當前中國的政體類型為何？在非民主政體的分類裡，中國的位置在那 裡？在政治、經濟和社會領域，中國表現出那些整體的政權特性？相較於毛 澤東時期，那些特性出現變化、那些則延續下來？本文將以Juan Linz 和 Alfred Stepan 的分類為基礎，在不捨棄原始分類中任何一個分類標準的前提 下，修正成一個結合政治、經濟和社會領域的分析框架。接著，再根據這個 分析框架帶入相應的研究議題，透過大量的二手文獻，歸納整理出對當前中 國政體性質的總體評估。 藉由評析近150 筆專書、文章、專章等文獻，本文主張當前中國揉合了 前蘇東共黨國家之後極權特性（政治、社會領域）及台灣威權統治時期之典 型威權特性（經濟領域）。因此，在非民主政體分類的概念系譜當中，中國 既非完全的後極權主義，也不是1970~1980 年代典型威權主義的再現，而是 同時混合兩者核心特徵的非民主政體，表現出「多種類型的威權主義」。這 個現象表示在脫離毛澤東統治的過程中，中國在「政經社」三個領域出現不 同的偏離幅度，即在政治、社會領域的偏離幅度較小，而在經濟領域的偏離 幅度較大。 本文的研究發現提供三個研究議程。第一、未來學界應該探討是什麼因 素造成中國政體出現混合特性？執政黨又是如何成為揉合這種特性的重要機 制？第二、中國政體的混合性質可以為非民主政體的分類帶來重要啟示，學 界應該重視長期被忽略的經濟因素對政體分類可能的影響力。第三、未來學 界應該透過對少量個案的比較研究，一方面給予後極權主義明確的定義，另 一方面釐清後極權主義及典型威權主義之間的概念邊界。

What is China’s current regime type? To answer this question, this paper adopted and revised the classification purposed by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan as the analytical framework. This paper then reviewed literatures according to this revised framework, in which the paper separated it into political, economic, and societal spheres with their corresponding indicators. By reviewing nearly 150 works (including books, journal papers, and book chapters), this paper concluded that in the political and societal spheres, China is close to the former communist states in the Post-Stalin USSR (labeled as post-totalitarianism); while in the economic sphere China shares a number of similarities with authoritarian Taiwan. Thus, China is neither a post-totalitarian regime, nor a resurgence of classical authoritarianism that prevailingly existed in the 1970-1980s. Instead, China combines both posttotalitarian and classical authoritarian characteristics, dubbed as “varieties of authoritarianism”. Three research agendas, according to the finding, merit further attention. First, students of Chinese politics should examine the factors that not only led to the hybrid features of the Chinese regime, but how could China, up to a point, successfully mix them? Second, economic factors should have more effects on the classification of non-democracies. Third, for a clear-cut definition and conceptual boundary of post-totalitarianism, scholars need to conduct more small-n analyses.