中国产业政策为何选择非均衡与直接干预的模式——基于战国末期经济史的考察与分析

Why China's Industrial Policy Chose the Pattern of Disequilibrium and Direct Intervention——Basing on Analysis of Economic History of Qin State at the Later Period

一般认为,中国改革开放以来形成的产业政策体系学自二战后的日本。但事实上,中国的产业政策虽然与日本一样具有"非均衡"特征,但选择了与日本截然相反的"直接干预"模式。一国产业政策的制度形成与其经济史及其路径依赖效应密切相关。中国产业政策的历史溯源分析发现:非均衡与直接干预的产业政策模式形成于战国末期的秦国,对后世中国的经济政策模式、政府与市场的关系产生深远的影响。研究还表明,在非均衡的"重农抑商"产业政策作用下,古代商业经济受到政府的严格规制,产业结构因而在政府直接干预下长久保持"一、二、三"形态,而工业的产业组织则以一定程度的"官进民退(国有化)"与行政垄断为特征。结合产业经济学和经济史维度的考察与思想提炼,为当前迫在眉睫的产业政策调整与新一轮产业转型升级,提供思想参考。

Generally speaking,the formation of the industrial policy system since China＇s reform and opening learned from Japan after the world war II. However,the domestic academic circles tend to overlook one key point： although China＇s industrial policy has the same ＂unbalanced＂characteristics like Japan,China＇s industrial policy chose ＂direct intervention＂mode which is the opposite of the Japanese mode. This paper holds the view that the formation of industrial policy system was greatly influenced by the Chinese economic history and its path dependence effect. Through economic analysis in this paper,we found that the unbalanced and direct intervention model of industrial policy actually formed in Qin state in the later period of warring states,and had a far-reaching influence on China＇s model of economic policy and the relationship between the government and the market in the later ages. The research results also show that with the influence of the unbalanced ＂stressing agriculture and damping business＂industrial policy,the commercial economy in ancient China was under strict government regulation,thus,industrial structure remained the ＂one,two,three＂form under the direct intervention of the government for a long time,whereas the industrial organization of industry was characterized by a certain degree of ＂the valuing the officer and devaluing the people＂（ nationalization）,and administrative monopoly. The economical and historical research has positive meaning in theory and in practice for the urgent industrial policy system adjustment and a new round of economic system reform,and for providing new ideas from the economic and industrial economy dimensions.