张军:信息产品的共享及其组织方式:一个经济分析

  • 发布时间:2003年10月20日浏览次数:

 信息产品的共享及其组织方式:一个经济分析 

 
 
摘 要 伴随信息技术革命的到来,经济中涌现出了大量数字化形式的信息产品。在经济学上,信息产品是一种典型的共用品。根据传统的经济学理论,对于信息产品的生产和消费,自由市场机制存在明显不足,并且还会陷入所谓的“蒂朗困境”。本文通过引入一个现实案例(Napster)来讨论信息产品的共享问题。首先,我们将解释信息产品共享产生的原因;然后,我们将进入福利分析并论证:如果信息产品的共享采取俱乐部这种组织方式,不仅消费者的福利水平可以得到提高,生产者同样也有向市场提供信息产品的激励。换句话说,信息产品的生产和消费如果采取俱乐部这种共享组织方式,帕雷托意义上的效率改进是有可能的。Napster的出现可能意味着,自由市场机制有着足够的潜能让我们走出“蒂朗困境”。 
 
关键词 共用品,信息产品,Napster,共享,俱乐部 
 
Sharing Information Goods and Its Way of Organizing: An Economic Analysis
 
Zhang Jun Jiang Jianqiang
(School of Economics, Fudan University of Shanghai) 
 
Abstract With the advent of the information technology revolution, a great variety of information goods characterized with digitalization have been emerging in the economy. In economic terms, the information good is a typical example of pure public good. Based upon the orthodox theory, therefore, the free market may fail to work efficiently and even likely plunge into the so-called “Delong’s Dilemma” with respect to production and comsumption of information goods. This paper studies the sharing of information goods by introducing a real case: Napster. First, we will explore the reason why information goods sharing could take place; second, we will go into the welfare analysis to argue that, if organized like a club, the sharing of information good could not only lead to the improvement of comsumers’ welfare, but also give the producers great incentives to provide information goods. In other words, Pareto efficiency improvement is possible if the production and consumption of information goods are run like a club. The emergence of the Napster probably means that, the free market has great potential to help us walk out of the “Delong’s Dilemma”.
 
JEL classification
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 张军,复旦大学经济学院副院长、教授;姜建强,复旦大学经济学院博士生。通讯地址:张军,复旦大学经济学院,200433;电话:(021)56523213; Email:junzh_2000@yahoo.com。通讯地址:姜建强,复旦大学北区106号701A,200433;电话:(021)55073612;Email:jiang42@sina.com。我们感谢两位匿名审稿人对本文初稿提出的极富启发性的意见和评论,当然本文中可能存在的错误完全由作者负责。