We have been saying that we must develop state-owned enterprises with confidence
We also said that we will support the development and growth of private enterprises.
Therefore, in the arena of China's economy, there is a team A representing the public economy and a team B representing the non-public economy, so is there a certain sense of competition in this, and who will determine the outcome of the competition?
Rules in the competitive field
If it is the invisible hand of the market to determine the outcome of the competition, it is very simple, the same competitive rules, willing to gamble and lose, regardless of whether you are private or private;If it is an industry that loses money for people's livelihood, how to treat it?For example, the pension industry, whether it is a private enterprise or a state-owned enterprise, invests in all tax exemptions, and does not aim to make a profit. If you want to make money, then play fair.
If it is the visible hand of the administration that determines the outcome of the competition, it is very hard, and you will find that there are many decrees, the elite of the office is busy, and the market does not react. The steering wheel twisted around, and resources were consumed on turns.
Private enterprises and state-owned enterprises all want to become bigger and stronger, and this is no problem, but the problem is that the private sector has lost confidence.
This begs the question, why did the private sector have full confidence in the past, but they have no confidence in the post-epidemic era?In the early days of reform and opening up, it was private enterprises that became stronger and bigger, starting from scratch and proper Chinese storiesIn the past ten years, it is the state-owned enterprises that have become stronger and bigger, which is not a problem in itself, the question is, what do state-owned enterprises rely on to become stronger?Is it to become stronger and bigger in a fair competitive market environment, or to rely on the best special policies to become stronger and bigger?
How far can we go with policy dividends?
In the early days of reform and opening up, the vast majority of state-owned enterprises in competitive fields had difficulty in operating.
This exists a positioning of the responsibilities of state-owned enterprises, the task of state-owned enterprises is to be responsible for their own profits and losses, not just a platform for the pursuit of GDP, the basic function should be to provide better public services and public goods for the society, to ensure economic and social development and the safety of urban operation, rather than competing with private enterprises in the competitive field for various resources and development space.
This is the so-called state-owned enterprises to do something and not to do something.
We should withdraw from competitive fields in a safe and orderly manner, concentrate state-owned capital in the field of urban infrastructure and public utilities, and give play to the basic guarantee role of state-owned enterprises. Until the end of the year, some state-owned enterprises were still withdrawing from the very lucrative real estate industry. This is a good strategy for China's rapid economic development. This strategy has changed, and SOEs have begun to participate in competitive areas;Not only to participate in competitive fields, but also to rely on policy dividends;Not only rely on policy dividends to become stronger and bigger, but also to do industry monopoly;So, what is the chassis of the policy dividend?
There is a data that can illustrate the problem, the private economy is developed, the state-owned enterprises are also strong, the state-owned enterprises in the Northeast are very large, almost all of them are loss-making, relying on huge financial subsidies, the chassis of the policy dividend is the contribution of the market economy, this family base is eaten up, the policy dividend is over, relying on the policy dividend to become stronger and bigger can not go far.
Survival of the fittest in fair competition in the market
So, can state-owned enterprises become bigger and stronger in competitive fields?
Of course, it is not a problem, the policy creates a good environment for fair competition between state-owned enterprises, private enterprises and foreign enterprises, and the survival of the fittest in fair competition in the market. However, we cannot rely on the special policies and special support of the first state, and under the conditions of unequal competition, we must insist on becoming a strong and large state-owned enterprise. As a result, some state-owned enterprises may become stronger and bigger, but the entire national economy has been affected, and the efficiency of the allocation of resources in the entire society has become low.
That is to say, in a non-competitive field, state-owned enterprises are a kind of financial responsibility, and policy dividends have their social rationality, and the whole world is doing so, but if it is to accelerate the return of national ownership and bring policy dividends into the competitive field, this constitutes the so-called non-market behavior, coupled with the long-term monopoly of some industries, such as communications, oil, Tobacco and alcohol, etc., the allocation of resources in this market will gradually be administrative, and the market will no longer make a positive response, so that there is a trend of foreign capital and private capital retreating, and the cycle of China's rapid economic development has ended under the multiple superposition of non-market-oriented behavior, epidemic, and global de-sinicization.
Zhang Weiying is right, if state-owned enterprises rely on the special policy of the first to become stronger and bigger, it is no different from the rent-seeking of the ancient official-based economy.
List of high-quality authors