|
|
|
| Logical paradox, legal problems and adjustment path of cultural and creative product development in public museums |
| YAO Feng1,2 |
1. School of Journalism and Communication, Hunan University; Changsha, Hunan, 410082;
2. Hunan University Publishing and Periodical Society, Changsha, Hunan, 410082 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The cultural and creative products of public museums refer to the products that take all kinds of cultural resources as the prototype, absorb and transform their symbolic value, humanistic value and aesthetic value, reconstruct their aesthetic value, cultural value and practical value with creativity, and integrate the excellent cultural elements in the museum with modern social life, so as to realize the functional reconstruction. Compared with ordinary cultural and creative products, the problems involved in the development of cultural and creative products in public museums are particularly complex, such as “self-interest”, “agent risk”, “tragedy of the commons” and other logical paradoxes and problems, such as the practical difficulties and lack of basis in law. In view of the fleeting particularity of time and space of cultural creativity and the scarcity of excellent cultural creative products, administrative law can give full play to its “visible hand” to achieve “distributive justice” and “efficiency justice” respectively by regulating and promoting the two functions. Through the interaction of administrative law, tax law and social law, on the basis of realizing the optimization of financial management in the development of cultural and creative products of public museums, the administrative law constructs a contemporary and socialized council system for the purpose of public welfare, so as to achieve the multi game balance of “power” and “benefit” in the development of cultural and creative products of public museums.
|
|
Received: 10 May 2021
|
|
|
| About author:: 湖南省社科规划课题（智库）“湖南省文化产业发展政策体系研究”（19ZWB49）; 教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目“高校出版单位数字化转型路径研究”（17YJA860005） |
|
|
|
[1] 石勇. 阻遏公共资源“私有化”[J].南风窗,2011,(13):26-28.
[2] 邓子庆.岳麓“文化基地”——公共资源私有化新样本[N].西部时报,2011-12-20(9).
[3] 周刚志.公物概念及其在我国的适用——兼析《物权法草案 (征求意见稿) 》相关条款[J].现代法学,2014,(6).
[4] 孙宪忠. 国家所有权的行使和保护研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2015.509.
[5] 时影. 利益视角下地方政府选择性履行职能行为分析[J].甘肃社会科学,2018,(2):244-249.
[6] 梁德明. 代理人自利的结构化与共富的条件——基于中国公产转移实践的经济社会学思考[J].生产力研究,2009,(24):119-121.
[7] 周碧华.公共部门激励扭曲问题研究[J].公共行政评论,2015,(2).
[8] 王志诚. 公营事业民营化之台湾地区经验[A].公有企业民营化——月旦民商法研究丛书[C].北京:清华大学出版社,2005.19-22.
[9] 鲍家志. 非经营性国有资产使用权研究[D].武汉:武汉大学博士论文,2012.
[10] 孟勤国,张凇纶.非经营性国有资产合理使用的法律意义[J].湖北社会科学,2009,(12):146-150.
[11] 张东. 分配正义与收益公正分配[J].法学论坛,2012,(1):36-43.
[12] 高书生. 关于文化改革与发展的若干思考[J].中国编辑,2012,(1):4-12.
[13] 黄茂荣. 法学方法和现代民法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[14] 张雪帆,何艳玲.公权限制财产权的合法性辨析:兼论城市治理中的“公共利益”[J].南京社会科学,2019,(1):64-73.
[15] 翁岳生. 行政法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[16] 陈新民. 中国行政法学原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,200.45.
[17] 张鲁萍. 私主体参与行政任务的界限研究[J].北方法学,2016,(3):54-66.
[18] 张桐锐. 合作国家[A].当代公法新论(中)[C].台北:台湾元照出版有限公司,2002.578.
[19] 王贵松. 作为利害调整法的行政法[J].中国法学,2019(2):90-109.
[20] 李沫. 服务行政视野下的激励型监管法制研究[D].长沙:中南大学博士论文,2010.
[21] (德)彼得·巴杜拉,曾文远.论自由法治国和社会法治国中的行政法[J].人大法律评论,2014,(2):89-107.
[22] 周俊强. 无形财产权的类型化与体系化研究——基于信息哲学的分析[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2018.314.
[23] 梅夏英. 当代财产权的公法与私法定位分析[J].人大法律评论,2001,(1):215-246.
[24] 吴启宁. 推动我国财政透明发展的政策建议[J].现代商业,2019,(34):144-145.
[25] 辛尽.政府信息公开制度的现实困境与路径选择[J].智库时代,2020,(3):29+31.
[26] 张舜玺. 国有博物馆经营体制机制改革研究[J].中国博物馆,2019,(4):16-20.
[27] (美)布莱恩·阿瑟.技术的本质[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,2014.66-89.
[28] 林嘉. 中国社会法建设40年回顾与展望[J].社会治理,2018,(11):22-30.
[29] 余少祥. 社会法的界定与法律性质论析[J].法学论坛,2018,(5):52-63.
[30] 金梦. 法律博弈论及其核心构造[J].江海学刊,2015,(5):228-233.
[31] 杨欣. 民营化的行政法研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2008. 2-9.
[32] 刘杨.基本法律概念的构建与诠释——以权利与权力的关系为重心[J].中国社会科学,2018,(9):112-135+206.
[33] 李双元,蒋新苗,蒋茂凝.中国法律理念的现代化[J].法学研究,1996,(3):45-64.
[34] 孟勤国. 动产的现实价值与物权编规则需求[J].社会科学战线,2019,(2):199-211.
[35] 徐国栋. 民法是私法吗?[J].江苏行政学院学报,2009,(3):116-121.
[36] 詹镇荣. 民营化与管制革新[M].台北:台湾元照出版有限公司,2005.285.
[37] 章志远. 迈向公私合作型行政法[J].法学研究,2019,(2):137-153.
[38] 王春山. 博物馆理事会制度的困境与突破[J].中国纪念馆研究,2018,(2):55-58.
[39] 龚良. 探索适应时代发展的国有博物馆理事会制度[J].中国博物馆,2019,(4):3-8. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 38 
