<P>《全球化及其不满》出版，各式书评劈天盖地而来，韦森、梁小民之流又开始无关痛痒地呻吟开了。</P>
<P>俺正好翻到台湾出的英文期刊《Issues and Studies》2003年卷组织的一次美-台两地著名经济学家关于中国改革成功经验探源的学术争鸣。参与方一位是台湾政治学家，中央研究院和国立台湾大学的吴玉山教授，主要研究比较政治经济转型；另一位是加州戴维斯分校的胡永泰教授，是转轨经济学的权威，俺跟他打过照面，印象中好像是马来西亚人，但是中文说得很溜。双方你来我往共写了三篇文章，因为针锋相对，所以看起来非常过瘾。</P>
<P>非常可惜的是，发起争论的吴玉山的第一篇文章找不到原文，只有摘要，贴在这里，但不影响我们了解论战的全貌：</P>
<P><B>Issues &amp; Studies 38, no.4/39, no.1 (December 2002/March 2003): 93-138.</B></P>
<P><B></B>Chinese Economic Reform in a Comparative Perspective: Asia vs. Europe</P>
<P><I>YU-SHAN WU</I></P>
<P><I></I>This article views China's economic reform in a comparative perspective. It sets out with the significant phenomenon of China's rise and Russia's fall in the 1990s. The literature is reviewed. Two main approaches are identified: the non-institutional and the institutional, with the latter holding sway. Culture, stage of economic development, international environment, and pre-reform system are the four non-institutional factors; all are found wanting in terms of explaining the performance difference between Asian and European transition economies. The institutional factors are reform philosophy, speed of reform, property rights restructuring, and role of the state-the last two of which constitute an effective analytical framework. It is argued that China's de facto privatization and active developmental state have proven more effective than Russia's de jure privatization and weak democracy in promoting growth and achieving stability. China and Russia are treated as representing two modes of exit from state socialism and two distinct development patterns. The duel between the two harks back to the competition between East Asia's capitalist developmental model and the West's neoclassic economics. China's better transition performance proves the effectiveness of the East Asian model.</P>