“士农工商”较自由发展，作为帝制国家临民理政及管辖地主经济的政策模式之一，肇始于齐国四民“通货积财”，中经两汉的起落浮沉，又定型于晚唐两宋。它主要在晚唐到清的多数时段施行，又以晚唐两宋最为典型，“两税法”为其开辟道路，不抑兼并充任基本导向，实乃“唐宋变革”在临民理政及社会结构层面的成果表征与最终胜利。该模式的内涵精髓在于：兼容行政和经济手段，将身丁管控改为财税为主的调节掌控，不搞授田，不抑兼并，徭役及兵役基本消失，鼓励农商并重和藏富于民。四民较自由地致力本业，自前而后的贵贱等级排序及相应管制不复存在，士人、富民又构成政治、经济二支配势力。该模式较多祛除借重役滥税将“井疆耕耨之丁壮”抑为“国家农奴”之弊，较多祛除过度管制经济和妨害民营“造血”原动力之弊。这就为编民耕战模式寻找到了更为合理的发展出路，基本顺应百姓依附关系改善和地主经济及手工业商业发展趋势，较有利于生产力进步及新经济因素孕育。同时在皇权最高所有、土地兼并周期性危机、官僚“权力商品化”和官商榷卖勾结等四方面基本沿用编民耕战旧制，只能算是前者在新历史条件下的变通。

As one of the policy models of imperial China governing people and administering landlord economy, the weak free development of scholar, farmer, artisan and merchant started with “exchanging goods and accumulating wealth” in the State of Qi in the Warring States period, and finally formed in the period from late Tang to the Northern and Southern Song dynasties. This policy was mainly implemented in most times from late Tang to the Qing dynasty, and late Tang to the Northern and Southern Song dynasties is the most typical period: the “Two-tax law” made the way, and not restraining merge acted as the basic guide, which is actually the achievements and final victory of the “Tang-Song Transition” on governing people and social structure. The essence of the model lies in that incorporating both administrative means and economic means, changing identity control to regulation mainly on finance, no granting land, no restraint of merge, corvee and conscription disappeared basically, and encouraging to lay equal stress on agriculture and commerce as well as people acquiring wealth. The four people gained more freedom, and identity distinctions as well as corresponding controls no more existed, so scholars and rich people constructed two dominate forces on politics and economy. This model largely eliminated the disadvantages of changing ablebodied men into “national serfs” by heavy taxes and corvees, and of excessive control of economy and jeopardizing the motive power of private economy. It searched out a more rational way for the model of registering people for farming and warfare, improved people’s relationships of dependence, and suited the development tendency of landlord economy, handicraft industry, and commerce, which was beneficial to productivity growth and burgeon of new economic factors. Meanwhile, the four aspects (paramont ownership of imperial power, periodic crisis of land merge, “commercialization of power,” and collusion between government officials and businessmen) still followed the old system of registering people for farming and warfare. So it is more than certain adaptation under new historical conditions.