【作者】 江建全；

【导师】 叶江；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 世界史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 跨国公司的国籍属性,涉及跨国公司与(作为母国的)民族国家的关系,是一个比较重要的跨国公司国际政治经济学的理论问题。本论文对第一次全球化高潮时期(19世纪末20世纪初)和第二次全球化高潮时期(20世纪末21世纪初)花旗银行和美国政府在华关系进行历史考察和比较研究,进而以小见大力求反映不同全球化时代背景下美国跨国公司在国籍属性上所表现出来的特点、美国跨国公司在华活动的特点、美国政府对华政策的特点以及美国跨国公司和美国政府在华关系的演变。本论文认为:1、两次全球化高湖背景下,花旗银行的美国国籍属性都没有发生改变。第一次全球化高潮背景下花旗银行成为美国政府对华贷款的法定代理人,并积极依附美国政府获取特权和利益。第二次全球化高潮背景下,作为美国跨国公司代表的花旗银行,其发达资本主义国家的母国国籍属性仍然没有改变。花旗银行在中国的经营活动中,不可避免地打上了美国政治、经济、社会和文化的深刻烙印。美国政府以各种方式支持花旗银行在海外包括在中国的经营并进行监管。花旗银行的经营活动必须符合美国政府的根本利益,否则就会受到美国政府的制裁。另一方面,花旗银行积极通过“走出去”配置中国资源增强中美关系中美国政府的力量。对于美国政府来说,以花旗银行为代表的跨国公司的海外经营,对于其保持在国际分工格局中的顶层地位,无疑发挥了巨大的作用。2、不同全球化高潮背景下花旗银行和美国政府在华关系的表现形式已发生了深刻的变化,具体表现为从昔日的官商勾结到现在的政企(相对)分离。第一次全球化高潮背景下花旗银行和美国在华关系更多表现为官商勾结的特点。一方面,第一次全球化高潮时期花旗银行由于当时的中美关系背景积极成为美国政府在华金融政治代言人,通过特权获取利益。另一方面,第一次全球化高潮时期花旗银行海外活动刚刚起步,无论是自身实力还是与英国等资本主义列强银行相比实力较弱,所以对美国政府的依赖性很强。这一时期几乎在每一次在华投资活动中,花旗银行都要借助于美国政府的力量才能获得成功。第二次全球化高潮背景下花旗银行和美国在华关系更多表现为政企(相对)分离的特点。尽管花旗银行的国籍属性未变,但第二次全球化高潮时期花旗银行和美国政府在华关系的表现形式已发生了深刻的变化。以花旗银行为代表的跨国公司展开的全球竞争,已经成为全球化进程中最活跃、最直接、最重要的推动力量。花旗银行更多通过自身独立的业务活动以及与中国国内银行的合作获得发展。美国政府更多地通过创造良好制度环境促进花旗银行在华发展(从直接干涉到间接调节)。这一时期,花旗银行等美国跨国公司通过制度层面对美国对华政策的发言权也在不断增强。3、产生这种变迁的根本原因在于不同全球化时代背景包括中美关系格局的改变.两次全球化高潮背景下国际政治经济格局都决定着花旗银行发展的特点。不同时期花旗银行与美国政府在华关系的不同表现反映出世界历史的发展和变化。两次经济全球化都致力于资本等资源的全球配置和全球市场经济体系的构建。区别在于前者作为一个特权体系具有不平等性和不可持续性,在此后的几十年间经历了两次世界大战和民族解放运动的历史反弹;而后者建立在对第一次全球化高潮的资本主义体系的扬弃的基础上,更多根据市场化原则和竞争优势进行资源配置,相对第一次全球化高潮具有相对进步性和可持续发展性。就两次全球化高潮背景下美国对华政策而言,第一次全球化高潮时期美国在门户开放宣言中所要求平等享受的权利,本身就是以不平等地位享受在中国的特权。但美国对华政策中含有其固有的非殖民化思想和最惠国待遇原则。在第二次全球化高潮时期国际制度是美国霸权体系的核心和维持霸权的主要途径。中美关系以战略相互依存为特征,中美发展战略伙伴关系。这一时期,美国对华经济政策主要以倡建自由贸易规则的WTO原则为基础,只要作为世界霸权国家的美国在中美关系中不采用武力或其他超经济手段,强迫、胁迫中国,那么,中美关系就是平等的或是朝平等方向发展的。就两次全球化时代背景包括中美关系格局对对花旗银行和美国政府的关系而言,第一次全球化高潮时期由于资本主义世界体系和中美关系事实上的不平等性,美国政府更多把花旗银行当作推行其特权和政策的直接工具,花旗银行更多采用“寻租”手段。两者关系更多类似于一种“父子关系”。而第二次全球化时期随着国际关系格局和中美关系格局的转变以及跨国公司在国际舞台上的崛起,美国政府和花旗银行的关系更多朝着“战略伙伴关系”发展。从这个意义上讲,在华花旗银行既是一家美国银行,同时也是一家中国的“本土”银行。在中国和平崛起和上海等城市向国际金融中心迈进的征程中,我国政府金融监管部门在对花旗银行等外资银行的监管上应充分考虑到这些银行的“双重性”特点,发挥其积极作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 The nationality attribute of transnational corporations (TNCs), which involves the relationship between transnational corporations and their nation-states (as their home countries), is an important theoretical issue in international political economics related to transnational corporations. In this dissertation, the author attempts to reflect the nationality attribute of American TNCs, the characteristics of the U.S. transnational corporations’ activities in China, the characteristics of the U.S. government policy toward China and the evolution of the relationship between transnational corporations and the U.S. government in China by a historical review and comparative study of the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China in the first globalization climax (from late 19th century to early 20th century) and the second globalization climax (from late 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century).The main points in this dissertation are like the following:1. Against the background of two globalization climaxes, Citibank’s U.S. nationality attribute has not changed.During the first globalization climax, Citibank became the legal agency of the U.S. government’s loans to China and it actively depended on the U.S. government to obtain privileges and interests. During the second globalization climax, Citibank has become a representative of American transnational corporations, whereas its nationality attribute (a developed capitalist country) still has not changed. In its business activities, it is profoundly marked as a representative of the United States’ political, economic, social and cultural interests. U.S. government supports and supervises Citibank’s overseas business including that in China in various ways. Citibank’s business activities must accord with the fundamental interests of the U.S. Government, or it will be imposed sanctions against by the U.S.Government.Meanwhile, through " going out" strategy——allocating Chinese resources, Citibankcan reinforce the power of the U.S. government in Sino-American relations. For the U.S. government, overseas transnational corporations including Citibank undoubtedly play a huge role in maintaining its top-level position in international division of labor.2. Against the background of different globalization climaxes, profound changes have taken place in the manifestation of the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China, as can be demonstrated by changes from the former collusion between government officials and enterprises businessmen to the present (relative) separation between government and enterprises.During the first globalization climax, the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China was presented by collusion between government officials and enterprises businessmen. On the one hand, because of special Sino-US relations at that time, Citibank actively acted as the financial and political spokesmen of the U.S. government and obtained interests by privileges. On the other hand, Citibank just started its overseas activities. Compared to the banks of U.K. and other capitalist countries, Citibank was weaker. So it had a stronger dependence on the U.S. Government. During that period, in almost every investment activities in China, only with the help of the U.S. Government could Citibank succeeded.During the second globalization climax the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China was more presented by separation. Although Citibank’s U.S. nationality attribute has not changed, profound changes have taken place in the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China. The global competition launched by transnational corporations including Citibank has become the most active, the most direct and the most important driving force in globalization. More often than not, Citibank gets development through its own independent activities as well as cooperation with China’s domestic banks. In more cases the U.S. government creates a good institutional environment to promote Citibank’s development in China (from direct interference to indirect regulation). During this period, in institutional level, Citibank and other U.S. transnational corporations have got louder voice in the decision of U.S. policy toward China.3. The fundamental reason for this change lies in different background of two globalization eras, including changes in the pattern of Sino-US relations.The characteristics of Citibank’s development have been determined by international political and economic patterns against the background of two globalization climaxes. The development and changes of the world history can be reflected by different manifestations of the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government in China in different periods of time. Two economic globalization are committed to the global allocation of capital and other resources and the construction of the global market economy system. The difference lies in that the former possessed inequality and sustainability as a privilege system and it was impacted on by two world wars and national liberation movements in the following decades ,while the latter, based on sublation of the capitalist system during the first globalization climax, allocates resources according to market-oriented principles and competitive advantage. Consequently the latter is more progressive and more sustainable.As far as the U.S. policies toward China in the two globalization climax are concerned, the rights that the U.S. government required to enjoy equally in the Open-door Declaration were privileges which the U.S. government was entitled to in China. However, the U.S. policy toward China contains inherent decolonization ideology and the most-favored-nation principle. During the second globalization Climax, international system is the core of the United States’ hegemony system and the main way to maintain its hegemony. Sino-US relations are characterized by a strategical interdependence, developing strategic partnership. During this period, the U.S. economic policy toward China are based on WTO principles which advocates free trade rules. As long as the U.S. do not use force or other means to duress or threaten China, Sino-US relations will be equal or on the way to being equality.In terms of the influence of the background of the two globalization including Sino-US relations pattern on the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government, more often than not, the U.S. government used Citibank as a direct tool to implement its privileges and policies, and in more cases Citibank used "rent-seeking" means. So the relationship between the two was more like "father and son relationship". Whereas, with the transformation of the pattern of international relations and Sino-US relations and the rising of transnational corporations on the international stage, the relationship between Citibank and the U.S. government is on the way towards a "strategic partnership". In this sense, Citibank is both an American bank and a Chinese "local" one. In the process of China’s peaceful rise and Shanghai’s march toward international financial center, our government’s financial supervisors should take the foreign banks’ "dual nature" into account while supervising them so as to bring their positive roles into play.更多还原