‘民族經濟’와 ‘割據經濟’ ― 남경국민정부 시기 省統制經濟의 문제화 ―

Abstract

This article pays attention to the debate on the controlled economy by provincial governments, which aims to analyze the contents of the debates and to clarify their contemporary context of 1930s. Intellectuals of the time basically derived the debate from the theoretical and practical ground of the theory of controlled economy in the same period, but the aftermath of the two came to be developed in a distinctive way. The distinction lay in the difference between the geopolitical level of the nation-state and that of the provinces when discussing the obligation of the time, particularly anti-Imperialism and anti-Feudalism. Whereas general discourse of the controlled economy presupposed the central government of the nation-state as a proper unit for administrative agency, the discourse on the controlled economy by provincial governments necessarily and significantly distant from the strong attachment to the nation-state. For provincial governments claiming the controlled economy was considered a good opportunity for possessing a leading authority to the construction of nation-state, and the pursuits also worked for the strengthening of provincial identity. <BR> Such composition of discourse brought about the trait of rivalry between centralization and decentralization. Either intended or not, it was attached in the discourse of controlled economy the context of locality versus center and that of rule-by-government versus rule-by-governments. The narrative of centralization defined the provincial governments’ claim of controlled economy as feudalistic separatist economy, in other words, disrupting the foundation of national economy and the true unification of China of overcoming semi-colonial condition and integrating the nation. However, the province-centered narrative claimed that the realization of controlled economy by provincial government would complement the central government, expand the authority and autonomy of provinces, and eventually contribute to the national economy.<BR> The trait or limitation of the debates on the controlled economy by provincial government lay in the fact that the issue of provincial autonomy was barely treated to the extent of reformation of political system or expansion of democracy and autonomy from the bottom. Intellectuals mostly did not took advantage of the legacy despite the recognition of the history in 1920s when the movements for inter-provincial autonomy stimulated the pursuit of decentralization. It primarily reveals the still-powerful entity of warlords, but it also tells the predominant narrative of nation-building in the 1930s so much so to dwarf the significance of the slogan, anti-Imperialism and anti-Feudalism. However, as seen in the lively construction of economy in Shanxi and Guangdong provinces in 1930s there existed some space for the provincial government more proper as the agency of the controlled economy, and there also existed some practical results that could be assessed for the realization of the anti-Imperialism and anti-Feudalism. It is likely to be the significant case of showing the aporia of the task of nation-building in the 1930s, the crossing and rivalry between centralization and decentralization of authority circumscribing the discourse of controlled economy by provincial government. Nevertheless of the overwhelming narrative of centralization, it is still worthwhile to rethink the meaning of the controlled economy of provincial government. We need to shed enough lights on the current of pursuing decentralization that had competed against it.