中文翻译英文012.12.30

第一篇：中文翻译英文012.12.30

1.hanfanying

2.许多人离开家去找食物 Many people lefts their homes to go in search of food

3.她与2000年毕业不久成为了一名老师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.她张贴出一张有关学校组织去法国旅游的布告 She put up a notice about the school trip to France

6.她去牛津上大学的消息简直好得令人无法相信 The news that she went to Oxford University is too good the true

1.上大学时他们相遇并相爱了They met and fell in love at allege

2.我不知道他为什么不喜欢他的女婿I don’t know why he doesn’t like his son-in-law

3.我很荣幸你们请我在大会上讲话I am flattered that you asked me to speak at the meeting

4.这会时一个乞丐眼成为一个百万富翁This will make a beggar a millionaire in a minute

1.他们的婚礼将在教堂举行Their marriage ceremony will be performed in the church

2.冰淇淋经常用作正餐之后的一种甜点Ice cream is usually served as dessert after the main course

3.士兵们装扮成了普通老板姓The soldiers disguised themselves as ordinary people

4.公共汽车太挤了我几乎赚不过身来The bus so full chat i could hardly turn around

5.这个气球是有帆布制成的形状像个猴子The balloon is made of canvas and it’s shape like monkey

1.在一个朋友家小住几天给他写一封感谢信是礼貌的做法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静下来She put her finger to her lips a sign to be quite

3.他们每年可以享受30天的带薪年假They can enjoy a 30 day paid holiday every year

4.当我告诉他你要来她先的很惊讶She expressed when i toldher you were coming

5.恰恰相反许多学生更加珍惜课外与老师之间的交流On the contrary many student appreciate all the more communication with their teacher out of class

1.他们已把儿子抚养长大能自食其力了They have brought up their to sand on their own feet

2.我们请专家来担任政府顾问Experts were brought in to advise the government

3.因为这场大雨我们只好把野营推迟了We had to put off the camping as a result of the heavy rain

4.煤可以转化为煤气Coal can be converted to gas

5.这是语法练习的答案This is the key to the grammar exercises

1.他在购买服装上花了很多钱She sends a lot of money on clothes

2.计算机在办公室中起到重要作用 computers play an important role in office work

3.努力工作可以达到成功hard work leads to success

4.他们投身于我国的西部大开发they devote themselves to the development of the western part of our country

5.简参加多项学校活动jane takes part in many school activities

1.各组人民都沉在节日的气氛之中different varieties of people are in festival atmosphere

2.除非马上还清欠款否则我和你打官司i’ll take you to court unless you pay up immediately

3.我没有注意到周围的事物i was not aware of my surroundings

1.她偶尔不得不吃安眠药occasionally she had to take sleeping pills

2.这本字典的新版本还未发行the new version of this dictionary is not in use yet

3.承蒙足下推荐我已获得这份工作i got the job thanks to recommendation

4.她终于嫁给了最执着追求的她的人she eventually married the most persistent one of her admirers

5.她能很快记住许多资料she can memorize facts very quickly

1.我仍然坚持我的观点i still insist on my viewpoint

2.到时候我们会人通知你we will inform you in due course

3.我们既不打篮球也不打排球we are going play neither basketball nor volleyball

4.我总是开着窗户睡觉除非天气非常冷菜关上窗户i always keep the window open when i sleep unless it is very cold

5.你或是你的父亲今天必须见这位年轻人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不久他没有找到工作使他很失望因此流露街头尽可能维持生计

2.The mother having heard of her daughter’s whereabouts went to the poor parts of the city in search of her daughter 妈妈听到有女儿的消息后妈妈赶往贫穷的城市寻找女儿

3.Concerned for her mother’s safety the young woman ran to the bedroom and shook her mother awake and said it’s me 他考虑到妈妈的安全跑到了卧室摇醒了妈妈说是我是我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帮助下他们在那里度过了第一个寒冬

6.Many days before the festival shops supermarkets and restaurants decorate their show windows with colorful lights and exhibits and promise great discounts 在节日的前几天商店超市和饭店五彩缤纷的灯和美不胜收的展品装饰橱窗还说要降价

7.The lonely old folks could enjoy temporary happiness while they joined the celebration activities 当孤寡老人参加庆祝活动时获得短暂愉快

8.He thought that the key to feeding people was to have more rice and produce it more quickly他认为人们吃饭的关键有更多的大米和更快的生产

9.Which could give a higher yield than either of the original plants它可以给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由于袁隆平的发现中国的水稻产量咋20世纪90年代增长了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会发现个人的境况和更好的生活质量是促使人们离开办公室的两个最值得关注的原因

12.On an overcrowded tube i was commuters were being pushed around tempers were being fraved and a few people were crying 我在拥挤的地铁里上下班的人推推挤挤有些人发脾气有些人呼喊

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对学习英语的中国人来说写作时你会遇到内容组织和基本句子结构等一些问题

14.In that case you work in a specific field with specific challenges that may not be covered in this course你在一个特殊的环境里工作有特定的写作挑战二我们的课程不可能满足所有学生的要求

15.You will then save the new version and carry on with occasional editing and improving每次编辑环节之后你的文本会有所改进你应该保存这些新版本并继续不时的编辑和改进

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 当然你你不得不把你自己学到的东西运用实践最终你使你自己更完美

17.If you say the word communication most people think of work and sentences 说起交流大多数人想到单词和句子

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虽然这些单词和句子很重要但我们并不只是用口语和书面语交流身势语是我们说话的一部分

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

from culture to culture我们经常看到无意识的身势语但也有习得的身势语习得的身势语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 网络聊天室是一个新的流行的论坛，使人们认识新朋友来自世界各地的故事，也爱是很常见的21.However some experts say chat chatting can be addictive and they point out that problem lies in the chatters然而一些专家说聊天可能上瘾，他们指出问题在于聊天者本人

第二篇：AE滤镜英文-中文翻译

一.3D Channel 三维通道

1.3D Channel Extract 提取三维通道 2.Depth Matte 深度蒙版 3.Depth of Field 场深度 4.Fog 3D 雾化 5.ID matte ID蒙版

二.Audio 音频 1.Backwards 倒播

2.Bass/Treble 低音和高音 3.Delay 延迟

4.Flange/Chorus 变调和合声 5.High-Low Pass 高低音过滤 6.Modulator 调节器

7.Parametric EQ EQ参数 8.Reverb 回声

9.Stereo Mixer 立体声混合 10.Tone 音质

三.Blur/Sharpen 模糊与锐化 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 镜头模糊 8.Radial Blur 径向模糊

9.Reduce Interlace Flicker 减少交错闪烁(与高斯模糊相似)10.Sharpen 锐化

11.Smart Blur(没什么效果的模糊效果)12.Unsharp Mask 反遮罩锐化

四.Channel 通道

1.Alpha Levels Alpha色阶 2.Arithmetic 运算 3.Blend 混合

4.Calculations 计算

5.Channel Combiner 通道组合 6.Compound Arithmetic 复合计算 7.Invert 反相

8.Minimax 扩亮扩暗

9.Remove Color Matting 删除蒙版颜色 10.Set Channels 设置通道 11.Set Matte 设置蒙版

12.Shift Channels 转换通道 13.Solid Composite 实色合成

五.Color Correction 颜色修正 1.Auto Color 自动颜色

2.Auto Contrast 自动对比度 3.Auto Levels 自动色阶

4.Brightness/Contrast 亮度和对比度 5.Broadcast Colors 广播级颜色 6.Change Color 转换色彩

7.Change to Color 定向转换色彩 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 色彩链接

12.Color Stabilizer 色彩稳定器 13.Colorama 彩光 14.Curves 曲线 15.Equalize 均衡 16.Exposure 暴光

17.Gamma/Pedestal/Gain 伽马/基色/增益 18.Hue/Saturation 色调/饱合度 19.Leave Color 保留颜色 20.Levels 色阶

21.Levels(Individual Controls)色阶(个别控制)22.Photo Filter 图片过滤 23.PS Arbitrary Map 映象

24.Shadow/Highlight 阴影/亮光 25.Tint 色彩

六.Distort 扭曲

1.Bezier Warp 贝塞尔曲线弯曲 2.Bulge 凹凸镜

3.Corner Pin 边角定位 4.Displacenent Map 置换 5.Liquify 液化 6.Magnify 放大

7.Mesh Warp 网格变形 8.Mirror 镜像 9.Offset 位移

10.Optics Compensation 镜头变形 11.Polar Coordinates 极坐标转换 12.Reshape 形变 13.Ripple 波纹 14.Smear 涂抹 15.Spherize 球面化 16.Transform 变换

17.Turbulent Displace 剧烈置换 18.Twirl 扭转 19.Warp 弯曲

20.Wave Warp 波浪变形

七.Expression Controls 表达式控制 1.Angle Control 角度控制

2.Checkbox Control 检验盒控制 3.Color Control 色彩控制 4.Layer Control 层控制 5.Point Control 点控制 6.Slider Control 游标控制

八.Generate 产生(以前叫渲染)1.4-Color Gradient 四色渐变 2.Advanced Lightning 高级闪电 3.Audio Spectrum 声谱 4.Audio Waveform 声波 5.Beam 光束

6.Cell Pattern 单元图案 7.Checkerboard 棋盘格 8.Circle 圆形 9.Ellipse 椭圆

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

14.Lens Flare 镜头光晕 15.Lightning 闪电

16.Paint Bucket 油漆桶 17.Radio Waves 电波 18.Ramp 渐变 19.Scribble 涂写 20.Stroke 描边 21.Vegas 勾画

22.Write-on 书写(有遮罩的功能)

九.Keying 键控

1.Color Difference Key 色彩差异键控< 2.Color Key 色彩键控 3.Color Range 色彩范围 4.Difference Matte 差异蒙版 5.Extract 提取

6.Inner/Outer Key 轮廓键控

7.Linear Color Key 线性色彩键控 8.Luma Color Key 亮度键控 9.Spill Suppressor 溢色抑制

十.Matte 蒙版工具

1.Matte Choker 蒙版清除 2.Simple Choker 简单清除

十一.Noise/Grain 杂色/噪点 1.Add Grain 添加颗粒

2.Dust/Scratches 蒙尘与划痕 3.Fractal Noise 分形噪波 4.Match Grain 匹配噪点 5.Median 中值 6.Noise 杂色

7.Noise Alpha Alpha杂色 8.Noise HLS HLS杂色

9.Noise HLS Auto 自动HLS杂色 10.Remove Grain 清除噪点

十二.Paint绘画 1.Paint 绘画

2.Vector Paint 矢量绘画

十三.Perspective 透视 1.3D Glasses 3D视觉 2.Basic 3D 基础三维 3.Bevel Alpha Alpha导角 4.Bevel Edges 边缘导角 5.Drop Shadow 投影

6.Radial Shadow 径向投影

十四.Simulation 仿真 1.Card Dance 卡片动画 2.Caustics 腐蚀 3.Foam 水泡

4.Particle Playground 粒子游乐场 5.Shatter 爆碎

6.Wave World 水波 十五.Stylize 风格化

1.Brush Strokes 画笔描边 2.Color Emboss 彩色浮雕 3.Emboss 浮雕

4.Find Edges 查找边缘 5.Glow 辉光 6.Mosaic 马赛克

7.Motion Tile 运动拼贴

8.Posterize 多色调(相当有16位色32位色)9.Roughen Edges 粗糙边缘 10.Scatter 扩散

11.Strobe Light 闪光灯 12.Texturize 纹理化 13.Threshold 阈值

十六.Text 文字

1.Basic Text 基本文字 2.Numbers 数字

3.Path Text 路径文字 4.Timecode 时间代码

十七.Time 时间 1.Echo 重影

2.Posterize Time 招贴画 3.Time Difference 时间差异 4.Time Displacement 时间置换 5.Timewarp 时间扭曲

十八.Transition 切换

1.Block Dissolve 块面溶解 2.Card Wipe 卡片擦拭 3.Gradient Wipe 渐变擦拭 4.Iris Wipe 星形擦拭 5.Linear Wipe 线性擦拭 6.Radial Wipe 径向擦拭 7.Venetian Blinds 百叶窗

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：英文采访稿(附中文翻译)

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!为了了解过去中国的生活是什么样的，我在学校的小公园里采访了一位60多岁的老爷爷。

问：您好，很高兴见到您，谢谢您能够接受我的采访。

答：认识你也很高兴。

问：你看起来大概60岁左右对吗？您能不能跟我讲一下人们用自行车最多是在什么时候呢？ 答：当然。我出生于1953年，今年都61岁了。事实上，中国在过去被称为“自行车王国”呢。我记得我的姥爷告诉我自行车是在19世纪后期引进中国的。在六、七十年代，那时候我还年轻，自行车和缝纫机、手表是年轻人结婚必备的“三大件”。自行车真正流行起来是在80年代，那个时候自行车是最重要、最普遍的交通工具，出名的牌子有“永久”、“凤凰”、“飞鸽”。那个时候上下班高峰期自行车流非常壮观，中国也因此被称为“自行车王国”。你们现在可能体会不到那种感觉，但是在那个时候拥有一辆自行车是让人非常羡慕嫉妒的，特别是我们年轻人。

问：但是那个时候一辆自行车肯定很贵对吧？

答：那是肯定的！一辆自行车要200块钱左右，而那个时候人们的工资只有十几、几十块。所以自行车很珍贵。

问：嗯，那公交车呢，公交车什么时候出现？今天的公交车跟你们年轻时候的比起来又怎么样呢？

答：哈尔滨的公交应该是在50年代发展起来吧。我年轻的时候，公交还不是很普及，只有几条线路投入运行。而且，公交车的环境和状况跟如今的比起来都很差。

问：嗯，那您20岁、30岁、40岁的时候生活是怎样的呢?随着您的年长，日常生活有哪些变化呢？

答：我20岁的时候，印象最深刻的是你买任何东西都需要票或者证。因为所有东西的数量是有国家按人口规定好的，所以即使你有钱你也买不了很多。像酒，你要拿着证去供销社买。如果你还想要的话，你就要借其他人的证去买。因为每家酒的数量是一定的，但是有的人家舍不得买。后来个体商户出现了而且越来越多，就可以拿钱买任何想要的东西。自从改革开放政策的实行，我们的生活变得越来越丰富多彩。

问：您能给我讲讲当高楼大厦建起来的时候生活发生了哪些改变吗？

答：嗯....事实上，高楼大厦并没有给我们的生活带来很大影响。刚开始，我们看到可能会感叹会迷惑，但是后来慢慢就习惯了。你看现在到处都是高楼林立。

问：那对于过去的日子有哪些是您非常怀念的，哪些是不怎么怀念的呢？

答：嗯....要说怀念的话，应该是怀念过去人们的淳朴善良吧，而且那时候人们也更加勤劳勇敢。但是我更享受现在的高品质生活，完善的医疗体系，多样的娱乐活动，便利的公共交通等等，这些都是过去不能比的。你要知道过去的生活很艰苦。

问：是的，肯定比现在要苦。好的，非常感谢您抽出时间接受采访，通过您的讲述我对以前的生活知道了更多细节，谢谢！

答：不用谢，很高兴能帮到你。

第四篇：激励机制英文文献和中文翻译

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.中文翻译：

如何激励每一位员工

---詹姆斯·卡梅隆

激励是人力资源管理的核心。

在企业生产经营管理中，人力资源是企业各种经济资源中具有思想、感情、最求和能动性的亦喜爱那个经济资源，也是企业这一有机体的灵魂，因此，人力资源是比其它生产经营资源更为重要的一项资源，它不仅影响和决定了企业其他生产经营经济资源的价值和使用状况，而且其本省就是企业实力几家质量的重要组成部分之一，由于人力资源在企业生产经营经济资源中的地位和作用，所以企业管理工作成效的极致或者说要达到的理想境界的目标应该是：企业内的每一个员工都能将企业的整体利益放在首位，并为企业的目标、利益甘愿贡献自己的一切。职工的这样一种思想和精神状态在宣誓中师很难以体现的，但却是企业家、管理者孜孜以求和所要挑战的极限，要趋近这样的一种状态，只有通过企业内部的有效激励。因此，企业管理工作的重中之重是人力资源管理。与传统劳动人事管理不同，现代人力资源管理的主要特征表现在“战略性”层面上：（1）在战略指导思想上，现代人力资源管理是“以人为本”的管理；（2）在战略目标上，现代人力资源管理是为了“获取竞争优势”的目标管理；（3）在战略范围上，现代人力资源管理是“全员参加”的民主管理；（4）在战略措施上，现代人力资源管理是运用“系统化科学方法和人文艺术”的权变管理。与非人力资源管理相比较，人力资源管理是通过“激励”来实现的，它是人力资源管理的核心。所谓“激励”，就是从满足人的多层次、多元化需要出发，针对不同员工设定绩效标准和奖励值，一最大限度地激发员工工作积极性和创造性去实现组织的目标。一个企业的人力资源利用效果如何，是由许多复杂因素耦合作用的结果，但其中管理的激励作用是最重要的因素之一。

人力资源不同于其他非人力资源的根本特征就是，它依附于员工的人体而存在，与员工个人须臾不可分离，其他人或组织要使用人力资源，都要经由它的天然所有这个人的“积极主动”配合才能实现。因此，人力资源管理工作能否“以人为本”，有效激发员工的积极性，最大限度地发挥员工的主观能动性和创造性，就成为决定企业生产经营绩效优劣的关键因素和企业人力资源管理成功与否的核心问题。

企业员工激励的措施。

激励对管理特别是人力资源管理的重要性自不待言。通过激励能把所有才能的、本企业所需要的人吸引过来；也可以使本企业员工最充分地发挥其才能和智慧；从而保持所从事工作的有效性和高效率。激励不仅在于能使职工安心，积极地工作，它还发挥使职工认同和接受本企业的目标和价值观，对企业产生强烈的归属感。据美国哈佛大学的教授威廉·詹姆士研究，在缺乏激励的环境中，人员的潜力只发挥出了一小部分，即20%—30%，刚刚能保住饭碗即止；而在良好的激励机制环境中，同样的人员即可发挥出潜力的80%—90%，由此可见，使每位员工始终处于良好的激励环境中是人力资源开发和管理所追求的理想状态。那么，如何才能正确有效地激发员工的时期呢？ 首先、坚持以人为本，尊重人性，树立并贯彻“以员工为中心”的管理观念。

“以人为本，尊重人性”作为现代管理理念，强调把管理的最终目的——提高企业经济效益放在人的背后，管理行为不再是冰冷冷的命令型、强制型。而是贯彻着激励、信任、关心、情感，体现着管理者对人性的高度理解和重视，管理者不能把员工视为单纯的“经济人”，以满足其生存需要

和物质利益作为管理契机，而是要注重员工的尊重，自我实现等高层次精神需求，以提供创造性的工作，鼓励个性的发挥来调动员工的积极性，在平等的引导和交流中，建立起企业的经营理念；将外部控制转化为自我控制，使每个员工自发地形成对企业的忠诚感和责任感，进而使员工的个人价值实现和企业的生存发展归为一途，如果企业不懂得以人为本，对人性缺乏基本的了解和尊重，忽视了人才的个人价值，使员工实现个人价值的需求长期得不到满足甚至压抑，就无法留住最好的人才，企业也将因此失去竞争力。为此，必须做到以下几点：

经常开展员工调查，尽可能了解员工所关心的事，尤其是与其工作相关的事，以赢得员工的支持和忠诚，并可引导员工的创新精神，吸引并留住员工，企业应致力于收集以下员工所期望的信息：工作中的公平性；组织学习；沟通；灵活性和关心度；顾客中心；信任和授权；管理的有效性；工作满意程度，被支持的充分性，被安置角色的合适性，是否感觉到有价值。

着力于员工报酬、福利、工作条件的改善以及灵活、便利性的优惠安排。企业应随着时代的变化，除了注重传统意义上的员工报酬、福利和工作条件的改善以外，还可以实施其他的优惠措施，如提供日托；在职大学学习；学费补助；缩短夏季工作时间；实施员工股票期权计划；设置远程办公岗位等等。

其次、实施全面薪酬战略，给员工以充分的激励。

所谓“全面薪酬战略”，即公司将支付给员工的薪酬分为“外在”和“内在”的两大类，两者的结合即为“全面薪酬”，“外在的薪酬”主要指为员工提供可量化的货币性价值，比如，基本工资奖金、股票期权、退休金、医疗保险等等，“内在的薪酬”则是指那些给员工提供的不能以量化的货币形式表现的各种货币价值。比如，对工作的满意度，为完成工作而提供个人便利工具，培训的机会，吸引人的公司文化，良好的人际关系，相互配合的工作环境，以及公司对个人的表彰、谢意等，外在的薪酬和内在的薪酬各自具有不同的激励功能。它们互相联系，互为补充，构成完整的薪酬体系，实践证明，由于员工对企业的期望和需求是全面的，其中既包括物质需求，又包括精神需求，因而实施“全面薪酬”战略，是员工激励的有效模式。

第三、奖励应公平、公正、杜绝奖励“大锅饭”

公平公正是激励一个基本原则。如果不公平公正，奖不当奖，罚不当罚，不仅收不到预期的效果，反而会造成许多消极后果，要铁面无私，不论亲疏，不分远近，一视同仁，以促进员工的积极性沿着好的方向良性循环，就像美国管理学界提出的奖励准则那样。只有这样做，才能增强企业的凝聚力和向心力。同时，奖励分明是从古至今人们所信奉的基本管理原则。如果把奖金当成实际上的附加工资，当成是与个人表现无关的报酬，员工就觉得这是他们应得的，而不是努力的结果，这样就不能激人上进。因此，聪明的管理者应尽一切可能把报酬和绩效表彰结合起来，把它与对事业的忠诚，对事业的奉献紧密结合起来，实际上，员工内心最不平衡的事是，自己干得好，有奉献，却与不干活的人待遇一样。这也常是员工与领导不满意的原因，要把公司奖励行为与员工利益挂钩，保障个人创造价值越高，其收益越大，并通过奖励创造公平的竞争环境，增加成绩的可比性，促进群体向上。

综上所述，企业在使用激励管理时，应以人为本，注重和强化企业内部精神极力资源的挖掘和开发，提高职工报酬当中非物质报酬的程度，在判定和落实各项政策和规章制度的工作中，力求体现公平和公正性原则。不宜盲目地助长员工预期目标收益不切实际地增加，否则就会使企业对职工个体或群体的激励措施产生困难和制约，有效性下降，难度增加。

第五篇：一篇经济类英文论文(含中文翻译)

The Problem of Social Cost

社会成本问题

RONALD COASE 罗纳德·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.罗纳德·科斯在芝加哥大学法学院名誉教授和诺贝尔经济学奖得主。本文是其外法学与经济学杂志（1960年10月）。专门的法律问题的决定的延伸讨论的几个

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、要检查的问题

本文关注的是这些行动的企业有伤害他人有用的影响。标准的例子是，一个工厂的烟雾从那些占领邻近物业的有害影响。在这种情况下的经济分析，通常已在工厂的私人和社会产品之间的分歧方面着手，在经济学家们基本上遵循治疗庇古福利经济。这种分析的结论，似乎使大多数经济学家是工厂里的烟雾，或者受伤的人造成的损害能够使雇主，这将是可取的，上放置一个税在金钱方面的损害，或最后，它会导致排除住宅区（大概是从其他地区排放的烟雾将有对他人有害影响）工厂厂主不同的金额产生的烟雾，相当于。行动的建议的课程是不合适的，因为它们导致的结果是不一定，甚至是通常情况下，可取的，它是我的论点。

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、互惠性的问题

传统的做法往往掩盖作出的选择，自然。这个问题通常被认为作为一个在B上一个敌人造成的伤害和什么要决定的是：我们应该如何抑制一个？但这是错误的。我们正在处理的互惠性质的问题。为了避免伤害，B将A上造成的危害，真正的问题，必须决定是：应该允许A损害B或应允许B伤害吗？问题是要避免更严重的伤害。我在我以前的文章中实例化一个糕点师的噪音和振动机械不安医生在他的工作情况。为了避免伤及医生会造成伤害的糕点。基本上这种情况下所造成的问题是它是否值得，作为一种限制方法可以用于糕点生产的结果，以争取更多的糖果产品的供应减少，成本篡改。另一个例子是给予由偏离破坏邻近土地上的农作物的牛的问题。如果这是不可避免的，一些牛会偏离，只能获得所有的肉类供应增加作物供应减少开支。选择的性质是明确的：肉类或农作物。应给予什么样的答案是，当然，不明确的，除非我们知道得到什么价值，以及什么牺牲得到它的价值。给另一个例如，教授乔治·J.斯蒂格勒实例流的污染。如果我们假定污染的有害影响是，它杀死的鱼，将要决定的问题是：是鱼的价值损失大于或小于流的污染，使产品的价值。当然，几乎没有说，这个问题要看着总保证金。

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、损害赔偿责任的定价制度 我建议开始我的分析，通过审查案件，其中多数经济学家大概会同意将在完全令人满意的方式解决问题的破坏性业务时支付所有所造成的损害和定价体系工程进展顺利（严格来说，这意味着定价制度的运作是无成本）。

正在讨论的问题的一个很好的例子是误入牛毁坏庄稼邻近土地上生长的情况下给予。让我们支持对一个农民和牛募集邻近物业经营。让我们进一步假设，没有任何围栏之间的属性，在牛募集的畜群规模的增加而增加农民的作物的总伤害。会发生什么情况，以增加畜群的大小的边际损害的，则是另一回事。这取决于牛是否会跟随一个或是否他们往往是牛群的增加和规模上其他类似的因素或多或少不安，漫游并排。对于我的直接目的，它是无关紧要的假设边际损害为增加畜群的大小。

鉴于这是承担，造成损害的额外费用的牛的序幕征收，如果他增加从2至3阉他的畜群的牛是$3，并在决定牛群的大小，他将考虑到这一点，随着他的其他费用。也就是说，他不会提高畜群的大小，除非额外的肉产生的价值（假设牛的序幕屠宰的牛）的额外费用，这将意味着，包括摧毁了其它作物的价值更大。当然，如果就业的狗，农牧民，飞机，移动无线电和其他手段，可以减少损失数额，这些手段将通过他们的成本是低于价值的作物，它们可以防止丢失。由于是在击剑成本是$9，在牛的提出者谁希望有一群4装载机或更多将围篱支付到被架设和维护，假设，其他手段达到同样的目的，不是做这样更便宜。当围栏架设，由于损害赔偿责任的边际成本变为零除的程度，在牛群规模的增加，需要一个更强大，因此更昂贵的围栏，因为更多的公牛有责任向它倾斜在同一时间。但是，当然，这可能是牛募集便宜没有围墙受损的作物，在我算术例如，作为3个或更少的公牛，并支付。

有人可能会认为牛募集将支付所有损坏庄稼的事实将导致农民增加他的种植牛募集来占据邻近物业。但事实并非如此。如果以前在完全竞争的条件下出售作物，边际成本等于价格进行种植量，任何扩大农民的利润将减少。在新形势下，农作物损失的存在就意味着农民将在公开市场上出售的，但他的收入为一个给定的生产将保持不变，因为牛募集支付任何破坏作物的市场价格。当然，如果养牛通常涉及毁坏庄稼，到一个养牛业存在的到来可能会引发涉及农民将扩大其种植的农作物的价格。但我希望把我的个体农民的关注。

我曾经说过，占领邻近由牛募集的属性不会导致农民增加的生产量，或者更准确的种植量。事实上，如果有任何影响的养牛，它会减少种植量。这样做的原因是，任何土地道，如果受损作物的价值是如此之大，从出售完好作物的收入少于培育，大片土地的总成本，这将是为农民和牛的序幕，留下大片土地荒废，使讨价还价，即有利可图。这可以通过一个算术例子明确。最初假设，作物耕种的土地道获得的价值是12美元，在培育这一大片土地所需的费用是$ 10，$ 2耕种土地的净收益。我想简单，农民拥有土地的目的。现在假设，在牛的提出者开始，损坏农作物的价值$ 1.In这种情况下$ 11获得由农民从销售市场和$ 1是从的牛的序幕获得损害遭受的邻近物业经营净收益仍然为2美元。现在想，在牛的提出者认为它盈利增加他的畜群的大小，即使损坏的数量上升到3美元;的额外肉类生产的价值大于的额外费用，包括了额外的$ 2支付损坏。但损害的支付总额是$ 3。农民耕种土地的净收益仍然是2元。牛的序幕，将是富裕农民都同意，如果不培养他的土地，任何支付不到3美元。农民将没有培养任何大于$ 2支付土地的认同。显然是这将导致放弃种植一个双方都满意的讨价还价的余地。*但同样的论点不仅适用于整个道由电风扇培养的，而且也给它的任何细分。假设，例如，牛有一个明确的路线，比方说，一条小溪或阴凉的区域。在这种情况下，对沿线作物受损金额也可能是巨大的，如果是这样，可能是，农民和牛募集会发现是有利可图的讨价还价，农民同意不以培养狭长土地。

但是，这引发了进一步的可能性。假设有这样一个罚款的好路线。进一步假设，作物的价值将获得通过培育这个地带是10元，但种植成本11元。在牛募集的情况下，土地不会种植。然而，给予牛募集的存在，它可能是，如果带钢培养，整个作物将牛销毁。在这种情况下，牛募集将被迫支付10美元的农民。这是真正的农民将损失$1。但牛的序幕，将失去10美元。显然，这是一个情况，这是不可能无限期地持续下去，因为任何一方都不希望这种情况发生。农民的目的是诱导牛募集的支付换取了一项协议，离开这片土地荒废。农民将无法获得支付大于围栏这片土地的成本，也没有这么高，导致牛募集放弃使用邻近物业。哪些付款将在事实上将取决于作为讨价还价的精明的农民和牛募集。但作为付款就不会那么高，容易引起牛募集放弃这个位置，因为它不会随畜群的大小，这样的协议不会影响资源的分配，但仅仅是改变的分布牛提出者和农民之间的收入和财富。

我认为这是明确的，如果牛募集造成的损失承担责任和定价体系工程进展顺利，其他地方减少产值将考虑在计算涉及的额外费用，提高畜群的大小。这笔费用将额外的肉类生产的价值权衡，完美的比赛，在养牛业，养牛将是最佳的资源分配。需要强调的是，牛募集费用，将考虑在其他地方的生产价值的下降可能是小于牛会导致在日常事件对农作物的损害。这是因为它是可能的，作为市场交易的结果，停止种植的土地。在所有情况下的破坏，会导致牛，牛募集愿意支付超过数额的农民支付土地使用，这是可取的。在完全竞争的条件下，农民支付土地使用量等于总生产值之间的差异的因素时，在这片土地上雇用和其他产品的价值在他们的未来产生最好的使用（这是什么农民将不得不支付的因素）。如果损害超过数量的农民支付土地使用，其他地方就业的因素更多的产品价值将超过在此使用的产品总价值的考虑后损坏。它如下放弃种植的土地，并释放其他地方生产的因素，这将是可取的。一个程序，它只是提供付款为牛，但是这并没有让被停止种植的可能性造成作物受损将导致太小，养牛和太大的就业因素的生产要素的就业在作物的种植。但考虑到市场交易的可能性，这种情况在对农作物的损害超过土地租金，就不能忍受。是否牛募集支付农民离开土地荒废，或自己租土地，由土地所有者支付金额略高于农民将支付（如果农民自己租用的土地），最终的结果将是相同的，将最大限度地提高生产的价值。即使诱导农民种庄稼，它不会是有利可图的培养，在市场上出售，这将是一个纯粹的短期现象，预期可能会导致根据该协议将停止种植。牛募集将保持在该位置和肉类生产的边际成本会像以前一样，因此，资源的分配上没有长期的效果。

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、无损害赔偿责任的电价体系

现在我想谈谈案中，虽然定价体系工作的顺利开展（即，无成本），损坏业务是不会造成任何损害承担责任。此业务并没有使那些破坏其行动付款。我建议，以表明在这种情况下，资源的分配将是相同的，因为它是破坏性的企业造成的损失承担责任时。正如我在前面的例子表明，最佳的资源分配，它不会是必要的重复这部分的说法。我回到了农民和牛募集的情况下。农民会受到他的牛群的规模增加作物的伤害增加。假设牛募集的畜群的大小是3装载机（，这将保持对作物的损害，如果不考虑畜群的大小）。那么，农民将是愿意以支付高达3美元的牛的提出者是否会减少他的畜群2装载机，高达500如果牛群被减少到1引导和将支付高达6元如果养牛被遗弃。牛序幕从农民将因此获得53，如果他保持2装载机，而不是3。这个耗资3损失，因此在保持第三督导所需的费用的一部分。无论是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带领他的羊群（其中它会是在牛的提出者是否可农民对作物造成的损害）或是否它是1钱，他将已收到的，如果他不保持第三督导（这将是牛募集到农民对作物造成的损害不承担任何责任）的总和，不影响最终结果。在这两种情况下$ 3是第三督导，与其他费用一起被列入成本的一部分。大于，以将招致包括的$ 3损坏农作物的额外成本，通过增加大小鬼从2至3养牛生产价值的增加是否，牛群的规模将是增加。否则，它不会。畜群的大小将是相同的牛募集是否是作物或造成的损失承担责任。

它可能被认为是武断的假定出发点了3肉牛畜群。这是真实的。但农民不希望要避免牛募集将无法造成的农作物损失。例如，可诱导农民支付每年最高支付不能超过9美元。击剑的成本。和农民只会愿意支付这笔如果它没有减少他的收入水平，将导致他放弃这片土地特别是道种植。此外，农民才会愿意支付这笔款项，如果他相信，在任何由他支付的情况下，牛募集保持畜群的大小是4个或更多的指导。让我们假设是这种情况。那么，农民将是愿意以支付高达3美元的牛的提出者是否会减少他的牛群3装载机，6元如果牛群分别减少2装载机，至8元，如果1转向只被保持和上升到$9，如果养牛被遗弃。它将会看到，在起点的变化并没有改变的金额将拨归牛的序幕，如果他任何给定的金额减少了他的畜群规模。它是仍然真实，在牛的提出者可以接收从农民1额外的$3，如果他同意减少他的牛群3装载机2添加第三3美元表示的，将被破坏作物的价值引导到牛群。虽然部分农民对不同的信仰，对大小牛群，牛募集将保持在他付款的情况下（是否正当与否），可能会影响他可诱发支付的总支付，它是不正确的，这种不同的信仰，实际上将保持牛群牛募集规模上有任何的影响。这将是相同的，因为它会是牛的序幕，如果不得不支付他的牛造成的损害，因为收到一个给定的金额损失相当于支付相同数额。

它可能会认为这将支付的牛的序幕，以增加他的畜群以上的规模，他希望保持已经取得了一次讨价还价，以促使农民作出更大的支付总额。这可能是真实的。它在本质上是相似的农民行动（当牛募集的损害赔偿责任），在培养上，为土地了与牛募集的协议的结果，种植随后将被抛弃（包括土地，在养牛的情况下不能种植）在所有。但是，这些演习是达成协议的预赛和不影响长期均衡的位置，这是牛募集与否举行的关于他的牛所带来的农作物损失负责。

它是要知道是否是因为没有建立这种权利的初始划定不可能有没有市场交易，转让和重组造成的损害不承担责任或损害商业。但最终的结果（产值最大化）是独立的法律地位，如果定价体系被假定为无成本。

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、存在问题的再目录

业务活动的有害影响，可以承担各种各样的形式。早期的英国案例，涉及建筑，阻碍气流，阻碍了风车的运作。在佛罗里达州的一个最近的案例涉及建筑的小屋投下了阴影，邻近酒店的游泳池和日光浴地区。误入牛和破坏性的作物，这是前两个部分的详细检查，虽然它可能已经出现，而成为一个特殊的情况的问题，实际上是一个问题，在许多不同的形式出现的一个例子。为了阐明我的论点的本质，并展示其普遍适用性，我建议重新参考四个实际案例来说明。

首先，让我们重新斯特奇斯诉布里奇曼的情况下，我在我的文章“联邦通信委员会。”在这种情况下的一般问题的说明，糕点（Wigmore街道）使用了迫击炮和杵在与他的业务（一直在歌剧中，60岁以上和其他在同一位置超过26年）的连接。医生后来占据邻近楼宇（在Wimpole街）。糕点机械医生造成任何伤害，直到8年后，他第一次占领的前提下，他建立了一个在他对糕点的厨房花园年底诊室。它然后被发现，糕点的机械噪声和振动造成难以医生用他的新诊室。“尤其是。。噪音阻止他检查他的病人听诊胸部疾病。他还发现了它不可能与从事任何职业，这需要思想和注意力的效果。“因此，医生带来了法律的行动，以迫使糕点停止使用他的机械。法院给予他寻求医生的禁令点燃地幔困难。“在严格执行的原则后，我们发现我们的判断，个别情况下可能会发生困难，但这一原则的否定甚至会导致更多的个人困难，将在同一时间产生不利影响的发展后1土地作住宅用途。“

让我们先来法院的判决确定，医生的权利，以防止糕点师用他的机械。但是，当然，这将有可能修改在法律裁决的安排设想通过各方之间的讨价还价。医生会愿意放弃他的权利，并让机器继续运作，如果糕点师将付给他一笔钱，这是大于收入的损失，他将遭受不利影响或移动到较为昂贵的不太方便的位置，或从他在这个位置，以减少活动，或者是作为一种可能性的建议，从建立一个单独的墙，这将缓和的噪声和振动。糕点会一直愿意这样做，如果他将不得不支付医生的金额小于收入下降，他将遭受如果他改变他的运作模式，在这个位置放弃他的行动或移动他的糖果业务一些其他的位置。问题的解决，根本上取决于是否继续使用的机械增加了更多的糕点师的收入比从医生的减去。但现在考虑的情况，如果糕点师曾赢得了这场官司。糕点，然后将有权利继续他的噪音和振动产生的机械操作，而无需支付任何费用医生。引导已在另一只脚：医生将不得不支付的糕点，以诱使他停止使用机器。如果医生的收入将通过继续使用这种机器比它添加到糕点的收入下降，显然是有，据此医生支付的糕点停止使用的机械讨价还价的余地。也就是说，的情况下，在其中它会不支付的糕点继续使用机械和以弥补的损失，这会带来医生（如果医生不得不以防止对糕点的用他的机器的权利）将是它会在医生的利益作出支付的糕点，这将促使他停止使用的机器（如糕点有经营权的机械）。正是在这种情况下的基本条件相同，因为他们在牛，庄稼被毁的例子。花钱的市场交易中，有关损害赔偿责任的法院的决定将是没有对资源分配的影响。这是当然的法官认为，他们影响的经济体系，在一个理想的方向工作。有任何其他决定“后，土地开发作住宅用途1的不利影响，”这是一个贫瘠的荒野上通过检查一个铁匠铺操作系统的例子阐述论点。后来发展为住宅用途。法官认为，他们要使用的土地是如何被解决，将是真实的，只有在案件中，开展必要的市场交易的成本超过可能被重排的任何权利方面所取得的收益。，这将是可取的，如果只保留价值的住宅或专业领域（Wimpole街或沼地）（非工业用户有权停止禁令的噪声，振动，烟雾等，通过）获得额外的住宿设施是大于蛋糕或丢失的铁的价值。但法官似乎已经不知道。

在确定的法律权利由法院聘请的推理往往会经济学家似乎很奇怪，因为许多因素上决定轮流，一个经济学家，不相干的。正因为如此，这是的情况下，从经济角度来看，相同的将被视为完全不同的法院。在所有情况下的有害影响的经济问题是如何最大限度地提高生产的价值。在巴斯诉格雷戈里新鲜空气的情况下制定通过的好，这有利于生产的啤酒，但污浊的空气，通过在毗邻的房子不太愉快的生活以及开除。经济问题是决定选择：啤酒更低的成本和恶化，毗邻的房屋或设施的啤酒和改进设施的成本较高。在决定这个问题，“批丢失的教义”，是法官的眼睛颜色有关。但要记住，法院所面临的切身问题不应当由谁来做什么，但谁拥有合法权利做什么。它始终是可能的修改市场上交易的初始权利的法律划界。当然，如果这样的市场交易是无成本，这样的权重排总是会发生，如果它会导致增加产值。

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、考虑市场交易成本

参数已进行到这一点（在第三节和第四节和第五节默契在明确）有开展市场交易不涉及成本的假设。当然，这是一个非常不现实的假设。为了进行市场交易，这是必要的，发现它是一个愿望，处理，告知人有意愿来处理和在什么条件下，进行讨价还价的谈判，起草合同，进行必要的检查，以确保合同条款等正在观察。无论如何，以防止将进行无成本定价体系工作的世界中，许多交易，这些操作往往非常昂贵，充分昂贵。

在前面的章节中，与重排，通过市场的合法权益的问题进行处理时，有人认为，这种重排，将通过市场时，这将导致产值的增加。但这种假设不花钱的市场交易。一旦考虑到进行市场交易的成本很显然，这样的权重排时，将只进行重排后的生产值增加大于这将带来约涉及的费用。当它是少，授予强制令（或将被授予的知识）或支付损害赔偿的责任，可能会导致被停止活动的（或可能妨碍其正在启动），如果市场交易是无成本的，将进行。在这种情况下，初步划定的合法权利，也有经济体制与经营效率的影响。一个安排的权利，可能会带来更大的价值比任何其他的生产。但除非这是规定的权利的法律制度安排，达到相同的结果，改变，并通过市场相结合的权利的成本可能是最佳的安排，这种权利和生产更大的价值，它会带来如此巨大，可能永远无法实现。经济上的考虑在划定的法律权利的过程中发挥的部分将在下一节中讨论。在本节中，我将采取初步划定的权利和进行市场交易，给定的费用。

这是另一种形式的经济组织可以以更低的成本实现相同的结果，将利用市场发生将使产值提高。正如我解释了很多年前，该公司表示这种通过市场交易来组织生产的替代。在企业内部生产要素之间的各种合作的个人讨价还价被淘汰，市场交易取代行政决定。然后重新安排生产，而不需要对生产要素的所有者之间讨价还价的地方。一个地主有一大片土地的控制，考虑各种用途的土地纯收益的效果，各项活动的相互关系，将有可能把自己的土地，从而使开展的各项活动之间的不必要的讨价还价。大型建筑，或在某一领域的几个毗邻物业的业主可能在大致相同的方式行事。效果，在使用我们前面的术语，该公司将收购所有各方和重排的活动不会按照一个由合同权利的重排的合法权益，但作为一个行政决定的权利应该如何使用。

当然，它不遵循，通过企业组织交易的行政费用是不可避免的比被取代的市场交易成本。但合同是独有很难邪教组织制订和试图说明什么各方都同意这样做或不这样做（如气味或噪音，他们可能不会让的数量和种类）将须漫长和高度参与的实况，并在那里，是可能的，长期的合同将是可取的，这将是不足为奇的，如果出现公司或扩建现有企业的活动是不是解决问题的方法通过多次处理有害影响的问题。该解决方案将通过时，该公司的行政费用不到的，它取代了市场交易的成本和收益，这将导致重排的活动大于组织他们公司的成本。我不需要非常详细的检查，因为我已解释过什么是我以前的文章中涉及的这一解决方案的特点。

但该公司没有这个问题的唯一可能的答案。该公司筹办事务内的行政成本，也可能是高的，尤其是当许多不同的活动，在一个单一的组织控制。在烟雾滋扰的标准的情况下，这可能会影响广大的人在从事各种各样的活动，行政成本可能如此之高，使一个范围内来处理这个问题的任何企图单个企业是不可能的。另一种方法是政府直接调控。提起的权利的法律制度，这可以通过交易市场上的修改，而不是政府可能提高对法规，这说明人们必须或不能做，哪些必须遵守。因此，政府（法规或者更可能通过行政机关），处理与一定的生产方法应该或不应该被用来（应安装防止设备的egthat烟雾或烟雾滋扰的问题，法令煤或石油不应该被烧毁）或某些地区区划法规可能限制某些类型的业务。

从某种意义上说，政府是一个superfirm（但一个非常特殊的一种），因为它是能够通过行政决定影响生产要素的使用。但普通的公司是在其他公司的竞争，这可能会以较低的成本管理同样的活动，也因为其操作的脸颊，因为总是有替代市场交易，对组织在企业内部，如果行政成本成为太大了。政府是可以的，如果它希望，以避免完全的市场，坚决不能做。该公司拥有市场的协议，它使用的生产要素的所有者。正如政府可以征兵或扣押财产，所以它可以法令，生产要素只应在和这样一种方式使用。这种专制的方法节省了很多麻烦（那些做主办）。此外，政府已在其处置的警察和其他执法机构，以确保其法规进行。

很显然，政府有可能使其能够在较低的成本比私人组织（或在任何率没有特殊的政府权力之一）做一些事情的权力。但政府的行政机本身并不是无成本的。事实上，它可以是上一次极其昂贵的。此外，也没有理由认为，限制和区划法规，1犯错误行政受到政治压力措施和经营没有任何竞争力的检查，一定会永远是那些提高效率与经济体制的运作。此外，这样的一般规定必须适用于种类繁多的情况下将被强制在某些情况下，他们显然是不合适的。从这些方面考虑，政府直接监管不一定会提供更好的结果比离开市场或企业要解决的问题。但同样没有任何理由为什么，有时，这种政府的行政法规不应导致经济效率的改善。这似乎特别容易时，通常是烟雾滋扰的情况下，大量的人参与和因此在处理的问题，通过市场或公司的成本可能很高。

当然，这是在所有有关问题做了进一步的替代。并给予解决的问题，由政府行政机发出的规例所涉及的费用往往是沉重的（特别是如果费用被解释为包括从政府从事这类活动的后续的一切后果），它不会无疑是通常的情况下，增益来调节而引起的有害影响的行动将少于政府监管所涉及的费用。

在本节（当市场交易成本的考虑）的有害影响的问题的讨论是非常不足。但它至少已明确表示，问题是选择合适的处理的有害影响的社会安排。所有的解决方案成本，并没有任何理由假设政府监管，干脆就叫市场或企业，因为这个问题没有得到很好的处理。令人满意的政策意见只能来自病人的研究了如何在实践中，市场，企业和政府处理的有害影响的问题。经济学家需要研究的经纪人带来的各方一起工作的限制性条款的效力，大型房地产开发公司，政府区划和其他规管活动的运作问题。这是我的信念，经济学家和决策者，都倾向于高估的优势，从政府监管。但这样的信念，即使有理，不会做多建议应削减政府的监管。它并没有告诉我们应制定边界线。这一点，在我看来，有来自一个详细的调查，以不同的方式处理问题的实际效果。但它会是不幸的，如果这个调查是一个错误的经济分析的援助承诺。这篇文章的目的是要表明，经济的解决问题的方法应该是什么。

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、作者权利的法律界定及经济问题

在第五节的讨论不仅有助于说明的论点，但也给予一瞥法律途径的有害影响的问题。考虑案件都是英语，但类似的选择了美国的情况下可以很容易地和推理的性质本来相同。当然，如果市场交易是无成本，所有这些事项除了股权问题是，各方的权利，应该是定义和法律行动的结果很容易预测的。但是，正如我们所看到的，情况是完全不同的市场交易时，是如此昂贵，使其难以改变法律规定的权利的安排。在这种情况下，法院直接影响经济活动。因此，这似乎是可取的，法院应了解他们的决定的经济后果，只要这是可能的，没有创造太多的法律地位本身的不确定性，应考虑到这些后果时，他们的决定。即使它是可能改变法律划定的权利，通过市场交易，这显然是可取的，以减少此类交易的需要，从而减少就业资源，在执行。

一个前提，法院在这种情况下试图彻底检查，将是极大的兴趣，但我一直无法尝试。尽管如此，它是从一个粗略的研究清楚，法院经常承认他们的决定对经济的影响，并意识到问题的互惠性质（如许多经济学家都没有）。此外，不时，他们考虑到这些经济的影响，加上其他因素，在到达他们的决定。对这一问题的美国作家，是指比英国更明确的方式问题。因此，引用普罗瑟侵权，可能使一个人使用自己的财产。。进行自己的事情，在牺牲一些伤害他的邻居。他可能操作的工厂，其噪音和烟雾，给他人造成一些不适，只要他保持在合理的范围之内。

世界必须有工厂，冶炼厂，炼油厂，嘈杂的马奇内里和爆破，甚至不惜牺牲一些不便，给那些在附近，原告可能会被要求接受一些不讲理的不适，在总体上是好的。

标准的英国作家没有明确说明，产生的效用和伤害之间的比较是在决定是否应被视为滋扰产生有害作用的元素。但类似的看法，如果那么强烈的表达，都可以找到。该学说的有害影响，法院将采取行动之前，必须是实质性的，是毫无疑问的一部分，将有几乎总是会有一些增益，以抵消伤害的事实反映。在个别情况的报告，很显然，法官已经在头脑里将失去什么在决定是否授予强制令或判给损害赔偿，以及将获得什么。因此，在拒绝一个新的建设，以防止破坏的前景，法官说：我知道没有普通法的一般规则。。说，该建筑物，以阻止他人的前景是造成滋扰。的情况下，不可能有伟大的城镇，而我在这个镇的所有新建筑物必须给予禁令。

我们在处理产生有害影响的行动所面临的问题是不是简单地抑制那些对他们负责。已决定是否从防止危害的增益大于将停止行动而产生的危害结果作为其他地方遭受的损失。在这个世界上，其中有重新安排的法律制度规定的权利的费用，法院，有关滋扰的案件，实际上，经济问题上作出的决定，并确定资源是如何被聘用。有人认为，法院都意识到这一点，他们往往在一个非常明确的时尚，什么将得到什么失去防止产生有害影响的行动之间的比较，虽然并不总是。但划定权利也是法定的成文法则的结果。在这里，我们也可以找到证据互惠性质的问题表示赞赏。虽然法定成文法加入的滋扰列表，还采取行动合法化，否则将根据普通法的滋扰。什么样的情况经济学家很容易认为需要纠正的政府行动，事实上，往往是政府行为的结果。这种行动并不一定是不明智的。但有一个真正的危险，可能导致广泛的政府干预经济体制来保护那些负责进行太远的有害影响。