In the discourse of modern European and American scholars on China, there are often some puzzling arguments, the most famous is "China no religion" and " China no city”(Weber language).
Some Chinese scholars have written a dissatisfaction (and apparently confused), saying that it is simply a blind word, is the fact that Westerners rely on the mentality of imperialism, ignoring the Chinese religion, the existence of the city.
It is inconceivable, however, that a leading scholar such as Weber would make such a low-level mistake, whose true meaning is only in the framework of a comparative study, pointing out that China has no equivalent to the concept of Western society: "religion" refers to the institutionalized religion of full-time clergy like Christianity, and "city" refers to a city with theRichard Rackman in state and power even said that "only 500 years ago, the state did not exist in the vast majority of Regions" - a view that many sociologists would agree with him, since the "state" is also a modern political organization that monopolizes the whole set of mechanisms, such as taxation, violence, and legitimacy, within its borders.
This may also be said that in the long history, "China no market", because according to the basic theory of classical economics preset, "market" itself is an independent and self-regulation of the divisive field, according to their own economic laws, any human intervention in it is distorted.Clearly, this ideal capitalist market system has never been seen in Chinese history.This becomes the question: is there a“market " in China?What kind of“market”is there?If this "market" does not conform to the definition of classical economics, then it is a secondary form, or is it a challenge or complement to the original theory?This means that thinking about this must be accompanied by a reflection on the classical theory.
Chinese market system
There is no doubt that there is a“market " in China.But the past economic theory when talking about the "market", are hidden in their own undefined preset, so Huang Guoxin in the answer“how to form the market”, the first review From Adam Smith, Engels, to Hayek, Polanyi and so on what the“market”means.
This is a wonderful literature review, only in this sort of comb, can we see the meaning of the Chinese experience: China has always focused on the state model of economic intervention, whether it is the exception, or more universal?
In fact, many people have long questioned the ideal capitalist market model in classical economics, this criticism is not originally from economics, but anthropology, sociology flank sniper fire.
For Anthropology, economic activity is an activity embedded in society, trade has never been pure commodity, interest exchange, but also contains the reproduction of social relations, which abound in the observation of the primitive society.
Anthropologist Marshall sallings, in "the economics of the Stone Age" (1972), humbled that "I am extremely ignorant of Economics", has eloquently proved that "capitalism is not an innate economic method in human history, nor is it capitalism, the more pervasive economic method in human society" - a phrase that seems to be taken for granted, but for many people it is a great thing to be forced to confront the fact that economic activities are an integral part of the cultural sequence, and there is no fully polarized ideal“market”as Athena was born.
The concept of ”market " as a special field that operates completely autonomously according to the economic law is not only a theoretical construction, but also a special ideology.
Related to this, since the 1970's, the reflection on the basic premise of classical theory also contains another side, that is: since like the market, social, etc. can not be said to be autonomous, differentiated areas, then you can not ignore the other forces (especially the state) to play the role.In 1985, "Bring the State Back in", edited by Heida scocchibo, expressed the concern that previous sociological studies have tended to focus on”society", in which, despite knowing that the state has a significant influence on society, it has failed to pay real attention to the state's role as an actor, concerned with how the state“influences political and social processes through itsAs a result, she emphasized the need to“get back to the state, "where" the state that is most fascinating to modern social scientists is the intervention of the economic process."
However, these reflections are generally more interested in social science scholars, economic theory Castle still rarely open the door.Huang Guoxin's "how the market is formed"although it seems from a very small case (Qing dynasty salt smuggling), but there is a great theoretical ambition, to participate in this theoretical dialogue.He did not mean to challenge economic theory, but tried to point out that the market mechanism that uses the price mechanism for the allocation of resources is neither the only form of market formation nor its original form. on the contrary, for those traditional societies that fail to generate capitalism spontaneously, the state may play a very active role in it.
This is an existing market exchange base, but there is a considerable distance from the capitalist unified market "market".Because economic activity is deeply embedded in society, political forces, social customs and practices can exert a powerful influence on the economy, this traditional market logic can not simply plug into the theoretical model of Western economics.In terms of the Qing salt smuggling case, he stressed that the Qing official salt although not out of monopoly system, but its operation in fact there is a clear market-oriented; and private salt, although more market-oriented, but in fact also need to cooperate with the official.It is in this sense, he went on: "because of the strong state intervention in the traditional Chinese market, the private salt trade directly linked to the government-controlled official salt trade can be seen as the best place to explore the problems of traditional Chinese market formation.”
In this, although he "back to the country", but still is the market-centric perspective, but he believes that the country's involvement in the formation of traditional Chinese market logic is the norm.This assumption is clearly contrary to classical economics, and Hayek et al's“market”assumption itself implies that "autonomous markets are the natural state" and even that of "exclusion of state intervention", that is to say, admitting that markets may be intervened by the state, but treating them as an external force whose intervention is unnatural and abnormal.As far as Chinese history is concerned, there is no doubt that Huang Guoxin's perception is more in line with historical facts, but as a result, he inadvertently ignores the question:if state intervention is the logic of market formation, then there is no market before organized state intervention?
Indeed, China's early state forces have long been involved in economic activity, "Zhou Li, the official, the hostage": the hostage into the market of goods, bribery, the people, cattle, weapons, rare. Jia gongyan:“the hostage Lord is pacified, there is a common assessment, shall not be high and low also."According to this record in the Zhou dynasty has a full-time official control of market prices.
Whether it is in favor of state intervention (such as "pipe", "Shang junshu") or against state intervention (such as "Mencius", "Xunzi") literature, are clearly proof of the pre-Qin era countries to actively trade and industry intervention is a common phenomenon, independent, self-aware businessmen groups are difficult to emerge.
While this suggests that economic activity has been deeply embedded in society in China from the beginning, it is worth noting that the intensity of this intervention itself varies with the intensity of the national challenge.
In Huang Guoxin's theoretical framework, "the state" is an abstract existence, there seems to be no internal contradictions, no changes in different times, but to intervene in the market of a constant external force.Although he mentioned that Jin Shang and Qing dynasty political and commercial collusion has deep operational logic, but does not regard the state as an actor to understand the logic of its intervention in economic activities itself.In short, China's traditional countries have multiple conflicting goals when it comes to intervening in the market.they must draw on their financial resources to provide for government spending, and must not“compete with the people " by adhering to the principles of Confucian Taoist economics.
The Han Dynasty managed the state's finances, its function is "for military use", this fiscal perspective of the country is parasitic, involved in the economic purpose is not to promote the economy itself; Confucianism insisted on maintaining the orderly operation of people's lives on the basis of a moderate draw, its logic is also non-economic.
Here, he is keenly aware of the different connotations of the”market "in various discussions, but forgets to define the different roles of the "country".When he cites economist John Hicks, who argued that the State played two key roles in the evolution of European market economies(the ancient Greek city-states promoted foreign trade, modern nation-states established institutional innovation), there is no comparison: this is quite different from the traditional Chinese role of the state.
The further development of business requires two conditions (protection of property rights and guarantee of contract performance), but this is not the concern of the Chinese dynasties.
According to Qiu Peng Sheng "Chinese law and regulations" article discussed, the development of the national market in the Ming and Qing dynasties did impact the existing administrative and legal norms, accelerate the market order changes, but this is mainly through the way the state quit the official shipping industry, the state itself does not actively play the role of regulating economic activities.
Until the end of the Qing Dynasty, China's regulations on economic activities are not systematic, there is no Western sense of the concept of "property rights", contract according to the folk law, is essentially a tool of administrative control and non-legal norms of origin, the state has no power to promote market norms.This”country " is clearly not the role of the modern economy, even if it can inadvertently create a unified national market, but it can spawn a market economy?