警惕现代经济分析中嵌入的非历史倾向——以阿西莫格鲁等人的《国家为什么会失败》为例

Be Alert to Non-historical Trends Embedded in Modern Economic Analysis——Take Acemoglu's Why Nations Fail as an example

现代经济学者倾向于运用当前流行的理论和思维解释历史现象,阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的《国家为什么会失败》就是这方面的典型例子。它用新古典经济学的自由竞争市场和多元政治体制解释国家的兴盛和社会繁荣,但这种简单化的历史重构具有明显的非历史取向,从而内含着严重缺陷。从这一角度看,该书的问题表现为:一是简单地在社会的繁荣与贫困同制度的包容性间画等号,将面临一系列的历史和现实挑战;二是以现代社会"普世"价值的民主政治解释和审视人类历史,犯了绝对主义错误;三是以新古典经济学的有效市场和制度变迁理论解释经济发展史,犯了"先射箭后画靶"的错误;四是基于实践界定"有效集权"等概念犯了同义反复和社会达尔文主义错误;五是以偶然因素解释"有效集权"的成因,实际是一种非历史取向的态度;六是过于夸大民主制度这一单一因素对国家兴衰的作用,陷入"见树不见林"的视觉盲点;七是以囿于现代主流经济学信条的事后性分析指导社会实践,会导致"南橘北枳"的结果;八是以攫取性制度揭示无序式经济增长,但对"无序"的内涵存在片面性理解;九是根本问题在于囿于特定的新古典经济学分析框架,犯了逻辑实证主义错误。事实上,阿西莫格鲁等人强调的包容性制度,与其说是经济快速增长的原因,不如说是经济持续增长的结果;与其说是社会经济繁荣程度的决定因素,不如说主要是经济持续平稳增长的基础。非历史取向很大程度上也是现代主流经济学的基本特征,而这根基于其自然主义和科学主义思维之中。因此,必须认清这种非历史取向,才能科学审视现代主流经济学的思维和论断。

Modern economists tend to use the current popular theories and thinking to explain historical phenomena. Acemoglu and Robinson＇s Why Nations Fail is a typical example of this. It explains the prosperity of the country and social prosperity with the free competition market and the pluralistic political institution of neo-classical economics. However,this simplistic historical reconstruction has obvious non-historical orientations and thus contains serious flaws. The book shows the following errors. First,simply draw the equal sign between prosperity and poverty in the society and the inclusiveness of the institution and face a series of historical and practical challenges. Second,it is the democratic politics of the ＂ universal＂ value of modern society that explains and examines the history of mankind and has committed the mistake of absolutism. Thirdly,it explains the history of economic development with the theory of effective market and institutional change in neo-classical economics,and guilty of the mistake of ＂ shooting after archery＂. Fourth,the concept of ＂ effective centralization＂ was defined by practice,and the mistakes of synonym repetition and social Darwinism were nade. Fifth,it is actually a non-historical orientation to use the accidental factors to explain the cause of ＂ effective centralization＂. Sixth,over-emphasizing the role of democracy as a single factor in the rise and fall of the country,it is plunged into the blind spot of ＂ seeing trees but not forests＂. Seventh,based on the post-mortem analysis of modern mainstream economics,it will lead to social practice,which will lead to undesirable results like oranges change with their environment. The eighth is to reveal the disorderly economic growth through an extractive institution,but there is a one-sided understanding of the connotation of ＂ disorderliness＂. Ninth is the fundamental problem lies in the specific neo-classical economic analysis framework,making a mistake of logical positivism. In fact,the inclusive institution emphasized by Acemoglu is not so much a reason of rapid economic growth but the result of sustained economic growth; is not so much a determinant of the degree of social and economic prosperity but mainly the basis for sustained and steady growth of the economy. Non-historical orientation is also largely a basic feature of modern mainstream economics,and this root is based on its naturalistic and scientist thinking. Therefore,we must recognize this non-historical orientation in order to scientifically examine the thinking and theories of modern mainstream economics.