中俄政治體制比較硏究 : 從改革角度觀察

유신일 中國社會科學院 2003 해외박사

China and Russia have proceeded respectively different policies of reform and openness from the identical socialistic system. Russia is still rapidly transforming its political system, while China still maintains Communist party leading political system before and after the reform. Chinese political leaders have pursued a gradualistic reform and openness policy and the economic reform policy ender the political stability. However, Russian political lenders have preferred to take one big shock policy to reform and open their political system and, at the same time, economic system. The different policies of two countries resulted in significantly different outputs: many exports from domestic and overseas admitting the successful achievement of China's reform policy while criticising the serious political and economic failures of the past ten years' Russia. However, China remains some obstacles to be resolved such as the income gaps between inter-regional, between intra- regional and between agricultural and industrial sectors, modernization of state owned companies, financial deficits, unemployment, corruption, latent inflation, etc. Farmers, unemployed people and the intelligentsia in China are complaining about their income, democracy and political and economic situation. Russia also faces the similar obstacles such as political insecurity, low growth rate, corruption, unemployment, underdevelopment of industry, stagnation of agriculture, etc. although the Russian political and economic situation after Yeltsin and from Putin shows a kind of stability and growth unlike the past. This research is to compare the process and outputs of reform and openness policy in China with in Russia, focusing on two countries' political system after starting reform and openness policy. I will focus on comparison and analysis of the political decision making process of two countries. China maintains Communist party oriented political system and indirect voting system for General Secretary of Communist Party, Chairman of people's congress, representatives of People's congress, premier, governors of provinces, etc. while Russia is already enforcing multi-party system like western countries and direct voting system for electing president, Duma, and governors. The Communist Party in China is leading He legislative, administrative and judicial authority, while the Russia constitution already applies the western democracy and declares the division of three powers of administration, legislation and judicature, freedom of assembly and liberty to organize and to join a political party. It implies that the main decision maker of the important political affairs in China is still Communist party. The Chinese Communist Party is operating the main organization system such as Central Committee, Central Politburo, Standing Committee of Central Politburo and General Secretary. Based on the Communist party system in China, the main policies related to reform and openness and to state and Communist party will be collectively decided by Central Politburo and/or Standing Committee of Central Politburo, which is called collective leadership. The main policies of post-reform period of the Chinese Communist party are not decided and operated by one person like General Secretary but by collective leadership. The collectively decided policies by the Chinese Communist party will be gradually enforced in the whole country through 65 million communist party members, 3.5 million communist party cell organizations and three thousand communist party schools directly involved with central government, regional governments, people's congress, companies and academic institutions of China. In the process of policy decision and execution, the main intention of Chinese Communist Party will be directly reflected in the important political, economic end personnel affairs of various strata of the China society, as the main leaders of various circles including central government, regional governments, people's congress, companies and academic institutions are mostly a communist party member, who should follow the decision of the Communist party. This collective decision and leadership resulted in China's stable political organization and system. Based this stable political system, China has proceeded the successful economic reform. On the contrary, the president of Russia, as a guarantee of federal constitution and of people's human rights and freedom, mostly has made the main decisions related to state, government and party by himself through wielding a)the right to dissolve the national Assembly, b)various kinds of administrative authorities of federal government, c)president decree and Amnesty, d)military intimidation to be able to command the Russian army, e)organizational intimidation by mobilizing the bureaus like National Security directly under the president control, f)personnel authority, g)various benefits to provide apartments, cars, traveling privileges,,,, g)controlling public opinions, etc. although the president occasionally faced the objections of Duma, Federal council and the judicature. The House and the most parties of Duma still do not have a nationalized organization and are supported on the weak base from society, although Russia constitution acknowledges the division of three powers of administration, legislation and judicature. The House just falls down to a place where they proceed the political struggles between parties. The House could not be a power to constrain the president and the government, who are going to make decisions and to enforce the state related affairs. The personnel of the main judicature leaders are also under the management of the Russia president's authority. This leads for the judicature to tacitly approve and follow the president's policy decisions for the past ten years. The machineries like central government and National Security directly under the president's power just work to play a consulting role far the president's policy decision and enforcement or just follow to operate the president's decisions. The authority of Russian government is mainly responsible for the economy related duties and very weak comparing to the China's. But the Russia's regional administrative representatives, who is elected directly by regional people enjoy much more autonomy and power comparing with China's. This frequently resulted in difficulties and chaos, when the Russian president attempts to execute his decision and policy in the areas of the regional governments. This became another factor to incur the political and economic chaos in post-reform Russia. In order to compare and analyse the political systems between China and Russia, this dissertation focusing on the different political decision process, will describe as follows; The comparison and analysis of this research will be helpful to understand the different process, outputs and present status of reform and openness policies of China and Russia. This research also can contribute to explaining the future political policy directions of China and Russia.

The relationships among ideology, policy and economic performance : Mao Tsetung, Liu Shaochi and the economy of China

유신일 University of Nebraska at Lincoln 1991 해외박사

1949-87년 기간의 중국 사회주의 경제사에서 대약진과 문화 대혁명의 극좌 시기와 기타 실용주의 시기 간의 정치사상, 정부 정책, 경제성과 등을 분석하고, 경제 성과를 통계적으로 상호 비교하였습니다. 모택동의 “실천론”, “모순론”, “신민주주의”, “모순에 대한 수정 전략” 등과 유소기의 “모범 공산주의자가 되기 위한 방안”, “당내 투쟁론”, “공산당론”, “제8차 공산당 전당대회의 보고서” 등의 정치사상, 정책 등을 분석하고, 그 사상들이 중국 정치 경제 정책에 어떻게 반영되었는지 대약진(1958-60)과 문화대혁명(1966-76)의 극좌 시기와 실용주의 시기(1949-57, 1961-65, 1977-87) 간의 정부 정책들을 상호 비교하였습니다. 각 시기의 정부 정책이 공급 측면, 즉 사회총생산량, 농업, 중-경공업 생산량, 산업별 고용현황, 산업별 자본투자 현황, 한계 노동 생산량, 한계 자본 생산량, 임금성장율, 노동생산성과 사회총생산량의 성장율 등과, 그리고 수요측면, 즉 저축, 소매 판매량, 평균 소비 성장률과 농촌의 소비 성장률, 소비 추세 변화, 지역 분권화, 대외 무역 등 요소들을 분석하였습니다. 마지막으로 공급, 수요 요소들의 통계 수치들이 각 시기별로 현저한 차이가 있는지 점검하였습니다. 즉,각 수요, 공급 요소들에 대해서, Dummy 변수와, Auto Regression과 OLS 방법 등을 사용하고, Mann Whitney U Test도 병행함으로서, 통계적적으로 그 차이점을 점검하였습니다. 결론은, 사회주의 체제에서“정치경제”의 체제적인 개혁 없이, 경제적인 실용주의 개혁 정책만을 시도할 때, 실용주의 시기와 극좌 시기의 경제성과를 상호 비교한 결과는 통계적으로 그렇게 현저한 차이가 없다는 논지였습니다. 구소련이나 구동구에서도 경험한 바와 같이 체제 변화 없는 실용주의 경제 개혁의 시도는 실패와 함께, 결과적으로 오늘날 사회주의 체제의 붕괴를 야기했다고 생각합니다. 부연하면 중국식 사회주의 시장경제라고는 하지만, 사회주의는 수식어에 불과하며 실제적으로는 (R. Scalapino에 의하면) 박정희 공화당 정부에 비유되는, 즉 실제적인 개혁개방을 시도했던 1992년 이후의 통계 수치를 포함한다면 아마 논문의 결과는 다르게 도출 되었으리라 생각합니다.