Summary of the 19th Symposium of the Chinese Association for the History of Foreign Economic Theories
The "19th Academic Symposium of the Chinese Society for the Study of Foreign Economic Theories" and the "Foreign Economic Theories and the New Pattern of Domestic and International Economic Development" seminar, jointly hosted by the Chinese Society for the Study of Foreign Economic Theories and Northwest University, was held in Xi'an from October 29–30, 2011. More than 150 experts and scholars from universities and research institutes across the country—including Cheng Enfu, Li Chong, Yan Pengfei, Wang Zhenzhong, Wang Zhiwei, Fang Fuqian, Yu Wenlie, and Hu Leming—attended the meeting. Fang Guanghua, President of Northwest University, delivered the welcoming remarks; Cheng Enfu, President of the Chinese Society for the Study of Foreign Economic Theories, gave the opening address; and Professor Yan Pengfei, among others, delivered keynote speeches. Following the principle of persisting in Marxism as a guide and taking "foreign economic theories and the new pattern of domestic and international economic development" as the theme, the conference engaged in heated discussions. The contents of the seminar discussions are summarized as follows.
1. Focus on the academic thought of international economics prize winners
At the 6th International Academic Forum of the World Association for Political Economy (WAPE)—a global academic organization—held at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts [1] in the United States from May 28–29, 2011, the distinguished Chinese Marxist economist Mr. Liu Guoguang was awarded the inaugural World Marx Prize [2]. During this annual meeting, Professor Hu Leming reviewed and evaluated Professor Liu Guoguang's academic thought in a keynote speech. He pointed out that Professor Liu Guoguang’s system of economic thought can be summarized as "one main line and five major theoretical viewpoints." The one main line is the "dual transformation of modes" [3]—namely, the transformation of the economic system and the transformation of the mode of development. The five major theoretical viewpoints include the theory of dual mode transformation, the theory of the organic combination of planning and market, the theory of placing equal emphasis on equity and efficiency, the theory of macro-prudent regulation, and the theory of comprehensive balanced development. On the basis of absorbing the scientific achievements of modern Eastern and Western economic theories, Mr. Liu Guoguang conducted in-depth and systematic research on China's economic structural reform, economic development, and macroeconomic management. He formed a system of socialist market economy thought with a unique academic style, achieving major innovations in the basic theory of the socialist economy, economic structural reform, economic development strategy, and macroeconomic regulation. These economic theories possess world significance for both Western developed countries and developing countries in responding to economic crises.
In October 2011, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims for their outstanding contributions to "empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy." Professors Cheng Enfu and Fang Xingqi evaluated Sargent’s theory of causality in the macroeconomy. They pointed out that the causality Sargent refers to specifically denotes the causal relationship between economic policies and macroeconomic variables, rather than the causal relationship between macroeconomic variables themselves. A scientific study of the bidirectional relationship between economic policies and macroeconomic variables must be carried out at two levels: the level of phenomena and the level of essence. At the level of phenomena—assuming other conditions remain constant—analyzing only the relationship between economic policies and macroeconomic variables undoubtedly reveals a bidirectional or mutually causal relationship. At the level of essence, the relationship between economic policies and macroeconomic variables is, in the final analysis, determined by the internal contradictions of the basic economic system of capitalism. Therefore, the degree and direction of the influence of economic policies on macroeconomic variables ultimately depend on the extent to which economic policies alleviate or intensify these internal contradictions. Generally speaking, changes in the relationship between economic policies and macroeconomic variables at the level of phenomena are often constrained by the internal contradictions of the basic economic system of capitalism; simultaneously, they are the concrete expressions of these internal contradictions in different historical environments. Based on this view, it is not difficult to see that Sargent’s "empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy" merely restates the myths of market fundamentalism using sophisticated mathematical language.
Wang Jun systematically reviewed and evaluated Sims’s theory of rational inattention. He pointed out that the theory of rational inattention revises the assumption of perfect information processing capacity implicit in the hypothesis of the "perfectly rational economic man" [4]. It argues that economic agents have only a limited capacity to acquire, absorb, and process information; thus, this limited capacity may lead them to make non-optimal choices. Due to these limitations, information acquired through rationally inattentive behavior is discrete, which results in "sticky information." Inattention models affect the determination of the economic agent's information set, which in turn influences the formation of the agent's expectations. Currently, literature applying rational inattention models to consumer behavior, producer behavior, and business cycle fluctuations is growing rapidly.
2. New trends in the study of foreign economic theories
(1) The official publication of Western Economics, a textbook of the Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project [5]. In his keynote speech, Yan Pengfei informed the assembled scholars of the exciting news that the textbook Western Economics—part of the Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project—was jointly published by the People’s Publishing House and Higher Education Press in July 2011 after four years of preparation. The book features Professor Wu Yifeng, Honorary President of the Society, and Professor Yan Pengfei, Vice President of the Society, as lead experts. Society core members Wang Zhiwei, Wen Jiandong, Feng Jinhua, Liu Fengliang, Yang Yusheng, Wu Hanhong, and Guo Qiyou participated in the compilation, which was completed after extensively listening to the opinions and suggestions of scholars at previous annual meetings. The publication of this book is not only a fortunate event for the teaching and research of Western economics in China but also an important achievement of the Society in leading the academic community in the development of Western economic research.
(2) New trends in the study of foreign economic theories. The global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 has sparked new trends in the study of Western economic thought among domestic and foreign academic circles. These trends may have an important impact on the evolution of Western economic theory and policy and deserve close attention and serious study.
First, the debate between Western state interventionism and neoliberalism. Wu Yifeng and Wang Hanxia discussed new trends in this debate, noting that the current dispute is taking place against the historical backdrop of a global financial and economic crisis that originated in the United States and spread rapidly. Before the crisis broke out, state interventionist economists recognized the possibility of financial and economic crises, while neoliberal economists denied it. After the outbreak, they differed in their judgments on the severity and development trends of the crisis, as well as its causes. Disagreements regarding policy responses focused on the bailout and supervision of financial institutions, bank nationalization, the "Paulson Plan" and "Geithner Plan," and quantitative easing in monetary and fiscal policy. This crisis dealt a heavy blow to neoliberal thought and gave state interventionism the upper hand in theory and policy. However, as the economy gradually recovers and the side effects of Keynesian policies become apparent, neoliberalism may still resurface.
Second, the resurgence of theories regarding the fate of capitalism. Faced with the most serious crisis since the Great Depression of the late 1920s to the 1930s, discussions on the fate of capitalism have become common practice. Cheng Enfu and Zhu Kui reviewed and evaluated 20th-century "collapse" theories of capitalism. They pointed out that as early as the first two decades of the 20th century, Western European scholars engaged in fierce debates over the "collapse" theory of the capitalist system, focusing on whether there were comprehensive economic crises sufficient to lead to the system's demise. By the mid-1920s, the focus shifted to two aspects: first, whether a "collapse" trend exists in the actual development of the capitalist system; and second, the causes of such a collapse. Major perspectives included the theory of underconsumption, the theory of disproportionality, and an eclectic synthesis of the two. These debates were reflected to varying degrees during the Great Depression. Henryk Grossman believed the capitalist system would inevitably "collapse," but argued that the final collapse would only occur when certain counter-trends ceased to exist. After the 1980s, American left-wing scholars such as Wallerstein and Ollman further analyzed and predicted the "collapse" of capitalism, arguing that the globalized free-market economy had reached a dead end and that a "new order" replacing the capitalist world system would emerge in the near future. While these theories offer new insights, they were deemed somewhat crude and one-sided for overemphasizing specific angles or causes.
Third, renewed discussion on the long-wave theory of the capitalist economy. Within the theory of long-term fluctuations in the capitalist economy, Marxism and the Neo-Schumpeterian school constitute two distinct but clearly complementary factions. Professor Meng Jie conducted an in-depth study of long-term fluctuations, arguing that institutions play an important role. The Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) school and the Regulation school emphasize the importance of institutions in promoting capital accumulation, while Carlota Perez of the Neo-Schumpeterian school focuses on the institutional constraints faced by techno-economic paradigms and technological revolutions during their dissemination. While these theories contribute to institutional analysis, they have limitations. In terms of nature and function, institutions and their transformations are not always intended to adapt to technological needs or promote continuous and rapid accumulation; they also serve class rule and the reproduction of class relations. The evolution of modern capitalism from the postwar "Golden Age" to the neoliberal stage demonstrates, in many aspects, the importance of the balance of class forces and class compromise for institutional design and arrangements. Only by unifying and coordinating the three dimensions involved in institutional change can the "great surge" of development be truly achievable.
Fourth, the rise of evolutionary preference theory. Social preferences—such as fairness preferences, altruistic preferences, and reciprocity preferences—are attracting increasing attention. Incorporating institutional, social, biological, and psychological factors into the analysis of the formation, determination, and evolution of preferences has become an unstoppable trend in modern Western economic research. A new paradigm for analyzing problems—Behavioral Contract Theory, which combines the theoretical achievements of behavioral economics and new institutional economics—is rising. Taking reciprocity preferences and their evolution as a starting point, Zhou Xiaoliang and Xu Jiao analyzed the tournament system for motivating knowledge production. They pointed out the necessity of fully utilizing the reciprocity preferences existing among members of knowledge production teams to establish incentive mechanisms integrated with reciprocal altruism. This would strengthen reciprocity preferences in collaborative knowledge production, improve efficiency, and promote the sustainable and healthy development of knowledge production.
Fifth, the rise of Western stakeholder theory. Following the global economic crisis, the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has attracted widespread attention. The academic community generally regards stakeholder theory as the foundation for CSR research. Zhang Xian and Xiao Bin provided a relatively objective and comprehensive evaluation of Western stakeholder theory. They noted that while it is an important theoretical basis for CSR, it possesses internal flaws regarding the nature and objectives of the enterprise. Its analysis of the source and generation of interests conceals the antagonism between capital and labor; it lacks consistency in the definition and classification of stakeholders; and it has methodological defects in analyzing the relationship between enterprises and society. When researching stakeholder theory in the context of China’s reality, scholars should follow the principle of "absorbing the theoretical essence without being limited to individual arguments or a single field" to innovate and revise it.
Sixth, the origins of evolutionary economics. Through a detailed comparison of the theoretical origins, methodologies, and theoretical systems of Schumpeter and Veblen, Zhang Lin pointed out that if evolutionary economics is to become a source of economic revolution, it should rely more on Veblen than Schumpeter. Compared to Schumpeter, Veblen’s evolutionary economics has several advantages: its subversiveness; Veblen’s status as a "thorough Darwinist"; and his instinct-habit psychology, which provides a solid psychological foundation for his economic agents. Looking at the academic traditions they respectively pioneered, Veblen’s advantages are significantly greater than Schumpeter’s.
(3) Evaluation of major theories in mainstream Western economics. Through a methodological analysis of Boland’s critique of neoclassical economic methodology, Long Fu and Wang Jinzhao pointed out that the essential defect of neoclassical economics is its idealistic and metaphysical research method. Its formal rigor and precision outweigh its relevance to reality; its brevity and consistency outweigh its practical meaning. Research that remains focused on the formal logic of neoclassical economics only further emphasizes the formal structure of models. Truly scientific economics must be established on a realism characterized by materialism and dialectics.
Ding Xiao'an explored the "maximization" model from the perspective of subjective expectations and objective constraints. He pointed out that while this model occupies a prominent position in mainstream economic analysis, its analytical paradigm ignores the objective constraints that economic agents impose on one another based on subjective expectations under the rationality of "economic man." These constraints, to a large extent, make maximization impossible. He argued that human beings are social role-subjects and "the ensemble of the social relations" [6]; therefore, a key limiting factor for maximization is whether economic agents expect the cooperation and the sharing of cooperative gains to be fair and reasonable. The mutual concern of economic agents for one another's interests will greatly promote the increase of cooperative gains, thereby realistically achieving a Pareto improvement in maximization.
Zhu Fuqiang explored the issue of "ethical inadequacy" in modern mainstream economics from the perspective of the history of economic thought. He pointed out that its "vulgarity" lies in an ideological Social Darwinism that regards existence as inherent rationality [7] and is keen on using complex mathematical models or selective statistical data to defend its policies. Methodologically, its partial analysis thinking severs the inherently interconnected social totality, causing its cognition of the world to be either superficial or narrow. To a large extent, modern mainstream economics has committed the error described by Bastiat as "seeing only that which is seen, while failing to consider that which is not seen."
Liu Mingguo discussed the boundaries of the application of mathematics in economics. He pointed out that the distinction between mathematics and economics, as well as the non-repeatability and asymmetry of economic phenomena, determine these boundaries: mathematical logic cannot replace economic logic; statistical regression cannot be used to infer causal relationships in the economy; statistical regression can only be used to falsify existing hypotheses and (under certain conditions) obtain quantitative relationships; and mathematical reasoning must be limited to the calculation of numbers within economics. The attempt by Western mainstream economics to save its theories through the "mathematization" of economics is doomed to failure. Rather than being a broad-road [8] for the development of economics, mathematization has led the discipline astray. If Chinese economics is to achieve success, the Marxist method of "from the masses, to the masses" [9] (practiced here as from practice to practice) remains the scientific method for economic research.
(4) A comparison between Western economic theory and Marxist economic theory. Ren Baoping and Chao Xiaojing compared the developmental views of Marxist economics and Western economics, noting that the two theoretical systems differ in their research perspectives, content, and paradigms regarding development. Marxist economics approaches development from the perspective of internal mechanisms, viewing it as the result of the interaction between the productive forces and the relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure. Western economics primarily studies development from the perspective of productive forces within specific stages. Marxist economics utilizes theoretical abstraction based on internal mechanisms; Western economics conducts research from the perspective of applied paradigms. This comparison suggests that in the process of economic development, we should simultaneously draw on the developmental ideas of both Marxist and Western economics to establish a scientific outlook on development.
Zhao Maolin and Ren Zhian compared the distribution theories of Joan Robinson and Marx. They pointed out similarities in methodology and the exposure of capitalist exploitation, but noted differences in their starting premises and specific distribution theories: Robinson's theory is based on factor distribution, while Marx's is based on the labor theory of value. For contemporary China, we must take Marx's fundamental idea of "distribution according to work" as our guide, combined with the conditions and paths for realization provided by the current stage of socialism, to promote the rational and effective implementation of distribution according to work.
Wang Lu compared the theories of the Post-Keynesian economist Minsky and Marxist economic crisis theory. He noted that Minsky explored the laws of cyclical fluctuations within the operations of the capitalist system by looking at three sectors—firms, commercial banks, and monetary authorities—and is regarded as a famous scholar who successfully predicted the global economic crisis triggered by the 2008 U.S. subprime mortgage crisis. However, while highlighting monetary and financial factors, Minsky ignored the problem of insufficient effective demand caused by income distribution factors in the real capitalist economy, which constitutes a major flaw in his crisis theory; this is a crucial element emphasized by Marxist economics. Therefore, the root of the crisis lies not in the credit system of monetary-financial relations, but in the basic contradictions of capitalism, which are the fundamental cause of capitalist economic instability.
3. The European Sovereign Debt Crisis and the Current International Economic Landscape
Since the 2008 U.S. subprime mortgage crisis triggered the global financial crisis, the sovereign debt crises in the United States and Eurozone countries such as Greece have continued to deepen. This has triggered high levels of concern in theoretical circles and led to a continuous emergence of research. Ding Bing pointed out that the waves of sovereign debt crises in the U.S. and Europe since the summer of 2011 are no accident but a continuation and deepened development of the 2008 international financial and economic crisis; in essence, they remain a new manifestation of the capitalist crisis of overproduction. The reason is that the capitalist system inevitably leads to polarization between the rich and the poor, insufficient consumer demand, and relative overproduction. Following Keynesian remedies, states intervene to increase social welfare, military spending, and public works through deficit spending to meet urgent needs. However, as the basic contradictions of capitalist society sharpen, deficits and debt grow ever larger, inevitably resulting in a severe debt quagmire for the U.S. and Europe once a certain point is reached. Therefore, even if countries can temporarily survive the crisis through strong intervention, it comes at the cost of fiscal austerity—such as layoffs, wage cuts, welfare reductions, and tax increases—which will inevitably further deepen the basic contradictions of capitalist society, trigger economic recession, or even lead to socio-political crises.
Li Chong pointed out that the downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating caused the debt problem to finally erupt, leading to reflections on the concept of fiscal deficits. Since World War II, the concept of fiscal deficits has undergone four shifts: from balanced budgets to deficit financing, to full-employment budget surpluses, and finally to budget balancing based on potential output. Under the influence of their respective fiscal views, successive U.S. administrations have continuously set records for fiscal deficits and government debt, creating serious hidden dangers for both the U.S. and world economies. In an era where sovereign debt crises are occurring in multiple countries, it is time to readjust the concept of fiscal deficits.
Regarding the causes of the debt crisis, Yu Wenlie pointed out that the root of the current Eurozone crisis and the global financial crisis is that Wall Street's financial hegemony has hijacked the entire world. This hegemony supports enormous U.S. spending, helps the U.S. plunder global wealth, and forces the world to foot the bill for Wall Street's financial crisis. Opposing financial hegemony and changing the current irrational world monetary and financial system is the primary task for rebuilding the international economic landscape and order.
Regarding the impact on China and the lessons learned, Wang Zhiwei pointed out that the crisis would lead to a contraction in China's foreign trade; if the Eurozone adopts "quantitative easing" to rescue its sovereign debt, it will inevitably exacerbate inflation in China. The crisis teaches us: the monetary and economic integration of multiple countries and regions is a highly complex issue that cannot be viewed simplistically; it must be carefully scrutinized and handled with prudence, or one will fall into a predicament difficult to escape. The decision-making power of monetary policy and fiscal policy should be unified; their separation creates difficulties for economic development and macroeconomic regulation. Furthermore, a country's economic development cannot be entirely detached from manufacturing, and national foreign exchange reserves must be diversified.
4. Economic Globalization and Transforming the Mode of Economic Development
The Fifth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee proposed that one of the main goals of the "12th Five-Year Plan" is to "make substantive progress in transforming our mode of economic development." "Accelerating the transformation of the mode of economic development is a profound transformation in China's economic and social fields and must be integrated into the entire process and all areas of economic and social development." As the "main line" of the 12th Five-Year Plan, this acceleration demonstrates its extreme importance for China's future. Participating scholars held heated discussions on the factors influencing this transformation, the paths for achieving it, and the performance assessment of the transformation within the context of globalization.
Among the factors influencing the transformation, Fang Fuqian and Zhan Xinyu studied the relationship between industrial upgrading and economic fluctuations using a time-varying parameter model. They pointed out that since the Reform and Opening-up, the upgrading of China's industrial structure has had a significant smoothing effect on economic fluctuations, a trend that becomes more pronounced as upgrading progresses. However, the impact of the three strata of industry is asymmetrical. The primary industry has almost no effect on total economic volatility; the secondary industry has a leverage effect; and the tertiary industry has a clear smoothing effect. To maintain steady growth, the relationship between the three industries must be further optimized, industrial upgrading must be pushed forward, and the development of the tertiary industry must be accelerated.
Bai Yongxiu and Wu Fenghua studied the relationship between regional differences and the transformation of the development mode. They pointed out that differences exist between China's eastern and western regions in five areas: the quality of economic development, the content of economic structure, the degree of coordinated socio-economic development, the openness of regional economies, and corporate management models. To achieve an effective transformation, policy is crucial. The east should implement policies that encourage endogenous and inclusive growth, enhance development levels and quality, and transition from speed to efficiency and from domestic to international focus. The west should implement policies that combine extensive and intensive growth, balance quantity with quality, emphasize both speed and efficiency, and coordinate domestic and international considerations.
Xiang Benwu, through empirical analysis of the relationship between innovation and economic development, pointed out that the output elasticity of R&D capital stock in China’s large and medium-sized industrial enterprises is very low on average, indicating that independent innovation plays a small role in driving industrial growth. Across different industries, this elasticity varies greatly; over time, while it fluctuates annually, a trend toward improved performance in independent innovation is beginning to emerge. Thus, vigorously increasing the output elasticity of existing R&D capital and increasing investment in independent innovation constitute the direction for transforming the mode of economic growth.
Shi Jiping explored the relationship between the market economy and the transformation of the development mode, noting that the market economy possesses a "class-reconstructive" nature. It acts as an "invisible hand" that steers social culture and ideology and possesses a "capturing" quality over political life. Transforming the mode of economic development requires solving the question of "for whom do we develop," breaking away from total market dependence, and enhancing social subjectivity.
Zheng Changde and Shan Depeng discussed the relationship between ethnic diversity and economic growth, noting significant divergence in existing research. This is mainly due to differing assumptions, index systems, and research subjects. Most studies based on exogenous variable assumptions do not show a sustained, negative correlation between ethnic diversity and growth. Research based on endogenous variables has only just begun and lacks a unified paradigm. Future domestic research could build an ethnic diversity index system for various regions in China to analyze its relationship with growth; compare the economic impact of ethnic diversity in China versus other countries using cross-national data under the reality of China's "diversity in unity"; and analyze the relationship between ethnic diversity and cohesion to find ways to maximize productivity gains while minimizing costs associated with diversity.
Regarding the path to transformation, Bu Hai pointed out: first, proactively adjust the mode and strategy of foreign trade development to transition from scale and speed to quality and efficiency, from exogenous to endogenous drivers, and from market breadth to market depth; second, actively stimulate consumption to expand domestic demand, increase resident income, and improve the consumption environment; third, expand the supply of innovative products, encourage technological innovation, and cultivate independent brands to improve capital output efficiency.
5. Wealth and Income Distribution Structures and Policies in China and Abroad
The "Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Several Issues Regarding the Improvement of the Socialist Market Economy System," adopted at the Third Plenary Session of the 16th CPC Central Committee [10], explicitly proposed the need to "rectify and standardize the order of distribution, increase the intensity of income distribution adjustment, and attach importance to resolving the problem of the excessive widening of the income gap among some members of society." Participating scholars argued that although the reform of the distribution system has injected vitality into China's economic development, the continuous expansion of the income gap in China has become an indisputable fact and has triggered numerous contradictions in the socio-economic field. Resolving the issue of the widening income gap is of great significance.
Zang Xuheng discussed the current situation of China's widening income gap through a large volume of data and comparative research. He pointed out that because the share of labor in China's primary distribution is too low, it has led to a large income gap and a high degree of inequality. This income inequality is manifested not only in the widening income gap between individuals and households but also between urban and rural areas, regions, and industries. China has transformed from a previously income-egalitarian country into one with a large income gap and high levels of inequality, becoming the country with the largest wealth gap among Asian nations.
Regarding the causes of the widening income gap, Hu Leming and Wang Jie utilized survey data on the impact of the financial crisis on the wages of workers in China’s manufacturing sector to analyze the crisis's effect on income inequality among workers as a whole, as well as across enterprises of different scales and ownership sectors. They pointed out that the financial crisis significantly increased overall inequality in income distribution. Income inequality between large enterprises and small-to-medium enterprises, as well as between the state-owned sector and non-state-owned sectors, also increased to varying degrees. Although the degree of inequality rose in both cases, the pathways through which it increased differed.
Zhang Zhiyuan pointed out that the current practical deviations in China's income distribution lie in the continuous expansion of the income gap, which is unfavorable for stimulating domestic demand; a seriously unbalanced distribution pattern that inhibits the upgrading of industrial structures; and a lack of the principle of fairness, which makes it difficult to stimulate innovative vitality. The reasons for the serious unfairness in China's income distribution lie in the long-term over-emphasis on efficiency in distribution policy, the excessive tilt of income distribution toward capital, and the inadequate implementation of new distribution policies.
Regarding countermeasures for resolving the excessive income gap, participating scholars emphasized the need to unswervingly uphold the basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and multiple forms of ownership develop together. In terms of distribution, they argued for insisting that primary distribution substantively reflects fairness and that secondary redistribution further strengthens fairness, while reasonably adjusting the structure of government expenditure. To alleviate the excessive income gap between urban and rural residents, the state must continue to increase support for the "three rural issues" [11]; accelerate the pace of urbanization; continue to promote the free flow of labor from rural areas to cities; promote the universal and equitable growth of property income for rural residents; increase the intensity of central fiscal support for agriculture while focusing on regional balance and social equity; promote the development of non-agricultural industries in rural areas; and increase the wage-based income of low-income rural residents.
(Author's affiliation: School of Economics, Capital University of Economics and Business) (Editor: Liu Dezhong) Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 1, 2012 Web Editor: Zhang Jian