偶看新闻家常饭馆名字:中国国企到底有多重要？
来源：百度文库 编辑：偶看新闻 时间：2024/05/01 08:45:44
2011年 10月 27日 11:54 中国国企到底有多重要？
评论(4)
具有超级竞争力的中国出口商不仅让中国有了资本主义特性，同时也遮蔽了这样一个事实：中国国有企业在国民经济中仍发挥着巨大作用。这个作用到底有多大呢？据美国国会审查组织美中经济与安全评估委员会(U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission)发布的一份新报告显示，形形色色的国有实体在中国快速增长的国内生产总值(GDP)中所占的比重约为50%。
相关报道
美呼吁限制政府扶持国企意在中国
不按规矩出牌 中国国企引发担忧
专栏：中国应再来一次国企改革大讨论
报告认为，这个比重会随着时间的流逝而下降，但即使下降，国有部门在中国经济中仍将继续发挥重要作用，原因是中国共产党并不希望中国变成一个自由市场企业的堡垒，而且中国政府认为它可通过国企来控制金融、能源和电力等战略性行业。报告由华盛顿特区咨询机构Capital Trade Inc.的绍莫塞吉(Andrew Szamosszegi)、凯尔(Cole Kyle)和安德森(Charles Anderson)联合编撰。
报告坚持认为，国企有助于中国政府奉行购买中国货的采购策略，该策略有时会在重要的开发项目上排挤外国公司，或要求它们转让重要技术。报告说，这些做法正帮助中国建立一个可与波音(Boeing)和空中客车(Airbus)相竞争的航空业。报告认为，中国国企可在国际市场上造成不公平竞争，因为它们能得到低于市场利率的国有银行贷款、优惠的税收待遇以及困难时的资金注入等。
美中经济与安全评估委员会在影响美国国会看法方面起着重要作用。外界普遍认为该委员会对中国采取的是鹰派立场，而中国政府也常常对其结论提出质疑。
彼得森国际经济研究所(Peterson Institute of International Economics)中国问题专家拉迪(Nicholas Lardy)说，这份报告过分扩大了中国国企的角色。据拉迪推测，国企占中国经济的比重不到30%。
但是布鲁金斯研究所(Brookings Institution)中国问题专家普拉萨德(Eswar Prasad)说，这份报告的结论看似合理。他在一封电子邮件里写道：要想弄清楚一家公司到底是不是国有性质(或国家是否通过参股对其进行控制)，这个定义很难下。普拉萨德说，国有经济占中国GDP的比重实际上很可能过半，例证之一是，中国可通过国有银行发放贷款来控制那些原则上属私营性质的公司。
搞明白如何与中国国企打交道现在正成为华盛顿面临的更重大问题。《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(Trans-Pacific Partnership)的美国谈判专家目前急切要求限制国企活动，希望以此作为美国约束中国公司运营的模板。该协定将创建一个九国贸易协定。
对奥巴马贸易政策有很大影响力的美国钢铁工人联合会(United Steel Workers)前不久要求白宫(White House)阻止中国国企收购美国钢铁产业。会长杰拉德(Leo Gerard)10月20日致信白宫国家经济委员会主任斯珀林(Gene Sperling)说，让中国国企在美国做生意将带来很多风险，它们具有大多数股份制公司所不具备的优势，而这会产生一个不公平且没有竞争力的市场。
但目前还不清楚是否存在阻止中国国企在美国投资的法律依据。如果一笔交易可能引发国家安全问题，或许应该由美国海外投资委员会(Committee on Foreign Investment)介入调查，后者漫长的评估过程常常会把交易搅黄。一般来说，美国政府是设法鼓励中国来美投资的，而不是横加制止。
此外，中国国企在其本土也颇有争议，因为它们有着巨大的政治权力。这些企业有能力驳回有关增加其向政府上缴最低股息的提议。很多中国经济学家敦促，应该要求国企上缴更多股息，并要求它们用额外资金来支付政府为普通百姓提供的医疗和退休金服务。经济学家坚持认为，这是缓解中国贫富差距不断加大的一个途径。
2011年 10月 27日 11:54 Just How Powerful Are China's State-Owned Firms?
China’s super-competitive exporters give the country a capitalist flair and obscure fact that the country’s state-owned companies still play a huge role in the economy. How big? According to a new report for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional review group, state-owned entities of one kind or another, account for about 50% of China’s rapidly expanding gross domestic product.
The report figures that the percentage will be reduced over time, but even so, “the state sector will continue to play an important role in China.” That’s because the Chinese communist party isn’t interested in the country “becoming a bastion of free market enterprise,” and because the government believes it can use state-owned firms to control “strategic industries,” such as finance, energy and power. The report was authored by Andrew Szamosszegi, Cole Kyle and Charles Anderson of the consulting firm Capital Trade Inc. in Washington DC.
State-owned firms, the report argues, help Beijing pursue a buy-China procurement strategy, which sometimes excludes foreign firms from important development projects or require them to hand over important technology. Those practices are helping China build an aviation industry capable of competing with Boeing and Airbus, the report says. The firms can compete unfairly internationally, according to the report, because they can get below-market interest rates from state owned banks, favorable tax treatments and capital injections if they run into trouble.
The China commission, which is widely viewed as taking a hawkish attitude toward China, plays an important role in shaping congressional opinion. The Chinese government often contests its conclusions.
China expert Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, says the report greatly overstates the role of state-owned firms, which he calculates as accounting for somewhat less than 30% of China’s economy.
But Brookings Institution China scholar Eswar Prasad says the commission report’s conclusions are plausible. “The definitional issues ─ figuring out whether a company is in fact owned by the state (or if the state has control through its ownership share) ─ is a tricky business,” he wrote in an e-mail. Mr. Prasad said that “effective state control of the economy” is probably higher than 50% of GDP because, for instance, China can use bank lending by state-owned banks to control firms ‘that are in principle privately owned.”
Figuring out how to deal with China’s state-owned firms is becoming a larger issue in Washington. U.S. negotiators at the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which would create a nine-nation trade pact, are pressing for constraints on the activities of state-owned firms as a kind of template for how they’d like Chinese firms to operate too.
The United Steel Workers, which has a big influence on Obama trade policy, recently asked the White House to block Chinese state-owned firms from buying into the U.S. steel industry. “Having state-owned enterprises doing business in the U.S. presents many risks,” the union’s president, Leo Gerard, wrote in an Oct. 20 letter to Gene Sperling, the head of the White House’s national economic council. “Chinese state-owned enterprises have advantages that most shareholder-owned companies do not, which creates an unfair and uncompetitive market,” Mr. Gerard said.
But it’s unclear what legal basis exists to block an investment by a Chinese state-owned company. If a deal could cause national security problems, it could be investigated by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, whose lengthy reviews sometimes scuttle deals. Generally, the administration is trying to encourage Chinese investment, not deter it.
Meanwhile, in China, state-owned firms are also controversial because of their immense political power. They have been able to fight off proposals to boost the minimal dividends they pay to the state. A number of Chinese economists have urged that the firms be required to pay steeper dividends and that the additional funds be used to pay for government-provided healthcare and pensions for ordinary Chinese. That’s one way, they argue, that the growing divide between rich and poor in China could be eased.
Bob Davis
评论(4)
具有超级竞争力的中国出口商不仅让中国有了资本主义特性，同时也遮蔽了这样一个事实：中国国有企业在国民经济中仍发挥着巨大作用。这个作用到底有多大呢？据美国国会审查组织美中经济与安全评估委员会(U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission)发布的一份新报告显示，形形色色的国有实体在中国快速增长的国内生产总值(GDP)中所占的比重约为50%。
相关报道
美呼吁限制政府扶持国企意在中国不按规矩出牌 中国国企引发担忧专栏：中国应再来一次国企改革大讨论报告认为，这个比重会随着时间的流逝而下降，但即使下降，国有部门在中国经济中仍将继续发挥重要作用，原因是中国共产党并不希望中国变成一个自由市场企业的堡垒，而且中国政府认为它可通过国企来控制金融、能源和电力等战略性行业。报告由华盛顿特区咨询机构Capital Trade Inc.的绍莫塞吉(Andrew Szamosszegi)、凯尔(Cole Kyle)和安德森(Charles Anderson)联合编撰。
报告坚持认为，国企有助于中国政府奉行购买中国货的采购策略，该策略有时会在重要的开发项目上排挤外国公司，或要求它们转让重要技术。报告说，这些做法正帮助中国建立一个可与波音(Boeing)和空中客车(Airbus)相竞争的航空业。报告认为，中国国企可在国际市场上造成不公平竞争，因为它们能得到低于市场利率的国有银行贷款、优惠的税收待遇以及困难时的资金注入等。
美中经济与安全评估委员会在影响美国国会看法方面起着重要作用。外界普遍认为该委员会对中国采取的是鹰派立场，而中国政府也常常对其结论提出质疑。
彼得森国际经济研究所(Peterson Institute of International Economics)中国问题专家拉迪(Nicholas Lardy)说，这份报告过分扩大了中国国企的角色。据拉迪推测，国企占中国经济的比重不到30%。
但是布鲁金斯研究所(Brookings Institution)中国问题专家普拉萨德(Eswar Prasad)说，这份报告的结论看似合理。他在一封电子邮件里写道：要想弄清楚一家公司到底是不是国有性质(或国家是否通过参股对其进行控制)，这个定义很难下。普拉萨德说，国有经济占中国GDP的比重实际上很可能过半，例证之一是，中国可通过国有银行发放贷款来控制那些原则上属私营性质的公司。
搞明白如何与中国国企打交道现在正成为华盛顿面临的更重大问题。《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》(Trans-Pacific Partnership)的美国谈判专家目前急切要求限制国企活动，希望以此作为美国约束中国公司运营的模板。该协定将创建一个九国贸易协定。
对奥巴马贸易政策有很大影响力的美国钢铁工人联合会(United Steel Workers)前不久要求白宫(White House)阻止中国国企收购美国钢铁产业。会长杰拉德(Leo Gerard)10月20日致信白宫国家经济委员会主任斯珀林(Gene Sperling)说，让中国国企在美国做生意将带来很多风险，它们具有大多数股份制公司所不具备的优势，而这会产生一个不公平且没有竞争力的市场。
但目前还不清楚是否存在阻止中国国企在美国投资的法律依据。如果一笔交易可能引发国家安全问题，或许应该由美国海外投资委员会(Committee on Foreign Investment)介入调查，后者漫长的评估过程常常会把交易搅黄。一般来说，美国政府是设法鼓励中国来美投资的，而不是横加制止。
此外，中国国企在其本土也颇有争议，因为它们有着巨大的政治权力。这些企业有能力驳回有关增加其向政府上缴最低股息的提议。很多中国经济学家敦促，应该要求国企上缴更多股息，并要求它们用额外资金来支付政府为普通百姓提供的医疗和退休金服务。经济学家坚持认为，这是缓解中国贫富差距不断加大的一个途径。
2011年 10月 27日 11:54 Just How Powerful Are China's State-Owned Firms?
China’s super-competitive exporters give the country a capitalist flair and obscure fact that the country’s state-owned companies still play a huge role in the economy. How big? According to a new report for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional review group, state-owned entities of one kind or another, account for about 50% of China’s rapidly expanding gross domestic product.
The report figures that the percentage will be reduced over time, but even so, “the state sector will continue to play an important role in China.” That’s because the Chinese communist party isn’t interested in the country “becoming a bastion of free market enterprise,” and because the government believes it can use state-owned firms to control “strategic industries,” such as finance, energy and power. The report was authored by Andrew Szamosszegi, Cole Kyle and Charles Anderson of the consulting firm Capital Trade Inc. in Washington DC.
State-owned firms, the report argues, help Beijing pursue a buy-China procurement strategy, which sometimes excludes foreign firms from important development projects or require them to hand over important technology. Those practices are helping China build an aviation industry capable of competing with Boeing and Airbus, the report says. The firms can compete unfairly internationally, according to the report, because they can get below-market interest rates from state owned banks, favorable tax treatments and capital injections if they run into trouble.
The China commission, which is widely viewed as taking a hawkish attitude toward China, plays an important role in shaping congressional opinion. The Chinese government often contests its conclusions.
China expert Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, says the report greatly overstates the role of state-owned firms, which he calculates as accounting for somewhat less than 30% of China’s economy.
But Brookings Institution China scholar Eswar Prasad says the commission report’s conclusions are plausible. “The definitional issues ─ figuring out whether a company is in fact owned by the state (or if the state has control through its ownership share) ─ is a tricky business,” he wrote in an e-mail. Mr. Prasad said that “effective state control of the economy” is probably higher than 50% of GDP because, for instance, China can use bank lending by state-owned banks to control firms ‘that are in principle privately owned.”
Figuring out how to deal with China’s state-owned firms is becoming a larger issue in Washington. U.S. negotiators at the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which would create a nine-nation trade pact, are pressing for constraints on the activities of state-owned firms as a kind of template for how they’d like Chinese firms to operate too.
The United Steel Workers, which has a big influence on Obama trade policy, recently asked the White House to block Chinese state-owned firms from buying into the U.S. steel industry. “Having state-owned enterprises doing business in the U.S. presents many risks,” the union’s president, Leo Gerard, wrote in an Oct. 20 letter to Gene Sperling, the head of the White House’s national economic council. “Chinese state-owned enterprises have advantages that most shareholder-owned companies do not, which creates an unfair and uncompetitive market,” Mr. Gerard said.
But it’s unclear what legal basis exists to block an investment by a Chinese state-owned company. If a deal could cause national security problems, it could be investigated by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, whose lengthy reviews sometimes scuttle deals. Generally, the administration is trying to encourage Chinese investment, not deter it.
Meanwhile, in China, state-owned firms are also controversial because of their immense political power. They have been able to fight off proposals to boost the minimal dividends they pay to the state. A number of Chinese economists have urged that the firms be required to pay steeper dividends and that the additional funds be used to pay for government-provided healthcare and pensions for ordinary Chinese. That’s one way, they argue, that the growing divide between rich and poor in China could be eased.
Bob Davis