【作者】 应小丽；

【导师】 徐勇；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 政治学理论， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本论文从经验材料、具体的事件入手勾勒了1952至1992年国家建构乡村社会进程中浙江农民的自主行为的基本形貌和变迁轨迹,透视了在特殊的制度环境中这些自主行为的生成及其行为后果。在此基础上,旨在回答农民是如何推动制度变迁,又为何经常在浙江发生。文章考察的农民的自主行为分别有:农业合作化时期的抵制行为、包产到户的改革试验与实践、农民经商、农民的多元非农经营以及农民进城、造城行为。纵观这一系列自主行为,可以发现,在特殊的制度环境中,农民扮演了既非革命又非保守的积极行动者的角色,成为了制度变迁的真正主体和改革的原始推动者。就行为结果来看,一系列农民的自主行为在制度变迁中发挥了强有力推动作用。这不仅引发农业合作制度节奏的调整与变化,而且创新了农业生产经营制度、推动了商业流通领域的市场化改革、突破了单一的公有经济格局、动摇了城乡二元结构以及创新了城镇化建设之路,等等。就当时来看,这些客观存在的自主行为很难在文件规定和法律条文中找到合法根据,但又一直在乡村社会被反复实践,并在不同时期先后被正当化、合法化。在此意义上,笔者把这类行为称为创新性自主行为。所谓创新性自主行为主要是指人们基于生存和利益需要,在既有制度安排与约束条件下,人们既正视制度的限制又突破制度的障碍,能够推动制度变迁的一种创新行为。本文认为农民的创新性自主行为是制度变迁的重要动力。这种动力至少可以从三方面得到体现:一是建构问题意识,驱动政府对正式制度进行自我反省与适应性调整;二是施予主政者换一种方式行事的压力和动力;三是由量变到质变,孕育并导致制度创新;四是行为的总体效用征服权威,进而改变主政者的认知与制度选择取向,助推民间创新实践上升为国家实践并发展成制度体系。当然,农民的创新性自主行为作为推动制度变迁的重要动力是有条件的。其中,行为方式的非极化与实践效用是无法忽视的两大重要因素。一个基本判断:农民推动下的制度变迁是一种冲击性制度变迁。所谓冲击性制度变迁,主要有两层含义:一是变迁的行为主体是农民;二是制度变迁的推动力来源于社会,源自于在体制外生成一种新的因素并逐渐积累而冲击着体制,影响当政者而促进制度变迁。根据制度环境的不同,冲击性制度变迁又可划分为“危机——冲击型”与“积极——冲击型”。同时,在1952年以来的40年间,农民的一系列创新性自主行为连续不断地在浙江尤其在浙中南地区经常发生的经验事实表明:自然条件、工商习俗、事功文化等地方性知识,以及地方政府的意志与行为取向是影响农民行为选择的主要因素。这主要表现为:第一,自然条件、高度紧张的人地矛盾与单一的集体统一经营的制度安排之间存在难以弥合的裂痕,二者的冲突尤为明显,浙江农民要求变革的诉求自然表现得更充分。第二,浙江农民从事个体、家庭经营的传统行为偏好与排斥个体经营的制度安排之间存在尖锐的矛盾。第三,内生性的底层工商传统及工商文化气质直接影响农民的行为选择,为各种突破制度障碍的自主行为提供了可能。第四,受浙东学派代表的事功文化传统的影响,赋予浙江农民较为务实又不缺乏变革精神的品格。第五,地方政府的价值取向与行为选择是关键的变量。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper has given a general picture of the basic structure and the route of development of Zhejiang farmers’ autonomous actions from 1952 to 1992 in the process of constructing villages and communities in China. This paper has looked deep into the formation and results of these autonomous actions under the special situations of the institutions. Based on the above described, this paper hopes to answer the questions on how the farmers push the institutions to change and why these changes frequently happened in Zhejiang.The farmers’autonomous actions in this paper refer to the following: from the resisting actions of the agricultural cooperation movement of China to the experimental reform to the practice of contract production quotas to individual households, from farmers doing businessmen to farmers doing multi non-agriculture business, from farmers leaving their lands to working in the cities and even building the cities. From these autonomous actions, we may find that the fanners have been playing the role which seems neither too revolutionary nor too conservative, but the positive role of reformers and initiators in the institutional reform in a special situation.As far as the results of these actions are concerned, the farmers’autonomous actions so far mentioned have really played an important role in quickening the steps of the institutional change which has not only brought about modifications and changes to the agricultural cooperation movement of China, but also innovated management institutions in agriculture production, quickened the step for the market reform in the area of currency and commerce, enriched the state-owned economic structures which look monotonous, shaken the binary structures of the urban and rural areas and created a way to urbanize the countryside.Although at that time it was hard to find any documents, rules and regulations to support these autonomous actions, yet, these actions have been practicing time and again in the rural areas, and as time goes by, these actions have gradually become naturalized and legalized. Therefore the author regards such kind of actions as creative autonomous actions which can be interpreted as a kind of action out of the need for living and welfare of the people within the arrangement and restriction of the institutions. On the one hand, people have to follow the restriction of the institutions; on the other hand, people have to break through the restriction of the institutions in order to carry out their actions. Such actions are creative and can innovate the institutions.This paper argues that the farmers’creative autonomous actions are the main driving force for institutional change. This driving force can be illustrated from three perspectives at least. The first one is the awareness of raising questions so as to force the government to reflect on and adjust the governmental institutions for adaptation. The second one is to give the government pressure and motivation. The third one is a kind of from-quantity-to-quality change which can result in the innovation of the institutions. The fourth one is the general effect of the actions which can successfully persuade or change those in power to change their mind, which can result in bringing about the changes of those in powers their ways of knowing and their choice for decisions and turning people’s actions into the national actions which can help these actions become the system in the government. However, there are conditions for the farmers’creative autonomous actions to become a national practice. Among them, the way of non-radical actions and the good results of the actions are the two factors that should not be ignored.It is generally accepted that the changes in the government brought about by the farmers are regarded as the drived institutional change. There are two implications in this, one is that the main participants in the changes are the farmers, the other is that the impetus for the changes mainly come from the society, which originates from the factors generated from the outside of the system accumulated gradually. They influence the system, and force the people in power to institutional change. According to the different environments of institution, impact institutional change can be divided into "crisis-impact" and "positive--impact".Meanwhile, In the past 40 years since 1952, a series of creative autonomous actions happening in Zhejiang province especially in the central south of the province shows that the local knowledge of natural environments, the customs of industry and commerce, the culture of the pragmatic theory as well as the will and actions of the local government are the main factors that influence the farmers’ choice for their actions. First of all, there exists highly intensified contradiction between the man-land and the monotonous management of collective system which is very hard to be compensated. The conflicts between them are salient; therefore, the farmers’ demand for change in Zhejiang province becomes quite urgent. Secondly, there exists a sharp conflict between the traditional business culture of being self-employed and family-run and the government system of rejecting self-employedness. Thirdly, the self-generated industry-commercial tradition and the industry-commercial culture from the grassroots have directly affected the farmers’ choice of actions, which in turn makes it possible for the farmers to act autonomously. Fourthly, influenced by the tradition of the east Zhejiang school of pragmatic culture, the farmers in Zhejiang seem to possess a kind of spirit which is both down-to-earth and revolutionary. Fifthly, the local government’s value attitude and choice for their actions are the key variable quantity.更多还原