A Comparative Research On Marx’s Institutional Change Theory And North’s

The new institutional economics introduced institutions into economic analysis, which is opposite to the western economics tradition, thought that the system was inside the process of economic development. But actually,100 years earlier than it appeared, Marx linked institutional analysis and the economical, shaped his historical materialism,a great social development theory, which expounds the discipline of human society development and points out the development trend of future society. Undoubtedly Douglass-C-North is the excellent representative of the new institutional economist, who shared the Nobel Prize for economics with Vogel in 1993 because of " the new study in economic history by using economic theory and quantitative methods to explain economic and institutional change". He had thought himself as "a convinced Marxist", later been beyond his.This paper thinks that there are differences in the category, historical background, the assumptions and methodology, the essence and origin of the institution, the function of the institution, the reason & path of institutional change, ownership (property) theory by making a comparative analysis on the two kinds of institutional change theory. And North did not go beyond Marx. Marx paid more attention to changes in the social basic economic institution as a holist. In this paper, we research the public ownership of future society theory by "returning back" to Marx, and draw a conclusion that it fully qualified the guiding ideology of the China socialist construction, and strengthen the confidence in institution and theory during the reform process.North’s Institutional theory, which pleads for capital and private ownership, has the essential difference between the Marx’s. But this does not cover its research of marginal adjustment and change on institution in the condition that "market transactions have become the most common economic relation form" (Lin Gang, 2000) The process of China’s reform is also institutional change, which is the marginal adjustments and changes under the condition that the basic point of the relations of production---"ownership" is not changed. North’s institutional change theory also works. His "path dependence" & institutional gradual change theory provides a good reference especially in dealing with the traditional culture being blocked the "open access social orders" and vested interests being blocked the reform process.Through the research, the author’s conclusion lies in the below. First of all, Marx’s social development theory still has strong vitality in the contemporary. It is more macroscopic, more comprehensive, more scientific in the critique of capitalism and in the prediction of future development of the whole human society than North’s, which keeps maintenance of private property and the capitalism. Historical materialism provides theoretical guidance for the Chinese socialist construction, while Marx’s theory of ownership in the future society provides theoretical basis for China’s reform on socialist ownership institution.Secondary, Chinese has a long history of traditional culture, regional range, large regional differences. We should break through the "path dependence" on "limited access social orders", and give consideration to interests of all classes and regions, and supply the condition of "impersonal exchange" for the sake of establishing Chinese socialism. His research has practical significance on these marginal adjustments and changes.Thirdly, the target mode of socialist market economy is to let the market play a decisive role in the allocation of resources. Share-holding institution on which based the property rights of labor is not only the realization of socialist public ownership, but also the transitional pattern to the future society ownership.