Issues of Source Studies from the Perspective of “Reform and Opening-Up Policy History”

That the history of reform and opening up will become a growth point in research on the history of the Chinese Communist Party and modern and contemporary Chinese history has in recent years seemed to become a consensus in the academic community. Since it is a “growth point,” this means that this field of inquiry is still in its initial or immature stage. Generally speaking, the rise of a new field of historiography, or the initial uncovering of the history of a given era, first relies on the excavation and use of historical sources, especially primary sources. At the same time, the process of reconstructing historical facts and forming a framework is always accompanied by changes in academic perspectives and theoretical concerns. A series of basic issues—such as what new sources to focus on excavating, whether old sources can be activated, and how to use the various sources collected—all require researchers to possess a certain degree of foresight and acuity; this is the sense of direction in choosing topics. In today’s historiography, the feasibility and operability of academic research are often based on the combination or coordination of sources and topics; indeed, “to a certain extent, the level of research depends precisely on how the author grasps ‘materials’ and ‘topics.’” This is especially true for research on the history of reform and opening up: on the one hand, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC[n] was held only a little over forty years ago, and various materials are actually abundant; on the other hand, the limited openness of archives and the lack of specialized source compilation have created a prominent problem of peripheral sources swelling while core sources are insufficient, leaving many researchers facing a mountain of materials without knowing where to start. Under these conditions, simply relying on common-sense rationality to make crude classifications and search for materials without focus or selection will inevitably yield twice the effort with half the result and leave one without any basis. Therefore, to achieve a substantive breakthrough in research on the history of reform and opening up, it is especially necessary to find a focused direction for source excavation and utilization through topic selection. Based on this, the author does not intend to simply provide a list-like introduction to relevant sources. Instead, according to the overall characteristics of the relevant sources, using a problem-oriented approach, the author will focus on exploring how to further excavate and utilize sources through broadening perspectives and expanding topics, thereby advancing research on the history of reform and opening up. Following this line of thought, this article naturally does not intend to give a general overview of sources covering political diplomacy, social economy, ideology and culture, and other aspects. Instead, it first follows the path of “reform and opening-up policy history” to discuss issues of source studies in the history of reform and opening up at the practical level.

改革开放史将成为中共党史、中国近现代史研究的增长点，近年来似已成为学界共识。既然是“增长点”，那么就意味着此论域尚处于起步或未成熟阶段。大体而言，一个新兴史学领域的崛起或者说对某一时代历史的最初发覆，一般首先仰赖史料特别是一手史料的挖掘和利用。同时，史实重建、框架形成的过程，总是伴随着学术视角、理论关怀的嬗变。重点挖掘什么新史料、能否激活旧史料、搜集到各种史料又如何利用等一系列基础问题，都要求研究者具有一定的预见性和敏锐性，这也就是议题选择的方向感。就今日史学而言，学术研究的可行性、操作性，往往建基于史料与议题的结合或配合，甚至“从某种程度上说，研究水平的高下，正是取决于论著者对于‘材料’与‘议题’的把握方式”。改革开放史研究尤其如此：一方面，中共十一届三中全会距今不过40余年，各种资料实际留存丰富；另一方面，档案开放程度有限、专业化史料整理缺乏，造成周边史料膨胀、核心史料不足的突出问题，很多研究者面对汗牛充栋的资料却无从下手。在这种条件下，仅仅凭借常识理性进行简单分类，无重点、无取舍地找资料，必然事倍功半、无所依归。因此，要实现改革开放史研究的实质性突破，格外需要通过议题选择来找到史料挖掘利用的着力方向。基于此，笔者不拟单纯就相关史料进行罗列式介绍，而是根据相关史料的总体特点，运用问题导向的方式，着力探讨如何依靠视野拓宽、议题增容等进一步挖掘和利用史料，推进改革开放史研究。依此思路，本文自然也不准备将涉及政治外交、社会经济、思想文化等诸层面史料泛泛通讲一遍，而希望首先循着“改革开放政策史”的进路，在实操层面谈谈改革开放史的史料学问题。

I. “Reform and Opening-Up Policy History” as the Intersection of Sources and Topics

一、作为史料与议题交汇点的“改革开放政策史”

Choosing the topic direction of “reform and opening-up policy history” is not only because discussing issues of source studies at the practical level requires a foothold, but also because, in the author’s view, policy history precisely constitutes an intersection of sources and topics in the initial stage of research on the history of reform and opening up.

选择“改革开放政策史”这个议题方向，不仅仅因为在实操层面探讨史料学问题需要一个立足点，更是因为在笔者看来，政策史恰恰构成改革开放史研究在起步阶段里史料与议题的一个交汇点。

Understood literally, “reform and opening up” is a term imbued with strong political connotations and policy direction. Viewed separately, “reform” and “opening up” both fall within the category of what is commonly called “guidelines and policies” in the political sphere. While researchers of Party history certainly cannot simplistically believe that reform and opening up is merely a political process, political change remains the primary factor determining the initiation, development, and subsequent direction of reform and opening up. Therefore, the writing, research, and teaching of the history of reform and opening up are highly political and are often emphasized as having the key characteristic of “providing political reference and educating people.”[n]

由字面理解，“改革开放”是一个蕴蓄强烈政治意涵和政策方向的词汇。分开来看，“改革”和“开放”都属于通常所说的政治领域的“方针政策”范畴。党史研究者固然不能简单认为改革开放只是一个政治进程，但政治变迁仍然是决定改革开放发端、发展及后续走向的第一因素。是故，改革开放史的撰述、研究和教学工作都具有很强的政治性，常常被强调具有“资政育人”的关键特性。

Correspondingly, although research on the history of reform and opening up is still in its initial stage, since the end of the 20th century, with political history research as the forerunner, a certain style has already formed in some sub-fields of the history of reform and opening up. Among these, policy history is relatively prominent, which is largely related to the self-positioning and disciplinary growth background of research on the history of reform and opening up. It should be said that, born in the ongoing tense of the practice of reform and opening up advancing with great strides, this research field took “inquiry into governance” and “policy recommendations” as its basic orientation from the very beginning. Xiao Donglian was among the earliest scholars to engage in the history of reform and opening up, and his recollection of his own academic origins provides a good illustration: “Starting in the 1980s, I began to pay attention to the process of reform and opening up, mainly economic system reform. At that time, reform and opening up had just begun; there was no concept of ‘history,’ only an interest in practical issues. I never expected that this continuous tracking and accumulation would determine the direction of my research.”

与此相应，尽管改革开放史研究尚处起步阶段，但自20世纪末以来，以政治史研究为先导，在改革开放史的一些细分领域业已形成一定风格，其中比较突出的就是政策史，这在很大程度上与改革开放史研究自身定位和学科成长背景有关。应该说，诞生于改革开放实践跨步前行的进行时态中，这个研究领域问世伊始即以“问政”与“对策”为基本取向。萧冬连是最早一批涉预其间的改革开放史学者，他对自己学缘的追忆便是一个很好的诠释：“从1980年代开始，我就关注改革开放进程，主要是经济体制改革。当时改革开放才开始，没有‘史’的概念，只是对现实问题感兴趣。没想到，这一持续的跟踪和积累，为我的研究确定了方向。”

From the perspective of the theoretical significance of the topic, policy history research is highly consistent with the Party’s line and the spirit of the times since reform and opening up. It is generally believed that policy serves as the “connector” or “intermediary” between theory and practice in political life. No political theory, however brilliant, can effectively guide practice without the power of policy. Policy is not an abstract explanation of laws; it is more of a norm for political activities and governance behavior, a lever for the redistribution of political and economic resources, and must take solving problems as its fundamental demand. Since the birth of Marxist theory, how to creatively apply its universal truths to the reality of one’s own country’s revolution has become a major “theme” in the history of the international communist movement and the history of socialist development. Engels once advocated: “The details of policy can vary according to the special circumstances of each country.” Whether in Eastern or Western countries, regardless of whether they are capitalist or socialist, all attach great importance to policy, but few have elevated the importance of policy as high or emphasized it as much as the Chinese Communist Party.

从议题的理论意义来看，政策史研究与改革开放以来党的路线、时代精神高度契合。一般认为，政策是政治生活中理论与实践的“联结器”或“中介”，任何政治理论无论高明与否，欲有效指导实践，均需借助政策的力量。政策并不是抽象的对于规律的阐释，更多的是一种关于政治活动、治理行为的规范，是对政治、经济资源进行再分配的抓手，必须以解决问题为根本诉求。自马克思主义理论诞生之日起，如何将其普遍真理创造性地应用到本国革命的实际中去，就成为国际共产主义运动史、社会主义发展史上的一大“母题”。恩格斯曾倡言：“政策的细节可以根据每一个国家的特殊情况而有所不同。”不管是东方还是西方的国家，无论姓资姓社，都很重视政策，但极少像中国共产党这样将政策的重要性提得这么高、强调得那么多。

For the Chinese Communist Party, formulating and implementing correct policies to solve problems and overcome difficulties is the key to determining the success or failure of China’s revolution, construction, and reform. For a period of time, the importance of policy was greatly subordinated to the personal will of the leader, but since reform and opening up, policy has been given unprecedented importance as a core link in political operations. To some extent, re-emphasizing policy was also a manifestation of bringing order out of chaos[n] in the early days of reform and opening up. The more than forty years since reform and opening up can be called the “era of policy.” Therefore, policy history research has strong comprehensiveness and integrative characteristics at the level of topic setting, which is conducive to researchers grasping the mainstream, main axis, and main line of the history of reform and opening up.

对于中国共产党来说，制定、实施正确的政策，进而解决问题、克服疑难，是决定中国革命、建设、改革成败的关键。在一段时间里，政策的重要性大大让位于领袖个人意志，但改革开放以来，政策作为一个政治运作的核心环节被空前重视起来。在某种程度上，重新强调政策也是改革开放初期拨乱反正的一个表现，改革开放以来的40多年堪称“政策的时代”。所以，政策史研究在议题设置层面具有较强的通贯性和综合性特点，有利于研究者把握改革开放史的主流、主轴和主线。

More importantly, relying on the “baseline” significance of policy in the sources on reform and opening up, researchers can better highlight the academic value of policy history research. In other words, the academic value of policy history research is determined by the actual role of policy in reform practice. The author’s intuitive feeling after reading a batch of relevant sources is that repeatedly emphasizing the role and power of policy as an organizational behavior, rather than one-sidedly highlighting supreme instructions and Chairman’s quotations, is a common characteristic of speeches, statements, and reports by leading cadres after reform and opening up. On July 23, 1980, when Deng Xiaoping heard a report from the Henan provincial leadership in Zhengzhou, he said: “For rural development, two points must be noted. First, the policy must be correct. Policy has great power. With a correct rural policy, the production enthusiasm of farmers can be mobilized.” On March 28, 1986, when meeting with foreign guests, Deng Xiaoping explicitly summarized the reasons for the success of modernization as two conditions and two policies, internal and external: “One is the domestic condition, which is to adhere to the current reform and opening-up policy. If the reform succeeds, it will lay the foundation for China’s sustained and stable development for decades to come. The other is the international condition, which is a lasting peaceful environment. We pursue a foreign policy of opposing hegemonism and maintaining world peace.” Xi Zhongxun, in a suggestion to the central authorities, once stated: “For problems arising in reform and opening up, persist in solving them within reform and opening up, strive to straighten out various economic relations, and fully unleash the power of policy.” In the “Notice of the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council on Approving and Transmitting the ‘Minutes of the Forum on Coastal Cities’” issued on May 4, 1984, the Party Central Committee and the State Council solemnly declared to local leading cadres at all levels: “Do not expect the central government to provide a lot of money; it mainly provides policy.”

更重要的是，依托于政策在改革开放史料中的“基线”意义，研究者可以更好地突出政策史研究的学术价值。换言之，政策史研究的学术价值是由政策在改革实践中的实际作用所决定的。笔者阅读一批相关史料后的直观感受是，反复强调政策这一组织行为的作用、威力而不再片面突出最高指示、主席语录，是改革开放以后领导干部讲话、发言、汇报的一大共性特点。1980年7月23日，邓小平在郑州听取河南省领导班子汇报时即表示：“农村要发展，要注意两点，一是政策要正确。政策威力大，有了正确的农村政策，可以调动农民的生产积极性。”1986年3月28日，邓小平在会见外宾时明确将现代化建设取得成功的原因，概括为内外两个条件、两项政策：“一个是国内条件，就是坚持现行的改革开放政策。如果改革成功，会为中国今后几十年的持续稳定发展奠定基础。还有一个是国际条件，就是持久的和平环境。我们奉行反对霸权主义、维护世界和平的外交政策。”习仲勋曾在给中央的一个建议中谈道：“对改革、开放中出现的问题，坚持在改革、开放中解决，努力理顺各种经济关系，充分发挥政策威力。”在1984年5月4日下发的《中共中央、国务院关于批转〈沿海部分城市座谈会纪要〉的通知》里，党中央、国务院更是向地方各级领导干部郑重表态：“不能指望中央拿很多钱，主要是给政策。”

However, as a field of study where issues and historical source materials converge, policy history research is currently not well regarded by the academic community. In previous studies of the history of reform and opening up, there have in fact been many that broadly touched on policy history issues, but in-depth and detailed research is quite lacking. Most related works use relatively thin and monotonous historical sources, with content basically revolving within the framework of “meetings—documents” and “policy—implementation.” This kind of policy evolution history is considered prone to “falling into a simple re-narration of mountains of documents, seas of meetings, and the ideological viewpoints of leaders,” giving people a dry and superficial impression. Consequently, although research on the history of reform and opening up has made progress in recent years, the proportion of political history research, including policy history, has declined, with the focus seemingly shifting toward social economy, popular culture, foreign relations, and other areas. This situation is not a favorable signal for the history of reform and opening up, whose basic framework is still under construction.

但是，作为议题与史料交汇点的政策史研究，时下并不为学界所看好。以往改革开放史研究中笼统涉及政策史议题者其实不少，但深入、翔实的研究则很缺乏。大多相关著述使用的史料较为稀薄、单一，内容基本在“会议—文件”“政策—执行”的框框里打转，这类政策演变史被认为容易“陷入文山会海和领导人思想观点的简单再叙述”，给人以枯燥、浮泛之感。于是乎，改革开放史研究近年虽有进展，但包括政策史在内的政治史研究比重已有所下降，视点似已向社会经济、大众文化、对外关系等方面转移，这种情况对基本框架尚在构建中的改革开放史并非利好信号。

Based on this, the author intends to combine theoretical argumentation with examples to strive to demonstrate how, along the approach of “reform and opening-up policy history,” one can open up the space for issue discussion, find directions for collecting historical sources, and thereby achieve mutual coordination and stimulation between historical sources and issues.

基于此，笔者拟以论理和举例相结合的方式，努力论证沿着“改革开放政策史”进路如何打开议题论域空间、找到史料搜集方向，进而实现史料与议题的相互配合与促动。

II. Extension and Expansion—Activating “Basic Historical Sources”

二、延伸拓展——激活“基础史料”

Although the field of research on the history of reform and opening up currently lacks universally recognized essential historical sources, it has accumulated a large number of “basic historical sources” related to important issues. These mainly include the following three categories: first, works by leaders (including some separate editions of selected expositions), biographies, chronicles, memoirs, etc., compiled by Party history and documentary work departments and related institutions; second, some important collections of documents and materials; third, newspaper and periodical materials.

尽管改革开放史研究领域目前尚缺乏公认的必读史料，但已积累了一大批关涉重要议题的“基础史料”，主要包括以下三类：一是党史和文献工作部门及相关机构编撰的领导人著作（包括一些单行本论述摘编）、传记、年谱、回忆录等；二是部分重要文件集和资料集；三是报刊资料。

However, constrained by the shortage of first-hand procedural historical sources, especially core archival historical sources, it is still very difficult for researchers to rely solely on these three categories of historical sources to focus on the political operations and decision-making processes at the central level using traditional event-history methods. This not only leads to a lack of substantive progress in related research but also results in the basic historical sources that are close to political issues being generally left idle. Faced with this situation, relevant researchers could, on the basis of previous policy history research, on the one hand, lengthen the time span of research, extending forward and backward, placing policy evolution within a longer historical context, thereby grasping the connections and ruptures in the policy-making process before and after, and forming a complete understanding of major “policy chains”; on the other hand, broaden the research perspective, paying attention to “policy clusters” that match and balance each other in the same period. After all, reform policies are often not introduced as isolated content but appear in the form of a “set of policies.” Only by grasping the relationships and connections between policies can a comprehensive understanding of the “policy network” be formed. Following this path, researchers might avoid the difficulty of relying on basic historical sources to concretely verify the details of high-level government affairs activities, and instead make full use of basic historical sources in a broader space of issues, striving to maximize their historical value. This could help change the previously criticized linear narrative model of “policy—implementation” in policy evolution history.

然而，受制于一手过程性史料特别是核心档案史料不足的问题，研究者仅仅依托这三类史料，以传统事件史方式集中讨论中央层面的政治运作和决策过程等还很困难。这不仅仅导致相关研究缺乏实质性推进，更导致与政治问题贴近的基础史料总体处于闲置状态。面对此状况，相关研究者或可在以往政策史研究的基础上，一方面拉长研究的时间断限，向前后时段延伸，把政策演变置放于更长时段的历史脉络里，进而把握前后定策过程中的衔接与断裂问题，形成对重大“政策链条”的完整理解；另一方面拓宽研究视野，关注同一时期相互匹配、相互平衡的“政策群”，毕竟改革政策的出台常常不是一项孤立的内容，往往以“一组政策”的形式问世，只有把握政策间的关系、关联，才能形成对“政策网络”的全面理解。循此路径，研究者或许能避开依靠基础史料具体考证高层政务活动细节的难处，在更广阔的论题空间里充分利用基础史料并极力发挥其史学价值，这有助于改变过去政策演变史被人诟病的“政策—执行”线性叙事模式。

As for how to find basic historical sources and achieve effective use, here is an example to illustrate. For instance, when a researcher considers the highly concerned issue of price reform, what historical sources are available when high-level archives are not easily accessible?

至于如何找到基础史料并实现有效利用，此处试举一例加以说明。比如，当研究者考虑备受关注的价格改革问题，在高层档案不易查阅的情况下有哪些史料可供利用？

According to the classification criteria of the three categories of materials mentioned earlier, the first category is published documents related to leaders. The relevant historical materials of Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Ye Jianying, Li Xiannian, Peng Zhen, Yang Shangkun, Hu Yaobang, Wan Li, Yao Yilin, Song Ping, Xi Zhongxun, Wang Zhen, Yu Qiuli, Song Renqiong, Ulanhu, Wang Renzhong, Hu Qiaomu, Gu Mu, Fang Yi, Kang Shien, Yuan Baohua, Xue Muqiao, and others all involve price reform or price issues to varying degrees from different angles. Among them, the materials of Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Li Xiannian, Hu Yaobang, Yao Yilin, Kang Shien, Yuan Baohua, and Xue Muqiao are particularly abundant.

依前文所说三类材料之划分标准，第一类即与领导人相关的已刊文献。邓小平、陈云、叶剑英、李先念、彭真、杨尚昆、胡耀邦、万里、姚依林、宋平、习仲勋、王震、余秋里、宋任穷、乌兰夫、王任重、胡乔木、谷牧、方毅、康世恩、袁宝华、薛暮桥等人的有关历史资料，均从不同角度或多或少涉及价格改革或物价问题。其中，邓小平、陈云、李先念、胡耀邦、姚依林、康世恩、袁宝华、薛暮桥等人的资料尤多一些。

The second category, collections of documents and materials, is actually divided into three types. The first is the most common comprehensive document compilations edited by Party history and documentary work departments, such as *Selected Important Documents Since the Third Plenary Session* [n4], *Selected Important Documents Since the Twelfth National Congress*, *Selected Important Documents Since the Thirteenth National Congress*, *Selected Important Documents on Economic System Reform in the New Period*, *Selected Important Documents on the Thirty Years of Reform and Opening Up*, etc. These collections of documents and materials are held in many university libraries and public libraries. The second is specialized collections of documents and materials compiled by central and local price departments, such as *Compilation of Price Statistics Documents (1978–1987)* (China Statistics Press, 1988) edited by the Urban Sampling Survey Team of the National Bureau of Statistics, *Selected Price Documents (1979–1983)* (China Financial and Economic Publishing House, 1986) edited by the Price Research Institute of the State Price Bureau, *Compilation of Small Commodity Price Documents* (China Financial and Economic Publishing House, 1987) edited by the Light Industrial Products Price Department of the State Price Bureau, *Compilation of Hubei Commercial Price Documents* (printed in 1979) edited by the Price Office of the Hubei Provincial Revolutionary Committee Commercial Bureau, etc. Some of these collections of documents and materials are stored in university libraries, some can be found in the reference rooms of local development and reform commissions, price and commerce departments, and a few are available for sale on second-hand book websites or in second-hand book markets. Third, a few collections of materials personally edited by leading cadres and scholars have high value, such as *Advancing Amidst Storms: A Chronicle of China’s Development and Reform (1977–1989)* compiled by Fang Weizhong, former deputy director of the State Planning Commission. Although called a “chronicle,” it is actually a compilation of materials. Among the leaders’ speeches and meeting minutes selected in this book, there is considerable content related to the top-level design of price reform policies. This set of books has been used by some researchers in the past and is also held in some research institutes and university libraries.

第二类文件集和资料集实际分为三种。首先是最常见的由党史和文献工作部门编纂的综合性文件汇编，如《三中全会以来重要文献选编》《十二大以来重要文献选编》《十三大以来重要文献选编》《新时期经济体制改革重要文献选编》《改革开放三十年重要文献选编》等，这类文件集、资料集在很多大学图书馆、公共图书馆里均有收藏。其次是中央和地方物价部门编纂的专业性文件集和资料集，如国家统计局城市抽样调查总队编《物价统计文件汇编（1978—1987）》（中国统计出版社，1988年）、国家物价局物价研究所编《物价文件选编（1979—1983）》（中国财政经济出版社，1986年）、国家物价局轻工产品价格司编《小商品价格文件汇编》（中国财政经济出版社，1987年）、湖北省革命委员会商业局物价处编《湖北商业物价文件汇编》（1979年印行）等。这些文件集、资料集一部分藏于高校图书馆，有一些在地方发改委、物价和商务部门的资料室里能找到，还有个别在旧书交易网站、旧书市场有售。再次，少数领导干部及学者个人编辑的资料集具有较高价值，如原国家计委副主任房维中编撰的《在风浪中前进：中国发展与改革编年纪事（1977—1989年）》，名为“纪事”实则资料汇编。在该书选编的领导人讲话、会议记录中，有不少内容涉及价格改革政策的顶层设计问题。这套书籍过去有部分研究者使用过，部分科研院所和高校图书馆里也有收藏。

The third category, newspaper and periodical materials, is also divided into two types. The first is financial and economic newspapers and periodicals focusing on issues related to price reform, such as *Economic Research Reference Materials*, *Price Theory and Practice*, *Price Monthly*, *Economic Research*, *Planned Economy Research*, *Finance and Trade Front*, *Market*, *China Finance and Trade News*, *China Farmers’ News*, *World Economic Herald*, *Economic Reference*, etc. In these newspapers and periodicals, in addition to relevant news reports, there are also many internal speeches, theoretical articles, research materials, and experience sharing for reference by leading cadres and theoretical workers at the time. For example, *Price Theory and Practice*, a professional academic journal on prices sponsored by the China Price Association, contains a large amount of precious materials on price reform. The editorial department of this journal also organized the compilation of *Major Events in Prices (December 1978–1985)*, which directly excerpted many first-hand historical sources. The second type is various common newspapers and periodicals, from the central to the local level. Since prices are a topic of great concern to the public, from Party newspapers and journals at all levels to morning and evening newspapers, one can find an exceptionally rich array of price materials. These include not only commodity price information related to people’s livelihoods, but also price policies and corresponding explanatory articles, and even a large amount of social conditions and public opinion published in the form of journalist interviews and letters from the masses. These bottom-up social feedbacks on price policies, although integrated and processed by journalists and editors, still retain a large amount of vivid and sharp authentic content. Currently, newspaper and periodical materials generated after reform and opening up are generally regarded as “easily accessible historical sources,” because in addition to the newspaper and periodical materials in various electronic databases, libraries at all levels also hold a large number of newspapers and periodicals. As long as researchers are willing to put in some legwork, they can “follow the clues.” The specialized publications mentioned earlier are held in many university and research institute libraries, and a few that are hard to find can be obtained by seeking help from local government officials in the financial and economic sectors or through private channels for purchase or reproduction.

第三类报刊资料也分两种。第一种是关注价格改革相关问题的财经类报刊，如《经济研究参考资料》《价格理论与实践》《价格月刊》《经济研究》《计划经济研究》《财贸战线》《市场》《中国财贸报》《中国农民报》《世界经济导报》《经济参考》等。在这些报刊中，除了相关新闻报道外，还有不少供当时领导干部、理论工作者参考的内部讲话、理论文章、调研资料、经验分享等。譬如，由中国价格协会主办的价格专业学术期刊《价格理论与实践》即有大量关于价格改革方面的珍贵资料，该刊编辑部还组织编写了《物价大事记（1978年12月—1985年）》，直接摘编了不少一手史料。第二种是从中央到地方的各种常见报刊。由于物价是民众十分关心的话题，所以从各级党报党刊到晨报晚报，均能看到异常丰富的物价资料，其中既有与民生息息相关的商品价格讯息，也有物价政策及相应解读文章，甚至还有大量以记者采访、群众来信等形式登载的社情民意。这些自下而上对价格政策的社会反馈，虽已经过记者、编辑的整合、加工，但还是保留了大量鲜活而犀利的真实内容。目前，改革开放后生成的报刊资料一般被视为“易见史料”，因为除了各种电子数据库里的报刊资料，各级各类图书馆也都藏有大量报刊，研究者只要愿意费些脚力就能“按图索骥”。前文提到的专业性刊物在不少高校和科研院所图书馆均有收藏，少量不好找的报刊则可求助地方政府财经口的干部或通过民间渠道购买、复制。

Ultimately, the three categories of historical sources mentioned above can be accessed with just a little “manual and physical effort.” It is a pity that in the past they have not been truly excavated and utilized by the Party history academic community. By synthesizing these historical sources, lengthening and broadening the scope of investigation, and conducting in-depth research oriented toward “policy chains” and “policy networks,” it is entirely possible to better construct the overall process of the deliberation, introduction, implementation, feedback, revision, re-feedback, and promotion of price reform policies and measures since reform and opening up.

说到底，以上三类史料只需略微“动手动脚”就能看得到，惜乎过去并未得到党史学界的真正挖掘和利用。而综合这些史料，拉长、拓宽考察视域，朝向“政策链条”“政策网络”展开深入研究，完全可以更好地建构起改革开放以来物价改革方针政策的酝酿、出台、落实、反馈、修正、再反馈、推广的整体过程。

This scholarly approach aligns well with the strong continuity characteristic of policy history research itself. By continuity, I mean a focus on exploring the policy threads woven by various political forces, rather than taking specific events or the activities of particular individuals as the point of investigation. From this perspective, the bottleneck in research on price reform lies precisely in the issue of “threads.” Broadly speaking, price reform—a historical topic that has already received considerable attention—has long revolved around the question of who was right or wrong among the leadership around the time of the “price breakthrough” [5]5 The “price breakthrough” (价格闯关) refers to the attempt in 1988 by the central leadership under Zhao Ziyang to rapidly liberalize most state-controlled prices, which triggered panic buying and severe inflation, leading to a policy reversal and contributing to the political crisis of 1989. in the late 1980s, leading to highly repetitive discussions in various related works. Because the antecedents and consequences are poorly understood, some economics researchers seem only able to offer a broad theoretical framework, one that neither touches on the deeper policy logic nor explains what is distinctive about China’s price reform. Some of the current cursory narratives give readers the impression that the policy tools used in China’s price reform were essentially no different from those in Eastern Europe, and that they once suffered setbacks on the issue of the price breakthrough. Consequently, many people to this day cannot clearly explain a series of basic questions: what was the relationship between price reform and the earlier economic readjustment? What was the actual social impact of price policies? How did the contradiction between price reform and price stabilization intensify and then resolve? How did the corresponding policy adjustments unfold after the unfavorable price breakthrough?

这种治学思路与政策史研究本身通贯性较强的特点相契合。所谓通贯性，即侧重于探讨各种政治合力构造的政策脉络，而不以特定事件或人物活动为考察的着眼点。由此来看，价格改革相关研究的瓶颈就在“脉络”问题上。大体而言，价格改革这个过去已受到较多关注的历史议题，其实长时间在20世纪80年代后期价格闯关前后领导层孰是孰非的层面上打转，各种相关著述的讨论高度重复；由于对前因后果不甚了了，部分经济学研究者似乎也只能给出一个宽泛的理论框架，既未触及深层的政策逻辑，也未回答中国的价格改革到底有何特点。目前的一些粗略叙事，给读者的感觉是价格改革所使用的政策工具与东欧的改革似无本质区别，且在价格闯关问题上一度遭遇挫败。因此，很多人至今说不清到底物价改革与前期的经济调整是什么关系、物价政策的实际社会影响如何、价格改革和稳定物价之间的矛盾是怎样加剧又如何化解的、价格闯关不利后的相应政策调适如何展开等一系列基本问题。

Based on my earlier reading and collation, relying on this foundational body of historical sources, it is entirely possible to extend the perspective upward to the price policy issues in the economic readjustment process of the early reform and opening-up period, and downward to the price policy issues in dealing with inflation in the mid-1990s. In this way, one can see that, in the process from price adjustment to the price breakthrough to curbing inflation, the policy chain of price reform over more than a decade contains a hidden thread—a so-called “triangular balance” issue: the dynamic balance among three elements—basic stability of market prices, ensuring social stability and unity, promoting production development, and improving the people’s living standards—but with the balance tilting slightly toward the first two directions, meaning the central authorities’ primary concern was to ensure price stability and social stability. At the same time, the perspective of the “policy network” can also help researchers gain a deeper understanding of the internal logic of policy change. If one focuses on price reform between 1979 and 1981, one can see that the central authorities initially launched a package of policies: rectifying the prices of consumer goods raw materials, revising service fee standards, restoring market trade and negotiated purchase and sale of three categories of agricultural and sideline products [6]6 “Three categories of agricultural and sideline products” (三类农副产品) refers to the third and least controlled category in the planned economy’s classification system for agricultural goods, which were subject to negotiated rather than state-set prices., and granting enterprises certain self-marketing rights and pricing powers. During implementation, these policies showed considerable mutual contradictions, triggering inflation, which led the central authorities to reintroduce policies such as “freezing prices,” “recentralizing power,” and “suppressing non-state-owned enterprises.” For example, policies such as shutting down unplanned cigarette factories and gradually establishing a tobacco monopoly system were introduced against this backdrop. However, policies like “freezing prices” were not aligned with the general direction of other reform policies in the same period, so the “freezing” policy was subsequently withdrawn in a timely manner. From this perspective, when researchers connect the vertical policy chain, it becomes easier to see the political logic behind the reforms of this period.

根据笔者前期的阅读、整理，依托这批基础史料，完全可以将视点上探至改革开放初期经济调整过程中的价格政策问题，下探至20世纪90年代中期应对通货膨胀的价格政策问题，如此就能看到在从价格调整到价格闯关再到治理通货膨胀的过程中，十几年间的价格改革政策链条有一条隐线即一个所谓的“三角平衡”问题——市场物价基本稳定、保证社会安定团结、促进生产发展和改善人民生活水平这三者的动态平衡，但其中的平衡略略向前两个方向倾斜，即中央首先要保证的是物价稳定和社会稳定。与此同时，“政策网络”的视角还能够帮助研究者更深入地理解政策变迁的内在逻辑。如果关注1979年到1981年间的价格改革，可以看到中央一开始推出的就是整顿消费品原材料价格、修订服务性收费标准、恢复集市贸易和三类农副产品议购议销、给予企业一定自销权和定价权等一揽子政策，这些政策在落地过程中出现较多相互抵牾之处，引发通货膨胀，导致中央重新祭出“冻结物价”“上收权力”“抑制非国有企业”等政策，譬如关停计划外烟厂、逐步建立烟草专卖制度等政策就是在这样的背景下出台的。但是，“冻结物价”之类的政策与同一时期其他改革政策的大方向并不契合，所以“冻结”政策随后适时退出了。由此来看，当研究者把纵向的政策链条联系起来时，就更容易看出这一时期改革背后的政治逻辑。

In summary, by extending and broadening the research horizon and adopting the perspective of the “policy chain” and “policy network” to conduct a more detailed and in-depth sorting of the ins and outs of major and minor policies, one can substantially activate the foundational historical sources, thereby offering new and substantive responses to various historical and theoretical questions.

概言之，通过延伸和拓展研究视域，以“政策链条”“政策网络”的视角围绕大小政策来龙去脉作出更翔实、深入的梳理，将大幅度激活基础史料，从而对各种历史和理论问题作出新的、实质性的回应。

III. Vertical Descent—Accumulating Local Archives

三、纵向下沉——厚积地方档案

The above discussion has addressed how the state of historical sources constrains research on the high-level decision-making process during the reform and opening-up period. However, this does not mean that research on “political processes” or “policy processes” should be neglected. In fact, if researchers shift their focus slightly, they will find a vast expanse opening before them. If one “descends” a little in research approach, one will discover a sea of local historical sources available for use. For example, corresponding to the three categories of foundational sources, leading cadres at various local levels have published many personal biographies, memoirs, and collected works; local newspapers and periodicals naturally contain much valuable information; and the various compilations of materials edited by local Party history, local chronicles, and archives departments include not only a large number of transmitted copies of central documents but also precious materials such as documents, reports, speech transcripts, and meeting minutes formed during the local implementation of various policies. In addition, local archives at various levels have already opened some archives from the early reform and opening-up period to the mid-1990s, among which the archives related to policy history are the most voluminous. Therefore, on the premise of a solid grasp of comprehensive materials, if one turns the research spotlight onto the local arena and conducts empirical research on a large scale using local first-hand historical sources represented by original archives, one will see the “political pioneering front” [7]7 “Political pioneering front” (政治开拓面) is a term used by the author to denote the zone of political interaction where central policies meet local social realities, generating new political dynamics and possibilities. where the policies and principles of the state and the political power truly come into contact with society, thereby more fully revealing the depth of history. Of course, this kind of research centered on the process of “local decision-making” and “policy linkage,” while related to general local history, is not a single-point approach; rather, it particularly emphasizes a multi-layered, radiating research path.

上文谈及史料状况制约了改革开放时期高层决策过程的研究，但这并不意味着就应该忽视“政治过程”“政策过程”等方面的研究。其实，研究者适当将视点偏移，就会发觉眼前一片开阔。如果在研究思路上稍稍“下沉”，即会发现有海量地方史料可供使用。譬如，与三类基础史料相对应，地方各级领导干部出版过很多个人传记、回忆录、文集，地方报刊自然也存有很多有价值的信息，而地方党史、方志、档案等部门编纂的各种资料集既有大量中央各种文件的传达稿，也有各种政策在地方落实过程中形成的文件、报告、讲话稿、会议纪要等珍贵资料。此外，各级地方档案馆已经开放了从改革开放初期到20世纪90年代中期以前的部分档案，其中涉及政策史的档案数量最巨。因此，在切实掌握全局性资料的前提下，把研究的聚光灯打到地方场域，规模利用以原始档案为代表的地方性一手史料展开实证研究，则会看到国家、政权的方针政策与社会真正碰触后的“政治开拓面”，从而将历史的纵深更充分地展现出来。当然，这种围绕“地方决策”“政策联动”过程的研究与一般地方史虽有关联，但并不是单点式的，而是特别强调多层次、辐射型的研究进路。

To take another example, the reform of the agricultural production responsibility system in the 1970s and 1980s, especially the policy of establishing and promoting the household contract responsibility system, was a landmark event of reform and opening up. Related research is among the most abundant and mature in the field of reform and opening-up history. Many prior studies have provided good explanations of the policy logic of China’s rural reform, outlining the basic thread of how the household contract system went from emergence to becoming a national policy orientation and finally being promoted nationwide. However, from the perspective of local decision-making and policy linkage, this historical issue still has many aspects that can be uncovered. Broadly speaking, in the current narrative of rural reform history, related research is highly concentrated on a few pioneering reform areas such as Anhui Province. Although some researchers have tried to probe into personnel interactions and policy exchanges, the explanation of the basic thread still largely remains within the general framework of “individual breakthrough—central recognition—comprehensive follow-up.” This explanation is reasonable but lacks a sense of layering, because it does not clearly explain the similarities and differences in the policies of various provinces during the initial stage of reform and the political considerations behind them, nor what the central authorities saw in the differentiated local experiences that led them to make their choices, among a series of other issues. Although the academic community broadly acknowledges that “the main experience of China’s rural reform was provincial-level decision-making,” research on provincial-level decision-making is extremely scarce. If the issue of the policy direction of rural reform is merely condensed into whether leading cadres supported the household contract system, drawing a line between “reform” and “conservatism,” then this narrows the vision of rural reform history research and cannot adequately explain the causes behind the “three rural issues” [8]8 “Three rural issues” (三农问题) refers to the interrelated problems of agriculture, rural areas, and peasants (farmers) in China, a standard shorthand in Chinese policy discourse. after the policy was rolled out.

同样举例来说，20世纪七八十年代的农业生产责任制改革，特别是确立和推广家庭联产承包责任制的政策，是改革开放的一个标志性大事，相关研究算是改革开放史领域最丰硕、成熟的，不少先行研究对中国农村改革的政策逻辑也作出了较好解释，勾勒出了包产到户从出现到成为国家政策导向，最终推向全国范围的基本脉络。但如果从地方决策、政策联动的角度看，这一历史问题依然存在诸多可发覆之处。大体而言，在目前的农村改革史叙事中，相关研究高度集中于安徽等个别改革先导区，一些研究者虽力图在人事往还、政策交互上加以追问，但对基本线索的解释仍大体停留于“个别突破——中央认可——全面跟进”的一般性框架。这种解释是有道理的，但不够有层次感，因为并没有讲清楚改革起步期各省政策的异同及其背后的政治考量，以及中央从差异化的地方经验中到底看到了什么进而做出选择等等一系列问题。学界虽宽泛认同这一时期“中国农村改革的主要经验是分省决策”，但省级决策的相关研究极为稀缺。如果把农村改革的政策走向问题仅仅浓缩为领导干部是否支持包产到户并以“改革”“保守”划线，那么就窄化了农村改革史研究的视野，无法很好地解释政策推开后“三农”问题背后的因缘。

I have previously attempted a concrete investigation of the situation in Shandong Province. Although the opening status of archives at various levels within the province varies, they still provide a vast number of accessible archives. Among them, the quantity of historical sources that can help researchers understand the partial decision-making processes of local Party committees and governments at various levels is very considerable, such as records of provincial Party standing committee democratic life meetings, records of local Party standing committee meetings in some cities and counties, minutes of cadre meetings of Party committees and governments at various levels, speech transcripts of local leaders at various levels, and work report materials with detailed accounts of policy interactions. At the same time, among the transmitted copies of central documents held in local archives, there are also a considerable number of meeting minutes and transmitted copies of leaders’ speeches. Coupled with various internal publications and compilations edited by central and provincial organs, as well as some personal historical materials of local cadres (such as diaries and work notes), researchers can actually grasp a sufficient volume of first-hand historical sources. Judging from the types and content of these historical sources, taking the provincial and prefectural (city) levels as the vantage point to examine local decision-making processes, policy exchanges between the central and local levels, and top-down policy implementation is relatively appropriate and effective.

笔者先前曾尝试对山东省的情况进行具体考察。省内各级档案馆虽开放状况不一，但还是能提供可查阅的海量档案，其中能帮助研究者了解各级地方党委、政府局部决策过程的史料数量非常可观，譬如省委常委会民主生活会记录、部分市县的地方党委常委会记录、各级党委政府干部会议纪要、地方各级领导人讲话稿及对政策互动有详细记述的工作汇报材料等。同时，在地方档案馆所藏中央文件的传达稿中，亦有相当数量的会议纪要和领导人讲话传达稿，再加上中央、省等相关机关编辑的各种内部刊物、资料集及部分地方干部个人史料（如日记、工作笔记等），研究者实际上就能掌握足够体量的一手史料。从这些史料的类型、内容来看，以省、地（市）两级为视点考察地方决策过程、中央地方政策往还以及自上而下的政策落实等问题是相对合适且有效的。

During this period, the author had one greatest feeling: when studying issues such as local decision-making and policy coordination after reform and opening up, special attention must be paid to the multi-layered and diversified nature of historical sources. This not only determines the height and upper limit of research but also directly affects whether the research can even cross the threshold. Because in the complex process of rural reform, on issues such as whether to implement household contract responsibility system [9]9 The household contract responsibility system (包产到户) was a rural reform measure that contracted land to individual households, linking output to reward, a key step in dismantling the collective farming system. and the all-round contract system [10]10 The all-round contract system (大包干) was a more thorough form of household contracting where households assumed full responsibility for profits and losses, famously summarized as “hand over what the state needs, keep enough for the collective, and the rest is your own.”, the policy signals from the central authorities for a long time were not so positive, and local leaders’ responses and statements on different occasions varied greatly. If one only seizes part of the materials to organize and combine them, it often leads researchers directly to erroneous judgments. For example, if one only looks at speeches by leaders at various levels on formal occasions, some local “experience bulletins,” and articles in Party newspapers like *Dazhong Daily* (these materials are also considerable in volume), researchers can easily conclude that cadres from the Shandong Provincial Party Committee down to county Party committees generally adopted a passive attitude on rural reform, with only a few cadres like Heze Prefectural Party Committee Secretary Zhou Zhenxing being reformers who “though thousands of people oppose me, I go forward” [11]11 “Though thousands of people oppose me, I go forward” (虽千万人吾往矣) is a classical Chinese allusion from *Mencius*, expressing unwavering resolve in the face of overwhelming opposition., thereby confirming the “reform/conservative” dichotomy theoretical framework of some previous writings. But in reality, in the early 1980s, central leaders repeatedly affirmed Shandong’s implementation of the agricultural production responsibility system. Various investigation materials generated at the county and township levels presented a situation where multiple forms of production responsibility systems “competed in splendor,” and Zhou Zhenxing and others were promoted and given important positions very early on. Therefore, even if researchers cannot see the records of the democratic life meetings [12]12 Democratic life meetings (民主生活会) are regular intra-Party criticism and self-criticism sessions required under the Party’s organizational life system. of the provincial Party committee standing committee and the diaries of some leading cadres, they must still use materials such as meeting minutes, briefing materials, and internal journal articles to discover that, on the one hand, the Shandong provincial Party committee leadership adopted a cautious attitude on promoting the household contract system; the Party newspapers and journals often mechanically copied and transferred some central statements, were cautious in related debates, and did not get too involved. On the other hand, in the name of implementing the production responsibility system, they promoted and gave important positions to Zhou Zhenxing and others, allowed various prefectures and cities to choose different forms of responsibility systems according to their respective economic development levels, avoided the controversy over the household contract system, encouraged all localities to develop in depth in terms of specific quality and efficiency improvements, and achieved substantial results in increasing agricultural output and farmers’ income.

在此期间，笔者有一个最大的感受：研究改革开放以后的地方决策、政策联动等问题，要特别注意史料的多层次、多元化，这不仅决定着研究的高度和上限，而且直接影响研究是否能够跨过门槛。因为在农村改革的复杂过程中，对于是否要搞包产到户、大包干等问题，中央在很长时间里给出的政策信号并不那么积极，地方领导人在不同场合的回应和表态差异也很大，如果只抓住部分材料加以整理、组合，常常会让研究者直接得出错误判断。例如，如果只看各级领导人场面上的讲话、一些地方上的“经验通报”和类似《大众日报》等党报上的文章（这些材料体量也不小），研究者就很容易判定从山东省委到县委的干部在农村改革问题上普遍采取消极态度，只有菏泽地委书记周振兴等个别干部是“虽千万人吾往矣”的改革先驱，然后印证既往一些著述里“改革/保守”二分法式的理论框框。但实际上，20世纪80年代初，中央领导人对山东在落实农业生产责任制的问题上曾多次给予肯定，县乡生成的各种调查材料呈现多种生产责任制形式“竞相争艳”局面，周振兴等人也很早就得到提拔重用。那么，即便研究者看不到省委常委民主生活会记录和部分领导干部日记，也得通过一些会议纪要、汇报材料、内刊文章等材料，才能发现山东省委领导层一方面在推动包产到户问题上采取持重态度，党报党刊常常对中央的一些说法采取拿来主义式的搬运腾挪，在相关争论中态度谨慎，并不过多涉入；另一方面则以落实生产责任制为名义，对周振兴等人给予提拔重用，允许各地市依据各自经济发展水平选择不同形式责任制，避开包产到户的争议，鼓励各地在具体提质增效方面向纵深处发展，在农业增产、农民增收上取得较多实效。

Continuing to expand the scope of historical sources and discussion around the issue of policy coordination in rural reform, researchers can further see that, apart from Anhui Province, the process of provinces relaxing the household contract system roughly occurred in three batches. The first wave included provinces and regions such as Guizhou, Gansu, Yunnan, Shandong, Henan, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, and Ningxia. The second wave included Hubei, Jiangxi, Hebei, Shanxi, Guangdong, Fujian, Hunan, Jilin, Zhejiang, and other provinces. The third wave included Jiangsu, Heilongjiang, and other provinces, as well as the three municipalities directly under the central government: Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai. If one continues to investigate, one will find that there is a certain staggered relationship between the time when provinces relaxed the household contract system and the process of implementing it. That is, although some provinces and regions relaxed the household contract system later, after the turn, they exerted great force and speed in promoting it. For example, Shanxi, a province in the second wave, was the birthplace of “learning from Dazhai in agriculture” and “Dazhai experience” [13]13 “Learning from Dazhai in agriculture” (农业学大寨) was a Mao-era campaign promoting the Dazhai production brigade in Shanxi as a model for self-reliant, collectivist agriculture, which became a political orthodoxy that rural reform had to break away from.. Its rural reform started at a slower pace and was criticized by the central authorities, but after the provincial Party committee leadership was reshuffled, it quickly and comprehensively promoted the household contract system. Based on earlier experience in searching for historical sources, although the openness of most provincial-level archives is limited, many city- and county-level archives have opened some archives related to rural reform in accordance with regulations.

继续围绕农村改革的政策联动议题扩大史料和讨论的范围，研究者就能进一步看到，除安徽省外，各省份放开包产到户的进程大致分三个批次。第一波是贵州、甘肃、云南、山东、河南、辽宁、内蒙古、宁夏等省区；第二波是湖北、江西、河北、山西、广东、福建、湖南、吉林、浙江等省；第三波则为江苏、黑龙江等省及京、津、沪三个直辖市。如果继续追索，则会发现各省放开包产到户的时间和推行包产到户的进程之间存在一定的错落关系，即部分省区放开包产到户虽晚一点，但转向后在推广问题上力度大、速度快。例如，第二波放开省份中的山西是“农业学大寨”“大寨经验”的发源地，农村改革起步节奏较慢，曾受到中央批评，但在省委领导层改组后，很快就全面推开包产到户。根据前期史料搜求经验来看，尽管多数省级档案馆开放程度有限，但不少市、县级档案馆已依规开放部分农村改革相关档案。

The policy changes related to the responsibility system reform and their implementation are also a holistic, multi-layered issue. In the past, many historical accounts focused more on rural reform and paid less attention to the details of urban enterprise reform, easily giving people a misunderstanding that urban reform, especially enterprise reform, before 1984 was very limited. In fact, as long as one collects local archives related to responsibility system reform along this line of thought, it is not difficult to see that, driven by the reform effect of breaking through the “learning from Dazhai in agriculture” framework in rural areas, urban enterprises in this period no longer unilaterally emphasized the “politics in command” experience of “learning from Daqing in industry” [14]14 “Learning from Daqing in industry” (工业学大庆) was a parallel Mao-era campaign promoting the Daqing oil field as a model for industrial development emphasizing political mobilization and self-reliance., and carried out extensive enterprise production responsibility system reforms at the policy level. The expansion of historical sources has thus brought about a “chain reaction” in topics. It was precisely through reading archives related to rural reform in Heilongjiang Province that the author noticed that in this province “not so active about the household contract system,” cities such as Harbin, Qiqihar, and Jiamusi promoted the responsibility system reform of local industrial enterprises with great enthusiasm. Sometimes, city and provincial leaders even cited the effects of rural reform policies from other provinces and cities as references, showing the subtlety of the “local decision-making” and “policy coordination” process.

责任制改革相关的政策变迁及其落实，也是一个全局性、多层次的问题。过去不少史述更多关注乡村改革，对城市企业改革相关细节的观照偏少，容易给人一种误解，亦即1984年之前的城市改革特别是企业改革的作为非常有限。实际上，只要沿此思路搜集责任制改革相关地方档案，就不难看到在乡村地区突破“农业学大寨”框框的改革效应带动下，这一时期的城市企业也不再片面突出“政治挂帅”的“工业学大庆”经验，在政策面进行了广泛的企业生产责任制改革。史料的开拓就是这样带来了议题上的“链式反应”。正是通过阅读黑龙江省农村改革相关档案，笔者注意到在这个“对包产到户不那么积极”的省份里，哈尔滨、齐齐哈尔、佳木斯等地市以很高热情推动了当地工业企业的责任制改革，甚至省市领导在改革中不时以其他省市农村改革政策的效果作为援引，可见“地方决策”“政策联动”过程之微妙。

Therefore, with the expansion of perspectives and the further excavation and utilization of local archival historical sources, more original research on responsibility system reform will surely emerge. Some researchers worry that mainly using local archives to conduct research on responsibility system reform can easily lead to redundant construction and fragmentation of research. Such concerns are largely unnecessary, because for the study of the history of reform and opening up, which still has very thin accumulation, what is precisely needed is first to generate a few focused academic topics. The issue of responsibility system reform, which has had relatively more accumulation in the past, is precisely such a proposition with great development potential and theoretical coverage capacity. Viewing the emergence, development, and mutual driving process of rural and urban reform from the perspective of “local decision-making” and “policy coordination” is actually a direct response to holistic theoretical reflections such as “marginal revolution” [15]15 “Marginal revolution” (边缘革命) is a concept used by some scholars to describe reform initiatives that originated from grassroots or peripheral actors rather than central state planning, often associated with the work of economist Ronald Coase. and “effective government.” It helps researchers understand old issues more deeply through focus, and also extends more new topics through focus (such as the aforementioned “three-wave theory” and “staggered theory”).

因此，随着视角延展和地方档案史料的进一步挖掘、利用，必将有更多关于责任制改革的独创性研究。有研究者担心主要用地方档案从事责任制改革方面的研究，容易重复建设且造成研究的碎片化。这种忧虑大可不必，因为对积累还十分单薄的改革开放史研究而言，恰恰需要的是先产生几个聚焦式的学术议题。过去相对有较多积累的责任制改革问题，便是其中很有发展潜力和理论涵盖能力的命题。从“地方决策”“政策联动”的角度去看农村、城市改革的发生发展与相互拉动的过程，其实是对“边缘革命”“有为政府”等整体性理论思考的直接回应，在聚焦中帮助研究者更深入地理解老问题，又在聚焦中引申出更多新议题（譬如前述“三波论”和“错落论”）。

Compared with related research on economic policy changes such as the reform of the agricultural production responsibility system and the establishment of the socialist market economy system, such focused topics in many fields such as politics, society, and culture are almost entirely in a state of “virgin land.”

相较农业生产责任制改革、社会主义市场经济体制建立等经济政策变迁方面的相关研究，在政治、社会、文化等诸多领域，这样的聚焦性议题几乎还处于彻底的“处女地”状态。

IV. Horizontal Integration — Incorporating “Peripheral Historical Sources”

四、横向汇通——兼容“周边史料”

As discussed above, there is a phenomenon of “expansion of peripheral historical sources” in the field of research on the history of reform and opening up. The “peripheral historical sources” here do not refer to “alternative” historical sources distinct from the various historical sources discussed earlier, but rather those relatively scattered sources that seem difficult to use in a concentrated manner. A large number of “peripheral historical sources” exist in all types of historical sources mentioned earlier, and most of the historical sources on reform and opening up that can be seen today probably belong to “peripheral historical sources.” However, “peripheral historical sources” are not necessarily “secondary historical sources” that only serve as icing on the cake. Through accurate positioning and appropriate combination, they can also play a key role in advancing the study of the history of reform and opening up. Some “peripheral historical sources,” if fully excavated and matched with suitable topics, can even be transformed into “core historical sources.” Then, following the research approach of “policy history of reform and opening up,” how can one find and make good use of these “peripheral historical sources”? The author believes the key lies in leveraging the comprehensive advantage of policy history research, combining it with other research approaches to form academic “integration.”

诚如上文所论，改革开放史研究领域存在“周边史料膨胀”的现象。这里的“周边史料”，并非指区别于前论各种史料之“另类”史料，而是指那些相对零散且看起来不易集中使用的史料。前文提及的各类史料里均存在大量“周边史料”，且目下能看到的改革开放史料恐怕大多属“周边史料”。但是，“周边史料”并不一定是只起锦上添花作用的“次要史料”，通过准确定位、适当组合，也会对改革开放史研究的推进发挥关键作用，甚至某些“周边史料”如能得到充分挖掘并与合适议题搭配起来，还可以转化为“核心史料”。那么，顺着“改革开放政策史”的研究取径，又如何找到、用好这些“周边史料”呢？笔者认为关键在于发挥政策史研究综合性强的优势，同其他研究进路结合起来，形成学术“汇通”。

One possible path is to converge with the history of institutions. My appreciation of this approach comes directly from my current investigation into the issue of institutional reform from 1982 to 1988. My original intention was to examine the functions of the State Council during the early period of reform and opening up from the perspective of institutional history. However, in the process of collecting and reading historical sources, I came to feel that this period was an “explosion” of institution-building, with changes occurring so rapidly that they could be described as changing with each passing day. As for the core issue of the leadership system within the State Council’s functions, first-hand historical materials on the details are not abundant. Therefore, persisting in describing and analyzing the procedures and forms of institutions would likely be time-consuming and laborious, yet still miss the key points and make it difficult to establish an argument. At the same time, during this explosion of institution-building, the functional issues of various levels and departments all involved multiple parallel or somewhat hierarchically staggered institutions, and did not appear in a single form. Researchers can probably only understand and grasp the thinking and logic behind the institutions more accurately within an “institutional cluster.” Clearly, general institutional history research struggles to effectively explain some interesting or puzzling issues concerning the functions of the State Council system during this period. “Policy” is precisely the intersecting zone and connecting link between institutions. When the researcher shifts the entry point to discussing the State Council’s institutional reform during this period, it becomes possible, through the processual study of policy history, to bring into the scope of discussion such matters as the first- and second-line leadership system, the relationship between the Secretariat and the State Council, the establishment of State Council organs, the State Council’s deliberative and coordinating mechanisms, the cadre selection and appointment system, the cadre retirement system, and the economic management system, and to control the depth of discussion according to the state of the materials.

一个可能的路径是与制度史的汇通。对这一门径的体会，直接源于笔者近期正着手考察的1982年到1988年的机构改革问题。笔者最初的意图是从制度史角度考察改革开放初期国务院的机构职能，但在搜集、阅读史料的过程中，深感这段时间是一个制度建设的“爆发期”，各种变动堪称日新月异。而关于国务院机构职能中最核心的领导体制问题，细部的一手史料并不充裕，故而执着于描摹、分析制度的规程、形态，恐怕费时费力后却遗漏关节、难以立论。与此同时，在制度建设的爆发期里，各级各部门的职能问题都会涉及多项平行或有一定层次错落的制度，并不以单一形式出现，研究者恐怕只有在“制度丛”里才能更加准确理解和把握制度背后的运思与逻辑。显然，一般的制度史研究很难有效解释当时国务院系统机构职能方面一些有趣或有疑的问题点，而“政策”恰恰是制度间的交错地带与联系纽带。当研究者把切入角度变成讨论这一段时间的国务院机构改革时，则能通过政策史的过程性研究，将当时一二线领导体制、书记处与国务院关系、国务院机构设置、国务院议事协调机制、干部选拔任用制度、干部离退休制度、经济管理体制等统一纳入讨论范畴，且根据材料状况分别掌握讨论的深度。

To explore these issues, one naturally relies on the various historical sources mentioned earlier. Overall, the policy authority for organizational and personnel matters involved in institutional reform is generally highly centralized, and the degree of openness of relevant archives is relatively low. However, precisely because institutional reform has the attribute of top-down centralization and unification, the core documents are not complex, and the relevant inclusions in document collections and source compilations already account for a relatively large proportion. In local archives, what is mainly worth paying attention to are more often various cases and feedback reflecting policy effects. Therefore, when examining institutional reform policy issues from the perspective of institutional history, one should first collect various types of document collections and source compilations, especially those compiled by Party and government organs at various levels on relevant specialized topics and departmental matters, such as *Selected Documents on Organizational Work* (compiled and printed by the General Office of the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, printed in 1985), *Selected Documents on Organs, Staffing, and Systems* (Labor and Personnel Publishing House, 1986), and *Selected Documents on the Institutional Reform of the Ministry of Communications* (People’s Communications Publishing House, 1990). The volume of such materials is actually not small; as far as I can see, there are nearly a hundred volumes, but the content is somewhat repetitive. At the same time, around the two large-scale institutional reforms of 1982 and 1988, internal publications such as *Circular on the Situation* (Qingkuang Tongbao) and *Internal Reference* (Neibu Cankao) sporadically published some leaders’ speeches and research reports on related topics, providing considerable introduction and analysis of institutional functions, departmental relations, staffing and personnel, cadre adjustments, and the progress of institutional reform. Some of these materials can be regarded as processual historical sources.

要探讨这些问题，自然需要仰赖前文提到的各种史料。总体上看，机构改革所涉组织人事问题的政策权限一般高度集中，相关档案的开放程度较低，但正因机构改革具有自上而下集中统一的属性，核心文件并不繁复，文件集、资料集的相关收录已占较大比重。在地方档案中，主要值得关注的更多是各种体现政策效果的案例和反馈。是故，结合制度史视角考察机构改革政策问题，应首先搜集各类文件集和资料集，特别是各级党政机关编纂的相关专题、部门性质的文件集，如《组织工作文件选编》（中组部办公厅编印，1985年印行）、《机构、编制、体制文件选编》（劳动人事出版社，1986年）、《交通部机构改革文件选编》（人民交通出版社，1990年）等。此类材料体量实际不小，目力所及已近百部（册），但内容重复稍多。同时，在1982年、1988年两次大规模机构改革前后，《情况通报》《内部参考》等内刊零散刊载了一些相关主题的领导人讲话、调研报告，对机构职能、部门关系、编制人事、干部调整和机构改革开展等情况有不少介绍和分析，其中有部分资料可被视为过程性史料。

On this basis, when researchers continuously focus on the issue of institutional reform, they will notice a large body of “peripheral historical sources” of considerable scale and special nature, namely various reference books and encyclopedic works related to issues such as institutional staffing. From the late 1980s to the turn of the century, driven by considerations such as promoting the legalization and standardization of the work of Party and state organs, improving cadres’ professional competence, external propaganda, or even generating revenue for units, central and local Party and government organs compiled a large number of reference books and encyclopedic works. These are voluminous and diverse in name, and often appear to lack authority due to mutual “borrowing.” However, in reality, such books preserve a large number of policy and normative documents related to institutional and systemic work. In particular, many of the selected documents are operational procedures and work rules intended for cadres in relevant institutions. Some documents specifically list various positive and negative experiences and examples from organizational and personnel departments and handling personnel during the process of institutional reform, which can supplement the aforementioned document collections and source compilations. Based on my observations, libraries at all levels and of various types usually hold many such large-format reference books and encyclopedic works, which are rarely borrowed on ordinary days. They are also often available for sale in local book markets and on second-hand book websites, but they attract little interest. This stands in stark contrast to the current fervent pursuit of various document collections and source compilations. If researchers are willing to spend time collecting and browsing through them, they may make unexpected gains.

在此基础上，当研究者持续关注机构改革问题时，会注意到还有一批规模很大、性质特殊的“周边史料”，即各种与机构编制等问题相关的工具书和类书。自20世纪80年代末到世纪之交，出于推动党和国家机关工作的法制化与规范化、提高干部业务能力、对外宣传甚或单位创收等考量，中央和地方党政机构曾编纂大量工具书和类书，卷帙浩繁、名目繁多，甚至常常因互相“借鉴”而看起来缺乏权威性，但实际上这类书籍里保存有大量有关体制机制工作的政策性、规范性文件，特别是其中所选文件很多是给相关机构干部看的操作规程和工作守则，有些文件专门列举组织人事部门、经办人员在机构改革过程中的各种正反面经验、事例，可补前述文件集、资料集之缺。据笔者所见，各级各类图书馆通常藏有很多这种大部头的工具书和类书，平日借阅者寥寥；在各地书市、旧书交易网站上也多有售卖，但往往无人问津。这与当下各种文件集、资料集受到热烈追捧形成鲜明对比。研究者如愿花时间搜集、翻阅，当有意外收获。

Here, I will briefly discuss the convergence of policy history with intellectual and cultural history, as well as the history of social mentality. Overall, the convergence between them can proceed along two paths: inward and outward. Inwardly, one can trace the intellectual resources behind policies and the value orientations and political psychology of cadres in the decision-making process. Outwardly, one can observe the impact of policies on popular mentality and social trends of thought, that is, to explore the social repercussions of policies, which overlaps to some extent with social history research.

此处再简单谈谈政策史与思想文化史、社会心态史的汇通。总体看来，它们之间的汇通可以沿着内外两种方式展开：向内用力追索政策背后的思想资源及决策过程中干部的价值取向和政治心理；从外部观察政策对大众心态、社会思潮的影响，即探讨政策的社会反响，这与社会史研究存在一定交集。

If this approach is to be truly implemented in research practice, several types of historical sources deserve special attention. First, diaries, notes, and letters written by individuals since reform and opening up. Historical researchers usually place great importance on first-hand historical sources such as diaries, but materials related to the history of reform and opening up still lack systematic organization, and the diaries of key figures in the reform process are particularly scarce. Therefore, the diaries of ordinary cadres and the masses often become scattered, underutilized “peripheral historical sources.” Of course, some cadres’ diaries have already been published both domestically and internationally. So far, I have read more than twenty diaries, including those of Sun Qi, former chairman of the Liaoning Provincial Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference; Han Zhengqing, former member of the Standing Committee of the Gansu Provincial Party Committee; and Song Shuyuan, a “local scholar” from Zuoquan County, Shanxi Province. The vast number of diaries and notes manuscripts scattered among the people still await researchers’ excavation. As for the even larger volume of personal letters, related compilation and publication work is very limited, requiring researchers to search among the people. Second, newspapers and periodicals sponsored by Party and government organs at various levels and social organizations since reform and opening up contain a large number of news reports, interview materials, and letters from readers reflecting social conditions and public opinion. The content is exceptionally rich and nuanced, with *Guangming Daily*, *China Youth Daily*, *China Youth*, and *Chinese Women* being particularly noteworthy. At the same time, internal publications run by Party and government organs (mainly at the central and provincial levels) contain a large number of investigation reports reflecting the thoughts and attitudes of cadres and the masses, with content that is generally in-depth and incisive. Additionally, among the records of letters from the masses and visitor records held in local archives, there is a wealth of important historical sources reflecting policy effects and social psychology. Some archives have already classified some letters and visitor records as open archives, which researchers can attempt to consult. Third, the vast amount of video and audio materials officially and unofficially recorded since reform and opening up, especially news documentaries, documentaries, and television programs, contain numerous interviews with ordinary cadres and the masses regarding the implementation of policies. Although some are specially arranged organizational activities, there are still many genuine expressions of thought and emotion. Based on my preliminary impressions from reading newspapers and periodicals and watching videos, the social conditions and public opinion presented by these two types of media naturally share commonalities, but there are also certain differences. Fourth, various literary works, represented by new poetry, contain a large number of depictions, reflections, and metaphors concerning the political and economic realities of the reform and opening-up era. This is also a kind of intellectual “echo” in response to reform and opening-up policies. Recently, I have not only read some Misty Poetry but also some “doggerel” written by ordinary cadres and the masses, and I deeply feel that “using poetry to verify history” is equally applicable in the study of the history of reform and opening up.

如果想让这一取径在研究实践中真正落地，有几类史料值得特别关注。一是改革开放以来个人撰写的日记、笔记、书信等。历史研究者通常都高度重视日记等一手史料，但涉及改革开放史的相关材料还缺乏整理，改革进程中关键人物的日记更是异常稀缺。因此，一般干部群众的日记就常常成为零散分布、少有利用的“周边史料”。当然，其中也有部分干部的日记已经在海内外出版。目前笔者已读过辽宁省政协原主席孙奇、甘肃省委原常委韩正卿、山西省左权县“乡土学者”宋树元等人的日记20余部；而散落在民间的海量日记、笔记手稿尚待研究者挖掘；至于体量更大的个人书信，相关的整理出版工作很少，需要研究者在民间寻觅。二是改革开放以来各级党政机关、社会团体主办的报刊，其间也有大量反映社情民意的新闻报道、访谈资料和读者来信，内容异常丰富、细腻，其中《光明日报》《中国青年报》《中国青年》《中国妇女》等尤其值得关注。同时，党政机关（主要是中央、省级）所办内部刊物中有大量反映干部群众思想心态的调查报告，内容普遍深入而犀利。另外，在地方档案馆所藏群众来信及来访记录的内容中，也有大量反映政策效果、社会心理的重要史料，一些档案馆已把部分来信和来访记录划入开放档案范围，研究者可以尝试查阅。三是改革开放以来官方和民间摄录的海量影像、音频资料，特别是新闻资料片、纪录片、电视片里有大量围绕政策落实情况对一般干部群众的采访，虽有部分是专门安排的组织行为，但其中依然有很多思想、情感的真实流露。根据笔者前期读报刊、看视频的直观感受，这两类媒介所呈现的社情民意当然有共性，但也有一定差异。四是以新诗为代表的各种文学作品里也有大量对改革开放年代政治、经济现实的描摹、感怀及隐喻，这也是一种针对改革开放政策的思想“回音”。笔者近期不仅阅读了一些朦胧诗，而且阅读了部分普通干部群众写的“打油诗”，深感“以诗证史”在改革开放史研究中同样适用。

Liang Qichao once said: “Those who engage in scientific research, whether in the natural or social sciences, all rely on objectively obtainable materials as their objects of study. The simpler and more fixed the materials, the easier the establishment of that science; the more the opposite, the more difficult it becomes.” The study of the history of reform and opening up, still in its initial stage, faces a scale and complexity of historical source materials unprecedented in the past. To lay a foundation for this emerging field of research, it is necessary to make preparations in the study of historical sources based on the characteristics of the relevant sources of this era. How specifically to prepare? It is to coordinate historical sources with issues, and to find a sense of direction for excavating sources through the selection and取舍 of issues. Policy history is not only theoretically conducive to researchers grasping the mainstream of the new period of reform and opening up, but also a substantive “baseline” in the jungle of historical sources. Therefore, this article advocates following the research approach of “reform and opening-up policy history,” adhering to the principle of problem-orientation and reviewing the old to know the new, and advancing the work on historical sources for the study of reform and opening-up history from three aspects: first, extending the time limits of research, examining policy changes from the perspective of “policy chains” and “policy networks,” and activating “basic historical sources”; second, appropriately lowering the viewpoint, focusing on issues of “local decision-making” and “policy linkage,” and accumulating a large amount of local original archives; third, horizontally establishing points of connection with other research approaches, integrating “policy history” with institutional history, intellectual and cultural history, and social history, and fully accommodating the “peripheral historical sources” of various schools.

梁启超曾言：“治科学者，无论其为自然科学，为社会科学，罔不恃客观所能得之资料以为其研究对象。而资料愈简单、愈固定者则其科学之成立也愈易，愈反则愈难。”尚在起步阶段的改革开放史研究，所面对的史料体量规模和复杂程度均超以往。若欲为此新兴研究领域奠定基础，须根据此时代相关史料特点在史料学上做好准备。具体怎么准备？就是要将史料与议题加以统筹，通过议题选择和取舍来找到史料挖掘的方向感。而政策史既在理论上有利于研究者把握改革开放新时期的主流，也是史料丛林中实实在在的“基线”。是故，本文主张循着“改革开放政策史”研究进路，坚持问题先导、温故知新的原则，从三方面推进改革开放史研究的史料工作：一是延伸研究断限，从“政策链条”“政策网络”的角度审视政策变迁，激活“基础史料”；二是适当下移视点，关注“地方决策”“政策联动”问题，大量积累地方原始档案；三是横向与其他研究取径建立议题的联结点，将“政策史”与制度史、思想文化史、社会史加以汇通，充分兼容各家“周边史料”。

In summary, from the perspective of “reform and opening-up policy history,” researchers can see that the guidance of issues may activate various existing historical sources, while the expansion of sources in turn breeds new topics. Therefore, the entanglement over which is substance (体) and which is function (用) between issues and historical sources is of little practical significance. The two are not a relationship of binary opposition and simple cooperation; they often interpenetrate each other and serve as both substance and function for one another. Thus, to truly realize the mutual complementarity of historical sources and issues, to genuinely integrate the two historical threads of theory and practice, and to explore the historical logic of governance, the key step probably lies in measuring and grasping the subtlety between this “substance” and “function.”

综上所述，在“改革开放政策史”的视野下，研究者可以看到议题的导引可能激活各种存量史料，史料的开拓又繁育出新的话题。所以，议题与史料孰为体、孰为用的纠结实际意义不大，二者不是两端对持、简单合作的关系，常常是相互浸润、互为体用的。因此，要真正实现史料与议题的相辅相成，将理论与实践两条历史脉络真正融汇，探寻治国理政的历史逻辑，恐怕关键一着便在于度量、把握这“体”“用”之间的奥妙。

(Author’s bio: Zhao Nuo, tenured associate professor at the School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者简介：赵诺，北京大学马克思主义学院长聘副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心