Yu Zhi: China needs to clarify the equal status of state -owned enterprises and enterprises, strengthen the execution of relevant rules, and implement structural re -adjustment to allow private enterprises to enter all industries.

Recently, China's ownership and state -owned enterprises have ushered in a major turning point after leading to huge internal and external disputes.On the one hand, after a series of discussions on the retirement of the country in the domestic public opinion field caused widespread concern, the state leaders and officials of the economic authorities came out intensively, emphasizing that while supporting the development of state -owned enterprises, supporting the development of private enterprises, and successively introduced support one after another support.Special measures for the development of private enterprises.

On the other hand, in response to the accusations of the distortion of Chinese state -owned enterprises and industrial subsidies and distorted market resource allocation in the international United States and Europe several times, the Chinese government proposed to treat state -owned enterprises with the principle of competitive neutrality.

The author believes that Chinese leaders and the government's internal and external statements of the issues of ownership and state -owned enterprises are positive. They have important positive effects on stabilizing the market confidence in the market and resolving foreign trade frictions.However, the Chinese government should also realize that the retirement of the Chinese country in China is closely linked to the state -owned enterprises that have implemented the state -owned enterprises in history, and they have become bigger and stronger;

Now you still need to face the inherent contradictions of these two reform ideas and the neutral principles of state -owned enterprise competition; in the future, you must clarify the equal status of state -owned enterprises and private enterprises, strengthen the execution of relevant rules, and implement the structure and adjust.The industries that are related to the national economy and the lifeblood of the national economy are fair with state -owned enterprises, and promote the true realization of the principle of neutrality in competition.

1. History: Grasp the internal connection of the big and small, bigger and stronger and stronger with the retreat of the country and the people

In recent years, the phenomenon of national progress that China has appeared in China in recent years is closely related to the reform ideas that state -owned enterprises have implemented since the 1990s, and they have become more and stronger.

In the 1990s, many arguments in the reform of state -owned enterprise reforms were in the 1990s. Among them, the strongest influence was the view of the property rights.Its core cognition is: a clear property rights system can enable enterprise owners to have a strong motivation to supervise managers to improve management and improve corporate efficiency; in the nominal of state -owned enterprises, the whole people (ultimate owners) owned, the state and the government (direct owner)All;

However, in fact, the whole people lack the motivation for supervision (the interests are not strong) and the ability to supervise (restricted by the political system), which leads to the lack of supervision motivation for enterprise management;The actual absence, weakening the supervision mechanism of managers, and even caused the improper collusion between government officials and corporate managers;

This is the root cause of low efficiency or even corruption of state -owned enterprises; the idea of fundamentally solving this problem is to realize the privateization of state -owned enterprises, realize clear property rights, clear power and responsibilities, and separate government enterprises. In the end, scientific management and efficiency are improved.

The cognition of property rights was actually recognized by the government at the time.However, based on ideological considerations, the government has not made public and clearly implemented a private strategy for all state -owned enterprises.Grasp the big), and gradually withdraw from general competitive industries, and hand over it to private (small).

The essence of this strategy is semi -private.

The privatization of the second half of this strategy, coupled with the loose policy of private enterprises, directly led to the overall trend of the development of Chinese private enterprises and the retreat of the people's advancement in nearly 20 years.This is the root cause of private enterprises' contribution of more than 50%, more than 60%of GDP, more than 70%of technological innovation, more than 80%of urban labor employment, more than 90%of new employment and the number of enterprises.

At the same time, grasping the large and small structural adjustment also laid a foreshadowing for the future of the national progress.This is because state -owned enterprises are retained or even strengthened (grabbing) relations.Competitive industries are generally downstream industries, that is, the ordinary manufacturing industry.

Of course, the structural adjustment of the small and small is not very thorough.In many upstream and downstream industries, state -owned enterprises and private enterprises are still very common.

The monopoly position of state -owned enterprises in the upstream industry enables them to set up monopoly high prices for downstream enterprises and take them.This leads to the low efficiency of state-owned enterprises (low input-input ratio) with high benefits (high income and profit) on the one hand. On the other handThe people retreated to the seeds.Mainland scholars Wang Yong and Chen Gong have pointed out this.

And the deputy prime minister of the Chinese government, Liu He believes that in the upstream and downstream pattern of state -owned enterprises, the relationship between the two is division of labor cooperation, and there is no retirement of the country and the people, which does not meet the facts.

In recent years, the ideas of state -owned enterprise reform have changed significantly, and from the large -scale change to bigger and stronger.On the one hand, the end of the state -owned enterprise and the expansion of private enterprises, on the other hand, it means that the government has comprehensively strengthened the biased support for state -owned enterprises, which directly led to the retreat of the country.

Based on this new idea, the government has more and more support measures for state -owned enterprises, including land, funds, intermediate products, etc., which has caused state -owned enterprises' unfair competition in private enterprises.At the same time, the government's various control measures and reform costs of the economy are mostly borne by private enterprises.Supply -side reforms, deleveraging, etc., resulting in a large amount of efficient private enterprises being cut off, or low -efficiency state -owned enterprises merged.

The reform of the mixed ownership of state -owned enterprises, which was originally expected to participate in the reform of the management of state -owned enterprises for private capital, has actually become a measure for state -owned capital to control private capital.All of this has led to the actual retirement of the country.

In summary, the structural adjustment of state -owned enterprises grasping large and small is actually a double -edged sword: it has not only led to the early period of the country's retreat, but also laid seeds for the later period of the national progress.In recent years, the idea of being bigger and stronger in state -owned enterprises has directly led to the consequences of the retreat of the country and the people.

2. Reality: Grasp the inherent contradictions that are large, bigger, stronger, and competitive.

The Chinese government stated that it is positive that the principle of neutrality of state -owned enterprise competition is positive.But it should also be seen that this principle has inherent contradictions with state -owned enterprises to grasp the size of small and bigger, bigger and stronger guiding ideology.

First of all, how can state -owned enterprises grasping large and small structural adjustments that have led state -owned enterprises in the upstream industries.This artificial monopoly advantage will not only harm the interests of a small amount of private enterprises in the upstream, but also cause upstream state -owned enterprises to squeeze the interests of private enterprises through high prices. It is difficult to truly realize the equal competition of state -owned enterprises and private enterprises, and it is difficult to truly achieve the neutral competition of state -owned enterprises.

Secondly, if state -owned enterprises want to be bigger and stronger, should they rely on their actual competitiveness, or rely on government support?If you rely on your actual competitiveness, you will naturally become bigger and stronger, then you don't need to implement it as a policy policy.If it is used as a policy policy, it means special support for state -owned enterprises, so as to violate the principle of competitive neutrality.

Again, if state -owned enterprises want to be bigger and stronger, should private enterprises be bigger and stronger?If not, will private enterprises a certain scale, will it be restricted, knocking or even public due to the status of state -owned enterprises and even other ideological considerations?

This is the real reason why many private entrepreneurs worry, panic and even running, and do not meet the principles of competitive neutrality.

Finally, if private enterprises can also be bigger and stronger, should the government's support for state -owned enterprises also apply to private enterprises?If it can be applied, there is no need for the government to introduce special support measures for private enterprises.

If it is not applicable, even if there are special support measures for private enterprises, there may be no discounts enjoyed by state -owned enterprises. State -owned enterprises will not be eliminated as the status of state -owned children and private enterprises as national adoptions.Really realized.

In short, on the one hand, on the one hand, it rely on government support to form upstream monopoly, or even become bigger and stronger, and on the other hand, it will be restricted, knocking or even public after being worried that it will be restricted and knocked or even public after being worried about being bigger and stronger.The principle of neutrality of state -owned enterprises and state -owned enterprises is difficult to realize, and it is difficult for the retirement of the people to enter and the people to retire.

3. Future: Competitive neutral and structured adjustment parallel

First of all, in order to promote the realization of the principles of competitive neutrality, it is necessary to adjust the ideas of reform and clarify the equal status of state -owned enterprises and private enterprises in the national economy.The core of the principle of competitive neutrality is the equality of various ownership enterprises.

The state should not give priority to the special status of which type of enterprise, and should not respond to special support or restrictions on certain types of enterprises. Instead, we should take equal measures (including support measures and restrictions) of two types of enterprises to make them equally in the market in the marketCompetition and survival of the fittest.

Secondly, to ensure the operability of competitive neutral principles, the key is to strengthen the corresponding rules and ensure that it can be supervised and implemented.Chapter 17, the US -led Cross -Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), has refined this principle, which may become the basis for the US -Europe and Japan to propose the rules of state -owned enterprises in the WTO framework in the future.China should take this as a reference to participate in international negotiations and jointly establish relevant rules.

The core of the relevant rules should be: Only when state -owned enterprises provide public products, can they follow government instructions and obtain government support, and this is not allowed in general business behavior; if this is violated, it will cause private enterprises and foreign companies to be treated unfairly.Instead of damage, private enterprises can initiate lawsuits in relevant domestic institutions. Foreign enterprises can initiate lawsuits through their government on WTO to ensure the execution of rules.

Again, in order to better realize the principle of competitive neutrality, structures must be adjusted to allow private enterprises to enter all fields and compete with state -owned enterprises fairly.The core is to break through the country's industry that should control the industries of the country and the lifeblood of the national economy and the lifeblood of the national economy, allowing private enterprises to enter these industries and compete with state -owned enterprises equal competition.

It should be seen that industries that are related to the national economy and the lifeblood of the national economy are a vague concept, and it is difficult to accurately define it.The upstream industry provides products for downstream enterprises, although it is related to the lifeblood of national economy, people's livelihood and national economy; but downstream industries provide people with direct daily consumer goods, which is also related to the lifeblood of national economy and people's livelihood and national economic life.Therefore, this concept itself is unscientific.

Leaving aside the fuzzy issue of concepts, the state must master the various reasons that are related to the industries that are related to the national economy and people's livelihood and the lifeblood of the national economy.Some people think that the purpose of ensuring that the state to control these industries is to ensure that they do not harm people's interests.However, in fact, state -owned enterprises are likely to cause monopoly, and because the government itself is an executive party, it is difficult to correct their own monopoly behaviors, and it is more likely to harm the interests of the people.

In private, it can better promote competition, and it is easy to correct it through the government's antitrust law enforcement when it produces monopoly, and it is easier to protect the interests of the people.It is also believed that the purpose of ensuring that the country's control of enterprises in these industries is to ensure that they realize national strategic intentions in special periods (such as wars).This can be achieved through special legislation without having to be achieved by permanent state -owned (at the cost of huge efficiency loss).

From a practical point of view, the practice of developed countries in Europe and the United States in the last century has proven the inefficiency of state -owned system.This is also the root of the wave of privateization since the 1980s.In the developed countries in Europe and the United States, there are very few state -owned enterprises. Even the industries such as the military industry in the military industry have liberalized state -owned monopoly, mainly private, and the government has armed forces through the purchase of private enterprises.

In other industries such as minerals, energy, transportation, information, etc.As a result, it not only guarantees high efficiency and high -quality, and does not cause any harm to the interests of the country and the people.

The experience of developed countries is worth learning from China.In the end, the reform of Chinese state -owned enterprises still need to follow the path of property rights reform.However, based on ideological restrictions, at this stage, it is less likely to implement direct and privateization of existing state -owned enterprises related to the national economy and people's livelihood and the lifeblood of the national economy.It should focus on the scope of expanding incremental reform, allow private enterprises to enter these industries freely, compete freely with state -owned enterprises, and to set up various restrictions.

Only in this way can we truly realize the principle of competitive neutrality.

(Note: The author Yu Zhi is a professor of economics at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. This article only represents the author's personal point of view.