Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2019.1618482
P. Nel
The debate about the effect of corruption on income distribution suffers from a number of problems. The main issues are the use of perception-based measures of corruption, which implicitly favours one side of the debate, and a too narrow conception of agency involved in corruption. By relying on direct and grained evidence of bribery in 106 industrialised and industrialising states, and by appreciating the role of agency on the part of bribers, this article finds support for an emerging view that the effect of corruption on inequality is conditional. Under poor institutional conditions, entrepreneurial-related bribery is associated with an increase in the relative income share of the poorest 40%, mitigating disposable income inequality. The results are robust to the use of different income-distribution measures and data sources, as well as different specifications. While wide-spread bribery and corruption in general may be detrimental to longer term socio-economic progress, it is important not to ignore the incentives and constraints that lead people to use bribery as a means of survival.
{"title":"When bribery helps the poor","authors":"P. Nel","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2019.1618482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2019.1618482","url":null,"abstract":"The debate about the effect of corruption on income distribution suffers from a number of problems. The main issues are the use of perception-based measures of corruption, which implicitly favours one side of the debate, and a too narrow conception of agency involved in corruption. By relying on direct and grained evidence of bribery in 106 industrialised and industrialising states, and by appreciating the role of agency on the part of bribers, this article finds support for an emerging view that the effect of corruption on inequality is conditional. Under poor institutional conditions, entrepreneurial-related bribery is associated with an increase in the relative income share of the poorest 40%, mitigating disposable income inequality. The results are robust to the use of different income-distribution measures and data sources, as well as different specifications. While wide-spread bribery and corruption in general may be detrimental to longer term socio-economic progress, it is important not to ignore the incentives and constraints that lead people to use bribery as a means of survival.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"78 1","pages":"507 - 531"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2019.1618482","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49655577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2019.1605536
Sasha Breger Bush, M. Kriese
Abstract Discussions of drugs in international political economy tend to focus on the relative advantages and disadvantages of particular regulatory regimes and governmental policy approaches. While the particular regulation(s) and social context(s) differ, the drug literature is in this sense repetitive and neglectful of significant features of the global drug economy. Drawing on social economics, we argue that the neglect of broad and holistic, synthetic, integrative and comparative drug research in IPE stems in part from a research program in which the state is “essentialized”, resulting in drug research that is too narrowly cast. Borrowing from social economics, poststructuralist Marxism, and new materialism, we develop an anti-essentialist approach for thinking about the global drug economy in an effort to reveal aspects of global drug production, distribution and consumption, and the power relations entailed therein, that are currently obscured.
{"title":"Rethinking drugs","authors":"Sasha Breger Bush, M. Kriese","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2019.1605536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2019.1605536","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Discussions of drugs in international political economy tend to focus on the relative advantages and disadvantages of particular regulatory regimes and governmental policy approaches. While the particular regulation(s) and social context(s) differ, the drug literature is in this sense repetitive and neglectful of significant features of the global drug economy. Drawing on social economics, we argue that the neglect of broad and holistic, synthetic, integrative and comparative drug research in IPE stems in part from a research program in which the state is “essentialized”, resulting in drug research that is too narrowly cast. Borrowing from social economics, poststructuralist Marxism, and new materialism, we develop an anti-essentialist approach for thinking about the global drug economy in an effort to reveal aspects of global drug production, distribution and consumption, and the power relations entailed therein, that are currently obscured.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"78 1","pages":"479 - 506"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2019.1605536","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46954575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-23DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1821907
Ivan Mendieta‐Muñoz, C. Rada, Márcio Santetti, Rudiger von Arnim
We propose a novel methodological approach to disentangle the main structural shocks affecting the US labor share of income. We motivate an SVAR model to derive four structural shocks: aggregate demand, labor supply, shocks to wages, and productivity; and quantify the dynamic responses of the labor share to each structural shock. We find substantial differences between the immediate post-war era and the neoliberal period. In order of magnitude, the labor share responded mainly to productivity, aggregate demand, and shocks to wages during the immediate post-war era; whereas shocks to wages, productivity, and to aggregate demand mattered most during the neoliberal era. These effects are statistically significantly different across the two periods only for wage and productivity shocks. Increased (decreased) sensitivity to wage (productivity) shocks during the neoliberal period suggests that the decline in the labor share is mainly driven by the factors that govern wage setting.
{"title":"The US labor share of income: what shocks matter?","authors":"Ivan Mendieta‐Muñoz, C. Rada, Márcio Santetti, Rudiger von Arnim","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1821907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1821907","url":null,"abstract":"We propose a novel methodological approach to disentangle the main structural shocks affecting the US labor share of income. We motivate an SVAR model to derive four structural shocks: aggregate demand, labor supply, shocks to wages, and productivity; and quantify the dynamic responses of the labor share to each structural shock. We find substantial differences between the immediate post-war era and the neoliberal period. In order of magnitude, the labor share responded mainly to productivity, aggregate demand, and shocks to wages during the immediate post-war era; whereas shocks to wages, productivity, and to aggregate demand mattered most during the neoliberal era. These effects are statistically significantly different across the two periods only for wage and productivity shocks. Increased (decreased) sensitivity to wage (productivity) shocks during the neoliberal period suggests that the decline in the labor share is mainly driven by the factors that govern wage setting.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"514 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1821907","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45551344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-11DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1804607
Mark Stelzner, D. Nam
ABSTRACT As a country, the United States spends significantly more on healthcare than other advanced industrialized countries, and Americans have comparably worse health outcomes. Both are developments of the last four decades. In this paper, we look at how change in antitrust and patent law and thus change in market power in the largest four subsectors of healthcare, hospitals, physician groups, prescription drugs, and net medical insurance, have contributed to the increasing cost of medical care in the United States. We show that the annual rent – the degree to which health care is overpriced as a result of market power – was between 2.47 and 4.30 percent of GDP in 2016 – truly a big cost for big medicine.
{"title":"The big cost of big medicine – calculating the rent in private healthcare","authors":"Mark Stelzner, D. Nam","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1804607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1804607","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As a country, the United States spends significantly more on healthcare than other advanced industrialized countries, and Americans have comparably worse health outcomes. Both are developments of the last four decades. In this paper, we look at how change in antitrust and patent law and thus change in market power in the largest four subsectors of healthcare, hospitals, physician groups, prescription drugs, and net medical insurance, have contributed to the increasing cost of medical care in the United States. We show that the annual rent – the degree to which health care is overpriced as a result of market power – was between 2.47 and 4.30 percent of GDP in 2016 – truly a big cost for big medicine.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"491 - 513"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1804607","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48619491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-06DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055
B. Fine, Pedro Mendes Loureiro
This note introduces original technical results in the theoretical measurement of inequality by specifying the relationships between additive separability and homotheticity (of measures of welfare closely related to measures of inequality), and decomposability and homogeneity in measures of inequality. More specifically, an interrogation is made of the resonances and dissonances between the classic contributions of Atkinson and Shorrocks, which are key representatives, respectively, of the 'social welfare function' and the 'axiomatic' approaches to measuring inequality. In brief, in the presence of otherwise common assumptions, it is shown that additive separability and homotheticity of welfare are stronger combined conditions than decomposability and homogeneity (of degree zero) of income inequality. The gap between the two, however, can be closed by adding an extra term around total income to the measure of welfare, allowing for wider considerations of the relationship between social welfare, total income, and the distribution of individual incomes.
{"title":"A note on the relationship between additive separability and decomposability in measuring income inequality","authors":"B. Fine, Pedro Mendes Loureiro","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","url":null,"abstract":"This note introduces original technical results in the theoretical measurement of inequality by specifying the relationships between additive separability and homotheticity (of measures of welfare closely related to measures of inequality), and decomposability and homogeneity in measures of inequality. More specifically, an interrogation is made of the resonances and dissonances between the classic contributions of Atkinson and Shorrocks, which are key representatives, respectively, of the 'social welfare function' and the 'axiomatic' approaches to measuring inequality. In brief, in the presence of otherwise common assumptions, it is shown that additive separability and homotheticity of welfare are stronger combined conditions than decomposability and homogeneity (of degree zero) of income inequality. The gap between the two, however, can be closed by adding an extra term around total income to the measure of welfare, allowing for wider considerations of the relationship between social welfare, total income, and the distribution of individual incomes.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"550 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1802055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42157533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-05DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1798493
N. Folbre
ABSTRACT The distinction between oppression and exploitation is overstated in traditional Marxian theory. Defined in terms of economic advantages gained from unfair bargaining power, exploitation can take manifold forms, characterized by intersections, overlaps, and interactions within complex hierarchical systems in which actors often find themselves in somewhat contradictory positions.
{"title":"Manifold exploitations: toward an intersectional political economy","authors":"N. Folbre","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1798493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1798493","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The distinction between oppression and exploitation is overstated in traditional Marxian theory. Defined in terms of economic advantages gained from unfair bargaining power, exploitation can take manifold forms, characterized by intersections, overlaps, and interactions within complex hierarchical systems in which actors often find themselves in somewhat contradictory positions.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"78 1","pages":"451 - 472"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1798493","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44728931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-23DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1792966
J. Nelson
ABSTRACT This essay discusses the nature of, and challenges for, social economics. It begins by exploring how social economics differs from mainstream economics in its goals, definition, and models, and briefly examines the roots of Neoclassical orthodoxy. It then argues that social economists need to take more seriously the human and social nature of our created knowledge. An example from the empirical study of gender and risk preferences illustrates the effects of personal and cultural factors. The essay also argues that social economists have not yet sufficiently challenged the orthodox economics view of the economy as an ethics-free sphere. This view has contributed to increased inequality and a failure to act decisively in response to climate change. A better understanding of where orthodox economics models and methods come from opens up new ways of understanding our search for knowledge and emphasizes the importance of ethics in economic life.
{"title":"Economics for (and by) humans","authors":"J. Nelson","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1792966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1792966","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay discusses the nature of, and challenges for, social economics. It begins by exploring how social economics differs from mainstream economics in its goals, definition, and models, and briefly examines the roots of Neoclassical orthodoxy. It then argues that social economists need to take more seriously the human and social nature of our created knowledge. An example from the empirical study of gender and risk preferences illustrates the effects of personal and cultural factors. The essay also argues that social economists have not yet sufficiently challenged the orthodox economics view of the economy as an ethics-free sphere. This view has contributed to increased inequality and a failure to act decisively in response to climate change. A better understanding of where orthodox economics models and methods come from opens up new ways of understanding our search for knowledge and emphasizes the importance of ethics in economic life.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"269 - 282"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1792966","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48678230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-07DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1787494
A. Christoforou
ABSTRACT We investigate crisis and austerity in the context of the European Union (EU) by appealing to the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Evidence suggests that after the recent US and Eurozone economic crises, fiscal consolidation intensified the deterioration of socio-economic conditions in Europe. We turn to analyses versed in the Bourdieusian tradition to explain crises and austerity in relation to the domination of the financial field and the ascendancy of neoliberal policies, processes of symbolic violence and misrecognition, and struggles for symbolic power. We then apply this framework to assess the EU economic governance system and the rhetoric imposed on Member States and social partners to justify austerity. Finally, we discuss ways to confront these conditions by presenting Bourdieu’s conception of the ‘collective intellectual’, who collaborates with other social groups in order to uncover the power relations and inequalities generated by neoliberal policies and to promote alternative economic policies for social welfare.
{"title":"‘Give me your watch and I will tell you the time’: crisis and austerity in the European Union from a Bourdieusian perspective","authors":"A. Christoforou","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1787494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1787494","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We investigate crisis and austerity in the context of the European Union (EU) by appealing to the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Evidence suggests that after the recent US and Eurozone economic crises, fiscal consolidation intensified the deterioration of socio-economic conditions in Europe. We turn to analyses versed in the Bourdieusian tradition to explain crises and austerity in relation to the domination of the financial field and the ascendancy of neoliberal policies, processes of symbolic violence and misrecognition, and struggles for symbolic power. We then apply this framework to assess the EU economic governance system and the rhetoric imposed on Member States and social partners to justify austerity. Finally, we discuss ways to confront these conditions by presenting Bourdieu’s conception of the ‘collective intellectual’, who collaborates with other social groups in order to uncover the power relations and inequalities generated by neoliberal policies and to promote alternative economic policies for social welfare.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"81 1","pages":"173 - 195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1787494","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48052556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2020.1785539
Tyler Hansen, R. Pollin
ABSTRACT Since 2011, climate activists have advanced divestment campaigns against private fossil fuel corporations that aim to inflict damage on fossil fuel corporations through two channels: stigmatizing them and undermining their financial operations. We focus in this paper on this second purpose, considering the extent to which divestment campaigns have succeeded in inflicting financial damage on fossil fuel corporations. We present descriptive data on the level of divested fossil fuel stocks and bonds as well as econometric analysis of the impact of divestment events on the stock market prices of fossil fuel companies. We find that divestment campaigns have not been successful in inflicting significant economic damage on fossil fuel corporations, even though the movement has been successful in mobilizing public opinion against the fossil fuel corporations.
{"title":"Economics and climate justice activism: assessing the financial impact of the fossil fuel divestment movement","authors":"Tyler Hansen, R. Pollin","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2020.1785539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2020.1785539","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since 2011, climate activists have advanced divestment campaigns against private fossil fuel corporations that aim to inflict damage on fossil fuel corporations through two channels: stigmatizing them and undermining their financial operations. We focus in this paper on this second purpose, considering the extent to which divestment campaigns have succeeded in inflicting financial damage on fossil fuel corporations. We present descriptive data on the level of divested fossil fuel stocks and bonds as well as econometric analysis of the impact of divestment events on the stock market prices of fossil fuel companies. We find that divestment campaigns have not been successful in inflicting significant economic damage on fossil fuel corporations, even though the movement has been successful in mobilizing public opinion against the fossil fuel corporations.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"423 - 460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2020.1785539","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42492845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2019.1690671
Chi Kwok
ABSTRACT Political theorists have been framing the problems of unfreedom and domination at work as inconsistent with the requirements of political democracy, undermining the democratic potential of the workplace and inducing psychological and status harm. Although these are important insights, political theorists are often unwilling to frame the hierarchical workplace as an issue of distributive justice. This paper, by bringing in the empirical literature on work autonomy, offers a framework to explicate the relationship between freedom at work and the distribution of essential goods at paid work. Through such framework, the paper argues that procedural and substantive freedom at work are essential to the fair distribution of the goods of work. By examining the empirical literature, the paper further argues that there exists a polarization of the goods of work between high-skilled and low-skilled labor, and the polarization offers a pro-tanto justification of workplace democracy for the least advantaged workers.
{"title":"Work autonomy and workplace democracy: the polarization of the goods of work autonomy in the two worlds of work","authors":"Chi Kwok","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2019.1690671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2019.1690671","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Political theorists have been framing the problems of unfreedom and domination at work as inconsistent with the requirements of political democracy, undermining the democratic potential of the workplace and inducing psychological and status harm. Although these are important insights, political theorists are often unwilling to frame the hierarchical workplace as an issue of distributive justice. This paper, by bringing in the empirical literature on work autonomy, offers a framework to explicate the relationship between freedom at work and the distribution of essential goods at paid work. Through such framework, the paper argues that procedural and substantive freedom at work are essential to the fair distribution of the goods of work. By examining the empirical literature, the paper further argues that there exists a polarization of the goods of work between high-skilled and low-skilled labor, and the polarization offers a pro-tanto justification of workplace democracy for the least advantaged workers.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"78 1","pages":"351 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2019.1690671","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47566237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：