Fang Shuanxi
Transition economics is an economic discipline developed with the disintegration of planned economy and the gradual formation of market economy in the socialist world since the late 1980s. In the process of transition from planned economy to market economy, due to different initial conditions, countries such as China and Viet Nam adopted a gradual transformation model, while most countries in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe adopted a radical transformation model. The study of these two models can provide basic materials and theoretical empirical analysis basis for transitional economics.
■ Briefly describe two basic transition modes in reality: the real object targeted by theoretical analysis.
From the 1930s to the end of 1980s, the planned economy model, which used to be the specimen model of the economic system of socialist countries, was formed in the Soviet Union and subsequently adopted by 14 Eurasian socialist countries. Its basic feature is that the central government is the direct allocator of the resources of the whole society, and the government takes central planning as the main way of resource allocation. The information signal of central planning is quantity, and the means of mobilization is administrative instruction. This system played a historical role in gathering manpower, material resources and financial resources quickly and ensuring the realization of national key goals during the war and post-war recovery period. However, since the 1960s, its disadvantages have gradually emerged, and the economy lacks vitality and efficiency. Compared with developed market economy countries, its economic performance is obviously backward. In this case, all countries with centrally planned economies have begun to explore economic transformation. At present, the research objects in the process of transformation are mainly the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (from the original 9 countries to the CIS countries and 27 countries in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe), as well as Eurasian countries such as China and Viet Nam. From the actual process of transition, all countries in transition have made clear the nature of transition, that is, the transition from central planned economy to modern market economy. According to the path choice of transition, the transition situation can be roughly divided into two basic types: gradual transition represented by China and Viet Nam and radical transition represented by Russian and most countries in Eastern Europe.
Gradual transition generally has the following characteristics:
1. Strive to maintain the continuity of economic and social development in the process of transformation. Moreover, stability and development itself are also listed as the basic goal and test standard of transformation. From the perspective of China's economic transition, it was not clear at the beginning that it was to establish a market economic system, but the basic slogan was "developing and liberating productive forces" in the early stage of reform. In the process of reform, the proposition of "stability first" is put forward, that is, the constraint conditions of stability should be fully considered in the transition. Deng Xiaoping also put forward "three advantages" in his southern tour speech, that is, the reform should be conducive to liberating, developing and improving people's living standards, which is the basic standard to test the reform.
2, the transition is not in one step, but through the establishment of transitional institutional arrangements, so that the reform finally points to the market economy system. For example, both China and Viet Nam have a dual-track price system. In the process of price liberalization, both market prices and planned prices are allowed. Finally, the two-track integration is realized, and the price is mainly generated by the market.
3. Take the reform strategy of paying equal attention to stock reform and incremental reform. In a specific period, incremental reform is often more important than stock reform. For example, the rural reform in China implemented the household contract responsibility system, which was a breakthrough in the planned economy at first, and then the urban state-owned enterprise reform was a stock reform. In particular, the reform of state-owned enterprises has never stopped in the whole transition process. At the same time, we began to gradually encourage the development of individual, private and foreign-funded economy, which is a gradual reform. While the stock economy plays its role, it pays attention to the development of incremental economy, which is an important prerequisite for gradual transition to ensure stable economic growth.
4. The reform takes the road of economy first, society later and politics later. Both China and Viet Nam made it clear in the process of transformation that the reform was carried out under the basic framework of socialism. In terms of superstructure, the adjustment range is very small, first of all, it is mainly economic. After the formation of microeconomic entities, the social structure is divided, and then the reform of social management system and political system is considered This is the basic condition of gradual reform to ensure social and political stability.
Russia and eastern European countries have generally adopted radical transition, also known as "shock therapy". Western public opinion once called the second kind of reform "Big Bang" (some people translated it as "Big Bang" or "Great Leap"), and borrowed biblical language to describe that God created a beautiful world in seven days, in order to compare this type of transitional country. Because of political mutation, the old system was destroyed overnight and the new system will be forcibly established. Radical transformation has the following basic characteristics:
1. The basic goal of the transition is to form a new system, which does not necessarily take into account the temporary economic growth performance. From 1990 to 1994, 1929, the worst regional depression since the world economic crisis generally appears in the economies of radical transition countries. They are generally experiencing a "painful period" of great destruction, accompanied by a large-scale economic recession. Russia's output fell by 50%, other CIS countries fell more, and Eastern European countries fell by 18-20%. 1994, the actual income level of 60% Russian residents was lower than 1989. According to the EU1March 1995 survey, among the 27 countries in transition in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, only the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Albania have improved their living standards over the previous year.
2. The process of economic transformation includes constitutional transformation, that is, economic, social and political transformation is almost parallel. Radical transformation theory holds that economic transformation is a large-scale institutional change, and both are qualitative changes. "People can't cross a canyon in two steps", and institutional changes need to be completed quickly in a short time. Otherwise, the old system will form a huge resistance to the formation of the new system, making the transformation in the foreseeable future.
3. In the early stage of economic transformation, the policies of stabilization, privatization and liberalization were carried out simultaneously. Jeffrey Sachs, a professor at Harvard University, was invited to start a Russian transformation.
The "prescription", that is, the "shock" economic transition strategy, specifically includes the following four aspects: First, the government strives to establish a price system determined by market factors, stop price control, reduce or even cancel state subsidies, and liberalize import and export trade. Second, remove restrictions on private activities. Third, through privatization and strict control of existing state-owned enterprises, state-owned enterprises are constrained. Fourth, maintain price stability, implement tight monetary and fiscal policies, reduce deficits and balance budgets. Later, he summarized this strategy as stabilization, privatization and liberalization, and considered it to be the "three pillars" of the transformation of the former Soviet Union and other eastern European countries.
4. Because radical transformation focuses on long-term performance, it is accompanied by short-term economic and social chaos or even retrogression. Compared with gradual transition, the short-term benefits are not obvious, and the economic and social risks are relatively large. At the same time of economic recession, such as Russia, there have been "mafia" and other organizations, and there have been inequalities such as a few people getting rich overnight and most people's living standards falling.
■ Questions to be Answered by Transitional Economics
Transition economics is a new discipline with the emergence of transition countries. Different theories can be used to explain economic transition, but as a discipline, there is still no unified system. As for the research object, transition economics is often confused with other disciplines because it must use the knowledge of many economic disciplines to explain some transition phenomena. Therefore, distinguishing the research object of transitional economics from other economic disciplines will help to understand the research object of transitional economics accurately.
1, transition economics and development economics. Although many countries in transition are accompanied by the main body of economic development, there are also some countries with dual economic structure, which is an important constraint factor in the transition process. Sometimes it needs to be explained by some concepts of development economics, but many developing countries are not countries in transition. Transition economics mainly studies the problems in the process of transition from central planned economy to modern market economy, while development economics may or may not include this process.
2. Transition economics and western economics. Transitional economics often draws nutrition from western economics. For example, draw lessons from the concepts of equilibrium and Pareto optimality in western economics, as well as the paradigms of static analysis, comparative static analysis and dynamic analysis. But western economics itself cannot give the theoretical conclusion of transitional economics. Western economics mainly studies the allocation of resources under the condition of market economy, while transitional economics studies the transformation from one resource allocation mode to another.
3. Transition economics and institutional economics. Institutional economics studies the value of various systems in the economic process, the performance comparison of different systems, and the basic theory of institutional change. These problems are inevitable in transitional economics. However, transition economics is different from institutional economics, and it studies specific institutional changes, that is, institutional changes from central planned economy to market economy. And institutional economics can include all institutional changes in the whole human history. Therefore, compared with institutional economics, the research object of transitional economics is more specific, and the two can learn from each other and confirm each other.
From the above comparison, we can see that only by strictly defining ourselves as the study of the process from central planned economy to modern market economy can transitional economics be distinguished from other economic disciplines and thus become an independent discipline. Starting from this idea, transitional economics should be able to answer the following basic questions.
1. What is the starting point and end point of economic transformation? Why did you make such a choice? On this issue, there are some understandings, such as the transformation of economic system, from planned economy to market economy. But there are also great differences, such as whether constitutional transition is a necessary condition or an inevitable result of economic transition. Transitional economics must be able to answer these questions, otherwise, it is difficult to unify the research objects.
2. Why choose different modes in economic transition? What are the advantages and disadvantages of different modes? What is the difference between the laws of different modes? Both radical reform and gradual reform have certain historical inevitability and are closely related to the constraints faced by different countries in the early stage of transformation. However, different models have great differences in the choice of economic policies and transition paths, and transition economics must give due explanations.
3. What is the basic driving force of economic transformation? The process of transformation is bound to be accompanied by the formation of different interest groups, which have different expectations for economic transformation. In order to maximize their own interests, they will take an attitude of supporting or opposing the transformation, thus ultimately affecting the situation and process of the transformation. Transition economics must start from the change of interest structure and make a dynamic analysis of the basic motivation in the process of transition.
4. What transitional institutional arrangements are there in the process of transformation? Why should we adopt these intermediate institutional arrangements? Even if it is a radical transition, it is impossible to reach the ideal institutional form at one time, and many intermediate goals need to be taken before the final goal can be achieved. These transitional institutional arrangements are often the key to the success of the transition, and the economics of transition must give its own explanation.
5. What are the basic laws of the formation of the new system and the disintegration of the old system? The formation of the new system is often unstable, and many times the factors of the old system are still playing a role. At this time, the competition between the old and new systems appeared. Under what circumstances can the new system prevail. These problems should be concerned by transitional economics.
6. What is the relationship between economic transformation and economic structure change and economic performance, social development and culture? In different transformation processes, economic performance and social development have different trends, which have different influences on culture. Economic, social and cultural factors will in turn affect the actual transformation process. Transitional economics must be able to reveal these laws.
Of course, the process of economic transformation is related to all factors of the whole society, and the economics of transformation should leave room for the analysis of all factors and establish an open system that can accommodate new variables.
■ Theoretical summary of transition reality and different transition modes
Transition economics is a practical subject, because its research object itself is constantly changing. The gap between theory and reality makes the theory constantly revised to enhance its explanatory power. Judging from the existing research results of transition economics, there are three paradigms: Washington knowledge, post-Washington knowledge and Beijing knowledge, which can be used as a reference system for theoretical analysis.
Washington 1 * * *
In the 1980s, most Latin American countries were caught in the economic difficulties of inflation and debt crisis for more than 10 years. 1989, john williamson, an economist who used to be the World Bank, wrote Understanding Washington, which systematically put forward various ideas to guide Latin American economic reform, including implementing austerity policies to prevent inflation, cutting public welfare expenditures, liberalizing finance and trade, unifying exchange rates, removing various obstacles to the free flow of foreign capital, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and canceling government control over enterprises, and so on, which was supported by the World Bank.
Stiglitz also defined "Washington's knowledge", which he thought refers to the development strategy with privatization, liberalization and macro-stability as the main contents and a series of policies based on the firm belief in the free market and aimed at weakening or even minimizing the role of the government. In fact, "Washington knowledge" basically constitutes the main theoretical basis for radical reforms in Russia and Eastern Europe. "Washington knowledge" inherits Adam Smith's economic thought of free competition and is in the same strain as the western liberal tradition. Later, people called these views "the policy declaration of neoliberalism". With the smooth progress of globalization, "Washington knowledge" was once deeply rooted in people's hearts and had a wide impact on economic transformation.
2. "Post-Washington knowledge"
Because Washington consciousness itself was formed in the early stage of economic transition, this theory will be self-revised and improved with the process of transition practice. Especially in radical transformation, economic recession and social disorder appeared in the early stage of transformation, and this theory was inevitably questioned by all parties. The main challenges come from two aspects: one is "European values" and the other is "post-Washington knowledge". "European values" are traditional European values based on social democracy. While emphasizing economic growth, we advocate human rights, environmental protection, social security and fair distribution. However, in the past two decades, European welfare-oriented capitalism has been at a disadvantage in the competition with American and British free market capitalism, and European countries have generally moved closer to "Washington knowledge" in policy orientation, so the challenge of "European values" to "Washington knowledge" is weak. In recent years, a more powerful challenge to "Washington knowledge" is the "post-Washington knowledge" put forward by a group of western scholars represented by American economist Stiglitz. "Post-Washington knowledge" emphasizes the institutional factors related to development, and holds that development is not only economic growth, but also an all-round social transformation. Therefore, "post-Washington knowledge" not only focuses on growth, but also on poverty, income distribution, environmental sustainability and other issues. It also points out that market forces cannot automatically realize the optimal allocation of resources from the perspective of information asymmetry, recognizes the positive role of the government in promoting development, and criticizes the policies of privatization, capital account opening and economic austerity advocated by the International Monetary Fund before and after the Asian financial crisis.
The "post-Washington Consensus" reveals the failures of the Washington Consensus one by one. It is believed that "Washington Knowledge" made a serious mistake in understanding the economic structure of developing countries, and limited its eyes to too narrow goals and too narrow tools to achieve them. For example, when technology continues to improve, the market cannot spontaneously achieve efficiency; This dynamic process is the key issue of development; Moreover, there are great externalities in this dynamic process, and it is this externality that gives the government a great role. Successful East Asian countries have recognized this role, but Washington has not.
3, Beijing * * * knowledge
Whether it is "European values" or "post-Washington knowledge", their challenge to "Washington knowledge" is far from enough. Comparatively speaking, backed by sustained economic growth, "Beijing Knowledge" is most likely to pose a new powerful challenge to "Washington Knowledge".
In May 2004, the London Foreign Policy Center, a famous British think tank, published a paper entitled "Understanding of Beijing", which made a comprehensive and rational thinking and analysis of China's economic reform achievements in the past 20 years, and pointed out that China's economic development model is not only suitable for China, but also an example for developing countries that pursue economic growth and improve people's lives. Joshua believes that the China model is a development mode suitable for China's national conditions and social needs, seeking fair and high-quality growth. He defined this way of development as: hard work, active innovation and bold experiments; Resolutely defend national sovereignty and interests; Step by step, save energy. Innovation and experiment are its soul; It is pragmatic and ideal, flexible in solving problems, different from case to case, and its principle is not to insist on consistency. It pays attention to both economic development and social change, and improves society by developing economy and improving management. China's new ideas are having a great influence on the world outside China. China has provided a new way for countries all over the world who are struggling to find a way out, not only to develop themselves, but also to truly maintain their independence and protect their lifestyle and political choices while integrating into the international order. "Understanding of Beijing" also includes many non-economic thoughts, involving politics, quality of life and global power balance. "Understanding of Beijing" has replaced the widely questioned "Understanding of Washington". The desire for equality, peace and high-quality development has replaced accusations and arrogance.
In Mora's view, China's experience based on "Beijing knowledge" has universal value, many of which can be used for reference by other developing countries and can be regarded as a model for some backward countries to seek economic growth and improve people's lives.
Mora's summary of "China experience" may not be accurate, and his "Beijing knowledge" may not be recognized by people, so it is very likely to be replaced or supplemented in future discussions. However, the word "Beijing knowledge" created by Mora is likely to survive, and it is constantly being hotly discussed, becoming more and more mature and perfect, and becoming an ideological banner for developing countries and transition countries that neither agree with the planned economy nor accept the "Washington knowledge", but try to explore the "third way".
4, the basic evaluation of three kinds of transition * * *
Whether it is "knowledge in Washington", "knowledge in post-Washington" or "knowledge in Beijing", it is an understanding of the specific transformation process and is also based on the basic beliefs and development of different economic schools. At present, there is a tendency to favor gradual reform, while the call for radical reform gradually disappears. There is a tendency to be one-sided in theory, which is not a calm and rational attitude. It is difficult for Russia and Eastern Europe to learn from China, and it is also difficult for China to learn from Russia and Eastern Europe. The key issue is that the initial constraints of the transition are different. And the advantages and disadvantages of radical and gradual transition have not been fully revealed in just over 20 years. But one thing is clear, that is, the transition process is a very complicated process, and the simplified rational design is often difficult to achieve the expected purpose, because there are so many variables in the transition process that a considerable number of variables cannot be controlled artificially.