关于国企改制——

我向沃顿教授提出的质疑，以及沃顿教授给我的回信

文/第一观察

大概一年前，也就是去年5月，《沃顿知识在线》刊发了一篇题为《正在中国上演的私有化之路（The Road to Privatization in China）》的文章。文中引用了沃顿商学院的法学教授菲利普·尼科尔斯（Philip Nichols）的一句话：“私有化进程具有各种各样的模式。中国模式便是在维持国有企业的同时发展私有经济。如果国有企业无力与私有企业竞争，那么这些国有企业将被允许退出。（privatization occurs in all kinds of hybrids. The Chinese model is that you grow a private sector at the same time as you maintain the state-owned enterprises. If the state-owned enterprises can’t compete with the private sector, then they are allowed to wither away.）”

阅读了这篇文章以后，我对沃顿教授的这番话产生了疑问——中国的国有企业都是“wither away”吗？这未免太可笑了吧，怀着这样的疑问，我洋洋洒洒地写了一封很长的信给了该教授，用语气较为尖锐的方式提出了我的质疑。我在写信之时根本没有想到他会搭理我这样一个远在大洋彼岸的无名小卒；但出乎我意料之外的是，人家根本没有以自己是沃顿教授自居而放弃对真理的追求，他回了我的信，而且回得很认真，他十分坦诚地在信中承认了他知识上的欠缺。收到了信之后，我深深地被他高尚的学术品格所折服。

呵呵，这事如果放在国内就不一样了，商学院的教师们都在忙项目。如果我以一个清华大学在校学生的身份给本校SEM的教授们写这种信，人家肯定看都不会看到（都是秘书收信）；退一步，就算能看到也不会回；再退一步，就算回了也不见得回得这么认真；再再退一步，就算回得认真也是在死撑，国内的大学教授绝对不可能承认自己的错误的！

附1：我给Wharton教授的去信

Dear Prof. Nichols,

 

Recently I come across an article entitled The Road to Privatization in China.

http://www.knowledgeatwharton.com..cn/index.cfm?fa=article&articleid=1382&languageid=1

In this article there are two quotations from you. The first is,"One of their objectives is to maintain the supremacy of the party. Obviously there's a tension between that and creating a market, which is essentially a democratic process spreading out power among the people" The other is "privatization occurs in all kinds of hybrids. The Chinese model is that you grow a private sector at the same time as you maintain the state-owned enterprises. If the state-owned enterprises can't compete with the private sector, then they are allowed to wither away"

While I totally agree with your first point, I think we think the second point on different perspectives. The process of privatization here is a maze far more complex than any one can imagine. The issue of privatization varies from time to time(things are different from now back to 1990's, and 1990's is again different from 1980's) , from place to place(even within China), from industry to industry.

First, do SOEs really allowed to "wither away"? A superficial observation could negate this. And both examples and underlying reasons abound. Many local governments support, financially or politically, agonal SOEs to maintain a good image--Just as in Shanghai Shuixian's case. A more reasonable explanation is that since governments are shareholders of these SOEs , how can they just let their fruits go away? If SOEs die, where is tax income, dividend, and workers' salary? To restructure dying SOEs ( e.g. introduction of foreign strategic investors) is a popular method to rescue them, but they cannot be referred just as wither away.

Far from smoothly moving toward free-market, Chinese governments often regress on the way of privatization. This holds true especially in sensitive industries such as telecommunication, energy, finance, etc. In these areas, private enterprises are redlined by strict regulations. Although VoIP represents an advanced telecommunication tool, Ministry of Information Industry explicitly strangle new-born private VoIP operations, only to secure profits of state-owned conglomerates: CNC and China Telecom. Even in those seemingly already privatized industry, cases also exist: In the recent Beijing Taxi Price Listening, the long-exist problem is exposed to public again: private taxi drivers' interest is in peril from time to time.

 

Then comes a more intricate question: what is the definition of so-called SOE? Is one state-owned-enterprise really owned by state? Lenovo asserts itself
"without connection with China Government", but who provided the original 20,000 RMB in 1984? CCTV asserts itself as state-owned, but where does its tremendous annual revenue go?

 

I know it is obviously hasty that I draw conclusion from only two of your sentences.  But the wide gap between your statement and what I have experienced prompt me to write this letter. Should you are interested in this topic we could discuss it in-depth.

附2：Wharton教授给我的回复

Thank you for your message and for your interest.  And for your interesting comments.
 
I do not want to seem like I am evading your criticism, but I use the phrase "Chinese Model" as a term of art to describe one of the four basic models of privatisation (voucher, public offer, collective, and Chinese Model).  These terms were used in a World Bank bulletin in the mid 1990s, and I heard economists using the term "Chinese model" even earlier than that.  Personally I do not like the term because it singles out one country, and other countries (such as Uzbekistan) have attempted it, but it is the term that people use so I use it.
 
Personally, I agree with you that the process in China has run into some difficulties.  One of the problems that the Chinese model runs into around the world is that it takes so long that vested interests have plenty of time to oppose or reverse the process.  I would never pretend to have more knowledge of what is going on in China than you do, but what you describe exposes a fundamental real world weakness of a model that is elegant in theory.  I also agree that privatization occurs in hundreds of different forms:  the four basic models merely descibe four points on a spectrum and occur in many different ways and can be combined in many different hybrids.
 
I find your question regarding "what is a state owned enterprise" to be really interesting.  The question has been asked from a legal perspective for purposes of things like international trade regulations, but you ask it in a much more practical and direct way.  That is a truly intriguing question that I had not thought about in that way.  Thank you very much for making me think of that.  This is a subject in which I am very interested, and I am grateful for your thoughts.
 
Thank you,
Phil Nichols