English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91280/121421 (75%)
Visitors : 25440409      Online Users : 128
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 學術期刊 > 東亞研究 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/99255
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99255


    Title: 政治經濟學的典範轉移?以解釋中國經濟改革的文獻為例
    Other Titles: “Paradigm Shift” of the Study of Political Economy? A Critical Review of Chinese Literature on China’s Economic Reform
    Authors: 李宛錚;張登及
    Lee, Wan-Cheng;Chang, Teng-Chi
    Keywords: 政治經濟學;典範;國家與市場;中國經濟體制改革;改革開放
    Political Economy;Paradigm;Economic Reform and Openness;State and Market
    Date: 2012-01
    Issue Date: 2016-07-20 16:19:31 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 影響政治經濟發展的因素,往往游移在「市場」與「國家」這道光譜上。依循文獻的歷史脈絡,本文將其大略分為市場典範、國家典範、以及鑲嵌典範三大類型。中國的經濟改革濫觴於鄧小平的改革開放路線,迄今已取得不小的成就。惟中外知識界對於中國經改的核心動力究竟是國家帶動還是市場主導,爭辯仍是方興未艾。基於中國政治體制的特殊性,即便是邁向市場化的過程中,也還繼續引發出「左」、「右」路線的辯論。在此辯論中,中國的國家機器所將扮演的角色為何,各界不僅莫衷一是,也牽動著中國下一波的政經體制改革。本文以中國改革實踐為個案,初步整理分類中國知識界對經改方向的解釋爭論,並與既有的政治經濟學典範相比較。換言之,本文旨在檢視源自西方的既存政治經濟學典範,對於現實的中國經改,是否仍保有其解釋力?作者們初步發現,政治經濟學典範的發展是從市場步向國家,但中國實踐卻是「錯序」而行。因此,中國的政經實踐似乎導致既存典範的「局部危機」,但還不足以斷定為政治經濟學的典範轉移。
    “State” and “Market” are viewed two driving factors propelled economic and political development in various countries and regimes. Based on a preliminary categorization over the “state vs. society” dimension, literature can be featured as “pro-state”, “pro-market” and those stress “embededness”. In a sense, the three different branches constitute three “paradigms”, which have basically informed most studies on comparative political economy and post-communism reform. This research examines the latest Chinese literature by mainland China’s academics regarding the causes of China’s impressive economic reform since early 1980s. It then compares the Chinese perspectives with the established three paradigms in the field of political economy. It finds out that the establish literature evolved along the path from “pro-market” to “pro-state”, as “embededness” emerged lately. However, the Chinese literature tells an opposite story: from “pro-state” to “pro-market”. This paradox seems implying a “crisis” in the mainstream political economy though. Nevertheless a “paradigm shift” in the field is still too immature to be confirmed.
    Relation: 東亞研究, 43(1), 129-162
    East Asia Studies
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[東亞研究] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    43(1)p129-162.pdf1889KbAdobe PDF406View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback