中国特色社会主义基本经济制度的历史探索与体系创新

党的十九届四中全会通过的《中共中央关于坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化若干重大问题的决定》(以下简称《决定》)指出,坚持和完善公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展,按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存,社会主义市场经济体制等社会主义基本经济制度。这是我们党对社会主义基本经济制度的新概括,是我们党和国家长期探索的成果.     

深化对公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展这一基本经济制度的认识

实行以公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展这一基本经济制度，来替代单一公有制结构，是我们党对建设社会主义长期实践的总结，是有中国特色社会主义的制度创新。这种多元所有制结构，并不意味着存在社会主义道路和资本主义道路的对立，从其整体性上看是一种有中国特色的社会主义所有制结构。     

从社会主义基本经济制度理解中国经济奇迹

中国共产党领导中国经济发展取得了世界经济史上的奇迹.文章从社会主义基本经济制度这一角度,结合马克思主义关于社会主义制度的经典阐释,对这一经济奇迹背后的"密码"作理论分析.文章研究表明,中国共产党正是创造性地继承和发扬了马克思主义基本理论,在实践中形成了"公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展,按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存,社会主义市场经济体制等社会主义基本经济制度".这一制度既体现了社会主义制度优越性,又同我国社会主义初级阶段社会生产力发展水平相适应,是党和人民的伟大创新.这正是理解中国经济奇迹的一把"金钥匙".     

制度、经济制度与基本经济制度—兼论非公有制经济不是社会主义经济制度的基础

本文以马克思主义经济学为指导，借鉴现代西方经济学的相关理论，循着从一般到特殊再到个别的思路，在对制度、经济制度、基本经济制度进行了概念辨析的基础上，给出了一个分析基本经济制度的框架，对如何认识社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度谈了个人的看法，并就非公有制经济与社会主义经济制度的关系评析了理论界的若干观点。认为，只有所有制及其结构才能决定一个社会的基本经济制度。而在所有制及其结构中，须分清楚其中的主导力量、具有重要影响的力量和行将灭亡的成分。一般而言，居于主导地位的所有制关系决定着该经济社会基本经济制度的性质，仍然具有发展前途的所有制关系也会对基本经济制度产生重要影响，而正在走向没落的所有制关系对于基本经济制度则是无足轻重的。非公有制经济是社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度的组成部分是相对于“初级阶段”而言的，它不是社会主义经济制度的基础。     

关于基本经济制度的三点探索

党的十六大重申社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度,不仅再次肯定公有制为主体,并且把多种所有制经济包括私营经济也纳入,是对传统理论的一大突破。这是从现阶段的实际出发,有着多样的现实条件。强调两个"毫不动摇",澄清了不同看法,其结果很可能形成混合经济居大的格局:宏观上是多种所有制经济并存,微观上是产权多元化的股份制公司为典型。坚持和完善基本经济制度,有一系列的对策,除深化国有、集体企业改革和鼓励、支持、引导非公有制经济发展外,令人想起毛泽东曾经讲过的四句话:"公私兼顾、劳资两利、城乡互助、内外交流"。     

中国特色社会主义基本经济制度是解放和发展生产力的历史要求

2019年10月31日,中共中央十九届四中全会通过了《中共中央关于坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化若干重大问题的决定》。这是坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的行动纲领和政治宣示。《决定》的制定,反映了我们党对于中国特色社会主义发展规律的认识达到了一个新高度和新水平,蕴含着十分丰富的理论及创新性。本刊邀请多位专家、学者围绕《决定》中关于社会主义基本经济制度的理论认识,就马克思主义经典文本与中国特色社会主义实践等问题展开学习与解读,集结成文分两期发表,以飨读者。     

坚持"两个毫不动摇"的统一——深化对社会主义基本经济制度的认识

坚持公有制为主体、促进非公有制经济发展，是我国社会主义基本经济制度不可或缺的组成部分。必须毫不动摇地巩固和发展公有制经济，毫不动摇地鼓励、支持和引导非公有制经济的发展。关键是要深化对公有制经济发展和非公有制经济发展统一性的认识。不能只讲公有制为主体，排斥非公有制经济的发展；更不能只讲发展非公有制经济，否定公有制的主体地位。     

所有制结构:社会主义经济理论与经济体制改革的基本课题

所有制结构不仅是社会主义经济理论的基本课题 ,同时也是我国经济体制改革的基本课题。所有制结构不是一层不变的 ,而是随着分工的发展和社会经济条件的变化而不断变迁的 ,在不同的社会发展阶段 ,所有制是不一样的。中国经济体制改革与所有制结构调整的丰富实践 ,极大地发展了社会主义经济理论的所有制结构理论。     

在所有制结构调整中准确理解基本经济制度

考察改革开放后中国公有制和非公有制经济关系调整的历程,研究公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展基本经济制度的理论形成。中国非公有制经济地位由"补充"上升到了"重要组成部分",对非公有制经济的发展由"方针政策"上升到了"基本经济制度",非公有制经济与公有制为主体一起构成社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度。实现了非公有制经济由"制度外"到"制度内"、从宏观上多种所有制经济共同发展到微观企业实现形式的深化。     

简论所有制与股份制的联系与区别

股份制是一种资本组织形式,它与所有制是两个不同层面的问题,两者存在性质和地位的不同。股份制可以是资本主义私有制的实现形式,也可以是社会主义公有制的实现形式。我们不能把公有制的实现形式同公有制形式等同起来,从而否定国有经济和集体经济这两种公有制形式的存在;也不能把公有制的实现形式同公有制性质等同起来,从而推导出股份制就是完全公有制性质。     

构建效率与公平相统一的收入分配体制研究

我国改革开放以来,国民经济快速发展,社会财富大幅增长,人民生活水平总体上得到了提高.但同时随之出现了收入分配不公平、居民之间收入差距过大以及差距不断扩大的现象.为解决这一问题,关键在于处理好效率与公平之间的关系,实现公平与效率的统一与结合;在国民收入的初次分配和再分配中都要处理好效率和公平的关系,再分配更加注重公平;深化现有收入分配制度改革,建立效率与公平相统一的收入分配体制,缩小过大收入差距,实现分配公平.     

环境所有权、贸易结构变迁与污染分布——基于超边际经济学框架的分析

文章引入环境所有权概念,运用新兴古典经济学的超边际分析方法,研究了贸易结构变迁与相应的污染分布和转移,旨在揭示大国污染效应、工业化路径的环境效应、贸易结构变迁的环境所有权因素以及环保政策失效的原因。研究推导出不同国家间环境所有权模糊程度和交易效率变化对贸易结构变迁与污染分布变化的作用机理。研究命题可用于解释现实贸易发展中存在的环境污染现象。     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

教育体系、收入分布与经济增长

本文使用一个包含物质资本与人力资本积累的世代交叠模型,研究不同的教育体系对经济增长的影响.我们发现,在公立教育体系下,最优的教育投资水平高于私立教育体系,收入差异也将会比在私立教育体系下下降得更快.因此,与私立教育体系相比,公立教育体系更有利于人力资本积累,在公立教育体系下一个国家将会有更高的经济增长率与更为平等的收入分布.