日本r级云盘:民生经济是中国和谐社会的经济基础

　　尽管中国仍然保持高速的经济发展水平，并且有理由相信这种发展速度还会持续下去，但中国社会也很显然正变得越来越不和谐。形式多样的社会冲突最近几年一一浮现出来，如何构建和谐社会早已成为中国领导层的最高政治议程。今年“两会”期间，中国高层提出构建和谐社会的核心，就是要解决民生问题。

　　这一判断应当说是抓住了核心。民生出了问题，和谐就没有了经济基础。中国社会今天所呈现出来的很多被外界称之为具有“民权”性质的问题，其背后实际上是民生问题。当人们不能通过经济手段来解决他们所面临的民生问题的时候，就开始求助于政治的、法律的甚至是暴力的手段。这也就是眼下中国有关方面所承认的“经济问题政治化”现象的根源。

　　民生问题如何解决？中国社会对此讨论很多，但从各种出台的政策和政策讨论来看，国家的收入再分配功能被认为是解决问题的核心。

　　经济结构造成社会不公平　　　　

　　从世界范围来看，国家或者政府的确要扮演一个主要角色，以保障基本社会公平和正义。实际上，很多年来，中国政府也实施了各项政策来努力实现社会公平的目标。例如为缩小社会群体之间收入差异，国家在所得税制度上有所改进。为缩小地区之间的差异，国家不断有特殊的区域政策出台，如西部开发、振兴东北和中部崛起等。

　　为缩小城乡之间的收入差异，国家早些年有“以工补农”的说法，现在又有建设社会主义新农村的政策。此外，对各弱势社会群体，国家也有相应的政策。不能说国家在实施这些政策上不力。但政策的效果如何呢？人们不得不承认这样一个事实：中国的经济发展越快，收入差异就越大，而国家通过再分配来达到社会公平的能力则越来越低。

　　在很大程度上，迄今为止人们把重心放在国家再分配能力的很多政策讨论，并未抓住问题的要害。中国的经济学家和政策分析者有意识或者无意识地忽视了一个更根本问题，那就是中国目前的经济构成（或结构）是造成社会不公平和非正义的首要因素。只要这种经济构成不变，无论怎样强大的国家再分配能力也无济于事。换句话说，中国的经济已经不是有助于社会公平和正义的民生经济，不改变这样一种经济结构就很难造就一个和谐社会。

　　笔者曾经论述中国巨大收入差异问题不能解决的主要因素不在国家的“二次分配”，更不是一些经济学家所说的“三次分配”，最大的问题出在“初次分配”上。而“初次分配”不公的根源在于经济构成。

　　现有中国经济构成有两个互相关联的显著特点，第一是财富从民间向国家转移，因而容易造成国富民穷的局面；第二是财富从多数人向少数人的转移，因而容易造成少数人控制财富，中产阶级不能壮大，而社会多数相对贫穷的状态。这种经济形态的形成是中国经济改革模式的产物。

　　地方国企垄断不利民生经济　　　　

　　财富为什么向国家集中？简单地说是国家垄断所致。1990年代中期以来，国家实行“抓大”政策，即国家资本和企业的重组。近年来，尽管有关部门不用“抓大”这个概念了，但实际上这种政策正在加快实施。中央国资委在2003年成立至今，189家中央企业已经同类合并为159家，而未来三年目标则是减少到100家左右。应当说，这个重组意义重大。

　　中国作为一个发展中的大国，要增强国际竞争能力，这种具有战略意义的重组不可避免。问题不在于战略重组，而在于大型国有企业财团的公司治理和社会监督问题。因为缺乏有效的公司治理和社会监督，这些财团往往表现为自行其事的“独立王国”。很多经验研究都表明这些财团内部工资失控、垄断价格和腐败等等状况。尽管这些财团是从社会聚集资本的，但社会对这些财团毫无控制机制。因为这些财团属于国家，它们对国家的政策具有非常大的影响力，在一些场合，它们就是国家政策的制定者。

　　这里需要指出的是，国家垄断不仅存在于中央部门企业，而且也存在于省级国有企业。这些年来，为了地方经济的发展，也为了和其他省份的竞争，各省都纷纷组建自己的地方企业集团。很多省份在“大抓工业、抓大工业”的政策思想指导下，实行地方国企垄断。地方企业垄断对民生经济是致命的。中央垄断一般发生在对国家具有国际战略意义的领域，而地方垄断则往往发生在任何有利可图的经济领域。从财富集中的角度来看，地方垄断扮演了一个更为关键的角色。较之中央级企业，地方国有企业财团的公司治理往往更差，受地方政治权力影响更甚。

　　中央和地方企业财团的重组和发展，在把财富和资本从社会转向各级政府的同时，也转移到少数人手里。很清楚，中国目前很大一部分富人是各类国有企业财团的主管。而中小型国有企业的“民营化”更加快了财富和资本的转移速度，恶化了社会不公平状况。

　　从1990年代中期至今，县、市级国有企业的“民营化”已经基本完成。民营化本来也是很重要的一个战略，但是因为政策实施的失误，民营化往往演变成为恶性私有化。因为地方政权和企业之间的关系，民营化经常是通过政治力量把财富和资本简单地从地方社会转移到少数人手里。由于中小企业数量大，涉及到的社会成员多，恶性私有化不仅恶化了收入分配，更加造成了社会不公平和非正义。从这一角度来看，并不很难理解为什么这些年来很多社会冲突都是发生在这个领域。

　　这里应当指出的是，在地方层面，因为地方政权和企业之间的关系，地方垄断可能仅仅是恶性私有化的第一步。在一些地方，地方政权先用政权的力量对有利可图的经济领域进行垄断，把财富集中起来，然后再用政权的力量将其恶性私有化，从而完成财富和资本从社会到政府、再从政府到少数人手中转移的复杂过程。近年来，一些省份把自己所属的国有企业以极其低廉的价格民营化，就属于这类案例。

　　国内资本的重组也好，转移也好，已经导致了收入分配的不公。在全球化的时代，国际资本毫无限制的进入更是雪上加霜。国际资本一方面有力地促进了中国经济的发展，但另一方面也恶化了中国的收入分配情况。全球化本身是财富和资本转移的一个重要途径，这在中国和海外并无区别。但中国的特殊情况是用政治的力量推进全球化。例如在地方层面，地方政府为了外资、为了政绩，以极其优惠的人、财、物等生产要素条件向国际资本开放。很多年来，中国一直是国际资本获取巨额利润的地方。就是说，全球化也使得一部分财富和资本向国际大公司转移和集中。

　　在资本和财富向各级政府、少数人和国际大企业转移的同时，以中小型企业为主体的民生经济越来越成为不可能。中国中小企业的生存环境越来越差，空间越来越小。民营企业便是例子。民生经济并不等于民营经济，但中国民营经济却是民生经济的重要组成部门，因为大多中小型企业是民营的。

　　经济发展导致国富民穷　　　　

　　很显然，尽管中国的民营经济已取得宪法和法律上的合法性，并受到保护，但在实际政策层面，民营企业的经济环境依然没有根本的改善，市场准入限制广泛存在，金融支持有气无力。中央政府并非未意识到这个问题，而是缺乏有效的方法来实施有利于中小企业发展尤其是民营企业发展的政策。

　　从本质上说，中国现在的经济构造是一种有效的财富和资本转移机制。在这种经济形态中，不可能形成真正有利于中小企业发展的政策。经济结构因素出了问题，任何有悖于这种结构的政策都是难以奏效的。

　　在任何经济体里，中小企业可以说是有助于提高就业率和收入公平分配的最有效手段。从很大程度上，只有在一个有利于中小企业发展的经济形态中，政府才有能力保障基本社会的公平和正义。在西方发达国家，政府在反垄断的同时，总是努力构造一个有利于中小企业发展的政策、金融和法律环境。从经济的角度来看，反垄断和鼓励中小企业的发展，其目标是相同的，就是要通过保障就业来达致初次分配的基本公平性。（维持企业的创新精神是鼓励中小企业发展的另一个重要目标。但这问题不在本文讨论范围。）

　　从这个角度来说，中国各级政府所施行的经济政策的确可以推进经济发展，但似乎和民生经济相去甚远，即使不是背道而驰。经济发展速度可以持续，但结果可能是一种国富民穷，少数人富裕，大多数人贫穷的状态。也就是说，这种经济形态导致社会分化，导致社会不和谐。

　　正如很多人所强调的，中国的问题需要进一步的经济发展来解决。经济一旦停止发展，许多问题都会浮上台面。但也应当很清楚的是，现在的经济发展格局不但不能解决问题，而且从长远看会导致越来越多的社会冲突。只有造成了一种国富民富的民生经济形态后，中国的社会和谐才会具备一个有利的经济基础，国家才能发挥其应有的收入再分配功能。

·作者是英国诺丁汉大学中国研究所教授、研究主任

　　China's search for social harmony failing as government overlooks disparities, says scholar *

　　Chinese society is becoming increasingly "unharmonious" [bu hexie] as the government continues to focus on rapid growth in the belief that the current high speed of growth remains sustainable, says Professor Zheng Yongnian, Head of Research at the China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham.

　　Prof Zheng notes in his influential column in the Singapore newspaper Lianhe Zaobao that the building of a "harmonious society" [hexie shehui] has in recent years become a top priority of the Chinese leadership as social protests have increased. He says that as Chinese people "have been unable to solve their everyday problems through economic means they are beginning to resort to political, legal solutions and even to violence. This is a symptom of what is known as 'economic problems becoming politicised,'" says Zheng.

　　China has done much in recent years to increase social justice, including measures to reduce disparities in income and regional disparities such as special policies aimed at the undeveloped west and the northeastern "rustbelt" as well as attempting to narrow the difference between cities and the countryside, but these policies have not been particularly successful. "The faster China has developed economically the more disparities in income have grown and the more unable the state has become to achieve social justice through [income] redistribution," Zheng notes.

　　"Chinese economists and political analysts have consciously or unconsciously overlooked a fundamental question, which is that China's current economic framework (or structure) is a major factor in creating social injustice and unfairness. If there is no change in the economic framework, state redistribution [of incomes] will not have any effect.

　　In other words, China's economy will no longer be a 'people's livelihood' [min sheng] economy which benefits social justice and fairness, so if the economic structure is not changed it will be difficult to achieve a harmonious society." Zheng maintains that one of the main problems is that "wealth is ebbing away from the people to the state, so it is a simple step for the state to be rich while the people are poor," while another problem is that "wealth is being transferred from the majority to a minority," and stresses that these phenomena are both products of China's economic development model.

　　Wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of the state because a state monopoly has been created, with economic power increasingly focused in ever fewer centrally controlled state enterprises, whose number has almost halved from 189 in 2003 to about 100 today. This has advantages so far as international competitiveness is concerned but there are serious problems concerning corporate governance and social monitoring, to the extent that these companies have become "independent kingdoms". This has resulted in monopoly pricing and corruption, and furthermore "Because these corporations are stateowned they have enormous influence on state policies and in some circumstances actually draft state policies," Zheng alleges.

　　Such monopolies exist not only at central but also at provincial level, opportunistically exploit any economic area of activity and governance tends to be even worse than in central monopolies, he adds.

　　And while many have got rich through managing large statecontrolled companies, the privatisation of large numbers of medium and small enterprises has also exacerbated social injustice. This is because such privatisation has often in practice meant the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority through political means, "so it isn't hard to understand why social conflict has often arisen in this area in recent years." Companies have also often been privatised cheaply which has further concentrated wealth in the hands of a privileged local minority.

　　Globalisation has involved widespread changes in the concentration of wealth but in China globalisation has been politically in order to attract highly profitable overseas investment, but this has been at the expense of smaller private companies. Although such companies are protected under the law and the constitution, in practice the economic environment in which they operate has deteriorated, it is becoming harder for them to access markets and they receive little financial support. "The central government is unaware of this problem and lacks effective means to implement policies which will allow medium and small companies to develop, especially private companies," says Zheng.

　　Such companies should be a means of increasing jobs and ensuring equitable income distribution, and in the west governments have policies to counteract monopolies and improve the environment for smaller firms, but China has not achieved this and even seems to be going in the opposite direction. "The speed of economic growth is being maintained but the result may be that the state is rich while the people are poor, or a minority are wealthy while the majority live in poverty. In other words this economic setup leads to social fragmentation and a lack of social harmony."

　　Zheng recognises that China's problems can only be solved through further economic development, but concludes that: "The present state of economic development not only cannot solve the problems that China faces but in the long run will lead to increasing social conflict. Only if there is a 'people's livelihood' economic system based on a rich nation and rich people can a favourable economic base be created and only then will the state be able to serve its necessary function of redistributing incomes."

　　* Professor Zheng Yongnian, Head of Research at the China Policy Institute (CPI), The University of Nottingham, writes a weekly column for the Singapore newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. This is an English summary of his column of 1 May 2007, by Michael Rank for CPI.

《联合早报网》