美国学派

维基百科,自由的百科全书

美国学派(英语:American School),可直接称为国民体系国家体系(英语:National System),指的是一种在政治、政策和哲学上有紧密连接的经济理论,主要受联邦党国家共和党辉格党和早期共和党推行。在宏观经济学看来,美国学派主导了自美国内战到20世纪中叶美国的经济政策[1][2][3][4][5][6]。目前这种经济学已经在美国本土消失,被自由贸易经济学所代替,仅作为一种理论而在大学中研究,

定义[编辑]

美国学派的优势是能统一美国政府在政治政策哲学这方面的思维,在做出决策时快速有效。该政策从1790年开始一直存在到1970年为止,在实际实施的细节上有松有紧,有极大的灵活运用余地。历史学迈克尔·林德(Michael Lind)将其描述为一种连贯的应用经济哲学,与其他经济思想具有逻辑和概念关系[7]

美国内战时期到20世纪中叶,美国一直采用宏观经济学作为国家政策的评判标准。这不是一日而就,而是与重商主义密切相关,并且和欧洲的古典经济学完全相反。美国式的经济学派可以包括以下三个核心政策:

  • 通过有选择的高关税(尤其是1861—1932)或补贴(尤其是1932—1970)来保护国内工商业
  • 国家投资建设基础设施(主要是道路交通等)
  • 国家银行资助有生产力的企业成长[8][9][10][11]
  • 美国学派的关键要素是由约翰·昆西·亚当斯和他的国家共和党、亨利·克莱和辉格党以及亚伯拉罕·林肯通过早期接受、实施和维护这种经济制度的共和党推动的[12]

美国学派的关键内容是约翰·昆西·亚当斯及其国家共和党亨利·克莱辉格党以及亚伯拉罕·林肯通过早期共和党推动的,该党拥护、实施和维持了这一经济体系。[13]

在此时期,美国成长为世界上最大的经济体,在1880年代超过了大英帝国[14]

历史[编辑]

起源[编辑]

亚历山大·汉密尔顿的思想和提交给国会的三份报告构成了美国学派的哲学基础

美国经济学派代表了亚历山大·汉密尔顿的遗产,他在他的《制造业报告》中指出,美国只有在所有必要的经济产品上都能够自给自足,才能完全独立。汉密尔顿将这种经济体系部分地植根于科尔伯特的法国伊丽莎白一世英国的相继政权,同时拒绝重商主义的更严厉方面,例如为市场寻求殖民地。正如后来被称为美国经济制度之父的参议员亨利克莱所定义的那样由于他的慷慨激昂的支持,美国制度将把国家从北到南、从东到西、从城市到农民统一起来[15]

弗兰克·布尔金 (Frank Bourgin) 1989年对制宪会议的研究表明,开国元勋有意让政府直接参与经济[16]。汉密尔顿最有力地阐述的目标是确保来之不易的政治独立不会因在经济财政上依赖欧洲的列强和君主而丧失。建立一个能够促进科学、发明、工业和商业的强大中央政府,被视为促进普遍福利和使美国经济强大到足以让他们决定自己命运的重要手段。

杰斐逊和麦迪逊强烈反对汉密尔顿的计划,但由于1807年12月根据《禁止往来法案》开始的禁运和1812年对英国的战争的紧急情况,被迫实施该计划[17]

联邦政府在南北战争之前的时期实施的许多项目为美国学派奠定了基础。这些计划包括1802年专利局的成立、1807年海岸和大地测量局的成立以及1824年河流和港口法案制定的改善河流和港口航运的其他措施。

其他发展包括各种陆军远征西部,从1804年刘易斯和克拉克的探索军团开始,一直持续到1870年代(例如,参见史蒂芬·哈里曼·朗少校和约翰·C·弗里蒙特少将的职业生涯),几乎总是在来自陆军地形工程兵团的一名军官的指示,并为随后的陆路开拓者提供了重要信息(例如,参见伦道夫· B·马西准将的职业生涯),陆军工程师军官的任务是协助或指导早期铁路和运河的勘测和建设,以及美国第一银行的建立和美国第二银行以及各种保护主义措施,例如1828年的关税。

主要的支持者是经济学家弗里德里希·李斯特(Friedrich List,1789-1846年)和亨利·凯里(Henry Carey,1793-1879年)。李斯特19世纪德国美国主要相信的经济学家,他将其称为“国家制度”,并在他的《国家政治经济学制度》一书中进一步发展。凯里在他的同名著作中将此称为利益的和谐,劳资之间的和谐,以及农业制造业商人之间的和谐。

“美国体系”这个名称是由克莱创造的,作为一个经济学派中的显学,以区别于当时其它国家的经济学理论,尤其是亚当·斯密在其著作《国富论》中所代表的“英国体系” [18]

中央政策,将美国经济学立法化[编辑]

参议员亨利克莱辉格党领袖和美国经济学的倡导者

美国学派包括三个主要政策要点:

  1. 支持产业:提倡保护主义,反对自由贸易——特别是保护本国的“新生产业”,以避免和成熟的国外进口产品竞争。示例:《1789年关税法》、《1816年关税法》和《莫里尔关税法》。
  2. 创建有形基础设施:政府资助内部改善以加速商业和发展工业。这涉及对私营基础设施的监管,以确保其满足国家的需求。示例:Cumberland Road和Union Pacific Railroad。
  3. 建立金融基础设施:政府赞助国家银行发行货币并鼓励商业。这涉及使用主权权力来监管信贷以鼓励经济发展并阻止投机。示例:美国第一银行美国第二银行国家银行法[19]

美国著名经济学家和亚伯拉罕·林肯的顾问亨利·C·凯里在他的著作《利益的和谐》中展示了美国学派经济哲学的另外两个要点,将其与亚当·斯密卡尔·马克思的体系区分开来:

  1. 政府自己投钱补贴,不让国民承担损失:建立统一的、共同的经济学课程,并且嵌入目前世界最先进的科学理论、人权理论和道德教育,并通过赠款和补贴投资于创造性研究。
  2. 拒绝阶级斗争:同时支持业主工人农民制造商,不在阶级上偏袒某方,只看个人矛盾,不擅自代表某个阶级而发明矛盾,创造出富裕阶级工人阶级之间的“平等的利益双赢”[20]

凯里在他的《平等的利益双赢》一书中的一段话中谈到了“美国经济体系”和“英国经济体系”之间的区别:

现在有英美两个经济系统站在世界的面前;……英国人希望增加商业的必要性,而美国人更喜欢维护商业的权力。英国人希望在印度教徒维持他们在工作中的低工资,并使世界其他国家都下降到印度人的这种工作水平;而美国人是向全世界宣传,要让全人类提高到我们美国的工作水平。英国人一定要等到赤贫战乱人口减少革命出现后才会立法拯救弱势;而美国人是鼓励国民积极的增加财富、舒适、智慧、文明,并明确说了这些努力必须合法。英国人期待着把自己的殖民地越扩越大;而美国人顶多用经济主导他国。英国采用的是说英语的皇室型经济;而美国采用的是接受各种语言文化的美国制度,我有自信,因为美国是世界上唯一一个敢把“提高全人类幸福度、让所有人平权”写入经济理论中的国家[19]

1830年开始,美国政府发行法定纸币也与美国学派有关。该政策的根源可以追溯到美国殖民地时代,当时一种称为殖民地代币的货币是交换媒介。早在1837年,约翰·C·卡尔霍恩 (John C. Calhoun)就呼吁由政府发行和控制无债务货币。这样的政策会减少银行的利润,作为回应,银行机构支持英国学派,在整个1800年拥护金本位制

美国南北战争中,硬币短缺导致发行了这种法定货币,称为美国纸币或“美元”。1865年3月南北战争即将结束时,林肯的经济顾问亨利·C·凯里 (Henry C. Carey)发表了一系列致众议院议长的信件,题为“不与英格兰作战而战胜英格兰的方法”。凯里呼吁即使在战后也要继续实行美元政策,同时还将银行的准备金率提高到50%[20]。这将使美国能够独立于外国资本(主要是英国黄金)发展其经济。凯里写道:

最严重的情况也不过是我们会禁止发行美国票据而已……我们对美国日益强大的“增加型经济活动”负有什么责任?这个责任就是创造一个对“美元”的稳定环境。而我们的敌人现在正在努力摧毁,却永远做不到的是什么?是美元霸权。让我们相信美利坚合众国这个伟大的国家,沿着最好最平等的方向继续前进吧,我们将看到……不只是联邦的重建,更是南方奴隶制的彻底瓦解。

因为凯里的计划没有实现,也因为林肯在下个月被暗杀,新总统安德鲁约翰逊选择支持金本位制。到1879年,美国终于完全恢复了金本位制,随即美元霸权就得到确立。

20世纪后,美国经济学的结束[编辑]

亚伯拉罕·林肯 (Abraham Lincoln)是他自己定义的“老亨利·克莱关税辉格党”,在1861年1865年担任总统期间,他将美国学派的大部分政策转化为实体的法律

随着美国进入20世纪,美国学派中的“美国优先、过度的爱国主义、对其他国家的排挤[21]贸易保护”的特质得到了淡化,而“多边关系[22]、打压特定敌国”的特质得到了强化。由于再也没有一个地球国家能挑战美国的经济权威,所以“美国经济学”一词也可仅仅指采用过类似制度的所有经济政策,对其无限的美化和抹黑则越来越少[23][24][15][25]

这种情况一直持续到1913年,当时伍德罗·威尔逊 (Woodrow Wilson)政府启动了他的新自由政策,以联邦储备系统取代国家银行系统,并通过安德伍德关税将关税降至仅收入水平。

1920年沃伦·G·哈定 (Warren G. Harding)和共和党的当选代表了通过恢复高关税而部分回归美国学派。随后,赫伯特·胡佛总统通过签署《斯姆特-霍利关税法》对1929年金融危机以及随后的银行倒闭和失业作出回应,进一步实施了回归,一些经济学家认为该法案加深了大萧条,而其他人则不同意[26]

新政通过工程进度管理局 (WPA) 的众多公共工程项目,以及田纳西流域管理局 (TVA) 的创建继续改善基础设施;对美联储的银行体系进行大规模改革,同时以各种方式投资于工业以刺激生产和控制投机;但放弃了保护性关税,同时通过互惠接受适度的关税保护,基于收入的正常关税的20-30%,选择补贴工业作为替代。第二次世界大战结束时,美国在几乎没有竞争的情况下在制造业中占据主导地位,自由贸易时代已经开始[27]

1973年理查德·尼克松总统领导下的“肯尼迪”回合结束,他将美国关税降至历史最低点,新政对互惠和补贴的定位结束,这使美国进一步走向“彻底的自由市场时代”,并删除了美国政府中许多符合美国经济学的政策[28][29]

参考资料[编辑]

  1. ^ "Second Bank of the United States" U-S-History.com页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆).
  2. ^ "Republican Party Platform of 1860" presidency.ucsb.edu
  3. ^ "Republican Party Platform of 1856" presidency.ucsb.edu.
  4. ^ Pacific Railway Act (1862) ourdocuments.gov页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆).
  5. ^ "History of U.S. Banking" SCU.edu 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-12-04..
  6. ^ ANDREWS, E. Benjamin, p. 180 of Scribner's Magazine Volume 18 #1 (January–June 1896); "A History of the Last Quarter-Century".
  7. ^ "Free Trade Fallacy" New America.
  8. ^ Lind, Michael: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865–1932, by presiding over the industrialization of the United States, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "... Hamiltonian side ... the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." — "Hamilton's Republic" Introduction pp. xiv–xv. Free Press, Simon & Schuster: 1997. ISBN 0-684-83160-0.
  9. ^ Lind, Michael: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism ... The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods ... The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." — "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pp. 229–30. Free Press, Simon & Schuster: 1997. ISBN 0-684-83160-0.
  10. ^ Richardson, Heather Cox: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded ... "Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes ... for ordinary expenses of Government." — "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4, "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pp. 136–37. President and Fellows of Harvard College: 1997. ISBN 0-674-36213-6.
  11. ^ Boritt, Gabor S: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leonard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate variety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" — "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14, "The Whig in the White House" pp. 196–97. Memphis State University Press: 1994. ISBN 0-87870-043-9.
  12. ^ Howe, Daniel Walker "The policies of tariff protection, federally sponsored internal improvements, and national banking that were later to be known as the “American System” took coherent shape in the years between 1816 and 1828 and were coherent with the “national” wing of the Republican party." - "The Political Culture of the American Whigs, pp. 48-49. University of Chicago Press, 1979. J.L.M. Curry, "Confederate States and Their Constitution", The Galaxy, New York, 1874 cornell.edu. 
  13. ^ Howe, Daniel Walker "The policies of tariff protection, federally sponsored internal improvements, and national banking that were later to be known as the “American System” took coherent shape in the years between 1816 and 1828 and were coherent with the “national” wing of the Republican party." - "The Political Culture of the American Whigs, pp. 48-49. University of Chicago Press, 1979. J.L.M. Curry, "Confederate States and Their Constitution", The Galaxy, New York, 1874 cornell.edu. 
  14. ^ Gill, William J. "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world." — "Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy", Chapter 6, "America becomes Number 1" pp. 39–49. Praeger Publishers: 1990. ISBN 0-275-93316-4.
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 George D. Prentice, "Life of Henry Clay", The North American Review, Boston Massachusetts, 1831. 
  16. ^ Bourgin, Frank. The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic需要免费注册. New York, NY: George Braziller Inc. 1989. ISBN 0-06-097296-3. 
  17. ^ Earle, Edward Mead: "It is one of the ironies of history that Hamilton's political opponents Jefferson and Madison did more than Hamilton himself to give effect to his protectionist and nationalist views of economic policy. The Embargo, which Jefferson initiated in December 1807, the Non-Intercourse Act, and the succeeding war with Great Britain, upon which Madison reluctantly embarked, had the practical result of closing virtually all avenues of foreign trade and making the United States dependent upon its own resources for manufactures and munitions of war. The industries which were born under the stress and necessity of the years 1808 to 1815 were the infants to which the nation gave protection in 1816 and in a succession of tariff acts thereafter.... Jefferson in January 1816 wrote an exceedingly bitter denunciation of those who cited his former free trade views as 'a stalking horse, to cover their disloyal propensities to keep us in eternal vassalage to a foreign and unfriendly people [the British].'" — Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, Chapter 6, "Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List: The Economic Foundations of Military Power", pp. 138–139. Princeton University Press: 1943, 1971. ISBN 0-691-01853-7.
  18. ^ cornell.edu. [需要完整来源]
  19. ^ 19.0 19.1 American System. The Reader's Companion to American History. hmco.org. [14 February 2006]. (原始内容存档于14 April 2004). 
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests
  21. ^ List, Friedrich. The National System of Political Economy. 1841. 
  22. ^ cornell.edu. 
  23. ^ cornell.edu. 
  24. ^ cornell.edu.
  25. ^ cornell.edu.
  26. ^ Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy (1990)
  27. ^ Lind, Michael: "Free Trade Fallacy" by Michael Lind, New America Foundation. "Like Britain, the U.S. protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out by the Second World War and the U.S. enjoyed a virtual monopoly in many manufacturing sectors." New America Foundation, – "Free Trade Fallacy" January 2003
  28. ^ Dr. Ravi Batra, "The Myth of Free Trade": "Unlike most of its trading partners, real wages in the United States have been tumbling since 1973, the first year of the country's switch to laissez-faire." (pp. 126–27) "Before 1973, the U.S. economy was more or less closed and self-reliant, so that efficiency gains in industry generated only a modest price fall, and real earnings soared for all Americans." (pp. 66–67) "Moreover, it turns out that 1973 was the first year in its entire history when the United States became an open economy with free trade." (p. 39)
  29. ^ Lind, Michael:"The revival of Europe and Japan by the 1970s eliminated these monopoly profits, and the support for free trade of industrial-state voters in the American midwest and northeast declined. Today, support for free-trade globalism in the U.S. comes chiefly from the commodity-exporting south and west and from U.S. multinationals which have moved their factories to low-wage countries like Mexico and China." New America Foundation, "Free Trade Fallacy" January 2003