Chinese-Path Modernization and the Autonomous Knowledge System of Economics: Fundamental Guidance and Theoretical Reconstruction

Modernization is a protracted marathon in the development of human society, a world-historical stage and arena that every society today must enter. Historically, the developed Western countries completed the Industrial Revolution first, establishing a corresponding ideological and discursive system, leading global modernization and providing experience that developing countries could draw upon. Constrained by historical limitations, there were previously few alternative paths for modernization, leading the developed Western countries to abstract their own experience into universal "dogmas" for guiding the development of all nations. Western theories were enshrined as the golden rule for economic development, and the Western model became the template that all countries vied to imitate. As a result, modernization became a one-way input, and Westernization became the sole standard for modernization. In fact, modernization is the product of the unique culture and history of each nation and country. Western countries are merely the forerunners of modernization, not the terminators of the modernization model.

现代化是人类社会发展中漫长的马拉松比赛，是当今人类社会必须上场的世界历史舞台和竞技场。从历史上看，西方发达国家率先完成了工业革命，建立了一套与之相适应的意识形态与话语体系，引领了世界现代化，为发展中国家提供了可资借鉴的经验。受历史局限，过去没有更多可供选择的现代化发展路径，从而导致西方发达国家将自己的经验抽象成了指导各国发展的通用“教条”，西方理论被各国奉为经济发展的圭臬，西方模式也成了各国争相模仿的范本。结果，现代化成为单向输入，西方化成为现代化的唯一标准。事实上，现代化是各民族、国家独特文化与历史的产物。西方国家只是现代化的先行者，而非现代化模式的终结者。

I. Chinese-Path Modernization and the Western Model

一、中国式现代化与西方模式

(I) Chinese-Path Modernization Breaks the Myth of "Modernization = Westernization"

（一）中国式现代化打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思

Marx strongly opposed generalizing the "history of the origins of Western European capitalism" as the "general path of development" for the entire process of human modernization, opposing the notion that all nations and countries, "whatever the historical environment in which they are placed, are destined to take this path." After all, "events strikingly similar but occurring in different historical environments" can lead to "completely different results." Western modernization is deeply rooted in Western soil and possesses strong "national" and "regional" characteristics. The Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal pointed out that "Western economic terminology is abstracted from the lifestyle, living standards, attitudes, institutions, and culture of the Western world. It may be meaningful and yield correct conclusions when used to analyze the Western world, but it will obviously not yield correct conclusions when used to analyze underdeveloped countries." In practice, any nation that mechanically copies the "Western model" or becomes highly dependent on Western countries loses its own independence and autonomy in development, falling into the dilemma of "the orange trees south of the Huai River become trifoliate oranges north of it" [1]1 A Chinese idiom from the classical text *Yanzi Chunqiu* (Spring and Autumn of Master Yan), meaning that something changes its nature when transplanted to a different environment, used here to illustrate the failure of mechanically applying foreign models., and subsequently becomes trapped in the "middle-income trap" from which it cannot escape. It is evident that the Western model is neither a "successful template" applicable to all countries nor a "master key" capable of solving the modernization problems of developing countries. Therefore, one should neither attribute the special conditions of the West as the reason for its early entry into modernization, nor directly "copy and imitate" the Western modernization model. Instead, the general laws and characteristics embodied in Western modernization must be integrated with each country's national conditions and actual circumstances.

马克思强烈反对把“西欧资本主义起源的历史”概述为人类现代化进程的“一般发展道路”，反对一切民族、国家“不管它们所处的历史环境如何，都注定要走这条道路”。毕竟，“极为相似的事变发生在不同的历史环境中”也会引起“完全不同的结果”。西方现代化深深根植于西方土壤，具有很强的“民族性”与“地域性”特征。瑞典经济学家缪尔达尔（Gunnar Myrdal）指出，“西方经济学术语是从西方世界的生活方式、生活水平、态度、制度和文化中抽象出来的，它们用于分析西方世界可能有意义，并可以得出正确的结论；但是用于分析欠发达国家显然不会得出正确的结论”。实践中，任何一个生搬硬套“西方模式”或高度依附于西方国家的民族，都丧失了自身发展的独立性和自主性，出现了“淮南为橘淮北为枳”的困境，进而落入“中等收入陷阱”无法自拔。可见，西方模式既不是一套适用于所有国家的“成功模板”，也不是一把能解决发展中国家现代化问题的“万能钥匙”。因此，既不能将西方的特殊条件作为其最早进入现代化的原因，也不能直接“照搬照抄”西方现代化模式，而要将西方现代化体现出的一般规律和特点与本国国情及现实条件相结合。

Unlike other developing countries, China has consistently adhered to its own position, independence, and self-reliance, proceeding from its specific national conditions and actual circumstances. Through practical development, it has successfully blazed the path of Chinese-path modernization, largely avoiding the drawbacks of the Western modernization model and providing new options for humanity to achieve modernization. Chinese-path modernization has neither replicated the Western modernization model nor reenacted the bloody history of the Western rise; instead, it has pioneered a new form of human civilization through peaceful means. It possesses both the common characteristics of modernization in all countries and Chinese characteristics based on its own national conditions. Resistance to Western modernization "is not a rejection of modernity, but a rejection of the West, and of the secular, relativistic, decadent culture associated with the West." It is "a declaration of independence from Western culture, a proud statement," meaning "we will be modern, but we will not be you." [2]2 The quotation is from the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's *The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order* (1996), describing non-Western societies' assertion of cultural identity. Everything from others can be referenced, but it is only for reference. The world's problems cannot all be solved with one model; China has its own model. Eddie Tapiero, an international and economic expert at the Panama Canal Authority, stated at the "New Era of China and the World" international symposium that "the country's rapid development and successful economic transformation all show that China has found the right development path."

与其他发展中国家不同，中国始终坚持本土立场、独立自主，坚持从具体国情与现实境遇出发，在实践发展中成功开辟了中国式现代化道路，很大程度上避免了西方现代化模式的弊端，为人类实现现代化提供了新的选择。中国式现代化既没有复刻西方现代化模式，更没有重演西方崛起的血腥历史，而是以和平方式开创了人类文明新形态。既有各国现代化的共同特征，更有基于自己国情的中国特色。对西方现代化的抵制，“并非拒绝现代性，而是拒绝西方，以及与西方相关的世俗的、相对主义的、颓废的文化”，这“是对西方文化独立的宣言，是一种骄傲的声明”，即“我们将是现代的，但我们不会是你们”。所有别人的东西都可以参考，但也只是参考。世界上的问题不可能都用一个模式解决，中国有中国自己的模式。巴拿马运河管理局国际和经济问题专家艾迪·塔皮耶罗（Eddie Tapiero）在出席“新时代的中国与世界”国际研讨会时表示，“国家快速发展、经济成功转型，这都说明中国找对了发展道路”。

Over the more than 70 years since the founding of the People's Republic of China, China has transformed from a "low-income country" into an "upper-middle-income country," growing from a state of "poverty and backwardness" [3]3 A Chinese four-character idiom (*yi qiong er bai*) literally meaning "one poor and two whites," historically used to describe the poverty and lack of industrial and educational foundations in the early People's Republic of China. into the world's second-largest economy, with its economic volume exceeding one hundred trillion yuan, becoming a major contributor to global economic growth. During the ten years from 2012 to 2021, China's total GDP grew from 53.9 trillion yuan to 114.4 trillion yuan, with an average annual growth rate far exceeding the world average. According to World Bank statistics, as early as 2017, China's GDP accounted for over 15% of the global total, and China's economic growth contributed approximately 34% to world economic growth. Economist Dwight H. Perkins pointed out in the 1990s that "if China's efforts to transform into an industrialized society succeed, then the population living in newly industrialized countries will increase by 1.1 billion compared to the 1950s. Thus, after only 40 or 50 years of effort, the world will have undergone a transformation: from a situation where the majority of people (three-quarters of the total population) lived in poor agricultural societies to one where about half of the world's population lives in relatively prosperous industrial-urban societies." On the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China achieved a comprehensive victory in the fight against poverty, historically resolving the problem of absolute poverty. This is not only of great significance for the development of the Chinese nation but also provides a successful case for human poverty eradication. Over 700 million people in China have been lifted out of poverty, contributing over 70% to the global poverty reduction effort, effectively advancing the global cause of poverty reduction and human development and progress. In 2023, China's gross domestic product exceeded 126 trillion yuan, accounting for approximately 18% of the global total, roughly equivalent to the proportion of China's population (1.413 billion) in the global population (about 18%). This indicates that China's population growth matches the country's contribution to the world economy, making China an undeniable "locomotive" for world economic development.

新中国成立70多年来，中国从“世界低收入国家”转变为“世界中高收入国家”，从“一穷二白”成长为世界第二大经济体，经济体量突破百万亿，成为全球经济增长的主要贡献者。2012—2021年十年间，中国GDP总量从53.9万亿元增长到114.4万亿元，年均增长率远高于世界平均增速。据世界银行统计，早在2017年，中国GDP占全球的比重就超过了15%，中国经济增长对世界经济增长的贡献率达到了34%左右。经济学家帕金斯（Dwight H. Perkins）在20世纪90年代就曾指出，“如果中国转变成工业化社会的努力取得成功，那么生活在新工业化国家的人口就比50年代增加了11亿。这样，只经过40年或者50年的努力，这个世界就有了转变：即从大多数人（占总人口3/4）生活在贫穷的农业社会转变到1/2左右的世界人口生活在相对繁荣的工业都市化的社会中”。中国共产党建党百年之际，中国脱贫攻坚战取得了全面胜利，历史性地解决了绝对贫困问题，这不仅对中华民族的发展具有重要意义，也为人类消除贫困提供了成功案例。中国7亿多人口摆脱贫困，对世界减贫贡献率超过70%，有力推动了全球减贫事业和人类发展进步。2023年，我国国内生产总值突破126万亿元，全球占比18%左右，与我国人口（14.13亿）占全球总人口的比重（约18%）相当，意味着我国人口增长与国家对世界经济的贡献相匹配，中国是世界经济发展当之无愧的“火车头”。

Chinese-path modernization has always been rooted in China's national conditions and practice. It has completed in just a few decades the process that took developed Western countries several hundred years, creating a miracle of China's development, achieving China's rise and catch-up, breaking the myth of "modernization = Westernization," and proving that the Western model is not the only model for modernization. It provides a new option for developing countries to independently and autonomously move towards modernization. In fact, there is no fixed model for the path of modernization; what suits oneself is the best, and one should not cut one's feet to fit the shoes. Whether it is the external plunder and exploitation accompanying the process of Western modernization or the social polarization that remains unresolved to this day, both demonstrate that "history is far from over" [4]4 A reference to Francis Fukuyama's 1989 essay "The End of History?" which argued that liberal democracy might represent the endpoint of humanity's sociocultural evolution. The authors here contest this claim.. Late-developing countries can also, based on their own practice, pioneer better and diversified modernization models that conform to the laws of national development.

中国式现代化始终根植于中国的国情与实践，以几十年时间走完了西方发达国家几百年走过的历程，创造了中国发展的奇迹，实现了中国的崛起与赶超，打破了“现代化=西方化”的迷思，证明了西方模式并非现代化的唯一模式，为广大发展中国家独立自主迈向现代化提供了全新选择。事实上，现代化道路并没有固定模式，适合自己的才是最好的，不能削足适履。不论是西方现代化进程中伴随的对外掠夺与剥削，还是时至今日仍未解决的社会两极分化问题，都说明“历史远未终结”，后发国家也能立足实践，开创更好的、符合国家发展规律的、多样化的现代化模式。

(II) Chinese-Path Modernization Deconstructs the Western Discursive System of Economics

（二）中国式现代化解构了经济学西方话语体系

The expansion of a civilization’s power is usually always accompanied by the flourishing of its culture, and this civilization almost always uses its power to impose its values, practices, and institutions on other societies. Looking back at history, the process of Western modernization has always been accompanied by the establishment and strengthening of Western hegemony and the Western discourse system of economics, and this Western hegemony and Western discourse system of economics have in turn been consolidated and reinforced with the spread of Western modernization. For Western countries, “a universal civilization requires universal power”; therefore, they always, out of their own political, economic, and strategic interests, define certain values they themselves have delineated as “universal values” and then forcibly market them to the entire world. They do not even hesitate to resort to force and war to seek overseas colonization and expansion, thereby strengthening their hegemonic position in ideology, causing enormous harm to the interests and well-being of the people of other countries. During the Roman Empire, Rome used violence and intimidation to control and rule conquered peoples and regions, and in the ancient world it also claimed to have created a “universal civilization.” In the mid-19th century, European countries led by Britain were the first to complete the Industrial Revolution, gaining a guiding position in the world, and in the process of external colonization they established a kind of “Western privilege.” In the mid-20th century, after the United States surpassed Britain to become the leading power, it embarked on a path of global interest expansion and ideological export. After the end of World War II, Western hegemonic rule did not disappear with the end of colonialism; instead, a Western-centered discourse system was established, continuing to intervene in and influence the development of other countries in the economic, political, cultural, and social spheres. It can be seen that hegemony is an important means for the West to maintain its capitalist dominant position, a shortcut for Western modernization, and even more so the historical root of the Western theoretical logic that “a strong country is bound to seek hegemony.” From beginning to end, the hegemonic nature of Western countries has never changed; they have merely clothed themselves in a more “attractive” guise, replacing the former guns and invasions with today’s “democracy” and “universal values.”

一个文明权力的扩张通常总是同时伴随着其文化的繁荣，而且这一文明几乎总是运用它的这种权力向其他社会推行其价值观、实践和体制。回望历史，西方现代化进程总是伴随着西方霸权与经济学西方话语体系的建立和强化，而西方霸权与经济学西方话语体系也随着西方现代化的推广而巩固和加强。对西方国家而言，“一个普世文明需要普世的权力”，因此他们总是出于自己的政治、经济和战略利益，把自己界定的一些价值说成是“普世价值”，然后向全世界强行推销。甚至不惜诉诸武力和战争手段寻求海外殖民与扩张，以强化自己在意识形态上的霸权地位，对他国人民利益与福祉造成了巨大损害。罗马帝国时期，罗马以暴力和恐吓等手段来控制和统治被征服的民族和地区，在古代世界也宣称创建了一种“普世文明”。19世纪中期，以英国为首的欧洲国家率先完成工业革命，获得了世界的指导性地位，并在对外殖民的过程中建立起了一种“西方特权”。20世纪中期，美国超越英国成为第一强国后，便开启了在全球的利益扩张和意识形态输出之路。二战结束后，西方霸权统治并未随着殖民主义的终结而消亡，而是建立了以西方为中心的话语体系，继续在经济、政治、文化、社会等领域干预和影响着其他国家的发展。可见，霸权是西方保持资本主义优势地位的重要手段，是西方现代化的捷径，更是西方“国强必霸”理论逻辑的历史根源。从始至终，西方国家的称霸本性从未改变，只是为自己披上了更“好看”的外衣，用如今的“民主”与“普世价值”代替了曾经的枪炮和入侵。

It must be recognized that the current mainstream economic theories come from the developed Western countries, tell Western stories, and summarize Western phenomena and experiences. Therefore, Western concepts and theories cannot explain the development and problems of all countries. The great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the success of Chinese-path modernization stem from China’s rejection of the “prescriptions” that Western countries have offered to developing countries, and its escape from the “cages” that Western countries have set for other developing countries. The success of Chinese-path modernization shows that the modernization model is “not a solid crystal, but an organism capable of change and constantly in the process of change”; no model is immutable and universally applicable. What the Chinese path presents to the world is not a “unified paradigm” or “international standard” for achieving modernization, but rather conveys a belief and a strength: that any country wishing to succeed must proceed from its own national conditions, base itself on practice, take practical problems as its guide, absorb and draw on all beneficial achievements of humanity, and forge an independent path to modernization. In fact, the contradiction between the efforts of developed Western countries to promote the “Western model” globally and their declining capacity to do so is insurmountable. This is because “conclusive, once-and-for-all tests or precise deductive theorems are fundamentally impossible in economics; all its predictions are probabilistic.”

必须看到，现在的主流经济学理论来自西方发达国家，讲述的是西方故事，总结的也是西方现象和经验。因此，西方的概念和理论不可能解释所有国家的发展与问题。中国特色社会主义伟大实践与中国式现代化的成功，源于中国拒绝了西方国家为广大发展中国家开出的“药方”，跳出了西方国家给其他发展中国家设置的“牢笼”。中国式现代化的成功表明，现代化模式“不是坚实的结晶体，而是一个能够变化并且经常处于变化过程中的有机体”，没有任何一种模式是一成不变且放之四海而皆准的。中国道路向世界呈现的不是通往现代化的“统一范式”和“国际标准”，而是传递一种信念和力量，即任何国家想要取得成功，都必须从本国国情出发，立足实践，以现实问题为导向，吸收借鉴人类一切有益成果，走出一条独立自主的现代化道路。事实上，西方发达国家在全球范围内推广“西方模式”的努力与其推广能力下降的矛盾是无法克服的。因为“结论性的一劳永逸的检验或精确的定理地推导在经济学上是根本不可能的，它所有的预测都是具有或然性的”。

In the 1980s, American economist Jeffrey Sachs proposed “Shock Therapy” based on Bolivia’s economic crisis, and John Williamson, addressing the economic problems of Latin American countries, put forward the “Washington Consensus” based on neoliberal theory. In fact, whether it is “Shock Therapy” or the “Washington Consensus,” their core content can be summarized as marketization, liberalization, and privatization. At the same time, Francis Fukuyama also proposed the “End of History” thesis, arguing that “there is only one path for historical development, namely Western market economy and democratic politics.” In the 1990s, “Shock Therapy” and the “Washington Consensus” were widely implemented in Latin America, the Middle East, and Eurasia. However, under the guidance of Western economic liberal ideology, Latin America not only failed to achieve rapid economic development but also experienced a “lost decade.” Russia adopted “Shock Therapy,” which resulted in an economic and social catastrophe rarely seen in human history. Practice has proven that the “Washington Consensus” only further exacerbates the wealth gap in developing countries, lowers people’s living standards, accumulates financial risks, and triggers financial crises. And “Shock Therapy” was fundamentally unable to solve a series of problems in Russia, such as economic structural imbalance and declining energy supply. It can be seen that Westernization is indeed almost impossible, because whatever obstacles non-Western cultures pose to modernization, they pale in comparison to the obstacles they pose to Westernization.

20世纪80年代，美国经济学家杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）根据玻利维亚经济危机问题提出了“休克疗法”（Shock Therapy），约翰·威廉姆森（John Williamson）针对拉美国家出现的经济问题，提出了以新自由主义学说为理论基础的“华盛顿共识”（Washington Consensus）。实际上，不论是“休克疗法”还是“华盛顿共识”，其核心内容都可概括为市场化、自由化和私有化。与此同时，弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）还提出了“历史终结论”，他认为“历史的发展只有一条路，即西方的市场经济和民主政治”。20世纪90年代，“休克疗法”与“华盛顿共识”在拉美地区、中东地区以及欧亚地区得到了广泛推行。然而，在西方经济自由主义思想的指导下，拉美地区非但没有获得经济的高速发展，还迎来了“失去的十年”。俄罗斯采取了“休克疗法”，换来的也是一场人类历史上罕见的经济社会浩劫。实践证明，“华盛顿共识”只会进一步加剧发展中国家的贫富差距，降低人民生活水平，积累金融风险，引发金融危机。而“休克疗法”也根本无法解决俄罗斯经济结构失调、能源供应下降等一系列问题。可见，西方化确实几乎是不可能的，因为无论非西方文化对现代化造成了什么障碍，与它们对西方化造成的障碍相比都相形见绌。

In contrast, China rejected the Western “radical reform model” and instead, based on its national realities, adopted a “stable reform model,” namely “large-scale economic system reform, medium-scale social system reform, and relatively small-scale political system reform,” effectively avoiding major pitfalls such as full-scale privatization, “Shock Therapy,” financial crises, and the social turmoil and national disintegration caused by pseudo-“democratization,” forming a sharp contrast with the “failure of Westernization” in other developing countries. China’s rise and takeoff have shattered a series of Western assertions such as the “China collapse theory” and the “end of history,” greatly changing the global political and economic landscape and deconstructing the Western discourse system of economics. The establishment of the Chinese-path modernization path has gradually caused Western neoliberal theory and the “Washington Consensus” to lose their market. Bruno Macaes, a senior European scholar, stated, “We must frankly admit that we are in decline, and our powerful opponents are tracing the roots of our failure precisely from the myth of liberal universality that we once created.”

相反，中国拒绝了西方的“激进改革模式”，取而代之的是立足国家实际，采取了一种“稳健改革模式”，即“大规模的经济体制改革、适中规模的社会体制改革和相对较小规模的政治体制改革”，有效避免了全盘私有化、“休克疗法”、金融危机与伪“民主化”导致的社会动荡、国家解体等重大陷阱，与其他发展中国家的“西化失败”形成了鲜明对比。中国的崛起与腾飞，打破了“中国崩溃论”“历史终结论”等一系列西方论断，极大改变了全球政治经济格局，解构了经济学西方话语体系。中国式现代化道路的确立，逐渐让西方新自由主义理论与“华盛顿共识”失去了市场。欧洲资深学者布鲁诺·马塞斯（Bruno Macaes）表示，“我们要坦率地承认，我们正在衰落，我们那些强大的对手们正是从我们曾经打造的自由主义普遍性神话中，追溯到了我们失败的根源”。

II. Chinese-Path Modernization and the Autonomous Knowledge System of Economics

二、中国式现代化与经济学自主知识体系

(I) Chinese-Path Modernization Provides Fundamental Guidance for Constructing an Autonomous Knowledge System of Economics

（一）中国式现代化为建构经济学自主知识体系提供了根本遵循

Modernization is an important proposition in the development of human society and also a basic object of study for philosophy and social sciences. It is a dynamic historical category, constantly enriched and expanded along with human practical activities. Understanding and researching modernization cannot be separated from specific historical backgrounds, historical positions, and practical processes. The “classical theories” and “Western discourse” rooted in Western soil are fundamentally incapable of scientifically explaining Chinese practice. Understanding Chinese-path modernization should neither involve being a “porter” of Western discourse nor serve as a “testing ground” or “racecourse” for Western theories; instead, it should be based on Chinese practice, conform to Chinese realities, and follow the trend of the times. The new phenomena, new problems, and new trends emerging from Chinese-path modernization that are difficult to elucidate with Western economic theory further enhance the uniqueness and theoretical value of China’s economic development experience, break the monopoly of Western modernization and its discourse system on the interpretation of modernization, realize innovation in the discourse system of modernization, provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for developing countries on their path to modernization, fully reflect the consciousness of building philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, and offer rich content and fundamental guidance for constructing an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese economics.

现代化是人类社会发展的重要命题，同时也是哲学社会科学的基本研究对象，它是一个动态的历史性范畴，伴随着人类实践活动不断丰富和拓展。对于现代化的理解和研究，离不开特定的时代背景、历史方位和实践历程，根植于西方土壤的“经典理论”与“西方话语”根本无法科学地解释中国实践。理解中国式现代化，既不应是西方话语的“搬运工”，也不应是西方理论的“试验田”和“跑马场”，而是应当立足中国实践、符合中国实际、顺应时代潮流。中国式现代化建设中涌现出的西方经济学理论难以阐明的新现象、新问题和新趋势，进一步增加了中国经济发展经验的独特性和理论价值，破除了西方现代化及其话语体系在现代化上的唯一解释力，实现了现代化话语体系的创新，为广大发展中国家走向现代化提供了中国智慧和中国方案，充分体现了中国特色哲学社会科学建设的自觉性，为建构中国经济学自主知识体系提供了丰富的内容供给和根本遵循。

From the perspective of the economic development model, the practical success of China’s economic development has shaken off and continuously transcended the Western model, blazing a socialist economic development path with Chinese characteristics and realizing the transformation from a planned economy to a market economy. British economist Linda Yueh stated, “China always chooses its own unique path, and such a choice is wise because there is no fixed economic development model that can be applied to every country.” The successful practice of the socialist market economy has not only propelled China’s economic emergence but also achieved major breakthroughs and innovations in market economy theory. Rooted in China’s reform and development practice, it has promoted the organic integration of the “invisible hand” and the “visible hand,” creating the miracle of rapid economic development and long-term social stability. The success of China’s economic development stems from resisting the “orthodox” experience of Western countries and pioneering a special path suited to local development, the essence of which is the restructuring of the relationship between government and the market. A survey of the history of Western economics reveals that Western countries are constantly confronted with the problem of market failure or government failure. The main reasons for this are: on the one hand, Western countries can never break free from the fetters of private ownership of the means of production, for “the real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself”; on the other hand, Western countries simply equate the market economy with capitalism, believing that “private ownership, competition, free exchange of commodities, and ‘hard’ budget constraints” are the three necessary conditions for the operation of a market economy; and on yet another hand, Western countries have fallen into the quagmire of the “substitution debate” between market and government, so that government and the market are often in a state of “binary opposition.” In contrast, China recognized from the very beginning that handling the relationship between government and the market is the core of economic reform. After more than 40 years of exploration through reform and opening up, the relationship between China’s government and the market has ultimately been positioned as “giving full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation and better playing the role of government.” It is precisely because of this breakthrough and theoretical sublimation in understanding the relationship between government and the market that China has been able to establish a socialist market economy system on the basis of public ownership, thereby breaking the “universal” model of the market economy of the West, solving the problems of China’s economic development, and providing a completely new line of thought and direction for the rise of emerging economies.

从经济发展模式来看，中国经济发展的实践成功摆脱并不断超越了西方模式，开创了一条具有中国特色的社会主义经济发展道路，实现了计划经济到市场经济的转型。英国经济学家琳达·岳（Linda Yueh）表示，“中国总是选择自己独特的道路，这样的选择是明智的，因为没有一个固定的经济发展模型可以适用于每一个国家”。社会主义市场经济的成功实践，不仅推动了中国经济的异军突起，同时也实现了市场经济理论的重大突破与创新。它立足中国改革发展实践，促进了“看不见的手”与“看得见的手”的有机结合，创造了经济快速发展与社会长期稳定的奇迹。中国经济发展的成功，源于抵制了西方国家的“正统”经验，开创了适合本土发展的特殊路径，其实质是政府与市场关系的重构。纵观西方经济学发展史，不难发现西方国家总面临市场失灵或者政府失灵的问题。究其主要原因：一方面是由于西方国家始终摆脱不了生产资料私有制的羁绊，“资本主义生产的真正限制是资本本身”；另一方面是由于西方国家简单将市场经济等同于资本主义，认为“私有制、竞争和商品的自由交换以及‘硬’预算约束”是市场经济运行的三个必要条件；再一方面是由于西方国家陷入了市场与政府“替代争论”的泥潭，使得政府与市场常处于“二元对立”的局面。与之相反，中国从一开始就意识到处理好市场与政府的关系是经济改革的核心。经过改革开放40多年的探索，我国政府与市场的关系最终定位于“充分发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用和更好发挥政府作用”。正是由于在政府与市场关系认识上的突破与理论升华，我国才能在公有制基础上建立社会主义市场经济体制，从而打破了西方“普世意义”上的市场经济模式，破解了中国经济发展的难题，为新兴经济体的崛起提供了全新的思路和方向。

From the perspective of building a modern economic system, the great achievements of China’s economic development have overturned the concept of the modern economy, broken through the industrial classification of mainstream Western economics, and promoted a positive interaction between productive forces and relations of production. Compared with most developing countries, the changes China has undergone in a short period are far greater, not only “because of the speed of China’s economic growth, but also because of the fact that China’s rapid economic growth has been accompanied by a thorough transformation of its economic system.” In defining the modern economy, Western scholars generally believe that an economy can only be called a modern economy when the service sector accounts for 70% of the three industries, and a modern economy implies entry into a post-industrial society. Daniel Bell stated, “Post-industrial society is mainly manifested in changes in the nature of social structure,” and economically, it is mainly “a shift from manufacturing to services.” Misled by this theory, Western developed countries have transferred a large number of industries abroad, resulting in severe manufacturing decline and industrial hollowing out, which has caused economic recession. However, China’s modern economic system has avoided the inducement of classical Western industrial structure theory. It has not deliberately reduced the proportion of manufacturing in the economic structure while increasing the proportion of the service sector; instead, it emphasizes “focusing the efforts of economic development on the real economy” and building “an industrial system in which the real economy, scientific and technological innovation, modern finance, and human resources develop in coordination.” Faced with increasingly complex economic development situations, China has realized that the principal contradiction of the real economy lies in the oversupply of low-end goods and the undersupply of medium- to high-end goods, with the quality of supply failing to keep pace with the rising level of consumer demand. Therefore, it put forward the theory of supply-side structural reform, emphasizing the proactive adjustment of supply structure and quality, improving total factor productivity, and promoting high-quality economic development. It can be seen that the modern economic system is a product of Chinese-path modernization reaching a certain level and the development of social productive forces reaching a certain stage, and is an inevitable result of the development of the socialist economic system.

从现代经济体系建设来看，中国经济发展的伟大成就颠覆了现代经济的概念，突破了西方主流经济学的产业划分，促进了生产力与生产关系的良性互动。与大多数发展中国家相比，中国在短时期内所经历的变化要大得多，这不仅是“因为中国的经济增长速度快，也因为中国经济的高速增长伴随着其经济体系的彻底变革这一事实”。在对现代经济的定义中，西方学者普遍认为服务业在三次产业中占比达到70%才能称为现代经济，而现代经济意味着进入后工业社会。丹尼尔·贝尔（Daniel Bell）表示，“后工业社会主要表现为社会结构性质的变化”，在经济上，主要“由制造业转为服务业”。西方发达国家正是在这种理论的误导下，产业大量向外转移，出现了严重的制造业衰落和产业空心化，引起了经济衰退。然而，中国的现代化经济体系避免了西方经典产业结构理论的诱导，并没有刻意降低制造业在经济结构中的比重而提高服务业的比重，反而强调“将发展经济的着力点放在实体经济上”，建立一个“实体经济、科技创新、现代金融、人力资源协同发展的产业体系”。面对日益复杂的经济发展情况，中国意识到实体经济的主要矛盾在于低端供给过剩而中高端供给不足，供给质量赶不上消费者需求水平的提高。因此提出了供给侧结构性改革理论，强调主动调整供给结构与质量，提高全要素生产率，促进经济高质量发展。可见，现代化经济体系是中国式现代化达到一定水平、社会生产力发展到一定阶段的产物，是社会主义经济体系发展的必然结果。

In summary, the Chinese path and the “China model” provide a new path for modernization for late-developing countries that can serve as a reference, one that opposes classical modernization theory and the “Washington Consensus.” If China’s catch-up development continues successfully, it will become a turning point for the world economy—not only because of China’s national scale, but also because this would be the first time in history that success is based on an indigenous economic model rather than the Western path.

总之，中国道路和“中国模式”为后发国家提供了一条可资借鉴的反经典现代化理论和反“华盛顿共识”的现代化新路。如果中国赶超式发展成功地继续下去，将会成为世界经济的转折点——不仅由于中国的国家规模，更因为这将是历史上第一次基于本土经济模式而非西方道路的成功。

(II) Constructing an Autonomous Knowledge System of Economics Is the Demand of the Times for Chinese-Path Modernization

（二）构建经济学自主知识体系是中国式现代化的时代诉求

Historically, the economic discourse system that occupies the dominant voice in each era is the mainstream economics that is widely recognized, and the country with the economic discourse power is often the center of the world economy. Since bourgeois economics developed into a complete system, the world economic and trade center has shifted twice, and the economics research center has also undergone two major changes accordingly. In the 1840s, Britain took the lead in completing the Industrial Revolution and became the world’s strongest country, shifting the world economic center from East Asia to the North Atlantic. Marked mainly by Adam Smith’s *The Wealth of Nations* in 1776, the first theoretical system of Western economics was formally formed, and Britain ushered in its era of economics. From the end of the 19th century to the mid-20th century, with the development of economic globalization, the world economic center gradually shifted from the North Atlantic to the Pacific Rim, and the United States replaced Britain’s hegemonic position, bringing economics into the American era. Lloyd G. Reynolds stated, “Modern economics has been nurtured mainly in Western Europe and the United States, and although it aspires to universality, it bears the imprint of the unique institutions and problems of these regions.” Economics developed in the context of Western culture and society is influenced by many factors such as Western culture, politics, history, and social systems, so its theoretical framework and analytical methods have obvious Western characteristics. Developing countries differ from Western countries in their level of development, factor endowments, and production structures. If they completely apply Western theories to solve their development problems, they will encounter “acclimatization problems” and “powerlessness.”

从历史来看，每一个时代占据主要话语权的经济学话语体系就是受到普遍认同的主流经济学，并且拥有经济学话语权的国家往往就是世界经济的中心。自资产阶级经济学发展成为一个完整的体系以来，世界经济和贸易中心一共发生了两次转移，经济学研究中心也随之经历了两次大的变迁。19世纪40年代，英国率先完成工业革命，一跃成为世界最强的国家，世界经济中心从亚洲东部转移到了北大西洋。以1776年亚当·斯密的《国富论》为主要标志，西方经济学的第一个理论体系正式形成，英国迎来了它的经济学时代。19世纪末到20世纪中期，随着经济全球化的发展，世界经济中心逐渐由北大西洋转移到太平洋沿岸，美国进而取代英国的霸主地位，经济学进入美国时代。劳埃德·雷诺兹（Lloyd G.Reynolds）表示，“现代经济学主要是在西欧和美国培育出来的，尽管它渴望具有普遍性，它却带有这些地区特有的制度和问题的印记”。在西方文化和社会背景下发展起来的经济学，其发展受到西方文化、政治、历史和社会制度等多方面因素的影响，因此它的理论框架和分析方法都具有明显的西方特色。发展中国家与西方国家的发展程度不一样，要素禀赋、生产结构也不一样，如果完全以西方理论去解决其发展的问题，就会出现“水土不服”与“无能为力”的情况。

From a practical perspective, as we enter the 21st century, with the rapid development of China’s economy, the swift elevation of its international status, and the adjustment and restructuring of the global political and economic landscape, the center of gravity in world economic research is gradually shifting. The establishment of an autonomous knowledge system of economics has become a demand of the times for Chinese-path modernization. Lin Yifu has stated, “When China’s economy becomes the world’s largest and strongest in the next century, the center of world economics research will likely shift to our country,” and “the 21st century will be the century of Chinese economists.” However, the current trajectory of the growth and development of Chinese economics does not appear to be synchronized with the robust development of China’s economy and society. The excessive reliance on and imitation of Western economic theories in Chinese economics research has led to a lack of independence and innovation in theoretical innovation and research methods. This “path dependence” manifests specifically in Chinese economics research, which often adopts Western economic theories and methods for analysis in areas such as macroeconomic policy, industrial policy, and financial policy. Although these theories and methods have reference value in certain respects, their application under China’s national conditions has yielded unsatisfactory results. Alfred Marshall stated, “Although economic analysis and general reasoning have wide applications, yet every age and every country has its own problems, and every change in social conditions is likely to require a new development of economic doctrines.” Lacking one’s own economic system and economic discourse makes it difficult not only to solve practical problems but also to grasp the initiative in development and defend the core interests of one’s own country.

从现实来看，进入21世纪，随着中国经济的快速发展、国际地位的迅速提升以及世界政治经济格局的调整与重组，世界经济研究的重心也逐渐发生转移，建立经济学自主知识体系已经成为中国式现代化的时代诉求。林毅夫表示，“当我国的经济在下个世纪成为全世界最大、最强的经济时，世界经济学的研究中心也很有可能转移到我国来”，“21世纪将会是中国经济学家的世纪”。然而，目前中国经济学成长和发展的轨迹似乎并未与中国经济和社会的强势发展呈现同步。中国经济学在研究中对西方经济学理论的过度依赖和模仿，导致其在理论创新和研究方法上缺乏独立性和创新性。这种“路径依赖”具体表现为中国经济学研究在宏观经济政策、产业政策、金融政策等方面，往往采用西方经济学理论和方法进行研究和分析。虽然这些理论和方法在某些方面具有参考价值，但是在中国国情下的应用效果并不理想。马歇尔（Alfred Marshal）表示，“尽管经济分析和一般推理具有广泛的应用，然而，每一个时代每一个国家都有它们自己的问题，并且每一次社会条件的变化都很可能需要经济学学说有一个新的发展。”缺乏自己的经济学体系和经济学话语，不仅难以解决现实问题，同时也无法掌握发展的主动权，捍卫自己国家的核心利益。

It must be acknowledged that the center of gravity in society has gradually shifted to the knowledge domain. Joseph Nye argues that there is a distinction between command power based on military and economic strength, i.e., “hard power,” and “soft power,” through which a country’s culture and ideology make “other countries want what it wants.” If a country’s “culture and ideology are attractive, others will be more willing to follow” its leadership; therefore, soft power “is as important as hard command power.” Currently, China’s capacity and level in building an autonomous knowledge system do not match its comprehensive national strength and international status. “The voice of our country’s philosophy and social sciences in the international arena is still relatively weak; we are in a situation where we have truths but cannot articulate them, and even when articulated, they cannot be disseminated.” On April 25, 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized during his inspection of Renmin University of China, “To accelerate the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, the fundamental task is to build China’s autonomous knowledge system.” Without the foundation of an autonomous knowledge system, the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system would become water without a source and a tree without roots. Chinese economics is not a Chinese version of Western economics, nor is it a “mixed concoction” of Chinese and Western economic thought with “Chinese learning as the substance”; rather, it should be strictly based on Chinese practice and Chinese experience, and upon this foundation, establish a conceptual system truly distinct from Western economics. The Chinese economics system we aim to construct is a new theoretical system—not a rewrite of *Capital*, nor a patchwork of traditional socialist political economy based on the Soviet paradigm, and certainly not a direct copy of mainstream Western economics, but a new paradigm. The key to constructing an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese economics lies in breaking free from dependence on Western economics in theory and method, and putting an end to tailoring Chinese practice to Western concepts. When studying China’s economic problems, economists should not simply apply Western economic theories and methods, nor excessively pursue mathematical reasoning and modeling. Instead, they must base their work on China’s national conditions, take the basic principles of Marxism as guidance, integrate them with the excellent traditional Chinese culture, and conduct in-depth research on China’s economic characteristics, development needs, and the stage-specific features and structural problems of China’s economic development, thereby proposing a system of economic theories and methods that conforms to China’s reality.

必须承认，目前社会重心已经逐步转向知识领域。约瑟夫·奈（Joseph Nye）认为，在以经济和军事力量为基础的指挥权，即“硬权力”，与一个国家通过其文化和意识形态的吸引力使“其他国家想要它所想要的东西”的“软权力”之间，存在一个差别。如果一个国家的“文化和意识形态具有吸引力，其他国家会更愿追随”其领导，因此软权力“与硬的指挥权力同样重要”。当下，我国在自主知识体系建设上的能力与水平同我国综合国力与国际地位并不匹配，“我国哲学社会科学在国际上的声音还比较小，还处于有理说不出、说了传不开的境地”。2022年4月25日习近平总书记在中国人民大学考察时强调，“加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学，归根结底是建构中国自主的知识体系”。没有自主知识体系这一基础，学科体系、学术体系、话语体系就会变成无源之水、无本之木。中国经济学不是西方经济学的中文版，也不是“中学为体”的中西方经济思想的“混合杂拌物”，而应当是严格地基于中国实践和中国经验，并在此之上建立起的一套真正有别于西方经济学的概念体系。我们要构建的中国经济学体系，是一个新的理论体系，不是《资本论》的改写，也不是原来的以苏联范式为基础的传统社会主义政治经济学的修修补补，当然更不是对西方主流经济学的照搬照抄，而是一个新的范式。构建中国经济学自主知识体系，关键在于从理论和方法上摆脱对西方经济学的依赖，杜绝以西方概念裁剪中国的实践。经济学家在研究中国经济问题时，不能简单地套用西方经济学理论和方法，过度追求数学推理和模型化，而是要立足中国国情，以马克思主义基本原理为指导，同中华优秀传统文化相结合，深入研究中国的经济特点、发展需求，以及中国经济发展的阶段性特征和结构性问题，从而提出符合中国实际的经济学理论和方法体系。

In summary, the miracle of China’s development cannot remain merely at the empirical level; it must be elevated to a theoretical level and expressed through the theoretical system and discourse system of economics, thereby better transforming development advantages into theoretical advantages and discursive advantages. On the one hand, attention should be paid to exploring the characteristics and strengths of indigenous Chinese economics, based on the summarization and refinement of China’s own experience, achieving the unity of the practical logic and theoretical logic of “practice—experience—theory,” and realizing the development goal of “sinicizing” [8]8 “化中国” (huà Zhōngguó): A phrase meaning to transform or sinicize China through the application of theory, implying the domestication of universal principles to Chinese conditions. Here it refers to achieving development goals by grounding theory in Chinese practice. in the second centenary goal [9]9 The second centenary goal: The goal set by the CPC to build China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious by the middle of the 21st century (around 2049), marking the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.. On the other hand, Chinese economics should be actively integrated with the global knowledge system, finding a balance between localization and globalization—maintaining local characteristics while actively participating in competition in the global knowledge market and integrating into the development of global economics—thereby making positive contributions to the sustained development of China’s economy and the prosperity of the global economy.

总之，中国发展的奇迹不能仅停留在经验层面，要将其上升到理论高度，通过经济学理论体系和话语体系表达出来，从而更好地将发展优势转化为理论优势和话语优势。一方面，要注重发掘中国本土经济学的特色和优势，立足于中国自身经验的总结和提炼，实现“实践—经验—理论”的实践逻辑与理论逻辑的统一，在第二个百年实现“化中国”的发展目标。另一方面，要主动将中国经济学与世界知识体系对接，在本土化和全球化之间找到平衡点，既保持本土特色，又积极参与全球知识市场的竞争、融入全球经济学的发展，为中国经济的持续发展和全球经济的繁荣做出积极贡献。

III. The Formation of Signature Concepts and the Reconstruction of Theory and Methodology in the Process of Chinese-Path Modernization

三、中国式现代化进程中标识性概念形成与理论和方法论再造

(I) From Capitalist Market Economy to Socialist Market Economy

（一）从资本主义市场经济到社会主义市场经济

The market economy is the most efficient mode of resource allocation to date. It was established in the capitalist era and is the core of the capitalist economic system. It is undeniable that the capitalist market economy has greatly liberated and developed the productive forces, stimulated the initiative and creativity of social subjects, and promoted technological innovation and improvements in production efficiency. Marx and Engels pointed out, “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.” Even so, the progressiveness and historical achievements of the capitalist market economy cannot conceal its inherent drawbacks and the immense damage it has caused to human society. Under conditions of private ownership, the capitalist system can neither remedy the defects of “market failure” nor resolve the distributional inequities brought about by the market economy, nor can it overcome the financial crises and economic crises triggered by the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Stein Ringen stated, “In the United States, ‘social inequality’ and ‘government inaction’ are inseparable.” Karl Polanyi argued, “The economic collapse that led to the Great Depression was the direct consequence of the attempt to organize the global economy on the basis of market liberalism.” In contrast, the socialist market economy leverages both the strengths of the market economy and the superiority of the socialist system, effectively ensuring the stability and sustainable development of the market economy.

市场经济是迄今为止最有效率的资源配置方式，它确立于资本主义时代，是资本主义经济体制的核心。不可否认，资本主义市场经济极大程度上解放和发展了生产力，激发了社会主体的积极性和创造性，促进了技术创新和生产效率的提高。马克思恩格斯指出，“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大”。即便如此，资本主义市场经济的进步性和历史功绩也无法掩盖其存在的弊端和对人类社会造成的巨大破坏。在私有制条件下，资本主义制度既无法弥补“市场失灵”的缺陷，也无法解决市场经济带来的分配不公，更无法克服资本主义基本矛盾引发的金融危机与经济危机。林根（Stein Ringen）表示，“美国的‘社会不平等’与‘政府不作为’是那样的密不可分”。波兰尼（Karl Polanyi）认为，“导致大萧条的经济崩溃乃是以市场自由主义为基础组织全球经济这种企图的直接后果”。相较之下，社会主义市场经济既发挥了市场经济的长处，又发挥了社会主义制度的优越性，有效保证了市场经济的稳定和可持续发展。

From the perspective of the basic socialist economic system, China has broken away from the traditional unitary ownership structure, establishing a basic economic system with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together. This has overturned the erroneous conclusion that “a commodity economy and market economy must be based on private ownership” and shattered the traditional notion that “the market economy and socialism are mutually opposed.” Engels pointed out that socialism’s “decisive difference from the existing system lies, of course, in the organization of production on the basis of the common ownership of all means of production (first by the state).” Public ownership and the diversification of its forms of realization are not only a significant distinction between the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics and the Western market economy but also the foundation for China’s ability to concentrate resources to accomplish major tasks and achieve common prosperity for all the people.

从社会主义基本经济制度来看，中国打破了传统单一的所有制结构，建立起了以公有制为主体、多种所有制共同发展的基本经济制度，推翻了“商品经济、市场经济必须建立在私有制基础上”的错误结论，破除了“市场经济和社会主义相互对立”的传统观念。恩格斯指出，社会主义“同现存制度的具有决定意义的差别当然在于，在实行全部生产资料公有制（先是国家的）基础上组织生产”。公有制及其实现形式的多样化，既是中国特色社会主义市场经济与西方市场经济的显著区别，也是中国集中力量办大事、实现全体人民共同富裕的根本所在。

From the perspective of the income distribution system, China has formed an income distribution pattern with distribution according to work as the mainstay and multiple forms of distribution coexisting, surpassing the Western mainstream economic theory of income distribution that one-sidedly emphasizes distribution according to capital and efficiency maximization. In essence, distribution according to capital is the exploitation of the surplus value of workers by capitalists. Under the conditions of a capitalist market economy, “the interests of capital and the interests of wage labor are diametrically opposed,” and “as profits increase, wages decrease,” directly exacerbating social polarization. In contrast, China adopts a distribution method that combines distribution according to work with distribution according to factors of production, overcoming the drawbacks of the capitalist distribution mode, promoting the unity of fairness and efficiency, and mobilizing the productive enthusiasm of workers.

从收入分配制度来看，中国形成了以按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存的收入分配格局，超越了西方主流经济学片面强调按资分配和效率最大化的收入分配理论。本质上，按资分配是资本家对劳动者剩余价值的剥削。在资本主义市场经济条件下，“资本的利益和雇佣劳动的利益是截然对立的”， “利润增加多少，工资就降低多少”，直接导致社会两极分化进一步加剧。相反，我国采取按劳分配与按要素分配相结合的分配方式，克服了资本主义分配方式的弊端，促进了公平与效率的统一，调动了劳动者的生产积极性。

From the perspective of the market economy, the socialist market economy has achieved the unity of an effective market and a competent government. In November 2009, Martin Jacques pointed out in the *Los Angeles Times* of the United States: “China has embraced the market economy, but it has avoided Western-style freedom,” and “China’s rise as a world power marks the end of that era.” [10]10 Martin Jacques (born 1945) is a British journalist and academic, author of *When China Rules the World*. Viewed today, China’s economic takeoff and miracle are inseparable from the dialectical unity of the relationship between government and market in the reform of the economic system. The socialist market economy is neither a simple marketization that mechanically references Western “orthodox experience” nor a rigid liberalization that follows the “Washington Consensus.” Rather, it is a fair, efficient, and sustainable market economy established under the basic socialist economic system. It not only leverages the efficiency of the market economy in allocating resources but also harnesses the advantages of the socialist system in macroeconomic regulation, achieving a positive interaction between the market and the state. The success of China’s reform and development represents a subversion and reconstruction of the relationship between government and market in neoliberal theory, and is even more so an innovation and development of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

从市场经济来看，社会主义市场经济实现了有效市场与有为政府的统一。马丁·雅克（Martin Jacques） 2009年11月在美国《洛杉矶时报》指出：“中国拥抱了市场经济，但它避开了西方式自由”，“中国崛起为世界强国标志着那个时代的终结”。今天看来，中国经济的腾飞与奇迹，离不开经济体制改革中政府与市场关系的辩证统一。社会主义市场经济，既不是简单参照西方“正统经验”的市场化，也不是刻板遵循“华盛顿共识”的自由化，而是在社会主义基本经济制度下建立起的公平、高效、可持续的市场经济，既发挥了市场经济配置资源的高效，也发挥了社会主义制度宏观调控的优势，实现了市场和国家的良性互动。中国改革发展的成功，是对新自由主义理论中政府与市场关系的颠覆和重构，更是中国特色社会主义政治经济学的创新和发展。

(II) From Demand Management to Supply-Side Structural Reform

（二）从需求管理到供给侧结构性改革

The relationship between supply and demand is the most fundamental economic relationship in a market economy and also an important foundation for the operation of the market economy. Whether it is the “supply management theory” of the classical school of economics or Keynes’s “demand management theory,” both essentially aim to achieve the effectiveness of resource allocation by adjusting the relationship between market supply and demand, thereby promoting economic growth and increasing employment. Under the influence of the basic view of Say’s Law, that “supply creates its own demand,” Western countries have always been unable to resolve the problem of overproduction. In the 1930s, long-term oversupply led to large-scale unemployment of workers, idle machinery, and business bankruptcies in Western countries. Social turmoil and economic recession gave rise to the “Keynesian Revolution.” Thereafter, macroeconomics and government macroeconomic policies both focused on demand management, advocating the use of means such as adjusting fiscal and monetary policies to influence economic activity, in order to solve the problems of unemployment and economic crisis. This demand management indeed promoted the development of Western economies after the outbreak of the economic crisis, helping them end the state of economic depression. However, it also had some defects, because improper government intervention could also lead to unreasonable resource allocation, inflation, fiscal deficits, and market failure. Especially in the face of the worldwide economic recession of the 1970s and 1980s, demand management theory appeared inadequate. Even so, Paul A. Samuelson still claimed that Keynes’s “aggregate demand theory remains the best method for explaining the phenomenon of economic cycles.”

供给和需求的关系是市场经济中最基本的经济关系，同时也是市场经济运行的重要基础。不管是古典经济学派的“供给管理理论”，还是凯恩斯的“需求管理理论”，本质上都是通过对市场供给与需求关系的调整来实现资源配置的有效性，从而促进经济增长、增加就业。在“萨伊定律”的基本观点，即“供给创造需求”的影响下，西方国家始终无法解决生产过剩的问题。20世纪30年代，长期以来的供给过剩导致西方国家大批工人失业、机器闲置和企业破产，社会的动荡与经济的衰退催生了“凯恩斯革命”。此后，宏观经济学与政府的宏观经济政策都侧重于需求管理，主张通过调整财政政策和货币政策等手段来影响经济活动，以解决失业和经济危机问题。这种需求管理的确在经济危机爆发后促进了西方国家经济的发展，帮助其结束了经济萧条的状态。但也存在一些缺陷，因为政府干预不当也会导致资源分配不合理、通货膨胀、财政赤字和市场失灵等问题。尤其面对20世纪70年代和80年代世界范围的经济衰退，需求管理理论显得力不从心。即便如此，萨缪尔森（Paul A.Samuelson）仍声称，凯恩斯的“总需求理论仍然不失为一种解释经济周期现象的最好方法”。

As China’s economic development entered the New Normal, [11]11 The “New Normal” (新常态) is a term used by the Chinese leadership to describe a phase of slower but higher-quality economic growth after decades of double-digit expansion. the country faced multiple problems such as rising enterprise costs, mismatch between supply and demand, and declining marginal efficiency of capital. On the basis of absorbing and drawing lessons from the experience of adjusting the relationship between supply and demand in Western market economies, China proposed supply-side structural reform. This reform emphasizes both supply and demand, both developing social productive forces and improving relations of production, both letting the market play the decisive role in resource allocation and better playing the role of the government, and both focusing on the present and taking a long-term perspective. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “The supply-side structural reform we talk about is not the same thing as the supply-side school of Western economics. We cannot regard supply-side structural reform as a copy of the Western supply-side school, and we must especially prevent some people from using their interpretations to promote ‘neoliberalism’ and create negative public opinion under this pretext.”

随着中国经济发展进入新常态，我国面临着企业成本攀升、供需不匹配、资本边际效率下降等多重问题。在吸收借鉴西方市场经济中供给与需求关系调整经验的基础上，我国提出了供给侧结构性改革，既强调供给又关注需求，既突出发展社会生产力又注重完善生产关系，既发挥市场在资源配置中的决定性作用又更好发挥政府作用，既着眼当前又立足长远。习近平总书记指出，“我们讲的供给侧结构性改革，同西方经济学的供给学派不是一回事，不能把供给侧结构性改革看成西方供给学派的翻版，更要防止有些人用他们的解释来宣扬‘新自由主义’，借机制造负面舆论”。

First, supply-side structural reform emphasizes the dialectical unity and dynamic balance of supply and demand, transcending the “short-term aggregate regulation” of the supply-side school with “long-term structural regulation.” The supply-side school one-sidedly regards supply as the sole source of economic growth, emphasizing supply while neglecting demand, and emphasizing supply management while neglecting demand management, resulting in a “rupture” between supply and demand. It is fundamentally unable to reveal the problems of relations of production hidden behind the relationship between supply and demand, let alone resolve the sudden “stagflation” that erupted in the United States in the 1970s from its root. In contrast, supply-side structural reform is a reform of the economic operation mechanism, addressing structural problems, and emphasizing the mutual coordination and joint advancement of supply and demand. While appropriately expanding aggregate demand, it improves the quality of supply and services, meets consumer demand, and promotes long-term, stable, and healthy economic development.

首先，供给侧结构性改革强调供给与需求的辩证统一和动态平衡，以“长期结构性调控”超越了供给学派的“短期总量调控”。供给学派片面将供给当作经济增长的唯一源泉，强调供给而忽视需求，强调供给管理而忽视需求管理，造成了供给与需求“决裂”，根本无法揭示隐藏在供求关系背后的生产关系问题，更无法从源头解决美国20世纪70年代突发的“滞胀”。相反，供给侧结构性改革是经济运行机制的改革，解决的是结构性问题，强调供给与需求相互配合、协调推进。在适度扩大总需求的同时，提高供给质量和服务，满足消费需求，促进经济长期稳定健康发展。

Second, supply-side structural reform actively leverages the advantages of both the government and the market, emphasizing the organic unity of an effective market and a competent government, thereby transcending the “absolute free market” proposition of the supply-side school. Under the influence of “neoliberalism,” the Western supply-side school strongly advocates government inaction, emphasizing the reduction of government intervention and welfare expenditure, which further widens the gap between rich and poor and exacerbates social inequality. In contrast, China has replaced “complete market-oriented institutional reform” with “reform of the relationship between government and market under the conditions of the socialist market economy.” While leveraging the role of the market, it also emphasizes the government’s role in macroeconomic regulation, ensuring the transformation, upgrading, and steady development of the national economy.

其次，供给侧结构性改革积极发挥政府与市场两方面的优势，强调有效市场和有为政府的有机统一，超越了供给学派“绝对自由市场”的主张。西方供给学派在“新自由主义”的影响下，极力推崇政府无为，强调减少政府干预与福利支出，进一步拉大了贫富差距，加剧了社会不平等。相反，中国以“社会主义市场经济条件下政府与市场关系的改革”代替了“完全市场化的体制改革”，在发挥市场作用的同时也强调政府的宏观调控作用，保证了国民经济转型升级和稳步发展。

Finally, supply-side structural reform adheres to a people-centered approach, with common prosperity as its goal, thereby transcending the value orientation of the supply-side school, which is capital-centered and aims at capital accumulation. Currently, China is in a stage where both an oversupply of ineffective supply and an undersupply of effective supply coexist. The substantial increase in the level of productive forces has created conditions for the relatively unlimited supply of low-quality products, while the increase in residents’ disposable income has led to the relatively rapid saturation of the domestic market for low-end products. In response to the current situation of supply-demand mismatch in China, supply-side structural reform starts from the supply side, using the “three cuts, one reduction, and one supplement” [12]12 “Three cuts, one reduction, and one supplement” (三去一降一补) refers to cutting overcapacity, reducing excess inventory, deleveraging, lowering costs, and strengthening areas of weakness, a key set of tasks in supply-side structural reform. to reduce ineffective supply, expand effective supply, improve the adaptability of the supply structure to the demand structure, and better meet the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life. In contrast, the supply-side school advocates reducing taxes and cutting social welfare, which lowers the level of social security and exacerbates the gap between rich and poor and social instability.

最后，供给侧结构性改革坚持以人民为中心，以共同富裕为目的，超越了供给学派以资本为中心，以资本积累为目的的价值导向。目前，我国正处于无效供给过剩与有效供给不足并存的阶段，生产力水平的大幅度提高使得低质量产品具有相对无限供给的条件，而居民可支配收入的增加使得国内低档产品市场相对迅速饱和。供给侧结构性改革针对我国供需错配的现状，从供给侧入手，以“三去一降一补”减少无效供给，扩大有效供给，提高供给结构对需求结构的适应性，更好地满足了人民日益增长的美好生活需要。对比之下，供给学派倡导减少税收、缩减社会福利，降低了社会的保障水平，加剧了贫富差距与社会的不稳定。

(III) From Market Equilibrium to Common Prosperity

（三）从市场均衡到共同富裕

Western mainstream economics, through its analysis of the principles of consumer “utility maximization” and producer “profit maximization,” has proposed the theory of “market equilibrium.” This theory holds that when consumers and producers are both pursuing their own maximum utility and maximum profit, the market will automatically adjust the relationship between supply and demand to achieve the optimal state of the market economy, thereby realizing the optimal allocation of resources and the maximization of social welfare. In fact, whether it is general equilibrium or partial equilibrium, both are based on the assumption of the “rational economic man.” Its core view is that “as long as there are good laws and institutional guarantees, the free actions of economic man pursuing the maximization of personal interest will unconsciously and effectively enhance the public interest of society.” In the view of Western mainstream economics, the “rational economic man” is a person who constantly seeks to maximize his own interest and utility, and the individual’s self-interested behavior will automatically align with the self-interested behavior of others in society, ultimately achieving the maximization of social interest. However, this assumption, which “abstracts the economic motives and behaviors of concrete people in reality into general principles of economics,” on the one hand, ignores that people are “the ensemble of social relations,” and that real people are influenced by comprehensive factors such as social environment, policy systems, religious beliefs, and moral sentiments. On the other hand, it ignores that people in market transactions cannot achieve complete information symmetry; people will “make economic decisions based on the market and other information they consider most favorable,” “guided neither by social interest nor by the overall plan of pre-assigned roles.” Therefore, the incomplete fairness and transparency of transactions can also lead to unfair resource distribution and a widening gap between rich and poor. It can be seen that the assumption of the “rational economic man” replaces the complex, irrational, altruistic social person with a simple, rational, self-interested economic man, essentially clothing the opposition between labor and capital and the polarization between rich and poor under the conditions of private ownership in a cloak of legitimacy.

西方主流经济学通过对消费者“效用最大化”和生产者“利润最大化”原则的分析，提出了“市场均衡”理论。该理论认为，当消费者和生产者都在追求自己的最大效用和最大利润时，市场会自动调整供求关系以达到市场经济的最优状态，从而实现资源的最优配置和社会福利的最大化。事实上，不管是一般均衡还是局部均衡，都建立在“理性经济人”假设的基础上，其核心观点是，“只要有良好的法律和制度的保证，经济人追求个人利益最大化的自由行动会无意识地、卓有成效地增进社会的公共利益”。在西方主流经济学看来，“理性经济人”就是不断寻求自身利益效用最大化的人，并且个人的自利行为会自动与社会上其他人的自利性行为保持一致，最终实现社会利益最大化。但是，这种“将现实中具体的人的经济动机和行为抽象成经济学一般原则”的假设，一方面忽略了人“是一切社会关系的总和”，现实的人会受社会环境、政策制度、宗教信仰、道德情感等综合因素的影响；另一方面忽略了市场交易中的人无法实现信息的完全对称，人们会“根据市场以及他们认为最有利的其他信息进行经济决策”，“既不受社会利益的指导，也不受预先分配角色的总体计划之指引”。因此，交易的不完全公平和透明，也会导致资源分配不公和贫富差距拉大。可见，“理性经济人”假设以简单的、理性的、利己的经济人代替了复杂的、非理性的、利他的社会人，本质上是为私有制条件下的劳资对立和两极分化披上了一层合理的外衣。

In reality, common prosperity replaces the Western economic rationality of “maximizing individual interests” with a “people-centered” economic rationality, replaces the Western logic of capital with the logic of labor, and replaces the short-term efficiency and interests of Western economies with long-term fairness and sustainability. In terms of scope and domain, common prosperity is prosperity for the entire population and comprehensive prosperity, emphasizing both that “not a single person should be left behind” and pursuing the comprehensive development of individuals and the overall progress of society. It effectively raises the living standards of the people, avoids social polarization, and promotes sustainable economic development. Conversely, under the premise of private ownership and the “rational economic man,” “the steady expansion of the economy often worsens the fate of disenfranchised lower groups and strata, reducing their ability to effectively access this new framework,” thereby widening the gap between rich and poor, accelerating polarization, and intensifying social unrest.

就现实而言，共同富裕“以人民为中心”的经济理性代替了西方“个体利益最大化”的经济理性，以劳动逻辑代替了西方的资本逻辑，以长期的公平性和可持续性代替了西方经济短期的效率和利益。从范围和领域来看，共同富裕是全民富裕和全面富裕，既强调“一个都不能掉队”，也追求人的全面发展与社会的全面进步，有效提高了人民生活水平，避免了社会两极分化，推动了经济可持续发展。相反，在私有制和“理性经济人”的前提下，“经济的稳步扩展，往往使某些被剥夺了各种权力的下层群体和阶层的命运恶化、并降低它们有效地接近这个新框架的可能性”，从而拉大了贫富差距，加速了两极分化，加剧了社会动荡。

In terms of the mode of realization, common prosperity is co-created prosperity and gradual prosperity. Under the conditions of the socialist market economy, China has consistently adhered to the “Two Unswerving Principles,”[13]13 The “Two Unswerving Principles” (两个毫不动摇) refer to the Party’s policy of unswervingly consolidating and developing the public sector of the economy, and unswervingly encouraging, supporting, and guiding the development of the non-public sector. fully leveraging the role of the public sector in “safeguarding national security and improving people’s livelihoods,” while also emphasizing that the non-public sector is “an important component of the national economy.” It has fully utilized the role of the private economy in promoting economic growth, increasing entrepreneurship and employment, driving technological innovation, and optimizing resource allocation, thereby enhancing the sense of participation, fulfillment, and happiness of the broad masses. The common prosperity we emphasize is not simultaneous prosperity or prosperity for all at the same time, but rather gradual and progressive prosperity carried out in stages, encouraging those who become prosperous first to drive the prosperity of others.

从实现方式来看，共同富裕是共创富裕和渐进富裕。在社会主义市场经济条件下，我国始终坚持“两个毫不动摇”，在充分发挥公有制经济“维护国家安全、改善人民生活”作用的同时，也强调非公有制经济是“国民经济的重要组成部分”，充分发挥了民营经济促进经济增长、增加创业就业、推动技术创新、优化资源配置等方面的作用，增加了广大人民群众的参与感、获得感和幸福感。我们强调的共同富裕，不是同步富裕、同时富裕，而是鼓励先富带动后富的、分阶段进行的逐步富裕和渐进富裕。

In terms of the distribution of outcomes, common prosperity is shared prosperity and differentiated prosperity. John S. Mill argued that “in the most developed countries, what the economy needs is better distribution.” Joseph E. Stiglitz stated, “The success of an economy can only be evaluated in one way: by looking at how the living standards of the majority of citizens have changed over a sustained period.” It is evident that the fairness of distribution largely determines the living standards of the people in a country or region, and thereby determines the level of economic development of that country or region. The Western high-welfare policy “from cradle to grave,” as a product of the capitalist system, is an unsustainable “welfare trap.” It cannot fundamentally resolve the polarization between rich and poor; instead, it leads to new social divisions and often gives rise to the phenomenon of “breeding the lazy.” In contrast, China emphasizes “distribution according to work as the mainstay, with multiple forms of distribution coexisting.” This takes into account both the efficiency of resource allocation and the efficiency of resource utilization and the fairness of distribution, increasing social stability and justice, and effectively avoiding the “welfare trap” of Western countries.

从成果分配来看，共同富裕是共享富裕和差异富裕。穆勒（John S.Mill）认为，“在最发达国家，经济所需要的是更好的分配”。斯蒂格利茨（Joseph E.Stiglitz）表示，“一个经济的成功与否只能通过一种方式评价，那就是看大多数公民的生活标准在持续的一段时间内发生了怎样的变化。”可见，分配公平与否很大程度上决定了一个国家和地区人民的生活水平，进而决定了该国家和地区的经济发展水平。“从摇篮到坟墓”的西方高福利政策，作为资本主义制度的产物，是不可持续的“福利陷阱”，无法从根本上解决贫富两极分化，反而导致新的社会撕裂，也往往出现“养懒汉”现象。相反，我国强调“按劳分配为主体，多种分配方式并存”，既考虑了资源的分配效率，也考虑了资源的使用效率和分配的公平性，增加了社会的稳定和公正，有效避免了西方国家的“福利陷阱”。

(IV) From Individualism to a Systems Perspective

（四）从个体主义到系统观念

Methodological individualism has long been a methodological principle of mainstream Western economics. Whether based on assumptions of complete information and complete rationality, or information asymmetry and bounded rationality, Western economists mostly adopt a methodological individualism that takes “individual behavior” as the basic unit of analysis. On the one hand, individualism holds that each person is an independent, autonomous decision-maker who should enjoy freedom and rights. In its application in other social sciences, the individual remains an independent entity transcending all social relations, with all social relations being the result of individual rational choices. On the other hand, the boundaries of methodological individualism are fixed within the paradigm of the “rational economic man,” and on this basis, the “expected utility theory” is proposed, which holds that people make decisions based on their own preferences and goals, striving to maximize personal utility. A representative figure, Friedrich A. Hayek, argued that to understand social phenomena, one must start from the perspective of individual behavior; only through the analysis of individual behavior can the essence of social phenomena be understood. He stated, “There is no other way to understand social phenomena than through the understanding of individual activities that act upon others and are guided by anticipated behavior.”

个体主义方法论一直是西方主流经济学的一个方法论原则。无论是以完全信息和完全理性，还是以信息不对称和有限理性为假设前提的西方经济学家，大都采用以“个体行为”为基本分析单元的个体主义方法论。一方面，个体主义认为每个人都是独立的、自主的决策者，应当享有自由和权利。在其他社会科学的运用中，个体依旧是凌驾于所有社会关系的独立存在体，所有的社会关系都是个体理性选择的结果。另一方面，个体主义方法论边界定格于 “理性经济人”范式，并在此基础上提出了“预期效用理论”，认为人会根据自己的偏好和目标来做出决策，力图个人效用最大化。代表人物哈耶克（Friedrich A. Hayek）认为，要理解社会现象就必须从个人行为的角度出发，通过对个人行为的分析才能理解社会现象的本质。他表示，“我们在理解社会现象时没有任何其他方法，只有通过对那些作用于他人并由预期行为所引导的个人活动的理解，才能理解社会现象”。

Undeniably, social phenomena are composed of individual behaviors and interactions. Starting from the perspective of the individual can better reveal the complexity of social phenomena and allow for in-depth analysis of their essence and causes. Emphasizing the importance of the individual also enables a better understanding of individual behavior and decision-making, providing more research directions and ideas for social research. However, methodological individualism does not always hold true in reality; its flaws determine that its applicability is necessarily limited. First, individualism treats the individual as the sole decision-maker and bearer of economic behavior, ignoring the existence of group behavior and social laws, which easily leads to incomplete and inaccurate explanations of social phenomena. Second, individualism simplistically views economic behavior as the pursuit of individual self-interest, neglecting the influence of historical change, social structure, and cultural background on individual behavior and decision-making. Finally, individualism overemphasizes short-term and partial effects while neglecting long-term and holistic effects. Facts have proven that the individual cannot be separated from the whole; “those so-called attempts at methodological individualism often have a latent whole constituting them… their analysis always begins with a macro-scene setting that has never been explained by the individual.” However, if the whole is unilaterally overemphasized, it is easy to overlook individual diversity and creativity, limiting individual cognitive ability and behavioral capacity. Therefore, to better grasp the laws of economic development, one should adhere to a systems perspective, “focusing on the whole while starting from the individual,” emphasizing the interconnections and interactions between things.

不可否认，社会现象是由个体行为和互动构成的，从个体的角度出发，可以更好地了解社会现象的复杂性，深入分析社会现象的本质和产生原因。强调个体的重要性，也能够更好地理解个体的行为和决策，为社会研究提供更多的研究方向和思路。但是，个体主义方法论在现实中并不总是成立，它的缺陷决定了其适用性必然受到限制。首先，个体主义将个体视为经济行为的决策者和承担者，忽略了群体行为和社会规律的存在，容易导致对社会现象的解释不够全面和准确。其次，个体主义将经济行为简单地看作是个体自我利益的追求，忽略了历史变迁、社会结构和文化背景对个体行为和决策的影响。最后，个体主义偏重于短期和局部效应，忽视了长期和整体效应。事实证明，个体脱离不了整体，“那些所谓方法论个体主义的尝试经常有一个潜在的整体构成……其分析总是从一个宏观场景设定开始，而后者从未用个体解释过”。但如果片面强调整体，就容易忽视个体的多样性和创造性，限制个体的认知能力和行为能力。因此，为更好地把握经济发展规律，应坚持系统观念，“从整体着眼，从个体着手”，强调事物之间的相互联系和相互作用。

On the basis of profoundly summarizing the successful experiences of China’s socialist revolution, construction, and reform, the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC proposed that “a systems perspective is a foundational way of thinking and working.”[14]14 The Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC was held in October 2020, where the “Proposals for Formulating the 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035” were adopted. The 20th National Congress of the CPC again emphasized that “we must adhere to a systems perspective” and that “only by observing things with a universally interconnected, comprehensive, and developmental viewpoint can we grasp the laws of development of things.” This profoundly reveals the important reasons for China’s historic achievements and historic transformations since reform and opening up. From an overall perspective, China has actively responded to the needs of the times by coordinating the advancement of the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy, implementing the new development philosophy, constructing a new development pattern, and promoting high-quality development. It has not only grasped the national development direction and goals at the macro level, formulating corresponding development strategies and plans, but also seized the key links in the construction of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics at the micro level, adhering to innovation-driven development, cultivating innovative talents, promoting the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, and accelerating the transition from “following” to “running alongside” and then to “leading.” Currently, China has entered a new stage of development and embarked on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. To better coordinate the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the changes unseen in a century in the world, and to respond to various risks and challenges, it is even more necessary to strengthen the systems perspective, coordinate the relationships and interests of all parties, adhere to problem orientation, coordinated development, holistic advancement, shared benefits, and openness and inclusiveness, and enhance the systemic, holistic, and synergistic nature of reforms, thereby winning the initiative in development and promoting greater achievements in modernization. In summary, the transformation and development from methodological individualism to a systems perspective reflects the continuous updating and development of social science research methods. It not only provides new ideas and methods for better solving China’s practical problems but also offers reference and lessons for the overall planning of other developing countries.

在深刻总结我国社会主义革命、建设、改革的成功经验基础上，党的十九届五中全会提出，“系统观念是具有基础性的思想和工作方法”，党的二十大再次强调，“必须坚持系统观念”，“只有用普遍联系的、全面系统的、发展变化的观点观察事物，才能把握事物发展规律”。深刻揭示了改革开放以来我国取得历史性成就、发生历史性变革的重要原因。从全局来看，我国积极顺应时代发展的需要，在统筹推进“五位一体”总体布局、协调推进“四个全面”战略布局的基础上，贯彻新发展理念、构建新发展格局、推动高质量发展。既从宏观上把握了国家发展方向和目标，制定了相应的发展战略和规划，也从微观上抓住了中国特色社会主义事业建设的关键环节，坚持创新驱动发展，培育创新人才，推进科技成果转化，加快实现从“跟跑”到“并跑”再到“领跑”的转变。当前，我国已进入新发展阶段，开启了全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程。为更好统筹中华民族伟大复兴战略全局和世界百年未有之大变局，应对各种风险挑战，更需要强化系统观念，协调各方关系和利益，坚持问题导向、协同发展、整体推进、利益共享、开放包容，增强改革的系统性、整体性和协同性，从而赢得发展主动权，推动现代化建设取得更大成就。总之，从个体主义方法论到系统观念的转变和发展，反映了社会科学研究方法的不断更新和发展，既为更好解决中国的现实问题提供了新思路和新方法，同时也为其他发展中国家的统筹布局提供了参考和借鉴。

Conclusion

结语

The success of Chinese-path modernization and the failure of “Westernization” in developing countries have, from both positive and negative sides, demonstrated that the “Western path” is not the only route to modernization, shattered the “myth” of Western modernization, and deconstructed the Western discourse system of economics. Amid changes unseen in a century, mainstream Western economic theories have suffered severe shocks and challenges. Traditional economic theories can no longer fully explain the complexity and uncertainty of modern economies. Global economic development urgently needs new economic theories for support, and the time is ripe for constructing an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese economics. This is an era that needs theories and can certainly produce them; this is an era that needs thought and can certainly produce it. Judging from the development achievements of China’s reform and opening up over more than 40 years, China has become an important engine of world economic growth and is gradually moving to the center of the global economic stage. The massive economic volume and abundant historical achievements prove that China already possesses the practical conditions and capacity to construct an autonomous knowledge system of economics. Against the backdrop where new problems emerging from globalization and financial crises have plunged the whole world into a state of hesitation or confusion, the historical responsibility that Chinese economics must assume is to unlock the “shackles of cognition” for all humanity and better guide the economic growth of developing countries. Constructing an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese economics is the call of the times and, moreover, a choice of history. The distillation of the experience of the Chinese-path modernization path will provide reference and lessons for more developing countries, while also contributing more Chinese wisdom, Chinese solutions, and Chinese value to the development of the world economy.

中国式现代化的成功以及发展中国家“西化”的失败，从正反两方面论证了“西方道路”并非通往现代化的唯一途径，打破了西方现代化的“神话”，解构了经济学西方话语体系。在世界百年未有之大变局下，西方主流经济学理论遭受了严重的冲击与挑战，传统的经济学理论已经无法完全解释现代经济的复杂性和不确定性，全球经济发展亟待新的经济学理论来支撑，构建中国经济学自主知识体系恰逢其时。这是一个需要理论而且一定能够产生理论的时代，这是一个需要思想而且一定能够产生思想的时代。从中国改革开放40多年的发展成就来看，中国已成为世界经济增长的重要引擎，正逐步走向世界经济舞台的中央。庞大的经济体量和丰硕的历史成果，证明了中国已具备构建经济学自主知识体系的现实条件和能力。在全球化及金融危机中出现的新问题将全世界带入一种徘徊或迷茫的背景下，中国经济学所要担当的历史责任就是解开全人类“认识上的枷锁”，更好地引领发展中国家的经济成长。构建中国经济学自主知识体系，是时代的呼唤，更是历史的选择。中国式现代化道路经验的凝练，将为更多发展中国家提供参考和借鉴，同时也为世界经济的发展贡献更多的中国智慧、中国方案和中国价值。

(Authors’ brief introduction: Zhou Wen, Professor at the Research Institute of Marxism, Fudan University; Bai Ji, Doctoral student at the Research Institute of Marxism, Fudan University)

（作者简介：周文，复旦大学马克思主义研究院教授；白佶，复旦大学马克思主义研究院博士生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心