财新传媒
位置:博客 > 冯毅 > 改进国营与民营企业管理的关键

改进国营与民营企业管理的关键

前言
 
我们知道中国依靠个人和集体的力量,即国有企业与私人企业共同发展经济,优势明显,这保证了成功。但一般来说,国有企业效率较低但可保证社会经济的平稳运行和基础设施投资,私有企业效率较高,但同行利益冲突和信息的封锁不可避免带来整体经济的盲目性;而使市场不时通过经济危机给社会带来巨大破坏而重新平衡,因此要国企和私企共同运作,不可走极端,用一种方式否定另一种方式,要互相取长补短,整个社会方可保持较长时间和较高速的发展。两者都共同要依靠市场与资本的力量,因此在经济上,中国可以同时包容公有制与私有制,经济上,包容社会主义与资本主义。
 
但国有企业绝不等同计划经济,并与市场经济相对立。两者的概念不能混为一谈。计划经济是讲整个国家按照一个统一的计划发展经济,产品销售上排斥市场自然的供需作用。它决不是指一个企业自己的规划和预算。有些人有意或无意故意将这两个不同的概念混淆,以达特殊目的,需要澄清和信用。 信用是指不管最后的结果对你有利或不利,都要按合同或协议执行,没有选择。不能因自己发展经济落后,觉得如执行协议,对方会占便宜而拒绝执行协议条文。这是你必须无条件履行的义务。如拒绝执行协议,在银行界,就叫信用破产。国际评级机构如真正客观,就应降低有关国家信用等级。
 
和私有企业比较起来,国有企业不同的只是企业的所有人。国有企业是集体或国家所有,这和国企产品的销售依靠市场完全是两回事。市场正常时的优点是国有企业所不能不看到的和依靠的,就如同人们如不相信市场的不可抗拒的优长与吸引,又怎么会大力推行市场经济呢?情况各国是相同的。因此私有制所必须依靠的自由市场一旦建立,就会全面发展起来并覆盖全国,成为资源分配和供需自然平衡起决定性作用的环节。管理国企的计划也必然是在市场经济的基础上的计划,它大约像主要组成西方世界的巨大私有公司和银行的整体规划与预算,而不是管理整个国民经济的命令式的计划,如改革前的计划。因私有制的存在,这计划也不可能管理全国的国民经济,不用说人们意识到市场经济的优点,更需将所有计划建立在市场经济的基础上。只有当经济出现全局的严重问题时,国有企业才发挥领导作用,因那时是整个国家挽救整个社会的问题,如罗斯福30年代挽救大萧条所采取的措施。单讲国有企业为国家所有绝没有不道德问题,只有全力发展的问题。不道德的是贫富极端的分化,损人利己的行为和对他人的掠夺。至于效率问题,有一时的效率和多年的平均效率相区别,最后要看是否成功。但成功归成功,两者在管理上的重大缺点也仍不容忽视,需要改进。
 
改善国有企业管理的关键
 
国有企业主要的问题是效率比不上私人企业。国企的改造不在于国家怎样持有,是股份制还是其他方式,一般都不能改变企业由政府主要所有的事实,改革的主要问题在建立企业高管人员的主人翁的态度,在于他们管理国有企业,像管理自己的企业一样。“正确的路线确定之后,干部就是决定的因素”(毛泽东)。讲现实问题,国企高管和私企老板比并非不聪明,但国企的效率为什么搞不过私人企业?主要的问题在高管人员实际看重的是个人提拔,把企业领导职务只看作升职的临时跳板,被动的执行上级的命令,而不管企业或所管的领域是好是坏,没有在命令与保持企业良好效率之间想办法,更不用说上级还没有什么具体命令的一般情况时国企高管没尽心,至少没有像私人老板对他的企业那样尽心。这绝非是低看这些高管的觉悟,你拿出成绩来证明你高尚的觉悟。在一般情况下,成绩不佳,凭什么说你有高尚的觉悟?这是现实的不言自明的问题。想提拔并非全是黑暗的心态,毕竟“人往高处走,水往低处流”。但必须拿出成绩来。因此改革措施必须针对中心的和实际的问题。没有对准中心问题,就无法根本解决问题。其实改革措施并不复杂,但要坚决执行,就是把效率与个人的提拔挂钩。企业效率达不到略高于本行业的平均水平,高管一般不得提拔,除国家有特殊规定。除要执行上级解决事关全局问题的命令和计划外,要把提高效率看作是企业唯一的目标。
 
“奉命哲学”,就是不去正确理解中央要搞好市场经济的实质要求,把自己的歪理,不正确的理解强加给中央和上级,推卸责任,心想 “反正我搞错了是执行中央精神”。市场经济如同打仗,更多面对的是无情的经济客观规律,无情的市场,你不尊重它,敬畏它,按照它的规律办事,就要在它面前碰的头破血流,打败仗,被它所消灭。作为第一线指挥员,必须对你直接指挥的战场胜败负责。总司令要求的是打胜战。我们要发扬正气,宣传高大尚,但也要冷静客观的看准人们的平均觉悟,制定改革的举措,必须按照实际平均觉悟,不能按照我们宣传的形象制定具体的改革措施。
                   
企业长期入不付出,效率达不到同行的平均水平,国企同样要有倒闭的问题,就要另请高明,一般就要将高管撤职,并不得调动同级使用。这时高管像企业的一般职工一样重新安排工作,绝对不能有特殊,必须能上能下,何况还没有管理好企业,更要如此。以克服管理层缺乏有效的管理和长远有效的规划。要提拔只有一条路可走,那就是搞好企业。除事关全局的问题外,按市场需求,一般上级应尽量减少对企业下死命令或僵硬的计划。上级错误的命令或计划,要上级责任。
 
经济建设也是打仗。战要打胜,必须要在常胜将军中,在企业和政府部门完成效率好的人中选拔干部,这样才会英雄辈出,才会出开国的十大元帅十大大将等优秀人才。杜绝在只会说好话和欺压百姓的人选拔干部,因为只会讲好话,是建不成大厦的,欺压百姓,和“以人民为中心”的思想格格不入,只会亡党亡国,误了大事。我们有市场经济,在大多行业有民营企业,容易找到行业的平均效率,对于国家垄断行业,政府要制定平均效率标准。
 
改善私营企业管理的关键
 
作为民营企业,克服盲目性,维护社会的公平是首要目标。克服盲目性就要求政府需要全面掌握企业的产供销和收支情况以及市场情况,要一览无余。汇总这些情况后,要给民营企业以适当的友善指引,做好服务,解决盲目性的问题,但不能下命令。关键是政府掌握的情况必须真实准确全面,这样如企业不听,就会在实际中碰壁。
 
职工收入和公司盈利是维持社会公平的主要环节。可通过灵活的针对每个不同企业的盈利情况制定不同的税率而基本解决。盈利少,税率低,盈利大,税率高,避免人为干预。这就是累进税率,即根据利润-收入不同按不同税率缴税。这不仅对个人收入,而且对全部企业,民营的和国营的都是如此。
 
企业累进税率及税基即公司利润的差别要适当,既不太高,也不太低。总税率,从免税到较高税率,这比特朗普的同幅度减税要科学合理。美国民主党对减税方案的反对意见不无道理,但提不出有效的修补意见而一味反对。一刀切的减税方案确是给富有的企业即利润大的企业带来更大的好处,造成更大的不公平。相反,如利润高的企业适当加税,利润低的企业减税,削峰填谷,就是实行累进税率,促进中小企业的发展,有利平等竞争,社会公平,且不会造成更大的政府赤字。但美国的减税方案却不是这样,这会给社会带来更大的不公,可能引起美国社会更大的动荡。减税收之桑榆失之东隅,经济所得政治可能全失。
 
作为累进税率标准的中等规模利润要区分得细一些,使那些做假账的公司或做年底的 “展览窗装饰(window dressing)”的 “合法的骗局”即通过虚假交易或转账而做大盈利的公司。你利润做的多就得多交税而受到惩罚,得不到实际的好处。既要顾及社会效益,也要顾及社会公平。盈利低的企业要减税到免税,以进行资金扶持;但企业发展起来后,盈利高后需按较高的税率缴税。因为这时需要解决的问题转化为维持更为重要的社会公平,实现共同富裕。上市公司按分派股息后的利润计算,以便上市公司考虑加大所派股息,以利股市健康发展。这等于国家支持股市发展。要简化税收品种,最后达到单一的税种。收到税款后,税款在税务部门内分账,以达减少税收种类和企业缴税时计算的繁琐,也好管理。
 
这些繁杂的工作,在计算机的帮助下可顺利的做到。改变传统的统一的,一刀切的企业税率。税收是调节经济的杠杆,但企业之间的发展是不平衡的。统一的税率,比较简单机械的调节经济。采取一刀切,似是公平,但不是根据企业的利润制定税率,给盈利低的企业造成发展困难,盈利高的企业造成收入的不公平。所以要给经济注入活力,克服不公平就需要采用不同利润不同税率,使中小企业得到最大程度的解放。使用不同税率,企业能较全面快速发展,同时大大减少社会分配不合理不公平的状况。
 
The Key to Improve Management of State-owned and Private Enterprises
 
THE PREFACE 
 
We know that China relies on individual and collective strengths, namely state-owned enterprises (SOE) and private enterprises to both develop the economy;the advantage is obvious. This is guarantee for the success. However in general, the efficiency of SOEs is comparably lower but can ensure the smooth and steady operations of the social economy and infrastructure investments; the efficiency of private enterprises is comparably higher, but the conflict of interests and information blockades among private companies in same industry inevitably bring about the blindness for the whole economy, and make the market to bring great damages in order to rebalance the society through the economic crisis as happened from time to time. So the SOEs and private enterprises should be both operated and developed. Do not go to the extreme ends and try to replace the one with the other. It is better to take the advantages to patch the deficiencies from each other. The whole society can therefore maintain a rapider growth for a longer period. Both enterprises commonly depend on the powerful strengths of markets and capitals, therefore, on the economic side, China can accommodate both public ownership and private ownership, accommodate socialism and capitalism in economy. 
 
But SOEs is absolutely not equal to the planned economy and antagonistic to the market economy. The two cannot be confused in concept. The planned economy is the model that covers the whole country according to a unified plan to develop the economy and the product sales will reject the market's natural functions of supply and demand. It by no means refers to an overall planning and budget for a particular enterprise. Someone intentionally or unintentionally confuses these two concepts for special purpose. It needs clarification and credits concerned. Credit means whatever the final results are in your favor or against you, you have to execute as that to be stipulated according to the contracts or the agreements between the two countries. There is no choice. You cannot refuse to enforce the Agreement. It is your obligations without any more conditions as stipulated in the Agreement. It is total failure in credit if you don't enforce the Agreement only because you are leg behind in economic development and feel the counterparty will take advantage if you execute the agreement. In banking field, it's called your credit are bankrupt. If international rating organizations are objective in real sense, they should lower the ratings for the countries concerned. 
 
Comparing with private enterprises, the only difference that SOEs have is owners of enterprises. The owners of SOEs are the collectives or the government. And it is completely different from that how to sell their products in the market. In normal situation, SOEs cannot help to see and have to rely on the advantages of markets. It is just like if people do not believe in the irresistible advantages and attractive forces of the markets, how can they vigorously promote the market economy? The circumstance is same everywhere among countries. Therefore, the free markets that private ownership must rely on once have been established will be fully developed and cover the whole country and will play the role of decisive functions regarding the allocation of resources and the natural balance between the supply and demand. The plans to govern SOEs must also be a plan based on a market economy, like the overall planning and budgeting of large companies and banks that comprise the Western world, rather than imperative plans for governing the entire national economy as before the reforms. Because private ownerships exist, it is impossible for the plans to govern the whole country, let alone to say when people realize the advantages of market economy, they much more need to put all planning on the foundation of market economy. Only when there is serious problem in the entire economy, will SOEs play a leading role, because at that time the government has to save the whole society, such as President Roosevelt took rescue measures in the great depression in 1930s. The SOEs are owned by the government, it has no immoral problems but the problem how to develop economy by all efforts. Immoral problem is the extremer polarization of rich and poor, harming others to benefit ones’ own and plundering others. As far as efficiency is concerned, there are different types that are momentary efficiency and the average one for a period of years and the final successes are decisive. But success is success, and the main deficiencies regarding the management of SOEs and private enterprises must not be neglected and must be improved.
 
THE KEY TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE OWNED ENPRISES
 
The main problem of state-owned enterprises is less efficient than private enterprises in general. Therefore, the key to reform of SOEs is not how to hold the enterprises by the government, not holding them in the shareholding system or other ways, whatever the reform measures are taken, you cannot change the basic fact that the government is main holders of the enterprises in general. The main problem to reform is to establish the attitude as masters for the senior executive officials of SOEs, so to make these executives to manage SOEs like the management of their own enterprises. “After the correct route is determined, the officials are the deciding factor.”(Mao Zedong) Speaking the reality, executives of SOEs are same intellectual as owners of private enterprises, but why are SOEs not as efficient as private companies? The main problem is that the senior executives actually regard the personal promotion as the highest pursuit, regard the leading positions only as temporary springboard for promotions. They only passively implement the orders of their superior, no matter SOE’s or the areas managed are good or bad. They do not exert the full efforts to try to keep the best possible for the SOEs or the areas managed while execution of the superior’s orders, let alone to say their behaviors without their whole hearts when the superiors have no specific orders or plans, at least they are not like the owner of the private enterprise as dedicated. This is absolutely not viewing the consciousness of these executives as low as that; you show your good achievements to prove your noble consciousness. In general, how can you prove your noble consciousness only with the poor performances? This is reality, a self-evident question. Wanted to be promoted is not completely dark mental states, after all, “man always tends to higher; while water always tends to flow downhill”. But you have to show your good performance. So the reform measures must address to the central and actual problems. The reform measures for the problem are not really complex, but have to be resolutely executed. That is to link efficiency with the promotion for executives. The efficiency of enterprise is not bit higher than the average level of the same industry; executives are generally not promoted, except for special provisions of the State for a few of particular SOEs. The improvement of efficiency should be considered as the sole goal of the enterprise except for the execution of orders and plans of the superiors who have to solve the problems related with overall situations. 
 
“Ordered philosophy” is incorrectly understanding the Central Party’s  real requests to “do a good job in the market economy”. They impose their own fallacies and incorrect understanding on the Central Party and their superiors, shirk responsibility, self-think “anyway, if I messed up, this only implement orders in according with the spirit of Central Party”. Engaged in a market economy is like  warfares. You face the ruthless economic objective law, ruthless market, if you do not respect it, do not awe of it, do not do things according to its laws, in front of it; you will equally crash your head against wall with bleeding, will be defeated and destroyed. As for the commander in the first battle line, you must take responsibilies for the wins or fails in the battlefields that you are commanding. Commanders in chief request to win battles. We should encourage the positive and virtue things, but we have also calmly and objectively look at the average consciousness of people, the reform measures should be addressed in accordance with real average consciousness of people, should not be made in accordance with the image of our propaganda.
 
It is necessary to remove those executives of enterprises that own debts in net for a longer term and are unable to achieve average efficiency of same industry. And these enterprises should face same problems of bankruptcy. Those executives should not be used at the same levels or other persons with higher skills possible need to be invited and appointed to the positions. Those executives like ordinary workers of those enterprises are rearranged for works; absolutely those executives cannot be treated any specially. Anyways one can go higher and lower naturally, let alone the bad management of the enterprise, which ask for these treatments even more. By doing so, we can overcome the problems of lack of effective management and lack of effective planning of a long-term at the executive levels. Anyone who wants promotion has the only way to go that is to do good jobs for their enterprises. Except for the matters related to the overall situation, in general the state should minimize as possible the rigid orders and stiff plans for enterprises. A superior shall be held responsibilities for the wrong order or plan.
 
Economic development is also like warfare. In order to win, good commanders must be selected among the commanders who can often win, among persons who can achieve good efficiencies for the enterprises and the government departments, that the heroes can come out one after another, ten generalissimos and the ten senior generals of the founding new China could come out. Because only speaking a good words cannot construct any building, oppressions of the people is completely different from the thought of “people are the center”. These things can only destroy the Party and the country and miss the important events. We have a market economy and private enterprises in the most industries. It is easy to find the average efficiency for the most industries; the state can set the standard of the average efficiency for the state monopoly industry.
 
THE KEYS TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES
 
As for private enterprises, the primary problems are blindness and social injustice and unfairness. To solve blindness requires the government to fully collect the overall information about productions, supplies, sales and receipts and payments of every enterprises and the all market relative information, all is sweepingly needed. After collections of all information, appropriate and friendly guidance should be given to private enterprises to help to solve the blindness problems. Government should supply good services in this regard, but it is guidance only not the orders. As long as the government information is true, accurate and overall, it is help productions of private enterprises a lot, and if they will not listen to the guidance, they will be punished in the reality.
 
Employee’s incomes and corporate profits are the main key links to maintain social equality. This problem can be basically solved by setting different corporate tax rates according to the profits that each different enterprise has made. “Less profit, low tax rate; large profit, high tax rate” and human intervention is avoided. This is the progressive tax rate, which means based on the different profits or incomes, different tax rates are applied. This system should be used not only for personal incomes, but also for all kind of corporations and businesses, both for private and state-owned enterprises.
 
The corporate progressive tax rate and profits as tax base should be appropriately set, neither too high nor too low. For the example, the total tax rate can be set from tax-free to higher tax rates. This is more scientific and reasonable than simple tax cut in the same extent that President Trump made. The American Democrats' opposition to the tax cuts is  reasonable, but they could not put forward the effective patching suggestions and are simply opposed to all. A one-size-fits-all package of tax cuts indeed has bigger benefits to a rich business, a large profitable enterprises, causes a more inequality to the society. Instead, if the tax for corporations with high profits increases appropriately, and corporations with low profits enjoy tax cuts, “cut peak and fill valley”, that is to use a corporate progressive tax rate, which can support small and medium-sized corporations, while keeping equality for the society and is good for free competitions and social justice, and will not cause greater government deficits. But that is not the case of the American’s tax cut, it could lead to greater social inequality that could lead to greater instability in American society. The cut gains in the economy but loses in the politics.
 
As the standard for progressive tax rate, the middle range of profits need to be distinguished finely, so that let those companies that make fraud accounting or some “window dressing”, “the legal fraud schemes” at year ends i.e. through fictitious trades or accounting entries to only show bigger profits in companies accounts will have to pay higher taxes and be punished, cannot get real benefits out of the frauds. We should both look after social efficiency as well as social equality. Low-earning companies need taxes cut and tax exemptions to get supports by funds. However after the enterprises have grown up and achieved the certain high profits, they have to pay taxes according to higher tax rates. Because at the moment, the problems needed to be solved are translated into the maintenance of the more important equality of society, and the realization of common prosperity. The tax should be calculated according to the profits after dividend payments of the listed companies, so that they can consider to paying more dividends to benefit the healthy stock market. This is equal to the support of stock market by the State. We should simplify the variety of taxes, to an overall and single tax rate at the end. After the collections of tax payments, taxes are divided to the each sector within the tax departments in order to reduce the variety of tax rate and the companies’ troubles to calculate taxes and for easy management as well.
 
With the help of the great powers of computers, these complicated works can be done smoothly. The traditional uniform, one-size-fits-all corporate tax rate can be changed. Tax is the lever for the economic adjustment. But the development of the enterprises is imbalanced; the unified tax rate does the work more simply like machine. One-size-fits-all tax rate cut seems to be fair, but unified tax rate is not set according to the profits of corporations. This simple rate system can cause difficulties to corporations with the lower profits to develop, and cause income injustice for the society from corporations with high profits. Therefore, in order to inject vitality into the economy, to overcome unfairness, we need to adopt the policy of “different profits, different tax rates”. Corporations with low profits will get the greatest degree of liberation, with this kind of tax rates, the all corporations can grow up at faster speed, while significantly reducing the unreasonable and unequal social distributions.
 
推荐 0