影響政治經濟發展的因素，往往游移在「市場」與「國家」這道光譜上。依循文獻的歷史脈絡，本文將其大略分為市場典範、國家典範、以及鑲嵌典範三大類型。中國的經濟改革濫觴於鄧小平的改革開放路線，迄今已取得不小的成就。惟中外知識界對於中國經改的核心動力究竟是國家帶動還是市場主導，爭辯仍是方興未艾。基於中國政治體制的特殊性，即便是邁向市場化的過程中，也還繼續引發出「左」、「右」路線的辯論。在此辯論中，中國的國家機器所將扮演的角色為何，各界不僅莫衷一是，也牽動著中國下一波的政經體制改革。本文以中國改革實踐為個案，初步整理分類中國知識界對經改方向的解釋爭論，並與既有的政治經濟學典範相比較。換言之，本文旨在檢視源自西方的既存政治經濟學典範，對於現實的中國經改，是否仍保有其解釋力？作者們初步發現，政治經濟學典範的發展是從市場步向國家，但中國實踐卻是「錯序」而行。因此，中國的政經實踐似乎導致既存典範的「局部危機」，但還不足以斷定為政治經濟學的典範轉移。

“State” and “Market” are viewed two driving factors propelled economic and political development in various countries and regimes. Based on a preliminary categorization over the “state vs. society” dimension, literature can be featured as “pro-state”, “pro-market” and those stress “embededness”. In a sense, the three different branches constitute three “paradigms”, which have basically informed most studies on comparative political economy and post-communism reform. This research examines the latest Chinese literature by mainland China’s academics regarding the causes of China’s impressive economic reform since early 1980s. It then compares the Chinese perspectives with the established three paradigms in the field of political economy. It finds out that the establish literature evolved along the path from “pro-market” to “pro-state”, as “embededness” emerged lately. However, the Chinese literature tells an opposite story: from “pro-state” to “pro-market”. This paradox seems implying a “crisis” in the mainstream political economy though. Nevertheless a “paradigm shift” in the field is still too immature to be confirmed.