Lin Yifu predicted in 1995 that "the 21st century is the century of Chinese economists". In recent years, with the growing strength of China's economy, the Chinese school, Chinese economics, political economics with Chinese characteristics, contemporary Chinese Marxist economics, as well as China's road, China's model and other references frequently appear in various theoretical documents. From an academic perspective, what exactly does this series of references refer to? What's the difference? This is not only the first problem that should be clarified for the theory behind the abstract Chinese experience, but also the premise for academic discussion.

The concept definition is not exactly the same as the theoretical meaning

Although the Chinese school, Chinese economics, socialist political economics with Chinese characteristics, and contemporary Chinese Marxist economics are all labeled "China", their definitions and theoretical meanings are not exactly the same in different authors' writings. Its contents can be summarized into the following three categories:

One is to "develop contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy" and "contribute Chinese wisdom to the innovative development of Marxist political economy". Its theoretical paradigm, academic context and concept are very clear and are based on Marx's economic theory.

One is based on the analytical framework of modern economics, which needs to innovate the analytical framework of "mainstream" economics. Naturally, the concepts and contexts used in analysis belong to modern economics. This kind of literature sometimes does not exclude the appearance of Chinese economics, political economics, etc., but it is mainly derived from the analytical framework of western mainstream economics. For example, the theoretical content of the analysis of China's rapid growth or the explanation of "China's miracle" mentioned in a number of "Development Economics Course" books can basically be classified into this category.

The other is neither Marxist economic paradigm nor modern economic paradigm, but attempts to create a new theoretical paradigm. For example, He Xin's "New Nationalist Economics", Jia Genliang's "Theory of Chinese Economic Revolution", Chen Ping's "Revival of Chinese Civilization and Innovation of Economic Paradigm", Shen Huasong's "Principles of Economic Analysis", Gan Runyuan's "Spiral Network Theory - Dynamic Structure and Evolution of Economy and Society", etc.

The above are the research trends of Chinese economics, Chinese school of thought, etc. from the perspective of economic paradigm and knowledge system differences. If we analyze from the perspective of research content, we are also talking about "Chinese School" and "Chinese Economics", in fact, the meaning is not exactly the same, and the content is wide and narrow.

Five Levels of the Concept of "Chinese School"

Wang Shaoguang once divided the concept of "Chinese School" into five levels for understanding. The author uses its classification to further summarize into three categories: first, it means that it may not form a set of its own conceptual system and theoretical logic, but only some of its own views, thoughts and opinions, which is called "the Chinese school". In fact, it is not called "the Chinese school" in the narrow sense and strict sense of academic schools, but only "different personal views" or "own unique ideas" nothing more. Second, it has formed a "systematic and unique view", and also formed different analytical concepts and tools from others, which can be called the "Chinese School". Third, it not only forms a unique view, but also has a strict logic, forming a unified theoretical system that implements various aspects of the economic field, and is recognized as the "Chinese School" in the sense of school (admitting of course is not necessarily to agree with its academic views).

The above analysis is based on the difference between economic paradigm and economic research content, but there is overlap between them. For example, a certain kind of analytical research is derived from Marxist economics, but the focus is to explain the market economy with Chinese characteristics (highlighting Chinese characteristics, relatively narrow); Although some take China as a case, the focus is to try to innovate the "general theory" of socialist market economy based on Marxist economics. For another example, the new structural economics proposed by Lin Yifu, who is commonly called "the Chinese School", is based on the analytical framework of modern economics, but focuses on innovating the growth theory that is different from the existing mainstream western growth theory to explain the reasons for the growth of backward countries, forming the innovation theory of Chinese scholars.

Essence of "Chinese School"

No matter how we classify them, classification is just to explain that we should not only look at the names of the "Chinese School" and "Chinese Economics" and other words that frequently appear today, but also understand their essence. What kind of academic context are they based on, and whether they are discussing in a narrow or wide theoretical perspective. Although they are all talking about economics around China's problems, we should distinguish whether we are only talking about the views and opinions of Chinese people who can explain China's problems (even more systematic views and opinions), or starting from China's problems, covering the general theoretical views and opinions of other countries in the world. Moreover, what is abstracted from it is based on a certain school in the history of thought, or a set of logic system that is different from other economic schools. This is a completely different theoretical meaning. For example, when discussing the economic interpretation of "China miracle", the theoretical perspective can be multidimensional, and the core proposition can be said to be the theory of "poor countries become rich". The narrow starting point is to discover and explain the theory under specific conditions in China. The broader concept is to start from the China issue to discover and explain the general theory that "poor countries become rich" in the world, including not only China but also other countries. These are two different academic pursuits.

In the academic context, it can be in the context of Marxist economics, but we must develop and enrich Marxist economics. Because the focus of Marx's ideological system is around the law of the demise of the capitalist mode of production. For the relative change of poor countries becoming rich, there are relatively few directly involved. It can also be based on the growth theory of modern economics and the analytical framework of development economics. Unfortunately, in the history since World War II, no developing economy has succeeded in formulating policies according to the mainstream western theories. There is not much experience to learn from. Of course, it is not ruled out that we can carry out a paradigm revolution in economics, create another theoretical system, or form a new system based on a certain non mainstream theoretical system, or integrate several non mainstream ideas. While reinterpreting the operation of the global economy, we can solve the major theoretical proposition of "China's miracle" or "poor countries become rich".

(The author Xia Bin is the Chairman of China Chief Economist Forum and Counsellor of the State Council)