「中國經濟」的誕生：經濟治理、知識生產與公共想像（1906-1992）

The Birth of "China's National Economy" : Governmentality of Economy, Production of Knowledge and Imagination of Public (1906-1992)

林易澄(I-Cheng Lin)

指導教授 ： 黃進興

國立臺灣大學/文學院/歷史學研究所/博士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800527

摘要

「呈現出整個中國經濟的知識」意味著什麼？這一知識過去未曾出現，卻在20世紀成為人們關注的重心。從這裡出發，這本論文將探討近代中國治理型態的重要變化：政府對民間經濟活動的直接治理。透過當時的經濟知識生產，第一線工作的人們留下的困惑、思考與可能性，本文將考察這一治理型態的轉變過程與其歷史意義。在其中，「中國經濟」並非早已既存的實體，而是清末以來，隨著政府與民間經濟活動越來越密切的聯繫，在雙方互動中，逐漸浮現與建構出來的一個空間。圍繞著這個空間，開啟了一套知識生產，一系列制度安排，與一連串伴隨著新的國家想像的政治工程。

在晚期中華帝國，政府並不直接掌控民間經濟活動，透過各種非正式組織與中間人如士紳、專賣商人、胥吏、牙官，與之間接連結。這套體制使得政府能以精簡的官僚隊伍統治一個龐大的帝國，面對16世紀以來商業發展引起的社會變動，能夠因地制宜地處理，維持秩序的平衡。到了19世紀，由於內外的危機，各種非正式組織職能與其財政要求越發膨脹。從清末到民國，中國政府與民間經濟活動的連結越來越密切。這套間接治理體制的灰色地帶也隨之擴張，走向失控。來自西方的主權國家-世界貿易體系的衝擊，加重了帝國內部行政體制缺陷的惡化，在兩者的交會處，浮現出一種新的治理型態。此後，量入為出的財政，轉向量出為入的財政，無為的除弊節制，轉向有為的建設政治，傳統分層而間接的統治，將轉向一個全面而直接的治理。從政府到民間，這個過程釋放出巨大的能量，也造成巨大的混亂，捲入了所有的人們。

這使得中國國內的經濟活動作為一個整體，開始被思考。為了掌握這個充滿能量與混亂的對象，一套新的關於經濟的整體知識、相伴的制度安排與權力關係，在摸索中逐漸開展。在裡面，並存著兩種相反而相依的傾向：由上而下全面榨取的行政控管，與透過知識調查、按照經濟領域自身的法則來治理。這個空間，吸引了各個位置與立場的人們投入其中，尋求著事實的捕捉與解釋，尋求著自身的利益，也尋求著公共性的藍圖。

民國時期中國政府行政能力不足，民間經濟活動又鬆散而缺乏組織，處在兩者之間，帶給財經官員與社會科學工作者巨大的困惑。他們發現在中國沒有西方意義上的「經濟」，以應用他們學到的新知識。但這也使他們跨出移植的近代西歐知識，思考「中國經濟」的本質。從清末的財政清理開始，身處第一線的人們，既感到民間經濟組織之混亂、政府介入之必要，又察覺政府專斷管制的失效與危險。「什麼樣的治理才是有效的？」帶著這個困惑，在專制與無序之間，他們試圖生產一套貼近經濟活動本身的知識，以劃定介入與放任的界線，並從中建立一套制度安排，將政府與民間共同納入其中，使公權力與民間的經濟活動互相支持，也互相制約。

將這個未定型的政治-經濟空間化為有效知識的努力，在1920年代後半到1940年代達到高峰。面對1930年代的經濟危機與繼之而來的戰爭，在合理化中國經濟組織的目標下，從自由主義到馬克思主義，從實地田野調查到總體經濟分析，來自西歐歷史經驗的經濟理論與知識工具被一一改造，以認識並回應中國的現實。在其中，他們打造出經濟的事物，也發現到種種非經濟的事物，並逐漸察覺到經濟知識與現實之間的距離，以及社會科學工作的政治性本質。

在1940年代的尾聲，政府與民間經濟在內戰與通膨下越發靠近。國家建構的強化，意圖加深對經濟活動的控管，卻反過來導致經濟失序的惡化。這一方面將整個中國推向思想激進化的浪潮，另一方面也促成整體性知識的嘗試，以回答現實。交錯著政治、經濟以至於倫理秩序的混亂與不安，面對這個領域，當專制與失序的兩難日益加劇，他們提出了一種新的人文科學設想，從總體經濟知識的公共討論出發，詢問什麼樣的干預是合適的，並就此思考國家的可能樣貌。

另一批研究者，更進一步走向「跨出經濟領域的經濟治理」的思考。透過對帝國體制的重訪，他們採取了整體論的視角，試圖重建眼前失序中國的有機連結。他們將中國的經濟現代化放在歷史脈絡中，察覺構成了經濟領域的種種組織與制度並不只是經濟自身邏輯的產物，同時也是社會文化實踐的結果。過去無數中間人的協調工作，並非單靠政府的行政管理可以取代，也非市場的運作會自行填補。有效的經濟重建，將需要一個由所有經濟活動者共同參與生產的公共知識，需要讓作為客體的他們，也成為這個空間的主體。

1949年後，這個空間為黨國的單一聲音所回答，整體知識的生產與其公共想像的構築戛然中止。然而，這並不只是一個過渡時期的遙遠故事。當建立近代以來最強大的行政官僚機器，中共當局卻也發現，在表面上一目了然的計劃經濟體制下，始終有著各種看不見的經濟要素無法掌握。政府規劃與民間經濟運作的落差，並不像馬克思主義經濟學者所想，將被革命解答。當經濟知識生產被全面控制，失去公共討論，政府將發現自己不得不面對各種在經濟要素之外的人的問題，必須在計算社會主義經濟的內在合理性時，去思考「國家」與「經濟」究竟是什麼。

這些問題，最終在1980年代以建立市場經濟制度作為答覆，但是那些在國家與經濟建構產生的巨大知識中未能被納入的事物，卻並不因此消失。在中國的政府能力與經濟組織都更加強大，「中國經濟」彷彿已經成為實體的今天，它們依舊在暗處徘徊，對之提出質疑，等待著回答。像是說著，那被稱之為「中國經濟」的，仍然尚未完成，而1940年代經濟知識生產與公共討論構想的回聲，仍然飄盪在我們的耳邊。

關鍵字

中國經濟 ； 治理型態 ； 國家建構 ； 社會科學 ； 知識生產 ； 理性規劃 ； 公共知識 ； 梁啟超 ； 張公權 ； 何廉 ； 孫冶方 ； 陶希聖 ； 費孝通

並列摘要

What does it mean to produce ‘a knowledge that is capable of representing China's economy as a whole’? This type of knowledge has not appeared before, but became focus of attentions in the 20th century. Taking this as a starting point, this dissertation explores an important change of the governmentality in modern China: the goverment tried to regulate private economic activities directly. In this dissertation, I would like to discuss the process of this change and its historical meaning, based on the production of the economic knowledge at that time, and the confusions, thoughts and prospects left by the people working in the forefront. As the historical documents indicate, ‘China's national economy’ was not an already existing entity, but a sphere constructed by the interactions between the government and private economic activities since the last years of the Qing Dynasty. Surrounding this sphere, a series of knowledge productions, institutional arrangements, and political engineerings with new imaginations of state emerged together.

In the late imperial China, the government did not regulate private economic activities directly. The bridges between the two sides were various informal institutions and middlemen, such as local gentries, petty officials, monopoly merchants, and brokers of marketplace. This system enabled the government to rule a large empire with a small bureaucracy. Facing the social changes brought by commercial developments since the 16th century, this system kept the order of society by implementing according to local conditions. In the 19th century, the internal and external crises increased the amount of informal institutions as well as the financial demands. From the late Qing Dynasty to the Republic of China, the Chinese government and the private economic activities were getting closer and closer. As the result, the gray area of this system of governance also expanded and went out of control. The impact of the world system of trade also aggravated the deterioration of this system of governance. At the intersection of these two changes, a new governmentality emerged. Since then, the fiscal principle had changed from arranging the expenditure according to the income, to arranging the income according to the expenditure. The aim of politics had changed from doing nothing but removing drawbacks, to improving developments. And from indirect governance, to a direct and full scale one. This process released tremendous energy and caused tremendous chaos, engulfing all the people into this whirlpool

Henceforward, economic activities in China began to be considered as a whole. Knowledge, institutional arrangements and power relations about the economic activities had developed gradually in order to grasp this sphere full of energy and chaos. There were two opposite but dependent tendencies in this process. The first one made a strong top-down mechanism of the administrative control, while the second one regulated the economic activities by the rules of the economic sphere through knowledge surveys. This sphere attracts people of all positions. Some sought to seize and interpret the facts, some sought their own interests, and some sought the blueprint for a public sphere.

In the period of the Republic of China, the government lacked strong administrative capacity and private economic activities lacked tight organization. These two situations made financial officials and social scientists confused. "There is nothing called economy in China as its definition in the West." They found out what they studied from the West were not useful in China. This confusion, however, urged them to go beyond the border of the economic knowledge originated from the West and to think about the true nature of ‘China's national economy.’ Since the beginning of the financial liquidation in the late Qing Dynasty, people in the forefront found out the disorder of the private economic organizations and the need for government intervention, but also became concerned of the failure of the arbitrariness of the government. "Which type of governance is effective?" Between the dangers of dictatorship and disorder, they asked this question. They tried to produce a set of knowledge based on the economic activities, in order to draw the line between intervention and non-intervention. They tried to establish an institutional arrangement to include both government and people, drawing them to support and constrain each other at the same time.

The effort to produce knowledge for effectively governing this unconstructed political-economic sphere reached its peak between the late 1920s and 1940s. In the crisis of the Great Depression and the ensuing wars, people worked hard under the goal of rationalizing the organizations of China's national economy. From the liberalism to the Marxism, from the fieldwork to the aggregate analysis, economic theories and knowledge tools from the historical experiences in Western Europe were transformed in order to recognize and respond to the reality of China. Through these works, they created things based on the economic logic, and at the same time discovered the things that didn’t fit into the theories. They had gradually realized the distance between the economic knowledge and the reality, thus found out the political nature of the social science.

Due to the civil war and the inflation, the government and the private economic activities were growing closer than before at the end of the 1940s. Following the state-building process, the top-down administrative control had been strengthened. However, contrary to its intention, this development worsened the economic disorder. Under this situation, many Chinese intellectuals were attracted by the idea of radicalization, but some chose the other direction, hoping to answer the difficulty of the reality with a holistic knowledge. The dilemma between dictatorship and disorder was worsening day by day. Facing this sphere harassed by chaos of politics, economy and ethics, the intellectuals proposed a new blueprint of humanities and social sciences, in which they started from public discussion of the macro-economic knowledge, then go on to ask "what is a reasonable intervention?" then reflected the results of the discussions on "what is a good state?"

Some scholars went even further to discuss the governmentality of economy beyond the economic sphere. By retrospecting the system of governance of the imperial China, they took a holistic view to find the organic links in hope of reconstructing the out-of-order China. Inspecting China's economic modernization in a historical view, they realized that these organizations and institutions that made up the economic sphere were not merely the products of economic sphere itself, but also the results of the social and cultural practices. They noticed that the coordination of numerous middlemen in the past could not be superseded by the administration of the government itself, nor could the operation of the market alone. Effective economic reconstruction and governance, therefore, require the production of a public knowledge, in which all the economic actors participate. That is, as the object of this sphere, they should also become the subject of it.

After 1949, this sphere was answered by the single voice of Chinese Communist Party-state. The production of the holistic knowledge and the construction of its public imagination were abruptly halted. However, this is not just a story of a transitional period. With the most powerful administrative machine in the history of modern China, the authorities found out that there are always unseen economic elements that can not be regulated under planned economy. The distance between the government planning and the operation of the reality cannot be resolved by revolution. The result was quite different than what Marxist economics thought. When the production of economic knowledge was completely under the control of the government and the public discussion disappeared, the government found that itself had to face the problems of human relations outside of the economic factors. When calculating the inherent rationality of a socialist economy, the government had to ask itself "what is a state?" and "what is economy?" after all.

Eventually, these questions were replied with the establishment of the market economy in 1980s. Today, both government capabilities and economic organizations are stronger in China, and it seems as though ‘China's national economy’ has become an entity. However, things which could not be included in the knowledge produced by the state-building and economic formation have not disappear. They are still hovering in the darkness, asking and waiting for answers. The birth of ‘China's national economy’ has not yet been completed, and the echoes of the production of economic knowledge and imagination of public discussion in 1940s still linger in our ears.

並列關鍵字

Govermentality ； State-Building ； Social Sciences ； Production of Knowledge ； Rational Planning ； Public Knowledge ； Liang Qichao ； Zhang Gongquan ； He Lian ； Sun Yefang ； Tao Xisheng ； Fei Xiaotong

參考文獻

《中央日報》（重慶）

丁文江、趙豐田編，歐陽哲生整理，《梁任公先生年譜長編（初稿）》。台北：中華書局，2010。

王汎森，《中國近代思想與學術的系譜》。台北：聯經，2003。

岸本美緒，《清代中國的物價與經濟波動》。北京：社會科學文獻，2010；日文初版，1997。

李宇平，〈恐慌之救濟與法幣政策的形成（1932-1935）——貨幣改革說與貿易平衡說的對立與消長〉，《近代史研究所集刊》，23下，1994年6月。