全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

上海市静态管理期间哄抬价格行为产生原因及监管路径研究——以“天价跑腿”为例
Research on the Causes of Price Gouging during Static Management and the Supervision Path in Shanghai—Taking “Sky-High Price of Errands” as an Example

DOI: 10.12677/MM.2023.134060, PP. 471-478

Keywords: 哄抬价格,价格垄断,跑腿
Price Gouging
, Price Monopoly, Errands

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

新冠疫情发生后,上海市曾采取全域静态管理。在静态管理过程中出现了消费者需求暴增、跑腿价格飞涨现象,产生哄抬价格行为。哄抬价格本身具有道德风险和效率属性特点。“天价跑腿”商品属性特殊,文章借助进销差价率综合认定哄抬价格、垄断价格负外部性等经济学问题。不合理的价格会损害消费者相关利益,由此带来社会无谓损失。研究通过哄抬价格经济相关理论分析上海市静态管理期间的“天价跑腿”现象,得出结论:在供需关系下,商品特殊属性、市场价格垄断是哄抬价格行为产生重要原因。在此分析路径基础上,从认定标准、技术赋能、基本供应等方面提出相关监管建议。
After the new crown epidemic occurred, Shanghai adopted a region-wide static management. In the process of static management, there was a surge in consumer demand, and the price of errands soared, generating price gouging behavior. Price gouging itself is characterized by moral hazard and efficiency attributes. “Sky-high price of errands” commodity property is special, the article identifies price gouging, price monopoly negative externality and other economic issues with the help of the price differential. Unreasonable prices can damage the interests of consumers and bring unnecessary losses to society. The study analyzes the phenomenon of “sky-high price of errands” during the static management period in Shanghai through theories related to the price gouging economy, and concludes that the special attributes of commodities under the supply-demand relationship and market price monopoly are important causes of price gouging behavior. On the basis of this analysis, government regulation is proposed in terms of identification criteria, technology empowerment and basic supply.

References

[1]  刘洪波, 邸建亮, 王冉. 新冠肺炎疫情对居民消费的影响研究[J]. 统计研究, 2022, 39(5): 38-48.
https://doi.org/10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/c.2022.05.003
[2]  Rapp, G.C. (2006) Gouging: Terrorist Attacks, Hurri-canes, and the Legal and Economic Aspects of Post-Disaster Price Regulation. Kentucky Law Journal, 94, 535-560.
[3]  苗壮. 重大突发公共卫生事件应对中哄抬价格认定标准的规范审查——以比例原则为分析工具[J]. 中国行政管理, 2022(1): 157-159.
[4]  Zwolinski, M. (2008) The Ethics of Price Gouging. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 347-378.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200818327
[5]  冯永晟, 管世杰. 重大突发事件下的哄抬价格与价格监管研究[J]. 价格月刊, 2020(10): 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.14076/j.issn.1006-2025.2020.10.01
[6]  罗伯特?S?平狄克, 丹尼尔?L?鲁宾费尔德. 微观经济学[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2013.
[7]  关八一. 谈商品进销差价率与成本售价率模型及其应用[J]. 财会月刊, 2017(4): 44-47.
https://doi.org/10.19641/j.cnki.42-1290/f.2017.04.010
[8]  龙俊. 重大突发公共事件中价格管制的正当性及其法律规制[J]. 中国政法大学学报, 2020(3): 186-205+209.
[9]  中国市场监管学会. 疫情下价格监管对策研究[J]. 中国市场监管研究, 2020(4): 25-27.
[10]  张瑞萍, 周嘉会. 突发公共卫生事件中哄抬物价行为的执法分析与法律完善建议[J]. 甘肃政法大学学报, 2020(6): 101-114.
[11]  张佳红. 价格垄断行为的寻租博弈与监管建议[J]. 价格月刊, 2021(12): 18-24.
https://doi.org/10.14076/j.issn.1006-2025.2021.12.03

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133