探入中國大陸經改策略之研究：一個比較的途徑

Mainland China's Economic Reform Strategy: A Comparative Approach

吳玉山(Yu-Shan Wu)

《中國大陸研究》 46卷3期 (2003/05) Pp. 1-30

摘要

本文以對中國大陸經改策略所做的研究作為分析的對象，並特別重視採取比較途徑來探討歐洲與亞洲社會主義國家不同經改策略的研究。經改策略是改變經濟制度的方法，而經濟制度是決定經濟表現的最重要因素。本文首先檢討了文化、國際環境和經濟發展階段子主要的「非制度／非策略因素，確定制度才是經濟表現的核心。其次探討社會主義經改策略辯論的背景，指出拉美經驗和束歐／蘇聯經臉引出了激進改革的思路，而中國大陸的漸進改革則是本土發展的結果。接著進入經改策略研究的本身，指出策略的哲學、經改進行的速度、過渡經濟學，和產權模型等四種理論。這四種理論都對於中國大陸和前蘇聯與束歐的轉型表現出現巨大的差距提出了解釋。經改哲學論者認為中國大陸的經驗主義比西方的理性主義更適朴處理前所未見的社會主義經濟轉型問題。經改速度論者以為中國大陸的漸進改革比西方的震盪療法更為符合經改的實際需求。經改過渡論者主張中國大陸以利益考量為核心的過渡經濟學比西方以技術考量為核心的過渡經濟學更能抓緊經改成功的關鍵。而產權模型論者確定中國大陸由市場社會主義向國家資本主義轉向的改革策略優於西方市場化兼私有化的改革策略。在這四種理論當中，產權模型論者最能抓緊中國大陸經改比較歐洲前社會主義國家成功的關鍵，但是其他三項理論也都點出了兩種經改策略的重要差距。

關鍵字

經濟改革 ； 震盪療法 ； 漸進改革 ； 產權理論 ； 過度經濟學

並列摘要

This article reviews the study of mainland China’s economic reform strategy, with an emphasis on works comparing different reform strategies adopted by post-socialist countries in Asia and in Europe. Economic reform strategy directs the transformation of economic institutions which are the core factor determining economic performance. The argument is that institutions are more important than the “ non-institutional factors” such as culture, international environment, and stage of economic development. Then we move into the background of the economic reform strategy debate, pointing out that the Latin American experience and Eastern Europe/Soviet experience led to the radical reform approach dominant in Europe, while the gradualist approach that mainland China took was based on domestic experience. We then discuss reform philosophy, speed of reform, transition economics, and property rights as four main theories in the institutional approach. Those theories all profess to explain the huge performance gap between China and Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union. Chinese empiricism, gradualist approach, interest-oriented transition economics, and market socialism —tur!led — state capitalism property rights restructuring are pointed out as the primary cause of mainland China’s superior performance. Among the four theories, the property rights approach comes up with the most powerful explanation. The other three institutional theories, however, also highlight the differences between the Asian and European modes of exit from state socialism.

並列關鍵字

economic reform ； shock therapy ； gradualist reform ； property rights theories ； transition economics

參考文獻

Aslund, A.(1995).Economic Reform and Democracy.Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bakos, G.(1994).Hungarian Transition after Three Years.Europe-Asia Studies.46(7)

Balcerowicz, L.(1995).Economic Reform and Democracy.Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bardhan, P. K., Roemer, J. E.(1993).Market Socialism: The Current Debate.New York:Oxford University Press.

Becker, G. S.(1997).What Latin America Owes to the 'Chicago Boys'.Hoover Digest.4