【作者】 杨卫东；

【导师】 邓大松；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 公共经济管理， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 国有企业为什么而存在?它的本质是什么?这是一个被忽视的理论问题。目前国有企业存在的许多问题皆源于此。《国有企业工具论——中国国有企业性质与改革研究》(以下简称《工具论》)旨在揭示国企的本质是政府调控经济、社会的工具。从理论上论证与澄清国企的功能、性质与地位,并以此视角分析过往的国企改革,提出新一轮改革的建议。《工具论》由四章组成。第一章国企与社会主义研究。在传统的理论体系中,公有制与社会主义紧密相连,研究国企工具论,必须澄清与突破传统理论体系。该章研究了马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林和毛泽东对社会主义与公有制的论述,总结了我党改革开放以来在公有制与社会主义方面的探索,在此基础上,提出了自己新的思考。本章认为,一、马克思、恩格斯所论述的共产主义公有制是自由人的联合体,列宁将公有制提前到社会主义阶段,并把国有制作为公有制的主要内容,虽然,列宁很快认识到,国有化的步伐太快,提出了退却战略,但是,国有制是公有制的主要内容的观点并没有变。斯大林继承了这一思想,并将它发挥到极致,形成了以国有制为主的斯大林式社会主义。这种模式成为世界各国社会主义的样本。我国过去的社会主义道路也是参照苏联的结果。因此,斯大林以后的社会主义与马克思的共产主义是有本质区别的。二、马克思构想的公有制不包括国有制。过去,我们把公有制理解为全民所有制和集体所有制,但是马克思界定的公有制是联合的个体所有制,是民有的范畴,而国有制是国家的范畴,官的范畴,官与民是两个对立的概念,本质上是截然不同的。三、既然公有制不包括国有制,国企与社会主义就没有必然联系,国企无论在理论上还是实践上都不是社会主义的基础。第二章国企性质研究。在理论上解决了公有制与社会主义的问题后,本章对国企相关问题进行了专题研究。首先对国企本源的有关问题进行了探讨,对国企给出了新的定义：“国企是由政府出资或参股,并受政府直接或间接支配性影响,用市场方式向社会提供产品与服务的经济组织。”分析了国企在不同时期、不同环境下的不同职能,研究了国企作为特殊企业法人的特点。其次,对国企工具功能进行了分析,认为国企作为工具在我国至少有三大功能,即政治服务功能,经济服务功能,公共服务功能。本章运用戈森关于效用的三大定理对国企作为工具的效用进行了分析,提出了工具功能的演化、异化和矫正的观点。最后,用国企工具论分析国企改革中出现的问题,得出结论：“无视国企本质的改革只能称为失去灵魂的改革”。第三章国企进退的历史研究。该章是以实证的方式论证国企是政府调控经济与社会的工具。该章从历史的角度回顾了大萧条与二战后的国有化浪潮,撒切尔革命以来的世界性私有化浪潮以及全球金融危机引起的国有化新浪潮。对国有化与私有化提出了独到的见解：一、国有化浪潮的兴起基于应对经济危机的需要,应对战争的需要,调控社会经济的需要和政治理想与意识形态的需要。国企形式在经济稳定的和平时期,是政府提供公共产品和公共服务的重要载体,是引导社会经济产业结构不断上升,科学技术不断发展的重要杠杆,尤其在市场经济失灵中具有不可替代的作用。二、私有化浪潮的兴起通常有以下原因：一是与新自由主义的兴起有关,二是国有化后有些效益的不理想,三是科技的发展带动的经济结构调整。在通常状况下,私有化有利于自由竞争,有利于提高效率,也有利于遏制政府对企业的干预。但是,私有化有其较大的局限性。(1)如果缺乏投资治理法规,私有化可能使国家垄断变成私人垄断。(2)私有化可能削弱政府提供的公共产品和公共服务。(3)不尊重已有的制度遗产,大规模的私有化会对社会经济造成极大的破坏。本章的结论(一)国有化与私有化谁优谁劣,难分高下。有一种观点,认为私有化比国有化效率高,其实它们常常不可比。国有化注重经济与社会的两种效益,经济效益的低下很多情况是为了实现社会效益。另外,在许多时期,国有化的效益远远超过同期的私有化。(二)国有化与私有化都是政府调控经济的工具。西方国家的国有化与私有化都是政府发动的,都是为经济社会服务的,每一次浪潮都是一次大规模的经济结构调整。国有化与私有化不是相互排斥的而是相辅相成,互为作用的。(三)国有化与私有化本身没有政治含义,它们的反复轮回反映了政府职能与市场机制二者关系的动态演化,但是,如果把它们贴上政治标签,它们就会变异,成为一种不可控的力量,把消灭对方作为自己的神圣目标。当年的苏联和后来的俄罗斯都是如此。历史证明,无论是全盘国有化还是全盘私有化都是违反经济规律的,都是不会长久的。第四章新一轮国企改革研究。论证国企是政府工具的目的是为了研究我国的国企改革。本章首先总结了我国的国企改革,分析了国企改革的几种类型,对国企改革的阶段划分提出了新的见解,认为迄今为止的国企改革主要经历了两轮,第一轮从1978-1989年,其特点是以效益为导向的改革；第二轮从1992-2007年,其特点是以产权为导向的改革。文章批评了社会上流行的关于国企改革目的和标准的观点,并按照国企工具论的理论,提出了自己的观点。本章深入探讨了2006年以后不断升级的“再国有化”现象,认为西方国家全球金融危机后的国有化与我国的“再国有化”有着本质区别。一是西方国家的国有化范围很小,行业针对性很强,主要拯救金融业内行将破产的企业。我国的“再国有化”遍及各行各业。二是西方国家的国有化都是权宜之计,是暂时措施,形势一旦稳定,立即退出。我国“再国有化”则没有想过退出的问题。三是西方国家国有化和振兴措施主要目标是扶助民企和民众,我国却趁机发展国企,看不到对低收入人群的救济计划。因此,用西方的国有化论证我国的“再国有化”的正确性是缺乏逻辑力量的。关于国企的进退本应是国企工具的一种常态,关键是该不该进退,怎样进退,在哪些行业进退,只有用工具论的标准去检验,才能明辨是非。最后,本章根据工具论的理论,提出了新一轮国企改革的思路。作者认为,中国30余年的高速发展取得了很大成绩,但是,这种以高投入、高耗能、高污染为代价的高速发展模式已走到尽头,改革处在新的十字路口。转变发展模式,首先要从国企改革做起。新一轮国企改革的特点是以国企功能为导向的改革。主要内容是国企的四大战略转移。(一)推进国有资本从生产领域向公共产品和公共服务领域的转移,让国企回归到本质；(二)推进国有股权的多元化,并促进股权从控股向参股转移,从大股向中小股转移,使国有资产在搭便车中增值；(三)推进国企发展战略从传统产业向高科技领域转移,使国企发挥在国家发展战略中的先锋作用和引领作用；(四)推进国企从一般领域向国家安全和国民经济命脉的重要行业及关键领域转移,以维护国家的安全和核心竞争力。这是一场完全不同路径的改革,是从功能着眼,推进社会主义市场经济体制的改革,但是这项改革单靠国企是完不成的,最终取决于政府的自身改革。因此,本章最后提出了政府改革的任务,认为不改革政府作为利益主体的体制,不促进政府工作重心从经济工作向社会公共事业的转移,不改革政府从微观调控向宏观调控的转移,新一轮的国企改革便会落空。更多还原

【Abstract】 Why is a state-owned enterprise being? What is the nature of it? These, the rooted origins of many problems related to a state-owned enterprise, are often ignored by theorists. The State Enterprise as a Tool——A study on the Nature and Reform of State Enterprises is to reveal its nature-a tool used by the government to regulate the economy and the society. The book is to prove and elucidate theoretically the functions, natures and status of tate enterprises, and through the analysis of past reforms in this perspective, to put forward a new round of reform plans.The book comes in4chapters. Chapter One deals with the relationship between state enterprises and socialism, In conventional theories, public ownership is closely connected with socialism. To study the state enterprise as a tool, we should break through the traditional theory. Based on the study of the theory of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong on the relationship of socialism and public ownership, the author summerizes our party’s efforts in this field since the reform, and proposes new ideas in this chapter. The following points are addressed:1. Marx and Engels regard the communist public ownership as a collective entity of free individuals while Lenin draws the period of public ownership to the stage of socialism and considers state ownership to be the mainstay of public ownership. Even when Lenin soon realizes the fact that the nationalization effort is in too much a haste and advocates policy of retreat, state ownership has still been regarded as having the same status. Stalin continues and perfectes the idea to the extent of forming the Stalin-styled socialism in which state ownership plays a dominant role. This has been the model followed by other socialist countries. So did our country in the past. For this reason, the Post-Stalin socialist ideas are quite different from Marx’s communist ideas in nature.2. The public ownership conceived by Karl Marx does not include state ownership. In the past we held that public ownership comes in two forms:ownership by the entire people and collective ownership. However, Marx defines it as the union of individual ownership, which stays at the civil level; while state ownership is at the bureaucratic level. The civil and bureaucratic are essentially two contradictory levels. 3. Since public ownership does not necessarily include state ownership, there should be no positive connection between state enterprises and socialism. Therefore, state enterprises do not necessarily lay the foundation for socialism either in theory or practice.Chapter Two addresses the nature of state enterprises. When we are clear about the relationship between public ownership and socialism, special attention is paid to the various problems concerning state enterprises. First, the origin of state enterprises is discussed. A new definition is produced as "a state-owned enterprise is an economic entity in which the government provides funds or is a share-holder and exerts direct or indirect control, and an entity that provides goods and services to the society by means of the market." The different functions of the state enterprise in various periods and environments as well as its character as a special corporate legal person are all dealt with. Second, the functions as a tool of state-owned enterprise are analyzed. It is held there are three functions—serving the politics, serving the economy and serving the public. Gossen’s three laws on utility are employed for discussing the tool function of state-owned enterprises. The evolution, alienation and rectification of the tool functions are identified. Finally, the problematic issues in the reform of state enterprises are discussed with the tool theory and the conclusion is reached as such "any reform ignoring the nature of the state enterprise can only be labeled as an empty effort."In Chapter Three, the author reviews on the past struggles of state enterprises in the operation of state economy. Demonstrations are shown to reveal the state-owned enterprise is a tool for the government to regulate economy and society. The author retrospects on the effort of nationalization after the Great Depress and WWII, the global privatization wave in the wake of Thatcher’s revolution and the nationalization wave that the international financial crisis has brought about. The author holds:1. the wave of nationalization conforms to the needs of coping with economic crisis and war, the needs of regulating social economy and political ideals and ideology; the state enterprise, as an important carrier of public goods and services for the government, serves as a lever that helps perfect the social and industrial structure and promote the advancement of science and technology in times of stable social economy, with a vital role to play especially when the market economy fails;2. the wave of privatization is usually brought about by the rise of new liberalism, unsatisfactory aspects in profits after nationalization and the reshuffling of economy caused by the advancement of science and technology. Usually privatization is conducive to free competition, the increase of productivity and helps check the government’s intervention on corporations. However, privatization has its limitations. In lack of relevant investing laws, privatization is likely to turn state monopoly into private monopoly. It may dilute on the public goods and services provided by the government. Regardless of the present institutional legacy, large-scale privatization may wreak havoc on social economy.This chapter reaches the following conclusions:1. For nationalization and privatization, there is no saying which is better. Some think privatization brings higher efficiency, but it is not true because of there being no grounds for comparison. In a naturalized condition, economic and social benefits are balanced, in which the lower economy is meant to achieve some social benefits. In addition, the benefits brought by nationalization is, in many periods, far beyond those in privatized economy at the same time.2. Nationalization and privatization are both tools for government to regulate the economy. The nationalization or privatization efforts in the western world are all launched by the government, aiming for serving the social economy, and they are in each time a large-scale rectification in the economic structure. The two complement each other instead of fighting off each other.3. Nationalization or privatization has no political connotations per se. Their rotations reflect the dynamic evolution of governmental functions and market mechanisms. If labeled with political tags, they are bound to turn into uncontrollable forces, highly motivated to annihilate the other. The former Soviet Union and now Russia is a case in point. History has taught us that neither is it right to adopt total nationalization nor is it right to adopt total privatization, both of which go against the economic laws and will never last.Chapter Four addresses the new round of reforms of state enterprises in China, which is the purpose of proving the state enterprise as a government tool. In this chapter, following a summary of reform history, several types of reform undertakings have been assessed and new ways of partitioning the phases are posited. The First Phase, from1978to1989, is characterized by benefit-oriented reforms. The Second Phase, from1992to2007, is featured by reforms orientated towards property rights. The opinions about the standard and purpose of state enterprises, now gaining currency, have become the author’s targets of condemnation with the help of the tool theory. The author closely examines the escalating "Re-nationalization" efforts since2006, claiming that they are fundamentally different from the nationalization programs in the western world in the wake of international financial crisis. On the one hand, the nationalization in the western world is not large in scale and purposefully directed, mainly towards the salvage of financial enterprises facing bankruptcy while in China it permeates all sectors; on the other hand, the nationalization efforts in the west are expedient policies and ready to be withdrawn when conditions are alleviated while in China no withdrawal is planned. Moreover, western reforms of nationalization are intended to aid privately-owned enterprises and the general public while our government seeks the opportunity to develop state enterprises without any trace of trying to relieving low-income citizens. Therefore, it is logically wrong to analyze the "Re-nationalization" effort in China with western examples. The strategies that state enterprises should adopt-forward or backwards-are both normal policies. The point is they should be measured with the tool theory as to whether or how or in what sector they should behave. Based on the tool theory, the author finally proposes the new ideas of the new round of state enterprise reform. Thirty years of high-speed development has brought us great achievement. However, this speedy growth characterized by high input, high consumption and high pollution is now like an spent bullet. The turning-point is near at hand-the mode of development awaits changes and the change should begin with state-owned enterprises.The new round of state enterprise reforms in China is function-oriented. They are mainly featured by four strategic transferences:the transference of state-owned assets from productive fields to the field of public goods and services; the diversification of state-owned stock holdings and transference from stock proprietary to stock taking and from holding large stocks to medium or small stocks, helping its profit growth in the free ride; the transference from conventional industries to high-tech fields, highlighting the leading and guiding role of state enterprises; and the transference from common industries to crucial sectors connected with state security and vital economic industries to strengthen national defense and core competitiveness.This is a new reform following a totally different path, which, focusing on the functions of state enterprises, intends to promote the reform of socialist market economy. However, the state enterprise alone cannot fulfill it, as it is at last pivoted on the reforms of the government governance. For this reason, the author proposes in this chapter the idea of reforming the governance. If no reforms take place in the government as the subject of profits, if no effort is made to transfer the focus of government work from economic matters to social and public matters, and if no transference is made for the government from micro-regulation to macro-regulation, the new round of the state enterprise reforms will become a futile attempt.更多还原