As soon as I saw the topic, I felt it was wrong. Semantically speaking, moderate fairness should be higher than bottom line fairness. It is too low to regard bottom line fairness as moderate fairness.
He linked the bottom line fairness with the social security system and thought that the bottom line fairness was the basic idea of the social security system. The bottom line fairness is to meet the "basic needs", including: (1) the demand for food and clothing (survival demand), (2) the demand for basic education (development demand), and (3) the demand for public health and medical assistance (health demand). In his view, the concept of bottom line fairness does not mean the lowest level of fairness, unfairness is not conducive to development, excessive fairness is not conducive to development, and bottom line fairness is most conducive to healthy, sustainable and harmonious development. Bottom line fairness is a kind of "fairness" which is the easiest, most necessary and can significantly improve the overall level of social fairness.
It makes sense to define the bottom line like this. But this bottom line fairness is flawed in content, that is, it ignores the extremely important and truly basic fairness in employment. Employment is the foundation of people's livelihood, and fairness is guaranteed in employment, and other social security is not important. People can protect their basic dignity through their own labor. After the failure of employment equity, some talents need welfare social security to remedy it. So the most basic bottom line fairness should be in employment. Such bottom line fairness is the most conducive to healthy, sustainable and harmonious development, the easiest and most necessary thing to do, and the most significant way to improve the overall fairness of society.
Moreover, in the sense of social security, bottom line fairness is not the easiest thing to do. Social security itself has standards, and the high-standard social security in western developed countries is the "welfare state" policy. Not only can we not achieve such a bottom line fairness in the short term, but our current basic social security cannot cover all citizens. It is not that such bottom line fairness should not be realized, but that our social security concept should be innovated. We should put forward our own social security system standards on the basis of our own experience, so that people can realize and prove to the world that our socialist system itself is people's social security. Western social security was originally established to compete with socialist countries. We used to make the socialist system itself a social security for the people, and the people also established their confidence and belief in socialism, believing that the socialist country led by the * * * production party would not let the people suffer. As long as this confidence is restored, we will surpass the western concept of social security.
Protecting labor rights and interests is the unshirkable responsibility of the government. Starting from solving the employment problem, we should re-evaluate the policy of "giving priority to efficiency and ensuring fairness". "Efficiency first" cannot be fully implemented even in the economic field. In the economic field, in addition to the inefficiency of insufficient competition, there is also friction inefficiency. The principle of "efficiency first" can only solve the problem of insufficient competition, but it may contribute to the ineffectiveness of friction. Within a production unit, it is not uncommon to deliberately manufacture unqualified products because of the dissatisfaction of producers. This is the real reason. In the social field, if social injustice is serious, the economic efficiency already achieved will also be lost. Therefore, to pursue social efficiency, we must put fairness first, improve efficiency on the basis of ensuring fairness, and promote the realization of fairness on the basis of improving efficiency. Without fairness, there is no stability and no efficiency. The mass activities of some laid-off workers have proved this point.
Moderate fairness should be "above the bottom line", and the government's responsibility is not to "not engage in the policy of" welfare state ",but to engage in the policy higher than that of capitalist welfare state, so as to achieve qualified socialism. The people want this kind of socialism, and they want it to enter the advanced stage as soon as possible, and they don't want to suffer in the primary stage of socialism for a long time.
Second, understand the significance of public ownership from the perspective of social security.
The level of economic and social development is the basis for the establishment and operation of the social security system. The social security system in socialist countries should have distinct characteristics, mainly because socialist countries are dominated by public ownership, which in itself means social security and plays a direct role in the social security of workers. For this feature, we should have a profound understanding and corresponding planning when building a social security system suitable for a harmonious socialist society today.
The example of Cuba highlights the characteristics of socialist social security. In the World Development Report in 2004, the World Bank put forward the word "Cuba's mystery" to refer to Cuba's outstanding achievement of "making people healthy without (economic) growth".
Cuba is regarded as an example of staying healthy even at a low income level. Although Cuba is still poor, the infant mortality rate is lower than that of many industrialized countries, and some common diseases in developing countries have also been eliminated in Cuba. Cuba's income is much lower than Canada's, but the infant mortality rate is the same as Canada's. How does Cuba try to make its infant mortality rate at least not higher than that of any developing country in the western hemisphere, nor higher than that of many industrialized countries? Well-informed world bank experts are puzzled by this and call it the mystery of Cuba.
Another United Nations report also praised Cuba for maintaining social development in difficult times. According to the report of the United Nations, although Cuba experienced serious economic difficulties after the disintegration of the socialist group in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, her achievements in the field of social development were maintained. A survey conducted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, UNDP and Cuba's National Economic Research Institute shows that Cuba's achievements in education, health, housing, food and employment have been maintained through reform and restoration of macro-balance, although Cuba suddenly lost its main export market and aid source.
The key to Cuba's mystery lies in its social system. The social system determines that its starting point is to serve the majority of the poor, and the government does not hesitate to provide public funds and design effective incentives for this. The result of this is not only to benefit most people, but also to meet the needs of the vast international market and gain a worldwide reputation.
After the Cuban revolution, the new government regards health as its key performance indicator, and universal and fair medical care is one of the three highest goals to be achieved by the new government. The new government is committed to providing medical services to rural areas. The government requires all newly graduated students from medical colleges to serve in rural areas for one year, and the government has also increased the number of rural medical facilities. 196 1 year, the government nationalized private hospitals, making the public sector the sole provider of medical services-this situation has not changed so far.
The Cuban government spends more on medical care than other Latin American countries. In 2000, Cuba's public expenditure on health care exceeded 65,438+00% of GDP, and reached 6.6% of GDP in 2002. The average level of public medical expenditure in Latin America and the Caribbean is 3.3%.
As long as there are means of production and workers, and combine them on a certain industrial basis, there will be an inexhaustible source of social wealth. Public ownership, as a form of ownership that directly combines the means of production with laborers, is beneficial to laborers who have the ability to work! It is said that everything they have is guaranteed, so although the salary is not high, they have no worries; As long as the public-owned enterprises they serve continue to exist, workers who lose their ability to work will still be guaranteed. As a state-owned enterprise with abundant labor resources in China, its future should not be worrying, and its prospects should be constantly developing and growing. Even if there is a partial transfer, as long as we still have a large number of public enterprises, it should not be difficult to resettle a few people.
Rural and urban economic bases are different, and the risks faced by industrial population and agricultural population are different, so it is not necessary to establish a unified national social security system. The strength of rural collective economy is the economic basis of farmers' self-protection, and the state's support for farmers to establish social security can be carried out by directly supporting the development of rural collective economy. In villages with strong collective economic strength, farmers enjoy a high level of welfare. The state should have preferential policies for collective enterprises that provide these benefits.
Due to the development of collective strength, the welfare benefits of workers and villagers in Nanjie Village of Henan Province are increasing day by day, and they enjoy more than 20 welfare benefits for free. They have no worries about living, housing, going to school and seeing a doctor. Everyone lives in peace and contentment and is happy. As the richest village in Zhejiang, Hangmin Village has gradually realized agricultural modernization and urban-rural integration on the basis of industrialization. Villagers in this village enjoy old-age insurance and medical security, and elderly villagers enjoy pensions and retirement pensions. By the end of 65438+ to 1999, the township has realized the collective economy, and has accumulated 6666 yuan per capita, and set up various social welfare undertakings, such as the monthly pension subsidy for the elderly over 65 in 30 yuan. Rural education, housing, medical care and transportation conditions have undergone fundamental changes, and cultural undertakings and village construction have continued to develop and become an urbanized village. Collectively bear the tuition fees for the nine-year compulsory education stage. They are not polarized, and every family is well-off.
Insisting on consolidating and developing the collective economy and realizing common prosperity with * * * is the fundamental guarantee for the all-round progress of various undertakings in these towns and villages and the all-round promotion of the construction of a harmonious society. The reason why they can achieve good results in economic development, village construction, villagers' social welfare, science and education culture, living environment and comprehensive management, and comprehensively promoting a well-off society lies in the consolidation and development of the collective economy. The reality makes the cadres and the masses realize that the village will not be what it is now without strengthening the collective economy, and the villagers will not enjoy the current welfare and security.
Third, the beneficial enlightenment from western countries.
Employees of western state-owned enterprises are generally well-paid and well-off, forming an aristocratic class of workers. Reform measures against them often encounter great resistance and are unsustainable. Enterprises always have to bear certain social responsibilities, which has become a way for enterprises to establish their own image and show their own strength. Generally speaking, state-owned enterprises have done a good job in promoting employment equity and women's employment. Employees of state-owned enterprises in China have not yet enjoyed high wages and benefits. As long as the service facilities such as schools and hospitals run by enterprises can afford it, they should not advocate not running society. If employees can't enjoy these services here, they have to buy them at high prices in society, which intensifies social contradictions such as difficulties in seeing a doctor, going to school and housing. For ordinary workers, the benefits brought by stripping society can't keep up with the growth of expenditure. Not cost-effective. Moreover, hospitals, schools and real estate are all hot industries in society. Why can't enterprises diversify? When examining the welfare of these industries operated by enterprises, we should consider the social security benefits they provide for employees.
In 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher set off a wave of privatization, transforming many state-owned economic entities into private companies. At that time, the dominant guiding ideology was that private enterprises were more efficient than the government in managing enterprises and providing services, and opening up industry competition was an ideal way to meet the interests of consumers. The 1990s witnessed the overall victory of capitalism and the rapid expansion of market confidence. However, history did not end there. 2/kloc-0 At the beginning of the century, the financial bubble burst, the consequences of market moral decay were highlighted, the global economic recession showed unprecedented signs, and there was a trend of rethinking ownership in many places.
200 1 10 The railway group that owns the British railway tracks, signals and railway stations declared that it was insolvent, and actually nationalized again through public-private partnership. Since the privatization of 200 1, the air traffic control monopoly company in the past has also been struggling. In August 2002, Britain's largest nuclear energy company reopened the privatization debate, and the British energy problem became the latest typical failure case of British privatization. British energy company was privatized in 1986, producing 20% of electricity in Britain, and has been losing money in recent years. Even free market advocates agree that the government must take action if Britain's energy is to keep running. Researchers believe that the recent troubles have provided important lessons for privatization not only in Britain, but also in other countries: for example, Collins Yue, director of the London Social Market Foundation, "We already know that not all things are suitable for privatization."
In 2002, the role of Singapore Temasek Holdings and Political Alliance Company (GLCs) caused a heated debate in the Singapore Parliament, and the investigation and research institutions also conducted new arguments. Singapore's political alliance company is equivalent to our state-owned enterprise. Singapore's political alliance companies have a far-reaching impact on Singapore's economy, and the success of Singapore's economy can be said to be the success of state capitalism. The question of what role political alliance companies should play has been discussed countless times in Singapore's parliament for many years. When attending the debate, the Minister of Government Affairs of the Ministry of Trade and Industry refuted the statement that government participation would lead to poor management efficiency and performance of the political alliance company, pointing out that this statement was unfounded. The examples of Singapore Airlines and Changi Airport are very convincing: "Singapore Airlines owned by the government is the best airline in the world, and Changi Airport wholly owned by the government is also the best airport for business travelers to vote." Associate Professor Koo Tsai Kee, Senior Minister of Government Affairs of the Ministry of National Development, defended the political alliance company, saying that the political alliance company is a key advantage of Singapore, because only Temasek Holdings has the ability to push Singapore to the international market. A study by scholars from Nanyang Technological University found that among listed companies, politically affiliated companies are more efficient than non-politically affiliated companies, and the return on equity and assets is also better. Professor chan kwong wing, director of the Department of Banking Finance of NTU Business School, and Professor James of the University of Florida in the United States have studied the data of 25 domestic companies and 204 non-domestic companies from 65,438+0,990 to 2000, showing that domestic companies have stricter corporate supervision than non-domestic companies, so they have higher investment value. Their research found that during the period from 1990 to 2000, the return on assets of politically affiliated companies was 1.7 percentage points higher than that of non-politically affiliated companies, and the return on equity was 10. 1 percentage point higher. The return on assets and return on equity of political alliance companies are 4.6% and 4.2%, respectively, while those of non-political alliance companies are 2.9% and 4. 1%. Compared with non-political alliance companies, the cash asset ratio of political alliance companies is also higher-65,438+06.4% for political alliance companies and 65,438+03.7% for non-political alliance companies. Abundant cash shows that the political alliance company does not need to rely on the government financially, and it operates in the same way as a private company. Political alliance companies are also more disciplined in controlling expenses than non-political alliance companies. The ratio of expenditure to assets of political alliance companies is 50%, and that of non-political alliance companies is 70%, which is one of the reasons why the return on assets of political alliance companies is higher than that of non-political alliance companies. The ranking of the Straits Times' corporate transparency index shows that among the 10 companies with the strictest corporate supervision, five are politically affiliated companies.
After the Kuomintang lost its political power in Taiwan Province Province, Taiwan Province Province also carried out "privatization of public utilities" (that is, privatization of state-owned enterprises), and the Kuomintang regime's control and intervention in economic activities ceased to exist under the guiding principles of "planned economy" and "people's livelihood". Some scholars in Taiwan Province Province believe that the transfer of public property involves many economic and social structural problems through the evaluation of the effect and social impact of privatization, including the reorganization of economic order, the decline of working conditions, the deepening of the unequal relationship between labor and capital, the loss of people's life and property safety maintenance mechanism, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Therefore, privatization should not be viewed only on the basis of abstract and vague efficiency principles. He believes that when the state continues to support the privatization policy according to (or under the guise of) the idea of free economy, the contradiction between political and commercial interests will only be strengthened, and the efficiency of individual enterprises or the overall economy may not be improved. Admitting that public utilities have many shortcomings and functional decline does not mean that privatization is the only way out. Privatization may not necessarily improve efficiency, and whether efficiency can be used as the only criterion to measure the existence value of all public utilities should also be questioned. Privatization leads to the redistribution of resources, which will inevitably deepen the unequal structure and sacrifice social equity. The strategy of realizing economic liberalization is not only privatization, but also open competition of industries. Privatization does not necessarily mean the reduction of state economic intervention, but only the form of intervention. He defines privatization as the reduction of direct operation or management of economic or social affairs by the state, while non-governmental organizations undertake production or service functions. He believes that there are at least four forms of privatization: selling ownership, outsourcing management rights, hiring professional managers to run public utilities or public services, and narrowing the scope of welfare. The legitimacy of privatization is based on the excessive illusion of the market's self-management ability. Privatization is not only the auction of national assets, but also the responsibility of the auction country. On the surface, it seems to conform to the trend of the times, but in fact it only reflects that the state bureaucracy has lost its ability to self-supervise and control the operation of the state machine. Privatization has been criticized as throwing burdens, sawing arrows, selling state-owned assets cheaply and trampling on labor rights and interests. He believes that Marx has long seen the blind spot of the theory of free economy, that is, under the logic of competition, the rich are getting richer and richer. As someone said, socialism will make people feel cold, but no one will freeze to death; The market system gives people the freedom to freeze to death.
The 9 1 1 incident in the United States and the crash of the space shuttle Columbia are both very noticeable and far-reaching events. American scholars discussed these two events from the perspective of ownership. In Karma: The Price We Pay, the famous economist Krugman thinks that the tragedy of 9 1 1 is largely caused by Americans themselves. Because the United States is a country unwilling to invest in public safety. The hourly wage of security personnel in American airports is only $6, while in Europe, the hourly wage of security personnel is 1 hour 15, plus allowances, and they have received a lot of training. In the final analysis, this is because airport security in Europe is regarded as a law enforcement issue, and the cost is paid by the airport or the government; But in the United States, the airport security inspection fee is only paid by the airport itself. In his view, because politicians are busy pretending to oppose "big government", public institutions have always lacked available resources, and it is not feasible to rely on the private sector to do public affairs. An important lesson is that the government must spend money on some things. At the first public hearing of the explosion accident of the space shuttle Columbia, the focus was on the management system such as the privatization policy of NASA. Some people think that the privatization of the daily operation of the space shuttle project undertaken by Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the mid-1990s caused great disasters.
When we improve the social security system, we can learn from the western concept of "social dividend" to reduce the operating cost of the social security system and let everyone enjoy the benefits of state-owned enterprises. Direct social dividends to individuals can in turn strengthen people's concern for public assets.
James, a British economist, was the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics from 65438 to 0977. Meade was the first person to put forward the concept of "social dividend". In Meade's view, "social dividend" can promote employment more than conditional "unemployment relief". The "social dividend" provides every citizen with the same unconditional basic income, that is, they enjoy the "social dividend" regardless of whether they are employed or not, and mobilize the enthusiasm of the beneficiaries of the "social dividend" to accept low-income jobs. If the current conditional "unemployment benefit" is 100 yuan, Mead's plan is that 80 yuan will be unconditionally shared by the society, and unemployment will be added to 20 yuan. In this way, the unemployed can find jobs and no longer receive the relief from 20 yuan, but they can still receive the unconditional social dividend from 80 yuan. Therefore, as long as the income from outside jobs is greater than that from 20 yuan, the unemployed will have the motivation to find jobs.
In layman's terms, "social dividend" means paying money per person, which plays a great role in alleviating poverty and promoting consumption. The initial form of social dividend has appeared in China, such as paying a certain amount of living expenses to parents over 60 who have only girls every year. Most of the central state-owned enterprises in China are in basic industries with natural monopoly, such as PetroChina and Sinopec. This guaranteed monopoly income should benefit the whole people, and a certain proportion should be used for "social dividends" instead of being monopolized by departments or a few people.
Fourth, break the superstition of private ownership and see through the intention of privatization.
Some books about foreign state-owned enterprises and nationalization published in the United States are subtitled Threats to American Enterprises. Some people should understand why Americans advocate privatization. If state-owned enterprises are bad for the economy, why should the United States, as a competitor, sell them to you for privatization?
European scholars and politicians are not as confused as some of us. Italian scholars believe that "Italian industry can develop because it has established a state-owned economic structure different from other countries' market economies. "Former French President Francois Mitterrand believes that" nationalization is to protect the weapons produced in France ","I want to use nationalization to do what Charles de Gaulle did in the atomic strategy and provide an economic blow to France. "Not surprisingly, European governments directly control half of the 50 largest companies in Europe. Perhaps few people realize that many famous companies, such as Renault Automobile Company, BP Company, Swedish Steel Company, Rolls-Royce Company, etc. , is the only or largest shareholder. In France and Italy, 1990, the state-owned economy still accounts for 20%. The British public's support rate for privatization has never exceeded 40%, and the proportion of people who advocate nationalization in 1990 is higher than those who favor privatization, and the passenger satisfaction of British private railways is not as good as that of French state-owned railways.
Just after the wave of privatization, foreign scholars wrote books to prove that there is no evidence that privatization can improve efficiency. For example, among the seven studies on the cost of tap water, 1987, 1986 and 1983 found no significant difference, while 1982 and 1976 were the studies on the efficiency of public sector, only 1978.
Some economists in China advocate that "shareholding system reform" is a good way for state-owned enterprises to clarify their property rights and get out of the predicament. They believe that private self-interest motivation can drive business owners to engage in business and achieve high efficiency. Maybe they don't know that this factor is difficult to work in large and medium-sized enterprises; The incentive mechanism of modern enterprises is gradually weakening due to personal property rights, and the ownership form of state-owned enterprises and the so-called ownership form of modern capitalist big companies have little direct influence on the actual operating conditions of enterprises. Ding Bogen, the winner of the first Nobel Prize in Economics, hit the nail on the head: "Many economists and politicians in Europe have come to the conclusion that the ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with the efficiency of enterprises, and the most important thing is the management level." Therefore, the most fundamental problem of enterprise efficiency is competition and vitality, or "governance structure" in fashionable language, but it is actually a management problem. After the reorganization, not all problems can be solved, and the middle and lower employees and ordinary shareholders of companies like Enron in the United States have been deceived by a few upper-class people. A friend of mine who works in a well-known Internet company listed in the United States said that their employees' morale is generally low because they feel that they are working for their boss and have no sense of accomplishment and belonging. Gallup's survey in Singapore also shows that 8 out of every 10 Singapore employees are not so devoted to their work; One in every eight employees is dissatisfied with his work. This leads to a decline in productivity and an annual economic loss of S $5.4 billion. Gallup believes that this is related to the need to improve the management level, and managers play a very important role in determining the degree of employees' engagement in their work.
Because of "path dependence", we have to pay the price of social friction when we take the road of others. We can never solve our problems by copying. We should base ourselves on reality and give full play to our intelligence. It is not difficult to imagine that the way out for state-owned enterprises lies in the implementation of socialist economic democracy, or the innovation of the spirit of "Angang Constitution".
When we talk about the problems we encounter, we often attribute the reasons to the imperfection of the market economic system, as if there would be no worries after perfection. The United States, regarded as a model by many people, also has unimaginable problems. Those big listed companies that should be respected and feared are also a few people who cheat the public by hook or by crook. They just want to make money for themselves, and once world-renowned big accounting companies will also make false accounts. Should some people wake up from the "American Dream"? Our stock market problems are inevitable in America, or even worse. It should be recognized that the essence of market economy is the big fish eat small fish, and the capital pursues profits, and the inevitable result is polarization and law of the jungle. For a few people, they can go to heaven, but most people will go to hell or struggle in midair. Some people have suffered twice and suffered twice. Please open your eyes to the reduced working people and ask whose interests your theory represents! Establishing their own "theory" based on the sufferings of many people, only a few foreign experts follow suit, which not only failed the elegant people, but also failed the expectations of the times for real scholars. Your fate will inevitably be abandoned with the bankruptcy of the myth you weave.