Progress and Prospects in the Construction of a Theoretical System for Humanistic Economics

Since General Secretary Xi Jinping raised the important proposition of studying “humanistic economics” during the 2023 National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference sessions, with reference to Suzhou and Hangzhou, two historically renowned cities characterized by economic development and cultural prosperity, humanistic economics has attracted high-level attention from China’s academic community. Scholars have gradually undertaken the construction of a theoretical system for humanistic economics, shaping its intellectual framework and disciplinary structure through research and discussion on fundamental issues ranging from theory to practice. In fact, this is also an important step in the systematization and theorization of humanistic economics research. Judging from existing research results, scholars have primarily conducted preliminary discussions on the basic features, theoretical connotations, systematization and theorization, and concrete practices of humanistic economics, and have achieved a series of important academic insights and outcomes, laying a solid foundation for in-depth research on humanistic economics and for better advancing the construction of humanistic economics with Chinese characteristics.

自2023年习近平总书记在全国两会期间就苏州和杭州这两座经济发达、文化繁荣的历史名城提出了研究其中的“人文经济学”重要命题之后，人文经济学引起我国学术界的高度关注。学者们逐步开展人文经济学的理论体系建构，通过对其从理论到实践的基本问题的研究讨论形塑其思想框架与学科体系。事实上，这也是人文经济学研究体系化学理化的重要一步。从已有的研究成果看，学者们主要对人文经济学的基本特征、理论内涵、体系化学理化建构及其具体实践等问题进行初步讨论，并取得一系列重要的学术认知与学术成果，为人文经济学的深入研究、更好地推进中国特色社会主义的人文经济建设打下良好基础。

I. Basic Features of Humanistic Economics

一、人文经济学的基本特征

As an entirely new academic proposition, the first issue to be addressed in the process of constructing a theoretical system for humanistic economics is the discussion of its basic features. Scholars have debated its research object, disciplinary attributes, research methods, and fundamental nature.

人文经济学作为一个全新的学术命题，在理论体系构建过程中首先要面对的问题就是对其基本特征的讨论。学者们针对人文经济学的研究对象、学科属性、研究方法及基本性质等方面进行讨论。

(1) The Research Object and Disciplinary Attributes of Humanistic Economics

（一）人文经济学的研究对象与学科属性

The research object of a discipline is often related to its disciplinary attributes; similarly, the research object of humanistic economics is closely tied to its disciplinary attributes. On this point, scholars have analyzed and discussed it from their respective perspectives. Based on the existing literature, these perspectives can be broadly divided into three types: economics, humanities, and civilizational studies. Among scholars who consider humanistic economics to belong to the discipline of economics, it is seen as a new economic system with a people-centered orientation, humanistic concern, and humanistic consciousness, established on the basis of developing Marxist political economy and breaking through capital-centered Western economics, thereby negating the economic assumption of “rational man.” On this basis, Luo Weidong argues that humanistic economics is an economics that takes the development, prosperity, and well-being of all people as its research object, focusing on the fundamental purpose of “the needs of all people” and the corresponding modes of wealth production, accumulation, and distribution. Bai Yongxiu et al. further point out that these needs can be divided into material needs and spiritual-cultural needs, because economic prosperity is never merely an increase in material wealth, but also an elevation of people’s spiritual realm, such as moral standards and cultural cultivation. This relationship of coordinated development and common prosperity between the material and the spiritual must be expressed through more equitable distribution relations that promote common prosperity and guarantee people’s subject position in the processes of social production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. This requires that the research object of humanistic economics be people’s position, needs, and common prosperity in socio-economic activities.

一个学科的研究对象往往与其学科属性有关，同样，人文经济学的研究对象也与其学科属性息息相关。关于这一点，学者们分别从各自的视角出发予以分析讨论。从目前已有的文献看，大体上可将其分为经济学、人文学和文明学三种类型。在认为人文经济学属于经济学学科的学者们看来，人文经济学是在发展马克思主义政治经济学和突破以资本为中心的西方经济学的基础上，对“理性人”的经济学假设进行否定而创立的一种以人民为中心的具有人文关怀与人文意识的新经济学体系。正是在这个基础上，罗卫东认为，人文经济学是以全体人民的发展、富裕和幸福为研究对象的经济学，它聚焦于“全体人的需要”这一根本目的，以及与之匹配的财富生产、积累和分配方式。白永秀等进一步指出，这种需要可以分为物质需要和精神文化需要，因为经济繁荣绝不只表现为物质财富的增加，还表现为道德水准、文化素养等人的精神境界的提升。这种物质与精神协调发展、共同繁荣的关系要表现在以更合理的分配关系促进共同富裕，以及保障人在社会生产、分配、交换和消费过程中的主体地位上，这就要求人文经济学的研究对象是人在社会经济活动中所处的地位、需求及共同富裕。

Beyond economics, some scholars approach humanistic economics more from a humanities perspective, arguing that although it studies economic phenomena and economic issues, it is not confined to the purely economic sphere. For instance, Sun Ruru contends that within the existing economic system, humanistic reflection remains in a subordinate position. From the perspective of its intellectual origins, humanistic economics, which draws from Marxist philosophical thought and traditional Chinese philosophical thought, should more appropriately be placed within the category of philosophy, as this offers greater suitability and rationality for understanding, differentiating, and developing humanistic economics based on contemporary Chinese cultural practice. From this angle, it can be judged that humanistic economics is a theory studying the coordinated development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress in contemporary China. Su Zhenyuan, from the perspective of cultural philosophy, argues that cultural products are special commodities bearing specific cultural concepts, whose ideological attributes are closely linked to their industrial attributes. Therefore, humanistic economics must conduct in-depth research on how to achieve the coordinated development of cultural undertakings and the cultural industry, study and understand the laws of the socialist cultural market, and construct a humanistic economic system that upholds the primacy of social效益 [n1] while unifying economic and social benefits, in order to better promote the prosperity and progress of socialist culture.

而在经济学之外，一些学者更多地以一种人文学科的视角来看待人文经济学，认为人文经济学虽然研究的是经济现象和经济问题，但不限于纯粹的经济学范畴。比如，孙茹茹认为，从现有的经济学体系看，人文思考仍然处于从属地位。而从其思想源流来看，来自马克思主义哲学思想和中国传统哲学思想的人文经济学更应被纳入哲学范畴，其对基于当代中国文化实践理解、辨析和发展人文经济学具有更高的适配性和合理性。从这个角度出发可以判断，人文经济学是研究当代中国物质文明和精神文明协调发展的理论。苏振源从文化哲学的角度出发，认为文化产品是一种承载特定文化理念的特殊商品，其意识形态属性与产业属性紧密相连，因此人文经济学要对如何使文化事业与文化产业协调发展进行深入研究，研究理解社会主义文化市场规律，为驾驭文化市场、壮大主流文化阵地构建坚持社会效益第一性、经济效益与社会效益相统一的人文经济体系，更好地推动社会主义文化的繁荣进步。

In addition to the perspectives of economics and the humanities, some scholars, starting from the connotation of humanistic economics as “the economization of culture and the culturalization of the economy,” argue that humanistic economics has multiple dimensions. For example, Chen Lixu points out that the research object of humanistic economics is humanistic economy itself, and humanistic economy is not confined to a single dimension; in fact, the interaction between the humanistic and the economic exists across multiple dimensions. Analyzing humanistic economy must avoid one-sidedness, and humanistic economics cannot simply take one of these multiple dimensions as its research object, but must focus on the whole and the system. Chang Xiuze argues that humanistic economics must not only integrate with humanities and social sciences such as literature, history, philosophy, sociology, and law, but also focus on the economic process itself; therefore, it can neither transcend economics nor be narrowed down to cultural economics. However, the problem is that if the rich connotation of humanistic economy is explained only from the economic category, it will likewise be narrowed down to cultural economics or a humanistic economic analysis, while allowing multiple disciplines to explain it separately makes it difficult to form a system. This calls for the emergence of a new interdisciplinary field. Fan Hao points out that humanistic economics should be a kind of civilizational studies; it is not any existing discipline, but a civilizational studies of the integration of the humanistic and the economic. By constructing an ecology of dialectical integration between the humanistic and the economic, it lays the foundation for modern Chinese civilization and Chinese-path modernization. In other words, the object of humanistic economics is the dialectical interaction between economy and culture, or, put differently, how to construct China’s modern civilization. In fact, research on humanistic economics from the perspectives of economics and the humanities has already begun to require avoiding one-sided determinism by either culture or the economy. Luo Weidong recognizes that humanistic economics cannot be separated from its matrix in philosophy (ethics); it is a discipline situated between positive economics and philosophy (ethics). However, constrained by existing disciplinary paradigms and traditions, the connotation of humanistic economics is difficult to fully express. Only from the dimension of civilizational studies can the other disciplinary perspectives be unified, better serving the great cause of Chinese-path modernization in creating a new form of human civilization.

除经济学科和人文学科的视角外，还有学者从人文经济学“文化经济化、经济文化化”的内涵出发，认为人文经济学具有多重维度。如，陈立旭指出，人文经济学的研究对象就是人文经济本身，而人文经济不囿于一种维度，事实上人文与经济的相互作用存在多个维度。分析人文经济必须避免以偏概全，人文经济学也不能仅仅将人文经济多个维度中的某一个维度作为研究对象，而是必须着眼于整体和系统。常修泽认为，人文经济学既要与文史哲社法等人文社会学科相结合，还要聚焦于经济过程本身，因此既不能超越经济学，也不能将其窄化为文化经济学。但问题在于，人文经济的丰富内涵如果仅从经济范畴予以解释，则一样会被窄化为文化经济学或人文的经济分析，而任由多学科各自解释又难成体系。这就在呼唤一个新的交叉学科的出现。樊浩指出，人文经济学应该是一种文明学，其不是目前已有的某一学科，而是人文—经济一体化的文明学，通过建构人文—经济辩证融合的生态，为现代中华文明与中国式现代化奠定根基。也就是说，人文经济学要研究的对象是经济与文化的辩证作用，换言之就是如何构造中国的现代文明。事实上，从经济学科与人文学科的视角出发的人文经济学研究已经开始要求避免文化或经济的单方面决定论，罗卫东认识到，人文经济学完全无法离开哲学（伦理学）这个母体，它是介于实证经济学与哲学（伦理学）之间的一门学科。但囿于已有的学科范式和学科传统，人文经济学的内涵难以获得充分的表达，而只有从文明学的维度出发，才能将其他学科视角统一起来，并更好地服务于中国式现代化创造人类文明新形态的伟大事业。

(2) Research Methods of Humanistic Economics

（二）人文经济学的研究方法

Because humanistic economics is itself an emerging interdisciplinary field, its research methods are inevitably multidisciplinary, multi-perspectival, and multi-domain in mixture. Yet this does not mean there is no overarching methodological guidance, just as General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: “Historical materialism is the fundamental method by which we Communists understand and grasp history.” On this point, scholars who hold differing views on which disciplinary attribute humanistic economics belongs to are in agreement: that humanistic economics, taking Marxism as its guiding thought, must take historical materialism and dialectical materialism as the foundation of its methodology. For example, Sang Mingxu points out that the theoretical orientation, basic propositions, practical requirements, and construction principles of humanistic economics should all proceed from the standpoint, viewpoint, and method of historical materialism; only then can they be correctly understood. However, historical materialism and dialectical materialism are merely the foundation. To gain a deeper understanding of humanistic economics, it is necessary to develop specific research methods, and on this point scholars differ. For instance, Luo Weidong advocates drawing on research methods from various disciplines; at the phenomenal level, empirical methods and mathematical modeling can continue to be used, but their abuse must be prevented, while more methods from disciplines such as physiology, psychology, and anthropology should be borrowed. In addition, he points out that humanistic economics needs to establish research methods that embody “humanistic” characteristics, namely methods of empathy and introspection based on individual mentality, which must comprehensively consider factors such as the subjective and objective, the current state and expectations, the static and dynamic, and meaning and action. In this regard, the methods of evolutionary economics are worth learning from. Hu Chenghuai et al. argue that humanistic economics should adopt a systematic method that transcends abstraction and moves toward concrete totality; specifically, it should employ systematic thinking, treating economy and culture as two interrelated yet independent domains, and apply this to the examination of the development of cultural industries, historical development, and the international structure against the backdrop of globalization. The Xinhua News Agency research group on humanistic economics for the New Era proposes that four relationships must be properly grasped: material and spiritual, tradition and modernity, efficiency and fairness, and self-reliance and mutual learning; correctly grasping these four relationships is an important methodology for deeply understanding and practicing humanistic economics. Ren Ping, starting from the methodological self-consciousness of understanding and grasping humanistic economics, argues that methodological self-consciousness must be enhanced from five aspects: deeply understanding General Secretary Xi Jinping’s latest viewpoints, judgments, and essential connotations regarding humanistic economics through textual and documentary research; promoting theoretical innovation in humanistic economics through sample case studies; resolving the dilemma of humanistic deficiency caused by Western economics through reflective and critical dialogue; understanding and grasping the strategic mission of humanistic economics through innovative thinking; and grasping the Marxist intellectual resources of humanistic economics through systematic thinking.

由于人文经济学本身是一个多学科交叉的新兴学科，所以其研究方法也必然是多学科、多角度、多领域的混合。但这并不意味着没有一个方法论的总体指导，正如习近平总书记指出的那样，“唯物史观是我们共产党人认识把握历史的根本方法”。在这一点上，无论认为人文经济学属于哪一种学科属性的学者们意见是一致的，即认为以马克思主义作为思想指导的人文经济学要以唯物史观和辩证唯物主义作为方法论的基础。如，桑明旭指出，人文经济学的理论定位、基本主张、实践要求及建构原则都应从唯物史观的立场、观点、方法出发，这样才能予以正确理解。但是，唯物史观和辩证唯物主义只是基础，要想对人文经济学有更进一步的认识，就必须发展出具体的研究方法，而学者们在这一点上又有所不同。如，罗卫东主张借鉴各类学科的研究方法，在现象层面上可以继续采用实证方法与数理建模的方法，但要防止滥用，同时要多借鉴生理学、心理学、人类学等学科的研究方法。此外，他指出人文经济学更需要建立体现“人文”特色的研究方法，即基于个人心智的共情和内省方法，要综合考虑人的主观和客观、现状与预期、静态与动态、意义与行动等因素，对此演化经济学的方法是值得借鉴的。胡承槐等认为，人文经济学要采用超越抽象走向具体总体的系统方法，具体来说就是采用系统思维，将经济与文化作为既相互联系又相互独立的两个领域看待，并将之运用于文化产业发展、历史发展及以全球化为背景的国际结构考察中。新华社新时代人文经济学课题组提出，要把握好物质与精神、传统与现代、效率与公平、自立与互鉴四种关系，正确把握这四种关系是深刻理解和践行人文经济学的重要方法论。任平则从理解和把握人文经济学的方法论自觉着手，认为要从五个方面提升方法论自觉，即以文本文献研究深刻理解习近平总书记有关人文经济学的最新观点论断与本质内涵，以样本案例研究推动人文经济学的理论创新，以反思批判性对话解决西方经济学造成的人文缺失困境，以创新性思考理解掌握人文经济学的战略使命，以系统性思维把握人文经济学的马克思主义思想资源。

(3) The Basic Nature of Humanistic Economics

（三）人文经济学的基本性质

Regarding the basic nature of humanistic economics, Luo Weidong believes that humanistic economics differs from Western economics in that it follows the “logic of the human,” which gives humanistic economics an interdisciplinary character because both the actual existence and the ideal vision of the “human” are taken into account. Thus, humanistic economics is both empirical and normative, and because of the dynamic evolution of the “human” and his society, it possesses infinite possibilities, so it is necessarily dynamic and open. In fact, this dynamism and openness themselves also foreshadow the practical character of humanistic economic theory. Hu Chenghuai et al. argue that constructing a theoretical system of humanistic economics is an objective demand raised by the development of real socialist practice for theoretical research; it has the practical foundation of the Chinese people’s socialist construction led by the Communist Party of China since the founding of New China, and it must further serve the country’s overall development and the great cause of national rejuvenation, promoting the process of socialist practice more scientifically. Scientific practice also requires the guidance of scientific theory; besides practicality, humanistic economics must also possess scientificity. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to being empirical, normative, dynamic, open, scientific, and practical, humanistic economics also possesses criticality and people-centeredness. Ren Ping argues that the fundamental difference between humanistic economics in the New Era and Western humanistic economics lies in the fact that although Western humanistic economics also advocates a “return to the humanistic” and the constraining role of human morality and ethics on economics, it lacks the fundamental stance of “people-centeredness,” that is, it lacks people-centeredness, which can only reduce so-called humanistic economics to an empty and abstract humanistic economics. A genuine transcendence of the humanistic deficiency in Western economics must return to the critique of Marx’s political economy. It is precisely on the basis of fully inheriting the intellectual tradition of Marx’s critique of political economy that humanistic economics in the New Era, while addressing the shortcomings of humanistic deficiency in Western economics, also constructs its own theory with humanistic logic.

对人文经济学的基本性质问题，罗卫东认为人文经济学与西方经济学不同，它遵循“人的逻辑”，这就使人文经济学本身因为“人”的现实实存与理想愿景都被纳入考虑而具有跨学科特性，由此人文经济学既是实证的，又是规范的，并且它还因为“人”及其社会的动态演化而具备无穷可能性，所以必然是动态的、开放的。事实上，这种动态性和开放性本身也预示着人文经济学理论的实践性。胡承槐等认为，构建人文经济学理论体系是现实的社会主义实践发展向理论研究提出的客观要求，它具有新中国成立以来中国共产党领导中国人民进行社会主义建设的实践基础，并且还要进一步服务于国家的总体发展与民族复兴伟业，更科学地推动社会主义实践进程。而科学的实践同样需要科学的理论指导，人文经济学在实践性之外同样还要具有科学性。值得指出的是，在实证性、规范性、动态性、开放性、科学性与实践性之外，人文经济学还具有批判性和人民性。任平认为，新时代人文经济学从本质上不同于西方人文经济学就在于，西方人文经济学虽然也主张“人文回归”，主张人的道德、伦理对经济学的约束作用，但没有“以人民为中心”的根本立场，也就是没有人民性，只能使所谓的人文经济学沦为空洞抽象的人本经济学，而对西方经济学人文缺失现象的真正超越必须回到马克思政治经济学批判上来。新时代人文经济学正是在全面继承了马克思政治经济学批判思想传统的基础上，在解决西方经济学人文缺失弊端的同时，又以人文逻辑来构建自身的理论。

II. The Theoretical Connotation of Humanistic Economics

二、人文经济学的理论内涵

On the issue of the theoretical connotation of humanistic economics, scholars mainly discuss the relationship between culture and economy, the theoretical foundation of humanistic economics, and the significance of humanistic economics.

在人文经济学的理论内涵问题上，学者们主要针对文化与经济之间的关系、人文经济学的理论基础及人文经济学的重要意义展开讨论。

(1) The Relationship Between Culture and Economy

（一）文化与经济之间的关系

The relationship between culture and economy is the most important academic proposition of the humanities economy. Han Xiping and others, proceeding from the evolutionary history of domestic and international thought and theory, argue that culture and economic development have a close intrinsic relationship: culture can coalesce consensus, form cohesive and inspirational force, unify the will behind the direction of economic development, profoundly influence the choice of economic path and play a practical role in the economic sphere, and provide conceptual guidance for economic development while regulating the behavior of economic agents. The impact of culture on the economy will increase with the continuous progress of society; the economy will become increasingly permeated with cultural factors, thereby presenting a global trend of cultural evolution toward advanced civilizations and developed economies, and ultimately, based on the practical achievements of economic development, cultural economies with distinct national characteristics will be constructed. This requires each country and nation to construct a modern cultural economy according to its own different cultural traditions. Hong Yinxing, taking modernization as an entry point, points out that the difference between cultural modernization and economic modernization lies in the fact that economic modernization involves a process of catching up with Western developed countries, whereas cultural modernization is not about catching up with Western developed countries but mainly about achieving creative transformation and innovative development on the basis of one’s own cultural traditions to create a socialist modern culture. Chinese-path modernization is precisely to form, on this foundation, a socialist modernization in which matter becomes spirit and spirit becomes matter, with culture and economy mutually supporting and jointly prospering. Xiang Yong believes that the coordinated development of the humanities economy, on the basis of inheriting the humanistic values of Chinese culture constituted by Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism, guides humanistic economic activities by anchoring the target frameworks of effective combination of humanistic resources, effective coordination of nationwide creativity, effective integration of value identification, and effective symbiosis of multiple benefits. However, it is worth pointing out that, from the perspective of historical materialism, the relationship between culture and economy in the process of modernization is complex. Hu Min notes that although a series of data superficially suggest that culture promotes the economy, culture does not always have a positive effect on the economy. Historically, culture and economy have sometimes promoted each other and sometimes hindered each other. According to the Marxist view, the economic base determines the superstructure, and the superstructure in turn reacts upon the economic base. Advanced thought and culture, once grasped by the masses, are transformed into a powerful material force; conversely, if backward and erroneous ideas are not eradicated, they become fetters on social development and progress. It is precisely for this reason that socialist China must pay special attention to a socialist superstructure that matches the socialist economic base. Zheng Jiwei and others argue that in a socialist society, from the perspective of historical materialism, the standpoint of the laborer is naturally the mainstream humanistic standpoint of society; it is both a reflection of the socialist economic base in social consciousness and a maintenance of that socialist economic base. However, in the current era of the digital economy, traditional relations of production and employment relations have changed, giving rise to phenomena where the labor subject is not validated in the process of digital labor and the production circumstances of laborers are neglected—a manifestation of focusing only on economic efficiency while ignoring humanistic care. It is worth pointing out that although the contradictions between culture and economy emerging in the era of the digital economy are new problems born of social progress, from a historical perspective they remain the inevitable result of the long-standing problem of culture and economy hindering each other. He Yu, drawing on Foucault’s method of the archaeology of knowledge, argues that from both historical and practical perspectives, the tension between the humanities and the economy differs. The former manifests as the traditional Eastern and Western conceptual suppression of the legitimacy of economic development by the humanities through religion or morality, while the latter manifests as the self-expansion of the economy, having shed pre-modern humanistic constraints due to the establishment of modernity. When the respective goals of humanistic care and economic development differ, this tension appears; conversely, a harmonious relationship emerges, and Chinese-path modernization provides the necessary preconditions and new possibilities for such a harmonious relationship. But this possibility is only a potential “ought-to-be”; transforming this ought-to-be into actuality requires a clear practical subject. On this issue, Wang Shengsheng and others argue that, based on the fundamental principles of historical materialism, economy and culture must be unified in the material and spiritual life needs of “real people.” Reflected in China’s concrete reality, this means that China’s high-quality economic development and cultural prosperity must be unified in the people’s needs for a better life. Starting from this premise, the level of economic development determines the actual content and forms of expression of culture, and cultural construction in turn reacts upon the mode and quality of economic development. The socialist state is the practical subject that promotes the benign development of economy and culture; guided by Marxism, the masses thereby actively apply the laws of economic development through the joint form of national economic governance, rather than passively being dominated by them.

文化与经济的关系问题是人文经济学最重要的学术命题。韩喜平等从国内外思想理论的演进历史出发，认为文化与经济发展有紧密的内在关系，文化能凝聚共识，形成聚合力与感召力，统一经济发展方向的意志，能深刻影响经济道路的选择且在经济领域发挥现实作用，能为经济发展提供理念指引并规范经济主体的行为。文化对经济的影响会随着社会的不断进步而与日俱增，经济会越来越渗透着文化因素，从而在世界范围内呈现趋向先进文明与发达经济体的文化演进态势，并基于经济发展的现实成果最终构建起具有不同民族特色的文化经济体。这就需要每个国家、民族根据自身的不同文化传统进行现代文化经济体建构。洪银兴以现代化为切入点指出，文化现代化与经济现代化的区别在于，经济现代化存在一个对西方发达国家的追赶问题，而文化现代化却并不是对西方发达国家的追赶，而主要是在自身文化传统的基础上实现创造性转化、创新性发展以创造社会主义现代文化，中国式现代化正是要以此为基础形成物质变精神、精神变物质的文化与经济相互支撑、共同繁荣的社会主义现代化。向勇认为，人文经济的协同发展是在继承儒释道共同构成的中华文化人文价值基础上，通过锚定人文资源的有效组合、全民创意的有效协调、价值认同的有效整合及多元效益的有效共生这些目标框架引导人文经济活动。但值得指出的是，按照唯物史观的观点，在现代化建设的过程中，文化与经济之间的关系却又是复杂的。胡敏指出，虽然从一系列数据呈现的表象看，文化对经济具有促进作用，但文化并非一直对经济有正向作用。在历史上，文化与经济是时而相互促进、时而相互阻碍的。按照马克思主义的观点，经济基础决定上层建筑，上层建筑又会反作用于经济基础，先进的思想文化一旦被群众掌握，就会转化为强大的物质力量；反之，落后的、错误的观念如果不破除，就会成为社会发展进步的桎梏。正是由于这一点，在社会主义中国就要格外重视与社会主义经济基础相匹配的社会主义上层建筑。郑吉伟等认为，在社会主义社会中，在唯物史观视域下，劳动者立场自然就是社会的主流人文立场，它既是社会主义经济基础在社会意识上的反映，也在维护着社会主义经济基础。但在当前的数字经济时代，传统的生产关系和雇佣关系发生改变，存在数字劳动过程中劳动主体不被确证、劳动者生产境遇不被重视的现象，这是只注重经济效益而忽视人文关怀的表现。值得指出的是，虽然数字经济时代文化与经济之间出现的矛盾是随着社会进步诞生的新问题，但从历史的角度看，这仍然是由来已久的文化与经济相互阻碍问题的必然结果。何雨从福柯的知识考古学的方法入手，认为从历史的角度与现实的角度看，人文与经济的紧张状态是有区别的。前者表现出的是东西方在传统观念上通过宗教或道德观念实现人文对经济发展的正当性的钳制，而后者则表现为由于现代性的建立导致的经济摆脱前现代的人文钳制而造成的自我扩张。当人文关怀与经济发展各自侧重的目标不同时，就会呈现这种紧张关系，反之则呈现和合关系，而中国式现代化为这种和合关系提供了必要的前提条件与新的可能。但这种可能只是一种潜在的“应然”，要将这种应然转化为实然还需要一个明确的实践主体。对这一问题，王生升等认为，依据唯物史观基本原理，经济与文化是要统一于“现实的人”的物质与精神生活需要的，其反映在中国具体实际中就是中国的经济高质量发展与文化繁荣要统一于人民对美好生活的需要。从这个前提出发，经济发展水平就决定了文化的现实内容与表现形式，文化建设也反作用于经济发展的质量和方式，而社会主义国家是促进经济与文化良性发展的实践主体，其以马克思主义作为指导，人民群众从而以国家经济治理的联合方式主动运用经济发展规律而非被动受其支配。

(II) The Theoretical Foundations of the Humanities Economy

（二）人文经济学的理论基础

Discussing the relationship between culture and economy—especially how to coordinate the two in contemporary society—is inherent to the humanities economy, yet the methods of resolution or the foundations for theoretical construction are diverse, because the humanities economy itself does not provide ready-made theoretical foundations. This means that research on the theoretical foundations of the humanities economy is necessary. On this issue, scholars have offered their own views from their respective disciplinary perspectives. For example, Luo Weidong argues that the construction of the humanities economy requires deep excavation and utilization of humanistic economic thought represented by Confucianism, humanistic elements in Western classical political economy, and humanistic ideas in contemporary mainstream Western economics and heterodox economics. However, as noted above, the humanities economy is itself a theoretical construction of a single discipline; the problem it must address is the construction of a new form of human civilization with integrated humanities and economy under the background of Chinese-path modernization in the current era of the digital economy. Therefore, Western mainstream economics and Western heterodox economics, as capitalist economics, are insufficient to provide fundamental guidance and theoretical support for Chinese-path modernization. Wang Guotan and others argue that the humanities economy has profound Marxist theoretical foundations and intellectual origins, so it must establish a theoretical system that does not aim at profit but focuses on common prosperity and common development for all the people. The humanistic implications in Marx’s thought on labor provide inspiration and reference for this. This is because Marx inherited the intellectual heritage of European humanism and then transcended it, and this transcendence is embodied in Marx’s theory of scientific socialism and communism based on labor. In fact, the essence and core of human liberation lie precisely in the liberation of labor. Only by starting from the level of labor—especially Marx’s concept of general labor—can one see through the hypocritical nature of capitalist values while recognizing the connotation of communist values: the concept of human equality in communist society, the social essence of humans as “being-for-others,” and the ultimate realization of the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

对于文化与经济之间的关系尤其是当下社会如何协调好两者关系的讨论是人文经济学的题中之义，而解决方法或理论建构的基础是多元的，因为人文经济学本身并没有提供现成的理论基础。这就意味着，需要对人文经济学的理论基础进行研究。针对这一问题，学者们纷纷从各自的学科角度出发给出了自己的观点。如，罗卫东认为，人文经济学的构建需要从以儒家为代表的人文主义经济思想、西方古典政治经济学中的人文主义元素和西方现当代主流经济学及异端经济学的人文主义思想中进行深度挖掘和利用。但如前所述，人文经济学本身就是单一学科的理论构建，它要面对的问题是当前数字经济时代，在中国式现代化背景下人文经济一体化的人类文明新形态的建构问题，因此作为资本主义经济学的西方主流经济学和西方异端经济学都不足以为中国式现代化提供根本遵循与理论支撑。王国坛等认为，人文经济学有着深刻的马克思主义理论基础和思想渊源，所以其要建立不以谋利为目的的着眼于全体人民共同富裕与共同发展的理论体系，而马克思劳动思想中的人文意蕴为其提供了启发和借鉴。因为马克思是在继承了欧洲人文主义思想遗产的基础上又对其进行了超越，并且这种超越体现在马克思以劳动作为基础的科学社会主义和共产主义理论之中。事实上，人类的解放本质与核心正是在于劳动的解放，也只有从劳动层面尤其是马克思的一般劳动入手，才能在看破资本主义价值观虚伪本质的同时，认识到共产主义社会人类平等观念、人的“为他性”的社会本质及最终实现人的自由而全面的发展的共产主义价值观内涵。

Beyond this, as Ren Ping points out, humanistic economics not only possesses a theoretical logic of upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, but also has deep cultural roots. That is to say, humanistic economics not only inherits and develops the critique of Marxist political economy, but also simultaneously inherits and promotes the fine traditional Chinese cultural genes. However, one must never regard these fine traditional Chinese cultural genes as being represented by the Confucian tradition or by any other cultural slice standing in for the whole. When dealing with fine traditional Chinese culture, the principle of holistic inheritance must be adopted: that is, one cannot extract cultural genes in a non-historical, fragmented manner. The formation of a humanistic economic form is the result of culture holistically embracing, infiltrating, and permeating the economy. Without holistic inheritance and holistic embrace and infiltration, merely hoping to extract one or two fragments of cultural genes and use them to surgically "embed" them into the economic organism to create a humanistic economy is absolutely a utopian fantasy. In this sense, the foundation of humanistic economics in fine traditional Chinese culture exists as a whole throughout history. Therefore, although traditional Confucian thought can provide some reference significance, it cannot represent the entirety of fine traditional Chinese culture. On this basis, the theoretical foundation of humanistic economics can be interpreted from multiple angles. For example, Dai Yuqi, starting from the perspective of spiritual wealth, believes that the theoretical construction of humanistic economics is a theoretical system formed by inheriting and developing the Marxist theory of spiritual wealth, the people-oriented economic thought of fine traditional Chinese culture, and the century-long exploratory experience of the Chinese Communist Party regarding spiritual wealth. Hu Yu, starting from the perspective of economic development theory, believes that people-centered humanistic economics originates from both Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture. Constructing the theoretical system of humanistic economics requires introducing the missing humanistic elements on the basis of existing mainstream economic theory, mainly studying the role of humanistic elements in economic activities, focusing on the humanistic efficiency and humanistic utility of micro-level production and consumption behavior, as well as the humanistic public goods of the macro-economic environment. Furthermore, the development theory of humanistic economics also requires realizing "humanistic consciousness" in the practice of Chinese-path modernization, fully respecting and leveraging the role of people to achieve the free and comprehensive development of the individual. In short, humanistic economics aims to study and realize the harmonious relationship between culture and economy under socialism with Chinese characteristics. Fundamentally, it cannot depart from the ideological guidance of Marxism and the historical soil of fine traditional Chinese culture. The theoretical foundation of humanistic economics is precisely inherited from these and will be further developed and carried forward in combination with the practice of Chinese-path modernization. However, it must be pointed out that the discussion here on the theoretical foundation of humanistic economics mostly focuses on the economic thought foundation of humanistic economics, while the theoretical foundations in multiple directions and fields such as politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization have yet to be explored.

除此之外，正如任平指出的，人文经济学不但有着守正创新的理论逻辑，还有着深厚的文化根脉。也就是说，人文经济学不但继承发展了马克思主义政治经济学批判，还同时继承发扬着中华优秀传统文化基因。但决不能将这种优秀传统文化基因认为是儒家传统为代表或是其他文化切片作为整体的代言，对待中华优秀传统文化，要采用整体性继承原则，即不能非历史地、碎片化地截取文化基因，人文经济形态的形成是文化整体地包容经济、浸润经济、渗透经济的结果。没有整体继承和整体包容、浸润，仅仅指望抽取一两个文化基因碎片就能用外科手术方式“嵌入”经济机体造就人文经济，那是绝对的空想。从这个意义上说，人文经济学的中华优秀传统文化基础就是在历史中作为整体而存在的。因此，虽然传统儒家思想能够提供一定的借鉴意义，但它并不能代表整个中华优秀传统文化。在这个基础上，可以对人文经济学的理论基础进行多角度解读。如，代玉启从精神富裕的角度出发，认为人文经济学的理论建构是在继承发扬马克思主义的精神富有理论、中华优秀传统文化的民本经济思想及中国共产党对精神富有的百年探索经验而形成的理论体系。胡钰从经济学发展理论的角度出发，认为以人为本的人文经济学既源于马克思主义，也源于中华优秀传统文化，构建人文经济学理论体系要在现有的主流经济学理论基础上引入其缺少的人文要素，主要研究人文要素在经济活动中的作用，重点围绕微观生产与消费行为的人文效率与人文效用，以及宏观经济环境的人文公共品展开。此外，人文经济学的发展理论还要求在中国式现代化实践中实现“人文的自觉”，充分尊重和发挥人的作用以实现人的自由而全面的发展。简而言之，人文经济学要研究和实现中国特色社会主义的文化与经济的和合关系，从根本上说不能离开马克思主义的思想指导与中华优秀传统文化的历史土壤，人文经济学的理论基础也正是从其中继承并将进一步结合中国式现代化实践而发扬光大。但需要指出的是，这里对人文经济学理论基础的讨论大多集中于人文经济学的经济思想基础，而政治、文化、社会、生态文明等多方向、多领域的理论基础尚未被发掘。

(III) The Important Significance of Humanistic Economics

（三）人文经济学的重要意义

As a new proposition serving Chinese-path modernization and creating a new form of human civilization, the creation of the theoretical system of humanistic economics has important significance. From an academic theoretical perspective, Zhang Jijiao and others believe that the proposal of humanistic economics represents an important cultural turn for economic research, and at the same time, a theoretical transcendence of current economics, especially Western economics. They point out that economic research under the capitalist system is based on the assumption of "rational man," and its basic framework for understanding the modern world is "capital-wealth-economy," in which the humanistic spirit is excluded due to being abstracted. Humanistic economics, on the other hand, obtains correct guidance from Xi Jinping's economic thought and Xi Jinping's cultural thought, takes historical materialism as its basic method, and recognizes the dialectical and unified relationship between culture and economy. Li Yang and others point out that the significance of humanistic economics lies in providing a new scientific thinking framework for economic and social development, namely, being people-centered, taking the well-being of the people as its ultimate goal, promoting the integration and mutual growth of humanity and economy, and providing dual, mixed, integrated, and holographic driving forces—both material and spiritual—for realizing Chinese-path modernization, building the modern civilization of the Chinese nation, and creating a new form of human civilization. It transcends the limitations of Western economics and provides a reasonable and abundant cultural driving force and cultural guidance for economic development. Hu Chengkai and others believe that theoretically, humanistic economics will greatly broaden the research horizon of economics, transform its methods, enrich its theories, enable economic theory to better reflect objective economic conditions, and promote the disenchantment of mainstream Western economics. Guo Zhiwei believes that the theoretical significance of humanistic economics lies in its explanation of the laws of socialist economic development with Chinese characteristics, and through comparative analysis with capitalist economic development, it further enriches and develops Marxist political economy. In terms of practical significance, Hu Yuning believes that humanistic economics breaks the humanistic paradox of global economic growth and promotes the return of the humanistic spirit to economic theory. Facing the current severe world situation, China's economy, adhering to the development thought of "people first" in humanistic economics, has created a miracle of China's economic development and added humanistic resilience to the world economy. It also enlightens countries around the world to actively absorb and draw nutrients from other excellent civilizations based on their own excellent cultural traditions, humanistic genes, and national conditions, promoting the common progress of human civilization and providing humanistic wisdom for the exchange and mutual learning of world civilizations. Ren Ping believes that the major strategies to be realized by the new practice of humanistic economics are embodied in "five new things": new humanistic purposes and new goals, developing new humanistic paradigms and new driving forces, designing new humanistic tracks, designing new humanistic rules, and forming a new humanistic economic form. Hu Chengkai and others point out that the practical significance of constructing humanistic economics lies in greatly promoting the deeper and broader implementation of the Two Integrations [4]4 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture., providing a more scientific theoretical basis for the Party and the state to coordinate economic and social development, further forming a people-oriented value concept throughout society, and ensuring the comprehensiveness of human development. Fan Hao believes that the theory of humanistic economics has significance in four aspects for solving the frontier problems of modern civilization: transcending the cultural-economic paradox of modernity, promoting the interaction and mutual prosperity of culture and economy, providing humanistic driving force and humanistic stamina for economic development, and shaping the modern form of Chinese civilization. Sun Lin points out that the cultural production mode of the humanistic economy is characterized by creative cultural production, which is different from the assembly-line capitalist mode of production. It makes the cultural labor process itself a creative production process that cannot be replicated, enabling cultural products to break through the egoistic materialized value concept and acquire a humanistic value. This humanistic value is priceless; its accumulation has nothing to do with the material transformation of surplus value, capital production, and circulation processes, but instead realizes a transcendence of the materialized subject. Moreover, although this humanistic economy still belongs to the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, it simultaneously contributes a new paradigm and proposes new possibilities for the modernization construction of world history, thereby acquiring a worldwide significance.

人文经济学作为一个服务于中国式现代化、创造人类文明新形态的崭新命题，其理论体系的创建具有重要意义。从学术理论而言，张继焦等认为，人文经济学的提出对于经济学研究来说是一次重要的文化转向，同时也是对当前经济学尤其是西方经济学的理论超越。他们指出，资本主义制度下的经济学研究基于“理性人”假设，其理解现代世界的基本框架为“资本—财富—经济”，人文精神在其中因被抽象化处理而被排除。人文经济学则从习近平经济思想与习近平文化思想中获得正确指引，以唯物史观为基本方法，认识到文化与经济的辩证统一关系。李扬等指出，人文经济学的意义在于提供了一种新的科学的经济社会发展思维框架，即以人民为中心，以人民福祉为归宿，促进人文与经济交融互生，为实现中国式现代化、建设中华民族现代文明、创造人类文明新形态提供物质和精神的双重驱动、混合推动、一体联动、全息运动。它超越了西方经济学的局限，为经济发展提供合理而充沛的文化驱动力与文化引领力。胡承槐等认为，在理论上人文经济学将极大拓宽经济学研究视域，并转变其方法、丰富其理论，使经济学理论更好地反映经济客观情况，推动对西方主流经济学祛魅。郭志伟认为，人文经济学的理论意义在于对中国特色社会主义经济发展规律的阐释，并通过与资本主义经济发展进行对比分析，进一步丰富和发展了马克思主义政治经济学。而在实践意义上，胡于凝认为，人文经济学打破了全球经济增长的人文悖论，推动人文精神向经济学理论的回归；面对当前严峻的世界局势，中国经济秉持着人文经济学“人民至上”的发展思想，造就了中国经济发展奇迹，为世界经济增加了人文韧性；还启示世界各国在立足自身的优秀文化传统、人文基因及国情的基础上，积极吸收和汲取其他优秀文明的养分，促进人类文明共同进步，为世界文明交流互鉴提供了人文智慧。任平认为，人文经济学新实践所要实现的重大战略体现为“五新”：人文新目的、新目标，发展人文新范式、新动能，设计人文新赛道，设计人文新规则，形成人文经济新形态。胡承槐等指出，构建人文经济学在实践上的现实意义在于极大促进“两个结合”更加深入和广泛，为党和国家统筹经济社会协调发展提供更科学的理论基础，在全社会进一步形成以人为本的价值理念，保证人的发展的全面性。樊浩认为，人文经济学理论对破解现代文明的前沿问题具有超越文化—经济的现代性文明悖论、促使文化与经济的互动互荣、为经济发展提供人文动力与人文后力和塑造中华文明的现代形态四个方面的意义。孙琳指出，人文经济的文化生产方式以创造性的文化生产为特征，与流水线式的资本主义生产方式相区别，它是让文化劳动过程本身成为无法复制的创造性生产过程，使文化产品能冲破利己主义的物化价值观念，获得了一种人文价值。这种人文价值是无价的，它的积累与剩余价值、资本生产和流通过程的物质变换都无关，而是实现了对物化主体的超越。并且这种人文经济虽然仍属于中国特色社会主义市场经济，但它同时为世界历史的现代化建设贡献了新范式，提出了新可能，从而又具有了世界性意义。

III. The Systematic and Theoretical Construction of Humanistic Economics

三、人文经济学的体系化学理化建构

Regarding the systematic and theoretical construction of humanistic economics, scholars mainly discuss it around its historical genesis, discourse innovation, and the construction of its academic system.

针对人文经济学的体系化学理化建构问题，学者们主要围绕其历史发生、话语创新和学术体系构建展开讨论。

(I) The Historical Genesis of Humanistic Economics

（一）人文经济学的历史发生

Although humanistic economics is a new proposition put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2023, this does not mean that it is a genuinely “entirely new” theoretical construction. In fact, the proposition of humanistic economics has its own historical process of emergence, and clarifying this process will be helpful for the systematic and theoretical construction of humanistic economics. Wang Zhong and others, proceeding from the intellectual history of the evolution of economic theory, argue that the evolutionary course of humanistic economics can be divided into five stages: gestation, germination, initial formation, expansion, and deepening. From the gestation stage’s revelation of core issues such as human nature, morality, and ethics embedded in economic activities, to the contemporary stage where it is no longer confined to economic theory itself but instead uses diverse methodological tools from psychology, geography, sociology, and other fields to study the humanistic core behind economic phenomena, humanistic economics has, in the course of its theoretical evolution, increasingly emphasized the social and cultural context in which economic activities are embedded, providing a unique interpretive path and research paradigm for the complexity and non-equilibrium of the global economy. This treats humanistic economics as a purely theoretical construct and focuses on its universality as a general concept. However, in reality, China’s humanistic economics, or humanistic economics in the New Era, as the Chinese expression of humanistic economics, differs from Western capitalist humanistic economics not only in terms of historical differences in cultural inheritance and differences in expression. Only by starting from the practice of socialist construction can we truly have a clear understanding of the historical emergence of humanistic economics and deeply recognize its socialist advanced nature. Gao Debu, proceeding from the history of the development of Chinese economics, argues that Chinese economics, along with the historical changes of the Chinese nation from standing up to becoming prosperous to becoming strong, has also undergone a process of change: from “lecturing according to” Marxist political economy and Western economics, to “lecturing on the basis of” the Sinicization of Marxist political economy and Western economics, and then to “lecturing on its own” in the form of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics and its humanistic construction. Constructing humanistic economics is precisely constructing the humanistic domain of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. From the perspective of “the human,” socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics is an economics that is people-centered and pursues the free and comprehensive development of human beings; from the perspective of “culture,” it is an economics that studies national history, embodies national values, and adopts national forms. Han Xiping and others point out that humanistic economics is a development economics that takes culture as a factor, and that China, as a major cultural country with profound historical heritage, makes it easier for its people to be deeply influenced by culture in their economic behavior and social concepts, which is especially prominent in today’s socialist economic construction. They believe that the Party’s emphasis on the construction of advanced socialist culture is an important reason for the brilliant achievements of socialist economic construction. In the New Era, the change in the principal contradiction of society makes people pay more attention to the satisfaction of their spiritual world. Therefore, the construction of humanistic economics is to respond to the demands of the times, to understand the connotation of development more deeply, to take into account the improvement of cultural benefits while promoting economic growth, to conform to the trend of economic development, and to better play the role of culture in the economy. This is also a historical necessity in economic theory. It is worth pointing out that the above studies are all relatively singular occurrences within economics, rather than the occurrence of a new civilizational order that truly encompasses economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization. Sun Ruru steps outside the purely disciplinary perspective of economics, arguing that the historical emergence of humanistic economics involves a theoretical turn from economics to philosophy, and describes this as a leap from the theory of “economics related to humans” to the philosophical theory of “humanities coordinated with the economy.” In the historical transformation process from traditional society to modern society, this manifests as a shift from humanistic economics as a general concept to humanistic economics in the New Era. In fact, it is also related to China’s practice of socialist construction, especially since reform and opening up. As economic construction became the Party’s central work, there was a period when greater emphasis was placed on economic development than on cultural development, leading to the problem of imbalance between the construction of cultural-ethical progress and the construction of material progress. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, “Continuing to promote cultural prosperity, build a strong cultural country, and build the modern civilization of the Chinese nation from a new starting point is our new cultural mission in the New Era.” [5]5 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Cultural Heritage and Development” (June 2, 2023). This speech formally proposed the new cultural mission of the New Era. Humanistic economics is precisely based on the latest achievements in the development of Chinese cultural thought and philosophical thought in the New Era, and is also an important achievement of the Second Integration. [6]6 The Second Integration refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, as distinct from the first integration (with China’s concrete practice). It was formally proposed by Xi Jinping in his July 1, 2021 speech. Its theoretical origin accompanies the formation and development of Xi Jinping’s cultural thought. Therefore, the study of humanistic economics in the New Era breaks through the single boundary of economics, adding a theoretical dimension to the civilizational significance of humanistic economics.

虽然人文经济学是习近平总书记在2023年提出的新命题，但并不意味着其就是一个真正意义上的“全新的”理论建构。事实上，人文经济学的提出有其历史发生过程，而厘清这个过程会对人文经济学的体系化学理化建构提供助益。王忠等从经济学理论演进的思想史角度出发，认为人文经济学的演进历程可以分为孕育、萌芽、初创、拓展及深化五个阶段，从孕育阶段对经济活动中蕴含的人性、道德和伦理等核心问题的揭示到当代不再局限于经济理论本身，而是借助心理学、地理学、社会学等多元的方法论工具研究经济现象背后的人文内核，人文经济学在理论演进过程中越发强调经济活动嵌入的社会文化语境，为全球经济的复杂性和非均衡性提供了独到的诠释路径与研究范式。这是将人文经济学作为一种纯粹的理论构建，并着重于作为一般概念的普世性。但现实中，中国的人文经济学或新时代人文经济学作为人文经济学的中国表达，与西方资本主义人文经济学并不是仅存在文化传承的历史差异和表达差异，只有从社会主义建设实践出发，才能真正对人文经济学的历史发生有清晰的认识，并深刻认识其社会主义先进性。高德步从中国经济学的发展历史入手，认为中国经济学随着中华民族从站起来到富起来再到强起来的历史变迁，也同样经历了从按照马克思主义政治经济学与西方经济学“照着讲”，到马克思主义政治经济学和西方经济学中国化的“接着讲”，再到中国特色社会主义政治经济学及其人文构建的“自己讲”的变化过程，而构建人文经济学就是构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学的人文领域。从“人”的角度看，中国特色社会主义政治经济学是以人为本，追求人的自由全面发展的经济学；从“文”的角度看，它是研究民族历史、体现民族价值、采取民族形式的经济学。韩喜平等指出，人文经济学是一种以文化为要素的发展经济学，而中国作为一个有着深厚历史底蕴的文化大国，人民更容易在经济行为和社会观念上受到文化的深刻影响，在如今的社会主义经济建设中更是突出。他们认为，党对社会主义先进文化建设的重视是社会主义经济建设取得辉煌成就的重要原因。在新时代，社会主要矛盾的变化使人们更加注重精神世界的满足，因此人文经济学的构建就是要响应时代要求，更加深入理解发展的内涵，在推动经济增长的同时兼顾文化效益的提升，顺应经济发展趋势，更好地发挥文化在经济中的作用，这在经济理论上也是一种历史的必然。值得指出的是，上述研究都是较为单一的经济学发生，而非真正意义上的包含经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明在内的新文明秩序的发生。孙茹茹跳出单纯的经济学学科意识，认为人文经济学的历史发生存在一个从经济学到哲学的理论转向，并将之描述为从“与人相关经济学”理论向“与经济协调的人文”的哲学理论跃升，在从传统社会到现代社会的历史转型过程中，就呈现为从一般概念的人文经济学到新时代人文经济学的转变。事实上，它同样与中国的社会主义建设实践相关，特别是自改革开放以来，随着经济建设成为全党的工作中心，在一定时期产生了对经济发展的重视大于文化发展，造成精神文明建设与物质文明建设失调的问题。习近平总书记强调，“在新的起点上继续推动文化繁荣、建设文化强国、建设中华民族现代文明，是我们在新时代新的文化使命”。人文经济学正是基于新时代中国文化思想和哲学思想发展的最新成果，也是“第二个结合”的重要成果，其理论原点与习近平文化思想的形成与发展相伴随。因此，新时代人文经济学研究突破单一的经济界限，为人文经济学的文明论意义增加了理论维度。

(II) Discourse Innovation in Humanistic Economics

（二）人文经济学的话语创新

As an important tool serving the creation of a new form of human civilization, humanistic economics is itself part of China’s independent knowledge system. Therefore, it must achieve discursive innovation in theory in order to better contribute to China’s socialist modernization. Zhou Luping regards this discursive innovation as a kind of Sinicized narrative of humanistic economics, arguing that it entails a narrative transformation in three directions from classical economics to Chinese humanistic economics: a shift from a wealth economy centered on “economism” to a people-centered humanistic economy; a shift from a capital-centered view of history to a grand view of history with the destiny of mankind as its content; and a shift from the capital topic of private economics to the Chinese proposition of common-prosperity economics. This transformation must also be understood in conjunction with the theoretical foundations and intellectual resources of Chinese humanistic economics. Faced with the rich resources of the basic principles of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture, Gao Debu points out that the Chinese characteristics of humanistic economics originate from the traditional culture of the Chinese nation, and that Marxist theory must be used to provide a modern interpretation of the Chinese humanistic tradition, which should serve as the foundational framework for constructing humanistic economics. He argues that the “Three Affairs of the Spring and Autumn Annals” (春秋三事) [7]7 The “Three Affairs of the Spring and Autumn Annals” (春秋三事) refers to the three principles of “rectifying virtue” (正德), “facilitating utility” (利用), and “enriching life” (厚生), derived from the classic *Zuo Zhuan* (Commentary of Zuo). They represent a traditional Chinese political and economic ideal emphasizing moral governance, practical benefit for the people, and the improvement of people’s livelihoods., as the basic political and economic concepts of traditional Chinese society, possess universal significance: “rectifying virtue” (正德), taking morality as the guiding value of humanistic economics; “facilitating utility” (利用), taking productive forces as the instrumental value of humanistic economics; and “enriching life” (厚生), taking people-centeredness as the fundamental value of humanistic economics. These “Three Affairs” must ultimately be coordinated and unified by “seeking harmony” (惟和), that is, the harmonious development of humans with nature, society, and history, as the goal pursued by humanistic economics, finally achieving the overall harmony of “the unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一). Wang Zhong et al. argue that, from a historical perspective, China’s traditional humanistic economic ideas, such as people-centeredness and the debate over righteousness and profit, provide deep intellectual soil for the development of humanistic economics. They place the economy within moral ethics, offering three genes for the market economy: a pragmatic tradition centered on secularization, a moral tradition that balances righteousness and profit, and a fusion of reason and emotion that values both sensibility and rationality. These provide the intellectual foundation and theoretical basis for the discursive innovation of humanistic economics. From a theoretical perspective, the discursive construction of humanistic economics integrates the mathematical logic of Western economics with China’s own humanistic logic, not only promoting methodological innovation but also enabling the exploration of more complex and multi-dimensional economic processes. From a practical perspective, humanistic economics and China’s economic practice, in their mutual promotion and interactive unity, provide theoretical support and practical guidance for advancing Chinese-path modernization. These efforts will effectively construct a Chinese discursive system for humanistic economics that is rooted in China, draws on the world, and faces the future. Wei Jian, combining Marxist political economy with Western economics, proposes a “growth consensus theory” that incorporates culture into economic growth. He argues that culture is an objective existence that determines the objective direction of social development, and is also an important driving force for economic growth, formed by a growth consensus based on the identification of goals, values, and actions. As the economy grows, the growth consensus will be updated into a growth culture, thereby achieving high-quality economic development through the mutual integration and promotion of culture and economy. In addition, Duan Jinjun supplements the discursive innovation of humanistic economics from the perspective of Western heterodox economics, arguing that the discursive construction of humanistic economics must begin with the logical starting point of critiquing and reflecting on the “rational man” assumption of mainstream economics. Combining the propositions of the Austrian School, he proposes a three-dimensional theoretical paradigm of “action—rules—space,” taking the real “acting man” as the logical starting point. Human action and the coordination of actions generate a spontaneous economic order and a dynamic cultural ecosystem based on spontaneous order. Thus, humanistic economics obtains its subject concept, and humans live within a structure of spontaneous order and socio-cultural ecology, which profoundly influences human action and the coordination of actions. On this basis, the new three-dimensional paradigm of “action—rules—space” links individual micro-actions with macro-spatial order, incorporates the concept of human creativity into the system, and profoundly reveals the essential connotation of humanistic economics: the economization of culture and the culturalization of the economy, manifested through the benign interaction between individual actions and their coordination, the spontaneous order thus formed, and a pluralistic, inclusive, and open cultural ecology.

人文经济学作为服务于开创人类文明新形态的重要工具，本身也是中国自主知识体系的一部分，因此一定要在理论上有话语创新，才能更好地对中国社会主义现代化事业有所助益。周露平将这种话语创新视为一种人文经济学的中国化叙事，认为这是从古典经济学到中国人文经济学的三个方向的叙事转换，即从以“经济中心主义”的财富经济转向“以人民为中心”的人文经济、从以资本为中心的历史观转向以人类命运为内容的大历史观、从以私人经济学的资本话题转向共富经济学的中国命题，这种转向还要结合中国人文经济学的理论基础和思想资源进行理解。面对马克思主义基本原理和中华优秀传统文化的丰富资源，高德步指出，人文经济学的中国特色来源于中华民族传统文化，要用马克思主义理论对中国人文传统进行现代阐释，并作为人文经济学构建的基础框架。他认为“春秋三事”作为中国传统社会的基本政治经济理念具有普适性的意义，“正德”即以道德作为人文经济学的主导价值，“利用”即以生产力作为人文经济学的工具价值，“厚生”即以民为本作为人文经济学的根本价值，这“三事”最后要由“惟和”即人与自然、社会、历史的和谐发展作为人文经济学追求的目标来统合协调，最终达到“天人合一”的总体和谐。王忠等认为，从历史维度讲，中国传统的民本、义利之辨等人文经济思想为人文经济学的发展提供了深厚的思想土壤，它将经济置于道德伦理之中，为市场经济提供了三大基因，即以世俗化为核心的经世致用、义利相兼的道德传统，以及感性和理性并重的情理交融，它们为人文经济学的话语创新提供了思想底蕴与理论基础。从理论维度讲，人文经济学的话语构建将西方经济学的数理逻辑与中国自身的人文逻辑相整合，不但促进了方法论的创新，还得以探索更复杂、更多元维度的经济过程。从实践维度讲，人文经济学与中国的经济实践在互相促进、互动统一中为推进中国式现代化的发展提供了理论支撑和实践遵循。这些都将有效构建起立足中国、借鉴世界、面向未来的人文经济学中国话语体系。魏建结合马克思主义政治经济学与西方经济学，提出了将文化纳入经济增长的“增长共识理论”，认为文化是一种决定社会发展客观方向的客观存在，同时也是基于目标、价值、行动认同形成的增长共识所构成的经济增长的重要动力，随着经济的增长，增长共识也会更新为增长文化，从而以文化和经济的互融互促实现经济的高质量发展。此外，段进军从西方异端经济学的角度对人文经济学的话语创新进行补充，认为人文经济学的话语构建要从批判和反思主流经济学的“理性人”假设的逻辑起点开始。他结合了奥地利学派的主张，提出“行动—规则—空间”三维理论范式，以真实的“行动人”作为逻辑起点，人的行动和行动的协调生成了自发的经济秩序和基于自发秩序的动态文化生态系统，由此人文经济学获得了主体概念，并且人生活在一种自发秩序和社会文化生态的结构之中，社会文化生态结构会深刻影响着人的行动和行动的协调。以此为基础，“行动—规则—空间”三维新范式将人的微观行动与宏观空间秩序联系在一起，将人的创造性概念纳入体系之中，深刻揭示了人文经济学由个体行动和行动协调，以及由此形成的自发秩序与多元包容开放的文化生态之间的良性互动所呈现的经济文化化、文化经济化的本质内涵。

(III) Construction of the Academic System of Humanistic Economics

（三）人文经济学的学术体系构建

The construction of the academic system of humanistic economics is an important issue concerning the smooth development of humanistic economic theory. Ren Ping points out that humanistic economics as a “discipline” (学) must form a specialized, theoretical, and systematic independent knowledge system. Specifically, it needs to grasp seven key links: breaking the narrow understanding of Western economics and profoundly elucidating the essential connotation of humanistic economics; grasping the basic characteristics of humanistic economics; emphasizing a new humanistic paradigm for future development that promotes culture through people, promotes people through culture, promotes industry through culture, promotes life through culture, and integrates culture, ecology, people, industry, and cities; constructing new humanistic rules for modern economic development; constructing a new humanistic operational system for modern economic development; constructing a new theoretical system for humanistic economics; and constructing a new discursive system for humanistic economics. Bai Yongxiu et al., from the perspective of the disciplinary construction of humanistic economics, argue that the framework system of socialist humanistic economics with Chinese characteristics should mainly include eight parts: an introductory part discussing the top-level design of humanistic economics; a historical part discussing the origins, development, and history of humanistic economic thought; a subject part discussing the dominant position of the people in macro- and micro-socioeconomic activities; a relational part discussing the coordinated relationship between the material and the spiritual; a part discussing the comprehensive development of human beings; a cultural part discussing the duality of cultural products (the unity of sociality and economy); a prosperity part discussing the promotion of common prosperity for all people and people-centered distribution relations; and a prospects part discussing the development trends and creation paths of humanistic economics. Li Xiaole argues that the construction of the academic system of humanistic economics should proceed from the following aspects: strengthening basic theoretical research on humanistic economics from two aspects—the relationship between humanity and the economy, and the return of humanistic value to economic research; strengthening the infrastructure construction of various software and hardware aspects of humanistic economics, including its research objects, research methods, assumptions, specific categories, data models, and talent organization; adhering to a problem-oriented approach, conducting in-depth research and analysis on the practice of integrating humanity and economy in the process of Chinese-path modernization and on major contradictions and problems; and strengthening field surveys, dynamic tracking research, and typical case studies, constructing a system for humanistic value judgment and an assessment indicator system. Sang Mingxu argues that in strengthening the theoretical elaboration of humanistic economics, it is necessary to clarify the essential connotation and basic characteristics of humanistic economics in the New Era, identify the overall differences between humanistic economics in the New Era and Western economics, discern the neoliberal essence of Western economics, elucidate the historical materialist foundation of humanistic economics in the New Era, reveal the social and practical roots of humanistic economics in the New Era, and clarify the traditional cultural genes of humanistic economics in the New Era. In strengthening the systematic expression of humanistic economics, humanistic economics should be established as an important disciplinary direction within economics. Talent cultivation and team building for humanistic economics through interdisciplinary integration should be promoted in the form of academy systems and experimental classes. The compilation of high-quality textbooks such as Principles of Humanistic Economics, History of Chinese Humanistic Economics, History of Western Humanistic Economics, Selected Readings of Original Works in Humanistic Economics, and Methodology of Humanistic Economics should be actively advanced. Teaching and research support platforms such as literature databases and case databases for humanistic economics in the New Era should be constructed.

人文经济学的学术体系构建是关系到人文经济学理论能否顺利发展的重要问题。任平指出，人文经济学作为“学”就是要形成专业化、学理化、体系化的自主知识系统，具体来说需要把握七个关键环节：破除西方经济学的狭隘认识，深刻阐明人文经济学的本质内涵；把握好人文经济学的基本特征；强调以人兴文、以文兴人，人文兴产，文兴生活，文化生态，人、产、城融合的未来发展的人文新范式；构建现代化经济发展的人文新规则；构建现代化经济发展的人文运行新体制；构建人文经济学新理论体系；构建人文经济学新话语体系。白永秀等从人文经济学学科建设的角度出发，认为中国特色社会主义人文经济学的框架体系应主要包含八个部分：讨论人文经济学顶层设计的导论部分、讨论人文经济思想源流和历史发展的历史部分、讨论人民在宏微观社会经济活动中占主体地位的主体部分、讨论物质与精神协调关系的关系部分、讨论人的全面发展部分、讨论文化产品二重性（社会性与经济性的统一）的文化部分、讨论促进全体人民共同富裕和以人民为中心的分配关系的富裕部分、讨论人文经济学发展趋势与创立路径的展望部分。李晓乐认为，对人文经济学的学术体系构建要从以下几个方面着手：要从人文与经济的关系、人文价值回归经济学研究两个方面加强对人文经济学的基础理论研究；加强人文经济学的研究对象和研究方法、假设条件、具体范畴、数据模型及人才组织等各方面软硬件的基础设施建设；坚持问题导向，对中国式现代化进程中的人文与经济融合发展实践和重大矛盾问题进行深入研究和分析；加强田野调查和动态跟踪研究、典型案例研究，构建人文价值判断体系和考核指标体系。桑明旭认为，在加强人文经济学学理化阐释方面，要厘清新时代人文经济学的本质内涵和基本特征，辨识新时代人文经济学与西方经济学的总体差异，甄别西方经济学的新自由主义本质，阐明新时代人文经济学的唯物史观基础，揭示新时代人文经济学的社会现实根源，澄清新时代人文经济学的传统文化基因。在加强人文经济学的体系化表达方面，要把人文经济学设立为经济学的重要学科方向，以书院制、实验班的形式推进学科交叉融合的人文经济学人才培养和队伍建设，积极推进人文经济学原理、中国人文经济史、西方人文经济史、人文经济学原著选读、人文经济学方法论等高质量教材编写，建设新时代人文经济学文献数据库、案例数据库等教学研究支撑平台。

IV. Discussion on Practical Issues of Humanistic Economics

四、关于人文经济学实践问题的讨论

Regarding the specific practical issues of humanistic economics, that is, the concrete construction of the humanistic economy, scholars have mainly focused on research concerning humanistic economic cities, the relationship between the humanistic economy and Chinese-path modernization, and the relationship between the construction of the humanistic economy and the development of new quality productive forces.

在人文经济学的具体实践问题，即人文经济的具体建设问题上，学者们主要围绕人文经济城市、人文经济与中国式现代化的关系及人文经济建设与新质生产力发展的关系展开研究。

(I) Research on Humanistic Economic Cities

（一）对人文经济城市的研究

The background for General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposal of the proposition of humanistic economics lies in his reflections on the mutual promotion and mutual transformation of economic development and cultural prosperity in the two historically and culturally renowned cities of Suzhou and Hangzhou, and his encouragement to study the laws of humanistic economics here. This in fact also raises an important proposition for the study of humanistic economic cities. In response to this issue, scholars have studied different cities from different perspectives. For example, Chen Zhong discusses the construction of humanistic economics from the perspective of urbanization, arguing that urbanization is not Westernization or metropolitanization, nor is it a binary opposition between urban and rural areas. On the contrary, promoting a humanistic urbanization of humanistic cities and ethical cities is the way to implement humanistic economics. To develop humanistic economics, it is necessary to grasp the ethics of urbanization, use ethical-ecological thinking to overcome the stickiness of spatial rights, and build a co-governance type of urbanization with the participation of multiple subjects; guard against the formulaic tendency of cities, explore distinctive integrated urbanization tailored to the conditions of different regions; prevent the problem of alienating coatings in urbanization, and build a healthy and sustainable urban-rural community with a shared future. As for the specific classification of humanistic economic city construction, Zhang Jijiao et al. divide cities into four types based on their humanistic economic practices: the humanistic economy coordinated development type, the economy-first culture-lagging type, the culture-first economy-lagging type, and the humanistic economy dual-dilemma type. Cities such as Suzhou, Hangzhou, and Weifang are humanistic economy coordinated development type cities where the economization of culture and the culturalization of the economy proceed simultaneously, and where local characteristic practical experience has been formed through phased exploration; while declining resource-based cities like Hegang and Gejiu belong to the humanistic economy dual-dilemma type, where the relationship between economy and culture is relatively distant and the overall situation is lagging; cities like Ordos, which is economy-first culture-lagging, and the Wulagai region, which is culture-first economy-lagging, each have their own advantages but both suffer from structural imbalances, which can lead to unsustainable economic development and a lack of material support for cultural development. The one-dimensional development of culture or the economy is essentially a low-quality development. The key to solving the structural imbalance of this one-dimensional development lies in properly handling the relationship between economy and culture. Regarding the handling of the economic-cultural relationship in cities, Wang Zhong et al., from the perspective of sustainable urban development, believe that the theoretical logic of humanistic economics can help address the problem of spiritual impoverishment in urban life. They divide the evolution of cities into six stages, namely agricultural/handicraft cities, commercial cities, industrial cities, technological cities, creative cities, and humanistic cities, of which the humanistic city is the future direction of urban development, representing a return to and transcendence of traditional agricultural/handicraft cities. The city should be viewed as an organic ecosystem, integrating humanistic spirit into urban space supply, social interaction, and economic structure, breaking through the “market-society” binary opposition, developing a diverse and inclusive urban economic system, and allowing the economic market to better “embed” itself in social life.

习近平总书记提出人文经济学这一命题的背景，是基于对苏州和杭州这两座历史文化名城经济发展与文化发达的互相促进、互相转化情况的思考，并鼓励研究这里的人文经济规律。这实际也提出了对人文经济城市进行研究的重要命题。针对这一问题，学者们从不同角度对不同城市进行研究。如，陈忠从城镇化的角度讨论人文经济的建设问题，认为城镇化并不是西方化或都市化，也不是城乡二元对立，相反，推进人文城市、伦理城市的人文城镇化是人文经济的落地方式。要发展人文经济，就要把握城镇化的伦理，用伦理生态思维去克服空间权利的粘性化，建设多元主体参与的共治型城镇化；防范城镇的公式化倾向，结合不同地区的情况，探索各具特色的融合型城镇化；防止城镇化的涂层异化问题，营建健康可持续的城乡命运共同体。而在人文经济城市建设的具体分类上，张继焦等将城市按照人文经济实践分为四种类型：人文经济协调发展型、经济先行文化滞后型、文化先行经济滞后型和人文经济双重困境型。苏州、杭州、潍坊这些城市就是文化经济化与经济文化化同时进行，并在阶段性探索过程中形成了具有地方特色实践经验的人文经济协调发展型城市；而正在衰退中的资源型城市鹤岗、个旧等地则属于经济和文化关系较为疏离，整体呈滞后状态的人文经济双重困境型城市；鄂尔多斯这种经济先行文化滞后型和乌拉盖地区这种文化先行经济滞后型虽然各有优势，但都存在结构性失调的问题，这种结构性失调会导致经济发展不可持续和文化发展缺乏物质支持。文化或经济的单向度发展本质是一种低质量的发展，解决这种单向度发展的结构失调问题，关键在于处理好经济和文化的关系。而针对城市的经济文化关系的处理问题，王忠等从城市的可持续发展角度出发，认为人文经济的理论逻辑对解决城市精神生活的贫瘠问题有所帮助。将城市的演进分为六个阶段，即农业/手工业城市、商业城市、工业城市、科技城市、创意城市和人文城市，其中的人文城市是城市未来的发展方向，它是对传统农业/手工业城市的回归和超越。要将城市看作一个有机的生态系统，把人文精神融入城市空间供给、社会互动和经济结构之中，突破“市场—社会”二元对立，发展多元和包容的城市经济体系，让经济市场更好地“嵌入”社会生活。

On this basis, the study of sample cities of China’s humanistic economy has a relatively clear framework, and within this framework, specific cities can be studied for their humanistic economics. Luo Weidong et al. studied Hangzhou, a sample city of humanistic economics specifically mentioned by General Secretary Xi Jinping, and concluded that the implications of Hangzhou’s humanistic economic construction are as follows: developing humanistic economics is a concrete manifestation of adhering to a people-centered approach, an inevitable requirement for realizing Chinese-path modernization, and humanistic economic development must closely follow the daily lives of the people and promote the “two creations” [8]8 The “two creations” (两创) refers to the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, a policy guideline for cultural work. of fine traditional Chinese culture. Xiang Yong studied another historically and culturally renowned city, Suzhou, and argued that Suzhou exhibits characteristics such as profound historical and cultural heritage, strong emerging technological innovation capabilities, and high-quality modern industries. Specifically, humanistic spirit has shaped Suzhou’s social environment, accumulating social capital for Suzhou; humanistic resources such as classical gardens, Kunqu opera and Pingtan storytelling, and small bridges over flowing waters have constructed a high-quality urban life, creating a spatial environment for industrial innovation; the refined and elegant “Suzhou-style” humanistic life has nurtured a vibrant local business environment. Sun Yaning et al. examined Nantong, known as “China’s first modern city.” Although Nantong was historically closed and backward for a long time, after Zhang Jian adopted a series of measures in 1895—including building an industrial system, reforming the education system, establishing charitable undertakings, developing cultural undertakings, and scientifically planning urban construction—Nantong rapidly became the third largest city in Jiangsu Province in modern times, after Shanghai and Wuxi, within thirty years. This was a practice of humanistic economics. Specifically, Zhang Jian adhered to the concept of “culture as the foundation, economy as the substance,” recognizing that economic means can only form an effective development impetus when integrated with cultural values. Therefore, attention should be paid to the dual construction of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress, using China’s own humanistic ideological heritage and the development trends of Western civilization to provide direction for economic development, and using market-oriented industrial operations and educational prosperity as guarantees for cultural flourishing. In addition, scholars have also studied and discussed cities such as Wuxi, Yancheng, Foshan, and Shaoxing, further collecting cases and summarizing experiences for the construction of humanistic economic cities.

在这个基础上，对于中国人文经济样本城市的研究就有了较为清晰的框架，并且可以在这个框架的基础上对具体的城市进行人文经济研究。罗卫东等研究了习近平总书记重点提到的人文经济学样本城市杭州，认为杭州人文经济建设的启示在于：发展人文经济是坚持以人民为中心的具体表现，是实现中国式现代化的必然要求，人文经济发展要紧贴人民群众的日常生活，要推动中华优秀传统文化的“两创”。向勇则对另一历史文化名城苏州的人文经济建设进行了研究，认为苏州呈现历史文化底蕴深厚、新兴科技创新能力强、现代产业质量高等特征。具体来说，人文精神塑造了苏州的社会环境，为苏州积累了社会资本；古典园林、昆曲评弹、小桥流水等人文资源构建了城市品质生活，为产业创新营造了空间环境；精致典雅的“苏式”人文生活涵养了当地充满活力的商业环境。孙亚南等对“中国近代第一城”南通进行了考察。南通虽然在历史上长期处于封闭落后的状态，但随着张謇1895年采取了建设工业体系、革新教育体系、创办慈善事业、发展文化事业、科学规划城市建设等系列措施，南通在三十年的时间里迅速成为在近代仅次于上海和无锡的江苏第三大城市，这就是一场人文经济实践。具体来说，张謇秉持“文化为本，经济为体”的理念，认识到经济手段只有与文化价值相融合，才能真正形成有效发展动力，因此，要注重物质文明和精神文明的双向建设，以中国自身的人文思想底蕴和西方文明发展趋势为经济提供发展向度，以市场化运作的产业经营和教育兴盛作为文化的繁荣保障。此外，学者们还对无锡、盐城、佛山、绍兴等城市进行了研究讨论，为人文经济城市建设进一步收集案例、总结经验。

(II) Research on the Relationship between Humanistic Economics and Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）人文经济与中国式现代化关系的研究

As mentioned above, humanistic economics is a summary of the laws guiding humanistic economic construction that is closely related to the practice of Chinese-path modernization. This in turn raises a new question: the specific relationship between humanistic economics and Chinese-path modernization. Ji Wen argues that humanistic economics is the core essence of Chinese-path modernization, an important feature of its development, and a crucial path for advancing it. Li Xiaole argues that humanism (人文) is the form of civilization that humans can attain and the process of cultivating that form of civilization, while humanistic economics is the emphasis on humanistic care in economic development. It focuses on people’s sense of happiness, security, and satisfaction rather than merely on the level of economic growth, and its essence is to obtain a strong driving force for economic development through cultural empowerment. Therefore, humanistic care is the foundation of humanistic economics, and humanistic economics is the concrete practice of humanistic care. The civilizational self-awareness of Chinese-path modernization is embodied in the positive interaction between humanistic economics and humanistic care; it can resolve the problem of imbalance between the development of material civilization and cultural-ethical progress accumulated during the process of socialist modernization, promoting their healthy development. Li Chenghua argues that the theory of Chinese-path modernization and the proposition of humanistic economics are interconnected. The theoretical logic of Chinese-path modernization requires properly handling a series of major relationships, such as top-level design and practical exploration, strategy and tactics, upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, and efficiency and fairness, all of which rely on adhering to the people-centered development thought. This reflects the humanistic care of Chinese-path modernization in modernization construction. The reason humanistic economics aligns with this lies in the internal coherence of this humanistic care. On this basis, humanistic economics should be used to activate the practical momentum of Chinese-path modernization, strengthen the demonstration and leading effect of regional practices of humanistic economics in places like Suzhou and Hangzhou, and allow humanistic economic construction to explore new, more effective paths for building a socialist cultural power. Gong Tianping et al., from a value perspective, argue that from the perspective of Chinese-path modernization, humanistic economics is a new requirement for accelerating the formation of new quality productive forces and promoting high-quality development, a new choice for smoothly advancing Chinese-path modernization and realizing the people’s aspiration for a better life, and a new call for inheriting fine traditional Chinese culture and shaping the modern civilization of the Chinese nation.

如前文所述，人文经济学是与中国式现代化实践息息相关的指导人文经济建设的规律总结。这也随之提出了新的问题，即人文经济与中国式现代化之间的具体关系问题。季文认为，人文经济是中国式现代化的核心要义，是中国式现代化发展的重要特征，也是推进中国式现代化的重要路径。李晓乐认为，人文是人所能达到的文明形态和该文明形态的养成过程，人文经济则是在经济发展中对人文关怀的重视，它注重人的幸福感、安全感和满意度而非仅仅关注经济增长水平，本质是通过文化赋能获得经济发展的强劲驱动力。因此，人文关怀是人文经济的基础，人文经济又是人文关怀的具体实践。而中国式现代化的文明自觉就体现在人文经济和人文关怀之间的良性互动中，它可以解决社会主义现代化建设过程中累积的物质文明与精神文明发展的不协调问题，促进二者良性发展。李程骅认为，中国式现代化理论与人文经济学命题是相互贯通的。中国式现代化的理论逻辑需要处理好顶层设计与实践探索、战略与策略、守正与创新、效率与公平等一系列的重大关系，而这些都要依靠坚持以人民为中心的发展思想。这体现出中国式现代化在现代化建设中的人文关怀，人文经济学与之契合的原因就在于这种人文关怀的内在贯通。而在此基础上，要以人文经济学激活中国式现代化的实践动能，强化苏杭等人文经济学区域实践的示范引领效应，让人文经济建设探索出更富成效的社会主义文化强国建设新路径。龚天平等从价值的角度出发，认为中国式现代化视域下，人文经济学是加快形成新质生产力、推动高质量发展的新要求，是顺利推进中国式现代化、实现人民群众美好生活愿景的新选择，是传承中华优秀传统文化、形塑中华民族现代文明的新呼吁。

Apart from discussing the relationship between Chinese-path modernization and humanistic economics at the macro level, scholars have also conducted research on specific areas. For example, Zhan Zhaolei and others, proceeding from the perspective of high-quality development, argue that humanistic economics is mutually compatible with high-quality development in terms of concepts and mutually integrated in terms of goals. In the context of high-quality development, the inherent requirement of humanistic economics becomes the systematic transformation of the modern industrial system according to humanistic logic. Bao Shujun and others argue that humanistic economics can empower high-quality development because it follows the objective laws of historical development, is a concrete manifestation of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, returns to a people-centered high-quality development, and provides the practical impetus for Chinese-path modernization. By constructing a modern cultural industry system, developing humanistic economics with regional characteristics, and advancing theoretical research and disciplinary construction of humanistic economics, it is possible to further enhance the cultural literacy of the entire population, consolidate the talent foundation of humanistic economics, and thereby realize the empowerment of practice through humanistic economics. Xu Zheng and others, analyzing from the perspective of common prosperity, argue that the goal of humanistic economics is to achieve common prosperity, enabling all the people to share the fruits of economic development. At the absolute level, China has historically resolved absolute poverty, and humanistic economics plays an important role in preventing a return to poverty; at the relative level, humanistic economics can effectively address relative poverty. At the material level, humanistic economics can promote sustainable economic development and the progress of productive forces; at the spiritual level, humanistic economics emphasizes human dignity, value, and well-being, pursuing the comprehensive development of the individual and social harmony and stability. At the temporal level, China is currently in a stage of social transformation; humanistic economics values the development of human resources and coordinated development between regions, providing a better environment for social development. At the spatial level, humanistic economics aims to promote the organic integration of the cultural industry and economic development, achieving common prosperity from the local to the national level. Peng Mengmeng and others, starting from the issue of rural revitalization in Jiangsu Province from the perspective of humanistic economics, argue that the rural revitalization strategy is an inevitable requirement for achieving common prosperity, and its essence lies in realizing the modernization of agriculture and rural areas and solving the problem of unbalanced urban-rural development encountered in the process of Chinese-path modernization. This is consistent with the people-centered development thinking of humanistic economics. Wang Jun and others, based on the rural revitalization practice of Tongguanshan Village in Suzhou, argue that humanistic economics, as a new development paradigm promoting high-level mutual promotion and interaction between culture and economy, aims to highlight humanistic care and focus on humanistic development through the integration and symbiosis of culture and economy. Using the concept of humanistic economics to guide rural revitalization is an important pathway for advancing the practice of Chinese-path modernization.

除在宏观方面讨论中国式现代化与人文经济的关系外，学者们还就具体的领域进行研究。如，战炤磊等从高质量发展的角度出发，认为人文经济学在理念上与高质量发展相互兼容、在目标上相互融通。在高质量发展的语境下，人文经济学的内在要求就成为按照人文逻辑对现代化产业体系进行系统变革。鲍淑君等认为，人文经济会为高质量发展赋能，因为人文经济遵循了历史发展的客观规律，是马克思主义中国化的具体表现，回归了以人为本的高质量发展，并且提供了中国式现代化的实践动力。可以通过构建现代化文化产业体系，发展具有区域特色的人文经济以及人文经济的理论研究与学科建设，进一步提升全民文化素养，夯实人文经济的人才基础等途径，实现人文经济赋能实践。徐政等从共同富裕的角度分析，认为人文经济的目标是实现共同富裕，让全体人民群众共享经济发展的成果。从绝对层面来讲，我国已经历史性地解决了绝对贫困，人文经济在防止返贫方面发挥重要作用；从相对层面看，人文经济可以有效解决相对贫困。从物质层面看，人文经济可以推动经济可持续发展与生产力进步；从精神层面看，人文经济强调人的尊严价值及幸福感，追求人的全面发展与社会和谐稳定。从时间层面看，中国当下正处于社会转型阶段，人文经济重视人力资源的开发与区域之间的协调发展，为社会的发展提供更好的环境；从空间层面看，人文经济旨在促进文化产业与经济发展的有机融合，实现从地方到全国的共同富裕。彭萌萌等从人文经济学视域下的江苏乡村振兴问题出发，认为乡村振兴战略是实现共同富裕的必然要求，其实质在于实现农业农村现代化，解决中国式现代化进程中遇到的城乡不平衡发展的问题，这与人文经济学以人民为中心的发展思想具有一致性。王俊等从苏州铜官山村的乡村振兴实践出发，认为人文经济学作为一种促进文化与经济实现高水平互促互动的新发展范式，旨在通过文化与经济交融共生凸显人文关怀、关注人文发展，以人文经济学理念引领乡村振兴是推动中国式现代化实践的重要途径。

(III) Research on the Relationship between Humanistic Economics and the Development of New Quality Productive Forces

（三）人文经济与发展新质生产力关系的研究

New quality productive forces are proposed based on the transformation context of China’s high-quality economic development. They inherently signify a new model of productive forces development different from the previous extensive model, as well as a humanistic logic different from the logic of capital. Therefore, the relationship between humanistic economics and new quality productive forces, and how humanistic economics interacts with the development of new quality productive forces, have also become key topics of scholarly discussion. Zhang Youlin argues that new quality productive forces and humanistic economics have a natural intrinsic connection. Humanistic economics can act on the subject construction, business environment optimization, and high-end content generation of new quality productive forces, and, with entrepreneurial innovation as the main body, technological innovation as the endogenous driving force, and high-tech industrial parks as the carrier, promote the empowerment of new quality productive forces development through multiple elements such as culture, science and technology, education, institutions, and entrepreneurs. Zhou Shaodong and others, proceeding from historical materialism, argue that humanistic economics is the product of the Second Integration [9]9 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, as distinct from the first integration of Marxism with China’s concrete realities., while new quality productive forces take the leap in the three elements of productive forces and their optimized combination as their basic connotation and are characterized by innovation. The intermediary between humanistic economics and new quality productive forces is the new type of relations of production. To develop new quality productive forces, it is necessary to guide the smooth circulation of advanced and high-quality means of labor with the concept of “common ownership” in the ownership of the means of production, to stimulate the initiative and creativity of labor subjects in innovation with the concept of “shared benefits” in distribution relations, and to promote the optimized combination of the elements of new quality productive forces with the concept of “co-governance” in the economic relations between people. Wei Pengju, from the perspective of the integration of culture and technology, argues that new quality productive forces are advanced productive forces deeply integrated with technology and culture. On the one hand, new quality productive forces promote high-quality cultural development, mainly manifested in a series of phenomena of technology-culture integration, such as cultural digitization, content intellectualization, co-creation of production and consumption, and trade metaverse, which enhance the level of cultural preservation and inheritance, promote cultural innovation and development, and efficiently meet cultural needs. On the other hand, high-quality cultural development, in turn, nurtures and promotes the high-level healthy development of new quality productive forces by providing innovation space and application scenarios, an innovative cultural environment and high-level talent, and humanistic value norms. Ren Ping argues that humanistic economics is the humanistic logic of the development of new quality productive forces. The interactive relationship between new quality productive forces and humanistic economics should be understood from the five major functions of humanistic economics in the New Era: the “orientation function,” which takes “people-centered” as the new humanistic goal and indicates the future direction of high-quality development of new quality productive forces; the “dynamic function,” which supports new quality productive forces with humanistic foundations, infuses them with humanistic elements, guides them with humanistic values, and dominates them with a humanistic soul, indicating the new driving force for high-quality development of new quality productive forces; the “path function,” which designs new humanistic tracks with concepts such as diversity, equality, inclusiveness, cooperation, and mutual benefit, indicating new pathways for high-quality development of new quality productive forces; the “guarantee function,” which provides rule-based guarantees for the high-quality development of new quality productive forces through laws, institutions, and rules with high-level humanistic value orientation and content; and the “practice function,” which aligns with Chinese-path modernization and indicates the future prospects of high-quality development of new quality productive forces.

新质生产力是基于我国经济高质量发展的转型背景而提出的，它本身就昭示着与以往粗放式的生产力发展模式不同的新的生产力发展模式，以及与资本逻辑不同的人文逻辑。因此，人文经济学与新质生产力的关系及人文经济如何与新质生产力发展相互作用的问题也成为学者们讨论的重点之一。张佑林认为，新质生产力与人文经济学有着天然的内在关联，人文经济可以作用于新质生产力的主体建构、营商环境优化、高端内容生成，并以企业家创新为主体、科技创新为内生动力、高科技产业园区为载体，促进文化、科技、教育、制度、企业家等多元要素赋能新质生产力发展。周绍东等从唯物史观出发，认为人文经济学是“第二个结合”的产物，新质生产力则是以生产力三要素及其优化组合的跃升为基本内涵，并以创新为特点，人文经济学和新质生产力的中介是新型生产关系。要发展新质生产力，就要在生产资料所有制关系上以“共有”理念引导先进优质劳动资料的流通顺畅，在分配关系上以“共享”理念激发劳动主体创新创造的积极性，还要在人与人之间的经济关系上以“共治”理念促进新质生产力要素的优化组合。魏鹏举从文化与科技融合的角度出发，认为新质生产力是科技与文化深度融合的先进生产力。一方面，新质生产力促进文化高质量发展，主要表现为文化数字化、内容智能化、产消共创化和贸易元宇宙等提升文化保护传承水平、促进文化创新发展、高效满足文化需求的一系列科技文化融合现象；另一方面，文化高质量发展又在提供创新空间和应用场景、创新文化环境和高水平人才，以及提供人文价值规范等方面涵养和推动新质生产力高水平健康发展。任平认为，人文经济学是新质生产力发展的人文逻辑，新质生产力和人文经济学的交融互动关系要从新时代人文经济学的五大功能出发予以理解，即“以人民为中心”作为人文新目标并表示新质生产力高质量发展未来方向的“定向功能”；以人文底蕴支撑、人文要素浸润、人文价值引领、人文灵魂主导新质生产力，表示新质生产力高质量发展新动能的“动力功能”；以多元、平等、包容、合作、共赢等理念设计人文新赛道，表示新质生产力高质量发展新路径的“路径功能”；以有高度的人文价值导向和内容的法律、制度和规则，为新质生产力高质量发展提供规则保障的“保障功能”；与中国式现代化相契合，表示新质生产力高质量发展未来前景的“践行功能”。

V. Research Conclusions and Prospects

五、研究结论与展望

From the current research and discussions on humanistic economics, the understanding of its disciplinary attributes mostly remains within the category of economics. Even though many scholars have recognized the interdisciplinary nature of humanistic economics and its problem orientation of serving the creation of a new form of human civilization, constrained by existing disciplinary divisions, they still classify it as a specific branch of economics, such as socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, development economics, or industrial economics. They fail to fully recognize the civilizational connotation required by the new civilization construction of the “Five-Sphere Integrated Plan” [10]10 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体) is the overall plan for building socialism with Chinese characteristics, encompassing economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction.—economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization—that the construction of humanistic economics entails. This also affects the direction of further research on the basic characteristics, theoretical connotations, systematic and theoretical construction, and concrete practice of humanistic economics. Moreover, regarding the intellectual inheritance of fine traditional Chinese culture by humanistic economics, there is still the problem of regarding Confucian culture as the representative of fine traditional Chinese culture. In fact, this itself is a narrowing of the treatment of fine traditional Chinese culture. On the issue of the practice of humanistic economics, on the one hand, there is more attention paid to humanistic cities, and most research focuses on cities in Suzhou and Hangzhou, which General Secretary Xi Jinping has mentioned, and the generally more developed provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Guangdong. Research on the central and western regions is relatively scarce. On the other hand, there is less attention paid to humanistic villages, and insufficient importance is given to humanistic enterprise management.

从目前有关人文经济学的研究讨论看，对人文经济学的学科属性的理解大多还停留在经济学范畴。即使很多学者已经认识到人文经济学的跨学科属性及其服务于创造人类文明新形态的问题导向，但囿于已有的学科划分，仍然将之归为中国特色社会主义政治经济学或发展经济学或产业经济学等经济学学科的具体分支，不能充分认识到构建人文经济学所包含的经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明“五位一体”的新文明建设所需要的文明论内涵，这也影响了对人文经济学的基本特征、理论内涵、体系化学理化建构与具体实践的进一步研究方向。并且，在人文经济学对中华优秀传统文化的思想继承上，还存在将儒家文化视为中华优秀传统文化代表的问题，而事实上这本身就是对中华优秀传统文化的一种窄化处理。在人文经济学的实践问题上，一方面，对于人文城市关注较多，且研究大多集中于习近平总书记提到的苏杭及整体上较为发达的江苏、浙江和广东等省份的城市，对于中西部地区的研究相对匮乏；另一方面，对人文乡村关注较少，对人文企业管理没有给予足够重视。

Therefore, further research on humanistic economics should focus on the goal of humanistic economics serving the economic form of Chinese-path modernization that creates a new form of human civilization, and should conduct research and discussion from the perspective of civilizational studies against the backdrop of constructing a new civilizational order of the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" [11]11 The Five-Sphere Integrated Plan (五位一体) refers to the overall plan for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, covering economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction. encompassing economy, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization. On the theoretical side, it is necessary to deepen understanding further, paying attention to and providing answers to such issues as the basic questions of humanistic economics, the basic categories of humanistic economics, the basic principles of humanistic economics, the methodology of humanistic economics, the ideological foundation of fine traditional Chinese culture in humanistic economics, as well as the relationships among civilization, culture, and the human (人文), and the relationship between humans and the economy. On the practical side, humanistic economy is the economic form of Chinese-path modernization. It is necessary to continue in-depth analysis of the intrinsic relationship between humanistic economy and the five major features and nine essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization, and to actively combine it with new quality productive forces and new types of relations of production, ultimately serving the construction of a humanistic economy in which humanistic cities, humanistic enterprises, and humanistic villages actively interact. It is necessary not only to study the experience of humanistic economic construction in places such as Suzhou and Hangzhou, but also to focus on integrating this experience with humanistic economic construction in the central and western regions, and to further explore the path of humanistic economic construction in the central and western regions.

因此，对人文经济学的进一步研究应聚焦于人文经济学服务于创造人类文明新形态的中国式现代化的经济形态这一目标，结合经济、政治、文化、社会、生态文明“五位一体”的新文明秩序建构的大背景进行文明学意义的研究探讨。在理论方面，要进一步深化认识，对人文经济学的基本问题，人文经济学的基本范畴，人文经济学的基本原理，人文经济学的方法论，人文经济学的中华优秀传统文化思想基础，以及文明、文化、人文三者之间的关系、人与经济的关系等问题予以关注和回答。在实践方面，人文经济是中国式现代化的经济形态，要继续对人文经济与中国式现代化的五大特征、九个本质要求的内涵关系进行深入分析，并积极与新质生产力、新型生产关系相结合，最终服务于人文城市、人文企业、人文乡村三者积极联动的人文经济建设中。不但要研究苏杭等地的人文经济建设经验，还要注重将这种经验与中西部地区的人文经济建设相结合，并进一步探索中西部地区的人文经济建设路径。

(Author affiliations: Shandong University of Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者单位分别为：山东理工大学、中国社会科学院大学）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗