Let the separation pave the way for the reform of state-owned enterprises clazziquai

Let the separation of government and enterprises pave the way for the reform of state owned enterprises and the reform of state owned enterprises and state-owned enterprises. After the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the reform of state-owned enterprises to enter the decision-making layer and the public view, in September last year the Central Committee issued "on deepening the reform of state-owned enterprises guidance" and at the end of last year, three ministries jointly issued "on the state-owned enterprises function definition and classification guidance", February 25th, deputy director of SASAC Zhang Xiwu detailed interpretation of the "ten items of state owned enterprises the pilot reform of the implementation plan. "The ten reform in electric power, petroleum, civil aviation including seven areas of mixed ownership, increase the construction of the board of directors, the pilot implementation of occupation manager system in an enterprise and the implementation of the market hiring like, these pilot initiatives are undoubtedly toward market economy reform direction, to establish a modern enterprise system in state owned enterprises. However, these measures are not the first pilot, the central enterprises to establish a board of directors, Sinopec mixed ownership reform has started a few years ago, but has failed to achieve the desired results, such as the 85 central enterprises board has will be considered "physical atheism". These measures are ineffective, the essence is that the current system of state-owned enterprises –. The government and the planned economy accompanied, in the specific historical period for China’s economic construction and political goals to make a certain contribution. However, under the current market economy, the government as the executor of public power and the "dual role" of private rights owners, the institutional defects of which increasingly become the fetters of economic development. Therefore, in order to break the deadlock in the reform of state-owned enterprises and to make the reform pilot work effective, the key lies in the separation of government and enterprises. The so-called separation of government and enterprise, that is, the government’s economic, administrative, social management functions and business management functions separately. In the modern enterprise system, the government’s economic management function is mainly to regulate the market through policies, regulations and economic means, and guide the enterprise management activities, rather than directly interfere with the production and management activities of enterprises. In other words, in state-owned enterprises, the government should change from the role of management participants to regulators. In essence, the separation of government from enterprises has been put forward for a long time. However, due to the obstruction of vested interests, it has not been effectively implemented. In the central enterprises, the board of directors is considered "physical atheism" as an example, for a long time, the central and local state-owned enterprises responsible person has been appointed by the government, which caused two consequences: the person in charge of performance oriented and non market oriented, internal management structure and corporate governance rule. The disadvantages of the present enterprise management are the expansion of financing through the institutional advantages, blind investment, but not the consequences of investment failure; in the management style, it is based on the administrative level theory and the status of the salary. Behind the chaos, the government directly intervene the enterprise, while the board of directors, professional managers and other modern enterprise system and regulate the corporate governance structure exist in name only. Therefore, let the government return to the role of supervision, play the role of the board of directors under the modern enterprise system, so that most state-owned enterprises can, like private enterprises, operate according to the general economic laws and market rules. The successful mode of SOE reform in the world is Temasek model in singapore. Temasek Ximo 9

让政企分开铺路国企改革 国企   国企改革再次站上风口。十八届三中全会之后,国企改革重新进入决策层与公众视野,继去年9月份中央发布《关于深化国有企业改革的指导意见》和去年底三部委联合出台《关于国有企业功能界定与分类的指导意见》,2月25日,国务院国资委副主任张喜武详细解读了关于国企“十项改革试点”的落实计划。   “十项改革试点”包括在电力、石油、民航等七大领域推进混合所有制、增加董事会建设试点、推行职业经理人制度以及在一级企业实施市场化选聘之类,这些试点举措,无疑都是朝着市场经济改革方向前行,欲在国有企业建立现代企业制度。然而,这些举措多不是首次试点,央企建立董事会、中石化混合所有制改革均已在数年前启动,但一直未能达到预期的效果,如已有的85家央企董事会被外界认为“有形无神”。这些举措之所以收效甚微,本质上在于当前国企的体制——— 政企不分。   政企不分与计划经济相伴而生,在特定历史时期为我国的经济建设和政治目标的实现作出了一定的贡献。但在当前市场经济条件下,政府作为公权力的执行者和私权利拥有者的“双重角色”,其所隐含的制度性缺陷日益成为经济发展的羁绊。   因此,欲打破当前国企改革僵局和让改革试点能够行之有效,关键之处在于政企分开。所谓政企分开,即政府的经济、行政、社会管理职能要与企业的经营管理职能分开。在现代企业制度中,政府的经济管理职能主要是通过政策法规和经济手段来调控市场,引导企业经营活动,而不是直接干预企业的生产经营活动。换言之,在国有企业,政府要从经营参与者的角色转变为监管者。实质上,政企分开提出由来已久,但由于既得利益集团的重重阻碍,一直未能有效推行。   以央企董事会被外界认为“有形无神”为例,长期以来,央企和地方国企负责人一直由政府任命,这引发了两个后果:负责人政绩导向而非市场导向,内部管理人治结构而非公司治理。其弊端体现在企业经营上,则是借助体制优势融资扩张、盲目投资却不承担投资失败后果;体现在管理风格上,则是以行政级别论高下、以身份地位定薪酬。种种乱象背后,是政府部门直接行政干预企业,而董事会、职业经理人等现代企业制度和规范公司法人治理结构形同虚设。因此,让政府回归监管角色,发挥现代企业制度下董事会的作用,让大多数国有企业能够像私营企业一样,按一般经济法则和市场规律运作。   国际上较为成功的国有企业改革模式是新加坡的淡马锡模式。淡马锡模式即政府-淡马锡-企业的三级监管体制,淡马锡是一家以私人名义注册的控股公司,政府通过财政部持有淡马锡100%股权,淡马锡经营数十家国联企业股权,下属子公司则可以通过投资、持股、设立子公司等方式,进一步扩大资本触角范围,形成政府到企业的多级管理层次,控制数百家公司。由于淡马锡模式取得了很大成功,被认为是国资国企改革的标本。而淡马锡模式之所以取得成功,关键并不在模式,而在于真正实现了政资政企分开,并严格依法管理。也就是说,模式只是一种形式和表象,能否实现政资政企分开和依法管理,才是内容与本质。   一言以蔽之,在推进国企改革过程中,应当将注意力更多地放在如何实现政企分开和依法管理方面。而这其中最为核心的内容就是政府放权,回归到公共领域。如此,真正实现十八届三中全会提出的让市场在资源配置中起到决定性作用。   (原载2月26日《第一财经日报》) 责任编辑:李清 SN219相关的主题文章: