From Regime Transformation to State Governance: The Shift in Focus of Overseas Contemporary Chinese Political Studies

Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, overseas studies of Chinese politics have broadly undergone a paradigm shift from early totalitarianism, through the factional politics of the “Cultural Revolution” (hereinafter “the Cultural Revolution”), to the authoritarian paradigm after reform and opening up. Although the research paradigm has shifted, studies have still mainly examined the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the political system it created from the perspective of value judgment or ideology, fundamentally holding a negative view of China’s socialist political

新中国成立以来，海外中国政治研究大致上经历了从早期的极权主义、“文化大革命”（以下简称“文革”）时期的派系政治到改革开放以后的威权主义范式转换。研究范式虽有转换，但研究仍主要从价值判断或意识形态的角度来考察中国共产党领导及其创建的政治制度，对中国的社会主义政治制度基本持否定看法，认为其应该也必将向西方的自由民主体制转型。21 世纪以后，特别是中共十八大以来，海外学者越来越注重从微观实践的角度考察中国共产党治国理政实践，相对来说，原来那种以价值判断或意识形态为先的研究取向有所改变。有学者观察到，“海外学者正在逐步摆脱‘民主—威权’的对立思维，更多地认识到国家体系在中国社会主义发展中的重要作用，一种以中国为本位、更加重视国家能力的研究趋势正在形成”。这一趋势可以概括为海外中国政治研究正在经历着从体制转型 向国家治理的重心转换。这里所说的重心转换是一个总体的趋势性判断，而不是说所有海外学者中国政治研究的关注焦点都已经发生改变。现实中，还有不少人戴着有色眼镜来看待中国特色社会主义制度，一些唱衰中国共产党和中国特色社会主义制度的论调依然存在。从国内来看，人们对海外中国政治研究中的价值判断或意识形态取向已有比较深入的了解，但是对以国家治理为重心的海外中国政治研究成果还不够关注，尤其是对两种不同研究重心之间的转换缺乏深入的理论思考。但这并不意味着国内学者完全忽略了海外学者对中国国家治理的研究。例如，唐磊认为，中国特色社会主义进入新时代，中国共产党在治国理政中的核心作用不断增强，“刺激着中国研究的研究视角和概念（理论）生产的相应调整”。张克以“政策试验”为切入点，考察了海外学者对中国国家治理的研究。张明则通过梳理国外当代中国国家治理研究的理论进展，提炼出了“传统文化形塑论”“革命经验积累论”“改革创新实践论”等来阐明当代中国国家治理的形成基础。借鉴已有这些研究成果，本文将在梳理新中国成立以来海外中国政治研究发展历程的基础上，考察21世纪尤其是中共十八大以来海外学者关于中国国家治理的研究成果，阐明海外中国政治研究重心转换的内在逻辑、可取之处、存在的不足及把握这种研究重心转换的基本原则，以期全面系统地认识和有效应对海外中国政治研究的发展趋势，讲好中国共产党治国理政的故事。

Overseas Chinese Political Studies Centered on Institutional Transformation: Paradigms and Evolution

以体制转型为重心的海外中国政治研究：范式及演进

Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, overseas academia, primarily in the United States, has maintained close attention to the Chinese Communist Party and the people's political power under its leadership, conducting a large amount of research. It is generally believed in academic circles that overseas contemporary Chinese political studies emerged from earlier "overseas Sinology" and "overseas Chinese studies." In terms of research objects, overseas Chinese political studies have gone through several stages, from an early focus on macro-level institutions to a post-21st-century emphasis on micro-level policy implementation. In terms of research perspectives, before the 21st century, overseas Chinese political studies were more often observed from the angle of institutional value, evolving from the early totalitarianism research paradigm to the authoritarianism research paradigm after reform and opening up, the core of both being the belief that China should transition to a Western-style liberal democratic system.

自新中国成立起，以美国为主的海外学术界对中国共产党及其领导下的人民政权保持了密切关注，进行了大量研究。学界一般认为，海外当代中国政治研究脱胎于此前的“海外汉学”和“海外中国学”研究。从研究对象上看，海外中国政治研究经历了从早期以宏观制度为主到21世纪以后以微观层面政策执行等为主的数个阶段。从研究视角看，21世纪以前，海外中国政治研究更多地从制度价值的角度进行观察，从早期的极权主义研究范式到改革开放以后的威权主义研究范式，其核心都是认为中国应向西方的自由民主体制转型。

(I) Overseas Chinese Political Studies under the Totalitarianism Paradigm After the 1950s, overseas Chinese political studies took China's political system and institutions as their main research objects, with totalitarianism as the dominant paradigm. After World War II, the United States, due to its own economic, political, and military growth, increasingly valued research on the Far East and the Pacific region, especially research on the newly established People's Republic of China, viewing it as part of its global strategy. This shift caused American research on China at the time to move from purely academic inquiry toward "openly serving the U.S. global strategy and national interests," becoming an important characteristic of postwar American Chinese political studies. At the same time, due to estrangement or even hostility between nations, overseas scholars' research on China mainly relied on official documents or news reports as sources, leading to broad judgments based on limited materials during this period. The problems arising from this research approach were, as American scholar Elizabeth J. Perry noted: "The totalitarian model imported from Soviet studies blinded scholars, making them focus only on state-sponsored ideology and organization while overlooking the importance of social forces." The focus of overseas Chinese political studies during this period was the analysis of the party-state's structure and institutions. Representative works, such as American scholar A. Doak Barnett's *Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China* and Franz Schurmann's *Ideology and Organization in Communist China*, became the foundation for subsequent American China scholars' research on socialist political systems. During this period, most overseas researchers adopted the totalitarianism research paradigm. American scholar Michel Oksenberg mentioned that in the 1950s and early 1960s, people viewed Chinese politics through the totalitarian model. Internally, the leadership was a united collective, and decisions were made collectively. Externally, the close Sino-Soviet alliance led people to believe that the nature of this new regime was similar to the Soviet Union: "Its leaders adhered to Marxism; high-level political leadership exercised totalitarian control over the entire society and culture; a centrally planned economy, where resource allocation was politically determined." At the time, the overseas academic community's view of the totalitarian model and the Chinese political system actually reflected the fear of the Sino-Soviet alliance on the part of the Western world, led by the United States. From the above, it can be seen that overseas Chinese political studies at that time were deeply influenced by U.S. global strategy and the pattern of East-West confrontation. The resulting scarcity of research materials constrained the in-depth development of overseas Chinese political studies. More importantly, this confrontation, along with the accompanying ideological bias, even dominated overseas Chinese political studies to a certain extent during this period; the prevalence of the totalitarianism paradigm was a direct manifestation of this bias. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that promoting the transformation of China's political system,

（一）极权主义范式下的海外中国政治研究20世纪50年代后，海外中国政治研究以中国的政治体制和制度为主要研究对象，以极权主义为主导范式。第二次世界大战后，美国因其自身经济、政治和军事实力的增长，越来越重视对远东和太平洋地区的研究，尤其重视对新成立的中华人民共和国的研究，并将之视为其全球战略的一部分。这种变化导致此时美国对中国的研究从原来单纯的学术探讨转向“公开为美国全球战略、国家利益服务”，并成为战后美国中国政治研究的一个重要特点。同时，由于国家间的隔阂甚至敌视，海外学者对中国的研究主要以官方文件或新闻报道为资料来源，导致这一时期海外对中国的研究只能在有限的资料基础上做出宏大的判断。这种研究方式产生的问题正如美国学者裴宜理所说：“从苏联研究中引进的极权主义模式蒙住了学者们的双眼，使他们只注意国家倡导的意识形态和组织，却看不到社会力量的重要性”。这一时期海外中国政治研究的重点是对政党—国家的结构和制度分析，代表性著作如美国学者鲍大可的《共产主义中国的干部、官僚和政治权力》以及弗朗兹·舒曼的《共产主义中国的意识形态和组织》等，成为此后美国中国学家研究社会主义政治体制的基础。这一时期，海外研究者大都采用极权主义研究范式。美国学者奥克森伯格提到，20世纪50年代和60年代早期，人们用极权主义的模式来看待中国政治。在内部，领导层是一个团结的集体，决策是集体做出的。在外部，中苏紧密的同盟关系使人们认为这个新政权的性质类似于苏联，“它的领导者坚持马克思主义；高层政治领导对整个社会与文化实行极权主义的控制；中央计划经济，这种经济中的资源分配是由政治决定的”。当时海外学界对极权主义模式以及对中国政治制度的看法实际上反映了以美国为首的西方世界对中苏同盟的恐惧。由上可见，当时的海外中国政治研究深受美国全球战略以及东西方对抗格局的影响，由此而导致的研究资料匮乏，制约着海外中国政治研究的深入发展。更为重要的是，这种对抗以及与之相随的意识形态偏见甚至在一定程度上主导了这一时期的海外中国政治研究，极权主义范式的流行就是这种偏见的直接表现。因此，不难想见，推动中国政治制度的转型甚至促使其崩溃成为这一时期西方世界尤其是美国的主要目标。

(II) Overseas Chinese Political Studies under the Factional Politics Paradigm The Sino-Soviet split, and especially the outbreak of the “Cultural Revolution,” shattered the Western world’s understanding of the socialist camp and its internal “monolithic” totalitarianism. The previous totalitarian paradigm for studying China’s political system had clearly failed to perceive the differing opinions within the CPC, instead “viewing the Chinese Communist Party as a unified whole, an entity integrated by ideology, with strict discipline and strong leadership.” However, the vast amount of materials from the “Cultural Revolution” and Red Guard documents “revealed the internal mechanisms of China’s political system and the leadership system of the Communist Party,” which rendered the totalitarian paradigm in overseas Chinese political studies ineffective. Researchers turned en masse to the study of factional politics. In 1973, American scholar Andrew J. Nathan, in his article “A Factionalism Model for CCP Politics,” first used the “factional conflict” model to examine activities within the top echelons of the CPC. In 1976, American scholars Tsou Tang and Andrew J. Nathan, in their article “Prolegomenon to the Study of Informal Groups in CCP Politics,” mentioned that the factional politics model was a social science theory with a solid foundation in the study of CPC politics. Under this model, overseas scholars conducted extensive research on topics such as the methods and impact of political struggle within the CPC, policy formulation and implementation, and the mechanisms and forms of political movements, producing a body of work. Overall, although overseas scholars gained some information during this period due to the outflow of materials like Red Guard tabloids during the “Cultural Revolution,” the research they conducted based on this did not align with China’s reality. Therefore, after reform and opening up, the factional politics research paradigm also quickly declined.

（二）派系政治范式下的海外中国政治研究中苏分裂尤其是“文革”的爆发打破了西方世界对社会主义阵营及各国内部“铁板一块”的极权主义认识。以往关于中国政治体制研究的极权主义范式显然没有看到中共内部存在的不同意见，而是“将中国共产党视为一个统一的整体，一个为意识形态所整合的、有着严明纪律和坚强领导的整体”。而大量有关“文革”的资料和红卫兵文件“将中国政治体制和共产党领导体制的内在机制揭示了出来”，这使得海外中国政治体制研究的极权主义范式丧失了效力。研究者纷纷转向派系政治研究。1973年，美国学者黎安友在《中国共产党政治中的派别模式》一文中，首次用“派别冲突”模式来考察中共高层内部活动。1976年，美国学者邹谠和黎安友在《中国共产党政治中非正式集团研究序言》一文中提到，派系政治模式是中共政治研究中有坚实基础的社会科学理论。这一模式之下，海外学者对中共内部的政治斗争方式与影响、政策的制定与执行以及政治运动的机制与形态等主题进行了广泛的研究，产生了一批著述。总体来看，这一时期的海外中国政治研究，虽然由于“文革”期间红卫兵小报等资料的流出使得海外学者获得了一些信息，但是他们据此做出的研究不符合中国的实际。因此，改革开放以后，派系政治研究范式也很快走向了衰落。

(III) Overseas Chinese Political Studies under the Authoritarian Paradigm After reform and opening up, the conditions for overseas scholars to study China greatly improved. With the expansion of opening up, more and more overseas scholars had the opportunity to visit China for exchanges and fieldwork, discovering that China was not, as researchers using the previous totalitarian paradigm had believed, a situation where the party-state could exercise comprehensive control over society. The authoritarian paradigm gradually came to dominate overseas Chinese political studies. The concept of authoritarianism originated in the 1930s, first used by Austrian-American scholar Eric Voegelin in his study of some Southwestern European countries. Subsequently, German scholar Juan Linz, American scholars Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski, among others, studied the concept from different angles. Generally speaking, an authoritarian regime refers to “a relatively mild form of autocratic regime situated between totalitarianism and democracy in the process of modernization.” In the study of Chinese politics, overseas scholars have proposed various concepts of authoritarianism to describe the characteristics of Chinese politics after reform and opening up, especially since the 1990s. For example, American scholar Andrew Mertha proposed “fragmented authoritarianism,” and Jessica Teets proposed “consultative authoritarianism.” Although these concepts differ, overseas scholars generally believe that “China’s structural features are similar to those of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, being authoritarian and highly coercive.” The overseas academic community’s definition of China’s political system

（三）威权主义范式下的海外中国政治研究改革开放以后，海外学者对中国研究的条件大大改善。随着对外开放的扩大， 越来越多的海外学者有机会到中国交流、访问，进行实地调查，发现中国并不像以往采用极权主义范式的研究者认为的那样，政党—国家可以对社会进行全面的控制。威权主义范式逐渐在海外中国政治研究中占据了主导地位。威权主义这一概念起源于20世纪30年代，美籍奥地利学者沃格林在研究西南欧一些国家时最早使用了威权主义概念。此后，德国学者胡安·林茨、美国学者亨廷顿和布热津斯基等都从不同角度对这一概念进行了研究。一般来说，威权主义政体意指“现代化进程中介于极权与民主之间的一种较为温和的专制政体形态”。在中国政治研究中，海外学者提出了各种各样的威权主义概念来描述改革开放后特别是 90 年代以来中国政治的特征。例如，美国学者安德鲁·莫沙等提出了“碎片化的威权主义”、杰西卡·蒂兹提出了“协商式威权主义”等。上述这些概念虽然有所不同，但是海外学者一般都认为“中国的结构特征与苏联和东欧国家相似，是威权的和高度强制的”。海外学界对中国政治体制的威权主义界定，实际上是视之为极权到民主之间的过渡型政体，并认为威权主义必然会转型成为自由民主政体。与改革开放前一些海外学者对中国共产党政权采取极端敌视的态度、甚至盲目将中国共产党政权与德国和日本的法西斯政权同等看待不同，改革开放以后，海外学者对中国政治的研究，逐渐从极权主义范式转向威权主义。研究范式虽然有所转变，但基本出发点没有改变，极权主义和威权主义的共同特点就是用有色眼镜看待中国政治制度和中国共产党政权，强调自由民主政体的道德优越性，仍然是从体制转型的视角看待中国共产党的政权，认为其必然向自由民主体制转型。

From Institutional Transformation to State Governance: The Shift in Focus of Overseas Contemporary Chinese Political Studies

从体制转型到国家治理：海外中国政治研究的重心转换

The American scholar Jack Goldstone put forward the "China collapse theory" in 1995, and for a period thereafter many overseas scholars held this assertion. However, practice has proven that China has not fallen into the so-called "transformation crisis"; while maintaining the stability of its political system, China has achieved rapid economic growth. On the contrary, it is the "China collapse theory" that has collapsed. Therefore, the German scholar Sebastian Heilmann believes that studying China solely from the perspective of the system cannot explain China's distinct capacity for action and achievements compared to other former socialist countries; we need to adopt a perspective that transcends existing system classifications to better perceive the vitality of China's development. Since the new century, the focus of overseas scholars' research on Chinese politics has gradually shifted from institutional transformation to state governance, paying more attention to the governance capacity of the Chinese Communist Party and the resilience of China's political system it embodies. As the American scholar Bruce Dickson and others have stated, the quality of China's state governance is attracting increasing attention from scholars and international organizations. In 2004, the edited collection *Bringing the Party Back In: How China Is Governed*, co-edited by Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard, Director of the Asia Research Centre at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, and Zheng Yongnian, then Director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, advocated "bringing the party (the Chinese Communist Party) back in" to the study of Chinese politics. This essentially meant transcending the research paradigm of institutional transformation and examining how the Chinese Communist Party achieves sustained economic and social development and stability under conditions of long-term governance, thereby promoting the shift in focus of overseas Chinese political studies from institutional transformation to state governance. Taken together, overseas Chinese political studies under the focus of state governance mainly involve the following content:

美国学者杰克·戈德斯通在1995年就提出了“中国崩溃论”，此后一段时间里不少海外学者都持这一论断。但是实践证明，中国并没有陷入所谓的“转型危机”，中国在保持政治制度稳定的同时实现了高速的经济增长，反倒是“中国崩溃论”崩溃了。因此，德国学者韩博天认为，仅从体制角度来研究中国，无法解释中国与其他前社会主义国家截然不同的行动力和成就，我们需要采取一种超越现有体制分类的视角才能更好地感受中国发展的活力。新世纪以来，海外学者关于中国政治的研究重心逐渐从体制转型转向国家治理，更多地关注中国共产党的治国理政能力及其体现的中国政治制度韧性。正如美国学者狄忠蒲等人所说，中国的国家治理质量吸引着越来越多的学者和国际组织关注。2004年，丹麦哥本哈根商学院亚洲研究中心主任柏思德和时任新加坡国立大学东亚研究所所长的郑永年合编的论文集《找回政党：中国是如何治理的》倡导在中国政治研究中“将政党（中国共产党）带回来”，这实际上就是要超越体制转型的研究范式，考察中国共产党在长期执政条件下如何实现经济社会持续发展和稳定的问题， 从而推动了海外中国政治研究从体制转型向国家治理的重心转换。综合起来，国家治理重心下的海外中国政治研究主要涉及如下内容：

(I) The National Governance Capacity of the Communist Party of China In the past, overseas academic research on Chinese politics was accustomed to proceeding from Western standards, adopting a negative attitude toward China’s political system, and manifesting an evident orientation toward institutional values or ideology. Under the focus on national governance, overseas Chinese political studies pay greater attention to examining the practical process of the Communist Party of China leading national governance, the results achieved, and the national governance capacity demonstrated, under conditions where China’s basic political system has not changed. In terms of economic development, many scholars have recognized the enormous achievements of China’s economic construction and its increasingly important role in the global economic structure. Australian scholar Ross Garnaut argues that after more than 40 years of development, China “has grown into a huge economy, and the speed of its economic growth and the nature of its economic changes will affect people of all countries in the world; its enormous economic size will affect the modes of interaction between developed countries and developed countries, and between developed countries and developing countries.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work,” *People’s Daily*, May 19, 2016. Overseas scholars attempt to explain China’s economic development miracle from various angles, deciphering the “code” of China’s success. A large number of scholars believe that the vitality of the Chinese model lies in the parallel development of economy and politics, which in turn depends on the basic governance strategy of the CPC. In terms of social stability, during the early 1990s, in the process of accelerating reform and economic development, many problems and difficulties also emerged in China’s economic and social development. A few overseas scholars accordingly predicted that the CPC regime would inevitably collapse, but more scholars recognized the CPC’s capacity to handle complex social problems. Renowned American economist Fred Bergsten and others argue that although Chinese society faces various problems such as the gap between rich and poor, it will not experience very serious chaos, because CPC leaders are acutely aware of these problems and gradually resolve them through measures such as small-step reforms, co-opting intellectuals, and controlling the flow of information. [3]3 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. Elizabeth J. Perry also argues that explaining the longevity of China’s socialist system is complex, but “this is mainly due to the strong governance capacity of the Chinese government, which can skillfully transform these social challenges into resources for the reproduction of power.” [4]4 This phrase is from the report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC (2017), summarizing the Party’s enhanced capabilities. Therefore, as Kerry Brown, Director of the Asia Programme at Chatham House, mentions in his edited report *Critical Juncture: China’s Priorities to 2021*, although China’s leaders face challenges such as slowing

（一）中国共产党的国家治理能力以往海外学界对中国政治的研究习惯于从西方标准出发，对中国政治制度持否定态度，具有明显的制度价值或意识形态取向。国家治理重心下的海外中国政治研究则更加注重考察在中国基本政治制度没有改变的条件下，中国共产党领导国家治理的实践过程、取得的成效及其体现出的国家治理能力。在经济发展方面，许多学者看到了中国经济建设取得的巨大成就及其在世界经济格局中发挥着越来越重要的作用。澳大利亚学者郜若素认为，中国经过40多年的发展，“已经成长为一个庞大的经济体，其经济增长的速度和经济性质的变化会对世界各国人民产生影响，其庞大的经济体量会对发达国家与发达国家、发达国家与发展中国家之间的交往方式产生影响”。海外学者试图从各个角度解释中国的经济发展奇迹，解读中国成功的“密码”。大量学者认为，中国模式的活力在于经济和政治并行发展，而这又取决于中国共产党的基本治理战略。在社会稳定方面，20世纪90年代初，在加快改革和经济发展的过程中，中国经济社会发展也出现了不少问题和困难。少数海外学者据此认为中国共产党政权也将不可避免地走向崩溃，但更多学者看到了中国共产党处理复杂社会问题的能力。美国著名经济学家弗雷德·伯格斯滕等认为，中国社会虽然面临贫富分化等各类问题，但是不会出现非常严重的混乱局面，因为中国共产党领导人非常敏锐地意识到了这些问题，并通过小步骤的改革、吸纳知识分子、对信息流动的控制等措施逐步解决问题。裴宜理也认为，要解释中国社会主义制度的长期性十分复杂，但是“这主要归功于中国政府强有力的治理能力，它能够巧妙地转化这些社会挑战，使之成为权力再生资源”。因此，正如英国皇家国际事务研究所亚洲项目主管凯瑞·布朗在其主编的报告《关键转折：中国2021年前的要务》中所提到的那样，尽管中国的领导人面临着经济增长速度缓慢以及其他国内问题的挑战，但是，“这些问题目前尚未形成严重威胁，也没有迹象表明中国共产党面临着持续不断的外部政治挑战”。在人民生活方面，中国改革开放初期仍然是世界上较为贫穷的国家之一，但到2021年人均国内生产总值已达80976元人民币，脱贫县农村居民人均可支配收入14051元，9086万农民参加工伤保险、3474万人享受农村最低生活保障等，因此海外学者对中国共产党的贫困治理能力以及改善人民生活的成就一直给予高度关注。世界银行前行长罗伯特·佐利克赞叹中国的减贫工作“是消除贫困的历史上最大的飞跃”。波兰华沙大学学者加恩·罗文斯基认为，“中国的减贫工作体现了执政党以民生为导向的执政理念，反映了执政党对人民负责的态度和强大的执行力”。许多海外学者还提到，中国共产党良好的治国理政能力和国家治理成效增强了民众对中国共产党和中国特色社会主义制度的支持，走出了一条适合中国自己的国家治理之路。新加坡国立大学学者兰斯·戈尔认为，解决中国发展过程中遇到的问题，或是和其他发展中国家一样的治理问题，并不一定非要走所谓的“自由民主道路”。哈佛大学费正清中国研究中心学者苏珊·奥格登提出，与其坚持中国必须采取西方所谓的“民主治理模式”，不如对中国的意识形态和文化根植于其自身的经济、社会和地理环境特点，根植于其已有的制度框架以及对中国领导人改善国家治理的意志、能力和有效性多一些理解。狄忠蒲在《更新中国模式》一文中提到，中国政府治理的改善增强了公众支持，使民众相信政府能够兑现提供公共产品的承诺，并因此而抵制激进的民主要求。中国共产党正是通过这些治理改革增强了自身的政治合法性。从上述研究我们可以看到，海外学者高度认可中国共产党的国家治理能力及中国的治理成效。

(2) The Main Experiences of China’s State Governance. Overseas scholars have not only observed the remarkable achievements of state governance under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC), but have also paid particular attention to summarizing and refining the experiences of China’s state governance, forming the following viewpoints: “The Party-Led Thesis.” In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, the international communist movement fell into a low ebb. Some overseas scholars believed that the CPC regime would inevitably transform into a liberal democratic system or completely collapse. The “state-society relations” framework became an important theoretical tool for overseas Chinese political studies during this period. Relatively speaking, the CPC was often overlooked in Chinese political research. Since the 21st century, overseas scholars have gradually recognized the important role of the CPC in state governance, and “bringing the Party back in” to Chinese political studies has become a consensus among many overseas scholars. Zheng Yongnian argues that “in today’s world, no political organization can wield as much influence, both internationally and domestically, as the Chinese Communist Party.” The key to the success of China’s reform and opening up lies in the important guarantee of CPC leadership. “Adaptive Governance.” Overseas scholars pay particular attention to China’s adaptive governance. Harvard scholar Tony Saich believes that the core feature of China’s “party-state” is adaptive governance, which even serves as a guiding light for Chinese political studies. Contrary to the erroneous views of a few scholars who regard China’s state governance as a mere copy of Western state governance practices, many overseas scholars recognize that China’s state governance practices originate from its unique historical and cultural traditions. Elizabeth Perry and others pay special attention to the shaping and influence of the CPC’s unique revolutionary tradition on contemporary China’s state governance. Sebastian Heilmann and Elizabeth Perry argue that the flexibility and adaptability of contemporary China’s governance mechanisms originate from the tradition of adapting strategies to circumstances during the revolutionary period. In an interview published in *Soviet Area Studies* on May 10, 2019, Perry again discussed the CPC’s revolutionary tradition and China’s adaptive governance. Sebastian Heilmann also believes that to explain the adaptability of China’s political system, one must focus on the historical experience and governance techniques formed by the CPC under Mao Zedong’s leadership, as well as the adherence, development, and innovation of these traditional experiences by successive leaders after Mao, “identifying the special connections between revolutionary precedents and current practices.” Moreover, Perry traces the vitality of the contemporary Chinese political system back to even more ancient traditional Chinese political governance models, arguing that contemporary Chinese political governance should be understood from the perspective of traditional Chinese governance, rather than from the perspective of institutional transformation or democratization. In her view, the contemporary Chinese political system, rooted in traditional Chinese governance models, is “far more dynamic than some imagine.” Through long-term observation of Zouping County in Shandong Province, Jean Oi of Stanford University and David Goodman of Harvard University found that the development process of local governance in Zouping demonstrates the resilience and adaptability of the Chinese political system. These viewpoints elucidate the fundamental assertion that the socialist system with Chinese characteristics is rooted in Chinese soil and possesses strong vitality. “The Policy Experimentation Thesis.” Over more than 40 years of reform and opening up, a very important reason for China’s remarkable development achievements is the CPC’s appropriate use of the policy experimentation mechanism. Turkish-American scholar Arif Dirlik traces China’s policy experimentation mechanism back to some practices of Mao Zedong in the revolutionary base areas during the 1930s. Sebastian Heilmann pays particular attention to China’s policy experimentation mechanism. In his view, “China’s sustained, large-scale, decentralized institutional experimentation can be seen as a crucial policy-making mechanism in the process of economic takeoff.” The advantage of this policy experimentation lies in gaining experience through local, partial trials, and then, on a mature basis, elevating it to national policy and promoting it nationwide, thereby avoiding the potentially severe consequences of bad policies over a large area. Practice has proven that policy experimentation is indeed an important strategy for institutional innovation over more than 40 years of China’s reform and opening up. “The Planning Governance Thesis.” Corresponding to local experimentation, some scholars also focus on the important role of “top-level design” in China’s state governance. Shin’ya Kakizaki, a researcher at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, believes that one of the important characteristics of Xi Jinping’s governance is the emphasis on “top-level design.” Joseph

（二）中国国家治理的主要经验海外学者不仅观察到中国共产党领导下的国家治理取得了举世瞩目的成就，还尤为关注总结提炼中国国家治理经验，并形成了以下观点：“政党主导论” 20世纪80年代末90年代初，苏联解体、东欧剧变，国际共产主义运动陷入低潮，一些海外学者认为，中国共产党政权也必将向自由民主体制转型或是彻底崩溃。“国家与社会关系”框架成为这一时期海外中国政治研究的重要理论工具。相对来说，中国共产党在中国政治研究中常常被忽视了。21世纪以来，海外学者逐渐认识到中国共产党在国家治理中的重要作用，必须在中国政治研究中“找回政党”成为不少海外学者的共识。郑永年认为，“在当今世界，没有任何一个政治组织能够像中国共产党一样，在国际和国内都拥有如此巨大的影响力”。中国的改革开放之所以能够取得成功，关键在于有中国共产党领导这个重要保障。“适应性治理” 海外学者特别关注中国的适应性治理，哈佛大学学者古大牛认为，中国“政党—国家”的核心特征就是适应性治理，它甚至是中国政治研究的指路明灯。与少数学者将中国国家治理视为西方国家治理实践翻版的谬误不同，许多海外学者认识到，中国的国家治理实践源于其独特的历史文化传统。裴宜理等特别关注中国共产党独特的革命传统对当代中国国家治理的塑造和影响，韩博天和裴宜理认为，当代中国治理机制的灵活性和适应性渊源于革命时期随时策略的传统。在2019年5月10日《苏区研究》刊发的访谈中，裴宜理再次谈到中国共产党的革命传统与中国的适应性治理。韩博天也认为，要解释中国政治体制所具有的适应性，就必须关注毛泽东领导下中国共产党所形成的历史经验和治理技巧，以及毛泽东之后的历代领导人对这些传统经验的坚持、发展和创新，“找出革命先例与当下实践之间的特殊关联”。不仅如此，裴宜理还将当代中国政治体制的活力追溯到更加久远的传统中国政治统治模式当中，认为应当从中国传统统治的角度，而不是从体制转型或民主化的角度去把握当代中国的政治治理情况，在她看来，渊源于传统中国治理模式的当代中国政治体制“远比某些人想象的更具活力”。美国斯坦福大学的戴慕珍和哈佛大学的戈迪温通过对山东省邹平县的长期观察发现，邹平地方治理的发展历程展现了中国政治体制的韧性和适应性。这些观点阐明了中国特色社会主义制度根植于中华大地、具有强大生命力这一根本性论断。“政策试验论” 改革开放40多年来，中国的发展之所以能够取得举世瞩目的成就，十分重要的一点就是中国共产党恰当运用了政策试验机制。土耳其裔美国学者阿里夫·德里克将中国的政策试验机制追溯到20世纪30年代毛泽东在革命根据地的一些做法。韩博天尤为关注中国的政策试验机制，在他看来，“中国在大范围内持续进行的、分散的制度化试验可以被看作经济腾飞过程中的一个至关重要的政策制定机制”。这种政策试验的优点在于通过地方性、局部性试验获得经验， 在成熟的基础上再上升为国家政策推向全国，从而避免不良政策在大范围内可能造成的严重后果。实践证明，政策试验确实是中国改革开放40多年制度创新的重要策略。“规划治国论” 与地方试验相对应，还有学者关注到“顶层设计”在中国国家治理中的重要作用。日本国际问题研究所研究员角崎信也认为，习近平执政的重要特点之一就是注重“顶层设计”。维也纳大学东亚研究系教授约瑟夫·鲍姆在分析中国“十四五”规划草案后认为，中国“五年规划”的制定始终秉持科学的精神，即有足够的弹性和灵活性适应新情况与新变化。中国的2021—2035远景目标“不仅在中国历史上是独一无二的，而且在世界历史的视野中也是独一无二的”。不少海外学者看到，与西方竞争型体制下各政党的短期行为不同，长期执政的中国共产党用长远的眼光来规划设计中国的社会主义现代化建设。韩博天和美国学者奥利弗·麦尔敦提到，与人们通常认为的中国经济增长源于市场化激励和决策权分散不同，中国经济转型过程与计划体系并行，中央政府几乎保留着所有那些推动经济高速增长和确保经济稳定的公共政策制定权。不仅如此，中国的地方试验和中央的顶层设计相互支撑，“中国发展规划的特点是在松散的制度化基础上，在一个可塑的、不断调整适应的政策过程中，重新组合了各种治理方式”。可以说，渐进推进的地方试验机制和放眼长远的战略规划机制共同支撑着新中国成立70多年尤其改革开放40多年来经济的快速发展。

(3) The institutional advantages reflected in the effectiveness of China’s state governance and the experiences worth learning from. Overseas Chinese political studies centered on system transformation placed greater emphasis on what China “ought to be.” In contrast, since the 21st century, an increasing number of overseas scholars have focused on examining what China, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), “is actually doing” and “what it has accomplished.” On the one hand, some overseas scholars believe that the effectiveness of China’s state governance proves that China’s political system suits its national conditions and possesses unique advantages, making it unnecessary for China to adopt a liberal democratic system. In an interview, Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work,” *People’s Daily*, May 19, 2016. mentioned that Western democratic systems are not necessarily the best, and Westerners should not criticize China’s political system but should instead seriously study and understand it. In his view, facts have shown that “the leadership of the CPC and China’s political system work in China.” On the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, Brødsgaard again stated: “Western scholars always focus on conflicts of interest, changes, or malfunctions in Chinese politics, but in reality, China’s political system has been operating normally for many years… China does not need to copy Western practices; it can fully form its own unique governance methods.” In recent years, Western countries have been deeply mired in crises such as economic, financial, employment, and refugee issues, while China has relatively maintained rapid economic growth and sustained social stability, which is even more thought-provoking. Faced with the stark contrast between “China’s governance” and “Western chaos,” Sebastian Heilmann [3]3 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. believes that people need to “reflect on the superiority of the democratic systems conceived in the 20th century and have a clear understanding of the innovative capabilities shown by competitors to those non-democratic systems, such as China.” On the other hand, overseas scholars argue that the institutional advantages of China’s state governance also lie in its pragmatism and efficiency, great flexibility, and strong adaptability. Brødsgaard believes that “pragmatism and efficiency are the greatest advantages of China’s current system. Under the leadership of the CPC, China mobilizes the entire nation to concentrate superior resources, ultimately achieving leapfrog progress, breakthroughs, and efficient development outcomes.” Li Xing from the Department of Culture and Global Studies at Aalborg University in Denmark believes that “authoritarian resilience” is the most enduring feature of CPC political culture, possessing active adaptive skills and strong institutional capacity to ensure political survival. Former Mexican Ambassador to China Jorge Navarrete stated: “China’s system exhibits characteristics of plasticity and flexibility, which also reflect the advantages of China’s system.” Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Chairman of the Kuhn Foundation in the United States, believes that “China’s system design has clear advantages in policy continuity, decisiveness in decision-making, and the ability to implement specific long-term strategies.” The effectiveness of China’s state governance and the institutional advantages it embodies have left a deep impression on overseas scholars. Many scholars suggest that China’s state governance experience is worth learning from for other countries. Barry Naughton from the University of California, San Diego, believes that some institutional innovations supporting China’s successful development are indeed worth emulating by other developing countries. Andrew G. Walder from the Department of Sociology at Stanford University even believes that “if the core ideas of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ had been implemented earlier in the development process of various socialist countries, world history would have undergone a great transformation.” Some scholars also mention that although the China model may not yet be finalized and perhaps cannot be replicated, “it can always provide some inspiration. Generally speaking, studying the experiences of some non-Western countries can always offer insights for good governance research.” From these discussions, it can be seen that an increasing number of overseas scholars are evaluating China’s political system and the CPC regime

（三）中国国家治理成效体现的制度优势、经验值得借鉴以体制转型为重心下的海外中国政治研究更多地强调中国“应该怎么样”。与之不同的是，21世纪以来，越来越多的海外学者注重考察共产党领导下的中国“正在怎么做”以及“做成了什么”。一方面，一些海外学者认为，中国国家治理的成效证 明中国的政治制度适应中国国情、具有独特的优势，中国没有必要采用自由民主制 度。柏思德在接受采访时曾提到，西方的民主体制未必是最好的，西方人也不应该指 责中国的政治体制，而应当认真研究并了解中国的政治体制。在他看来，事实证明，“中国共产党的领导和中国的政治制度在中国行得通”。中国共产党成立90周年时，柏思德再次提道：“西方学者总是把眼光放在中国政治中的利益冲突、变革或运转失灵等方面，但实际上，多年来中国政治体制仍在正常运行……中国没有必要照搬西方做法，完全可以形成自己的独特的治理方式”。尤其是近年来，西方国家深陷经济、金融、就业、难民等危机难以自拔，而中国相对来说则保持着经济高速增长和社会持续稳定，这更加引人深思。面对“中国之治”与“西方之乱”的强烈对比，韩博天认为，人们需要“对20世纪所构想的民主体制的优越性进行反思，并对那些非民主体制的竞争对手，比如中国，所表现出来的创新能力有清醒的认识”。另一方面，海外学者认为，中国国家治理的制度优势还在于其务实高效，灵活性大、适应性强。柏思德认为，“务实高效是中国当前制度的最大优势，在中共领导下，中国举全国之力集中优势资源，最终取得跨越、突破和高效的发展成果”。丹麦奥尔堡大学文化与全球研究系的李星认为，“威权韧性”是中国共产党政治文化中最持久的特征，具有活跃的适应技巧和强大的制度能力来确保政治生存。墨西哥前驻华大使豪尔赫·纳瓦雷特谈道：“中国制度体现出可塑性和灵活性的特点，这也是中国制度优势的体现”。美国库恩基金会主席罗伯特·库恩认为，“中国的制度设计在政策延续性、决策果断性以及长期实施特定战略的能力等方面具有明显优势”。中国国家治理的成效及其体现出的制度优势给海外学者留下深刻的印象，不少学者提出，中国的国家治理经验值得其他国家学习。加州大学圣地亚哥分校的巴瑞·诺顿认为，支撑中国发展成功的一些制度创新确实值得其他发展中国家模仿。斯坦福大学社会学系的魏昂德甚至认为，“如果‘中国特色社会主义’的核心思想在各社会主义国家的发展历程中能够更早地得到贯彻，那么世界历史就会发生很大的转变”。还有学者提到，中国模式虽然还没有定型，也许无法复制，“但是，总能提供些启示。一般来说，通过研究一些非西方国家的经验总是能够对善治研究有所启发”。从这些论述可以看到，越来越多的海外学者注重从中国国家治理的实践过程及现实成效来评判中国政治制度和中国共产党政权，从而得出更加科学公正的结论，也对中国国家治理体现出来的制度优势和实践经验表现出越来越大的兴趣。

The Internal Logic, Dual Characteristics, and Response to the Shift in the Focus of Overseas Chinese Political Studies

海外中国政治研究重心转换的内在逻辑、双重特性和因应之道

Over the more than 70 years since the founding of New China, overseas Chinese political studies have undergone shifts among multiple research paradigms, including totalitarianism, factional politics, and authoritarianism. Fundamentally, the core of these research paradigms is to observe China's socialist system and the politics of China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) from the perspective of value judgments or ideology, with the aim of promoting the transformation of China's socialist system toward the Western liberal democratic system. After the 21st century, and especially since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work,” *People’s Daily*, May 19, 2016., overseas Chinese political studies have shifted toward a focus on state governance. This shift in focus has a profound internal logic, has its merits, but also presents some problems that require our serious response.

新中国成立70多年来，海外中国政治研究经历了极权主义、派系政治和威权主义等多个研究范式的转换。从根本上来说，这些研究范式的核心是从价值判断或意识形态的角度来观察中国的社会主义制度和中国共产党领导下的中国政治，希望推动中国的社会主义制度向西方的自由民主体制转型。21世纪以后特别是中共十八大以来，海外中国政治研究向以国家治理为重心转换，这种重心转换有着深刻的内在逻辑，有其可取之处，但也存在一些问题，需要我们认真应对。

(I) The Internal Logic of the Shift in the Focus of Overseas Chinese Political Studies Overall, the shift in the focus of overseas Chinese political studies is influenced by the following factors: China's developmental achievements are the fundamental reason for the shift in the focus of overseas Chinese political studies. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee [3]3 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. pointed out that since the founding of New China, the CPC has led the people in "creating the twin miracles of rapid economic development and long-term social stability that are rarely seen in the world." The most fundamental reason why overseas scholars' research on Chinese politics has shifted from a focus on regime transformation to a focus on state governance lies in the fact that China's developmental achievements since the founding of New China, especially over the more than 40 years of reform and opening up, have challenged the original Western theoretical system. Particularly since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, with the further strengthening of the CPC's core leadership role and the continuous emergence of the effectiveness of China's state governance, some overseas scholars have attempted to understand China and the CPC more from the perspective of state governance capacity and its effectiveness, seeking the "code" for China's success. Elizabeth Economy, Director of the Asia Program at the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, mentioned that Xi Jinping leads

（一）海外中国政治研究重心转换的内在逻辑总体来看，海外中国政治研究重心转换，受到以下几个方面因素的影响：中国的发展成就是海外中国政治研究重心转换的根本原因 中共十九届四中全会指出，新中国成立以来，中国共产党领导人民“创造了世所罕见的经济快速发展奇迹和社会长期稳定奇迹”。海外学者关于中国政治的研究，之所以从以体制转型为重心转向以国家治理为重心，最根本的原因在于新中国成立以来特别是改革开放 40 多年来中国的发展成就对西方原来的理论体系提出了挑战。尤其是中共十八大以来，随着中国共产党的领导核心作用进一步加强和中国国家治理的成效不断显现，一些海外学者试图更多从国家治理能力及其成效的角度出发来认识中国、理解中国共产党，寻找中国成功的“密码”。美国外交关系协会亚洲项目主任易明就提到，习近平引领着中国共产党在政治、经济和社会生活领域发挥着强大的领导作用，带领中国成为应对诸如环境变化等全球性挑战的领袖。海外中国政治研究从体制转型向国家治理的重心转换，本质上来说，是海外学者对中国国家治理实践及其成效的回应。对外开放的持续扩大为海外学者的中国政治研究提供了越来越便利的条件。

Apart from the influence of China’s own developmental achievements mentioned above, overseas research on Chinese politics has also deepened due to the continuous expansion of China’s opening up. Before reform and opening up, overseas scholars’ research on Chinese politics was essentially in a state of “blind men feeling an elephant.” After reform and opening up, although research conditions improved somewhat, in the early period of reform and opening up, many overseas scholars could still only obtain interview materials from mainland residents who had traveled to Hong Kong. As China’s opening up continuously expanded and policies became increasingly stable, overseas scholars came to China to study, work, and live, which provided them with the possibility of gaining a deeper understanding of the practical process of China’s national governance, rather than being confined to macro-level structural and institutional frameworks. For example, Daniel A. Bell, known for his research on China’s “political meritocracy,” has worked in China since 2004. China’s continuously opening environment has given overseas researchers of Chinese politics more opportunities to come to China, engage with China, and deeply understand China; this is an important external condition for the shift in the focus of overseas Chinese political research. The effectiveness of the Chinese Communist Party’s external propaganda work has become increasingly evident. In August 2013, Xi Jinping pointed out in his speech at the National Conference on Propaganda and Ideological Work that, under the background of comprehensive opening up, doing propaganda and ideological work “has an important task of guiding people to understand contemporary China and view the external world more comprehensively and objectively.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work,” *People’s Daily*, May 19, 2016. This includes guidance for domestic citizens as well as guidance for how citizens of other countries view China. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, the Chinese Communist Party has proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, held multiple high-level dialogues between the CPC and world political parties, and promoted the overseas distribution of works such as *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, all of which

除上述中国自身发展成就的影响之外，海外中国政治研究还因中国对外开放的不断扩大而越来越深入。改革开放之前，海外学者对中国政治的研究基本上处于“盲人摸象”的状态。改革开放以后，研究条件虽然有所改善，但在改革开放初期，许多海外学者也还只能从前往香港的内地民众那里获得一些访谈资料。随着中国对外开放不断扩大以及政策越来越稳定，海外学者来中国求学、工作和生活，这为他们更加深入地了解中国国家治理的实践过程而不是局限于宏观的结构和制度框架提供了可能。例如，因研究中国“贤能政治”而知名的贝淡宁，自2004年后就在中国工作。中国不断对外开放的环境让海外中国政治研究者有更多的机会来到中国、接触中国并深入理解中国，这是海外中国政治研究重心转换的重要外部条件。中国共产党对外宣传工作的成效不断显现 2013年8月，习近平在全国宣传思想工作会议上的讲话中指出，在全面对外开放背景下做宣传思想工作，“一项重要任务是引导人们更加全面客观地认识当代中国、看待外部世界”。这里既包括对国内民众的引导，也包括对他国民众如何看待中国进行引导。中共十八大以来，中国共产党提出“一带一路”倡议，开展多次中国共产党和世界政党高峰对话，推动《习近平谈治国理政》等著作向海外发行，都促进了海外学者对中国国家治理实践和发展成就的关注，影响着海外中国政治研究重心的转换。

(2) The Dual Characteristics of the Shift in the Focus of Overseas Chinese Political Studies Looking back at the shift in the focus of overseas Chinese political studies over the more than 70 years since the founding of New China, there are both merits and shortcomings, exhibiting clear dual characteristics. Regarding the former, the main aspects include the following: **Relatively fair evaluative criteria** Under the standard of ideology first, overseas Chinese political studies held biases against China’s socialist system, adopting a negative stance, believing that it should and inevitably would transform into a liberal democratic system. Whether totalitarianism or authoritarianism, neither tested the value of the system through practice but instead deduced practice from the value of the system, arguing that the socialist system could not achieve effective state governance and would inevitably be abandoned by the people. The conclusions drawn were naturally fallacies such as “China is

（二）海外中国政治研究重心转换的双重特性纵观新中国成立70多年来海外中国政治研究重心的转换，既有可取之处，也存在着不足，具有明显的双重特性。就前者来看，主要包括以下几个方面：评价标准相对公正 海外中国政治研究在意识形态为先的标准下对中国的社会主义制度抱有偏见，持否定态度，认为其应当也必然会向自由民主体制转型。无论是极权主义还是威权主义，都不是从实践来检验制度的价值，而是以制度价值来推演实践，认为社会主义制度不可能实现有效的国家治理而必然被民众所抛弃，所得结论自然是“中国即将崩溃”等谬论。相反，以国家治理为重心的海外中国政治研究，更加关注中国的国家治理实践和中国共产党的国家治理能力，从中国的国家治理绩效去评判中国政治制度，所得结论相对公正。研究方法更加科学 以体制转型为重心的海外中国政治研究，很多时候运用官方的文件、新闻报道或是其他二手资料，从宏观上考察中国的政治制度、政治结构，不论其到底运行绩效如何就得出一些否定性的结论。正如美国学者欧博文批评的那样，海外学者并不在乎中国到底发生了什么，而只是对现实世界进行泛泛的抽象描述。与之相比，以国家治理为重心的海外中国政治研究更加注重社会调查方法的运用，通过实地调查、访谈等方法收集资料，因而能够更加直观地感受中国的国家治理实践及其成效，并得出相对科学的结论。研究视角有所转变 海外中国政治研究重心从体制转型向国家治理的转换更新了研究视角。过去以西方为中心来观察中国政治，只能得出中国的社会主义制度不符合其标准而必须实现转型或只能崩溃的结论；而以中国为中心来观察中国政治，注重从中国的历史、文化出发来观察当代中国的国家治理实践，能够更加深入地理解当代中国政治制度根植于中国大地的根本特性。海外中国政治研究重心转换过程存在的不足之处有：海外中国政治研究的重心转换是缓慢的，同时，对国家治理的关注并不必然意味着对中国政治制度的认同 新中国成立的70多年中，大多数时间里，海外学者都是从价值判断和意识形态出发而对中国政治制度、中国共产党领导持否定看法，这种根深蒂固的偏见不大可能在短时间内消除。与此密切相关的就是部分海外学者对中国国家治理及成效的认可并不意味着其对中国特色社会主义制度价值的认同。即使21世纪以来有些海外学者的中国政治研究更加关注中国的国家治理实践、肯定中国共产党的治国理政能力以及国家治理成效，但这不代表其放弃了对不同制度的价值判断。例如，美国学者弗朗西斯·福山在2014年接受采访时曾提道：“中国制度的价值内核与思想基础源于其延续数千年的政治文化传统，并在理论与实践两者之间不断积累、调整和提高”。但在2016年，福山又提出，中国共产党构建的政治制度是不平衡的，行政权力因缺少制约而总是面临着出现“坏的统治者”的风险。显然，在海外学者眼中，西方“三权分立”的制度依然是理想的制度，这也是其评判中国特色社会主义制度的标准。海外中国政治研究重心的转换因人因势而变化 上文提到，海外中国政治研究重心从体制转型向国家治理的转换是一个总体的趋势性判断，而不是说所有的海外中国政治研究学者在同时同地相约改变，而且不同学者的观点和取向也会随着时间或情境的变化而变化。如美国华盛顿大学学者沈大伟在2008年时认为，中国的政党和国家体制既不会崩溃，也不会停滞不前，但到2015年他又突然提出“中国崩溃论”。这些变化表明，海外学者对中国政治制度的价值和中国共产党的认识也在发生变化。

(2) How to Respond to the Shift in Focus of Overseas Chinese Political Studies Generally speaking, since the 21st century, the focus of overseas scholars’ Chinese political studies has shown a trend of shifting from regime transformation to state governance, mainly because many scholars have recognized China’s achievements in state governance and the governance capacity of the Communist Party of China. However, this change is by no means a “linear” improvement, which reminds us that we must take proactive actions to effectively respond. We must comprehensively grasp the overall trends in overseas Chinese political studies. As overseas Chinese political studies increasingly attract the attention of domestic scholars, many have endeavored to track and observe the latest findings of overseas Chinese political studies and make their own judgments, thereby producing a considerable body of literature. Among this literature, some works maintain a relatively scientific and objective evaluation of overseas Chinese political studies, but there are also various biases. For example, some exaggerate the recognition by overseas scholars of China’s state governance achievements and the CPC’s governance capacity, as well as their identification with China’s political system. This can easily lead to one-sided understanding and overgeneralization. Conversely, others overstate the negation or even hostility of overseas scholars toward China, especially equating U.S. Chinese political studies with overseas Chinese political studies as a whole, while neglecting the ideological or value-based divergences among overseas scholars, or even simplistically viewing overseas scholars—particularly Western scholars—as a “monolithic bloc.” This is also detrimental to Chinese scholars’ international exchanges. Just as the Western world once regarded China and the Soviet Union as a “monolithic bloc” of totalitarian allies, it is equally inappropriate to view overseas scholars of Chinese political studies as a homogeneous group. In reality, although the United States is a major hub with many scholars studying Chinese politics, Chinese political studies in Europe, Russia, South Korea, Latin America, Africa, and other regions are also rising, and include scholars with in-depth research on Chinese politics. For instance, the aforementioned Sebastian Heilmann and Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard both hold more understanding and recognition of China’s political system. Similarly, although Elizabeth J. Perry is American, she also opposes understanding Chinese politics from the perspective of regime transformation or democratization. This requires us to comprehensively and objectively view the shift in focus of overseas Chinese political studies from regime transformation to state governance, neither ignoring the efforts of other overseas scholars who attempt to sever the relationship between the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the effectiveness of state governance, simply because some overseas scholars pay more attention to China’s state governance, nor overlooking the efforts of other overseas scholars who seek to understand the current political system and state governance practices from China’s history and culture, simply because some overseas scholars adhere to “Western-centrism.” We must focus on elucidating the internal logic between the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics and governance effectiveness. The shift in focus of overseas scholars’ Chinese political studies from regime transformation to state governance indicates that China’s state governance achievements and governance capacity have attracted attention. However, some overseas scholars, while recognizing China’s state governance achievements and affirming the CPC’s governance capacity, still sever the relationship between the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the effectiveness of China’s state governance, and continue to refuse to acknowledge the advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics in state governance. For example, Francis Fukuyama strenuously argues that differences in Western state governance effectiveness have nothing to do with regime types, which is essentially an attempt to separate China’s institutional advantages from governance effectiveness, fundamentally still negating the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. This requires us to accurately grasp the characteristics and essence of the shift in focus of overseas Chinese political studies, deeply study the relationship between China’s state governance practices, achievements, and the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, and elucidate the advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics and the pathways for transforming them into governance effectiveness, so as to truly strengthen confidence in the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. We must strengthen the construction of a theoretical system and discourse system for China’s state governance. Since the 21st century, the result of the shift in focus of overseas Chinese political studies from regime transformation to state governance is that overseas scholars’ research has again shown a fragmented trend, focusing excessively on specific issues in China’s state governance practices while neglecting the construction of a theoretical system based on Chinese practice. In fact, China’s state governance practices possess rich theoretical value, and Chinese scholars should make due contributions to the theoretical construction based on China’s state governance practices. As Xi Jinping stated in his “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work”: “In interpreting Chinese practice and constructing Chinese theory, we should have the most say.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences Work,” *People’s Daily*, May 19, 2016. In recent years, domestic scholars have made considerable efforts to explain China’s state governance practices, proposing various concepts such as “party-centered,” “with the ruling party as the core,” and the “one core, multiple pillars” governance framework, providing important support for explaining the institutional roots of China’s state governance effectiveness and elucidating the advantages of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. However, these existing concepts are mostly empirical descriptions of China’s state governance practices; they have not yet formed a systematic theoretical system and discourse system for governance based on China’s state governance practices, let alone developed a modern theory of state governance on the basis of China’s state governance practices. This should be an important task for Chinese scholars in the future.

（二）海外中国政治研究重心转换的因应之道总体上看，21世纪以来海外学者的中国政治研究出现从体制转型到国家治理的重心转换趋势，主要由于不少学者看到了中国的国家治理成效和中国共产党的治国理政能力。但是，这种变化绝不是“线性”向好的，这就提醒我们必须采取积极行动加以有效应对。要全面把握海外中国政治研究的总体趋势 随着海外中国政治研究越来越受到国内学者的关注，不少人力图追踪、观察海外中国政治研究的最新成果，并对其做出自己的评判，也因此形成了不少文献。这些文献中，有的对海外中国政治研究能够保持比较科学、客观的评价，但同时也存在各种各样的偏向。如片面夸大海外学者对中国国家治理成就和中国共产党治国理政能力的认可，以及对中国政治制度的认同。这样易产生片面认识，导致以偏概全。又如，过于夸大海外学者对中国的否定甚至敌视，尤其是将美国的中国政治研究等同于海外中国政治研究，而忽视了海外学者在意识形态或价值立场上的分歧，甚至简单地把海外学者尤其是把西方学者看成是“铁板一块”，这也不利于中国学者的对外交往。正如当年西方世界将中国和苏联看成是“铁板一块”的极权主义同盟一样，把海外中国政治研究的学者看成是同质性群体同样是不恰当的。实际上，在海外中国政治研究中，美国虽然是重镇，研究中国政治的学者很多，但欧洲、俄罗斯、韩国以及拉美、非洲等地的中国政治研究也在崛起，其中不乏对中国政治有深度研究的学者。如前述韩博天、柏思德等，都对中国政治体制抱有更多的理解和认可。又如，裴宜理虽是美国人，但她也反对那种从体制转型或民主化的角度来认识中国政治的做法。这就要求我们全面客观地看待海外中国政治研究从体制转型向国家治理的重心转换，既不因部分海外学者更加关注中国国家治理而忽视其他海外学者试图割裂中国特色社会主义制度与国家治理效能间的关系，也不因有一部分海外学者坚持“西方中心主义”而忽视其他海外学者从中国的历史和文化去理解当下的政治制度和国家治理实践的努力。要注重阐明中国特色社会主义制度优势和治理效能间的内在逻辑 海外学者的中国政治研究从以体制转型为重心向以国家治理为重心转换，表明中国国家治理的成效和国家治理能力受到关注。但是，仍有一些海外学者在认可中国国家治理成效和肯定中国共产党国家治理能力的同时割裂了中国特色社会主义制度与中国国家治理效能之间的关系，仍然拒绝承认中国特色社会主义制度在国家治理中的优势。例如，弗朗西斯·福山极力说明西方的国家治理成效差异和政体类型没有关系，这实际上是有意将中国的制度优势和治理效能分离开来，本质上仍然是否定中国特色社会主义制度。这就要求我们准确把握海外中国政治研究重心转换的特征和本质，深入研究中国国家治理实践、成效和中国特色社会主义制度之间的关系，阐明中国特色社会主义制度的优势及转化为治理效能的路径，这样才能真正地坚定中国特色社会主义制度自信。加强中国国家治理的理论体系和话语体系的构建 21世纪以来，海外中国政治研究重心从体制转型向国家治理转换的结果就是海外学者的研究又呈现出碎片化趋势，过于关注中国国家治理实践中的具体问题而忽视了基于中国实践的理论体系构建。实际上，中国的国家治理实践具有丰富的理论价值，中国学者应当为基于中国国家治理实践基础的理论建构做出应有贡献。正如习近平《在哲学社会科学工作座谈会上的讲话》中所说的那样：“在解读中国实践、构建中国理论上，我们应该最有发言权”。近年来，国内学者在解释中国国家治理实践方面做了不少努力，提出了诸如“政党中心主义”“以执政党为中心”“一核多元”治理架构等各种概念，为解释中国国家治理成效的制度根源、阐明中国特色社会主义制度优势提供了重要支撑。但是，已有这些概念更多的只是对中国国家治理实践的经验描述，还没有形成系统的基于中国国家治理实践的治理理论体系和话语体系，更未能在中国国家治理实践基础上形成现代国家治理理论，这应是未来中国学者的重要任务。

Looking back at overseas Chinese political studies over the more than 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, its research paradigm has undergone a transformation from totalitarianism before the 1960s, to factional politics during the “Cultural Revolution” period, and then to authoritarianism, which gradually became dominant after reform and opening up. Generally speaking, all these can be classified as research “centered on regime transformation.” Since the 21st century, especially after the 18th National Congress of the CPC, [3]3 The 18th National Congress of the CPC, held in November 2012, marked the beginning of the New Era under Xi Jinping’s leadership. as the effectiveness of China’s state governance has continuously manifested and the CPC’s “political leadership, ideological guidance, mass organization, and social mobilization capabilities have significantly strengthened,” [4]4 This phrase is from the report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC (2017), summarizing the Party’s enhanced capabilities. many overseas scholars have gradually shifted to research centered on China’s state governance, attempting to explore the roots of China’s state governance effectiveness and find the secrets of the CPC’s success. Compared with research “centered on regime transformation,” Chinese political studies “centered on state governance” are relatively more scientific and fair in terms of institutional evaluation criteria, value positions, and research methods, and have their merits. However, the shift in focus of overseas Chinese political studies also has some shortcomings. These all require us to carefully analyze and recognize their complex facets, rather than seeing only one side. Especially in recent years, as Sino-U.S. relations have become increasingly tense, this will inevitably affect the value orientations and research perspectives of some American scholars when studying Chinese issues. Overall, the shift in focus of overseas scholars’ Chinese political studies from regime transformation to state governance is an inevitable trend.

纵观新中国成立70多年来的海外中国政治研究，其研究范式经历了从20世纪60年代以前的极权主义到“文革”时期的派系政治，再到改革开放以后逐渐占主导地位的威权主义的转变。总体上看，这些都可以归入“以体制转型为重心”的研究。21世纪特别是中共十八大以来，随着中国国家治理的成效不断显现和中国共产党的“政治领导力、思想引领力、群众组织力、社会号召力显著增强”，不少海外学者逐渐转向以中国国家治理为重心的研究，试图探索中国国家治理成效的根源，找寻中国共产党成功的秘诀，与“以体制转型为重心”的研究相比，“以国家治理为重心”的中国政治研究无论从制度的评判标准、价值立场还是研究方法都相对科学公正，有其可取之处。但是，海外中国政治研究重心的转换，也存有一些不足之处。这些都需要我们仔细辨析，认清其复杂面相，而不应该只看到其中一面。尤其是最近几年，中美关系有日趋紧张之势，这必然影响一些美国学者在研究中国问题时的价值取向和研究视角。总体上看，海外学者中国政治研究从以体制转型为重心向以国家治理为重心的转换是大势所趋。

Source: *Contemporary China History Studies*, Issue 1, 2023

文章来源：《当代中国史研究》2023年第1期

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆