Yu Keping: How to prevent the fragmentation of reform?

"To strengthen the' top design' and strategic research of reform and development, it is better to establish and improve the central decision-making consultation and coordination mechanism than to set up a new' reform committee'." Yu Keping, deputy director of the Central Compilation Bureau, is a member of the Corporate Governance Group of the Global Agenda Council of the World Economic Forum. The recommended institution is the Global Agenda Council of the World Economic Forum. The organization brings together professionals from all fields in the world, and has 88 councils according to different themes to discuss and make suggestions on major issues facing the world. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Central Committee has put forward "an in-depth study of the top-level design and overall plan for comprehensively deepening the system reform, and clearly put forward the overall plan, road map and timetable for the reform". There are endless calls in the media for the restoration of the "commission for restructuring the economy" and the implementation of "top-level design". Relevant experts and scholars can review and summarize the experience of the commission for restructuring the economy, and also focus on exploring a new framework of the commission for restructuring the economy that is feasible in the current environment. Financial Weekly interviewed Yu Keping, deputy director of the Central Compilation Bureau. Yu Keping, a decision-making body that transcends departmental interests: Under the background of diversified interests and political democratization, on the one hand, various interest groups must exert influence on public policies through their spokespersons; On the other hand, government policies must also reflect the different interests of all social groups as much as possible in order to maximize the public interest. Therefore, social interest disputes and political games are usually reflected in different policy initiatives between think tanks. Every interest group wants government policies to tilt in its own direction, but vested interest groups usually have the most important influence on public policies because they occupy the main resources of society. If the decision-making of the party and the state is not kidnapped by vested interests, it is far from enough for decision-makers to have the will to "govern for the people." It is necessary to formulate a set of scientific and reasonable decision-making procedures and mechanisms, so that different interest groups, especially the disadvantaged groups, have smooth channels for expressing their interests. In a sense, there are various official and private policy consultation mechanisms, most of which have obvious departmental interests and group interests preferences. This interest preference is sometimes not even intentional and conscious, but unintentional and unconscious. We can find that many public policies seek the growth of the interests of departments or groups in the name of "country" and "people". In order to achieve the policy goal of maximizing public interests, decision makers should establish a decision-making consultation mechanism that transcends departmental interests, local interests and group interests, and rely on this decision-making consultation mechanism to achieve the "Pareto optimality" of public policies, that is, to increase the interests of all stakeholders and avoid the interests of most people. As for the numerous "research rooms" and "research centers" within the party and government organs, strictly speaking, they are not policy advisory bodies. Their main function is to draft manuscripts for leaders at all levels, and they are "writing teams". The reform of the "research offices" of party and government departments should be put on the agenda as soon as possible. This is not only the need for leading cadres to change their writing style and work style, but also the need for establishing a modern policy consultation mechanism. Yu Keping: I have also taken note of this appeal, which reflects people's expectations and worries about further deepening reform. In order to deepen the reform and make breakthroughs in some key areas, it is necessary to strengthen the research on the reform strategy. Lack of long-term and overall research on the national reform and development strategy is one of the fatal weaknesses of China's current decision-making system. At the same time, from the national level, there is a serious fragmentation phenomenon in public decision-making, some major policies are inconsistent, and there are also inconsistencies among various groups in various regions, and some policies are even kidnapped by departmental interests and group interests. For example, the recently revealed 50-fold difference in pension level is a typical reflection of the fragmentation of public policies. In fact, similar policy fragmentation is clearly reflected in basic livelihood issues such as medical care, housing, education, employment and subsistence allowances. In order to overcome these disadvantages effectively, it is really necessary to set up a comprehensive coordination organization that transcends the interests of departments and is responsible for studying and coordinating major policy issues of reform and development, and carry out "top-level design" of the national reform and development strategy. Yu Keping: Of course, the establishment of such a "reform committee" cannot simply be regarded as a sign and signal of real reform. Calling for the restoration of the original "Economic System Reform Committee" or the establishment of a new "Reform Committee" is just a way of thinking to solve the above problems. The advantage of this kind of thinking is that there is a specialized agency for functional reform, which can effectively promote the deepening of reform. But once it becomes an important functional department, it will inevitably have its own departmental interests and consciously or unconsciously seek the authority of the department. In fact, we can have another idea, that is, to set up a comprehensive decision-making consultation and coordination Committee at the national level. All major national reform and development policies must be discussed and deliberated by the Committee. However, it is not a functional department in itself, but a policy advisory and deliberative body. Compared with the general policy advisory body, it should have two main characteristics. The first is a comprehensive decision-making advisory body that transcends all government departments and spans the two major systems of the party and government. It can make national policies holistic, overall and strategic, and prevent the disadvantages of "departmental" and "fragmented" public policies. Second, full authorization and strict restrictions. Any major policy must be demonstrated and heard by the Committee, but it has no right to formulate public policies. It is not the "Economic System Reform Committee" in the past. It has no power of examination and approval and decision-making, and its policy consultation and research scope is not limited to the field of economic system reform. According to the latter idea, it is necessary to strengthen the "top design" and strategic research of reform and development. Instead of setting up a new "reform Committee", it is better to establish and improve the central decision-making consultation and coordination mechanism. Yu Keping: It is very different from the situation faced by the Commission for Restructuring the Economy. Now the problem of reform and development has gone far beyond the scope of economic system and government management authority. Without major reforms in the social and political systems and major adjustments in the relationship between the party and the government, even economic reforms will be difficult to deepen. Therefore, if we want to establish a decision-making consultation and coordination institution with sufficient authority at the national level, we must be directly responsible to the highest central decision-maker. Such an institution should not be located under the State Council, but should be set up by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and be accountable to the highest decision-making levels in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council. It is time to consider the overall reform of the party itself and the government, as well as the overall reform of the economic system and social and political system. Otherwise, the reform will be further fragmented. Coordinating political, economic and social reforms is an inevitable requirement of Scientific Outlook on Development. Yu Keping: The former National Economic System Reform Commission has great power. It is not only an advisory and deliberative body, but also a decision-making body. It was once a part of the State Council. Many important rules and regulations of the system reform in those years were promulgated by the commission for restructuring. If a policy advisory body at the central level is to be established, it should not become a new authority, nor should it have the decision-making power of the original economic restructuring Committee. Its main functions should be two: one is to study and design the overall plan for major reforms, and the other is to consult and coordinate major national reform and development policies. Over the years, many policy research and consulting institutions have been established at the central level, local level, party and government system and academic system. However, they are also in a state of serious fragmentation, especially the policy advisory bodies outside the system, which are difficult to influence the central policy. There is a lack of a unified coordinating body between official advisory bodies and between official advisory bodies and non-governmental advisory bodies, and the central policy advisory coordinating body should assume the function of overall coordination. Yu Keping: Policy consultation and coordination institutions at the central level should not focus on recruiting personnel to carry out research and consultation, but should assume the role of coordinating existing think tanks inside and outside the system. You can convene national experts and scholars for discussion, hearing and consultation on a major policy proposal of the central government, and you can also release a special topic of policy consultation bidding or entrustment to the whole society. In a word, my idea is that it should not focus on adding new institutions and personnel, but should focus on fully coordinating and utilizing the functions of various existing policy advisory bodies. In addition, the emergence and development of folk think tanks is a remarkable feature of modern decision-making consultation system. Decision-making advisory bodies are not only owned by the government, but also unofficial private think tanks have begun to have an increasingly important impact on public policies, which is also the trend of political democratization. Folk think tanks should become an integral part of the new decision-making consultation system, and the central government and governments at all levels should give full play to their roles in the decision-making process, including entrusting decision-making consultation topics and participating in policy hearings and argumentation. Yu Keping: The smartest person is also a human being, not a god. He always has the limitations of his knowledge, experience and talent. Therefore, an excellent politician should not only have his own talents, but also be good at absorbing the wisdom of others. Historically, politicians have always been surrounded by a group of advisers, and successful politicians are usually accompanied by excellent advisers, think tanks and teachers. However, under the traditional politics, the relationship between decision-makers and counselors is mainly personal, and there is no institutional provision. In modern politics, traditional counselors, think tanks and teachers no longer exist, but are replaced by modern decision-making consulting systems. It has become an institutional requirement that major policies should be consulted, demonstrated and heard by experts. Experts and scholars engaged in policy consultation are no longer private consultants of leaders, but professional service personnel of public policy. Whether there is a relatively independent public decision-making consultation system is an important symbol to judge traditional politics and modern politics. A reasonable decision-making consultation system is of great significance to the scientific and democratic decision-making of the government. Although we are used to calling those experts and scholars engaged in decision-making consultation think tanks, literary courage, consultants, etc. We must understand that their roles are fundamentally different from those of advisers who used to be private advisers to politicians.