顾昕:协作治理与发展主义:产业政策中的国家、市场与社会

选择字号:   本文共阅读 795 次 更新时间:2018-01-17 20:17:16

进入专题: 产业政策   发展主义  

顾昕 (进入专栏)  

   产业政策必要性的根源在于产业发展过程中市场主体在诸多市场行动上出现协调失灵,而行政治理和社群治理是矫正协调失灵的两种路径。从政府的视角来看,产业政策的施为可分为两种模式:配置主义和协调主义。配置主义注重资源配置,而协调主义注重中介服务。在配置主义产业政策模式中,政府通过行政机制发挥主导性的作用来矫正市场行动之间的协调失灵,在协调主义产业政策模式中政府发挥能促性或助推性的作用,通过合理化和制度化的方式,扶助社群机制发挥主导性的作用来矫正市场行动之间的协调失灵。在配置主义中,产业政策多为选择性的、纵向的;而在协调主义中,产业政策多为功能性的、横向的。

   要将产业政策之争引向深入,有必要在比较发展研究的大视野中将“发展主义多样性”当作新的学问加以精研,既非停留在政府与市场、国家与社会之间选边站的意识形态争论,亦非停留在缺乏理论指导而对产业政策实施与效果所进行的朴素经验调查。“发展主义多样性”这门学问的发展,必须贯通国家、市场、社会的学问,打破经济学、政治学和社会学既有的门户之见,促进协同治理学术研究的大发展。

   国家与市场之间的协同,国家与社会之间的协同,市场与社会之间的协同,在既有的新国家主义产业政策文献中常常遭到忽视。新国家主义将政府视为市场和社会的驾驭者,但却大大忽略了一个基本事实,即产业发展过程中普遍出现的协调失灵,可以通过市场治理和社群治理的有效运作加以一定的矫正。同时,新国家主义的另一个忽略在于,行政治理能够发挥积极有效作用的前提在于能否增强市场、激化社会,而以政府为媒介的社团型组织和制度可以在其中发挥重要作用。发展主义多样性的新学问显示,发展主义的成功之道在于政府转型,即奉行积极干预主义的有为政府如何走向市场强化型政府(the market-augmenting government)和社会增强型政府(the society enhancing government)。

   参考文献:

   宋磊,2016,《追赶型工业战略的比较政治经济学》,北京:北京大学出版社。

   Amin, Ash, 1996, “Beyond Associative Democracy.” New Political Economy, 1(3):309-333.

   Amin, Ash, and Daminan Thomas, 1996, “The negotiated economy: State and civic institutions in Denmark.” Economy and Society, 25(2):255-281.

   Amin, Ash, and Nigel Thrift, 1995, “Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association”. Economy and Society, 24(1): 41-66

   Amsden, Alice,1989, Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

   Aoki, Masahiko, Hyung-ki Kim, and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara, 1996, “Introduction” to The Role of Government in East Asian Economic Development: Comparative Institutional Analysis (edited by Masahiko Aoki, Hyung-ki Kim, and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. xv-xxii.

   Aoki, Masahiko, Kevin Murdock, and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara,1996, “Beyond The East Asian Miracle:Introducing the Market-enhancing View,” in The Role of Government in East Asian Economic Development: ComparativeInstitutional Analysis (edited by Masahiko Aoki, Hyung-ki Kim, and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 1-37

   Aoki, Masahiko and Yujiro Hayami (eds.), 2000,Communities and Marketsin Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

   Azariadis,Costas and Allan Drazen, 1990, “Threshold Externalities in Economic Development”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105 (2): 501-526.

   Bardhan, Pranab, and Christopher Udry, 1999, Development Microeconomics.New York: Oxford University Press.

   Best, M. H., 1990, The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring, Cambridge: Polity Press.

   Bianchi, Patrizio, and Sandrine Labory, 2006, “From ‘old’ industrial policy to ‘new’ industrial development policies,” in Patrizio Bianchi and Sandrine Labory (eds.), International Handbook on Industrial Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 3-27.

   Boekema, F., K. Morgan, S. Bakkers, and S. Rutten (2000), Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth: The Theory and Practice of Learning Regions, Cheltenham, UK.: Edward Elgar.

   Bowles,Samuel, 2003, Microeconomics: Behavior,Institutions, and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

   Brusco, S., 1982, ‘The Emilianmodel: productive decentralisation and social integration’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6 (2):167-184.

   Brusco, S. and E. Righi, 1989, ‘Local government, industrial policy and social consensus: the case of Modena (Italy)’, Economy and Society, 18 (4): 405–24.

   Calder, Kent E., 1995, Strategic Capitalism: Private Business and Public Purpose in Japanese Industrial Finance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

   Cooke, and Morgan, 1998, The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

   Cowling, K., C. Oughton and R.Sugden, 2000, ‘A reorientation of industrial policy? Horizontal policies and targeting’, in K. Cowling (ed.), Industrial Policies inEurope. Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Proposals, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 17-33.

   Donahue, John D., and Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2011, Collaborative governance: private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

   Dorn, James A., Steve H. Hanke and Alan A. Wlaters,1998, The Revolution in Development Economics. Washington, DC.: Cato Institute.

   Evans, Peter, 1995, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

   ── (ed.), 1997, State-Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development. Berkeley: International andArea Studies, University of California at Berkeley, 1997

   Falck, Oliver, Christian Gollier, and Ludger Woessmann (eds.), 2011, Industrial Policy for National Champions. Cambridge, MA.: The MITPress.

Gilbert, Neil, and Barbara Gilbert,(点击此处阅读下一页)

进入 顾昕 的专栏     进入专题: 产业政策   发展主义  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 经济学 > 制度分析
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/107911.html
文章来源:微信公号“顾昕”

0 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2021 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统