Overseas Academic Research on Marxist Theory of Ownership and Its Evaluation

The issue of ownership is a major theoretical and practical issue. Currently, domestic academia has conducted systematic research on Marxist theory and practice of ownership from multiple perspectives, including "basic theory," "nature and structure," "forms of realization," and "production efficiency," greatly advancing the depth of ownership research. However, in reviewing the basic overview and evolutionary clues of domestic academic research on Marxist theory of ownership, the author finds that overseas academia has also conducted some exploration of classical ownership theory and practice, yet domestic academic commentary on this is relatively lacking. Based on this, this paper attempts to focus on overseas ownership research trends and provide a review and evaluation. Furthermore, by comparing the research focuses, depth, and approaches of domestic and overseas academia on the issue of ownership, it raises several questions for further deepening ownership research.

所有制问题是一个重大的理论和实践问题。目前，国内学界已经从“基础理论”“性质结构”“实现形式”与“生产效率”等多方面切入，对马克思主义所有制理论与实践进行了系统性研究，极大地推动了所有制研究的进一步深入。然而，笔者在梳理国内学界关于马克思主义所有制理论研究的基本概况和演进线索的基础上发现，海外学界亦对经典所有制理论与实践进行了一定探索，国内学界对此相关评介却相对缺乏。基于此，本文尝试聚焦海外所有制研究动态并作出梳理评价，更进一步地，通过比较国内外学界关于所有制议题的研究焦点、研究程度和研究路径提出进一步深化所有制研究的几个问题。

I. Three Major Research Sections in Overseas Academia on Marxist Ownership and Contemporary Chinese Practice

一、海外学界关于马克思主义所有制与当代中国实践议题的三大研究版块

The author attempted to search databases such as JSTOR, Web of Science, and CNKI using relevant English keywords, including but not limited to Marx, ownership, property, public ownership, socialism, market economy, China, and state-owned enterprise. Additionally, by tracking translations and reviews of foreign scholars' research on ownership published in journals such as *Foreign Theoretical Trends* and *Social Sciences Abroad* over the past 20 years, as well as foreign journals like *Monthly Review*, *Historical Materialism*, and *Radical Political Economy*, the author attempts to provide a brief overview of overseas research trends. It is found that related research focuses on three aspects.

笔者尝试通过JSTOR、Web of Science、CNKI等数据库输入相关英文关键词进行检索，关键词包括但不限于Marx（马克思）、ownership（所有制）、property（财产）、public ownership（公有制）、socialism（社会主义）、market economy（市场经济）、China（中国）、state-owned enterprise（国有企业）等。此外，通过跟踪近20年来《国外理论动态》《国外社会科学》等刊发的国外学者所有制问题研究相关的译介评述，以及国外刊物Monthly Review、Historical Materialism、Radical Political Economy，尝试对海外研究动态作简要概述。由此发现，相关研究集中在三个方面。

(1) Reflection and Deepening of Classical Ownership Theory and Practice

（一）关于经典所有制理论与实践的反思与深化

On one hand, in the process of theoretically reflecting on and deepening classical Marxist ownership, overseas academia exhibits a research characteristic combining "methodology" and "new theory." Regarding "methodology," classical ownership theory is considered a typical application of Marxist methodology, with its overall context being that "the Marxist method is seen as a moral critique of capitalism," and "in criticizing capitalist political economy, it views the business environment as a battlefield between employees and employers." [1]1 This passage summarizes a methodological characterization of Marxism common in Western academic discourse, not a direct quote from a specific source. Furthermore, researchers attempt to broaden the methodological research horizon of classical ownership theory by distinguishing Marxist and utilitarian methodologies, incorporating the directly related "labor theory of value" and "utility theory of value" into the discussion. Meanwhile, entering the 20th century, classical ownership research shifted toward exploring a "new theory." This new theory encompasses many new conceptual categories such as "ownership," "title," and "property rights." Specifically, from the perspective of modern disciplinary divisions, foreign research on ownership generally shows a divide between political philosophy and economics: In political philosophy, analytical Marxist scholar G.A. Cohen, in his book *Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality* (1995), critiques the concept of "self-ownership" mentioned by Robert Nozick in *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* (1974), arguing that Nozick's principle of self-ownership cannot legitimately justify the original acquisition of property. Another representative of the analytical Marxist school, John Roemer, focuses on the inequality of outcomes linked to unequal ownership of property, i.e., "exploitation," proposing distributive justice centered on equality of opportunity. In economics, with the rise of the new institutional economics school, Coase and property rights theory have been elevated to a special prominence. For a time, the "Coase theorem" was touted by Western academia as a substitute theory for classical Marxist ownership.

一方面，海外学界在对马克思主义经典所有制进行理论反思深化的过程中，呈现出“方法论”与“新理论”相结合的研究特征。就“方法论”而言，经典所有制理论被认为是马克思主义方法论的一个典型运用，它的整体语境在于“马克思主义的方法被视为是对资本主义的道德批判”，“在批评资本主义政治经济学的过程中，它将商业环境视为雇员和雇主之间的战场。”此外，研究者通过区分马克思主义与功利主义的方法论，尝试将与所有制理论直接相关的“劳动价值论”与“效用价值论”纳入到讨论范畴中，从而拓宽经典所有制理论的方法论研究视域。与此同时，进入20世纪，经典所有制研究转向一种“新理论”探索。这一新理论则涵盖了“所有制”“所有权”与“产权”等诸多新概念范畴。具体而言，从现代学科划分的角度来看，国外所有制问题研究总体上呈现出政治哲学与经济学的分野：在政治哲学方面，分析马克思主义学者科恩（G.A.Cohen）在《自我所有、自由与平等》（1995）一书中对诺奇克（Robert Nozick）《无政府、国家和乌托邦》（1974）中提及的“自我所有权”这一概念进行了批判，他认为诺奇克所主张的自我所有原则不能正当地证成对财产的原初获取。分析马克思主义学派另一代表人物约翰·罗默（John Roemer）则重点考察了与财产的不平等所有权相联系的结果的不平等即“剥削”，提出了机会平等为核心的分配正义原则；而在经济学方面，随着新制度经济学派的兴起，科斯以及产权理论被提升到了一个特殊高度。一时之间，“科斯定理”被西方学界鼓吹为马克思主义经典所有制的替代理论。

On the other hand, practical reflection on classical ownership is mainly manifested in reflections on Soviet ownership practices and the causes of the Soviet Union's dissolution. Especially in the late 1980s, discussions on ownership in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries were once very intense. For a long time, "'state ownership' was considered the central pillar of the traditional Soviet-style economy, which was also seen as a fundamental obstacle to advancing economic system reform. The painful lesson of the Soviet Union's failure also tells the world from the side that ownership reform is the most fundamental reform." [2]2 This is a paraphrase of a common argument found in Western analyses of Soviet economic failure, not a direct citation. Therefore, some French scholars have conducted critical reflections in conjunction with the "social ownership" in classical texts, arguing that the key issue lies in the transformation from "state ownership" to actual "social ownership," emphasizing "the democratization of decision-making institutions." [3]3 The "French scholars" and their specific texts are not identified in the original. Some researchers also believe that the first and most important component of private property, "self-ownership," was first abolished by Soviet socialism. The destruction of market incentive mechanisms during the Soviet period directly led to the establishment and enforcement of central planning and subsequent socio-political events, but this may have been the "only method" for managing production and distribution under socialist conditions. [4]4 This argument is attributed to an unnamed researcher in the original. Additionally, academia pays particular attention to the "shock therapy" and "rapid privatization" in the economic system transformation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. American scholar David M. Kotz is a strong critic of Russia's privatization policies. Through analysis and comparison of the development status of public enterprises in the United States and the property rights situation in the early days of the United States, he profoundly criticizes privatization and its latest theoretical basis, property rights theory. [5]5 David M. Kotz is a prominent American Marxist economist known for his critique of neoliberal reforms in Russia. Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned excavation and expansion of "methodology" and "new theory," as well as reflections on actual ownership, have further promoted and deepened research on classical ownership issues.

另一方面，对于经典所有制的实践反思主要表现为对苏联所有制实践及其解体原因的反思。尤其在20世纪80年代末，关于苏联东欧国家的所有制的讨论一度非常激烈。长期以来，“‘国家所有制’一直被认为是苏维埃式传统经济的中心支柱，这也被认为是推进经济体制改革的根本阻碍，苏联失败的惨痛教训也从侧面告诉世人所有制改革是最根本的改革。”因此，有法国学者结合经典文本中的“社会所有制”来进行批判性反思，并提出问题的关键在于“国家所有”向实际的“社会所有”转变，并强调“决策机构的民主化”。亦有研究者认为，私有财产的第一个也是最重要的组成部分即“自有所有权”，首先被苏联社会主义废除了，苏联时期对于市场激励机制的破坏直接导致了中央计划的建立、强制执行以及随后的一系列的社会政治事件，但这可能是社会主义条件下管理生产与分配的“唯一方法”。此外，学界尤其关注苏联解体后经济体制转型中的“休克疗法”和“快速私有化”，美国学者大卫·科茨（David M.Kotz）就是俄罗斯实行私有化政策的强有力批判者，他通过对美国的公有制企业发展现状以及美国建国初期的产权状况的分析比较，深刻批判了私有化及其依赖的最新理论即产权理论。毋庸置疑，上述“方法论”“新理论”的挖掘、拓展以及对现实所有制的反思都进一步推动和深化了经典所有制议题研究。

(2) Research and Evaluation of China's Ownership Reform Practice

（二）关于中国所有制领域改革实践的研究及评价

The year 1978 is a landmark year for China's economic and social system reform, including ownership reform. In the following decades, China maintained an average annual GDP growth rate of nearly 10% and became the world's second-largest economy, hailed by the outside world as the "China Miracle." Therefore, interpreting the "China Miracle" has become a hot topic in domestic and international academia. Representative domestic views include Cai Fang's "demographic dividend theory," Lin Yifu's "comparative advantage theory," and Steven Cheung's "county-level economic tournament theory." Internationally, it is generally believed that China has advantages such as cheap labor, high savings and investment rates, and benefits from export-oriented international trade. Of course, these theoretical analyses have some explanatory power to a certain extent, but the fundamental factor lies in the institutional-level practice of ownership reform. Therefore, scholars both at home and abroad have paid attention to and studied China's ownership reform.

1978年对于包括所有制领域改革在内的中国经济社会体制改革而言，是具有标志性意义的年份。在后来的几十年里，中国保持GDP年均增长率近10%并成为世界第二大经济体，被外界誉为“中国奇迹”。因此，解读“中国奇迹”成为了国内外学界的一个热点议题。在国内比较具有代表性的观点有蔡昉的“人口红利说”、林毅夫的“比较优势说”以及张五常的“县域经济锦标赛说”，而在国际上，一般认为中国具有廉价劳动力优势、高储蓄高投资特点以及得益于出口导向的国际贸易等。当然，这些理论分析都在一定程度上具有解释力，而根本在于制度层次的所有制改革实践，因此海内外学者都对中国所有制改革进行关注和研究。

One focus is on the household contract responsibility system in China's rural areas. Overseas researchers believe that "China's rural land system, while not recognizing permanent private land ownership, recognizes the legality of private production." [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a common observation by foreign scholars on China's rural reforms, not a direct quote. This view is closely related to the definition of the nature of rural economic system reform. In the eyes of many foreign researchers, although the household contract responsibility system has achieved great success in practice, it is considered a result of de-collectivization or privatization, and thus is considered to have a capitalist or semi-capitalist nature. Of course, some researchers attempt to combine classical Marxist theory with rural reform. For example, "Marx's theory of property is key to understanding the institutional change from the commune system to the household contract responsibility system, revealing that the household contract responsibility system is a form of 'individual property' envisioned by Marx in post-capitalist society." [7]7 This is a paraphrase of an argument made by some scholars applying Marx's concept of "individual property" (from *Capital*) to China's household contract responsibility system.

关注点之一在于中国农村地区的家庭联产承包责任制。海外研究者认为，“中国的农村土地制度虽然不承认永久性的土地私有权，但承认私有生产的合法性。”这一观点与农村经济体制改革的性质界定密切相关，在不少国外研究者眼中，尽管家庭联产承包责任制在实践中取得了很大成功，却被认为是去集体化或私有化的结果，进而被认为具有资本主义或半资本主义性质。当然也有研究者尝试将马克思主义经典理论与农村改革相结合，比如，“马克思的财产理论是理解从公社制度到家庭联产承包责任制的制度变迁的关键，它揭示了家庭联产承包责任制是马克思在后资本主义社会中设想的一种‘个人财产’。”

The second focus is on the development of the private economy in China. Some scholars believe that the development of China’s private economy is closely related to rural reform, and that “the revival of the private economy is a byproduct of the rural institutional reform, which restored agricultural production and management activities based on the household unit,” while the space for the development of the private economy is deeply influenced by state policies, and the continuous expansion of the private economy generally aligns with the reform orientation of China’s economic marketization.

关注点之二在于私营经济在中国的发展。有学者认为，中国的私营经济发展与农村改革密切相关，“私营经济的复兴是农村体制改革的副产品，该体制恢复了以家庭为单位的农业生产经营活动”，而私营经济的发展空间深受国家政策的影响，私营经济的不断壮大总体上符合中国经济市场化的改革取向。

The third focus is on China’s state-owned enterprise reform. China’s SOE reform has proceeded in stages, with different reform priorities in the 1980s, 1990s, and the period since the 21st century; therefore, the focal points of overseas research also vary accordingly. Some researchers have focused on the “tax-for-profit” reform of the 1980s, noting that “after the 1984 tax reform, the redistribution of distribution that could not be achieved through the ownership of the means of production via tax measures increasingly blurred the distinction between public and private ownership.” [8]8 The “tax-for-profit” reform (利改税) was a policy implemented in China in the 1980s that replaced the previous system of state-owned enterprises remitting all their profits to the state with a system of paying taxes, aimed at increasing enterprise autonomy and fiscal revenue. As for the SOE reform of the 1990s, the explanatory frameworks of mainstream Western economics are mainly three: the so-called “agency problem,” the so-called “free-rider problem,” and the so-called “soft budget constraint problem.” Under the above theoretical frameworks, overall, mainstream Western economics holds the “SOE inefficiency thesis,” i.e., that state-owned enterprises have unclear property rights, lack effective incentive mechanisms, and cannot effectively solve the “incentive compatibility” problem, thus prescribing “SOE privatization” as a solution for China’s SOE reform. However, in fact, China’s SOE reform has chosen another path. Researchers have found that China’s reform practice has proven that “SOE privatization is not a priority option in the process of transition to a market economy,” and that state-owned enterprises have always been “the institutionalized practical carrier of public ownership.” [9]9 The “SOE inefficiency thesis” (国企低效论) is a view common in mainstream Western economics that state-owned enterprises are inherently less efficient than private firms due to unclear property rights and weak incentives. Furthermore, unlike the previous round of policy formulation, the current stage of China’s SOE reform aims to simultaneously improve incentives and governance in SOEs and strengthen supervision, so as to enhance their responsiveness to political objectives, while state-owned capital investment and operating companies have become a key reference option for deepening SOE reform.

关注点之三在于中国的国有企业改革。中国的国企改革呈现阶段性，20世纪80年代、90年代与21世纪以来的改革重点都不尽相同，因此海外研究的聚焦点又有所差异。有研究者关注到了80年代的“利改税”改革，“1984年税收改革后通过税收的手段重新分配生产资料所有制所无法实现的分配，这在一定程度上日益分辨不清公有制与私有制的区别。”而对于90年代的国企改革，西方主流经济学的解释框架主要有三种：一是所谓“代理问题”，二是所谓“搭便车问题”，三是所谓“预算软约束问题”。在上述理论框架下，总体而言，西方主流经济学界持有“国企低效论”，即认为国有企业产权不清晰，缺乏有效的激励机制，无法有效解决“激励相容”问题，因此为中国国企改革开出了“国企私有化”的解决方案。但是，事实上中国的国企改革选择了另一条路径。研究者们发现，中国改革实践经验证明“在向市场经济过渡的过程中国企私有化并非优先选项”，国有企业始终是“公有制的制度化实践载体”。此外，与前一轮政策制定不同之处在于，当前阶段中国的国企改革希望同时实现对国有企业激励和治理的改善并加强监督，以提高其对政治目标的反应速度，而国有资产投资运营公司成为当前深化国企改革的重点参考选项。

(III) Research Judgments on the Future Development Trend of Ownership

（三）关于所有制未来发展趋向的研究判断

Combining the research of overseas scholars and related think tanks, the basic tendencies held by contemporary overseas academia regarding the future development trend of ownership can be broadly identified. On the one hand, overseas academia will continue to focus on the analysis of ownership issues at the meso and micro levels in the coming period, for example, focusing on individual, partnership, or large enterprise forms of corporate private ownership, or household-ownership. In a report by the U.S. RAND Corporation, it even predicted drastic changes in the ownership field and corresponding response strategies after the collapse of the North Korean regime; the report paid particular attention to issues such as real estate ownership and enterprise ownership, and suggested learning from the method of using privatization trust funds to manage enterprise ownership adopted during the unification of East and West Germany to facilitate the transition, so that bids could be made through privatization schemes. [10]10 The RAND Corporation is a prominent American non-profit global policy think tank. The reference to East and West Germany concerns the privatization of state-owned enterprises in East Germany after German reunification in 1990. Of course, this is just a typical microcosm of overseas research, but it points to a fact: although the real economic world no longer simply remains at the level of contradiction between “public” and “private” or discarding “public” for “private,” many overseas researchers still exhibit ideological preferences in their research on ownership issues. Coincidentally, at the beginning of the outbreak of the Sino-US trade friction in 2018, the United States harshly criticized the existence of a large number of state-owned enterprises in China and used this to deny China’s market economy status.

结合海外学者和相关智库的研究，总体上可以辨识出当代海外学界对于所有制未来发展趋向所持有的基本倾向。一方面，海外学界在以后的一段时间内仍然将聚焦于中观和微观层次的所有制问题分析，例如关注个体的、合伙的或者大型企业的法人私有制形式，或者是household-ownership（家庭所有制）。在美国兰德公司的一份报告中，甚至预测了朝鲜政权崩溃后该国所有制领域的剧烈变化及其应对策略，报告尤其关注关于房产所有权、企业所有权等问题，并建议借鉴东西德国统一时采取的私有化信托基金托管企业所有权的方式实现过渡，以便可以通过私有化方案竞标购买。当然这只是海外研究的一个典型缩影，却指向了一个事实：尽管现实经济世界不再简单地停留在非“公”即“私”或因“私”废“公”的矛盾层次，但海外不少研究者对于所有制议题研究也仍然体现出意识形态偏好。无独有偶，2018年中美贸易摩擦爆发之初，美国对中国存在大量国有企业横加指责，并借此否认中国的市场经济地位。

On the other hand, the situation of “coexistence of two systems” [11]11 “Coexistence of two systems” (两制并存) refers to the long-term coexistence of the socialist system led by the CPC and the capitalist systems of other countries in the international arena. will still exist for a considerable period of time. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, in his book *Whither Socialism?*, pointed out that both neoclassical economics and market socialism face the practical dilemma of incomplete information and imperfect markets. This is a common problem that different ownership economic entities will all face. Looking back now, Stiglitz’s judgment in an article in the American magazine *Vanity Fair* that “the Chinese century begins in 2015” seems premature. [12]12 Joseph Stiglitz is an American economist and critic of neoclassical economics. *Vanity Fair* is an American magazine of culture, fashion, and politics. Furthermore, foreign left-wing scholars remain committed to the study of the systemic crisis of contemporary capitalism. For example, Samir Amin, in *Capitalism in the Age of Globalization: The Management of Contemporary Society*, focused on analyzing alternative solutions to a humanitarianism completely dependent on the logic of capital against the backdrop of global polarization. [13]13 Samir Amin (1931-2018) was an Egyptian-French Marxist economist and a prominent figure in world-systems theory. Of course, for research on the future development trend of ownership, a more pragmatic research object lies in selecting state-owned enterprises and emerging partnership enterprise ownership forms for analysis, rather than discussing merits and demerits in a general sense. For example, Professor Chen Hanxi of City University of Hong Kong and his collaborators believe that there are huge differences in the definition and management of public ownership enterprises between China and the United States; the nature of public ownership enterprises is constrained by “regime values,” and the classification of U.S. public ownership enterprises is to make them “constitutionalized” rather than agencies of government action. Correspondingly, China’s state-owned enterprise management structure corresponds to the administrative hierarchy, and state-owned enterprises play a unique role in the national economy, politics, and society, while China and the United States will continue to maintain this difference in economic systems. [14]14 Chen Hanxi (陈汉宣) is a professor of public policy at City University of Hong Kong. “Regime values” (政权价值观) here refers to the political and ideological principles that shape the definition and management of public ownership in different state systems. Some researchers have also noted that China’s state-owned enterprises will place greater emphasis on “corporate governance reform,” “mixed ownership,” “strengthening supervision,” and “defining the tasks of SOEs.”

另一方面，“两制并存”的局面仍然将在相当长的一段时间内存在。诺贝尔经济学奖获得者约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨（Joseph Eugene Stiglitz）曾在《社会主义向何处去：经济体制转型的理论与证据》中指出，新古典经济学与市场社会主义都面临着不完全信息与不完备市场的现实困境。这是不同所有制经济主体都将共同面对的问题。而现在回过头来看，斯蒂格利茨在美国杂志《名利场》撰文作出“中国世纪从2015年开始”的判断似乎还为时过早。此外，国外左翼学者们仍然致力于对当代资本主义系统性危机的研究，比如，萨米尔·阿明则在《全球化时代的资本主义：对当代社会的管理》重点分析了全球两极分化背景下对那种完全依附资本逻辑的人道主义的替代性方案。当然，对于所有制未来发展趋向的研究，比较务实的研究对象在于选取国有企业以及新兴的合伙人企业所有制形式进行分析，而不是在一般意义上讨论优劣好坏。比如，香港城市大学陈汉宣教授与他的合作者认为，中美两国的公有制企业的界定及其管理存在巨大差异，公有制企业的性质受制于“政权价值观”，美国公有制企业分类为使之“合宪法化”而非政府行为的代理机构；与之相对应，中国的国有企业管理结构对应着行政序列，国有企业在国民经济、政治社会中扮演着独特作用，而中美两国将继续保持这种经济体制差异。亦有研究者关注到中国的国有企业将更加侧重于“公司治理改革”“混合所有制”“加强监督”“界定国企任务”等。

II. The Achievements and Deficiencies of Overseas Academic Research on Classical Ownership and Practical Issues

二、海外学界对于经典所有制与实践议题的研究成效与不足之处

Based on the above review, the research of overseas academia on Marxist property ownership theory and practice has been clearly presented, enriching and expanding the breadth and depth of research on this topic to a certain extent. Overall, the merits of overseas research are manifested in two aspects: On the one hand, overseas research has further broadened the methodological foundation of classical ownership issues, especially providing a novel research perspective for the comparison of different ownership forms at home and abroad. A main feature of domestic research is to analyze Marxist property ownership theory from its “connotation and extension,” rather than using it as a methodology. On the other hand, overseas academia mainly studies ownership forms from meso and micro perspectives, thereby constituting another path for ownership research. For a long time, domestic ownership research has focused on macro-level discussions such as the nature, structure, and function of ownership, while overseas academia has taken the opposite approach, consistent with the trend in Western economics of focusing on microeconomic behavioral agents. However, beyond the above positive evaluations, overseas research still has some deficiencies, and an objective evaluation of these deficiencies and research characteristics is even more important.

基于上述梳理，海外学界关于马克思主义所有制理论与实践的研究已经清晰地呈现出来，一定程度上丰富和拓展了这一议题的研究广度和研究深度。总体而言，海外研究的可取之处表现在两方面：一方面，海外研究进一步拓宽了经典所有制议题的方法论基础，尤其为国内外不同所有制形式的比较提供了一个新颖的研究视角。国内研究的一个主要特征在于从马克思主义所有制理论的“内涵外延”出发加以阐发分析，而非以此作为一种方法论；另一方面，海外学界主要从中观和微观的角度研究所有制形态，以此构成所有制研究的另一条路径。长期以来，国内所有制研究侧重从所有制的性质、结构与功能等宏观层面进行探讨，海外学界则与此截然相反，这与西方经济学对微观经济行为主体的关注趋势一致。然而，在上述肯定性评价之外，海外研究仍然存在部分不足之处，对其不足之处以及研究特点进行客观评价则显得更为重要。

First, although overseas academic circles have explored the issue of ownership from different perspectives, overall, overseas academic research on Marxist theory of ownership is relatively scarce. This quantitative performance in research directly results in a relative blank in domestic translation and introduction. However, the real question lies in exploring what causes this situation. In this regard, from the perspective of the evolution of academic history, at least the following analysis can be drawn: In the 19th century, during the era of Marx and Engels, the issue of ownership of the means of production was an important entry point and foothold for their analysis and critique of the capitalist mode of production. They revealed the inherent contradictions of capitalism through the question of the attribution of the means of production, and used the ultimate outbreak of contradictions at the essential level of ownership change as their theoretical weapon, thereby forming Marxist political economy, which possesses both scientific and moral dimensions. However, accompanied by the so-called "marginal revolution" initiated by the marginal utility school in the 1870s, a historical shift in the paradigm of economic research occurred, namely, from classical economics, which focused on production, supply, and cost, to modern economics, which emphasizes consumption, demand, and utility. It is also in this sense that mainstream Western economics "selectively obscures" the issue of ownership of the means of production and treats capitalist private ownership as a prerequisite for resource allocation. Therefore, for a period of time, the classical Marxist theory of ownership "lost its voice" in mainstream Western discourse. To this day, this research paradigm still profoundly influences Western academia. The research object of Western economics is how to achieve Pareto optimality under conditions of resource scarcity; its inherent metaphor is the default assumption of capitalist private ownership as a premise. From this point, it is not difficult to understand that although Western countries have successively proposed a series of fiscal, tax, and financial reform plans, they still cannot fundamentally solve the problem of income disparity and wealth polarization, and fundamentally cannot escape the rut of "capitalist ownership." For example, Piketty's *Capital in the Twenty-First Century* profoundly reveals the fact of distribution imbalance in contemporary capitalist society, but that approach of seeing only "distribution" without seeing "ownership," that is, the neglect of relations of production, especially the ownership of the means of production as a relation of production, has been proven to remain only on the surface of factual analysis without grasping the root of things. The above are the deep-seated reasons for the relative scarcity of overseas academic research on Marxist theory of ownership.

第一，尽管海外学界从不同角度对所有制问题进行探索，但总体上海外学界关于马克思主义所有制理论研究相对较少。这一研究数量上的表现直接造成了国内相关翻译介绍的相对空白状态，但是，真正的问题在于探究是什么原因造成了这一现状。对此，从学术史演进的角度至少可以得出以下分析：在19世纪马克思、恩格斯生活的时代，生产资料所有制问题是他们分析和批判资本主义生产方式的重要切入点和落脚点，他们通过生产资料的归属问题揭示了资本主义的内在固有矛盾，并以所有制更替这一本质层面矛盾的最终爆发作为其理论武器，由此形成了兼具科学性和道义性的马克思主义政治经济学。然而，伴随着19世纪70年代边际效用学派掀起的所谓“边际革命”，导致了经济学研究范式的历史转向，即从关注生产、供给与成本的古典经济学，转向强调消费、需求和效用的现代经济学。也正是从这个意义上说，西方主流经济学对生产资料所有制问题进行“选择性遮蔽”，并将资本主义私有制作为资源配置的前提条件。因此，在一段时间内，马克思主义经典所有制理论在西方主流话语中“失声”。至今，这一研究范式仍然深刻影响着西方学界，西方经济学的研究对象是资源稀缺性条件下如何实现帕累托最优，它的内在隐喻便是默认资本主义私有制作为前提，从这一点出发，也就不难理解尽管西方国家相继提出一系列财政税收金融改革方案，但仍然无法从根本上解决收入差距贫富分化问题，从根本上难以摆脱“资本家所有制”的窠臼。比如，皮凯蒂的《21世纪资本论》深刻揭示了当代资本主义社会中的分配失衡事实，但那种只见“分配”不见“所有”的做法，即对于生产关系尤其是对于作为生产关系的生产资料所有制的忽视，都被证明只是停留在事实分析的表面而没有抓住事物的根本。上述就是海外学者关于马克思主义所有制理论研究较少的深层次原因。

Second, overseas academic research and judgments on China's ownership reform are still deeply influenced by their mainstream ideology, thus carrying inherent "biases" in certain conclusions and evaluations. From the research materials currently available, overseas research has basically reached a consensus, namely, acknowledging that ownership is a fundamental and overall issue concerning the success or failure of economic reform. However, the mainstream view of overseas academia on China's ownership reform still falls into a typical binary opposition with traditional Cold War thinking, that is, black or white, either/or, public or private. This research characteristic is directly manifested in their views and conclusions in two aspects: first, the analytical framework for the efficiency problem of state-owned enterprises and their reform; second, the issue of the role and status of the private economy in the socialist market economy. Taking the analysis of state-owned enterprises as an example, overseas research neglects the overall context of China's state-owned enterprises since the founding of the People's Republic of China. Overall, the analysis of the role of state-owned enterprises in state-building since the founding of the People's Republic of China can at least be summarized as "material carrier theory," "political foundation theory," "state-building theory," etc. State-owned enterprises are "the pillar of the national economy and the economic foundation of the governance of the Communist Party of China." [15]15 Xi Jinping, "Speech at the National Conference on Party Building in State-Owned Enterprises" (October 10, 2016), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping's Works*, vol. 2 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), p. 175. At the same time, a large number of the working class have developed within state-owned enterprises, laying the political foundation of socialism with Chinese characteristics. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the National Conference on Party Building in State-Owned Enterprises that state-owned enterprises "have over 40 million on-the-job workers, nearly 800,000 Party organizations, and over 10 million Party members; these are the backbone of the working class. Building state-owned enterprises well and giving full play to the role of the working class are of great significance for consolidating the Party's ruling position and consolidating China's socialist system." [16]16 Xi Jinping, "Speech at the National Conference on Party Building in State-Owned Enterprises," p. 176. However, overseas research, based on the fact that state-owned enterprises under the capitalist system often play a supplementary rather than a necessary role, imposes many restrictions on state-owned enterprises based on multiple theoretical abstractions such as the Coase theorem, the rational actor hypothesis, and perfect markets. Yet, they have never been able to confirm who plays the role of entrepreneur for a late-developing country lacking a mature market and sufficient capital. The existence and operation of state-owned enterprises is a proposition of foundational significance, while overseas research largely ignores this socio-historical context. Of course, although some of the solutions proposed by overseas scholars deviate from China's reality and offer mixed evaluations of the sustainability of China's economic situation, their related research still provides different perspectives for understanding China's ownership reform. This also offers us useful insights for re-understanding and re-evaluating Western theories, namely, that the judgment of a theory's validity cannot merely remain on the surface of theoretical abstraction but must also examine the positions, viewpoints, and methods behind the theory.

第二，海外学界对于中国所有制改革的研究和判断仍然深受其主流意识形态的影响，因而某些结论和评价上带有先天的“偏见”。从目前掌握的研究材料来看，海外研究已经基本达成共识，亦即承认所有制是一个事关经济改革成败的根本性、全局性问题。然而，海外学界对我国所有制改革的主流观点仍然陷入具有传统冷战思维的典型的二元对立论，即非黑即白、非此即彼、非公即私。这一研究特征直接表现在他们两方面的观点和结论：一是对于国有企业效率难题及其改革的分析框架，二是关于私营经济在社会主义市场经济中的地位作用问题。以国有企业问题分析为例，海外研究忽视了新中国成立以来我国国有企业的整体语境。总体而言，国有企业对于新中国成立以来国家建构的作用分析，至少可以归纳为“物质载体论”“政治基础论”“国家建构论”等，国有企业是“国民经济和中国共产党执政的经济基础中的支柱”，同时一大批工人阶级在国有企业中发展，奠定了中国特色社会主义的政治基础。习近平总书记在全国国有企业党的建设工作会议上指出，国有企业“拥有四千多万在岗职工、近八十万个党组织、一千多万名党员，这是工人阶级队伍的骨干力量。把国有企业建设好，把工人阶级作用发挥好，对巩固党的执政地位、巩固我国社会主义制度具有十分重大的意义”。然而，海外研究基于这样一个事实，亦即资本主义制度下的国有企业往往发挥的是辅助性作用而非必要性作用，因此，基于“科斯定理”、理性人假设、完美市场等多重理论抽象，对国有企业作出诸多限制。然而，他们始终无法确证，对于一个没有成熟市场、充裕资本的后发国家而言，谁来扮演企业家的角色。国有企业的存在与运行是一个具有奠基意义的命题，而海外研究则很大程度上忽视了这一社会历史语境。当然，尽管海外学者给出的部分方案脱离了中国的实际，并对中国经济现状的可持续性褒贬不一，但他们的相关研究仍然提供了理解中国所有制改革的不同视角。这同样为我们重新认识和理解西方理论提供了有益启示，亦即对于一种理论有效性的判断不能仅仅停留在理论抽象的表面，更在于考察理论背后的立场、观点和方法。

III. Several Issues for Further Deepening Ownership Research from a Domestic and International Comparative Perspective

三、国内外比较视野下进一步深化所有制研究的几个问题

Generally speaking, reviewing and evaluating the progress of overseas research is only the first step; more importantly, it is necessary to conduct reasonable and essential research prospects. Regarding the issue of ownership, the situation of "a hundred schools of thought contending" in domestic related research contrasts sharply with the "little-known" status of overseas research. This domestic and international comparative perspective is bound to have certain reference and enlightening significance for deepening research on the ownership issue.

一般而言，对于海外研究进展的回顾和评价只是第一步，更为重要的是进行合理且必要的研究展望。就所有制议题而言，国内相关研究“百家争鸣”与海外研究“鲜为人知”这两种境况形成鲜明对比，这一国内外比较视野对于深化所有制议题研究势必具有一定的借鉴与启示意义。

First, research on contemporary capitalist ownership urgently needs to be deepened and strengthened, and on this basis, comparative research on the advantages and effectiveness of different ownership systems at home and abroad needs to be developed. When the author discovered the characteristic fact that overseas academic research on classical ownership theory is relatively scarce, this served as an opportunity to reflect on the overall situation of domestic academic research on contemporary Western capitalist private ownership. Undoubtedly, the issue of ownership has profound ideological implications. Although overseas social science research once prided itself on being objective and neutral, its ideological nature is also embedded within it. Beyond the ideological dimension, research on the issue of ownership in contemporary Western countries needs to be strengthened, and this area is currently in a near-vacuum state within domestic academia. Based on the author's rough search, the number of monographs currently available on the market specifically studying contemporary capitalist private ownership is very scarce, represented by the book *Research on Ownership in Developed Capitalist Countries* published in 1998 by Professor Gao Feng of Nankai University and several other scholars. [17]17 Gao Feng et al., *Research on Ownership in Developed Capitalist Countries* (Beijing: Economic Science Press, 1998). Research in this area needs to respond theoretically to a fundamental proposition: why has capitalist private ownership not had its "death knell sounded" as Marx analyzed and revealed in *Capital*? A further question that needs exploration is how capitalist private ownership has prolonged its life and mitigated the inherent contradictions of capitalism in the historical process since the 20th century. Since the second half of the 20th century, the processes of marketization, financialization, and informatization that have flourished in the Western capitalist world have inevitably had a profound impact on the ownership relations of Western countries, which requires further explanation and research. Furthermore, from an international comparative perspective, the efficiency advantages of socialist ownership with Chinese characteristics should be fully explored and confirmed in comparison with capitalist private ownership. Competition between countries is, in the final analysis, competition between systems. Since China has chosen this arrangement in its system design, it must achieve a competitive advantage in comparison with Western capitalist private ownership. In particular, it should clearly articulate the characteristic advantages of China's ownership system in terms of "moral righteousness," "inclusiveness," and "synergy," which is also crucial for strengthening confidence in the system.

第一，当代资本主义所有制研究亟需深化和加强，以及在此基础上的国内外不同所有制的优势效能比较研究有待开拓。当笔者发现海外学界关于经典所有制问题理论研究相对较少这一特征事实，以此为契机，反思国内学界对于当代西方资本主义私有制研究的整体概况。毋庸置疑，所有制问题具有深刻的意识形态性，尽管海外社会科学研究一度以客观中立自居，但其意识形态性同样寓于其中。在意识形态性之外，对于当代西方国家所有制问题的研究有待加强，而这一版块，目前在国内学界基本处于真空状态。经笔者粗略检索，目前市面上能够找到的关于当代资本主义私有制研究的专著数量甚为稀缺，以南开大学高峰教授等多位学者于1998年出版的《发达资本主义国家的所有制研究》一书为代表。这一版块的研究在学理上需要回应一个根本命题，即为什么资本主义私有制没有按照马克思在《资本论》中分析揭示的那样“丧钟就要敲响了”。更进一步需要探究的问题，即20世纪以来的历史进程中资本主义私有制通过何种方式延续了它的生命，并缓和了资本主义内在的固有矛盾。20世纪下半叶以来，自西方资本主义世界蓬勃兴起的市场化、金融化、信息化过程对西方国家的所有制关系必然产生了深远影响，这需要进一步阐释研究。此外，在国际比较视野之下，应当充分挖掘中国特色社会主义所有制的效能优势，并在与资本主义私有制的比较中得以确证。国与国之间的竞争，归根到底是制度的竞争。既然我国在制度设计上选择了这一安排，那么，必须要在与西方资本主义私有制的比较中实现竞争优势，尤其应在“道义性”“包容性”和“协同性”等方面讲清楚我国所有制的特征优势，这对于坚定制度自信同样至关重要。

Second, the deepening of reforms at the level of the socialist basic economic system with Chinese characteristics, including reforms in the field of ownership in the New Era, should particularly be strengthened in research and interpretation. Against the backdrop of discursive asymmetry between China and the West, the Western neoliberal discourse centered on “marketization, privatization, and liberalization” once prevailed in China’s reform process, even prescribing “privatization of state-owned enterprises” as a policy recommendation for SOEs. Whether state-owned enterprises can truly become stronger, better, and larger directly tests the governance capacity of the Communist Party of China and relates to whether its governance goals can be achieved. Therefore, on the one hand, it is necessary to unequivocally oppose “privatization” and “de-SOE-ification,” and not to label the public sector as inefficient or monopolistic under the guise of reform and opening up and international equal dialogue, thereby pushing for privatization and allowing private capital to carve up, segment, appropriate, and mix with it; on the other hand, research on deepening the reform of state-owned enterprises in the New Era should be strengthened, with theoretical arguments and discussions on how competitive SOEs can become “stronger,” “better,” and “larger” in market competition, so as to truly achieve the unity of theory and practice. In terms of the current progress of domestic academic research, studies on SOEs are mainly divided into two categories: “overall research” and “specialized research.” Among them, “overall research” mainly focuses on the paradigm, logic, and goals of SOE reform in the New Era, especially from the perspective of Xi Jinping’s series of expositions and basic thoughts on SOE reform in the New Era; “specialized research” respectively focuses on specific reform contents such as mixed ownership, classified reform, the state-owned assets supervision system, state-owned capital operation, the employee stock ownership system, and Party building. Taking “mixed ownership” as an example, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC [18]18 The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC, held in November 2013, was a key meeting that adopted a comprehensive reform blueprint, including the decision to restart mixed-ownership reform in state-owned enterprises. announced the restart of mixed-ownership reform, which attracted academic attention. Cheng Enfu believes that “mixed ownership with public capital as the main body” should be vigorously developed, while some scholars have proposed avoiding falling into a “carnival of capital.” Yang Ruilong, Zhang Huiming, and others argue that only by implementing the principle of classification and stratification can the mixed-ownership reform of SOEs be further advanced, thereby forming “innovations in the governance structure of state-owned enterprises.” Gu Yumin, Zhang Leisheng, and others believe that mixed ownership will “further improve the efficiency of state-owned capital allocation and operation and optimize the layout of the state-owned economy.” This research path will generally enrich and develop the problem domain of Marxist theory of ownership, further expand the research scope of the theory and practice of socialist ownership with Chinese characteristics, thereby deepening research on ownership issues in socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, and laying a deeper theoretical foundation for China’s ownership reform.

第二，新时代中国包括所有制领域深化改革在内的社会主义基本经济制度层面的改革尤其应当加强研究阐释。在中西话语不对称的背景下，以“市场化、私有化、自由化”为内核的西方新自由主义话语在中国改革进程中一度大行其道，甚至对国有企业开出了“国企私有化”的政策建议。而国有企业能否真正做强做优做大直接检验着中国共产党的执政能力，并关系到其执政目标能否实现，因此，一方面需要旗帜鲜明地反对“私有化”和“去国企化”，不能借改革开放和以国际平等对话名义而将公有制经济贴上低效、垄断的标签推行私有化，任由私人资本进行切块、分割、占有和混合；另一方面，加强新时代国有企业深化改革研究，在理论上充分论证和探讨竞争性国有企业如何在市场竞争中变得更“强”、更“优”、更“大”，这样才能真正实现理论与实践相统一。就目前国内学界研究进展而言，国有企业研究主要分为“总体性研究”和“专门性研究”两类。其中，“总体性研究”主要关注新时代国有企业改革的范式、逻辑与目标，尤其从习近平总书记关于新时代国企改革的系列论述和基本思想的角度切入；“专门性研究”则分别聚焦混合所有制、分类改革、国有资产监管体制、国有资本运营、员工持股制度、党的建设等具体改革内容。以“混合所有制”为例，党的十八届三中全会宣布重启混合所有制改革引起学界关注，程恩富认为，应当大力发展“公有资本为主体的混合所有制”，也有学者提出应避免陷入“资本的狂欢”；杨瑞龙、张晖明等人认为，只有落实分类分层原则，才能进一步推进国有企业混合所有制改革，从而形成“国有企业治理结构的创新”；顾钰民、张雷声等人认为混合所有制将“进一步提高国有资本配置和运行效率、优化国有经济布局”。这一研究路径将从总体上丰富和发展马克思主义所有制理论的问题域，进一步拓展中国特色社会主义所有制理论与实践的研究范围，从而深化中国特色社会主义政治经济学中的所有制问题研究，为我国所有制改革奠定更加深厚的理论基础。

Third, research on the development trends of ownership needs to be further strengthened, especially in understanding and grasping the impact of the digital economy on traditional ownership relations. The proposition of ownership development trends no longer merely concerns issues of nature and structure (which, to some extent, still remains in the “public” vs. “private” debate); more importantly, attention must be paid to the factual characteristic that artificial intelligence and the digital economy have become new economic features, which are bound to profoundly impact traditional labor processes and economic relations. This is particularly evident in the platform economy. Abroad, “digital labor” has become a notable and important topic, especially the emergence of new forms of labor organization and capital organization in the process of “digital labor.” Relevant research can be found in Christian Fuchs’s *Digital Labour and Karl Marx* and Nick Dyer-Witheford’s *Cyber-Proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex*. Domestically, scholars represented by Professor Xie Fusheng of the School of Economics at Renmin University of China have also paid attention to this issue, but related research still needs to be further deepened. In short, the impact of the digital economy on traditional ownership relations manifests, on the one hand, in the means-of-production-ization of digital information, and on the other hand, in “riders trapped in the system,” which is changing traditional employment methods and owner-laborer relations. The core of the digital economy’s impact on traditional ownership relations lies in “data ownership,” which fundamentally expands the relational space of labor and capital in Marxist theory of ownership—that is, shifting from the original material attribution in reality to virtual data attribution. In other words, whether it is the ongoing heated debate over the employment issues of food delivery platforms or the policy orientation of “developing the platform economy,” both provide a new contemporary background for the study of ownership today.

第三，对于所有制发展趋向的研究有待进一步加强，尤其是认识和把握数字经济对传统所有制关系的影响。所有制发展趋向命题已经不仅仅关涉性质、结构问题（这意味着在一定程度上仍停留在“公”“私”之争），更重要的是需要注意这样一个事实特征，即人工智能、数字经济已经成为新的经济特征，势必对传统的劳动过程和经济关系产生深刻影响，这一点在平台经济中表现尤其突出。在国外，“数字劳动”（Digital Labour）已经成为一个引人关注的重要议题，尤其是“数字劳动”过程中出现了新的劳动组织形式以及资本组织方式，相关研究可以参见克里斯蒂安·福克斯（Christian Fuchs）的《数字劳动与卡尔·马克思》和尼克·迪尔—维斯福特（Nick Dyer-Witheford）的《赛博无产阶级：数字漩涡中的全球劳动》。在国内，也有以中国人民大学经济学院谢富胜教授为代表的学者关注到了这一问题，但相关研究仍然有待进一步深入。数字经济对于传统所有制关系的影响，简言之，一方面是数字信息的生产资料化，另一方面是“困在系统里的骑手”，正在改变着传统的用工方式和所有者—劳动者关系。而数字经济对于传统所有制关系的影响核心在于“数据所有权”，这一点从根本上拓展了马克思主义所有制理论中关于劳动和资本的关系空间，即从原先的现实的物质归属转向了虚拟的数据归属。也就是说，无论是持续引发热议的外卖平台用工问题，还是“发展平台经济”的政策导向，都为当代所有制研究提供了新的时代背景。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗