This is an article written a few years ago, but it has not been released to the public. It may be fresh to read now. The main point is that the issues involved here still have lasting significance in economic theory. .
one
In recent years, there have been frequent debates in the economics circle, and there are faint voices of wind and thunder. First, there was the industrial policy dispute between Mr. Lin Yifu and Professor Zhang Weiying, which attracted many economists, including many economists. The topic also spread from industrial policy. To the struggle between limited government and promising government, market economy and planned economy, liberalization, privatization, marketization and excessive liberalization, privatization, marketization, latecomer advantage and latecomer disadvantage… All of a sudden, the turbulent waters and turbulent waves are emptied, which is quite sweeping the economics world; and there is also a frowning thing-an academic debate, but it cannot get rid of ideological quarrels, and it is suspected of personal attacks. . Are you happy or sad about this debate? Or mixed joys and sorrows, joys and sorrows?
The debate between Justin Yifu Lin and Zhang Weiying is known as the “Lin Zhang War”, and Mr. Wu Jinglian’s opinion on this debate should be said to be high-level: “There is an obvious shortcoming here, that is, we pay more attention to those problems at the phenomenon level, and It is a basic problem that we have not been able to pay more attention to the essential and regular problems behind these phenomena. In this way, our discussion results, our contribution to national development is more limited to the case. Some of the countermeasures of the proposal, these proposals lack a deeper, solid, scientific basis, so his accuracy and validity will be affected.”
Mr. Wu Jinglian’s opinion is thought-provoking. If the exploration of economics only focuses on superficial phenomena and lacks in-depth fundamental understanding, it is indeed difficult to go far. However, any theory, without controversy, without the turmoil of different viewpoints, is afraid that there will not be a higher level of progress. In this regard, this debate has at least two important meanings for the Chinese economics circle. First, the parties in this debate have distinct views, tit for tat, and point directly at their own people. It is a rare event not only in the economics field, which is of great merit for activating the academic atmosphere and promoting academic freedom; secondly, if this debate is used properly, it will definitely promote the development of Chinese economics in depth and make China’s economic Learning has world significance. This latter point seems to have emerged recently and is the main focus of this article.
The beginning of this debate starts from the 10th anniversary of the death of Mr. Yang Xiaokai in the academic circles. From July 5th to 6th, 2014, the “Market, Industry and Division of Labor – China’s Reform” was organized by the Institute of Economic Thought and Economic History of Fudan University. At the International Symposium on History and Economic Prospects and the Memorial Meeting for the 10th Anniversary of the Death of Professor Yang Xiaokai”, the “Lin Zhang War” was about to break out, and the war has continued to this day. It is worthwhile to reflect on this debate now.
Both Lin and Zhang are well-known economists in China. They have both been baptized by mainstream Western economics in the West. They have contributed their own wisdom, and they all know each other’s thoughts very well… How can such two people be so different and tit for tat, almost incompatible? Let’s revisit the debate between the two. Everyone is citing scriptures, eloquent, and the facts and evidence are readily available, all of which are consistent, and have the demeanor of a master who lifts weights lightly, attracting many bystanders to nod frequently, but they are at a loss.
In fact, on closer inspection, the dispute between Lin and Zhang is not about the gains and losses of one city and one place, but about the overall trend of the Chinese economy and even the world economy, or in other words, what dominates the Chinese economy or even the world economy, or uses In more academic terms, what is the core of economics? This is the big article in economics. Mr. Wu Jinglian said, “It is necessary to study the problems of essential regularity.” My understanding is the core of economics, the intrinsic and fundamental driving force that promotes the market economy. It is impossible for Lin and Zhang to not understand this. The real key to the dispute between Lin and Zhang is: what is the core of economics? What drives and promotes the development of a market economy? Lin and Zhang gave different answers to each other.
When it comes to the core of economics, there is a Chinese person who cannot be avoided, that is, Mr. Yang Xiaokai mentioned above. Mr. Yang was famous for his pioneering new classical economics and won the Nobel Prize in Economics twice. His most important theoretical contribution is to deny that neoclassical economics regards resource allocation as the core of economics, and to propose that division of labor and specialization are the core of economics, and use them to explain all economic behavior. [1] As close friends or academic colleagues of Yang Xiaokai, Lin and Zhang are definitely familiar with Mr. Yang’s theories, but they may not necessarily agree with them. Otherwise, given their status in the Chinese economic circle, if they inherit Mr. Yang’s theories, they will definitely It will allow Chinese economics to open up a new world in world economics. Mr. Lin Zhanger should have his own understanding of the core of economics. Although the two of them did not use the word “core of economics”, they did so. It happened that both gentlemen have mature works. We can Here is a rough analysis.
Mr. Zhang Weiying’s masterpiece “The Logic of the Market” strongly advocates the market economy. At the beginning, he proposed: “The market economy is the greatest creation of human beings and the best rules of the game for human progress!” Are these two “most” appropriate? Without commenting, let’s go straight to his theme: “The basic logic of the market is: if a person wants to be happy, he (or she) must first make others happy. More generally speaking, self-interest comes first.”[2] First of all, the understanding of happiness here is too narrow, equating it with material enjoyment, because the market exchange is mainly material benefits. Of course, this is not the main thing, the main thing is the basic logic of the market: self-interest first benefits others. Is that so? Anyone with a little social experience knows that in the behavior of a market economy, self-interest is the goal, and benefiting others is the process and the means. This is understanding the market economy at its best. If the purpose of self-interest can be achieved without benefiting others, people will not benefit others. That’s why we see so many scams, fakes and shoddy products in market exchanges, and random distribution… It is true that in the behavior of the market economy, we will see what Mr. Zhang said: producers In order to obtain profits and provide good products for the society, entrepreneurs increase wages and benefits to make employees work hard… But what is the premise? The premise is that each person in the exchange seeks to maximize their own interests. Since everyone seeks to maximize their personal benefits, the two sides of the exchange must be in opposition (this opposition is in the philosophical sense and contains the same meaning). , the two sides are competing, bargaining, and nitpicking. In this confrontation, the producer has to provide good products, otherwise he will go bankrupt; in the same way, in the confrontation between the business owner and the worker, the business owner wants to keep wages as low as possible, and the workers They want to demand high wages as much as possible, and they are all seeking to maximize personal profits, but if business owners do not raise wages, employees may be lost, and if business owners do not raise wages, employees will definitely not make greater efforts. Therefore, under the conditions of a market economy, the maximization of individual profits and the confrontation between people,[3] are the more fundamental rules, and the benefit of benefiting people first is, if not a false proposition, at least an incomplete proposition.
If the logic of the market is to benefit oneself first, then of course it is good. Everyone thinks about others first, and then their own interests can be realized. It will be a scene of harmony everywhere, and there is really no need for the government to intervene. However, the reality is cruel. Harming others to benefit oneself, deceiving others, bullying the market, taking advantage of others, exploiting profits, hoarding, and oligopoly…even plundering other people’s property and occupying other people’s land through violence. It is because of the existence of these social evils that human beings invented the organizational form of government to prevent and contain these social evils. The thinker Locke, whom Mr. Zhang believed in, pointed out in “Theory of Government” that it is the opposition, struggle and injury between people that violate people’s property, liberty and personal safety all the time. In order to prevent these violations, there is a government setting. [4] There are similar ideas in Grotius, Hobbes, Rousseau and other thinkers. A more in-depth analysis was made by the classic writers of Marxism. Through their investigation and research on capitalism, they pointed out that the development of commodity-money relations will inevitably lead to private ownership, human-to-human exploitation, polarization, class struggle, etc. In the future society of the future, the commodity-money relationship is to be eliminated. [5] These arguments are profound, but unfortunately, they only see the negative, negative, destructive aspects of the commodity-money relationship (or market economy) and ignore the commodity-money relationship (or market economy) The positive, positive and creative aspects of socialism make socialism take a detour in practice. It was on the basis of summarizing the practice of socialism that Deng Xiaoping decisively pushed China’s economy onto the road of a market economy, and that has led to the rapid development of China’s economy since the reform and opening up. However, don’t forget that the teachings of Marxism are still in my ears. Since the reform and opening up, the emergence of social evils has been the most intensive since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, so that the common people “hold up their bowls to eat meat, put down their chopsticks and curse their mothers”, which deserves people’s warning.
In general, the market economy has two sides. From a positive and affirmative point of view, the market economy has created such an environment that in the pursuit of personal interests, people take the confrontation between people as a form of movement and give full play to their intelligence. Wisdom makes material wealth continuously emerge, social productivity is continuously improved, and people’s material enjoyment is continuously improved. From the negative side, the development of the market economy has made people more materialistic, polarized, and the opposition between people is more common, and there is a more suitable breeding ground for social evil. Therefore, standing at today’s historical height, we must enable the smooth development of the market economy, the full flow of social wealth, and the continuous improvement of people’s lives. It is also necessary to prevent and reduce the negative impact of the market economy, so that the distribution of wealth is more equitable, social antagonism does not turn to evil, so that individual interests and social interests can be taken into account, so that material civilization and spiritual civilization can achieve beneficial results. Balance… These all require the “visible hand” of the government to achieve.
Of course, Mr. Zhang Weiying would not be invisible to these social evils, but he made a simplistic treatment of them and called them “the robber’s logic”, but he did not tell us how this “robber’s logic” came from? How many acts of these robbers! The classic Marxist writers directly linked the so-called “robber’s logic” with the market economy. I wonder if Mr. Zhang agrees? Even if Mr. Zhang does not agree with the profound insights of Marxism, should Mr. Zhang wipe out those social maladies directly related to the market economy? If an enterprise grows bigger and stronger through its own market behavior, until it forms a monopoly in a certain industry, thereby obtaining huge profits from the monopoly, is this the logic of the market or the logic of the robber? If the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries manipulates the oil market based on its own resource advantages, which leads to an oil crisis, it may not be explained by the logic of robbers. Another example is that a business owner closes down due to poor management and makes a large number of employees unemployed. Is he using the logic of the market or the logic of robbers? If according to Mr. Zhang’s market logic – self-interest first benefits others, he should not dismiss the employees, but should raise them up, so that they can make a comeback; if he resolutely dismisses the employees, he will not even repay the arrears due to financial problems Salary, is this the logic of robbers? Another example is that investors chase up and down the stock market for the purpose of profit-seeking, and even form a stock market bubble, causing the majority of investors to suffer serious losses, and some even go bankrupt. Can this be explained by the logic of robbers? And with the development of artificial intelligence, business owners are replacing laborers with robots more and more, resulting in more and more unemployed people. This must not be attributed to the logic of robbers… Such examples can also be cited Many, purely market economic behaviors without the intervention of government behaviors, have caused social problems or disasters. On the contrary, if the government takes action at the right time, some problems caused by the market economy will be solved, and some disasters will be alleviated. For example, the government’s restrictive monopoly law can reduce or even cut off monopoly behavior; the government’s unemployment benefits and reemployment Training can alleviate the pain of unemployment; the government’s timely intervention in the stock market’s ups and downs may not have catastrophic consequences; if the government is prepared for the consequences of the new industrial revolution, it may be able to avoid long-term high unemployment and low growth in developed countries Dilemma…
We admit that the market economy is the best economic form at the present stage in terms of promoting the progress of productive forces and material civilization, but it does not mean that the market economy is a flawless white stone, and there will be no problems (it should be said that there are still many problems). We also admit that the government’s intervention in the market economy sometimes falls out of the norm, sometimes offsides, and sometimes even promotes it… This is just because the laws of the market economy have not been fully grasped, and it cannot be used as a pretext to deny the government’s actions. We even admit that the market economy is more effective and powerful than government actions in promoting the progress of material civilization, but we cannot deny the problems of the market economy itself, not to mention that there are other things in human society besides material progress. It should be said that in economic life, the actions of the promising government are the actions of following the laws of the market economy and mastering the laws of the market economy; Something broken by the invisible hand.
Mr. Zhang Weiying took up the mantle of the Austrian school and advocated that the market economy should develop freely without the government interfering in it. The market is perfect. “The so-called defects of the market are largely the imagination of market critics and the resulting government The result of intervention.” [6] This is tantamount to saying that almost all market defects are the result of government intervention, because “imagination” will not become reality, and only government intervention can change reality. This is the cunning of the Austrian school, because in reality we cannot find any country whose market economy is not subject to government intervention, not to mention that government intervention always makes mistakes when it pushes the defects of the market to the government. Just self-evident. We can’t really prove that there is a country whose market economy is free from government intervention, but we may be able to prove [7] that it is government intervention that slows down or mitigates the outbreak of economic crises. Mr. Zhang Weiying believes: “The financial crisis is caused by the mistakes of the government policy. The best way to solve the crisis is to let the market adjust itself.” At that time, the government intervened less in the economy, but it was the most intensive period of economic crises, and it was not until the world economic crisis that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s that the Keynesian government’s active intervention advocates became popular. In the past few decades, there has been basically no devastating economic crisis like the previous one, so most Western economists believe that the economic crisis has been far away from human beings. But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the economic reforms of Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan were mainly marked by the promotion of liberalism and the reduction of government intervention, and Mrs Thatcher herself was a loyal supporter of Hayek. scorpion. After that, the gap between the rich and the poor became more obvious, and the economic crisis also had a tendency to intensify encryption until this financial crisis. Is this a coincidence? ! And we can also make a counter-evidence. Since the Austrian school is so wonderful, why did they not issue a strong warning before this financial crisis? But let the crisis happen! And missed a great opportunity to show that his school is correct.
Now we can answer Mr. Zhang Weiying’s two “bests”: the market economy is the human creation that can produce the most economic miracles so far (this is what Mr. Zhang said), and it is also the human creation that produces the most social problems (this A little Mr. Zhang may not agree); if it wants to become the best game rule for human progress (in fact, it is only material progress), it must rely on the promising and powerful hand of the government (this is strongly opposed by Mr. Zhang)!
two
As for Mr. Justin Yifu Lin, I have more respect for him, his theoretical contribution and rigor, I think, is above Mr. Zhang Weiying. Mr. Lin’s “New Structural Economics” relies on the theory of comparative advantage to demonstrate how factor endowments can be better allocated under various conditions, so as to achieve sustained economic growth. In the book, there are arguments based on neoclassicalism, debates with other scholars, and real classic cases, giving people the feeling of more scientific rigor. Structural economics argues that sustained economic growth will not be possible without structural transformation. The “New Structural Economics” by Justin Lin and his academic peers “aims to bring structural transformation back to the heart of economic development research and to emphasize the important role the market and the state play in promoting economic development. These economics All countries agree that the market should serve as the basic mechanism for resource allocation, but the government must also play an active role in coordinating investment behaviors that promote industrial upgrading and diversification, and compensating for the externalities created by first movers in the dynamic growth process.” And “the economic structure of an economy is endogenous to its factor endowment structure, and sustained economic development is driven by changes in factor endowments and continuous technological innovation.”[9] In this way, as long as we firmly grasp the factor endowment Niubi, using the power of the market and the government to optimize the allocation of resources, will open the door to sustained economic growth. It seems logically complete.
The main arguments in Mr. Lin’s book have attracted criticism from some economists, and Mr. Lin has responded to these criticisms, some of which are very subtle,[10] It is worth mentioning that Stiglitz believes that “learning The “learning society” is more important to the growth problem than the “factor endowment”; and Mr. Lin’s response is to incorporate Stiglitz’s “learning society” into his “factor endowment” to resolve it. But Stiglitz apparently disagreed with Lin’s response. In his recent article “The Secret of Growth, I Have Different Views from Justin Yifu Lin” on the Observer Network, he pointed out: “It is necessary to understand a country clearly. It is very difficult to grasp the static comparative advantage of the The export-led growth strategy of East Asia is praised, but in essence, the real reason for the success of these countries is not the increase in the total export volume, but rather that they export certain products that are characterized by a unique high level of learning, so others pursue export-led growth strategies but Countries that export only goods that don’t have this learning advantage will have a hard time succeeding.”
Mr. Lin’s theory seems to be very tense, no matter how difficult Stiglitz said to clearly understand a country’s comparative advantage, but if it is the core of economic growth or development, no matter how difficult it is, it is worth going. know or must know. What’s better to deal with is that if a country’s economic growth is satisfactory, we say that the country’s factor endowments are well used; if a country’s economic growth is unsatisfactory, we can say that the country’s factor endowments still have room for improvement; If a country’s economic growth is very bad, we say that the country’s factor endowment is not used well, and we need to continue to find a good factor endowment allocation.
Economic growth and development have always been the main problems of economic research, even the only big ones. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” has the full title of “A Study of the Nature and Causes of National Wealth”. It mainly studies the production and growth of wealth; Ricardo’s “Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” also studies the development of productive forces. The central idea.”[1[1]] The subject of John Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” is “wealth, which political economists claim to teach or study the nature of wealth and the laws of its production and distribution,”[ 1[2]] Marshall begins in his “Principles of Economics” by saying, “Economics is the study of wealth,”[1[3]] … economic growth and development over time The status of this topic in economics has not been diluted, but has become more prominent. This is the best proof that development economics was separated from economics and became an independent discipline after World War II. Various development theories and growth models have come out one after another, which can more professionally and accurately demonstrate economic growth and development issues. Nevertheless, economic growth and development are still difficult problems for many late-developing countries to solve. Especially with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Eastern states, the “Washington Consensus” formed according to neoliberalism tried to use “shock therapy” to guide the post-Soviet states’ institutional changes and economic growth, but the results were not ideal, and some were even catastrophic. of. This has once again sparked debate and theoretical exploration on growth issues. It is against this background that Mr. Lin’s book came out.
We appreciate Mr. Justin Yifu Lin’s theoretical exploration, and we also affirm that Mr. Lin’s theory has promoted the study of economic growth and development. Our doubts are mainly concentrated in the following aspects.
1. How applicable is “new structural economics”?
The problem of development and growth was once only a problem of developing countries. With the collapse of the colonial system after World War II, the economic development problems of many ex-colonial countries were particularly prominent compared to the economically developed former colonial overlords. Regarding the theory of development, relevant organizations of the United Nations have also made continuous efforts to help these backward countries (commonly known as developing countries) to achieve economic growth or take-off. Therefore, when we talk about development theory now, it seems to be a theory about how developing countries can achieve economic growth. However, after decades, the economic growth of most developing countries is still lackluster, and the gap with developed countries has not narrowed, but has widened. Even if there are a few countries that have actually achieved economic take-off, almost none of them are shaped according to the development theory. This raises a question: with so many development theories, which theory holds the key to the development problem? Some people may say that Mr. Lin Yifu’s “New Structural Economics” answers this question. It is a summary of experience and theoretical sublimation of successful countries and regions in East Asia, and is of general guiding significance. Let’s not imagine whether another successful economy can be cloned based on Mr. Lin’s “New Structural Theory”? But there are more looming problems to test Mr. Lin: Facing the stagnation of Japan’s economy for more than 20 years, the deceleration of South Korea’s economy, and the sinking of Taiwan’s economy, how will Mr. Lin’s “New Structure Theory” answer? These countries or regions are all successful models of the “New Structural Theory”! Especially in Japan, the successful intervention of its government, the appropriate advance and retreat of its market allocation resources, and the clever use of its comparative advantages can all explain Japan’s economic miracle in the past, but how can this economic miracle change in a blink of an eye? disappear? We can also ask further questions: almost all developed countries in the world currently suffer from chronic diseases such as slow economic growth and high unemployment. How can these pioneers who once performed well in the growth and development of the world economy have Is there a bottleneck in development? Could the “new structural economics” apply to them as well? If the “new structure theory” is only applicable to developing economies, but not developed countries, then the theoretical capacity is too small; if this theory is also applicable to developed countries, the economies of developed countries It is the result of applying “new structural economics”, so how can it explain the general economic stagnation in developed countries today?
2. Does the “new structural theory” really get to the heart of the development question?
Mr. Lin claimed that “New Structural Economics” brings “New Structural Theory” back to the heart of development research. We received the above topic. If the “new structural theory” is really the core of the development problem, it can explain both the economic growth of developing countries and the economic growth of developed countries, and it can explain both the past economic growth of developed countries and developed countries. Growth is now sluggish. Taking Japan as an example, it is the country that best fits the “New Structural Theory” specimen. It has successful government intervention and a market structure that effectively allocates resources. Its factor endowments are well used, so it has achieved the enviable status of the world. Japan’s economic miracle. But how to explain Japan’s economic stagnation in recent decades? The Liberal Democratic Party’s government has remained largely unmoved, and the market structure has not gotten better, if not worse. As a result, the Japanese economy has been stagnant for decades! The “New Structural Theory” may give the following answer: a country’s factor endowment structure is dynamic and changing, and only by adapting to such dynamic changes can the economy grow rapidly. So it seems that only the Japanese government and Japanese entrepreneurs have become stupid. In the past, they were always able to adapt to changes in the factor endowment structure, so the economy continued to grow; but now they cannot adapt to the new changes in the factor endowment structure.
Considering the “new structure theory” as the core of development research, it should be able to explain all development problems. We mentioned earlier that Mr. Lin’s theory seems to have tension, and seems to be able to answer the question of development or non-development, but If we change the protagonist or core, such as Stiglitz’s “learning society”, can we not make a similar answer? No worse than the explanatory power of the New Structural Theory. Some time ago, Mr. Xu Chenggang published an article titled “Compared to Technological Innovation, Institutional Innovation is More Important to China” on the Love Thought website. As soon as the title was read, he knew that it was targeted. In all developing countries that can develop rapidly, the first place to innovate must be the system, not the technology. The main reason for underdevelopment is the system. It is the non-market system or the chaotic system without the rule of law that hampers economic development. In order to become a developed country, we must first eliminate the system that restricts development and replace it with a system that is conducive to development.” [1[4]] Substituting Mr. Xu Chenggang’s “institutional innovation” instead of “factor endowment” into the model, it can The explanatory power obtained is not inferior to Mr. Lin’s theory. Of course, our criticism of Mr. Lin should also be applied to Mr. Stiglitz and Mr. Xu Chenggang.
3. Development economics
We mentioned above that development issues have always been the focus of economic research. Since development economics has become independent from economics, it seems that development issues have received more attention. In-depth discussion. Development economists often discuss development issues from one main aspect. Over the years, some have been from the investment level, some from the institutional level, some from the perspective of foreign capital introduction, some from the perspective of technological progress, and some from the perspective of government policy. Yes, some are from the social infrastructure, some are from the legal system, some are from the research and development funds… In addition to the factor endowment structure of Mr. Justin Lin and the learning society of Stiglitz, it can be said that there are many different opinions. . It is difficult to understand the whole picture of development problems in this kind of individual advance and in-depth research situation. The market economy is a complex system that is universally connected and full of opposites. To demonstrate development issues only from one aspect, no matter how precise they are, they cannot gain insight into the true essence of development issues. Existing research on development economics is like a blind man touching an elephant. Each of them thinks that it has revealed the truth of the development problem, but it is only a partial one, and cannot see the whole picture. Taking Mr. Lin’s “New Structural Theory” as an example, the application of comparative advantage theory is not wrong, the optimal allocation of factor endowments is not wrong, the leading role of the market in resource allocation is not wrong, and the active intervention of the government may not be wrong, but it cannot be comprehensive. explain development issues.
As far as the discussion of development issues is concerned, it is also necessary to connect many fields of the market economy in the context of the market economy, and deduce consistent and universal principles, which can explain not only the growth and development of the economy, but also the economy. stagnation, recession, and the whole process of the market economy is not theoretically contradictory. However, the current development economics only focuses on one aspect or several aspects, and it lacks dialectical and comprehensive thinking. .
I have respect for the economists mentioned above. They have been exploring in the field of economics, contributing new perspectives, new ideas, and new theories to mankind, perhaps getting closer to the core of economics. . Mr. Yang Xiaokai takes the division of labor and specialization as the core of economics, which is not only a denial of the neoclassical tradition, but also stands at the height of overall situation and consistency. If you hit the two ends, you may get one of them; Stiglitz argues for a learning society and finds a new way, although there is also the beauty of mastering the overall situation, but it is scattered and scattered, and it may not be the right one; if Mr. Xu Chenggang insists on institutional innovation Although it has special significance in China, if you look at the world, you can only get the wisdom of the system school; Mr. Lin Yifu’s new structural economics has a grand and unique concept, but unfortunately falls into the narrow mold of development economics…different Economists are all looking for the fundamental force to promote the market economy, and take this as the core of economics. Yang Xiaokai expresses his mind directly; although Zhang Weiying does not use the name of the core, he has the “self-interest first benefit” as the core of economics. It is true; Justin Yifu Lin takes “factor endowment” as the core of development research, and actually regards it as the core of economics; Stiglitz’s “learning society” covers the whole field, and it is even more suspected that it is the core… Our proposition is to lead the study of economics by “maximizing personal gain”, which arises in the commodity-currency relationship and reaches its extreme in the period of market economy, which leads to the strengthening of private property rights and the generalization of antagonism between people. Using it to explain the whole process of market economy may be consistent (see my book “A New Framework of Economics – and Criticism of Western Economics”). Taking the development issue as an example, there are many paths to achieve economic growth, but the same is true. The starting point and the destination point are the maximization of personal profits. The maximization of personal profits is the driving force of the market economy and the driving force of economic growth. In this sense, the laissez-faire economic proposition is valuable. As its auxiliary measures and external conditions (such as factor endowments and government intervention), as long as it is conducive to the realization of the maximization of individual benefits, it can Conducive to the promotion of economic growth, the more strata and the greater the coverage of personal profits, the faster the economic growth. vice versa. These views are also invited to be criticized by the academic community.
China’s decades of economic reforms have accumulated successes, failures, setbacks, and problems, enough to keep economists busy for a while, and the outbreak of the global financial crisis has put forward more stringent demands on traditional Western economics. challenges, and this is a time when economists can do a lot. Thinking back to the world economic crisis in the late 1920s, the traditional neoclassical theories were denied, which led to the birth of Keynesian economics, pushing economics to a new height, and neoclassical economics itself also had new development. The financial crisis this time shows the bankruptcy of mainstream Western economics, coupled with decades of experience in China’s market economy, it should be time for economists to put forward new theories with deeper and more explanatory power.
This time, the “Lin-Zhang War” reflects the academic spirit that should be approved, and the academic atmosphere created is also gratifying. If you follow this trend, carry out broader and more in-depth discussions, and continue to carry out new may be able to reach new heights. However, Western economics has been operating for hundreds of years and has formed a mature system and a widely accepted method, which is especially reflected in neoclassical economics. Chinese economists must have a higher level of entry, not only must they absorb nutrients from Western economics, but also must innovate on this basis, in order to provide the world with more beneficial ideas.这个过程是长期的、艰难的，需要作不懈的努力；这个过程也是探索性的、挑战性的，既会给我们带来瞑思与苦行，又会给我们带来享受与喜悦；这个过程更是造福于人类社会的，它的每一次改善，每一次进步，都将给千千万万的人带来新的福祉。
话说回来，吴敬琏老先生的教诲值得时刻记取：“把我们更多的注意力放在研究这些现象背后的本质性的、规律性的问题，这是基本问题。”鉴于市场经济的复杂性和经济学本身的系统性，我们一定要深究市场经济中内在的普遍的本质性的规律，以便全面的系统的统一的说明诸多经济现象和问题，这才能开辟经济学的新天地。
让我们共同努力吧。
注释：
[1] 这是只是非常简略地谈到杨小凯先生的理论贡献，详情请参见杨小凯、张永生著，《新兴古典经济学与超边际分析》，中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
[2] 张维迎：《市场的逻辑》，世纪出版集团、上海人民出版社2010年版，第1页。
[3] 关于个人利得最大化和人与人对立的详细论证，参见拙著：《经济学的新框架-兼及西方经济学的批判》，贵州人民出版社2017年版。
[4] 参见洛克：《政府论》下篇，第二、九章。
[5] 关于这方面的论述，分别见于马克思：《资本论》、《哥达纲领批判》、马克思和恩格斯：《共产党宣言》、恩格斯：《反杜林论》、列宁：《国家与革命》、《论粮食税》、《十月革命四周年》、《论合作制》等著作中。
[6]张维迎：《市场的逻辑》，世纪出版集团、上海人民出版社2010年版，第3页。
[7] 我们这里用“也许”这样的字符，是因为篇幅所限，还不能作严格的证明，只是指出一大的趋势。
[8]张维迎：《市场的逻辑》，世纪出版集团、上海人民出版社2010年版，第5页。
[9]林毅夫：《新结构经济学》，北京大学出版社2012年版，第5页。
[10]感兴趣的读者可以进一步阅读林毅夫：《新结构经济学》第一章的“评论”及其“回应”。
[11]李嘉图：《李嘉图著作和通信集》，第一卷，商务印书馆1962年版，第5页。
[12]约翰.穆勒：《政治经济学原理》，商务印书馆1991年版，第13页。
[13]马歇尔：《经济学原理》，商务印书馆1964年版，第23页。
[14] 我记得当时林毅夫先生对许成钢先生的这篇文章有一个批评，但后来在网上找不到了，不知是老眼昏花，记忆太差还是怎么的？
——-
本文来自： https://ift.tt/4PzxEH2
This site is only for inclusion, the copyright belongs to the original author