I. Introduction

Politics is an authoritative behavior of "distributing" private goods and "supplying" public goods in society. When engaging in these "distribution" and "supply" activities, the actor pursues his (or her) personal interests. Moreover, the direct object of political actors' profit is not nature (otherwise, this behavior can only be regarded as one of economic behaviors), but its class (. In order to deepen our understanding of politics, we should also classify politics according to the profound differences between different politics.

The most familiar classification is to divide politics into two categories (from the perspective of political system): democratic politics and authoritarian politics. The direct classification standard is the subject and number of decision-making (participation in choice/decision-making): the politics of one person or a few people making decisions is authoritarian politics; The politics in which most citizens participate in major decisions is democratic politics. Because the number of people involved in decision-making is intuitive, this classification standard has strong operability. However, it is difficult to directly reflect the essential difference of politics under a specific system. No wonder people have long divided politics into two types according to this standard. Most ancient thinkers disapprove of democratic politics, and there are still many people who defend certain kinds of dictatorship in contemporary times. It is more difficult for ordinary citizens to make value judgments about this. It is not enough to say that a country's politics in a certain era is democratic: we have to further distinguish whether it is restricted by property rights and other rights of citizens, that is, whether it is constitutional democracy (or liberal democracy) or mob democracy.

It is necessary for us to find a classification standard that can reflect the essential differences between different politics more deeply. All political behavior is the behavior of the actor seeking benefits from others. The difference lies in the way of obtaining benefits from others and the attitude towards the profit-making object: respect the profit-making object, trade with him voluntarily, or rob it on the contrary? According to the way political actors seek benefits from others, we can divide politics into two types: predatory politics and transactional politics (from the perspective of political behavior). The former refers to the politics in which actors plunder the interests of others, and the relationship between subjects is the relationship between plunder and plunder. The latter refers to the politics in which actors make profits by trading with others, in which the relationship between subjects is trading relationship. Buchanan, a Nobel laureate in economics, regards ideal politics as a complicated "exchange" or "transaction". Non-ideal politics is regarded as a kind of "predatory politics".

This paper focuses on this classification of political behavior. The second section introduces Buchanan's exposition on predatory politics and transactional politics, the third section discusses the meaning of these two concepts, the fourth section expounds the criteria for dividing predatory politics and transactional politics, the fifth section demonstrates the criteria for distinguishing predatory politics from transactional politics, and the sixth section discusses the significance of this division.

Second, Buchanan's exposition of predatory politics and transactional politics.

The economist Buchanan did not discuss the classification of politics in detail, nor did he analyze the average power of the two kinds of politics. In many works, he regards politics as an exchange process, not predatory politics. He said: "We are not interested in authoritarian government, no matter how it is organized; Our main concern is the government of democratic organizations ... ". However, he talked about predatory politics and politics in exchange. This is a very valuable view, which deserves the attention of political scholars.

Buchanan always thought that economics should study exchange science. He inherited the tradition of Adam Smith and focused on the origin, nature and system of "exchange". Buchanan roughly classified exchange: simple exchange and complex exchange. The latter is called the contract agreement process, which goes beyond the simple barter transaction between two people and two commodities. Economists don't have to limit their investigation to people's behavior in the market (buying and selling activities themselves). Using the method of exchange economics, economists can observe politics and political processes according to the exchange paradigm. As long as the collective behavior takes the individual decision-maker as the basic unit, and as long as this collective behavior is basically imagined to reflect the complex exchange or agreement among all members of an appropriate people's association, this behavior or behavior or choice can easily be included in the category of exchange economics. In "idealized politics" rather than politics in which tangible systems actually operate, "politics is a complex exchange process, which is completely similar to the market". Politics that meets the following conditions is idealized politics:

..... You can imagine a contract process in which there are many scattered people. Everyone has a set of valuable ownership (ownership of people and property) recognized by all others in this group. They agreed to establish a political society, and social institutions will be authorized to carry out the terms of the contract and other functions stipulated in the contract. ..... we all benefit from the kind of transaction that is completely close to the ideal market. Of course, this kind of political contract is a necessary prerequisite for establishing restrictive laws and systems. Without these laws and systems, the market process itself cannot operate.

As for "politics with visible institutional reality", the situation is:

..... Ownership is not respected ... In some political concepts, political entities and countries seem to have the right to claim all the values that their citizens nominally have, especially if all citizens are allowed to have an equal say in the final decision-making of state affairs in some way, people think this recognized requirement is "reasonable".

In Hobbes' anarchism, there is nothing "mine and yours"; There is neither morality nor law to punish the value I have the power to get from you. ..... In this concept, politics is not a complicated exchange process, even in the most idealized understanding.

Why is there such politics? Buchanan's explanation is that there is always tension between narrow short-term egoism and enlightened egoism (specifically, respecting the rights of other participants in interaction or exchange).

If ideal politics is regarded as a complex "exchange" or "transaction", how should non-ideal politics be understood? Buchanan thinks this is a kind of "plunder" and such politics is a kind of "predatory politics". We can infer that ideal politics can be called "politics in exchange".

Third, the meaning of the two concepts of "plunder" and "transaction"

The so-called "transaction" is the voluntary transfer of the right to future income streams with goods and services as the carrier. Commons, one of the representatives of American institutional economics, believes that the concept of "transaction" corresponds to the concept of "production" in previous economics. "Production" activity is the relationship between man and nature, and "transaction" activity is the relationship between people. The basic principle of transaction is voluntary transfer, the essence of transaction is right transfer, the purpose of transaction is to obtain the future income flow of both parties, and the realistic way of right transfer is the exchange of goods and services. In English/"class = kk > In English, exchange and transaction both mean "transaction". Generally speaking, the former is called exchange and the latter is called transaction. Exchange refers to the exchange without money as a medium of exchange and a measure of value. Transaction refers to the transfer of goods, services or rights between individuals or organizations through monetary media. The transaction discussed in this paper includes the above two aspects: exchange and transaction significance. As long as the exchange is voluntary, it is also a transaction. The exchange behavior of one party exerting pressure on the other party or coercing the other party by violence cannot be called a transaction. A successful transaction will not only improve the utility of both parties after the transaction is completed, but also both parties expect their utility to be improved after the transaction is completed before the transaction. Otherwise, the transaction cannot be carried out. Generally speaking, after the transaction, both sides gained more than lost, and the total social wealth increased.

Robbery is the opposite of trading. The characteristic of predatory behavior is to obtain valuable things from the plundered without the consent of the plundered; What the marauders get is what the marauders lose, and the total social wealth has not increased. In this paper, looting includes robbery, theft and exploitation. And the object of plunder is others-predators of the same kind. Because nature can't communicate with human beings, human beings regard themselves as the masters of nature, and human beings regard nature as their own possessions. It seems to be "plunder" for human beings to obtain prey (animals) and fruits (plants) from nature without the consent of nature: hunting is "plunder" for animals and gathering is "plunder" for plants. However, we believe that at this time we use it not in the original meaning of "plunder", but in its metaphorical meaning. The focus of this paper will be the way that human beings get survival resources from their companions.

Fourth, the criteria used to divide politics into predatory politics and transactional politics.

Are the motives of politicians selfish or altruistic? We made an assumption in advance: the motive of political man is to pursue the maximization of his own utility, which is no different from that of economic man. If we agree with this assumption, then the question we are going to discuss next is no longer the motivation of politicians, but should be: what methods do politicians take to maximize their effectiveness?

"The first premise of all human existence is the first premise of all history. This premise is that people must be able to live in order to' create history'. But in order to live, you need clothes, food, shelter and other things first. " All these biological resources come from nature after all. Anyone can only get these living resources from two channels. One is to obtain it directly from nature. One is to get it from others, who may get it directly from nature or others ... In this way, biological resources will eventually come from nature; Obtaining from others is actually indirectly obtained from nature; Nevertheless, for any particular person, obtaining from others can still be regarded as one of the channels to obtain living resources.

There are only two ways to obtain living resources and other resources from others: looting or trading. North talked about plunder. He said: "Since nomadic life gave way to agricultural settlement, people have found two ways to obtain products and services. One is to produce them, the other is to steal them from others. In the latter case, coercion is a means of redistribution of wealth and income. " "Stealing" here also requires "coercive" means, similar to robbery. North missed the way to trade. The complete classification of the methods of "obtaining products and services" should be: one is direct production; One is to get it from others. The latter includes two ways: one is trading; One is plunder.

We believe that when we classify politics according to the different ways in which politicians make profits, we can divide politics into predatory politics and transactional politics.

Verb (abbreviation of verb) is the standard to distinguish predatory politics from transactional politics.

The criteria for classification and grading can be the same or different. The latter can only be a standard that is convenient for empirical test and intuitive judgment; The former does not have to meet this requirement. For example, Aristotle put the purpose of the political system (is it to safeguard the public interests of the whole city-state, or only to safeguard the rulers' own interests? As a standard, firstly, political power is divided into two categories: "All political power that takes care of public interests is legal or authentic; And those regimes that only take care of the interests of the rulers are abnormal (deviations) of the wrong regime or the authentic regime. " The purpose of political power cannot be determined by intuition, so it can be used as a standard for classification, but it is not suitable for distinction. Aristotle further divided the authentic regime into three categories: monarchical regime, aristocratic regime, political regime and abnormal regime: tyrant regime, oligarchy regime and civilian regime. The standard for dividing the number of people with the highest sovereignty is convenient for intuitive judgment, so it is not only a standard for dividing, but also a standard for judging the government category.

The classification standard when politics is divided into predatory politics and transactional politics is the way for political subjects to make profits. People can feel this standard in their hearts, but it is difficult to visualize it with the naked eye. Therefore, this standard should not be used as a judgment standard. Because the word "plunder" has a derogatory meaning, we can speculate that once we agree to divide politics into predatory politics and transactional politics, predators may also describe their predatory behavior as transactional behavior. In this way, the above classification loses its meaning. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate a standard to distinguish between two different kinds of politics.

We can find the criterion from three premises: 1, politicians (including not only politicians and bureaucrats, but also ordinary citizens in the political field) are self-interested; 2. If there are not enough constraints, politicians and bureaucrats will gain more benefits through plunder than through trading. 3, it is difficult for ordinary citizens with egoism to form a collective behavior to oppose the plunder done by politicians and bureaucrats.

From the premises 1 and 2:

Inference 1: Whenever possible, politicians and bureaucrats will profit by predatory means.

Inference 2: If a politician is restrained strongly enough, it is difficult for him to profit from plunder, and it is more likely to profit from trading.

Can be obtained from premise 3:

Inference 3: Ordinary citizens cannot directly restrain one (or a group of) politicians and bureaucrats, but only another (or a group of) politicians and bureaucrats. Their competition may be peaceful or non-peaceful. If it is a non-peaceful way, then its "referee" can only be produced from the inside, and it can only be the comparative advantage of "gun barrel" (violence). After each match, the winner will take the following actions: (1), to fight violence with violence, to guard against the original and future opponents, and to consolidate power; (2) plundering ordinary citizens. If the way of competition between them is peaceful, then the referee can't be any of them, and it can't be produced internally; In reality, all ordinary citizens may be accepted by both parties, and the way of ruling is to vote: the party with the most votes wins. Self-interested citizens will only vote for politicians who can maximize the effectiveness of citizens. We can see that in this way, the relationship between politicians and citizens has become a trading relationship. Harold demsetz said:

Politicians' campaign behavior can be analyzed under the framework of complete or incomplete political democracy. In a complete political democracy, his election depends only on his meeting the wishes of most voters in his constituency, but in an incomplete political democracy, the degree of this dependence is not clear. The possibility of being elected still depends on the interests of most people, but people are not familiar with their own interests and will not take the initiative to seek them. Nevertheless, the election victory still depends on how much manpower and financial resources the candidate or his party has invested. These resources are used to convince voters in their constituency that his and his legitimate interests are their interests.

We can say that in reality, the criterion for judging whether a certain politics is transactional is whether there is competitive voting.

Sixth, the significance of this classification.

1. Divides politics into predatory politics and transactional politics, revealing the profound differences of politics in reality, especially the influence of politics on economic life.

People can classify human politics according to different standards. As long as there is no logical error, there is no right or wrong. However, at the same time, we should also understand that different classifications have their own advantages and disadvantages. What kind of classification is a good classification? The classification that captures the deepest and most essential differences between different political types is the best classification. The motives of different types of political behavior are the same, and it is difficult for us to point out the differences. However, the ways they took were quite different: one was plunder and the other was trading. Traders treat people equally and respect the property rights of others; Predators regard the plundered as a tool, don't respect other people's property rights, and rob other people's property.

Different politics have different effects on economic life. When understanding the performance of an economy, there is an indisputable internal relationship between politics and economy. In transaction politics, the game between the two parties is a game of positive sum, that is, positive sum game; That is to say, because the utility of both parties has increased after the transaction, the total wealth of society has increased, and the economy of society has also increased. In predatory politics, the sum of games between predators and prey is relatively small, even zero or negative; In other words, predatory politics only transfers wealth from the plundered to the plunderers, and the total wealth of society has little or no increase, and sometimes it may be reduced because the production enthusiasm of the plundered is hit. Douglass C. North, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics1993 found that if the "ruler" reduces the transaction cost as much as possible by providing basic rules, the social output will reach the maximum, that is, the social economy will prosper; If the rulers use the comparative advantage of violence to define and implement a set of property rights that can maximize their rents, then the country's economy will stagnate. Politics in the former case is a kind of transaction politics. The basic service provided by rulers is to define and implement property rights, and the harvest will be taxes. Politics in the latter case is a kind of predatory politics.

2. Politics is divided into predatory politics and transactional politics, which reflects the degree of civilization of the two types of politics: transactional politics is more civilized than predatory politics. The value of this classification is very clear and definite. It implies that people must transform predatory politics into transactional politics as soon as possible.