國家資本主義或搜刮與裙帶資本主義？比較中國、新加坡與馬來西亞華人經濟體的制度分歧

Abstract

本研究主要探索亞洲華人社會不同的資本主義經濟類型，聚焦於中國、新加坡與馬來西亞三國。與一般西方學者將中國界定為國家主導的資本主義體制不同，本研究認為新加坡才是國家主導的資本主義典範。新加坡國家官僚體制呈現韋伯式的法理型國家，雖與跨國企業緊密鑲嵌，但維持高度鑲嵌自主性。新加坡政府又特別關照工會需求，但是嚴密控制工會的政治走向。新加坡政府又具有強大專制控制力與基礎行政能力，不僅嚴密監視反對運動，而且有能力提供公共建設、社會服務、產業結構轉型策略。在新加坡面臨利基消逝之際，政府官僚體系以增強跨國企業的國際競爭力為重要考量。相反的，馬來西亞的國家官僚體系不僅具有傳統家父長制的特性，而且充斥政治侍從主義，由國家為業界分配租金以交換政治支持，導致政府尋租貪腐叢生，成為典型的搜刮與裙帶資本主義之混合。中國的市場經濟轉型介於這兩者之間，一方面中國國家官僚體制具有傳統家父長制的特色，距離現代法理型國家距離尚遠，另一方面，中國政府雖享有高度鑲嵌自主性，不受國營集體經濟部門夾持，又能嚴密控制工會需求，但中央與地方政府與業界過度鑲嵌，導致政府官員尋租腐敗。但與馬來西亞不同，中國國家官僚體制的行政能力較強，不僅提供基礎建設與社會福利，而且給予偏袒的國營經濟部門租金分利潤配，使之成為經濟成長的動力。本研究將評估中國政府經濟治理能力，探索為何政府的尋租貪腐並未阻撓中國與馬來西亞的經濟成長。

This three-year project, from the perspective of institutional analysis, attempts to study various capitalist economies in the Asian Chinese societies of China, Singapore, and Malaysia. Contradictory to many scholars who defined the Chinese economy as a model of statist capitalism, this project asserts that Singapore is the ideal typical case of statist capitalism, a Weberian legal-rational bureaucracy not only with a strong embedded autonomy, but also with strong infrastructural power as well. In contrast, political clientelism characterizes Malaysian state bureaucracy with many characteristics of traditional patrimonialism, which not only leads to numerous rent-seeking and malfeasance among officials, but also creates a mixture of booty and crony capitalism. This project regards China’s economy as a case standing between statist and the mixture of booty and crony capitalism, with a mixed model of the state characterized by both modern legal-rational and traditional patrimonial features. On the one hand, the Chinese state demonstrates a strong administrative capacity in governing the economy, on the other hand, it severely suffers rent-seeking and corruption. To collect data to prove these hypotheses, the author will use both methods of literature reading and interviews in the field work of these three countries. In particular, the project will put emphases on embeddedness of state with industrial enterprises and unions, state’s despotic and infrastructural power (provision of public goods and services and restructuring policy), state’s embedded autonomy in each country and the association between these characteristics and the distinct types of capitalist economy