【作者】 黄秋菊；

【导师】 景维民；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 政治经济学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪末发生在中国和俄罗斯的社会经济转型是一场涉及多个领域的大规模制度变迁过程。然而，在从计划经济体制迈向市场经济体制的过程中，中俄两国的转型路径和绩效却出现了明显的大分化。转型之初，俄罗斯虽然遵循了西方主流经济学推崇的标准转型战略——“华盛顿共识”，但却长期陷入经济严重衰退与社会秩序极度分裂的转型危机；而中国却在循序渐进的改革开放过程中保持了经济的持续快速发展和社会秩序的基本稳定，从而创造了经济转型的“中国奇迹”。尽管诸多政治、经济和社会因素对中俄两国的转型绩效产生了程度不一的影响，但国家制度能力构建策略及其演化路径的差异则是决定中俄两国转型绩效差异的关键变量。本文以国家制度能力为研究视角，对中俄两国的经济转型路径、绩效以及未来的发展走向进行了详细分析，着重探讨了两国不同的国家制度能力演化路径的内在形成机理，以及国家制度能力差异与转型经济绩效差异的内在关联，并对中俄国家制度能力进行了定量评估和比较，最终得出了若干对转型国家和发展经济体的国家制度能力构建与经济发展具有借鉴意义的结论和启示。以国家制度能力为切入点来研究中俄两国的经济转型，体现了一种“大转型”的系统性研究视角和比较政治经济学分析范式。它有助于我们更加全面、准确地把握转型的整体性路径演化轨迹，深刻洞察转型进程中存在的核心制度问题，并在转型深化阶段探寻有效的制度改革战略。研究中俄两国转型进程中的国家制度能力演化问题，不仅为转型经济学、制度经济学、发展经济学等经济学分支学科提供了重要的理论资源和经验支撑，也为这些学科的进一步发展创建了一个崭新的知识生长点。本文的研究内容和框架结构安排如下：第一章为全文的导论。该章首先从理解中国和俄罗斯的转型之谜入手，引出国家制度能力这一研究主题；其次，对中外学术界关于经济转型、制度变迁以及国家能力的研究进行综述和评析；再次，阐述了论文的研究内容和研究方法；最后，对论文的研究思路和创新之处进行了归纳总结。第二章建立起研究中俄两国经济转型与国家制度能力演化的理论分析框架。该章以制度与经济发展作为国家制度能力研究的逻辑起点，在分析了国家、制度与经济发展内在关联的基础上，将国家制度能力界定为国家制定、实施和推动制度变迁的能力。其次，进一步将国家制度能力的构成划分为国家的制度形成能力、国家的制度实施能力和国家的制度调适与学习能力，并清晰界定了国家制度能力三个构成部分的内涵，对这三种国家制度能力的影响因素进行了深入分析。最后，利用一个国家与社会的博弈模型，从静态角度分析了国家治理形态与国家制度能力的关系，在此基础上，进一步从动态角度研究了两条国家制度能力的演化路径，即国家制度能力的积极建路径和消极退化路径，并归纳总结了国家制度能力积极构建的必要条件。第三章对国家制度能力与经济转型的内在关系进行了更加深入的分析。该章首先从批判新自由主义的经济转型观入手，提炼和归纳出制度主义的经济转型观，并利用比较制度分析学派的主观博弈模型研究了经济转型的阶段性与路径演化特征。其次，对转型进程中出现的经济绩效分化现实进行了描述并对具有代表性的三种解释转型绩效差异的观点进行了评析，在此基础上提出国家制度能力作为影响转型绩效的关键变量，并构建了一个国家制度能力与社会能力的最优配置模型，以分析国家制度能力与转型经济绩效的内在关系。第四章由定性分析转入定量分析。该章构建了一个由三个一级指标和八个二级指标构成的国家制度能力评估指标体系，并应用这一指标体系分别对中俄两国的国家制度形成能力、制度实施能力和制度调适与学习能力进行评估和比较，在此基础上对两国综合的国家制度能力进行比较。通过这些比较，归纳出俄罗斯转型期的国家制度能力形态具有“勾结型国家”、“掠夺型国家”和“失败的国家”三大特征；而中国的国家制度能力形态则具有“自主性国家”、“发展型国家”和“强国家”的综合特征。第五章着重深入研究俄罗斯转型期的国家制度能力衰败与转型危机的内在形成机理。该章首先研究了前苏联计划经济体制的形成与强国家的崛起，分析了前苏联时期的经济改革与国家制度能力削弱的过程。然后着重研究了叶利钦时代，俄罗斯国家制度解构与能力衰败的内在机理，即激进转型战略的形成导致国家制度形成能力的僵化；制度结构的解体导致国家制度实施能力的耗竭；利益集团的制约导致国家制度调适能力的近乎丧失。在此基础上，进一步分析了国家制度能力衰败与俄罗斯转型危机的关系。最后，本章进一步研究了俄罗斯普京执政时期和梅普共治时期俄罗斯国家治理方略的转换，以及所采取的重塑国家制度能力的战略举措，并对俄罗斯未来的转型路径与国家制度能力改进的方向进行了分析和展望。第六章则转入对中国转型期国家制度能力培育与转型奇迹的关系进行深入研究。该章首先研究了全能主义国家支撑下的计划经济体制的形成过程，并分析了计划经济体制的曲折探索对国家制度能力的影响。其次，着重研究转型时期，中国国家制度能力构建与培育的内在机理，即国家治理目标的灵活转换促进了有效制度改革能力的形成；国家权能范围的适度调整维系了国家必要的制度实施能力；国家根据内外环境的变化做出适应性调整，增强了国家的制度学习能力。在此基础上，分析了国家制度能力培育与中国转型奇迹的内在关系。最后，论文立足于经济转型深化与后国际金融危机时代中国面临的崭新挑战，集中论述了改进和提升国家制度能力的战略举措，并分析了国家制度能力提升与中国的转型发展方向。第七章对全文的研究内容进行总结，在此基础上得出若干结论和启示。论文的主要研究内容和结论可以归纳为三个方面：（1）国家制度能力是理解经济转型与经济发展的崭新理论视角；（2）国家制度能力是导致中俄两国转型绩效差异的关键变量；（3）国家制度能力构建是转型深化与后国际金融危机时代转型国家的一项重要战略举措。论文得出对转型国家和发展中经济体的制度构建与经济发展具有借鉴意义的三方面重要启示：首先，社会经济转型不能以牺牲国家制度能力为代价，为此，应关注转型的策略选择，保持制度变迁的相对稳定性和连续性；其次，在经济转型中，应处理好国家制度能力构建的三大核心问题，即国家自身的建设、国家与市场关系的调整、国家与社会关系的协调；最后，在转型深化阶段，应关注国家制度能力构建中的内外联动效应，确保国家发展的自主性和有效性。更多还原

【Abstract】 The social economic transition occurring in China and Russia in the end of20thcentury was an extensive institutional changes process which involved many areas.However, in the process from planned economy to market economy, the transitionalroutes and performance appeared obvious differentiation between China and Russia.At the beginning of transition, although Russia followed the standard transitionalstrategy supported by the western mainstream economics—Washington consensus, itsank into protracted economic recession and social order fission; while Chinamaintained sustained raid economic development and basic stability of social orderduring the gradual process of reforming and opening, which created “Chinesemiracle” of economic transition. Despite many political, economic and social factorshad different influence on Chinese and Russian transitional performance, thedifference of the construction strategy and evolutionary path of state institutionalcapacity is the key variables which decided the difference of transitionalperformance between China and Russia.In the research perspective of state institutional capacity, this paper analyzesChinese and Russian economic transitional path, performance and futuredevelopmental trend, probes into the internal formation mechanism of the twodifferent evolutionary paths of state institutional capacity, as well as the intrinsicconnection between the difference of state institutional capacity and the difference oftransitional economic performance, assesses and compares Chinese and Russianstate institutional capacities, and finally comes to some conclusions and suggestionsabout the state institutional capacity construction and economic development oftransitional countries and developing economies. Researching Chinese and Russianeconomic transition in the point of state institutional capacity reflects a systemicresearching perspective of “great transformation” and an analytic paradigm ofcomparative political economy. It contributes to comprehensively and accuratelygrasping the whole evolutionary path of transition, deeply discerning the coreinstitutional problem in transitional process, and exploring the effective institutional reform strategy in the stage of transitional deepening. Studying the evolutionaryproblem of state institutional capacities in Chinese and Russian transitionalprocesses not only supplies theoretic resources and experiential supports fortransition economics, institutional economics, and development economics etc, butalso creates a brand new knowledge growth point for the further development ofthese disciplines. In this paper, the research content and frame structure are arrangedas follows:Chapter one is introduction. This chapter firstly begins from the understandingof the transition puzzle in China and Russian, and leads to the research topic of stateinstitutional capacity. Secondly, it reviews and comments the research on economictransition, institutional change and state capacity in Chinese and foreign academia.Thirdly, it elaborates the research contents and methods. Finally, it summarizes theresearch ideas and innovation of this paper.Chapter two establishes the theoretic analysis framework for researching theeconomic transition and the evolution of state institutional capacity in China andRussia. Firstly, this chapter takes the institution and economic development as thelogic starting point of reaching state institutional capacity, and on the basis ofanalyzing the inherent relationship among state, institution and economicdevelopment, it also defines the state institutional capacity as the capacity that state’sestablishing institutions, implementing institutions and promoting institutionalchanges. Secondly, the chapter divides the state institutional capacity compositionsinto the state’s capacities of institutional formation, institutional implementation andinstitutional adaptation and learning, clearly defines the connotation of the threeparts of state institutional capacities, and deeply analyzes the affecting factors of thethree state institutional capacities. Finally, using a game model between state andsociety, the chapter analyzes the relationship between state’s governance pattern andstate institutional capacity from the static perspective, and on this basis, it researchesthe two evolutionary paths of state institutional capacity from the dynamicperspective i.e. the organic construction path and negative degradation path, andfinally summarizes the necessary conditions of constructing state institutionalcapacity. Chapter three analyzes the internal relationship between state institutionalcapacity and economic transition more deeply. Firstly, starting from criticizing theeconomic transitional conception of Neo-liberalism, the chapter refines andsummarizes the economic transitional conception of institutionalism, and studies thecharacteristics of economic transition by the subjective game model of comparativeinstitutional analysis school. Secondly, it describes the differentiation of economicperformance in transitional process, and comments on three representativeviewpoints of explaining transitional performance differentiation, and on this basis itpresents the state institutional capacity as the key variables of affecting transitionalperformance, and constructs a optimal allocation model between state institutionalcapacity and social ability, in order to analyze the internal relationship between stateinstitutional capacity and transitional economic performance.Chapter four transfers the research contents from qualitative analysis toquantitative analysis. The chapter constructs a evaluation index system of stateinstitutional capacity which has three indexes in one-level and eight indexes intwo-level, and applies the index system to assess and compare the state’s capacitiesof institutional formation, institutional implementation, and institutional adaptationand learning between China and Russia, on this basis, it also compares thecomprehensive state institutional capacities of the two countries. Through thecomparison, the chapter summarizes that Russian state institutional capacity patternhas three characteristics:“collusive state”,“predatory state” and “failed state”; andChinese state institutional capacity pattern has three comprehensive characteristics:“autonomy state”,“developmental state” and “strong state”.Chapter five studies the inherent formation mechanism of Russian stateinstitutional capacity decline and transitional crisis in transition. Firstly, the chapterstudies the formation of planned economy system in former USSR and the rise of itsstrong state, and analyzes the process of the economic reform and institutionalcapacity weakening. Then it studies the inherent mechanism of Russian state’sinstitutional deconstruction and capacity decline in the Yeltsin era, i.e. the radicaltransitional strategy led to the rigid of state’s institutional formation capacity; thedisintegration of institutional structure led to the depletion of state’s institutional implementation capacity; the constraint of interest groups led to the loss of state’sinstitutional adjustment capacity. On the basis, this paper analyzes the relationshipbetween Russian state institutional capacity decline and transitional crisis. Finally,this chapter further researches the transformation of state governance strategy duringthe Putin presidency and Medvedev&Putin term, the strategic measures ofremodeling Russian state institutional capacity, and analyzes and looks forward thefuture transitional path and direction of improving state institutional capacity inRussia.Chapters six turns to in-depth study of the relationship between the cultivationof state institutional capacity and the transitional miracle in China. Firstly, thechapter studies the forming process of planned economy system under the support oftotalism state, and analyzes the influence of the tortuous exploration of plannedeconomy on state institutional capacity. Secondly, it focuses on the internalmechanism of state institutional capacity construction and cultivation during theperiod of Chinese transition, i.e. the flexible transformation of state’s governancegoals promotes the formation of effective reform capacity; the appropriateadjustment of the state’s power and range maintains the state’s necessary capacity ofinstitutional implementation; the adaptable adjustment according to the changes ofinternal and external environment enhances state’s capacity of institutional leaning.On the basis, it studies the relationship between the cultivation of state institutionalcapacity and transitional miracle in China. Finally, basing on the new challenges inthe era of economic transitional deepening and post financial crisis, the paper focuson the strategic initiatives of improving and enhancing state institutional capacity,and analyzes the direction of upgrading state institutional capacity and promotingtransition-development in China.Chapter seven summarizes the whole paper and reaches some conclusions andenlightenments. The main research contents and conclusions involves three aspects:(1) The state institutional capacity is a brand new theoretical perspective tounderstanding economic transition and economic development;(2) The stateinstitutional capacity is the key variable which leads to the transitional performancedifference in China and Russia;(3) The construction of state institutional capacity is an important strategic measure for transitional countries in the era of transitionaldeepening and post international financial crisis. This paper draws three aspects ofimportant enlightenments for the institutional construction and economicdevelopment of transitional countries and developing economies: Firstly, thepromotion of social economic transition can not be at the expense of stateinstitutional capacity loss, therefore, we should pay attention to the transitionalstrategy selection, and to maintain the relative stability and continuity of institutionalchanges. Secondly, in the economic transition, there are three key issues should bewell handled in building state institutional capacity i.e. the construction of state itself,the adjustment between state and market, and the coordination between state andsociety. Finally, in the stage of transitional deepening, we should pay attention to thelinkage effect of internal and external environment in the construction of stateinstitutional capacity, in order to ensure the autonomy and effectiveness of state’sdevelopment.更多还原