王检贵

论文题目：劳动与资本双重过剩下的经济发展

作者简介：王检贵，男，1973年09月出生，1998年09月师从于中国人民大学黄泰岩教授，于2001年06月获博士学位。

摘 要

二战结束以后，随着第三世界国家纷纷取得民族独立和政治解放，他们要求推进工业化和现代化进程的愿望显得越来越强烈。那么，如何才能加速工业化进程呢？绝大部分经济学家的答案是：既然欠发达国家的最基本特征是人均收入水平过低，那么就必须尽一切力量来加速资本积累。至于如何加快资本积累，那就仁者见仁、智者见智了。有人提出要依赖国外援助，有人认为要仰仗技术进步、有人主张要利用收入分配政策，甚至还有人宣扬要借助通货膨胀。值得一提的是，以刘易斯为代表的发展经济学家们天才般地发现，只要能够充分利用欠发达国家大量过剩的劳动力，就足以解决他们的资本积累问题和工业化问题。刘易斯等人的工业化主张不仅在理论上独树一帜，而且在深深影响了欠发达国家的经济政策。事实上，战后许多国家都走上了刘易斯绘制的工业化道路。

然而，大约从20世纪60年代开始，许多坚持刘易斯发展战略的发展中国家发现，在本国经济还没有走出不发达境地之前，或者说在本国经济依然存在大量剩余劳动力时，又面临严重的生产能力过剩问题。这种新情况的出现，使人们开始疑惑，发展中国家需要应对的主要问题究竟是供给不足还是需求不足？是短缺还是过剩？同时，新情况的出现也使刘易斯等人的传统发展模型受到了越来越大的挑战。这是因为：传统发展模型遵循古典经济学的思路，放弃了市场不能出清的假设，因而难以解释在一个劳动剩余经济中业已存在的需求不足问题，同时也无法揭示需求不足时的经济发展战略。显然，发展经济学中需要有一种全新的理论来探讨劳动与资本双重过剩下的经济发展问题。

90年代中期以来，我国经济形态经历了从“短缺”向“过剩”的急速转变。如何解决“过剩”问题？国内理论界大致提出了两条基本思路：

第一条思路认为多年重复建设及行业间低水平过度竞争造成的“供给结构扭曲”，是导致经济过剩的根本原因。或者说，过剩是由于现存供给结构不能满足需求结构的变化、尤其是不能满足消费结构的变化而造成的。所以，必须大力进行结构调整，促进产业升级，减少“无效供给”。笔者认为这种思路值得商榷：首先，不同程度的供给结构扭曲是任何国家、任何时期都难以避免的。在一个人均收入仅有800多美元的国家，找不到一个消费热点，不能简单看成是供给的过度，而更应看成是多数人的购买力不足。其次，受资金、技术、资产专用性等因素的制约，结构调整、技术进步、供给创新绝不是一蹴而就的。特别是在一个发展中国家，一味追求产业升级，消费品的需求过多地定位在少数高收入阶层，容易促使生产结构倾向“奢侈品”行业，造成新的结构扭曲。最重要的是，单纯调整结构，势必使更多人失业而进一步加剧购买力不足，致使“相对过剩”更加严重。

第二条思路是主张通过刺激需求来解决过剩问题。遗憾的是，在有效需求不足的情况下，人们总是寄希望于西方发达国家惯用的需求管理政策，梦想通过货币政策和财政政策来刺激投资需求以弥补消费需求的不足。必须指出，虽然货币政策无论在理论还是在政策实践上都有广泛的基础，但“马拉缰绳”理论及发达国家需求管理经验警示我们：在经济衰退时期货币政策的作用并不明显，甚至是无效的。旨在提高投资需求的财政政策的局限性同样很明显：首先，财政政策容易产生“挤出”效应，削弱财政政策的效果。其次，我国（包括其他发展中国家）并不具备足够的财力持续实施扩张性财政政策。再次，在“相对过剩”与产业结构扭曲共存的情况下，一味刺激需求有可能导致下期更大的生产过剩。最后，由于公共部门的平均利润率很低，过多地依赖政府投资必然会加大其财政赤字，蕴藏着“滞胀”的危机。

因此笔者认为，在劳动与资本双重过剩的情境下，当前理论界流行着的供给管理思路和需求管理思路是一种两难的抉择。显然，现实同样需要一种新理论或新的发展框架来解决双重过剩下的经济发展问题。

本研究的主要内容是按如下顺序安排的：

第一章是导论。笔者逐次交代了研究的目的、研究的理论意义和现实意义、国内外研究的背景、研究的主要框架、主要研究方法，本文的创新和不足之处等问题。在这个部分，笔者还对“劳动过剩”和“资本过剩”两个概念的涵义进行了深入的阐述和明确的界定，旨在排除和避免一些不必要的争论，并使读者能够迅速掌握本文打算讨论一个什么样的问题。

第二章是理论综述，主要目的是要告诉读者，该项研究在历史中所处的坐标。笔者首先将劳动剩余经济学说划分为古典主义、新古典主义和凯恩斯主义三种类型，然后对几个具有代表性的二元经济发展模型进行了一次批判性的回顾，最后对二元经济发展理论的演进趋势做了一个前瞻性的总结。笔者认为，70年代之前的二元经济发展理论都是供给导向的，或者说都是用来解决劳动剩余经济下如何加速资本积累和工业化的。这些发展理论的共同缺陷是坚持市场可以出清的假设，认为发展中国家无需考虑有效需求问题。然而随着实践的发展，发展中国家的工业化过程常常受到有效需求不足的困扰，致使传统理论受到了越来越大的挑战。从80年代初开始，有些发展经济学家开始关注劳动剩余经济的有效需求不足问题，但这些理论与凯恩斯学说并没有本质的区别，它们并不十分适用于解决劳动与资本双重过剩下的经济发展问题。

第三章旨在探讨在二元经济条件下，劳动与资本双重过剩现象出现的理论基础。一方面，笔者剖析了以刘易斯-费-拉尼斯为代表的经济发展理论中是如何忽视欠发达国家有效需求问题的；另一方面，笔者详细分析了在一个劳动力过剩经济中为什么可能出现消费需求不足、投资需求不足以及出口需求不足等问题。

第四章要探讨的问题是，劳动与资本双重过剩条件下现代工业部门是如何实现自身不断发展的。首先，笔者指出了在投资需求外生给定的情况下，以刘易斯为代表的古典二元主义的分析结论是错误的。此时，现代工业部门的增长并不是来自资本的积累，而是来源于需求的扩张。当来自现代工业部门内部的需求增长乏力时，工业总需求和工业产出水平就取决于传统部门的发展，特别是取决于农民实际收入水平和消费水平的提高。其次，笔者探讨了当投资需求可以变动的情况下，现代工业部门可以通过什么途径来解除双重过剩的制约；笔者特别强调，在双重过剩的条件，货币政策对拉动投资需求基本上是无效的；财政政策可能有一定的作用，但是也不能从根本上解决双重过剩问题；最后，笔者对供给创新的观点进行了批评，并指出在双重过剩的条件下，盲目追求技术进步和产业升级可能是一个误区。笔者再一次强调，在一个发展中国家，应当选择有利于充分利用剩余劳动力的技术来促进经济发展。

第五章指出了劳动与资本双重过剩条件下，农业部门应该如何发展以及农业在经济发展过程中应该扮演何种角色。笔者首先分析了农业在传统发展模型中的地位；然后再提出双重过剩下农业应该扮演什么角色。最后，笔者试图得出的结论是，在双重过剩条件下，必须打破传统思维，加快农业基础性地位的转变——使农业部门对经济发展的贡献逐步由产品贡献、就业贡献和外汇贡献转向市场贡献，否则，劳动剩余经济难以走出有效需求不足的陷阱。在这一章，笔者还对日本和美国在大萧条前后的农业政策进行了一些考察，使读者能更清楚地认识到，在双重过剩条件下，加快农业基础性地位转变的重要意义。

第六章要探讨在开放经济条件下，发展中国家应当如何解决双重过剩的问题。笔者首先探讨出口导向战略在劳动剩余经济中历史地位；然后试图揭示在双重过剩经济条件下，出口导向战略发挥的重要作用，并指出了出口导向战略取得成功需要满足什么条件。最后，要思考在一个存在双重过剩问题的大国，扩大内需与扩大外需之间的关系。笔者认为，在对于一个发展中大国而言，为了解决双重过剩的困扰，应当先扩大外需，再扩大内需问题；短期内要注重外需，长期来看则要注重内需；外部环境比较乐观时要为扩大内需作充分准备，外部环境不乐观时迅速转向扩大内需。

第七章是有关中国现行经济问题的分析，目的是要阐明中国如何走出经济过剩的问题。本章首先对中国近年来宏观经济运行的特点进行了定位，提出我国面临劳动与资本双重过剩的局面；然后对近年来理论界围绕“买方市场”、“过剩经济”、“通货紧缩”三个重要概念的种种争论进行了梳理，并指出这三个概念都不适合概括我国的宏观经济形势；最后，笔者用重笔探讨中国在双重过剩下该做出什么样的政策抉择：（1）是调整结构？还是刺激需求？（2）是扩大外需？还是扩大内需？（3）是刺激投资需求？还是刺激消费需求？（4）是要开拓城镇市场呢？还是要开拓农村消费市场？（5）是要提高农民的消费倾向？还是要提高农民的收入水平？很显然，要做出正确的战略决策是非常困难的。这是因为：每一种政策观点都有许多支持者，都有各自充分的理由；各种政策不一定是非此即彼的，而往往是相辅相成和互为条件的；有些政策在这个时候可能是无效的，而在另一个时候又完全可能有效。笔者不敢也不愿断言，自己的政策主张就是唯一正确的。但有一点可以肯定，通过本文的输理，读者能够更深入地了解每一种政策主张的内涵；还有一点也可以肯定，在一个劳动与资本双重过剩的经济中，行之有效的政策不应是凯恩斯式的，更不应是刘易斯式的，而应是与本国国情相符的。

Abstract

In the post World War Ⅱera, third-world countries that had newly gained their national independence and political liberation expressed one common aspiration of rapid industrialization and modernization. What should have been the proper path to industrialization? Economists of all schools overwhelmingly emphasize the necessity of accelerating capital accumulation. How might that have been best achieved? Here the economists diverge dramatically in their viewpoints. Some argue the primacy of indigenous technological advancement, some advocate income redistribution policies, some favor heavy utilization of foreign aid, and some even encourage the liberal use of inflationary policies, etc. Most notably, a school of development economists represented by S. R. Lewis brilliantly intuited that by exploiting the vast surplus labor in developing countries, the bottleneck of capital accumulation could be overcome in favor of rapid industrialization. Lewis and others not only gained theoretical prominence, but also widespread policy influence. In fact, most developing countries have embarked on the Lewisian path of industrialization in one form or another.

However, by the 1960s, many of these countries discovered that their economies had either run into a dead-end under Lewis’ grand strategy, or still worse, industrial production capacity was exceeding market demand even as the labor market remained plagued by vast surplus from the countryside. The latter phenomenon raised an important challenge to academics and policymakers alike: Is the main predicament facing developing countries one of inadequate supply or inadequate demand? Simply put, is it one of chronic surplus or chronic shortage? This challenge is most acute for the practitioners of Lewis’ theory: for following the basic tenets of classical economics, barring troubles in market clearance, there should not be a chronic lack of demand in a labor-surplus economy. Evidently, development economics urgently needs a new, comprehensive theory to account for the economic problems under the unique condition of labor and capital “dual surplus.”

Since the middle of 1990s, China economy has undergone a rapid shift from a “shortage” to a “surplus” economy. How should the “surplus” problem be handled? Domestic macroeconomic theorists have put forward two basic approaches:

The first approach supports that duplication construction and overheated competition in low quality goods for many years have created structural distortion on the supply-side, leading to excess production. In other words, surplus economy resulted directly from a mismatch between the supply-side and a quickly evolving demand-side, in particular from a failure to follow changing consumption patterns. Thus, the prescription for the problem of surplus would include structural adjustments, industrial upgrades, and reduction of excess supply. This author takes this approach into serious consideration. First of all, One can easily find supply-side structural distortion in any economy at any given time. Yet it would be an oversimplification to perceive lagging consumer demand in a country with per capital income of $800 as a problem of oversupply. More reasonably, it reflects the inadequate purchasing power of the majority. Furthermore, Supply-side structural adjustment meets various constraints of capital, technology and asset specificity. In particular, for a developing country to rush headlong into product upgrade, it might very well fall into a new pattern of distortion marked by consumption of luxury goods by a minority of high-income groups. Most importantly, Structural adjustment by itself is likely to create significant layoffs, further reducing purchasing power and intensifying the problem of overproduction.

The second approach advocates demand-side stimulus to resolve the problem of surplus. Unfortunately, some analysts tend to respond to lethargic effective demand by proposing conventional measures of fiscal and monetary polices deployed in developed countries, expecting to raise investment demand to offset weak consumption. While monetary policy has its rightful place in theory and practice, The theory of “the horse holding the rein” and the experience of the developed countries caution us against relying on monetary policy during times of recession. Similar caution applies to the use of fiscal policy to stimulate investment demand. Government expenditure easily leads to “crowding out”, and in any case china, like many other developing countries, lacks the financial resources to sustain expansionary polices for a considerable period. In addition, in the simultaneous presence of surplus and supply-side structural distortion, a one-time stimulus could very likely generate additional surplus in the next period. Finally, due to the low profitability of the public sector, an over-reliance on government investment could easily fuel deficit spending, creating the potential of stay inflation.

Consequently, this author believes that the two approaches of structural adjustment and demand stimulus--currently popular among domestic theorists—pose a real dilemma. Clearly, the reality requires one to develop a new theory, to explore the serious problem of “dual surplus” in a developing economy.

This research report is presented with the following chapters:

The first chapter sets up the direction and framework of my inquiry. I explain my research objective, the practical significance and theoretical contributions of my findings, the current state of relevant research at home and abroad, the scope and methodology of my research, and the major points of originality and limitations of the present study.

Chapter Two contains the literature review. I present a critical comparison and digest of the noteworthy and representative models of the dual economy. I argue that models prior to the 1970s suffered from an exclusive focus on the supply-side issues in an attempt to reconcile the problem of surplus labor with the imperatives of capital accumulation. These models assume market clearance for industrial goods, in particular in neglecting the scenario of insufficient demand which turned out to be quite prevalent in the experience of developing countries. Since the 1980s, some analysts have begun to note this theoretical lacuna, but their solutions have been mostly Keynesian and do not fundamentally deal with the challenges to economic development under the special condition of labor and capital “dual surplus.”

Chapter Three accounts for the basic phenomenon of simultaneous labor and capital surpluses in a dual economy. Firstly, I argue that the Lewis-Fei-Ranis paradigm ignores the problem of insufficient demand in developing countries. Secondly, I provide a complete analysis of the root causes for chronic insufficient demand for consumption, investment, and export in a labor-surplus economy.

In Chapter Four I explore the prospect for sustainable industrialization under the conditions of labor and capital surplus. First of all, I point out that, given investment demand as exogenous, the classic dual economy model as represented by Lewis’ work provides inaccurate predictions. I suggest that at certain times, industrial growth derives mainly not from capital accumulation, but from demand expansion. When demand for industrial goods falls short within the “modern” sector, then industrial growth and the nature of goods become largely determined by the demand from the “traditional” sector – in particular as shaped by the real income level and consumption patterns of the vast majority of the population that is rural. Second, I examine the policy options for resolving the bottleneck of “dual surplus” when investment demand is assumed to be a dependent variable. I emphasize the relative ineffectiveness of monetary policy and t he limited and ephemeral effectiveness of the fiscal policy in stimulating demand under the conditions of dual surplus. Lastly, I provide a critique of a popular school of thought that advocates reliance on the development of the high-technology sector, arguing that uncritically shifting resources to the high-technology sector could not address economic problems of the dual surplus and might damage the overall health of the economy in the process. I restate again my belief that a developing country should be judicious in selecting and applying the appropriate technology, with the objective of cultivating the surplus labor force for economic development.

Chapter five discusses the development of the agriculture sector and the role of agriculture in economic development under the condition of dual surplus of labor and capital. I consider the status of agriculture in traditional models of development, then suggest a useful role for agriculture under “dual surplus”. I arrive at the central conclusion that, in face of “dual surplus”, agriculture must immediately break away from its traditional role and achieve a transformational basis—that is, agriculture’s contribution to economic development must move away from one consisting of its output, labor force, and foreign exchange earnings to one of a major market for industrial goods. Otherwise, an economy with surplus labor force cannot avoid the pitfall of insufficient demand.

Chapter six explores the option for resolving “dual surplus” for a developing country that is an open economy. I consider the history experience of export-oriented strategy in labor-surplus economies, then suggest the special importance of EOS in an economy of “dual economy”. I argue that expanding foreign demand should take precedent over expanding domestic demand; Short-run consideration should emphasize foreign demand over domestic demand; and during times of favorable external environment polices should lay down preparatory work for expanding domestic demand, so that as soon as the external environment deteriorates, the economy should turn to expand domestic demand.

Chapter seven provides further macroeconomic analysis to support up policy prescriptions for resolving the current problem of surplus in the Chinese economy. First, I define the specific parameters of the macroeconomic of dual surplus of labor and capital, which has emerged the Chinese economy in recent years. Second, I review the three major concepts of “buyer’s market”, “surplus economy” and “deflation” that have gained currency in recent theoretical debates, and find them inappropriate for charactering the Chinese economy. Finally, I think deeply several policy choices in dealing with china’s “dual surplus” economy, including: (1)structural adjustment, or demand stimulus? (2)Expanding foreign demand, or domestic demand? (3)Stimulating investment demand, or consumption demand? (4)Developing urban markets, or rural consumer markets? (5)Raising peasants’ propensity to consumer, or their purchasing power?

In sum, I argue that the right policy should not be Keynesian, and definitely not lewisian but should reflect the specific needs of Chinese economy.

　回主页