|
韶關(guān)翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：Retained profits from the expansion of autonomy and counting, Chinese state-owned enterprise reform has gone through 17 years of history. How to evaluate the effectiveness of this reform? Or, simply, the Chinese state-owned enterprise reform is successful or a failure? If you are concerned about China's economic reforms to all economists ask the question, you get about two opposite answers. One answer is, "Chinese state-owned enterprise reform is successful." The answer given is mainly overseas economists, including overseas Chinese economists, but the main foreign scholars. More influential published articles, including Chen et al (1988), Gordon and Li (1989), Jefferson, Rawski and Zheng (1992), Naughton and McMillan (1992), Hay et al (1994), Groves et al ( 1994, 1995), and so on. These studies, a basic finding is that Chinese state-owned enterprises since the reform and total factor productivity growth since the average of 2 to 4%, by contrast, the pre-reform is basically stagnant. Some scholars have further concluded that China's experience has shown that the problem of ownership is not the most important. Overseas economists answer with a marked contrast to China's domestic economist answers. Chinese economists, the mainstream view is that, ten years of state-owned enterprise reform is essentially unsuccessful, or a failure. Economists in China, this is not successful can be a doubt, the well-known fact, so if I cite here any article as representative of an economist, I will inevitably offend "Hero Great minds think alike "and other economists. Moreover, China is also an economist point of view of the vast majority of Chinese government officials, business managers, and ordinary people to share. I am often asked in a domestic question is, "Do you think the state-owned enterprises still hope?"Why are Chinese and foreign economists in the evaluation of the effectiveness of Chinese state-owned enterprise reform, the differences are so great? One possible reason is that economists rely mainly on domestic direct sense to judge, but most foreign economists use econometric analysis concluded that intuitive sense of place in the unsatisfactory conclusion analysis easily missed. The second reason is that domestic economists often the observed phenomena and their mode of the ideal target for comparison, and foreign economists put the present and past, for comparison, or that Chinese economists is "to first look "(forward looking), and foreign economists is" looking back "(backward looking), so that when the actual situation in the intermediate state, the Chinese scholars believe is a failure, and foreign scholars said was very successful.
Of course, this can not be the whole problem. The most important question is, what we use as an evaluation criteria of state-owned enterprise reform? Abroad, most economists use is "total factor productivity" (total factor roductivity), using this indicator is their tricks, they do not even have field trips to China, from China as long as a disk (disk) and a quantitative analysis software with the computer on it, and the computer tells them is really good news. Chinese economist's favorite quote is "profit" targets, and this is indeed the target to tell them bad news. But regardless of total factor productivity or profitability, are quite arbitrary. It can be said, in China's current situation, you can get any statistics to support the conclusion you want.
|