史学月刊
史學月刊
사학월간
Journal of Historical Science
2014年
2期
105~114
,共null页
中国史 GDP研究 国民所得 计量分析
中國史 GDP研究 國民所得 計量分析
중국사 GDP연구 국민소득 계량분석
Chinese history; GDP studies; national income; quantitative analysis
近年来,中国史中GDP的估算研究引起了学界的高度关注,并由此引起了热烈讨论。关于国民所得、国民收入等宏观经济核算的研究,最早可追溯至上个世纪三四十年代,学人多承认由巫宝三等人率先开创。此后,关于这一方面的研究成果不断,但估算研究时段主要集中在中国的近现代史。最早把GDP估算研究带人中国古代史领域的是外国学者保罗·贝洛赫、安格斯·麦迪森等人,但是他们较为粗略式的估算引起了学界不断的质疑,并直接或间接地促成了此次古代经济史领域GDP研究的小高潮。相关研究引起了学界关于GDP研究是否适用于中国历史、是否存在误区、跨地区跨时段的换算方法优劣性、公式模型及其基础资料是否严谨、数据统计与历史真实等问题的争议。而随着争议的展开,研究也越来越深入。无论是作为方法论而言,还是意欲构筑经济史学科未来基础性的统计而言,中国史中的GDP研究都值得期待和展望。
近年來,中國史中GDP的估算研究引起瞭學界的高度關註,併由此引起瞭熱烈討論。關于國民所得、國民收入等宏觀經濟覈算的研究,最早可追溯至上箇世紀三四十年代,學人多承認由巫寶三等人率先開創。此後,關于這一方麵的研究成果不斷,但估算研究時段主要集中在中國的近現代史。最早把GDP估算研究帶人中國古代史領域的是外國學者保囉·貝洛赫、安格斯·麥迪森等人,但是他們較為粗略式的估算引起瞭學界不斷的質疑,併直接或間接地促成瞭此次古代經濟史領域GDP研究的小高潮。相關研究引起瞭學界關于GDP研究是否適用于中國歷史、是否存在誤區、跨地區跨時段的換算方法優劣性、公式模型及其基礎資料是否嚴謹、數據統計與歷史真實等問題的爭議。而隨著爭議的展開,研究也越來越深入。無論是作為方法論而言,還是意欲構築經濟史學科未來基礎性的統計而言,中國史中的GDP研究都值得期待和展望。
근년래,중국사중GDP적고산연구인기료학계적고도관주,병유차인기료열렬토론。관우국민소득、국민수입등굉관경제핵산적연구,최조가추소지상개세기삼사십년대,학인다승인유무보삼등인솔선개창。차후,관우저일방면적연구성과불단,단고산연구시단주요집중재중국적근현대사。최조파GDP고산연구대인중국고대사영역적시외국학자보라·패락혁、안격사·맥적삼등인,단시타문교위조략식적고산인기료학계불단적질의,병직접혹간접지촉성료차차고대경제사영역GDP연구적소고조。상관연구인기료학계관우GDP연구시부괄용우중국역사、시부존재오구、과지구과시단적환산방법우렬성、공식모형급기기출자료시부엄근、수거통계여역사진실등문제적쟁의。이수착쟁의적전개,연구야월래월심입。무론시작위방법론이언,환시의욕구축경제사학과미래기출성적통계이언,중국사중적GDP연구도치득기대화전망。
Estimation of historical GDP in China has attracted much attention and resulted in heated discussions in recent years. Studies of macro-economic accounts in relation with national income were conducted in as early as the 1930s and the 1940s in China. Wu Baosan was believed to be the leading one of the earliest Chinese scholars devoted to this field. The following researchers mainly concentrated on early modern and modern times in their studies. GDP estimation was first introduced to China by foreign scholars such as Paul Bairoch and Angus Maddison. However they were questioned by other researchers for their inaccurate estimates. Such questioning leads to, directly or indirectly, the current intense interest in historical studies of GDP in pre-modern China. Researchers disagreed such questions as applicability of GDP estimation to historical studies of China, the possible pitfalls in such studies, the pros and cons of the comparison across time and space, reliability of equations, models and basic data used in the studies, and relations between statistical data and historical reality. Lively debates have led to more and deeper explorations. We may expect more developments in historical GDP studies in both terms of methodology and the construction of statistical foundation for future explorations into China's economic history.