当代财经 ›› 2019, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (01): 38-.

• • 上一篇    

制度创新与大国发展周期

张进铭   

  1. (江西财经大学 江西经济发展与改革研究院,江西 南昌 330013)
  • 收稿日期:2018-09-10 发布日期:2021-01-21
  • 作者简介:张进铭,江西财经大学教授,经济学博士,主要从事发展经济学研究,联系方式jmzhang1967@21cn.com。

Institutional Innovation and the Development Cycle of Great Powers

ZHANG Jin-ming   

  1. (Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China)
  • Received:2018-09-10 Published:2021-01-21

摘要: 近代历史表明,大国都存在着一个80年左右的发展周期。葡萄牙、西班牙、日本、德国、苏联的崛起和衰落都经历这样一个周期,英国、美国的长期经济发展过程中也包含着多个这样的周期。影响国家发展周期的一个关键性因素是制度创新,包括非系统性制度创新、系统性但不可持续的制度创新和系统性且可持续的制度创新。其中,葡萄牙和西班牙的制度创新主要是为了维持掠夺性的发展方式,属于非系统性的制度创新,终究是难以为继的;日本、德国和苏联都曾经进行了系统性的制度创新,但由于它们的制度创新是不可持续的,所以最终也走向衰落;英国和美国在每次面临衰落危险之时,都重新展开了系统性且可持续的制度创新,因此能在很长时期中保持顺利发展和强国地位。

关键词: 发展周期,制度创新,可持续性,系统性

Abstract: Modern history shows that there is a development cycle of about 80 years in big countries. The rise and decline of such countries as Portugal, Spain, Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union have all experienced such a cycle. The process of long-term economic development of Britain and the United States also contains many such cycles. A key factor affecting the development cycle of a country is the institutional innovation, including non-systematic institutional innovation, systematic but unsustainable institutional innovation, and systematic and sustainable institutional innovation. Among them, the institutional innovations of Portugal and Spain are mainly the development mode so as to maintain their predatoriness, which belongs to non-systematic institutional innovation, and is unsustainable after all; Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union have all carried out systematic institutional innovations, however, due to their unsustainable institutional innovations, they declined eventually. While the United Kingdom and the United States have re-launched systematic and sustainable institutional innovations every time they are faced with the danger of decline, therefore, they can continue to develop smoothly and keep strong status for a long time.

Key words: development cycle; institutional innovation; sustainability; systematicness