注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-2020-Essay-02
毛澤東時代與鄧小平時代所採取的經濟發展方法有多大不同？
背景 毛澤東時期的中國經濟發展波折，經濟發展更衰落後於世界其他國家，相反，鄧小平時期的中國經濟就逐步起飛，成為發展最快的國家之一。歸根究柢，兩時期的發展差異均奠基於方法上的差異。 // 架構儘管兩時期均採取了計劃經濟的方式，但在開放的程度、生產制度、財產體制、地區改革格局等方式上就千差萬別。 // 立場因此，兩時期所採取的方法有很大的不同。
主旨句在開放國家的程度方面，毛澤東時期採取的自給自足模式和鄧小平時期的改革開放模式也是差異極大。 // 項目A 毛澤東時期，中共希望透過國內的自給自足工程，以群眾力量推動工業和農業的發展。例如在大躍進時期，毛澤東在工業上號召「全民大煉鋼」，多達9000萬人共同參與土法煉鋼，以提高鋼產量；農業方面，中共鼓勵農民深耕密植，發展出「衛星田」，憑藉國民的人力意志以提高生產力，推動經濟發展。 // 項目B 然而，鄧小平時期則放棄了單靠國內的自給自足進行生產的策略，提出了「改革開放」，希望透過逐步開放中國，吸納外資及技術的方式以推動經濟發展。例如於1980年正式在深圳、珠海、汕頭及廈門建立四大經濟特區，及後又陸續於1992年開放30多個長江沿岸和邊境城市，增加與外國的貿易，從而發展經濟。 // 對比(不少於20%) 相比之下，就開放中國而言，毛澤東採取封閉的改革方式，依靠群眾力量以建設中國經濟，但鄧小平則採取開放的改革方式，希望在中國經濟仍處於起步階段時，透過借助外國資金，再充分運用國內人力和資源以刺激經濟發展，反映兩時期的方法大為不同。
在生產制度方面，毛澤東時期採取的集體化生產方式與鄧小平時期採取的個體化生產方式是截然不同。毛澤東時期，中共希望大力推動社會主義改造，因此在一五計劃起已經致力提高集體化程度，例如成立農業生產合作社和手工業生產合作社等。至大躍進時期，人民公社更加是採取完全的生產資源集體制，由生產隊負責集體化生產。儘管調整時期(1962-66年)的「三自一包」一度降低了集體化成份，允許農民存有部分的個體化生產，但整體而言，毛澤東時期大多是採取集體化的生產方式，更加不斷提高集體化的程度。相反，鄧小平時期採取了個體化的生產方式，例如在農業方面推行了「家庭聯產承包制」(1978年) ，放棄集體化生產，轉由農民承包人民公社集體所有的土地，並且以家庭作為生產單位，捨棄了以公社作為生產單位。此外，人民公社也於1984年正式瓦解，毛澤東時期沿用的集體化生產模式已經蕩然無存。相比之下，就生產制度而言，毛澤東時期採取的集體化生產制與鄧小平時期採取的個體化生產制是迥然不同，前者希望透過共同生產、合作的方式提高生產力，後者就希望透過每農戶的獨立自主生產而刺激生產力，可見兩時期所採取的方法極為不同。
在財產體制方面，毛澤東時期採取公有化的方式發展經濟，與鄧小平時期的私有化方式大為不同。毛澤東時期，毛澤東認為財產私有制是助長資產階級建立的途徑，長遠不利於發展共同富裕的社會主義經濟模式。因此，毛澤東致力消除財產私有制，例如於一五計劃時將大型企業和鐵路收歸國有，而且推行「統購統銷制度」(1953年)，由政府統一收購及發售物資，以消滅市場經濟。至大躍進時，人民公社實行資源所有制，將物資公有化，成功實現公有化模式。然而，鄧小平採取私有化的模式。其引入了資本主義的市場經濟原則，允許人民有私有財產，例如「家庭聯產承包制」下，農民可以擁有上繳政府後的餘糧，而且企業方面也陸續引入「責任制」、「股份制」等模式，讓國企能夠自主經營，並且自負營虧，企業負責人能夠在企業獲利的情況底下分一杯羹。相比之下，就財產體制而言，毛澤東時期採取了公有化的方式，希望打造大同的經濟環境，但鄧小平採希望透過財產私有制，允許人民擁有私有財產，從而刺激人民生產，使得經濟能夠成功發展。因此，兩者的方式是極為不同。
在地區改革格局而言，毛澤東時期採取全國性的改革，但鄧小平時期則採取分階段的區域性改革，兩時期的方法亦天差地別。為了提高人民生活水平以達致小康社會的現代化國家，毛澤東主張全國均一發展，不分區域地推行改革，例如1950-52年的土地改革是全國推行，沒收全國富農、地方的土地以分配予佃農和貧農；1958年的農業大躍進也是席捲全國的改革項目，全國共同進行。然而，鄧小平時期為現代化所作出的努力則是地區性的，分階段地在不同地區推行改革。鄧小平把中國劃分為東、中、西部，率先發展東部的沿海地區以帶動內陸的發展，例如1980年將深圳、珠海、汕頭及廈門建立經濟特區，開放貿易，至1992年再逐步開放30多個長江沿岸和邊境城市，以發展中部地區，至1997年才提出「西部大開發」以吸引企業到西部發展。相比之下，就地區改革格局而言，毛澤東時期採取全國性的改革方案，全國各地劃一推行改革，以實現共同富庶的目標，但鄧小平時期則採取分階段的地區性改革方案，先發展東部地區，再逐步帶動中部和西部地區以實現富裕，可見兩時代的方式明顯不同。
雖然兩時期所採取的經濟方式大有不同，但在計劃經濟此方法上，兩時期卻是保持一致。
在計劃經濟方面，毛澤東時期和鄧小平時期均採取了計劃經濟的方法以發展經濟。毛澤東時期，中國自1953年開始實行五年計劃，例如第一個五年計劃(1953-57年)以「一化三改造」為目標，實現社會主義工業化及農業、手工業、私商工商業的社會主義改造；第二個五年計劃(1958-62年)繼續以重工業為發展中心，同時提高集體化和公有化。在毛澤東時期，中共領導層實行為期五年的計劃經濟，規劃國家的短期和中期性經濟發展。同樣地，鄧小平時期也是採取了計劃經濟的方法。鄧小平於第五個五年計劃時上台(1976-80年)，直至其1997年逝世前分別推行了六五、七五、八五和九五計劃。此外，儘管鄧小平引入了市場經濟的原則，但其亦會採取不同的手段進行宏觀調控，如實行法規﹑提供指引等，令經濟增長率保持在中央政府的預期內，以避免地方經濟過快增長而產生社會問題，如1994年人民銀行行長朱鎔基對人民幣作出調整，由美元兌換人民幣的1：6調整至1：8，有助中國外貿持續發展。相比之下，由1953年直至1997年期間，除了調整時期(1962-66年)一度中斷外，毛澤東和鄧小平執政的時期均採取了計劃經濟的方式以規劃經濟發展，政府會對經濟採取宏觀調控，使經濟發展盡量符合政府預期。可見，計劃經濟乃兩時期的共通點。
總括而言，雖然毛澤東時期和鄧小平時期均採取了計劃經濟的方式，但整體而言，兩時期在開放中國的程度、生產制度、財產體制、地區改革格局等方法上均存大相徑庭，使得兩時期的成效均天壤之別，毛澤東時期的中國經濟發展遠落於其他國家，但鄧小平時期的中國經濟則高速起飛，成為備受注目的新興經濟體。因此，兩時期所採取的方法有很大的不同。
How far were the methods of economic development adopted in the Maoist period different from those in the Deng Xiaoping era?
During the Maoist era, China experienced fluctuations in economic development and its economic growth lagged behind other countries in the world; in contrast, during the Deng Xiaoping era, China’s economy began booming and became one of the fastest developing countries in the world. After all, the differences in development between the two eras were attributable to the difference in method. Despite the fact that planned economy was adopted during both eras, there were fundamental differences between the two eras in terms of degree of openness, mode of production, ownership system and regional layout of reforms. Therefore, the methods of economic development adopted in the two eras were largely different.
In terms of degree of openness, the self-sufficient approach taken in the Maoist era was greatly different from the reform and opening up approach adopted in the Deng Xiaoping era. During the Maoist era, the Chinese Community Party intended to achieve self-sufficiency自給自足 by promoting industrial and agricultural development with the power of the masses. For example, during the Great Leap Forward movement, Mao Zedong mounted a nationwide steel production campaign全民大煉鋼 for the sake of industrialization, which gathered more than 90 million people to work in backyard furnaces in order to help increase steel production. In agricultural aspect, the CCP encouraged close cropping and deep plowing and introduced the concept of ‘satellite farm衛星田’, attempting to increase productivity and promote economic development with the will of the people. However, during the Deng Xiaoping era, the self-sufficient approach was replaced by the reform and opening up policy, which was a plan to promote economic growth by opening up China gradually and attracting foreign investment and technology transfer. For instance, four Special Economic Zones were established in Shenzhen深圳, Zhuhai珠海, Shantou汕頭 and Xiamen廈門in 1980, and more than 30 cities along the Yangtze River長江 or close to the border were further opened up in 1992, with a view to increasing trade ties with foreign countries and promoting economic growth. In comparison, in terms of openness, Mao’s method was a closed-door封閉 strategy that relied on the power of the masses, while Deng’s method was an open-door開放 one that aimed at leveraging foreign capital together with the country’s own labour force and resources to stimulate economic growth at the initial stage. The two methods were clearly very different from each other.
In terms of mode of production, collectivization集體化 in the Maoist era was also vastly different from individualization個體化 in the Deng Xiaoping era. During the Maoist era, the CCP was eager to promote socialist transformation and strived to introduce collectivization as early as the First Five-year Plan, which led to the establishment of agricultural producers’ cooperatives農業生產合作社 and handicraft producers’ cooperatives手工業生產合作社. During the Great Leap Forward movement, the People’s Communes人民公社 went one step further by making all means of production collectivized and having production teams for collective production. It was true that during the Readjustment period調整時期(1962-66), there was the decollectivizing ‘three selfs and one contract三自一包’ policy that allowed peasants to perform production individually to a limited extent; nevertheless, collectivized mode of production was mostly adopted throughout the Maoist era and the level of collectivization saw an overall upward trend. In contrast, individualized mode of production was adopted during the Deng Xiaoping era. For example, in agricultural aspect, the household responsibility system家庭聯產承包制 was introduced in 1978 to mark the end of collective production, allowing peasants to contract land from the People’s Communes人民公社 with household instead of commune as production unit. In addition, the disbandment of the People’s Communes in 1984 marked the end of the collectivized mode of production of the Maoist era. In comparison, in terms of mode of production, collectivization during the Maoist era was completely different from individualization during the Deng Xiaoping era. The former was to increase productivity through collective production and collaboration, while the latter was to boost productivity by allowing peasants to carry out production individually and independently. It was clear that the two modes of production were vastly different.
In terms of ownership system, public ownership in the Maoist era was also greatly different from private ownership in the Deng Xiaoping era. During the Maoist era, Mao deemed that private ownership財產私有制 would contribute to the rise of the bourgeoisie and work against developing a socialist economy with common prosperity, thus striving to eliminate private ownership. For example, in the First Five-year Plan, large enterprises and railways were nationalized國有化 and the unified purchase and marketing system統購統銷制度 was implemented in 1953 to eliminate market economy through state monopoly of purchasing and marketing. During the Great Leap Forward movement, public ownership was completely achieved as the People’s Communes人民公社 took all means of production into collective ownership. In contrast, Deng supported private ownership. He introduced market economy to China and allowed the Chinese people to possess private property. For example, farmers were allowed to retain surplus production after fulfilling the state procurement quota obligations under the Household Responsibility System家庭聯產承包制, and state-owned enterprises became independent and self-financially with the introduction of responsibility system責任制 and share system股份制, which allowed owners to get their share of the profits. In comparison, in terms of ownership system, Mao adopted public ownership to create an economy with equality, while Deng chose to allow private ownership with a view to stimulating productivity and promoting economic development. Their approaches were therefore very different in this aspect.
In terms of regional layout of reforms, the two eras also differed considerably since nationwide reforms were adopted in the Maoist era while region-specific reforms were implemented in stages in the Deng Xiaoping era. In order to raise people’s quality of life to the standards of a moderately prosperous and modernized country, Mao adopted a ‘one-size-fits-all全國均一發展’ approach to carry out reforms in a nationwide manner without adapting to regional differences. For instance, the Land Reform土地改革 of 1950-52 was a nationwide program of land confiscation from rich farmers and redistribution to poor and tenant peasants, and the agricultural Great Leap Forward農業大躍進 beginning in 1958 was also a reform at national level participated by people across the country. In contrast, the modernization efforts during the Deng Xiaoping era were region-specific and unfolded stage by stage. Dividing China into the eastern, central and western regions, Deng chose to develop the coastal eastern region first and hoped the success would drive the development of inland China. For instance, in 1980, special economic zones經濟特區 were established in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou and Xiamen to create an open trading environment; in 1992, the Open Door policy was extended to more than 30 cities along the Yangtze River or close to the border to develop Central China; and finally in 1997, the Great Western Development Strategy西部大開發was put forward to attract investment to Western China. In comparison, in terms of regional layout, Mao’s reforms were nationwide and implemented uniformly across the country to achieve common prosperity, while Deng’s reforms were region-specific and implemented step by step in Eastern, Central and Western China to achieve prosperity. There were therefore clear differences in the approaches adopted in the two eras.
Although the methods of economic development in the two eras differed a lot, they still shared one method in common and that was planned economy.
In terms of planned economy, it was adopted in both the Maoist era and the Deng Xiaoping era as a method of economic development. During the Maoist era, China had implemented several Five-year Plans since 1953. The First Five-year Plan (1953-57) was aimed at ‘one transformation and three changes一化三改造’, which referred to socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft industry and private industry and business. The Second Five-year Plan (1958-62) remained focused on heavy industry and at the same time promoted collectivization集體化 and public ownership公有化. Under Mao’s leadership, the CCP implemented planned economy for five years periods to regulate China’s short-term and medium-term economic development. Similarly, planned economy was also adopted during the Deng Xiaoping era. Rising to power during the Fifth Five-year Plan (1976-80), Deng implemented the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Five-year Plans before he passed away in 1997. In addition, despite the fact that Deng introduced principles of market economy, he adopted different means for macroeconomic controls宏觀調控 such as laws and regulations to make sure that China’s economic growth rate fell within the range expected by the central government and to avoid social issues caused by excessively rapid economic growth. For example, Zhu Rongji朱鎔基, then Governor of the People’s Bank of China, began the depreciation of renminbi from 6 per US dollar to 8 per US dollar in 1994 to facilitate the growth of China’s external trade. Upon comparison, from 1953 to 1997, planned economy had been adopted as a method of economic development during both Mao’s and Deng’s leadership except for the Readjustment period (1962-66). Under planned economy, the central government implemented macroeconomic controls to make sure that China’s economic development met the government’s expectations. It was clear that planned economy was one thing in common shared by the two eras.
In conclusion, planned economy was adopted during both the Maoist era and the Deng Xiaoping era, but overall speaking, the two eras differed significantly in terms of degree of openness, mode of production, ownership system and regional layout of reforms, so did the effectiveness of measures taken in the two eras—China lagged behind other countries in terms of economic growth under Mao’s rule but became an important emerging economy under Deng’s leadership. It could therefore be concluded that the methods of economic development adopted in the two eras differed greatly.
Σχόλια