摘要：所谓“斯密悖论”，是指斯密在《道德情操论》和《国富论》两本书中所体现出的不同价值倾向。在《道德情操论》一书中，斯密倾向于利他是经济发展的动力，而在《国富论》一书中，斯密更倾向于利己是经济发展的动力，于是，这一问题被德国学者约瑟夫·熊彼特称为“斯密问题”或“斯密
“斯密悖论”本质是不存在的
宋 圭 武
所谓“斯密悖论”，是指斯密在《道德情操论》和《国富论》两本书中所体现出的不同价值倾向。在《道德情操论》一书中，斯密倾向于利他是经济发展的动力，而在《国富论》一书中，斯密更倾向于利己是经济发展的动力，于是，这一问题被德国学者约瑟夫·熊彼特称为“斯密问题”或“斯密悖论”。
笔者认为，“斯密悖论”本质是不存在的，推动经济发展的真正动力是利他，而不是利己。利己是一种反向动力，只有经过特定的制度约束，利己才能转化为经济发展的正向动力。
一、为什么利他是经济发展的真正动力
为分析问题方便，我们先做一理论假设。假设有两个群体，一个是由利他者构成的群体，一个是由利己者构成的群体，两个群体构成两个不同的社会，且二个社会之间没有交往；另外，假设两个群体的人从事的产业都是做饭。在这种情况下，我们分析一下到底是利己的群体构成的社会经济发展更有动力，还是利他的群体构成的社会经济发展更有动力。
对于利他的群体构成的社会，从微观角度看，第一，从产品质量看，同样是做饭，显然利他的群体在饭菜质量上也会有保证，因为出于利他的目的，利他的群体也有很大动力把饭菜做好，让人吃得可口。第二，从产品价格看，利他的群体会要价更合理，绝不会坑蒙拐骗，并最终导致市场价格更符合均衡价格特性。第三，从生产过程看，利他的群体必然花在监督方面的成本很低。由于人们劳动自觉，自然非生产人员就大大减少，监督制度也就要不了那么复杂。从宏观角度看，第一，由于人们会更多从全局角度考虑问题，而不是从小团体角度考虑问题，这有利于建设公平社会，有利于缩小贫富差距问题。第二，利他的群体人们的环保意识会更好，这有利于解决好生产过程中存在的环境污染问题。第三，利他的群体会更有节约意识，这有利于建设资源节约型社会，有利于经济可持续发展。第四，利他的群体社会管理成本会很低。第五，利他的群体更有利于技术创新。因为由利他精神衍生的奉献精神为技术创新提供了一种精神支援。第六，利他的群体有利于更好解决信息不对称问题。
而利己的群体构成的社会则是另一种经济发展景观。从微观看，第一，从产品质量看，饭菜质量不一定有保证，存在假冒伪劣的可能性。第二，从产品价格看，饭菜价格不一定要价合理，存在坑蒙拐骗可能性。第三，从生产过程看，需要更多监督成本投入，需要更严密的制度设计来防范各种机会主义行为。从宏观看，第一，更容易导致社会不平等。第二，环境保护的难度更大。第三，炫耀性消费等严重，不利于资源节约利用。第四，社会管理成本大。第五，利己本质不利于技术创新，尤其不利于发挥技术的社会效益。第六，会放大信息不对称问题。
其实在斯密的理论分析中，利己是不是经济发展的动力，其理论分析是有逻辑不一致性的。一方面，斯密认为利己是经济动力；另一方面，斯密又认为，通过市场自由竞争，经济市场才会达到均衡状态。这也就是说要使利己成为经济发展动力，需要有市场自由竞争制度设计，需要有“看不见的手”进行调节，这是前提条件。
所以，笔者认为，所谓“斯密悖论”，实际应是斯密在理论认识上的一个欠缺，是其理论上逻辑不清楚所导致的一个“悖论”，而实际的社会经济实践，并不存在“悖论”。经济发展的真正动力，是利他，而不是利己。利己只有经过特定的制度约束，让利己变为利他形式，才能转换为经济发展的真正动力。
二、社会经济发展需要我们积极弘扬利他精神
由于利他才是社会经济发展的真正动力，所以，社会经济发展，我们一定要惩恶扬善。惩恶，就是要通过各种制度设计，严密防范各种不合理的利己主义，使利己主义转换为社会正能量，成为经济发展的正向动力。扬善，就是要采取各种有效措施，大力弘扬社会的利他精神，让正向动力更充足。
如何大力弘扬社会的利他精神，需要大力加强社会道德建设。道德建设如何提高效率，需要注重道德教育的人性化，关键是要立足同情心加强道德教育。同情心是道德生长的起点。孟子说：“恻隐之心，仁之端也。”（见《孟子 公孙丑上》）另外，道德教育需要从小抓起。各级各类学校，一定要把道德教育放在比知识教育更重要的位置。另外，要认识到道德建设是一个长期过程，需要常抓不懈，需要有长期的措施，不能有急躁心理。(作者：兰州城市学院特聘教授，原甘肃省委党校二级教授)
The essence of the "Smith Paradox" does not exist.
Song Guiwu
The so-called "Smith Paradox" refers to the different value orientations demonstrated by Smith in his two books, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith tended to believe that altruism was the driving force of economic development, while in The Wealth of Nations, he was more inclined to think that self-interest was the driving force of economic development. As a result, this issue was called the "Smith Problem" or "Smith Paradox" by the German scholar Joseph Schumpeter.
In my opinion, the "Smith Paradox" does not exist in essence. The true driving force of economic development is altruism, not self-interest. Self-interest is a reverse force, and only under specific institutional constraints can it be transformed into a positive force for economic development.
I. Why Altruism is the True Driving Force of Economic Development
For the convenience of analysis, let's make a theoretical assumption. Suppose there are two groups, one composed of altruists and the other composed of self-interested individuals. These two groups form two different societies, and there is no interaction between them. Additionally, assume that both groups are engaged in the same industry, which is cooking. Under these circumstances, let's analyze whether the society composed of self-interested individuals has more economic development momentum or the society composed of altruists does.
For the society composed of altruists, from a micro perspective, first, in terms of product quality, obviously, the group of altruists will ensure the quality of the food they cook because they have a strong motivation to do so out of altruism. Second, in terms of product price, the group of altruists will charge a more reasonable price and will not deceive or defraud, ultimately leading to market prices that better reflect equilibrium prices. Third, in terms of the production process, the group of altruists will have lower supervision costs. Since people are self-motivated, the number of non-productive personnel will be greatly reduced, and the supervision system will not need to be so complex. From a macro perspective, first, people will consider issues from a broader perspective rather than a narrow group perspective, which is conducive to building a fair society and narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. Second, the group of altruists will have better environmental awareness, which is beneficial to solving environmental pollution problems in the production process. Third, the group of altruists will have a stronger sense of thrift, which is conducive to building a resource-conserving society and sustainable economic development. Fourth, the social management cost of the group of altruists will be low. Fifth, the group of altruists is more conducive to technological innovation. Because the spirit of dedication derived from altruism provides a kind of spiritual support for technological innovation. Sixth, the group of altruists is more conducive to solving the problem of information asymmetry.
On the other hand, the society composed of self-interested individuals presents a different economic development landscape. From a micro perspective, first, in terms of product quality, the quality of the food may not be guaranteed, and there is a possibility of counterfeiting and shoddy products. Second, in terms of product price, the price of the food may not be reasonable, and there is a possibility of deception and fraud. Third, in terms of the production process, more supervision costs need to be invested, and a more rigorous institutional design is required to prevent various opportunistic behaviors. From a macro perspective, first, it is more likely to lead to social inequality. Second, environmental protection is more difficult. Third, there is a serious problem of conspicuous consumption, which is not conducive to the efficient use of resources. Fourth, the social management cost is high. Fifth, the essence of self-interest is not conducive to technological innovation, especially not conducive to maximizing the social benefits of technology. Sixth, it will amplify the problem of information asymmetry.
In fact, in Smith's theoretical analysis, there is a logical inconsistency in whether self-interest is the driving force of economic development. On the one hand, Smith believed that self-interest was the driving force of the economy; on the other hand, Smith also believed that only through free market competition could the economic market reach an equilibrium state. This means that to make self-interest a driving force for economic development, a market free competition system design is needed, and the "invisible hand" should be used to regulate. This is a prerequisite. Therefore, the author believes that the so-called "Smith Paradox" is actually a deficiency in Smith's theoretical understanding, a "paradox" caused by unclear logical reasoning in his theory. In reality, there is no such "paradox" in social and economic practice. The true driving force for economic development is altruism, not self-interest. Self-interest can only be transformed into the true driving force for economic development after being constrained by specific systems and converted into an altruistic form.
Second, the development of social economy requires us to actively promote the spirit of altruism. Since altruism is the true driving force for social and economic development, we must punish evil and promote good in the process of social and economic development. Punishing evil means preventing all kinds of unreasonable self-interest through various system designs and converting self-interest into positive social energy to become a positive driving force for economic development. Promoting good means taking various effective measures to vigorously promote the spirit of altruism in society and make the positive driving force more abundant.
How to vigorously promote the spirit of altruism in society? We need to strengthen social moral construction. To improve the efficiency of moral construction, we should pay attention to the humanization of moral education, and the key is to strengthen moral education based on compassion. Compassion is the starting point of moral growth. Mencius said, "Compassion is the beginning of benevolence." (See "Mencius: Gongsun Chou, Part I") In addition, moral education should start from childhood. All kinds of schools at all levels must place moral education in a more important position than knowledge education. Moreover, we should recognize that moral construction is a long-term process that requires constant efforts and long-term measures, and we should not be impatient. (Author: Distinguished Professor of Lanzhou City University, former Professor of the Gansu Provincial Party School)
来源：宋圭武
