。但我在想是不是一定是all or nothing，到底問題是出在幣值本身，還是它背後理論假設及運作模式? 是否可以將後二者來點改變，然後重新定義環境價值(monetary)? 有沒有中間路線呢?
第二本是我supervisor，另一位John，John Dryzek的"Discursive Democract" (Cambridge, 1990)
此書為該領域的奠基著作之一，它提出了一套新的民主理論，此一理論即為上文提及的deliberative institution 的基礎。大意是公共決策該由collective, public communication而始，而非individualistic, aggregative voting，再簡單點說就是talk before vote，視public dialogue為最主要的決策原素，而非次於majority voting。另一個重要觀點是(inter)subjectivism取代objectivism，就是說在政策層面上，科學化、重結果的reasoning不應被用作處理公共資源的絕對準則，這兩者都或多或多了假設了某種特定的價值觀，例如經濟學裡的『效率』，取而代之的是communicative rationality，其主要主張為: the only authority is better arguments (not material gains)。這套理論最大優點是容納多元價值，但我仍是沒法從中找到適當的理論途徑去解讀從deliberative institution所產生的monetary value，即是以group的形式、經過商議及專家討論後所同意的willingness-to-pay是代表著什麼? (WTP in market is price, which is easy to understand)。另外deliberative institution又是否exclusive of strategic reasoning? 但別忘記有時候strategic reasoning也是多元價值的表達形式之一。
在我的研究領域內，提出、測試及解釋可容納多元價值的制度是一個新方向，但多元價值卻與傳統經濟系統合不來，要經濟利益老是屈於其他價值之下也不合民主原則，且是難於實行，用一套independent-of-all的approach i.e. communicative rationalization似乎比較合理，但如何可以做到? 如何解讀?
Neverheless, I can see there is one possible way to interpret. It stems from the theory of communicative action by Jurgen Habermas, the leading philosophy in 20th century (from which Dryzek and others developed the idea of deliberative democracy). Communicative rationality is that it is tied to subject-subject relation between interacting individuals, rather than subject-object relation between monologically acting individuals presumed by instrument rationality underpinning economics. So, value from deliberative institutions should be understood as a matter of intersubjectivity, not exclusively objectivity nor subjectivity. It is the interaction among people as a group that forms the value, not isolated individuals; not uncontested economic nor ethical interests, but the interplay between them.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Oral exam completed
The oral exam for my MPhil was successfully completed. I presented for less than 10 minutes and answered the questions from the examiners for the rest of the time. The whole process took one hour. My supervisor was there as an observer - not allowed to ask questions.
The examiners were nice, and they all gave me very positive comments. No really tough questions, more like casual talk than examination. Minor changes to my thesis are required, I think I can fix it an hour.
I was told that the department will nominate my work to the Li Ka Shing Prize - to the best MPhil thesis from all non lab-based faculties, since both of the two examiners have checked the 'Excellent' box in my assessment form. I think the selection process would be very competitive as I will have to compete with not just graduates of this year but also the previous one - it is awarded for every two years.
The examiners were nice, and they all gave me very positive comments. No really tough questions, more like casual talk than examination. Minor changes to my thesis are required, I think I can fix it an hour.
I was told that the department will nominate my work to the Li Ka Shing Prize - to the best MPhil thesis from all non lab-based faculties, since both of the two examiners have checked the 'Excellent' box in my assessment form. I think the selection process would be very competitive as I will have to compete with not just graduates of this year but also the previous one - it is awarded for every two years.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
『海角七號』
『海角七號』叫好又叫坐絕不是偶然，值得花點時間來為它寫點東西。(故事內容請看
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E8%A7%92%E4%B8%83%E8%99%9F
或
http://cape7.pixnet.net/blog/post/18649838
『海角七號』看似一般音樂+愛情小品電影，片中的搖滾樂明顯為了吸引年青觀眾注意，先保票房，然而影片也同時突出了恆春的自然風貌和當地人的鄉土文化保育意識，又以發生在日治時期的一段愛情故事來陪襯男女主角的感情戲，將整齣電影添上歷史感。這樣的新舊交錯處理手法，使電影老是說舊文化、歷史之餘又不落俗套，上一代的各種情意結每每在主角身邊的小人物不經意地浮現出來，彷彿每個配角都有自己與某個空間或時間連繫著的故事 – 或遺憾，例如茂伯堅時自己是國寶要上台表現，明珠(林曉培飾)與祖母之間的關係，勞馬對拋棄他的妻子的思念，這些都著墨不多但卻有蜻蜓點水之效，每個大小配角都可以令人印像深刻。(台灣網民影評請看這: http://blog.roodo.com/chita/archives/7154805.html
http://www.ccha.org.tw/blog/index.php?load=read&id=144
http://blog.yam.com/munch/article/17227564
我最想說的是，為什麼香港拍不出這樣的電影? 台灣的文化氣息比香港濃厚得多，對本土文化的掌握比較好，人們也對這些議題更有共鳴，電影人有心機也有能力將日台殖民歷史和鄉土保育加入一齣商業電影之中，更重要的是，這些東西都有市場，能賣座，老中青都能接受，也能拿下好幾個電影獎項。
香港的情況呢? 賣座電影多半是特技片，『無間道』賣座得很，卻沒有什麼深度，『色戒』算是有歷史感但卻不是港產。在香港，殖民歷史不是在教科書出現，就是在路牌上，殖民風格的建築物不少，但當作電影的穿插場景卻少之又少，『玻璃之城』只會談情說愛，另外我想到的只有『伊莎貝拉』- 但那是以澳門作背影。至於本土文化嘛，香港倒多的是，按道理，一個地方的文化厚度應該跟人口成正比，不同階層和不同社區群應該會令本土文化多樣化，信手拈來有公屋歷史、灣仔春園、喜帖街一帶、油麻地廟街等等，文字記錄不少，電影不多但偶有佳作，例如『麥兜』，近期的有『每當變幻時』和『文雀』(後者可惜叫好不叫坐，而且有點眼高手低)，民間活動也愈來愈多，可惜，這統統都沒有市場，別說年青的沒興趣，中年的老年的也光說(罵)不做，保育團體吃力不討好。至於鄉土文化，元朗多的是，但見到的是發展商與鄉紳的『交易文化』，偉大的自由市場。
不得不羨慕台灣，誠品書店就是活生生的文化市場，偌大的店子坐著看書的比站著多，一看個多小時，香港三聯、商務沒有幾張坐椅，就當空間不足好了，但看看最受歡迎的書種，不是財經就是流行文化類，歷史文化書籍束之高閣，在高雄誠品，我一進場就在當眼處就找到了Amartya Sen (政治經濟學家) 的『The Argumentative Indian』中譯本，在香港，恐怕是放在店子某個冷清角落吧，再想想書展，更哀，分明是精品展。不久前的高雄自由行，令我印象深刻的是那個前清大英領事館，有點像港大Main building的一楝紅磗維多利亞式建築，小小的本來沒什麼了不起，但加上了市政府的刻意經營和宣傳，和以彷英式下午茶作賣點的cafe，使得這個非英國殖民城市擁有如此一個旅遊景點，而真正的前殖民城市香港，古老建築被套上『活化』手段後不知會變成什麼四不像，聽說中區警署交由私人發展商『活化』後會在上面加幾層不知什麼東西，大埔舊北區理民府沒幾個人知道是什麼，大家熟識的皇后碼頭和天星鐘樓事件，民意反應其實好壞參半，團體和政府都理據不足，而我也始終不認為香港人對這些東西有多關心，本土文化保育仍是只有一小撮人熱衷。
退而求其次，保育文化最原始方法是用文字，香港人的文字功力有限得很，台灣人的中文讉詞用字功夫實在叫我們汗顏，感情表達到位也不失中文含蓄傳統，有意思有意境，很慶幸港大有心邀請到龍應台作長期註校作家，拜託同學們別把大學當作職業訓練所，好歹叨點文化氣息。不過，很多坊間的上樓書店特別是中大的『二樓書店』的這幾年間都黯然結業，實在叫人對以文字傳承文化不敢存厚望。
香港的『中環價值』根深柢固，網上的升學Q&A十居其九有關財金會計科，身邊很多人沒頭沒腦的向四仔主義埋堆，然後到了而立之年才問為什麼，『我點解揀BBA? 易搵工囉』 『隻股票又跌咗喇』 『去外國流浪? 痴咗線咩』 『環保留返比政府同環保團體啦』 『哲學? 係咪李天問果D呀? 定係咩孔孟儒家』 『民主咪一人一票囉，仲有咩呀?』 『鄉土文化咁老土!』 blablabla……『麥兜』電影最經典的一幕係麥兜同阿媽去茶餐廳食飯，問伙計有乜食，個伙計話有午餐快餐晚餐樣樣都有，到落單時係話午餐同快餐一樣，快餐又同晚餐一樣，再唔係就話呢樣無果樣無，我的解讀是，香港標榜多元化城市，但其實文化上單調得很，色彩繽紛的只有霓虹燈和廣告，文化厚度薄如紙 – 寫上『多元化』的一張單色紙。
所以，環保/保育團體喊個聲嘶力竭也是徒勞，有時發展與保育不一定相容，一個金融海嘯肯定使不少人的國際公民意識少了半截 (如有的話)。無數研究證明，單向市民灌輸環保意識或資訊是沒有多大實際作用，但環保團體以至大學教授仍是樂此不疲 – 或許是別無化法。概括來說，決定人類環境行為的是社會資本 social capital, social trust和價值觀，危機資訊根本不是主要推動力，有時甚至使人懷疑其真確性。想想如果要保育恆春半島(海角拍攝場地)，拍一部『海角七號』還是類似『Inconvenient Truth』的紀錄電影有效?
香港人拍得出『海角七號』，可能，但票房可不敢保證，可能甚至沒有人敢投資，能夠揉合音樂、人倫、民俗歷史、鄉土文化、自然風貌，再以浪漫愛情喜劇包裝的電影不只是導演和演員的功力，也考驗電影對象的包容力和視野。香港人看畢此片後，是不是該想想自己與本土社區以至國際社會的聯繫是什麼模樣 – 如果還找到的話?
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E8%A7%92%E4%B8%83%E8%99%9F
或
http://cape7.pixnet.net/blog/post/18649838
『海角七號』看似一般音樂+愛情小品電影，片中的搖滾樂明顯為了吸引年青觀眾注意，先保票房，然而影片也同時突出了恆春的自然風貌和當地人的鄉土文化保育意識，又以發生在日治時期的一段愛情故事來陪襯男女主角的感情戲，將整齣電影添上歷史感。這樣的新舊交錯處理手法，使電影老是說舊文化、歷史之餘又不落俗套，上一代的各種情意結每每在主角身邊的小人物不經意地浮現出來，彷彿每個配角都有自己與某個空間或時間連繫著的故事 – 或遺憾，例如茂伯堅時自己是國寶要上台表現，明珠(林曉培飾)與祖母之間的關係，勞馬對拋棄他的妻子的思念，這些都著墨不多但卻有蜻蜓點水之效，每個大小配角都可以令人印像深刻。(台灣網民影評請看這: http://blog.roodo.com/chita/archives/7154805.html
http://www.ccha.org.tw/blog/index.php?load=read&id=144
http://blog.yam.com/munch/article/17227564
我最想說的是，為什麼香港拍不出這樣的電影? 台灣的文化氣息比香港濃厚得多，對本土文化的掌握比較好，人們也對這些議題更有共鳴，電影人有心機也有能力將日台殖民歷史和鄉土保育加入一齣商業電影之中，更重要的是，這些東西都有市場，能賣座，老中青都能接受，也能拿下好幾個電影獎項。
香港的情況呢? 賣座電影多半是特技片，『無間道』賣座得很，卻沒有什麼深度，『色戒』算是有歷史感但卻不是港產。在香港，殖民歷史不是在教科書出現，就是在路牌上，殖民風格的建築物不少，但當作電影的穿插場景卻少之又少，『玻璃之城』只會談情說愛，另外我想到的只有『伊莎貝拉』- 但那是以澳門作背影。至於本土文化嘛，香港倒多的是，按道理，一個地方的文化厚度應該跟人口成正比，不同階層和不同社區群應該會令本土文化多樣化，信手拈來有公屋歷史、灣仔春園、喜帖街一帶、油麻地廟街等等，文字記錄不少，電影不多但偶有佳作，例如『麥兜』，近期的有『每當變幻時』和『文雀』(後者可惜叫好不叫坐，而且有點眼高手低)，民間活動也愈來愈多，可惜，這統統都沒有市場，別說年青的沒興趣，中年的老年的也光說(罵)不做，保育團體吃力不討好。至於鄉土文化，元朗多的是，但見到的是發展商與鄉紳的『交易文化』，偉大的自由市場。
不得不羨慕台灣，誠品書店就是活生生的文化市場，偌大的店子坐著看書的比站著多，一看個多小時，香港三聯、商務沒有幾張坐椅，就當空間不足好了，但看看最受歡迎的書種，不是財經就是流行文化類，歷史文化書籍束之高閣，在高雄誠品，我一進場就在當眼處就找到了Amartya Sen (政治經濟學家) 的『The Argumentative Indian』中譯本，在香港，恐怕是放在店子某個冷清角落吧，再想想書展，更哀，分明是精品展。不久前的高雄自由行，令我印象深刻的是那個前清大英領事館，有點像港大Main building的一楝紅磗維多利亞式建築，小小的本來沒什麼了不起，但加上了市政府的刻意經營和宣傳，和以彷英式下午茶作賣點的cafe，使得這個非英國殖民城市擁有如此一個旅遊景點，而真正的前殖民城市香港，古老建築被套上『活化』手段後不知會變成什麼四不像，聽說中區警署交由私人發展商『活化』後會在上面加幾層不知什麼東西，大埔舊北區理民府沒幾個人知道是什麼，大家熟識的皇后碼頭和天星鐘樓事件，民意反應其實好壞參半，團體和政府都理據不足，而我也始終不認為香港人對這些東西有多關心，本土文化保育仍是只有一小撮人熱衷。
退而求其次，保育文化最原始方法是用文字，香港人的文字功力有限得很，台灣人的中文讉詞用字功夫實在叫我們汗顏，感情表達到位也不失中文含蓄傳統，有意思有意境，很慶幸港大有心邀請到龍應台作長期註校作家，拜託同學們別把大學當作職業訓練所，好歹叨點文化氣息。不過，很多坊間的上樓書店特別是中大的『二樓書店』的這幾年間都黯然結業，實在叫人對以文字傳承文化不敢存厚望。
香港的『中環價值』根深柢固，網上的升學Q&A十居其九有關財金會計科，身邊很多人沒頭沒腦的向四仔主義埋堆，然後到了而立之年才問為什麼，『我點解揀BBA? 易搵工囉』 『隻股票又跌咗喇』 『去外國流浪? 痴咗線咩』 『環保留返比政府同環保團體啦』 『哲學? 係咪李天問果D呀? 定係咩孔孟儒家』 『民主咪一人一票囉，仲有咩呀?』 『鄉土文化咁老土!』 blablabla……『麥兜』電影最經典的一幕係麥兜同阿媽去茶餐廳食飯，問伙計有乜食，個伙計話有午餐快餐晚餐樣樣都有，到落單時係話午餐同快餐一樣，快餐又同晚餐一樣，再唔係就話呢樣無果樣無，我的解讀是，香港標榜多元化城市，但其實文化上單調得很，色彩繽紛的只有霓虹燈和廣告，文化厚度薄如紙 – 寫上『多元化』的一張單色紙。
所以，環保/保育團體喊個聲嘶力竭也是徒勞，有時發展與保育不一定相容，一個金融海嘯肯定使不少人的國際公民意識少了半截 (如有的話)。無數研究證明，單向市民灌輸環保意識或資訊是沒有多大實際作用，但環保團體以至大學教授仍是樂此不疲 – 或許是別無化法。概括來說，決定人類環境行為的是社會資本 social capital, social trust和價值觀，危機資訊根本不是主要推動力，有時甚至使人懷疑其真確性。想想如果要保育恆春半島(海角拍攝場地)，拍一部『海角七號』還是類似『Inconvenient Truth』的紀錄電影有效?
香港人拍得出『海角七號』，可能，但票房可不敢保證，可能甚至沒有人敢投資，能夠揉合音樂、人倫、民俗歷史、鄉土文化、自然風貌，再以浪漫愛情喜劇包裝的電影不只是導演和演員的功力，也考驗電影對象的包容力和視野。香港人看畢此片後，是不是該想想自己與本土社區以至國際社會的聯繫是什麼模樣 – 如果還找到的話?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
港校內地博士為生計轉
Another article about phds' future. My prospect...?
港校內地博士為生計轉系[2008-11-10]
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/11/10/ED0811100001.htm
香港院校每年錄取大量內地尖子生入讀研究院課程，開展各類科學研究。但香港「重商輕理」的社會現實，造成創新科技產業的就業需求冷淡，令這些高學歷人才深感畢業後無著落，為求生計甚至要選擇轉系或讀學歷較低的課程。有學者批評指，許多學生畢業後找不到出路只能離港，變相使港校浪費培養人才的資源。 ■本報記者 覃卓嘉、吳玫 科技大學內地生張恆(化名)家在內地北方農村，他去年獲科大錄取入讀博士課程，且每月可得到1.2萬元的獎學金。拿到錄取信時他十分興奮，認為來港深造令他離科學夢更近一步，「我最希望尋找到一種有效方法，解救癌症病人！」商業氣氛濃 尖子迷失方向 可是來港僅半年，張恆的研究夢想卻破滅了。他眼見不少師兄師姐都很難在本地找到工作，有同學告訴他，「香港是個商業社會，博士畢業後的就業市場小得可憐，找不到工作就只能變成一個擁有高學歷的乞丐！」前輩的就業困境讓張恆如熱鍋上的螞蟻，即使每日仍需埋頭於實驗室的工作，但他已經開始擔心畢業後的出路。希望留在香港工作的張恆，為了日後生計開始考慮轉讀其他課程，「可能是香港商業氣氛太濃厚，我現在對科研已經沒有了衝勁，更沒有了憧憬！」 恰巧此時，科大發生博士生葛煒煒自殺事件，有指他是因為學業和就業壓力而選擇輕生。這件事令張恆下定決心，申請從博士課程轉至同系的哲學碩士課程(Mphil)，「希望快點畢業，更易找到工作！」張恆坦承，因為擔心家人不理解自己的選擇，至今不敢讓父母知道。原本計劃畢業後投身金融業的張恆，近期目睹金融海嘯下的蕭條，不禁苦笑稱需要再尋找就業目標，「我長期呆在實驗室，與外面的世界脫節太久，現在只能想隨便找份臨時工作，再慢慢發覺其他機會。」人才流失 學者責浪費資源 今年初畢業於科大計算機系、獲博士學位的Henry，目前在理工大學從事博士後研究。他坦言喜歡香港溫暖的氣候和公平公正的社會環境，但亦很難找到適合的工作，令他可以紮根香港，「香港院校從內地招收了許多尖子生，卻沒有相應的機構為他們提供畢業後的發展機會！」Henry希望特區政府可支持創辦一些高新技術研究所，既為院校理工科高學歷人才提供就業機會，亦能為本港及內地的企業提供產業更新技術，「即使紐約這種同樣以金融為主的城市，也有很多研發機構。」 科大化學系教授李曉原透露，的確有學生迫於就業壓力，要求由從事基礎研究的博士項目轉至碩士課程。他提到，不少優秀學生難在香港找到出路，最後回內地任職或赴海外繼續進修，「這樣變相形成港校花人力物力培養出來的人才，輕易流失到其他地方，讓人痛心！」 中原人力資源顧問有限公司董事總經理周綺萍表示，理工科研究生在港就業範圍極小，例如生化及醫藥業界提供的就業機會每年僅兩、三個，而內地生因語言、文化背景的差異，在與本地生競爭入職時往往處於劣勢。她指，博士畢業生除非選擇留校，否則僱主會擔心博士要求較其他求職者多而有所顧慮，「高學歷將成為他們的另一座絆腳石！」
港校內地博士為生計轉系[2008-11-10]
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/11/10/ED0811100001.htm
香港院校每年錄取大量內地尖子生入讀研究院課程，開展各類科學研究。但香港「重商輕理」的社會現實，造成創新科技產業的就業需求冷淡，令這些高學歷人才深感畢業後無著落，為求生計甚至要選擇轉系或讀學歷較低的課程。有學者批評指，許多學生畢業後找不到出路只能離港，變相使港校浪費培養人才的資源。 ■本報記者 覃卓嘉、吳玫 科技大學內地生張恆(化名)家在內地北方農村，他去年獲科大錄取入讀博士課程，且每月可得到1.2萬元的獎學金。拿到錄取信時他十分興奮，認為來港深造令他離科學夢更近一步，「我最希望尋找到一種有效方法，解救癌症病人！」商業氣氛濃 尖子迷失方向 可是來港僅半年，張恆的研究夢想卻破滅了。他眼見不少師兄師姐都很難在本地找到工作，有同學告訴他，「香港是個商業社會，博士畢業後的就業市場小得可憐，找不到工作就只能變成一個擁有高學歷的乞丐！」前輩的就業困境讓張恆如熱鍋上的螞蟻，即使每日仍需埋頭於實驗室的工作，但他已經開始擔心畢業後的出路。希望留在香港工作的張恆，為了日後生計開始考慮轉讀其他課程，「可能是香港商業氣氛太濃厚，我現在對科研已經沒有了衝勁，更沒有了憧憬！」 恰巧此時，科大發生博士生葛煒煒自殺事件，有指他是因為學業和就業壓力而選擇輕生。這件事令張恆下定決心，申請從博士課程轉至同系的哲學碩士課程(Mphil)，「希望快點畢業，更易找到工作！」張恆坦承，因為擔心家人不理解自己的選擇，至今不敢讓父母知道。原本計劃畢業後投身金融業的張恆，近期目睹金融海嘯下的蕭條，不禁苦笑稱需要再尋找就業目標，「我長期呆在實驗室，與外面的世界脫節太久，現在只能想隨便找份臨時工作，再慢慢發覺其他機會。」人才流失 學者責浪費資源 今年初畢業於科大計算機系、獲博士學位的Henry，目前在理工大學從事博士後研究。他坦言喜歡香港溫暖的氣候和公平公正的社會環境，但亦很難找到適合的工作，令他可以紮根香港，「香港院校從內地招收了許多尖子生，卻沒有相應的機構為他們提供畢業後的發展機會！」Henry希望特區政府可支持創辦一些高新技術研究所，既為院校理工科高學歷人才提供就業機會，亦能為本港及內地的企業提供產業更新技術，「即使紐約這種同樣以金融為主的城市，也有很多研發機構。」 科大化學系教授李曉原透露，的確有學生迫於就業壓力，要求由從事基礎研究的博士項目轉至碩士課程。他提到，不少優秀學生難在香港找到出路，最後回內地任職或赴海外繼續進修，「這樣變相形成港校花人力物力培養出來的人才，輕易流失到其他地方，讓人痛心！」 中原人力資源顧問有限公司董事總經理周綺萍表示，理工科研究生在港就業範圍極小，例如生化及醫藥業界提供的就業機會每年僅兩、三個，而內地生因語言、文化背景的差異，在與本地生競爭入職時往往處於劣勢。她指，博士畢業生除非選擇留校，否則僱主會擔心博士要求較其他求職者多而有所顧慮，「高學歷將成為他們的另一座絆腳石！」
Sunday, November 9, 2008
讀PhD會致命? (轉載)
研究生涯﹕讀PhD會致命？(明報)11月9日 星期日 05:05
【明報專訊】有日看見老鬼在職員餐廳一角與一「白頭佬」竊竊私語。良久過後，白頭佬一臉迷茫地離去。原來此白頭佬是老鬼行家，任教於另一所大學。白頭佬屬於未有博士銜的老一輩，入職時大學仍然是「學院」，博士學歷並非必須，但升格大學後，開始要這批無證教師在數年內「追加」博士學位，否則不獲續約。老鬼其實自己也是非博士的高危一族，我其實不明白為何那麼多朋友向他求教。「你咁醒教人，為何自己不讀一個？」我問。「我愛惜生命！你看這白頭佬，幾年前還精神飽滿，頭髮頂多算半白，現在差不多全白了，終日憂心忡忡，慘不忍睹，我最近才幫他的論文寫了兩章……」「嘩！你當『槍手』！？」我嘩然道。「沒辦法，30多年的朋友，也不想見他精神崩潰。」「讀博士的壓力真的很大嗎？」「讀博士的人通常都覺得自己好掂，開始時遇到困難都會逞强，不願找人幫忙，但愈讀發覺問題愈多……幾年前有一個同事念博士已有七年，我看過他的論文，禮貌勸說不如以較低的碩士銜頭畢業算罷。他頹喪搖頭，原來他已經有四個碩士。後來他還是過不了關，黯然離開香港學術界。」「好慘烈！」「這已不算最差勁。曾經有個大學講師，念了十幾年博士不果，信心崩潰，系主任仁厚，見他既無學位又無著作，勸他參加研討會，發表些文章湊數，於是他去了在北京參加學術會議，期間他突然失踪，香港傳媒還一度以為北京借機逮捕民運人士，後來才知道他因為涉嫌嫖妓給公安扣留問話，這宗『疑似叫雞事件』雖然是當事人的責任，但間接亦跟念博士有關。」「因為壓力太大了？」我實在難以置信。「這算小兒科。幾年前SARS，我認識兩個30來歲的年輕人，一個博士畢業後找不到工作，另一個正在讀博士的則受經濟和婚姻困擾，就一個月內，兩人都跳樓自殺了。自此以後，我就跟自己說，讀PhD讀到沒命，犯不着呢。」老鬼真的多鬼故。言救生
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/081108/4/952d.html
【明報專訊】有日看見老鬼在職員餐廳一角與一「白頭佬」竊竊私語。良久過後，白頭佬一臉迷茫地離去。原來此白頭佬是老鬼行家，任教於另一所大學。白頭佬屬於未有博士銜的老一輩，入職時大學仍然是「學院」，博士學歷並非必須，但升格大學後，開始要這批無證教師在數年內「追加」博士學位，否則不獲續約。老鬼其實自己也是非博士的高危一族，我其實不明白為何那麼多朋友向他求教。「你咁醒教人，為何自己不讀一個？」我問。「我愛惜生命！你看這白頭佬，幾年前還精神飽滿，頭髮頂多算半白，現在差不多全白了，終日憂心忡忡，慘不忍睹，我最近才幫他的論文寫了兩章……」「嘩！你當『槍手』！？」我嘩然道。「沒辦法，30多年的朋友，也不想見他精神崩潰。」「讀博士的壓力真的很大嗎？」「讀博士的人通常都覺得自己好掂，開始時遇到困難都會逞强，不願找人幫忙，但愈讀發覺問題愈多……幾年前有一個同事念博士已有七年，我看過他的論文，禮貌勸說不如以較低的碩士銜頭畢業算罷。他頹喪搖頭，原來他已經有四個碩士。後來他還是過不了關，黯然離開香港學術界。」「好慘烈！」「這已不算最差勁。曾經有個大學講師，念了十幾年博士不果，信心崩潰，系主任仁厚，見他既無學位又無著作，勸他參加研討會，發表些文章湊數，於是他去了在北京參加學術會議，期間他突然失踪，香港傳媒還一度以為北京借機逮捕民運人士，後來才知道他因為涉嫌嫖妓給公安扣留問話，這宗『疑似叫雞事件』雖然是當事人的責任，但間接亦跟念博士有關。」「因為壓力太大了？」我實在難以置信。「這算小兒科。幾年前SARS，我認識兩個30來歲的年輕人，一個博士畢業後找不到工作，另一個正在讀博士的則受經濟和婚姻困擾，就一個月內，兩人都跳樓自殺了。自此以後，我就跟自己說，讀PhD讀到沒命，犯不着呢。」老鬼真的多鬼故。言救生
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/081108/4/952d.html
Sunday, November 2, 2008
My second publication
My second publication now available!
Achieving Environmental Goals in a Competitive Electricity Market?: Post-Colonial Hong Kong, Public Choice and the Role of Government
Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008 , pp. 959-978(20)
However, I cannot download one from the website because it is a Grade C journal that few libraries have subscribed to.
As I think this article is not well written (so it is submitted to a Grade C journal), I am not interested to read it again. But you know in this academic world, you need to show people your 'productivity' which is measured mainly by number of publications you have (quality is also important, yet). Sigh.
Achieving Environmental Goals in a Competitive Electricity Market?: Post-Colonial Hong Kong, Public Choice and the Role of Government
Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008 , pp. 959-978(20)
However, I cannot download one from the website because it is a Grade C journal that few libraries have subscribed to.
As I think this article is not well written (so it is submitted to a Grade C journal), I am not interested to read it again. But you know in this academic world, you need to show people your 'productivity' which is measured mainly by number of publications you have (quality is also important, yet). Sigh.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Active academic life
在香港唸PHD同在澳洲或者其他西方國家讀有什麼分別? 經過這一個月體驗之後我覺得最大分別是，跟supervisor和fellow students or colleagues之間的互動。在香港，在我跟prof Jim唸Mphil嘅日子，我差不多每日都在自己做自己的東西，有事就找老闆，無事就一個人找資料，雖然固定地跟老闆見面，但過程都是一對一，不會有其他students or colleagues一齊分享，更加不會有一些半formal的sharing OR meeting。但在這裡，我跟Clive, Anthony還有Ella每隔個禮拜都會有meeting，談談過去果兩個禮拜做了些什麼，有什麼得著有什麼問題，大家可以知道對方在想在做什麼之外，亦都可以給自己一個機會去present自己的ideas，好像今日我們就在OFFICE外小草地旁邊的cafe聊了一個小時，雖然我講的不多，但我也enjoy 而且appreciate有這樣機會，跟一些思想差不多的人交流。而我們大概每個月左右就會有一次比較causal 嘅socializing event – 去bar 食晚飯聊天，什麼都聊也會說一些學術的東西，目的是讓大家更close而且relax一下。香港就比較少這樣的機會了，別說跟老闆，就算同學間都不會很close (那些大陸學生就更不sociable)，師生之間的討論闊度有限，交流亦流於表面，比較被動，這對學生來說，無論是個人成長或者學術發展都有一定阻礙
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Environmental behaviour
Read an insightful article wriiten by Paul Stern, a renowned environmental psychologist. It is about the what factors determine intended environmental behaviours. Here I summarize the key points.
First, there are four (or three) main types of environmental behaviours:
1. Environmental activism, e.g. active involvement in environmental organizations and demonstrations;
2. Public-sphere non-activism -
(a), Environmental citizenship, e.g. petitioning on environmental issues, joining environmental organizations;
(b), Policy support or acceptance, stated approval of environmental regulations, willingness to pay higher taxes for environmental protection
3. Private-sphere environmentalism, e.g. purchase of environmentally friendly products, green comsumerism.
Four types of causal variables influencing these behaviours are proposed:
1. Attitudinal, e.g. general and specific environmental beliefs, personal norms, perceived costs and benefits of the action
2. Personal capabilities, e.g. social status, income, specific skills
3. Contextual factors, e.g. laws and regulations, social norms and expectations, supporting policies
4. Habit and routine
The author notes that different causal variables appear to work different ways in influencing behaviours. For costly, complex and difficult environmental decisions (e.g. reducing automobile use in suburb), personal capabilities and contextual factors are more important. For those 'easy' behaviours (e.g. reducing the use of papers), attitudinal factors play major role.
Two points to note.
Firstly, the bases of private- and public-sphere environmental behaviours are different. To me, it means that my WTP (willingness-to-pay) for organic foods runs in a different mental track from paying an ecotax to support organic farming - one is about personal consumption while the other a social committment. (so, some people may say they support a government environmental policy but in fact do not personally behave green. This reflects there are different combinations of causal factors in action).
Secondly, contextual factors have to be considered (many previous studies have ignored). These involve broader social, economic and political contexts surrounding specific environmental issues. As far as climate change is concerned, personal attitudinal factors are but one of the determinants of people's intended contributions, which may also be affected by existing policy constraints and attitude, perceived reliability of scientific reports, and social trust.
Extended reading: Paul C. Stern (2000), Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), pp. 407-424
First, there are four (or three) main types of environmental behaviours:
1. Environmental activism, e.g. active involvement in environmental organizations and demonstrations;
2. Public-sphere non-activism -
(a), Environmental citizenship, e.g. petitioning on environmental issues, joining environmental organizations;
(b), Policy support or acceptance, stated approval of environmental regulations, willingness to pay higher taxes for environmental protection
3. Private-sphere environmentalism, e.g. purchase of environmentally friendly products, green comsumerism.
Four types of causal variables influencing these behaviours are proposed:
1. Attitudinal, e.g. general and specific environmental beliefs, personal norms, perceived costs and benefits of the action
2. Personal capabilities, e.g. social status, income, specific skills
3. Contextual factors, e.g. laws and regulations, social norms and expectations, supporting policies
4. Habit and routine
The author notes that different causal variables appear to work different ways in influencing behaviours. For costly, complex and difficult environmental decisions (e.g. reducing automobile use in suburb), personal capabilities and contextual factors are more important. For those 'easy' behaviours (e.g. reducing the use of papers), attitudinal factors play major role.
Two points to note.
Firstly, the bases of private- and public-sphere environmental behaviours are different. To me, it means that my WTP (willingness-to-pay) for organic foods runs in a different mental track from paying an ecotax to support organic farming - one is about personal consumption while the other a social committment. (so, some people may say they support a government environmental policy but in fact do not personally behave green. This reflects there are different combinations of causal factors in action).
Secondly, contextual factors have to be considered (many previous studies have ignored). These involve broader social, economic and political contexts surrounding specific environmental issues. As far as climate change is concerned, personal attitudinal factors are but one of the determinants of people's intended contributions, which may also be affected by existing policy constraints and attitude, perceived reliability of scientific reports, and social trust.
Extended reading: Paul C. Stern (2000), Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), pp. 407-424
Monday, October 6, 2008
Free market and Nobel Prize
It's time to change.
「金融海嘯勢顛覆諾獎評選」 經濟災難元兇 矛頭直指佛利民
(明報)10月6日 星期一 05:05
【明報專訊】一年一度的諾貝爾獎 將於今天開始公布。當前金融海嘯了令全球經濟陷危，也令諾貝爾經濟學獎過去長期褒揚自由主義經濟學派的角色受質疑。不少評論都將金融海嘯歸咎於佛利民和「芝加哥學派」等鼓吹的美式自由主義經濟模式，2001年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主施蒂格利茨近日接受法新社訪問，便指出諾獎評審過去厚愛芝加哥學派，但今次金融海嘯將令諾貝爾經濟學獎的取向徹底改變。
在2001年贏得諾貝爾經濟學獎的哥倫比亞大學教授施蒂格利茨（Joseph Stiglitz）向法新社說﹕「我想當前的危機，正為經濟學帶來一場根本性的哲學理念轉變。我們看到不受管束的市場可以是一場災難。」
自1969年創立以來，諾貝爾經濟學獎曾頒給各個不同範疇從事研究的經濟學家，除宏觀及微觀經濟學外，還有部分得獎研究是涉及政治學以至心理學，但經濟學獎評審委員會一直都被批評太厚愛「新古典經濟學」。「新古典經濟學」鼓吹自由主義市場、主張放寬管制（deregulation），向獲華府建制推崇，成為當今主宰世界經濟的思想主流。
奪獎常客「芝加哥學派」恐失勢
但愈來愈多人指出，促成今時今日經濟災難的，正正是佛利民（Milton Friedman）這些鼓吹自由主義市場的經濟學獎得主的理論。佛利民於1976年獲得諾獎，他跟「芝加哥學派」（Chicago School）的經濟理念，掀起了一場右派經濟政策革命，不僅催生了列根和戴卓爾的經濟革命，連拉丁美洲、東歐和亞洲，都在不同階段或自願或被迫地了採納其主張。
批評者指出，這些自由派經濟學家堅信私人企業的決策最有效率、市場永遠是理性、政府不應插手干預及規管，這樣經濟就能以最佳狀態運作，但這些經濟學理論顯然要為今天的金融災難所負責。曾狠批世銀政策、導致2000年離任的世銀前首席經濟師施蒂格利茨說﹕「最近發生的連串事件，無疑提供了關鍵的實證，印證讓市場自行運作，情况並非那麼好。」
近半經濟學獎得主與芝大有關
在58位贏得諾貝爾獎的經濟學家中，有40位（即69%）是美國 人，當中來自芝加哥大學的「芝加哥學派」，得獎者特別多，至少有25位經濟學獎得主都跟芝大有關係。施氏說﹕「曾幾何時大家都流傳着這個笑話，就是說芝加哥和斯德哥爾摩之間有一列快車直達。」諾貝爾經濟學獎，是在瑞典 首都斯德哥爾摩頒發的。
隨着各國都為對抗金融海嘯而手忙腳亂，施氏和一些經濟學家都相信，未來經濟獎評審將不會再繼續將焦點放在放任自由主義上。經濟學家舍霍盧姆說﹕「這次的金融危機可令市場全面倒退……我不能相信這不會影響諾貝爾獎。」
學者料轉投混沌理論宏觀經濟學
瑞典SEB銀行首席分析師弗里森亦說﹕「現時仍有一些這範疇（新古典自由主義經濟學）的有趣研究，但無可避免地（人們會對這套學說）出現反彈……我認為這會令一些新研究範疇也有機會問鼎。」
弗里森指出，人們將對宏觀經濟學上穩定市場的部分重燃興趣，並更專注於混沌理論，以及像有關「信貸市場和社會經濟的互動關係」等的研究。施蒂格利茨亦說，他預期諾獎會走出以往的舊路，轉向生態經濟學等新領域。
法新社
「金融海嘯勢顛覆諾獎評選」 經濟災難元兇 矛頭直指佛利民
(明報)10月6日 星期一 05:05
【明報專訊】一年一度的諾貝爾獎 將於今天開始公布。當前金融海嘯了令全球經濟陷危，也令諾貝爾經濟學獎過去長期褒揚自由主義經濟學派的角色受質疑。不少評論都將金融海嘯歸咎於佛利民和「芝加哥學派」等鼓吹的美式自由主義經濟模式，2001年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主施蒂格利茨近日接受法新社訪問，便指出諾獎評審過去厚愛芝加哥學派，但今次金融海嘯將令諾貝爾經濟學獎的取向徹底改變。
在2001年贏得諾貝爾經濟學獎的哥倫比亞大學教授施蒂格利茨（Joseph Stiglitz）向法新社說﹕「我想當前的危機，正為經濟學帶來一場根本性的哲學理念轉變。我們看到不受管束的市場可以是一場災難。」
自1969年創立以來，諾貝爾經濟學獎曾頒給各個不同範疇從事研究的經濟學家，除宏觀及微觀經濟學外，還有部分得獎研究是涉及政治學以至心理學，但經濟學獎評審委員會一直都被批評太厚愛「新古典經濟學」。「新古典經濟學」鼓吹自由主義市場、主張放寬管制（deregulation），向獲華府建制推崇，成為當今主宰世界經濟的思想主流。
奪獎常客「芝加哥學派」恐失勢
但愈來愈多人指出，促成今時今日經濟災難的，正正是佛利民（Milton Friedman）這些鼓吹自由主義市場的經濟學獎得主的理論。佛利民於1976年獲得諾獎，他跟「芝加哥學派」（Chicago School）的經濟理念，掀起了一場右派經濟政策革命，不僅催生了列根和戴卓爾的經濟革命，連拉丁美洲、東歐和亞洲，都在不同階段或自願或被迫地了採納其主張。
批評者指出，這些自由派經濟學家堅信私人企業的決策最有效率、市場永遠是理性、政府不應插手干預及規管，這樣經濟就能以最佳狀態運作，但這些經濟學理論顯然要為今天的金融災難所負責。曾狠批世銀政策、導致2000年離任的世銀前首席經濟師施蒂格利茨說﹕「最近發生的連串事件，無疑提供了關鍵的實證，印證讓市場自行運作，情况並非那麼好。」
近半經濟學獎得主與芝大有關
在58位贏得諾貝爾獎的經濟學家中，有40位（即69%）是美國 人，當中來自芝加哥大學的「芝加哥學派」，得獎者特別多，至少有25位經濟學獎得主都跟芝大有關係。施氏說﹕「曾幾何時大家都流傳着這個笑話，就是說芝加哥和斯德哥爾摩之間有一列快車直達。」諾貝爾經濟學獎，是在瑞典 首都斯德哥爾摩頒發的。
隨着各國都為對抗金融海嘯而手忙腳亂，施氏和一些經濟學家都相信，未來經濟獎評審將不會再繼續將焦點放在放任自由主義上。經濟學家舍霍盧姆說﹕「這次的金融危機可令市場全面倒退……我不能相信這不會影響諾貝爾獎。」
學者料轉投混沌理論宏觀經濟學
瑞典SEB銀行首席分析師弗里森亦說﹕「現時仍有一些這範疇（新古典自由主義經濟學）的有趣研究，但無可避免地（人們會對這套學說）出現反彈……我認為這會令一些新研究範疇也有機會問鼎。」
弗里森指出，人們將對宏觀經濟學上穩定市場的部分重燃興趣，並更專注於混沌理論，以及像有關「信貸市場和社會經濟的互動關係」等的研究。施蒂格利茨亦說，他預期諾獎會走出以往的舊路，轉向生態經濟學等新領域。
法新社
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Preliminary ideas about my PhD project
Some ideas about my PhD project, very preliminary.
'Trust, responsbility, and value: deliberation on global warming'
The sense of trust refers to trust in institutions, experts and the rest of the public, while responsbility is about how the costs and precautionary works are attributed, i.e. to the state, to private companies, or to NGOs?
Do these influence individiuals' environmental behaviours? especially in articulating a value for nature?
These all involve justice, both distributional and procedural justice.
Are these valid dimensions of environmental value?
And we can make use of focus group to further investigate how they interact and transform in a deliberation process.
So the ultimate questions are: does justice count? does 'economic' value exist?
Research design may include a paper survey and a focus group. If my supervisor can give me extra funding (it will take quite a lot time and $$), we can do a cultural comparative study, in China and Australia. If China is not feasible, Taiwan is a second choice.
'Trust, responsbility, and value: deliberation on global warming'
The sense of trust refers to trust in institutions, experts and the rest of the public, while responsbility is about how the costs and precautionary works are attributed, i.e. to the state, to private companies, or to NGOs?
Do these influence individiuals' environmental behaviours? especially in articulating a value for nature?
These all involve justice, both distributional and procedural justice.
Are these valid dimensions of environmental value?
And we can make use of focus group to further investigate how they interact and transform in a deliberation process.
So the ultimate questions are: does justice count? does 'economic' value exist?
Research design may include a paper survey and a focus group. If my supervisor can give me extra funding (it will take quite a lot time and $$), we can do a cultural comparative study, in China and Australia. If China is not feasible, Taiwan is a second choice.
Friday, September 26, 2008
My fifth day in Australia
This is my fifth day in Australia. The place and people here are very different from Hong Kong. There are something I see or feel during these days.
- Australia is really a beautiful place. I ride or walk to CSIRO office for several times. The environment around makes me comfortable and relaxed.
- the people are nice. Like, many people would say 'thank you' when getting off the bus, which is uncommon in Hong Kong. Yet some Aussie can be regarded as lazy by Hong Kong standard, and the customer service here is just ok.
- Canberra is quiet place, or boring place if you like. Not much entertainment here, shops close at night. You can't find the equivalent of Mong Kok here. It is kind of cultural shock for Hong Kong people like me.
- bike is so common here. They have specific lane for bikes on highways. Riding is good for health and for environment. I think there will be more cyclists as the oil price keeps rising.
- Australia is really a beautiful place. I ride or walk to CSIRO office for several times. The environment around makes me comfortable and relaxed.
- the people are nice. Like, many people would say 'thank you' when getting off the bus, which is uncommon in Hong Kong. Yet some Aussie can be regarded as lazy by Hong Kong standard, and the customer service here is just ok.
- Canberra is quiet place, or boring place if you like. Not much entertainment here, shops close at night. You can't find the equivalent of Mong Kok here. It is kind of cultural shock for Hong Kong people like me.
- bike is so common here. They have specific lane for bikes on highways. Riding is good for health and for environment. I think there will be more cyclists as the oil price keeps rising.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Economic rationality?
To those who believed in economic assumptions and Form 5/7 economics textbook theories. Let's listen to psychologists.
「市場理性」經濟假設遭質疑
(明報)9月20日 星期六 05:10
【明報專訊】經濟學理論的基本假設之一是，投資者基於理性而作出投資行為。但華爾街金融海嘯引發的全球股災，卻令「市場理性」的假設受到挑戰和質疑。有學者便認為，資產泡沫的形成和爆破，一大驅動力就是投資者的非理性，諸如羊群心理甚至狂躁荷爾蒙等因素。
狂躁荷爾蒙「放大」市場波幅
「經濟學理論常認為，市場價格的形成，取決於人們的理性及信息完全。」英國 心理學家塔克特說，「這是完全錯誤的，操作市場的是人，而基於人意識的決定通常是膚淺的。」行為學專家安德烈森直指，部分非理性投資行為是羊群心態所致：一開始，人們不敢輕易入市，但看到鄰居或同事買股票賺到錢，他們也開始小心入市，並從不斷上漲的股價而獲得信心。伴隨收益增多，他們愈加得意忘形；當市場泡沫開始破裂時，投資者仍覺得無所謂，直到股價大瀉，沽盤增多，他們就開始恐慌性拋售。安德烈森說：「受他人影響，許多人開始短期投機，只看股票表面價格，忽視內在價值。」
劍橋 大學行為學專家科茨更認為，市場波動幅度被狂躁荷爾蒙放大。科茨曾在高盛和德銀工作，2000年科網股熱潮時，他驚見男交易員表現出「典型症狀的躁狂症」，即認為自己無所不能、想法狂熱和減少睡眠。科茨於是展開研究，從倫敦 證交所隨機選了17名男交易員，每天兩次提取他們的唾液樣本，分析兩種荷爾蒙的變化。一種是與男性侵略行為和性行為有關的睾丸素，另一種是皮質醇，即會指示身體如何應付危急環境（選擇戰鬥下去或走為上着）的反應，結果發現當交易員賺錢時，睾丸素就會上升，但損手或市場波動時，皮質醇會急劇增加。不少針對動物的研究已顯示，長遠來說，荷爾蒙偏高會損害判斷力，並激發冒險行為。
就連熟諳金融市場規則的投行高層也未必理性。去年，塔克特曾訪查全球數十位投行基金經理，發現他們在面對必須交出成績的巨大壓力下，常傾向無視風險因素，並不斷說服自己正掌握着別人並不知曉的關鍵。塔克特說：「儘管很多人說知道牛市不可能永遠持續下去，他們還是繼續冒險。」
法新社
「市場理性」經濟假設遭質疑
(明報)9月20日 星期六 05:10
【明報專訊】經濟學理論的基本假設之一是，投資者基於理性而作出投資行為。但華爾街金融海嘯引發的全球股災，卻令「市場理性」的假設受到挑戰和質疑。有學者便認為，資產泡沫的形成和爆破，一大驅動力就是投資者的非理性，諸如羊群心理甚至狂躁荷爾蒙等因素。
狂躁荷爾蒙「放大」市場波幅
「經濟學理論常認為，市場價格的形成，取決於人們的理性及信息完全。」英國 心理學家塔克特說，「這是完全錯誤的，操作市場的是人，而基於人意識的決定通常是膚淺的。」行為學專家安德烈森直指，部分非理性投資行為是羊群心態所致：一開始，人們不敢輕易入市，但看到鄰居或同事買股票賺到錢，他們也開始小心入市，並從不斷上漲的股價而獲得信心。伴隨收益增多，他們愈加得意忘形；當市場泡沫開始破裂時，投資者仍覺得無所謂，直到股價大瀉，沽盤增多，他們就開始恐慌性拋售。安德烈森說：「受他人影響，許多人開始短期投機，只看股票表面價格，忽視內在價值。」
劍橋 大學行為學專家科茨更認為，市場波動幅度被狂躁荷爾蒙放大。科茨曾在高盛和德銀工作，2000年科網股熱潮時，他驚見男交易員表現出「典型症狀的躁狂症」，即認為自己無所不能、想法狂熱和減少睡眠。科茨於是展開研究，從倫敦 證交所隨機選了17名男交易員，每天兩次提取他們的唾液樣本，分析兩種荷爾蒙的變化。一種是與男性侵略行為和性行為有關的睾丸素，另一種是皮質醇，即會指示身體如何應付危急環境（選擇戰鬥下去或走為上着）的反應，結果發現當交易員賺錢時，睾丸素就會上升，但損手或市場波動時，皮質醇會急劇增加。不少針對動物的研究已顯示，長遠來說，荷爾蒙偏高會損害判斷力，並激發冒險行為。
就連熟諳金融市場規則的投行高層也未必理性。去年，塔克特曾訪查全球數十位投行基金經理，發現他們在面對必須交出成績的巨大壓力下，常傾向無視風險因素，並不斷說服自己正掌握着別人並不知曉的關鍵。塔克特說：「儘管很多人說知道牛市不可能永遠持續下去，他們還是繼續冒險。」
法新社
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
一個台灣人移居澳洲後的感想
Is Australia as good as I expect? maybe I can tell one year later. Remind me to give a reply to this post.
轉貼一個台灣人移居澳洲後的感想
http://www.helloanz.org/index.php?showtopic=16233
來到澳洲生活也有近五年，如果從實際開始生根算起，也將近三年的時間，這期間碰到許許多多台灣人或者台灣學生問著同樣的問題：台灣與澳洲哪個地方比較好？其實這問題並沒有答案，因為各個地方都有他的優缺點，絕對沒有一個地方是完美的，也絕對沒有一個地方是毫無優點，唯一可以提供的答案，只有是不是適合自己而已。
一般人來到澳洲往往是以觀光客的角色駐足欣賞澳洲，自然在旅行的角度下，美好的一面自然佔去大部分時間，也因此很容易讓來澳洲旅遊的觀光客有著完美澳洲的錯誤認知。就算今天有人以不同身分例如：打工度假、國際學生的簽證來澳洲居住，縱使有長達一年的時間，也將因為身分的不同，接觸環境的不同，對澳洲產生不同的偏頗概念。在這各式各樣情況背景下所產生的結論，自然也就缺乏其全面性的公正，澳洲真的是美好的嗎？
在台灣，中文是我們的母語，環境是我們從小到大接觸的，思考邏輯是從小學校建立的，自然而然我們可以看到台灣最細微的角落、翻查城市邊緣的黑暗，所以我們的眼中，台灣絕對有著他的黑暗面，在澳洲，英文是我們的第二語言，週遭環境把我們當成是陌生過客，對城市我們能看到的多是表面絢爛的外衣，在文化、思考邏輯上有著截然不同的路線，也因此接受到的訊息往往是重要以及明顯的，細微的角落通常只能選擇任其散落，這樣的情況下，澳洲自然會給人美好的感覺，畢竟澳洲有著寬廣的土地，豐富的資源，健全的社會制度，悠閒自由的生活態度，而這些，剛好都是忙碌的台灣人，在被工作壓榨之餘心中夢想的天堂。
澳洲的這些生活模式看似美好，問題是當一個台灣人或者是外來移入者，是否就真的可以享受這樣的生活？澳洲的薪資水準雖然高，但是物價也相對的高，澳洲人也如同台灣人一樣必須背負二三十年的貸款來購買他自己的第一棟房子，澳洲的大學畢業生也如同台灣一樣，必須接受一個可能還無法支應生活的年薪，多少的澳洲人無法擁有一個全職的工作，必須兼職二到三個工作才能維持生活，而澳洲健全的社會福利背後，卻是建立在一個高所得稅的基礎上，而這些情況對一個外來移入者，更是嚴酷以及艱辛。首先必須要改變自己的邏輯思考，藉此才能接觸澳洲當地的文化，進而讓食衣住行進入軌道，再來是重新建立人際關係網路，否則只是孤獨，我想這生活也難以長久，而最後也是最難的就是找到方式讓自己能夠生存下去，然後才有資格討論別人眼中美好的生活。
對一個台灣長大的人來說，澳洲生活可以說是一個截然不同的經驗，雖然不用把工作或者公司當作家而無止盡的加班，但是相對也等於晚上五點之後很多城市當中的生活機能也隨停頓。當享受著優閒的生活態度，也代表著許多事情在申請以及處理的過程上也是同樣的慵懶。數著比台灣高上許多的薪水時，也同樣表示自己在生活上的支出，無形中也支付著別人高人一等的年薪，在享受著澳洲政府提供的完善公共設施已及社會福利時，這也只是反映著可以高達47.5% 的所得稅支付，當這些組合起來，澳洲真的仍然美好？當有得必有失的前提下，適合反而成為重要的條件，不同的生活模式自然需要不同的心態去面對，而自己的心是不是符合這樣的環境，這才是澳洲與台灣最主要的差異。
從小到大認識的朋友、同學、親戚，是不是願意割捨，然後重新耗費五年到十年的時間重新建立，原本夜夜笙歌的KTV 生活是不是能夠轉變成清晨起床的運動，每天習慣上館子的三餐是不是準備通通改在自家廚房中由自己親手動手，本來習慣到公園賞花漫步，是不是準備由自己親自栽種、除草、割草維持，原本習慣每天掛在嘴邊的台灣國語，是不是能轉換成澳洲口音的ABCD，原本街頭巷尾就有的早餐店變成要到華人聚集的區域才能看到，以上這些都只是來到澳洲後必須改變的非常一小部份，其實只要想想平日生活流程中的點點滴滴，通通都要重新建立以及適應，而自己是不是有辦法適應這樣的轉變以及過程，我想能不能融入澳洲生活，澳洲會不會是自己的天堂，答案也就明顯可見了。
知道許多人因為不適應而在辛苦多年後回台灣去，也知道許多人嚮往著這新生活而極力追求著，其實人在哪個國度都是相同的，想要好生活，就先要能生存下來，而這生存的過程，辛苦程度我想沒有任何一個地方是輕鬆的吧。
轉貼一個台灣人移居澳洲後的感想
http://www.helloanz.org/index.php?showtopic=16233
來到澳洲生活也有近五年，如果從實際開始生根算起，也將近三年的時間，這期間碰到許許多多台灣人或者台灣學生問著同樣的問題：台灣與澳洲哪個地方比較好？其實這問題並沒有答案，因為各個地方都有他的優缺點，絕對沒有一個地方是完美的，也絕對沒有一個地方是毫無優點，唯一可以提供的答案，只有是不是適合自己而已。
一般人來到澳洲往往是以觀光客的角色駐足欣賞澳洲，自然在旅行的角度下，美好的一面自然佔去大部分時間，也因此很容易讓來澳洲旅遊的觀光客有著完美澳洲的錯誤認知。就算今天有人以不同身分例如：打工度假、國際學生的簽證來澳洲居住，縱使有長達一年的時間，也將因為身分的不同，接觸環境的不同，對澳洲產生不同的偏頗概念。在這各式各樣情況背景下所產生的結論，自然也就缺乏其全面性的公正，澳洲真的是美好的嗎？
在台灣，中文是我們的母語，環境是我們從小到大接觸的，思考邏輯是從小學校建立的，自然而然我們可以看到台灣最細微的角落、翻查城市邊緣的黑暗，所以我們的眼中，台灣絕對有著他的黑暗面，在澳洲，英文是我們的第二語言，週遭環境把我們當成是陌生過客，對城市我們能看到的多是表面絢爛的外衣，在文化、思考邏輯上有著截然不同的路線，也因此接受到的訊息往往是重要以及明顯的，細微的角落通常只能選擇任其散落，這樣的情況下，澳洲自然會給人美好的感覺，畢竟澳洲有著寬廣的土地，豐富的資源，健全的社會制度，悠閒自由的生活態度，而這些，剛好都是忙碌的台灣人，在被工作壓榨之餘心中夢想的天堂。
澳洲的這些生活模式看似美好，問題是當一個台灣人或者是外來移入者，是否就真的可以享受這樣的生活？澳洲的薪資水準雖然高，但是物價也相對的高，澳洲人也如同台灣人一樣必須背負二三十年的貸款來購買他自己的第一棟房子，澳洲的大學畢業生也如同台灣一樣，必須接受一個可能還無法支應生活的年薪，多少的澳洲人無法擁有一個全職的工作，必須兼職二到三個工作才能維持生活，而澳洲健全的社會福利背後，卻是建立在一個高所得稅的基礎上，而這些情況對一個外來移入者，更是嚴酷以及艱辛。首先必須要改變自己的邏輯思考，藉此才能接觸澳洲當地的文化，進而讓食衣住行進入軌道，再來是重新建立人際關係網路，否則只是孤獨，我想這生活也難以長久，而最後也是最難的就是找到方式讓自己能夠生存下去，然後才有資格討論別人眼中美好的生活。
對一個台灣長大的人來說，澳洲生活可以說是一個截然不同的經驗，雖然不用把工作或者公司當作家而無止盡的加班，但是相對也等於晚上五點之後很多城市當中的生活機能也隨停頓。當享受著優閒的生活態度，也代表著許多事情在申請以及處理的過程上也是同樣的慵懶。數著比台灣高上許多的薪水時，也同樣表示自己在生活上的支出，無形中也支付著別人高人一等的年薪，在享受著澳洲政府提供的完善公共設施已及社會福利時，這也只是反映著可以高達47.5% 的所得稅支付，當這些組合起來，澳洲真的仍然美好？當有得必有失的前提下，適合反而成為重要的條件，不同的生活模式自然需要不同的心態去面對，而自己的心是不是符合這樣的環境，這才是澳洲與台灣最主要的差異。
從小到大認識的朋友、同學、親戚，是不是願意割捨，然後重新耗費五年到十年的時間重新建立，原本夜夜笙歌的KTV 生活是不是能夠轉變成清晨起床的運動，每天習慣上館子的三餐是不是準備通通改在自家廚房中由自己親手動手，本來習慣到公園賞花漫步，是不是準備由自己親自栽種、除草、割草維持，原本習慣每天掛在嘴邊的台灣國語，是不是能轉換成澳洲口音的ABCD，原本街頭巷尾就有的早餐店變成要到華人聚集的區域才能看到，以上這些都只是來到澳洲後必須改變的非常一小部份，其實只要想想平日生活流程中的點點滴滴，通通都要重新建立以及適應，而自己是不是有辦法適應這樣的轉變以及過程，我想能不能融入澳洲生活，澳洲會不會是自己的天堂，答案也就明顯可見了。
知道許多人因為不適應而在辛苦多年後回台灣去，也知道許多人嚮往著這新生活而極力追求著，其實人在哪個國度都是相同的，想要好生活，就先要能生存下來，而這生存的過程，辛苦程度我想沒有任何一個地方是輕鬆的吧。
Monday, July 28, 2008
蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖
值得轉載的一篇文章，從文章看出作者是一個有良心、理智的香港人 (相比起那個所謂的香港良心Mrs. Anson Chan有過之而無不及)。
(註: 作者跟我一樣都係undergrad係中大讀BBA, 後來先轉做政策研究及評論)
蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖
(明報)7月24日 星期四 05:10
【明報專訊】最近，聽到剛赴美國 進修的一位朋友，所親身經歷的一個小故事。他說有天到理髮店理髮，剛巧理髮師也是移民到來的港人，便閒聊起上來，講到香港的種種熱鬧精彩時，朋友便好奇問對方，為何不回流香港，怎料對方卻說：「算了，我恐怕自己再也不能適應香港。」
理髮師舉例說，在美國，如果覺得顧客不太適合電髮，他會坦白告知，沒有人會埋怨你為舖頭「倒米」；相反，在香港，卻多半會被人罵作「有病」、故作清高。再舉個例，他也是讀書人，在美國，帶本書回理髮店看，是一件自然不過的事，沒有人會報以怪異目光；相反，在香港，卻多半會被看作「珍禽異獸」，被人視作「扮嘢」。
簡單來說，在香港，有原則、有價值、有堅持，會被人視作異類；相反，在彼岸，那才是一個較尊重「values」，較有「heart」的地方。所以，這位理髮師說，他都是選擇不回香港，他覺得自己在彼岸會生活得心安理得一點。
上周三，政府頒布了一系列在高通脹下，政府的紓解民困措施，不料，旋即被部分人士批評為偏重、討好基層，但卻忽略中產，開學津貼、綜援 、生果金、公屋租金等，統統無份，只有電費及外傭稅的寬減項目，才稍為惠及，中產再一次被犧牲。另有外傭僱主及中產人士，擬組織遊行，抗議政府漠視中產階級需要云云。
通脹哪個階層影響最大﹖
「中產階級稅就交得最多，但福利就攞得最少」，這是近年輿論中建構出來其中一個最有深遠影響的論述。其中一個最為推波助瀾的，就是愈來愈變得像campaign media的本地傳媒，每次政府「派糖」政策出台，傳媒都最愛攫取一些最具煽風點火效果的公眾sound bites，又或者起一些煽情的報章標題，例如中產「被開刀」，甚至「任人劏」這類語不驚人死不休的字眼。反而對於政策的來龍去脈，政策的合理性，卻着墨和探討甚少。今次一個典型例子便是外傭稅。
隨着政府寬免外傭稅兩年，向中產示好，除了因政策考慮不周而惹來不滿之外，也帶來應否還原回幾年前的情况，取消外傭稅的爭論，而且聲浪愈來愈兇，有報章甚至以頭版加以炒作。但大家卻忘記了，當年在徵收400元外傭稅時，也同時降低了外傭的最低工資400元，所以對於很多住戶來說，外傭稅變相是由外傭支付的。所以今次提出要還原、撤銷外傭稅時，又有幾多人為外傭說句公道話，建議同時還原、提高回外傭的最低工資呢﹖大家恍如失憶，不記得事件中外傭同時是stakeholders（持份者）。
於是，大家只會為自己那一份吵吵鬧鬧，卻不會把眼界擴展至其他人，看看整體上的合理性，看看什麼為之「公道」。
平心而論，在新一輪通脹威脅下，對草根的影響要算最大，因為現時通脹勢頭最猛的，要算是油價和糧食價格。油價太貴，中產可減少使用私家車，多用公共交通公具；但食物如罐頭、麵包、肉價、米價等飈升，可壓縮的空間則不大。大家都明白，菜籃子是草根生活開支的主要部分，對中產則不然。我們這類中產，每次去街市或超市買菜，最多感到有些「肉赤」，但仍未至於消費不起，但設身處地去想，即食麵一包由兩元升至四元；豆腐一磚由一元多升至三元多；罐頭由每罐幾元升至十多元；米價勁升了一倍 …… 一個月入幾千元的草根家庭，這就是「生活中難以承受之重」。再加上，經濟雖然復蘇，雖然中產很多都有人工加，但在全球化衝擊下，很多基層勞工面臨deskilling、工種外移、職位流失等的衝擊，薪水根本升不上去，令其情况更加雪上加霜。
在考慮稅收、公共資源的投放及配置時，如果每個人只考慮自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」，這樣只會把香港變成一個全無價值、全無人情味的民粹主義社會，這樣的一個社會將會十分脆弱和容易瓦解。
因此，我們考慮的，應該是更高的一些原則，例如社會價值，以及政策的理性（rationality）等。例如九七金融風暴時，因為利益飈升但樓價卻狂跌，政府推出紓解民困措施，選擇向中產傾斜，例如退稅、增設供樓免稅額等，便十分合理；相反，若要紓解通脹壓力，明白到通脹的勢頭在菜籃子最猛，草根在經濟復蘇中受惠最少，多照顧基層，這也是應有之義。
我相信這個世界是要講道理的，不能只講對自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」。在考慮公共政策，如紓解民困措施時，亦當如此。
對香港心存感恩
我自己出身低下階層家庭，父親是個船塢工人，一家三兄弟，如果沒有政府和社會的資助，根本無可能負擔得起讀大學，亦因而無可能通過教育改變命運，實現階級流動。我想這也是香港三四十歲中生代的普遍共同經驗。所以我一直對香港這塊土地，心存感恩。
如果當年的納稅人，也斤斤計較，是否「稅就有份交，福利就無份」，稅款是否流向與己不相干的低下階層之口袋，那麼我相信香港整整一個世代的人，將無法出現階級攀升和集體生活改善，經濟奇蹟和起飛可能也無從談起。
如果有多到世界各地遊歷、見識的朋友，相信不難感覺到，香港的治安、公共秩序、城市管理等，都是世界首屈一指的，身邊不少朋友也認定，香港是全球華人社會中，一個算是可以讓我們安身立命的好地方。只要你看看其他亞洲國家如印尼 及菲律賓 ，便知道幸福並不是必然。如果大家都不認為自己的社會是公義和合理，反而充斥着不忿、嫉妒，甚至是仇恨，一個社會是不可能安定與和諧的。建立一個公義的社會，便是稅款、公共資源投放及配置的其中一個主題，最終每個階層都能受惠，包括中產。
或許這番說話很刺耳，但我知道，自己不會出來參選，也沒有興趣做官，有些說話如果連我都不說，可能就更加沒有幾個人會說。所以還是冒着得罪很多人的危險，坦然道出——為了我所鍾愛和感恩的香港。
作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/080723/4/7bsb.html
(註: 作者跟我一樣都係undergrad係中大讀BBA, 後來先轉做政策研究及評論)
蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖
(明報)7月24日 星期四 05:10
【明報專訊】最近，聽到剛赴美國 進修的一位朋友，所親身經歷的一個小故事。他說有天到理髮店理髮，剛巧理髮師也是移民到來的港人，便閒聊起上來，講到香港的種種熱鬧精彩時，朋友便好奇問對方，為何不回流香港，怎料對方卻說：「算了，我恐怕自己再也不能適應香港。」
理髮師舉例說，在美國，如果覺得顧客不太適合電髮，他會坦白告知，沒有人會埋怨你為舖頭「倒米」；相反，在香港，卻多半會被人罵作「有病」、故作清高。再舉個例，他也是讀書人，在美國，帶本書回理髮店看，是一件自然不過的事，沒有人會報以怪異目光；相反，在香港，卻多半會被看作「珍禽異獸」，被人視作「扮嘢」。
簡單來說，在香港，有原則、有價值、有堅持，會被人視作異類；相反，在彼岸，那才是一個較尊重「values」，較有「heart」的地方。所以，這位理髮師說，他都是選擇不回香港，他覺得自己在彼岸會生活得心安理得一點。
上周三，政府頒布了一系列在高通脹下，政府的紓解民困措施，不料，旋即被部分人士批評為偏重、討好基層，但卻忽略中產，開學津貼、綜援 、生果金、公屋租金等，統統無份，只有電費及外傭稅的寬減項目，才稍為惠及，中產再一次被犧牲。另有外傭僱主及中產人士，擬組織遊行，抗議政府漠視中產階級需要云云。
通脹哪個階層影響最大﹖
「中產階級稅就交得最多，但福利就攞得最少」，這是近年輿論中建構出來其中一個最有深遠影響的論述。其中一個最為推波助瀾的，就是愈來愈變得像campaign media的本地傳媒，每次政府「派糖」政策出台，傳媒都最愛攫取一些最具煽風點火效果的公眾sound bites，又或者起一些煽情的報章標題，例如中產「被開刀」，甚至「任人劏」這類語不驚人死不休的字眼。反而對於政策的來龍去脈，政策的合理性，卻着墨和探討甚少。今次一個典型例子便是外傭稅。
隨着政府寬免外傭稅兩年，向中產示好，除了因政策考慮不周而惹來不滿之外，也帶來應否還原回幾年前的情况，取消外傭稅的爭論，而且聲浪愈來愈兇，有報章甚至以頭版加以炒作。但大家卻忘記了，當年在徵收400元外傭稅時，也同時降低了外傭的最低工資400元，所以對於很多住戶來說，外傭稅變相是由外傭支付的。所以今次提出要還原、撤銷外傭稅時，又有幾多人為外傭說句公道話，建議同時還原、提高回外傭的最低工資呢﹖大家恍如失憶，不記得事件中外傭同時是stakeholders（持份者）。
於是，大家只會為自己那一份吵吵鬧鬧，卻不會把眼界擴展至其他人，看看整體上的合理性，看看什麼為之「公道」。
平心而論，在新一輪通脹威脅下，對草根的影響要算最大，因為現時通脹勢頭最猛的，要算是油價和糧食價格。油價太貴，中產可減少使用私家車，多用公共交通公具；但食物如罐頭、麵包、肉價、米價等飈升，可壓縮的空間則不大。大家都明白，菜籃子是草根生活開支的主要部分，對中產則不然。我們這類中產，每次去街市或超市買菜，最多感到有些「肉赤」，但仍未至於消費不起，但設身處地去想，即食麵一包由兩元升至四元；豆腐一磚由一元多升至三元多；罐頭由每罐幾元升至十多元；米價勁升了一倍 …… 一個月入幾千元的草根家庭，這就是「生活中難以承受之重」。再加上，經濟雖然復蘇，雖然中產很多都有人工加，但在全球化衝擊下，很多基層勞工面臨deskilling、工種外移、職位流失等的衝擊，薪水根本升不上去，令其情况更加雪上加霜。
在考慮稅收、公共資源的投放及配置時，如果每個人只考慮自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」，這樣只會把香港變成一個全無價值、全無人情味的民粹主義社會，這樣的一個社會將會十分脆弱和容易瓦解。
因此，我們考慮的，應該是更高的一些原則，例如社會價值，以及政策的理性（rationality）等。例如九七金融風暴時，因為利益飈升但樓價卻狂跌，政府推出紓解民困措施，選擇向中產傾斜，例如退稅、增設供樓免稅額等，便十分合理；相反，若要紓解通脹壓力，明白到通脹的勢頭在菜籃子最猛，草根在經濟復蘇中受惠最少，多照顧基層，這也是應有之義。
我相信這個世界是要講道理的，不能只講對自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」。在考慮公共政策，如紓解民困措施時，亦當如此。
對香港心存感恩
我自己出身低下階層家庭，父親是個船塢工人，一家三兄弟，如果沒有政府和社會的資助，根本無可能負擔得起讀大學，亦因而無可能通過教育改變命運，實現階級流動。我想這也是香港三四十歲中生代的普遍共同經驗。所以我一直對香港這塊土地，心存感恩。
如果當年的納稅人，也斤斤計較，是否「稅就有份交，福利就無份」，稅款是否流向與己不相干的低下階層之口袋，那麼我相信香港整整一個世代的人，將無法出現階級攀升和集體生活改善，經濟奇蹟和起飛可能也無從談起。
如果有多到世界各地遊歷、見識的朋友，相信不難感覺到，香港的治安、公共秩序、城市管理等，都是世界首屈一指的，身邊不少朋友也認定，香港是全球華人社會中，一個算是可以讓我們安身立命的好地方。只要你看看其他亞洲國家如印尼 及菲律賓 ，便知道幸福並不是必然。如果大家都不認為自己的社會是公義和合理，反而充斥着不忿、嫉妒，甚至是仇恨，一個社會是不可能安定與和諧的。建立一個公義的社會，便是稅款、公共資源投放及配置的其中一個主題，最終每個階層都能受惠，包括中產。
或許這番說話很刺耳，但我知道，自己不會出來參選，也沒有興趣做官，有些說話如果連我都不說，可能就更加沒有幾個人會說。所以還是冒着得罪很多人的危險，坦然道出——為了我所鍾愛和感恩的香港。
作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/080723/4/7bsb.html
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monthly quote
quoted from Mark Sagoff's book (The Economy of the Earth, 2nd ed., 2008)
"as societies rise above the poverty level, goods are valued more for their social or cultural meaning than for their use; this meaning, moreover, is largely determined by their distribution" (p.76)
Distribution here means inter- and intra-generational equity. It also refers to the changees in status or identity after a redistribution of the good, like ownership of a rare product e.g. 'I'm not a plastic bag!'. So, one is altruistic and the other is self-interest, but both of them may be different from the 'utility' as economists defined. It is more likely related to the act itself, rather than the utility gains from the act. That's means that when societies pass through a certain threshold, the meanings of value change, and the old ways of interpretation fail.
"as societies rise above the poverty level, goods are valued more for their social or cultural meaning than for their use; this meaning, moreover, is largely determined by their distribution" (p.76)
Distribution here means inter- and intra-generational equity. It also refers to the changees in status or identity after a redistribution of the good, like ownership of a rare product e.g. 'I'm not a plastic bag!'. So, one is altruistic and the other is self-interest, but both of them may be different from the 'utility' as economists defined. It is more likely related to the act itself, rather than the utility gains from the act. That's means that when societies pass through a certain threshold, the meanings of value change, and the old ways of interpretation fail.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Maths-based environmental economics
This is a reply to someone in discussion forum who insisted that mathematics is very important if not central to economics and social science in general. I don't agree especially on the latter. Their academic mindsets are just too closed to be realistic. They forget the nature and purpose of economics as a social science, and just do maths for maths.
Link: http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=7587344&extra=page%3D1&page=4
Env econ has a purpose of informing policy. Researchers commonly make use of many maths modelling and technical appraoches, like a 'must' in every publication. However, some people, including trained economists, considered this as source of problems rather than an advantage now (it's 'common' but flawed). They criticized the highly focused appraoch with maths has 'reduces the env problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approch'.
For example, maths-based econ can hardly measure cultural-ethical value as it is non-marketed, slippery & not quite consistent to utilitartian theory. When assessing the value of fengshui forest 風水林, resource economists tend to look at productivity only, like the market value of timber and land which are measurable and more reliable (so, 'economically justifiable') and can be well fitted into maths-based techniques like CBA (cost-benefit analysis). However, this simply bypass those values (sort of cultural, 'religious' dimensions, like so called 龍脈, 風水山墳) that the local villages do care. Applying this econ etimate to project evaluation without taking such considerations may simply create conflict and may therefore be rejected by locals, green groups, and sometimes the government themselves. The equation looks good, but the number or symbol is narrowly defined given the nature of the issue.
Likewise, someone in World bank said it is economically justified to transfer all electronic waste to Africa. I suppose he can a make maths equation to show that this is efficient from econ perspective. However, you can imagine the justice and politics issue here. It is difficult to incorporate those value dimensions and issues that cannot be easily be precisely transferred as numbers in maths model, as I hv mentioned in my first post. If we strictly follow maths rules and stick to maths model as a policy basis, the result will be excluding some real-world issues that are really important to policy makers. This is the problem with hedonic pricing method, contingent valuation method (for valuing non-marketed goods) commonly used in env econ. The same problem applies to the Arctic energy resource, justice, politics,...and the list goes on. It is difficult to put these into equations - will u ask someone how much is your ethical belief?. Excluding these dimensions is a tradition of econ, but is a problem as well when the social aspirations change thru these years. That's why a renowned env economist said that env econ did not pay a key policy role - the maths-based, technical approaches are just too unrealistic to apply in real policy implementation. This view is supported by quite a number of economists in the field.
The flaw of the math-based env econ is then clear. By sticking to the orthrodox model they ignore those outside their discipline. They use maths, they make policy advice, but they ignore the linkage with other perspectives which are imcompatible to their mindsets. But env issues are complex and trans-disciplinary, exclusion of non-economic perspectives is just a ignorance of realities. Finally, policy may be misguided. And this partly contributes to the development of ecological economics, which takes philosophy, politics, economics, sociology...etc into account. If the mainstream economics is perfect, we don't need this.
In fact, in social science, there is a trend (actually a tradition) to move across disciplinary boundary. Sociology involves politics, econ is related to psycho, journalism to sociology and politics; geography almost covers all. And finally, all these are built upon philosophy. So, social scientists have no excuse to escape from other disciplines' inputs.
Link: http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=7587344&extra=page%3D1&page=4
Env econ has a purpose of informing policy. Researchers commonly make use of many maths modelling and technical appraoches, like a 'must' in every publication. However, some people, including trained economists, considered this as source of problems rather than an advantage now (it's 'common' but flawed). They criticized the highly focused appraoch with maths has 'reduces the env problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approch'.
For example, maths-based econ can hardly measure cultural-ethical value as it is non-marketed, slippery & not quite consistent to utilitartian theory. When assessing the value of fengshui forest 風水林, resource economists tend to look at productivity only, like the market value of timber and land which are measurable and more reliable (so, 'economically justifiable') and can be well fitted into maths-based techniques like CBA (cost-benefit analysis). However, this simply bypass those values (sort of cultural, 'religious' dimensions, like so called 龍脈, 風水山墳) that the local villages do care. Applying this econ etimate to project evaluation without taking such considerations may simply create conflict and may therefore be rejected by locals, green groups, and sometimes the government themselves. The equation looks good, but the number or symbol is narrowly defined given the nature of the issue.
Likewise, someone in World bank said it is economically justified to transfer all electronic waste to Africa. I suppose he can a make maths equation to show that this is efficient from econ perspective. However, you can imagine the justice and politics issue here. It is difficult to incorporate those value dimensions and issues that cannot be easily be precisely transferred as numbers in maths model, as I hv mentioned in my first post. If we strictly follow maths rules and stick to maths model as a policy basis, the result will be excluding some real-world issues that are really important to policy makers. This is the problem with hedonic pricing method, contingent valuation method (for valuing non-marketed goods) commonly used in env econ. The same problem applies to the Arctic energy resource, justice, politics,...and the list goes on. It is difficult to put these into equations - will u ask someone how much is your ethical belief?. Excluding these dimensions is a tradition of econ, but is a problem as well when the social aspirations change thru these years. That's why a renowned env economist said that env econ did not pay a key policy role - the maths-based, technical approaches are just too unrealistic to apply in real policy implementation. This view is supported by quite a number of economists in the field.
The flaw of the math-based env econ is then clear. By sticking to the orthrodox model they ignore those outside their discipline. They use maths, they make policy advice, but they ignore the linkage with other perspectives which are imcompatible to their mindsets. But env issues are complex and trans-disciplinary, exclusion of non-economic perspectives is just a ignorance of realities. Finally, policy may be misguided. And this partly contributes to the development of ecological economics, which takes philosophy, politics, economics, sociology...etc into account. If the mainstream economics is perfect, we don't need this.
In fact, in social science, there is a trend (actually a tradition) to move across disciplinary boundary. Sociology involves politics, econ is related to psycho, journalism to sociology and politics; geography almost covers all. And finally, all these are built upon philosophy. So, social scientists have no excuse to escape from other disciplines' inputs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)