“The Development of Socialist Economic Model in the Real World”，Comparative Economic Studies，1987，Spring USA[1]

Jiang Chunze1

Ford Foundation Visiting Professor of Comparative Economics at the University of California，Berkeley，on leave from the Institute of World Economy and Politics，Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. This paper is based on my recent research on comparative economic models.At a national meeting on theory in 1979，I first presented to Chinese scholars the view that it is impossible for one model to suit all of the socialist countries in the world well all of the time. Since then，I have published papers on this topic in Chinese. Then，in 1985，I wrote a 65-page paper during my stay at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in order to exchange points of view with Western scholars. I greatly appreciate the comments on that draft from American scholars such as Professor Elizabeth Clayton，Professor James R. Millar，Professor Donald R. Hodgman，Professor Bruce L. Reynolds，Dr. Blair A. Ruble（Social Science Research Council），doctoral candidate George Putnam，and others. On Professor Clayton’s recommendation，I submitted the paper to Comparative Economic Studies，where the paper was commented on by a referee. All of these comments have been helpful to me in making this revision，and I express my gratitude for them. Now，at the University of California，Berkeley，I am soliciting suggestions on the revised version from Professor Gregory Grossman，Professor Benjamin Ward，Professor Laura Tyson，and other colleagues. I also solicit comments from my American readers. However，let them bear in mind that this paper represents the views of only one Chinese scholar.

Introduction

In the West，scholars tend to combine modeling and case studies in their research. In the modeling approach，economic systems are analyzed theoretically through the development of models which are hypothetical or pure economic systems rather than the more complicated systems that exist in practice. The case study approach is used to study and compare the actual economic systems of different countries. Since the case study approach falls within the confines of describing a certain economic system，it cannot abstract the differences between economic systems from complex phenomena. Therefore，in practice，comparative economists tend to combine these two approaches. The modeling approach provides a framework for the case study approach；on the other hand，case study within the framework of the model can in turn lead to revisions and improvement of the model.

Western scholars use the above two approaches to classify and compare the economic systems of many countries. For instance，under the same capitalistic system，differences in economic decision making，coordination，and motivation structures can be attributed to differences in degree，scope，and means of government economic intervention. The economic systems under the socialist system are also of many types，and they are undergoing economic reforms. Therefore，our research emphasis should be placed on how a certain economic system operates，and why，when a certain country is reforming its economic system.

The Development of Socialist Economic Models in the Real World

I personally believe that any model of the socialist economy must have a distinct guiding principle and a complete set of system structures；but，as one intends to develop socialism it does not include those temporary measures adopted because of situational needs. I define an economic system structure as the sum of a set of mechanisms and institutions through which a country can allocate decision-making authority and regulate economic interests in production，circulation，distribution，and consumption in order to achieve social and economic goals at a certain developing stage of the productive forces. In what follows，I will elaborate on this definition.

The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck proposed that an economic system is a set of mechanisms and institutions for decision making and the implementation of decisions concerning production，income，and consumption within a given geographic area. In my opinion，Lindbeck’s definition correctly emphasizes that an economic system is a set of mechanisms and institutions，and its functions are to facilitate decision making for economic activities. But the vagueness of his definition can be attributed to the phrase “within a given geographic area”，which should be stated as “at a certain level of productive forces” or “under a given ownership of means of production”. This vagueness gives the impression that an economic system lacks objectivity，as it is decided by the subjective preferences of the people within a given geographic area. I think that although the choice of a model of an economic system within a certain country or area is part of the decision maker’s behavior，it does not imply that subjectivity can lead to making a decision without being subject to certain objective rules. Consequently，any economic system must be based on the level of productive forces and restricted by the basic political and economic environment of a given country or society.

Second，“to achieve social and economic strategic goals” has two implications. First，to choose，establish，and execute a certain economic system per se is not the end. Its purpose is to achieve social and economic goals. In the same social fundamental environment，different systems can be chosen at different stages in order to achieve different strategic goals. For instance，during the period of War Communism，the goal of the system was to win a military victory，and thus it was not suitable during the peaceful reconstruction period. Second，any economic system always adopts a certain guiding ideology that is usually reflected in the strategic goal. Of course，a false guiding ideology can also contribute to system failure. For instance，the economic systems used by many socialist countries at their founding stages were not only related to the situational needs at that time，but were also restricted by the prevailing dominant theories（e.g.，a dogmatic attitude toward public ownership，inadequate importance given to commodity production，and rejection of a market mechanism）.

Third，“at a certain developing stage of the productive forces” means that an economic system must be built on a certain developing stage of the productive forces so as to adapt to and promote these productive forces. Since there is no ideal model suitable for all economic systems，periodic reforms and improvements of the prevailing economic system are necessary on the basis of the development of the productive forces. Thus，there is no optimal solution for economic reform that holds good for all time.

Fourth，an economic system falls within the confines of production，circulation，distribution，and consumption. It is the sum of mechanisms and institutions that represent economic policies，rules，regulations，and organizations. They are integrated，and they coordinate in such a way that they are not contradictory to and isolated from one another. This system provides models for promoting microeconomic activities and coordinating macroeconomic activities.

What，then，are the common factors among the different economic systems？ Or，what are the bases on which different systems are comparable？I believe that the common factors are information channels，decision-making structure，management incentives，and coordination instruments. In other words，they are the IDMC structure proposed by Neuberger and Duffy.

Real World Socialist Economic Models

In my own understanding，the socialist economic models in the real world developed as follows：

The pre-moddels：War Communism：e.g.，the Soviet Union in 1918-1921，China in 1927-1949 in the Red Base Area，Yugoslavia in the Revolutionary Base Area during wartime，etc. and the New Economic Policies as pre-models of socialism.e.g.the Soviet Union during 1924-1928，China in 1949-1953，etc.

1.The pre-models. As mentioned earlier，any model of a socialist economy does not include temporary measures adopted because of situational needs. Therefore I regard War Communism and the New Economic Policies as pre-models of socialism.

The economic management of the Soviet Union during the War Communism period was a concentrated system without money. At that time，all economic activities except agriculture were nationalized and all economic decisions were made by the State. State-owned enterprises and economic institutions were not divided into different production units. A budget appropriation system was used instead of an accounting system. All funds needed by the enterprises were unconditionally provided by the State，but all products were returned to the State.

Enterprises were Period of New Economic Policies：e.g.，the Soviet Union during 1924-1928，China in 1949-1953，etc.

Prototype of the model of real socialist experience：

Model Ⅰ：Traditional Centrally Planned Economy：e.g.，the Soviet Union in the 1930s-1950s，all of the socialist countries before reforms.

Model Ⅱ：Model of earliest modification：Violated objective laws，thus failed：Extremely “Left”：empha-sized class struggle and idealism.

Model Ⅲ：Yugoslavian Socialist Self-Management System（after 1950）.Aimed at improving the target series and reorganizing institutions：

Model Ⅳ：Modified Centrally Planned Economy，e.g.，the Soviet Union since the mid-1960s and the GDR since the 1970s.

Model Ⅴ：Planned Commodity Economy：e.g.，Hungary after 1968，China since 1979，other Eastern European countries with their own national characteristics of exploration since the late 1960s or 1970s.

More details，During the Pre-Model of war-Communist time，not given financial plans by higher levels，but they did have production plans with physical targets. Neither did they have their own funds，profits，or losses. The authority of industrial management was highly concentrated at the highest level of the National Economic Commission and the General Management Bureau. The latter actually controlled all economic activities，including production，supply，and distribution，and thus was the center of industrial management. In addition to industries，agriculture and handicrafts were also guided by centralized means. The People’s Agriculture Commission was responsible for providing compulsory seeding plans and measures for collection of leftover grains from farmers and for preventing private trade exchanges. Money circulation was almost nonexistent. Economic relations were thus mainly natural and physical. Almost all social products were in the hands of the State without any compensation，and the majority of them were supplied to the military and to employees of industries and enterprises that served the front. Goods were distributed directly to laborers in the form of coupons through consumption organizations. At that time，grains，coal，food，and clothing were rationed and public transportation was free of charge. Egalitarianism in distribution was widespread except for “bourgeois experts”. There was no complete differential wage system. Common funds for housing，transportation，health，and education accounted for a large portion of consumption funds. Foreign trade was totally monopolized by the State.

Apparently，this War Communism model did not fit the situational needs of peacetime production. It reflected severe mistakes and confusion between the guiding ideology of economic management and the theoretical stance. At that time，socialism was mistakenly regarded as a natural economy that rejected commodity and money circulation. It was believed possible to transfer directly to a system in which production and distribution were made according to the principle of communism. Lenin later mentioned that this system was rushed，linear，unprepared “communism”. He said，“we originally planned（or more precisely we hypothesized without sufficient evidence）to adopt directly the laws of the proletarian State for adjusting the living standards and product distributions of the countries with many small farmers on the basis of the communism principle. Real life has shown us that we were mistaken.” This mistake in guiding principle was also reflected in the policy of nationalization. Lenin once even attempted to change from capitalism to socialism through the stage of state capitalism. First，the 500 largest plants were nationalized. But during the War Communism period，it was announced that enterprises either having mechanical power and more than five workers or having no mechanical power and more than ten workers were to be nationalized. The single ownership formulation also led to the excessive concentration of management authority. These mistaken guiding principles and policies had a substantial impact on the formation of the later economic system. But，the Soviet Union was，in fact，forced to adopt the War Communism economic system and other measures in the presence of armed intervention by fourteen countries and an almost collapsed social economy. These circumstances changed and delayed many original ideas. In addition，the Soviet Union adopted a series of new economic policies after the end of the civil war. Thus，I do not believe that this system should be regarded as one of the socialist economic models.

Although in the Soviet Union an economic system was implemented for five years during the new economic policy period，it faced numerous fundamental problems in developing a socialistic economy. Some of these were the coexistence of many economic ingredients，the proper way of handling relationships between the central and the local levels and between the State and enterprises，the participation of the masses in economic management，planned utilization of commodities and money to change the national economy，proper handling of the relationship between planning and market（giving targets rather than commands to firms），the emphasis on managing economy with economic methods，strengthening of economic accounting，etc. Although the above problems influenced the economic development of the whole socialism stage，I feel that the guiding principle of the new economic policy was basically derived from the lessons experienced during the War Communism period；its purpose was to avoid the recurrence of the unusual economic crises experienced during that period. The measures adopted at that time were in the nature of a compromise，being temporary retreats because of the pressures coming from the environment. The guiding principle did not correctly recognize that many ingredients needed to coexist for a long time. Neither was it consciously realized that the development of commodity production and exchange and money was a necessary stage in promoting new forces of production. On the contrary，new economic policies were regarded as concessions and measures to overcome famine and severe economic difficulties，but not as long-term means to develop socialism. Thus，I do not regard them as a well-established model of the socialist economic system.

I believe that War Communism and the new economic policies systems were two different short-lived practices in the early stages of the Soviet Union’s economic construction，similar to the temporary practice of the Paris commune in striving for proletarian dictatorship. These two systems accumulated precious positive and negative experiences and lessons but did not emerge with any specific model of the socialist economic system.

2.The prototype model. On the basis of my own understanding，the socialist economic model can be classified into five different types，MI，MII，MIII，MIV，and MV，according to the historical development process. What follows illustrates the development process of the socialist economic models.

MI，in my opinion，is the prototype model of the real socialist experience. In other words，the other four models are derived from MI. The problems that need to be solved in current reforms are simply the drawbacks in the fundamental model.

MI has long been regarded as the only orthodox socialist planned economic model in the Soviet Union. Furthermore，during an initial period almost all of the socialist countries adopted the centralized economic system of the Soviet Union formed in the 1930s. Its basic characteristics arc the implementation of a highly centralized state control over the national economy；a mandatory overall plan from top to bottom；neglect of the market mechanism；control of a large portion of economic affairs by state organs，forming an enormous sector of leading bodies that have taken on the role of many economic organizations；conversion of various economic organizations into appendages of state administrative departments，depriving them of their right of self-management and denying their independence or relative independence；reliance on state administrative departments to organize the national economy and social economic activities；centralized allocation of the means of production enforced by the state；centralized prices set by the state；state monopoly of revenue and expenditures；state distribution of funds；responsibility for profits and losses lying with the state-run economy；egalitarianism of wages in some fields contrasting with overly large differences in other fields.

Before the 1950s all of the socialist countries realized to some extent that there were objective historical reasons for the formation of such a system：centralization makes it easy to employ construction funds and technical forces to accelerate the development of specific sectors，regions，and programs and plays a role in efforts to realize industrialization quickly，to achieve a war victory，and to recover from war. Its weak points are a strong tendency toward bureaucratism in economic management because of a lack of sensitive information channels；difficulty in gaining and maintaining the initiative and creativity of various economic units and large producers because of a lack of necessary decision-making powers；difficulty in adjusting the development of economic structures that become out of proportion over time because of a lack of the proper instruments for economic coordination，and waste that plays a large part in the low benefits in economic construction because of a lack of proper incentive systems.

3.Economic reform. Since the late 1940s Yugoslavia has taken the lead in abandoning such a system and replacing it with a socialist self-management system based on so-called socialist ownership of the means of production，initiating the process of reform. In 1956 Poland increased the financial rights of enterprises. In 1957 Hungary also instituted reforms. The same year Soviet industry and construction changed their sector administrations into regional administrations.

The reforms became more widespread in the 1960s. In 1962 discussion of Lieberman’s suggestions in the Soviet Union prepared opinions for further reforms，which resulted in a great reaction from the Eastern European countries. On January 1，1964，the German Democratic Republic started to pursue a new economic system but returned to a centralized economy in 1970. In 1965 the Soviet Union began the transition to a new economic system. In Hungary the “Guiding Principles of Economic Reform” were passed formally in 1966，and in 1968 their implementation began. On January 2，1965，Czechoslovakia announced its “Main Instructions for Improvements in the System of Planning and Management” signed by the Czechoslovak Central Communist Party Committee，the implementation of which began in 1966，but was stopped because of unfavorable international conditions. Bulgaria in April，1964，Poland in 1966，and Romania in 1967 followed one after the other in carrying out partial reform. Yugoslavia took some new stronger measures in the mid-1960s to weaken macroeconomic management. Since the late 1970s the Soviet Union and most of the Eastern European countries，and especially Hungary，have taken significant steps in reform. The Yugoslavian self-management system moved into a new phase of so-called joint free labor of the producers，which was designed to remedy the shortcomings exhibited after the reforms of the mid-1960s.

The Chinese economic system has gone through several changes，both influenced by the War Communism system formed during the long-term revolutionary war and by the experiences drawn from the Soviet Union during the initial period after 1949. It was also damaged during the ten-year internal chaos. After 1978 and the third plenary session of the Eleventh Central Committee when the incorrect “left” guiding thought was exposed and criticized，there have been significant breakthroughs in theory and economic reform has entered a new era.

Therefore，MII，MIV，and MV have been produced in the reform process.

Comparison of the Basic Features of the Five Models

The task of comparative economic models，I believe，is to describe the operational conditions of the internal structures of various economic systems and to compare the impacts on economic outcomes. In other words，its purpose is to study the internal structures and their interrelations in various economic systems to evaluate them to promote a better model for selection，design，or reform of certain economic systems. The overall objects of study include the following：

Comparing the formation of various economic systems and their associatedhistorical conditions；

Comparing the guiding principles under which various economic systems are established；

Comparing the internal structures and theirfunctions in various economic systems，including decision making，information，motivation，and coordination structures and their interrelations；

Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of various economic systems under certain historical conditions and within certain environments.

Thus，let us see the basic features of models I to V.

Model I. Traditional Central Planning System，exemplified by the economic system of the Soviet Union from the 1930s to the 1950s. Its basic features arc the following：

1.Under conditions in which the level of the productive forces is low，that is，where all economic departments have destroyed those components of the economy that are not socialist and eliminated collective styles of ownership of leftist industry and commerce，establishing a unified state ownership，we have the basis for the development of a highly centralized unified economic system. In other words，this model is based on an oversimplified public ownership of the means of production. All significant means of production are state owned. Only in agriculture is there an alternative to state farms，which are owned and operated on the same principles as state industrial enterprises，of which the dominant form is the collective under strict state control with some very small individual household plots. The means of production are not circulated. Capital equipment is centrally allocated，and investment of funds is generally provided in the form of grants. The whole country seems like a big factory，with its accounting system kept at the state level. This model is characterized by an over-centralized，over-unified and over-physical management.

2.Policy making jurisdiction in the realm of production，circulation，distribution，and consumption is highly centralized in the hands of a central planning organ，“plan is law”，and strongly authoritative directives，entailing as many as a thousand kinds of planning tasks，relay administrative measures through a vertical organizational structure，with little feedback from the production units，to all the branches of the national economy. Such a highly centralized and unified economic system had positive effects in winning the victory in the anti-fascist war and during the initial period of industrialization through rapid mobilization of funds and materials used in key construction projects，the rapid construction of basic industries and new industrial departments，and the development of independent industrial complexes. However，local and production management units did not have the autonomy or the ability to take action；rather，their responsibility was to achieve planning goals that came down in directives from the State. Production and consumption were severely disjointed. Production departments did not allow production to satisfy consumers’ needs but rather forced consumers to adapt to the amounts and types of products that producers supplied，products the majority of which were “the same for decades”，their designs and varieties monotonous and old-fashioned.

Management structure is based on a department system，and the jurisdiction of management is also highly centralized. Under what is called democratic centralism，management tends toward increased centralization and administration. The implementation of the principle of a “single leader system” at the time had certain positive effects in overcoming anarchy in small-scale production. However，under the premise of highly centralized policy making and management jurisdiction，excessive emphasis on the “one leader system” weakened the principle of democratic management and obstructed worker participation in policy making and management. Although all enterprises，including workshops and work sections，emphasized implementing an economic accounting system under strict state planning controls，enterprises had a certain amount of administrative and organizational independence. But，because management autonomy was so restricted and the guiding ideology constrained the production of goods and rejected the regulating effects of the market system and price laws，enterprises were unable to utilize materials and funds freely and had great difficulty using the least amount of labor to attain the greatest economic effects. Economic accounting became merely a formality，and waste became rampant in all links in the chain of reproduction.

3.In the realm of circulation，implementing a system of centralized supply of goods basically depends on unified allocation and unified distribution. The overwhelming majority of production materials do not enter the realm of the circulation of goods. The effect of price regulations is also severely restricted in the exchange of consumer goods. The price structure becomes rigid，and prices of nearly all commodities are fixed by the State，with price-fixing power highly concentrated at the center. Retail prices of 90 percent of individual consumer goods were fixed in the Soviet Union in its conferences of department heads and by its ministries. Only 10 percent of prices were fixed by local governments. The exchange rate plays no significant role in domestic price formation. Foreign trade is carried out by special export-import firms，and domestic prices are separated from international prices by taxes and subsidies. Producing firms have no direct contact with foreign customers or with suppliers. A whole set of economic levers based on price categories were ineffective in practice. Planning was seen as all-powerful，but inadequate attention to the objective demands of economic laws placed restrictions and prohibitions on the market system.

4.In the realm of the distribution and redistribution of the people’s income，in a state ownership economy，as discussed earlier，the State is the unit for implementing unified accounting and unified income and expenses，and the State is responsible for profits and losses. Everyone eats from the State’s “big rice pot”. Basic construction is carried out through unified state investment，and bank credit comes from the state’s unified deposits，without regard for the regulating effects of credit on economic activities. Employment is embraced by the state in a unified way through the “iron rice bowl system”.

5.Economic organizations at all levels are slack in carrying out planning directives transmitted from higher to lower levels，often falsifying reports to satisfy the demands of higher levels. They are unable to take steps to meet the demands of society and not concerned with economic efficiency and effectiveness. There is no impetus for them to promote technological advances，to increase economic benefits，or to effect a rational division of labor in social production and to develop specialized cooperation.

In sum，this kind of rigid socialist economic structure modeled on a physical products economy has profound defects，reflecting the fact that objective economic laws cannot be defied. Commodity production and exchange are a stage in the development of the social productive forces that cannot be passed over. Economic structural reform is an urgent objective necessity.

Model II，Yugoslavian socialist self-management economic system.In the past，the Soviet Union’s highly centralized rigid economic system was recognized as the only legitimate socialist economic model. Yugoslavia was the first to reject that model and take its own independent path in developing socialism，seeking to establish a complete socialist autonomous economic system. The Yugoslavian model and the traditional model of the Soviet Union are both based on an understanding of Marxism，and both seek to realize the final objective of communism. However，on many basic points they are at opposite extremes. On a series of basic theoretical questions Yugoslavia courageously broke through the restrictions of the traditional view，but the set of theoretical views that it created still lacked the further test of continuing practical experience. The historical conditions for establishing the Yugoslavian economic system included military and economic pressures as well as political and ideological pressures. Thus MII carried a very strong but questionable theoretical background. The most important points relating to its economic system are the following：

1.Its interpretation of a Marxist state doctrine was taken as the theoretical foundation for its autonomous economic system. The theory stresses that a socialist state is a particular form of state which is weakening by the day，starting in the economic realm，abandoning its protective，supervisory，and regulatory functions. Ways are continually sought in practice to explore all means of socialization of state economic functions and to transfer economic functions originally carried out by the state administrative organs to autonomous social public organizations，such as associated labor organizations at all levels，economic associations，“autonomous beneficial communities，” etc. A positive effect of this kind of theory is that it highlights the principal function of the direct producers in economic activities. A problem worth researching is the state’s over cautiousness in macroeconomic regulation，where it is passive and docs not dare to take action.

2.As the foundation for the above-described doctrine，rejecting the view that socialist state ownership is the ideal form of public ownership，Yugoslavia has created its own theories on socialist ownership. For example，Marx did not equate public ownership with state ownership；a specific time and space cannot be transcended in evaluating the superiority and historical function of different forms of public ownership；socialist state ownership is indirect public ownership with the state as intermediary，which inevitably progresses toward a higher form. At the same time that the socialist state is performing its historical function，it also contains the seeds of a new form of basic contradiction in separating the producers and the means of production. Socialist state ownership is the basis for the functioning of a highly centralized economic system while the ideal form of public ownership of the means of production，in which producers and the means of production are directly linked，is the so-called social ownership form. Yugoslavia’s present structure of ownership of the means of production，in which social ownership occupies the leading position，permits individual producers and private economic components to exist while at the same time promoting the combination of the various forms.

3.An autonomous structure to formulate social plans replaces centralized mandatory planning by a central leadership. The social planning network starts with the basic organization of autonomous planning，based on autonomous agreement and social contracts，and uses associated labor to link the top with the bottom，coordinating all levels. Under conditions where the social productive forces are backward，forced implementation of centralization of power with totally authoritarian planning can have the opposite result from what people originally planned. Yugoslavia’s criticism of a centralized economic system rejected a long-held theoretical prohibition that constrained people’s thinking and suggested instead that the two categories of planning and market were not equivalent to socialism and capitalism and were not mutually exclusive but could coexist. It recognized that socialist production modes supersede capitalist production modes not on a physical basis but on the basis of a commodity economy，and it wrote in its charter that a socialist economy is a commodity economy. Associated labor laws and social planning laws are also considered important statutes. Autonomous production units participate as commodity producers in the production process. The production process is the unification of the labor process and the process of the creation of value. All products produced，including production materials，are commodities，and price regulations not only are unavoidable in the realm of commodity circulation，but also have a regulating function in the realm of production. Yugoslavia’s market system functions are very broad，including supply and sales of goods，planning for the borrowing and lending of funds，and labor force supply and demand. It permits enterprises to compete openly and to participate in competition on the international market.

4.Unlike the highly centralized economic system，associated labor organizations at the bottom do not set up production administration subsidiary organs according to a vertical system of leadership. Basic units assigned to production，management，and accounting are also autonomous basic units of policy making. They independently decide on important questions of production，supply，expenditures，distribution，property，personnel，and so on. The all-workers’ conference is the organ of the highest power in the basic structure. Managers are appointed by the workers’ committees based on open selection. Matters of leadership are resolved and production directed based on decisions of the workers’ conference or workers’ committees.

5.Yugoslavia’s distribution of income is not like that of a highly centralized economic system in which responsible organs centralize revenue and expenditures. Rather，the direct producers at the basic level of production first jointly exercise authority over direct allocation of income based on what benefits the whole society，eliminating the phenomenon of the “big rice pot” in the distribution of income among production units and individuals. They first make deductions for various social

needs in order to satisfy society’s common needs and fulfill their obligation to society as a whole. They must also observe the standards agreed upon by labor and public organizations as applied to the proportions of individual consumption，common consumption，and the accumulation of funds，in order to guarantee a combination of benefits to individuals，the collective，and society. It is set forth in principle that surplus income from production resulting from superior managerial conditions，market conditions，and other objective factors does not refer to the labor organizations but is allocated to society. Through pricing and taxation policies the state restricts and adjusts the concrete implementation of distribution. Individual income distribution also follows the principle of a combination of achievement in labor and “mutual assistance”. Workers who suffer losses in production for objective reasons are able to collect the minimum legal income from basic consumption funds，and labor organizations suffering losses can collect the minimum legal income from basic reserve funds. All this reflects the socialist character of the ownership of means of production in income distribution.

6.In social realms other than the economic realm，in Yugoslavia—unlike states under conditions of state ownership that have unified leadership in budget allocation and regulated social enterprises—science，culture，health care，social welfare enterprises，and so on，are set up as autonomous beneficial communities by workers in economic and non-economic departments，directly and freely engaged in the exchange of labor. Workers offering services and beneficiaries of services agree on mutual rights and duties on an equal basis through autonomous channels.

7.In the aspect of the extent of state intervention in economic life，Yugoslavia under social ownership differs from the highly centralized administrative management system under conditions of state ownership in that it socializes state power by developing autonomy. However，up to the present the state still uses financial，monetary，and administrative measures to unite labor and funds. These measures not only restrict negative market effects，but also are a necessity in large-scale socialized production at the present stage.

Yugoslavia itself recognizes that its autonomous economic system at the present stage is still limited by various subjective and objective factors and needs continual improvement. In sum，this type of system can cut down on bureaucratism and make the microeconomy active，and it gives all levels of worker organizations（enterprises）a sense of urgency under the pressure of competition. However，if autonomous agreements and social contracts are not carried out successfully，social funds and accumulation cannot be guaranteed. Experience is still being gathered in implementing autonomy on a large scale，and the results of that practical experience is awaited to solve various new contradictions.

Model III，Extreme “left” model. The basic characteristics of MIII include an exaggeration of the function of subjective ideology；acceleration of changes in the lagging state of economic culture and transformation of productive relations；stressing of political goals at the expense of economic efficiency；utilizing political slogans and mass campaigns to accomplish economic construction；belittling the law of value；negating commodity，money，and material interests；suppression of intellectuals，etc. The result of these “left” mistakes in guiding principle has been that some existing drawbacks in the traditional central planning system were not solved. On the contrary，the situation deteriorated，and the national economy became disordered. This model was attempted unsuccessfully in China during the period of the “Leap Forward” in 1958. It was experienced again during the Cultural Revolution. The two painful experiences taught a lesson that need not be repeated here.

Model IV. MIV upholds the principle of central planning with the objective of reforming the targets. Through use of economic levers，organizational institutions can be improved. The German Democratic Republic’s reform belongs to this type. Instead of the term “economic reform”，it uses the term “continuous perfection of the economic system”. It believes that one of the characteristics of a socialist economy is a planned economy. To ensure the enforcement of planning，mandatory planning management must be implemented. Therefore，the prevailing economic system of the German Democratic Republic actually preserves the style in which assignments and mandatory targets are ordered from the top in economic management. The proportion of products produced according to mandatory targets accounts for 70 percent of total output in the national economy. The German Democratic Republic has made substantial improvements in planning work schedules and in the target system，in controlling economic accounting，and，to some extent，in adjusting prices，taxes，credits，and economic levers. Meanwhile，substantial changes have been made in organizational institutions. More than four thousand State-owned industrial and construction enterprises were，based on the relationship between production and sales，trustified into 157 combined enterprises（Kombinat），which eventually absorbed many of the administrative functions of enterprises. Since production in the German Democratic Republic has reached a high degree of concentration，it is believed that under socialism it is not imperative to allow for competition because competition is not the only means to enhance economic interests.

The two reforms of the Soviet Union in 1965 and 1979 were aimed at improving the target series and reorganizing institutions，and thus were ineffective. Andropov intended to make further reforms after he rose to power，but he failed to do so before he died. Chernenko took no new action，and it has yet to be seen what actions Gorbachev will take.

The reforms outlined in the “Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” indicate conceptual advances but still retain the basic elements of the central planning structure. Gorbachev in his political report to the 27th Party Congress said there “must be thorough reform”. He criticized the point of view which slights commodity and money. He brought up increasing the autonomy and responsibility of agriculture and farms，increasing independent activities of joint companies and enterprises，bringing together departments and regions，paying attention to the role of small enterprises，and making the price system more flexible. After the 27th Congress the Soviet Union may take further steps in its economic reforms. If Gorbachev’s instructions for “thorough reform” are carried out，after a period of time there may be a change from model 4 to model 5. However，people are not sure whether this is to be the hoped for turning point for the next reform.

Model V. Model V is an exploratory reform model. It attempts organically to link together central planning management and market functions. In general，the Hungarian economic system belongs to the model. The Hungarians believe that there are many ways to attain the superior effects of a planned socialist economy. Mandatory planning in a vertical administrative system is just one such way. Utilizing commodities and money and employing the market mechanism and economic regulation to animate economic activities，or combining the use of economic means and administrative methods，are other ways to attain the goal. In the Hungarian reforms，the mandatory planning system was boldly eliminated. However，Hungary was very cautious in combining the use of various means of economic regulation to coordinate macroeconomic and microeconomic activities efficiently.

Hungary’s reforms and experiences have received a great deal of attention. From the time it put the new economic system into effect in 1968 on，Hungary has passed through three stages：its “golden age”（1968-1972），a period of instability and of stagnation（1973-1978），and a period of economic reform（1979 to the present）. Here I would like to set aside the particulars and stress the following basic ideas underlying Hungary’s reforms.

1.According to the objective demands of the productive forces，to build a many-layered ownership structure to be maintained under socialist public ownership，by developing a form including many styles of ownership and diverse styles of management as well.

2.To introduce economic regulatory measures in planning management. The Hungarians believe that the top to bottom administrative and command-type planning system of the past is only one economic development planning method；there are many other methods. Eliminating command-type planning is at the core of the reform of Hungary’s economic system. Enterprises set their own plans；the national people’s economic plan is set by mutual exchange of information，consultation，and cooperation between planning organs and enterprises. Planning management makes extensive use of prices，tax revenue，credits（including interest rates），subsidies，wages，etc.，in regulatory measures intended to help the economic activities of enterprises to meet the demands of the economic plan. The Hungarians are studying how to make their plans more comprehensive and to meet social needs，as they search for experience in the comprehensive and flexible use of economic regulatory measures.

3.Enterprises under the leadership of national management have a relatively large degree of autonomy. An important question in Hungary’s economic reforms is how to implement fully the autonomous management of enterprises. Under the new economic system，the government does not intervene in the concrete management activities；enterprises are independent and autonomous in production management. They also have a component of autonomy in terms of property，prices，wages and increasing reproduction. The State emphasizes carrying out long-term and annual forecasts and accounting for the national plan，through the plan itself and through many kinds of economic regulatory measures，organizational structures，and various types of social benefit representative organizations which embody the relations between government and enterprise，allowing enterprises to participate in planning and policy making and providing leadership for the direction and scope of development.

Basically，the Hungarian experience involved developing multiple ownership formations，adopting means of economic regulation in planning management，and giving enterprises more autonomy under the guidance of the State.

In recent years，Romania，Bulgaria，and Poland have also explored possible avenues for reform on the basis of their own characteristics：for example，increasing the autonomy of enterprises in setting and implementing plans；putting into effect the principle of responsibility of enterprises for their own profits and losses；thoroughly carrying out economic accounting by enterprises；putting into effect a relationship between income of the enterprise and labor remuneration on the one hand and the fruits of labor on the other；limiting the scope of central authority by all departments；gradually eliminating the method of unified mixed goods and materials and establishing a more flexible price system，etc. Many theoretical breakthroughs have emerged in the reform processes of these countries.

Recently the pace of the Chinese reforms has exceeded that of some other countries，as have their conscientiousness and intensiveness. Exploration of new avenues for reform havebeen taking place in many aspects of the Chinese economy，from agriculture to industry，from rural areas to urban areas，from production to circulation，from ownership structure to management style，and from micro-initiation to macro-regulation.

The developments in the reforms of the Chinese economic system over the past few years can be summed up in general in the following way：

1.In the area of the structure of ownership，the single system of public ownership that has been inappropriate to the level of development of the productive forces in the past is gradually moving toward the coexistence of various economic forms and management styles based on socialist public ownership.

2.In the area of distribution，the concentrated distribution of the past with unified income and expenditures，“eating from the big pot”，is gradually moving toward a decentralized type of distribution in which rights，benefits，and responsibilities are tied together.

3.In the area of circulation，the single channel is gradually moving toward a system of many channels and few links.

4.In the area of management of macrostructure，the past system of mostly direct control is gradually moving toward a system in which indirect control is the prominent linkage mechanism.

5.In the area of enterprise management，the past system of nondivision of responsibility by government and enterprise，with over unification and inflexible management，is gradually moving toward a system of division of responsibility with increased internal activity and ability to develop the capabilities of enterprises.

6.In the area of economic relations with the outside，the closed-off or half-closed-off economic system of the past is gradually moving toward more openness to the outside world making greater use of international exchange. The goal of reform is to build a thriving economic system. Even if hardships and setbacks are encountered，China’s economic reforms must be carried through.

Points of Comparison in China’s Progress from MI to MV.

Below are several points of comparison between China’s transition from MI to MV and that of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European nations.

1.The philosophic principle “practice is the sole criterion of truth” has proven to be a correct conclusion and it is all the more so as the basic philosophical ideology for China’s economic reforms.

It has been the most important theoretical ideological basis for success in the development of China’s economic reforms. Otherwise，following traditional ideological principlesor going by the book as before，would make such reforms difficult to carry out.

2.At the same time China has been exploring economic reform，it has also been exploring reform of its political system.

For example，it has expended effort in reforming its personnel and legal systems，reforming the policy-making mechanism in its political system，and reforming the relationship between its political and economic structure in order to decrease the intervention of the Communist Party and government organs in daily economic life. I personally think such measures can be considered the fifth modernization，political modernization. This is the premise and the guarantee of economic modernization.

3.China’s large-scale increase in relations with other countries is a bold step in opening its doors to the outside world.

The Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries did not realize this kind of reform. Opening up to the outside may have important influence not only in economics and technology but also can bring radical changes in people’s life styles and ideas. For example，the idea of competition is a challenge to the “big rice pot” and the “iron rice bowl”；ideas of equality are now attacking old feudal ideas and changing the relationship between the leaders and the led. Ideas of efficiency，information，talent，rule by law，etc.，arc all contributing to economic development. This，I think，can be regarded as the sixth modernization，the modernization of ideology. It is an important environmental element in the smooth implementation of economic reform.

4.China has found it necessary to break away from rigid concepts.

Concretely speaking，China has already changed its economic model through the following theoretical breakthroughs. First，it has been accepted that an economic system must be built on a certain level of development of the productive forces and must adapt itself to promote further development. The Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the Twelfth Central Committee meeting of the Chinese Communist Party held in October 1984 pointed out that “reform should be closely linked with social productivity development，which is one of the fundamental points of view of the Marxist world outlook；and the extent of developing social productivity serves as a key criterion in evaluating the success or failure of the reform”. I think that following objective economic laws entails following the law that production relations are tied to the level of the productive forces. The fundamental shortcoming of a rigid economic system lies in its restriction of the development of the productive forces and the prevention of enhancing technological progress and economic efficiency. Reform is not once and for all，since every economic system changes with time. Sound economic reform must meet the requirements of the development of productive forces. In this sense the reforms of the Eastern European countries since the late 1950s are still under way.

Second，decision-making authorities for economic activities cannot be classified by subjective ideologies of human beings. Rather they must meet the objective requirements of complying with the development of the productive forces. It has been shown in many empirical tests that for an entire economic system to be animated，enterprises must possess a high degree of mobility and energy. The reason is simply because enterprises are the direct implementers of industrial and agricultural production and commodity circulation，and are the main force for the development of social productivity and the improvement of economic technology. For social productivity to be fully developed，enterprises must be independent economic entities with managing autonomy，responsibility for profits and losses，and the ability for self-improvement and self-development. To reinforce the vigor of enterprises，as the Chinese Central Committee meeting pointed out，two relationships must be properly maintained，“the relationship between the State and public-owned enterprises in expanding the autonomy of enterprises，and the relationship between employees and the enterprises in ensuring the dominant role of employees in enterprises”. In this regard，Yugoslavia’s autonomy theory and practice，Hungary’s experience in handling the relationship between the government and enterprises，and the experiences of the Western countries in handling the relationship between the government and enterprises are all good examples to learn from.

Third，as the meeting pointed out，“the full development of the commodity economy is a necessary stage for China to achieve economic modernization and product socialization”. The attitude toward the market mechanism must be in accordance with the objective requirements of the development of the productive forces. The existence or nonexistence of a market cannot be affected by ideologies of human beings. Purposefully prohibiting or restricting market mechanisms will be detrimental to the development of the productive forces. The pace of economic reforms of the Eastern European countries must depend on the extent to which they are able to break up the traditional ideologies that are in conflict with a planned commodity economy. Many experiences have shown that the difference between the socialist economy and the capitalist economy lies not in whether the commodity economy exists and the law of value functions but rather in whether the law of value is consciously operated in society and for what production purposes services are provided.

Fourth，the key to successful reform rests on the establishment of a planned economy that operates the law of value consciously. The Chinese Central Committee meeting correctly observed that “implementing a planned economy does not necessarily mean the predominance of mandatory planning，because both mandatory planning and guidance planning are specific forms of planning. Guidance plans are fulfilled mainly by the use of economic levers；mandatory plans have to be implemented，but even then the law of value must be observed”. One of Hungary’s successful experiences has been the breakthrough of the concept of the equality between a planned economy and a mandatory plan and the better utilization of means for regulating an economy.

Fifth，competition does not exist only in capitalism. It is beneficial for the prevention of isolation and monopoly in the development of the productive forces. It can also identify weaknesses of enterprises in a timely fashion so that they can improve their production skills and management. Such competition makes a great contribution to the development of the national economy and socialist enterprises. Of course，some pessimistic phenomena and illegal violations have been observed in these countries，especially in Yugoslavia. But these problems can be solved if actions are taken to fortify economic regulations，increase public and social supervision，and to improve education and management.

Sixth，the implementation of economic reform not only breaks with the old framework of developing a uniform public ownership but also questions the concept that praises the superiority of public ownership in the abstract and not within a given time and space. It also breaks with the old concept that a certain public ownership must be managed by a certain form and even that various ownerships must be managed by certain forms.

In the economic reforms of the Eastern European countries，many efficient reforms of management have emerged. For instance，Romania promulgated a law “on employees’ participation in the ownership of State-run economic units and fund raising for economic development”，which motivates employees to be concerned about their associated enterprises. The management style of the Hungarian national economy and cooperative economy is also diversified.

China’s economic reform efforts will eventually bring a thriving，energetic socialist society after breaking through the restrictions of many mistaken concepts and rigid systems. Of course，reform is a very complicated and exploratory new business. Many concrete practical issues，therefore，need to be investigated further.

附：若干美国学术界对本文的评论

1.美国纽约大学石溪分校社会与行为科学系主任、比较经济学“决策方法”（“DIM”结构）的创立者E.纽伯格：

Dear Professor Jiang Chunze：

Thank You very much for your letter of April 30th and copies of your two papers.I Was very Pleased to receive the papers and to see that you have used some of my ideas in your work；it is always pleasing when other scholars find one’s ideas interesting enough to include them in their own work.As soon as the semester is over and my administrative duties become a little less pressing，I shall read the two papers and provide you with my reactions to them.

I would be pleased to welcome you to Stony Brook when you come to the Kennan Institate.Please contact me at that time，and we can make specific plans for your visit.

Sin Cerely yours，

Egon Neuberger，Dean

Social and Behavioral Sciences

2.美国耶鲁大学教授，20世纪60年代在比较经济学科最早用“现代方法”取代“主义方法”的创始人之一——M.蒙泰斯：

Yale University

June 5，1986

Dear Professor Jiang：

I am sorry that I did not receive your papers until I recently returned from Europe. I do not know now whether my answer will reach you while you are utill in the United States.

I have looked over both the research memorandum on the concept of an economic system and your draft on the Development of Socialist economic models. I liked both，and I’m looking forward to work that will go beyond classification and definition.

I hope you will continue to send me your scholarly.

Contributions in the future.

Sincerely yours，

J. Michael Montias

Professor of Economics

3.美国联合大学教授B.L.雷诺兹（其父亲是美国耶鲁大学经济系主任）：

Dear Jiang Chunze：August 27，1986

I was glad to receive your paper on Comparative

Economic Systems. I read it with interest. I can see that you

have spent a lot of time in intensive study of the major works

in this field. I admire the effort which you have put into this

review.

In the early part of the paper，you try to separate

out the different schools of thought within the field of comparative economics. That’s quite hard to do！ I myself think that the Neuberger-Duffy paradigm（which is a simpler version of the more theoretical Montias approach）is the model which will come to dominate and define the field.

When you discuss“comparative economics”-work by Schultz and others-a name which is missing is Fred Pryor，a professor at Swarthmore College. The characteristic of his work is that he is empirical and quantitative rather than theoretical；he is much more willing to admit the complexity of comparative systems，and to say：well，let’s just study this one area. You might wish to read his book，Comparative Economic Systems：A Guidebook，Published in 1985.

On Page 55 and following，when you chart the five different types of economies（MI，…MV），I’m not sure that I see the relationship between that chart on the one hand and the discussion of china’s economic reforms which begins on page 59.

Well，these are just somescattered comments. I wish you the very best of success in your work here. I can see that when you return to China，you will be the established expert in the field of Comparative Systems！ If you travel in this direction before you leave the country，do stop in Albany and visit us；my wife has many pleasant memories from our friendship in Beijing，as I do.

Sincerely，

Bruce L. Reynolds

4.美国威尔逊国际问题中心凯南研究所所长B.A.鲁布尔：

To：Chunze Jiang　　　　　　Blair A Ruble

Department of Economics，　 Social Science Research council

University of California，　605 Third Avenue

Berkeley，CA 94720　　　　　New York，N.Y.10158

I was very pleased to have been given an opportunity to read your extensive paper “Comparative Economic Systems and the Case of Chinese Economic Structure Reform.” It is a very stimulating work and it demonstrates a lot of effort. I hope it will appear in a form，which will allow more of my American colleagues to read it.

As a political scientist，I feel unqualified to address the points you have raised in your work in any serious manner. I will leave that up to those who are trained to examine comparative economic systems. Nonetheless，from a political science viewpoint，I would have been interested in more discussion of the opposition to reform，in China and elsewhere. Certainly，economic reform has met great resistance in the Soviet Union and I would assume in China as well. It would add greater weight to your observations if you devoted some more space to those concerns as well.

This comment undoubtedly reflects my training in a discipline which dwells excessively upon conflict. It may，for that reason，be unfair. Still，the underlying decisions remain，more often than not，political decisions so that any discussion of economic reform should give the flavor of the politics as well.

I hope that you do not find these comments to be petty and harping. They reflect more upon my own discipline than upon your fine work. I wish you greatsuccess in your pursuit of this topic.

With best wishes.

5.美国伊利诺大学教授E.克莱顿（她主动提出要向美国《比较经济研究》杂志推荐这篇文章）：

From：

Name（clear print）Elizabeth Clayton Title：Professor

Signature：

Address：Soviet Interview Project，325 Coble Hall，Univ of Illinois-UC 61820

To：Chunze Jiang

Department of Economics，University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign，

Box 111，330 Commerce Buillding（West），1206 South Sixth Street Champaign，IL 61820

Your article interested me very much.It presents a perspective that is seldom available to scholars in the United States，and it presents it very well.

I have made a few comments（in pencil）where another phrase of word in English seemed to me to be more appropriate.

Would you consider submitting this to our journal of Comparative Economic Studies. I believe that they might be interested. If you decide to submit your paper，please let me know and I will send my letter of recommendation with it.

6.美国普林斯顿大学社会学系教授G.罗兹曼，他不仅写了长篇的书面评论，而且在他提交日本召开的国际会议的论文中，24个小注中有19个小注引自本文。

Ms. Jiang Chunze　　　Gilbert Rozman

1128 The Alameda　　　Department of Sociology

BerkelyCA94707　　　　Princeton University

6 May 1986

Dear Ms. Jiang：

I am pleased to have been included in the mailing of your paper on socialist economic models. I read the paper and could make many comments about it. Yet，since you will likely receive responses from economists，I think，it would be presumptuous of me to tread on their terrain. Moreover，I am not eager to have my comments on other matters published. I am making them just in the hope that they will be helpful to you in some way.

Your paper impresses me as a summary，and possible reinterpretation，of Chinese writings in recent years on comparative socialism.I would urge you to footnote Chinese sources that also discuss models of socialist economies. In the present draft，you give no indication of the tradition from which you emerge. Of course，if it is inconvenient for a Chinese to cite other Chinese on this topic，then you are the best judge of how to proceed.

The major contribution of the paper is the specification of five models and two pre-models in Figure 1 and pp. 12-36. This is a very clear and useful set of distinctions. I don’t find them at all surprising；the same distinctions without isolating Model 3 from Model 1 and without using the concept of pre-models appear in Chinese writings. Your presentation is the fullest and best explained of those I have seen.

In my 1985 WORLD POLITICS article on Chinese views I distinguish what you call models 2，3，and 5. In my book，THE CHINESE DEBATE ABOUT SOVIET SOCIALISM，1978-1985，forthcoming this fall，I review Chinese views on all but Model 3. At this moment—the day I received your paper—I am in the midst of writing a paper for a July conference in Sapporo，Japan on Chinese views of comparative socialism. I have been thinking about the precise issues which you discuss and will undoubtedly be influenced by your new paper in what I write. May I cite your paper in my own and clearly attribute to you ideas from your paper？

Specifically，I find it interesting that you treat the NEP and War Communism as pre-models；thus limiting their relevance to current reforms. Other Chinese have seemed to weigh the NEP more heavily. Others also seem to see the Soviet Union slower to abandon War Communism after the civil war than you indicate on p. 14. On these and other issues your treatment is most incomplete in discussing the political factors that led to economic system choices.

Second，some of the Eastern European countries in which Model 1 was applied do not fit the conditions identified on p.18. Why？ Did the Soviet Union impose the model on others？

Third，I wonder if Yugoslavia should not be renumbered as Model III and the extreme left as Model II. If you wanted to highlight that the three viable alternatives today are Yugoslavia decentralization，Soviet and East European modified centralism，and Hungarian and Chinese planned commodity economies，you should consider models 2 and 3. Why do you say（p.22）that the theoretical background for Yugoslavia’s reforms is questionable？

Fourth，some Chinese sources have grouped East Europe mostly with the Soviet Union. You group it with Hungary in Model V. Does this reflect shifting views in China since 1984？

Fifth，you neglect to mention comparisons of Model III and the reasons for its emergence. This model is the least explained，but even including it is a step beyond what I have seen in earlier studies from China.

Sixth，you are more cautious in commenting on the prospects for Soviet reform and the results of the 1965 reforms than some other Chinese sources. Chernenko is now being assessed more negatively than when he was in power.

Seventh，mention of the fifth modernization—political Modernization-is important，although you omit comment on what remains to be accomplished.

Your paper is provocative and I have managed here only to comment briefly on points that deserve much discussion. I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you fully，as you suggest.

Sincerely，

Gilbert Rozma

附1：美国《比较经济研究》杂志发表本文时关于作者简介

江春泽是福特基金会驻加利福尼亚大学（伯克利）比较经济学访问教授，来自中国社会科学院世界经济与政治研究所。本文是作者最近对“比较经济模型”的研究。在中国1978年召开的全国理论工作会议上，作者曾经向中国学者提出了这样一种观点：一个模式不可能一直很好地适应世界上所有的社会主义国家，需要对多种模式进行国际比较研究，以便寻找符合自己国情的发展道路。从那以后，作者就致力于研究这一新学科。1985年，她在伊利诺伊大学香槟分校逗留期间用英文写了一篇65页的论文，以与西方学者交换观点。作者非常感谢美国学者对该文草稿的评论，如伊丽莎白·克莱顿教授、詹姆斯·R.米勒教授、唐纳德·R.霍奇曼教授、布鲁斯·L.雷诺兹教授、布莱尔·A.卢布博士（社会科学研究委员会）、乔治·普特南博士生等。根据克莱顿教授的建议，作者将这篇论文提交给了美国的《比较经济学研究》杂志，该杂志一名评论员对这篇论文发表了评论。所有这些评论都有助于作者进行修订，对此她表示感谢。现在，在加州大学伯克利分校，她正在征求格雷戈里·格罗斯曼教授、本杰明·沃德教授、劳拉·泰森教授以及其他同事的意见。同时也愿意听取美国读者的意见。然而，作者请他们记住，本文仅代表一位中国学者在现阶段的观点。改革还在进行中，随着实践的发展，作者的思想认识还会继续发展。

附2：关于本文内容概要的中文说明

本文是作者1984年10月—1986年11月在美国访学期间，用英文撰写的一篇专业论文，以期与西方学术界交流之用。作者运用模式与案例相结合的方法，将现实世界中社会主义经济体制的演变划分成前模式（或称预模式、先导模式）以及模式Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ、Ⅴ。作者对每个模式的基本特征作了概括说明。文中着重阐释了中共十二届三中全会关于经济体制改革决定中对传统观念的突破和在中国实际经济生活中带来的新变化。文章反映了作者当时那个阶段的认识。但模式的划分被西方学者认为具有独创性。伊利诺大学经济学教授E.克莱顿阅后，郑重地推荐到美国的《比较经济研究》杂志于1987年春季版发表。

---

[1] 英文稿：《社会主义经济模式在实践中的发展》（发表在美国《比较经济研究》杂志1987年春季版）。