"In terms of the relationship between the government and the market, the Chinese government must be stronger than the market. The western market is certainly stronger than the government. The same is true of democracy. China will definitely not go to Western democracy."
Zheng Yongnian believes that anti-corruption is a breakthrough in system construction. The standard and the book are a dialectical relationship.
On September 4, when Vice President Li Yuanchao met in Beijing to participate in the "2014 China Communist Party and World Dialogue" scholars, he said to Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute of the National University of Singapore, that he had read no less than five books by Mr. Zheng Yongnian. "It is very useful for China."
As an expert in long-term attention to China's reforms, Professor Zheng Yongnian has always been valued by the official and academic and business circles in the position of pragmatism, respect for the particularity of China's experience, and clear and thorough discourse. In the golden autumn season of the deepening reform in the first year of 2014, breakthrough major reforms were successively introduced. The anti-corruption storm swept through all levels of society, and China is undergoing a comprehensive transformation. At the crucial moment, Time Weekly reporter interviewed Professor Zheng Yongnian on key issues such as China's reform direction, reform ideas, anti-corruption and think tank construction.
01: The "China model" is the reform model
Time special reporter Gao Yang from Guangzhou
Times Weekly: Two years ago, you proposed the concept of "China Mode", which has aroused widespread concern. Do you have a new understanding of the "China Model" today after the 18th National Congress?
Zheng Yongnian: When I was in the "Chinese model" for several years, I was different from the "Chinese model" mentioned by some Chinese scholars. Because the "Chinese model" they mentioned is basically political and ideological. Conservatives will say that the "China model" is good, and radicals advocate the removal of this model through reform. The "Chinese model" that I am talking about is to understand China's development as an objective object of understanding. It has a lot of experience and faces many difficulties. Now with the deepening of the new round of reforms, I believe that the "Chinese model" exists. China's development has its own logic.
The model is a large structure in the cultural and civilized sense, not a specific policy. The policy is always changing. My understanding of the "Chinese model" has not changed, or it is different from other researchers. I don't think China will become a Western look. I think China will continue to follow its own logic.
Times Weekly: What is the logic?
Zheng Yongnian: The Chinese model can be said to be a reform model. Reform has a narrow and broad sense. Narrowly defined reform refers to the market-oriented reform of the planned economy and a series of regulatory systems. This understanding has not allowed us to understand the true meaning of the current reforms. In fact, since the reform and opening up, many of the phased achievements of reform have become the burden of reform, and limited and incomplete reforms sometimes become the "enemies" of real reforms by creating vested interests. The "China model" that people see today is the product of past reforms. Whether this road is sustainable depends on further reforms. Therefore, it is now necessary to promote a broad-based reform, a strategic choice to respond to the problems and challenges brought about by the major transformation through active national transformation.
From the experience of various countries, China faces three choices: the first is the European road. The early European road is a primitive capitalist development. It has no control over capital, but has no protection for society. The result is large-scale. The rise of the workers' movement prompted Europe to gradually transform from primitive capitalism to welfare capitalism. The second is the East Asian road. While promoting economic development, the government also actively promotes social development. In view of European experience, the government often pre-empts people to carry out social reforms and social institutions, thus avoiding a long-term, large-scale working-class movement like Europe. The third choice China faces is to become a developing country in the middle-income trap. To avoid the middle-income trap, it is necessary to achieve sustainable economic growth, mainly to build a domestic demand society. This depends on two aspects: one is the breakthrough in social policy, and the other is the continuous growth of labor income.
For China, these three roads are possible. But it is clear that the East Asian road is ideal. In the face of the new situation, we must continue to carry out social reforms and establish social policies in order to continue the path of peaceful development. For example, the logic of the economy, the state-owned economy, regardless of your views, will exist, but the way of existence will be different, is it to survive through monopoly, or to gain profits through competition? This is how to reform. There are some social policies in the social field. Many people now say welfare (welfare state). I think this concept belongs to the West. China is far from the extent of the welfare country, but basic social protection is there and should be gradually realized. . In the relationship between the government and the market, the Chinese government must be stronger than the market, and the western market is certainly stronger than the government. The same is true of democracy. China will definitely not go to Western democracy, or go to democracy according to its own logic. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact.
Times Weekly: The logic of this reform is also embedded in anti-corruption?
Zheng Yongnian: The main strategy of China's reform is "first easy and then difficult", specifically to solve the problem of stock reform by cultivating new interests to solve vested interests. "Victory interests" are "difficult" in reform, and "new interests" are "easy" in reform. As long as we innovate in the economic and social interests through institutional innovation, we can find a breakthrough. The strategic role of institutional innovation is at the top, and the main roles of practice are local governments, businesses and society. The central government must define what it can do to promote the development of new interests, and secondly the central government itself must do institutional innovation. At the local government level, on the one hand, it is necessary to reduce the stifling of local institutional innovation. On the other hand, it should cut off the intervention of prefecture-level cities in the county, and restore and empower the provincial and county governments to innovate in the system. On the enterprise side, Deng Xiaoping’s thinking is still very effective. It is to encourage the development of the non-state sector once again, and wait until the non-state sector grows up and then reform the state sector. In the social aspect, we must first decentralize the society. If the society has its own space, it can innovate and the social power is strong. The government can concentrate on the functions and responsibilities that it must undertake. The experience of Guangdong is worth learning.
Anti-corruption is a breakthrough in system construction. The standard and the book are a dialectical relationship. It is difficult to cure the problem without a cure. You see that from the 1980s, every new leader will overweight the anti-corruption issue. China’s anti-corruption agency is the largest in the world, and corruption has not been contained, but it has intensified. Originally, the public inspection law institution is a symbol of justice in any country, and China's public security law system is corrupt in some places. If these problems are to be solved, we must first cure the symptoms. Anti-corruption is not necessarily a cure, but it can't be cured without anti-corruption.
Times Weekly: Many people think that the current anti-corruption is still carried out by the determination of the leaders. What do you think of this?
Zheng Yongnian: The role of leaders in any country's anti-corruption is very important, and civil forces can only exert pressure. You want to build a system that will not be corrupt, and the anti-corruption campaign is still to be done. Many Westerners criticize China's anti-corruption in the form of political movements, but the US anti-corruption in the 19th century is also the government's efforts to rectify the oligarchs through many social movements. Do you think the people can really get rid of the oligarchs? Still rely on the government to fight.
Therefore, the analysis depends on China's overall strategic environment. In the long run, system construction is very important, but large-scale corruption can only be solved first through political movements. This is true in many countries and regions around the world. In the 1960s, corruption in Hong Kong was a serious problem. It was also through the establishment of the ICAC and launched a large-scale campaign to solve the problem. Of course, if the system is not established, the corruption will rebound, and the long-term mechanism still needs system construction. In economic terms, to establish a clear budget system, the personal income of officials should be monetized. In the social field, the first is to establish a basic social system. Officials do not need to seek rent through power rent-seeking. China has now entered the middle-income stage, and the government has the ability to engage in large-scale social construction. The second is to decentralize the society, cultivate social forces, narrow the scope of government power, and form constraints on the government. There are borders between politics, economy and society, and they are checks and balances. This is the institutional guarantee for a clean government. Then what happens when there is a contradiction between the government and the economic and social fields? The rule of law and the rule of law must be in place here, and the judicial field is the most important area of ​​bargaining between the government and other social actors.
02: Going to GDP centralism requires conceptual support
Times Weekly: Anti-corruption points to the relationship between the government and the market. Now we have to draw a clear line between the government and the market. There are still many practical obstacles, such as the GDP promotion model of local officials. What do you think of this question?
Zheng Yongnian: The degree of GDPism in different places is different. Some places have not talked about GDPism, but some local GDPism is back. An important reason for encouraging GDP growth in the past was to seek employment. Now that the employment situation is not so bad, what is the fear of lower GDP growth? Each region holds a different attitude in this regard.
GDPism is the product of "neoliberalism" since the 1980s and 1990s. It emphasizes economic efficiency. At that time, GDP was needed because it was the breakthrough point of reform. However, neo-liberalism soon became a variant of China after entering China. In the state-owned economy, neoliberalism was strongly resisted by huge state-owned enterprises. But in the social sphere, neoliberalism has long been straightforward. As a result, there should be insufficient marketization in the highly market-oriented economic sector; the social sector that should not be marketized is highly market-oriented. Therefore, it is now necessary to focus on social reforms, because medical, education, and public housing are all over-monetized. As a result, GDP is high, but society is becoming more and more unstable.
Times Weekly: For the promotion of local officials, GDP is a comparable indicator, and other indicators are not easy to compare. If we want to reform the GDP-centered promotion model, how can we solve this indicator problem?
Zheng Yongnian: The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has to correct this tendency since the last session. Now the new central government has made great determination to change this situation.
Therefore, local officials who are still talking about GDP will certainly not be smoothly put up as before. Many people have not realized this yet, and they have also ensured the national ranking of GDP. However, for the new leadership, how to dilute GDPism and effectively constrain the GDPist impulses of local government officials at all levels remains a huge political challenge.
Times Weekly: Is it a complete change, or does it depend on the degree of change in the central idea?
Zheng Yongnian: Yes, it is the change of philosophy. The concepts of scientific development and harmonious society illustrate the need to adjust the GDP structure. The central measure of local indicators is in the process of change, and the weight of GDP is declining. Whether there are social conflicts, large-scale mass incidents, whether the economic construction is green, and the satisfaction of ordinary people are gradually becoming part of the indicator.
In the past, GDP was very important, and it was the main position. It may be lower now. The metrics have been adjusted, but many local leaders have not understood and adapted. Officials at all levels have grown up under the redness of GDPism. Under this kind of thinking, they will understand high-level intentions according to their own preferences, such as "reform is the biggest dividend" as "development is the biggest Dividend." This adjustment of consciousness takes a while.
Reform must have ideas, ideas are your goals, how can we reform without ideas? No idea can't do anything, including Deng Xiaoping, who also has ideas. In the 1980s, he said how many years later the economy would have to double, which reflects his philosophy.
Times Weekly: Can you specifically summarize this concept?
Zheng Yongnian: Just like some of the values ​​that China is now proposing, such as building a prosperous, democratic, civilized, harmonious modern country. Many of the resolutions of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee are at the conceptual level. The idea is to regard these values ​​as the consensus of Chinese society. However, it is not easy to implement on a practical level.
Times Weekly: So what do you think should be done to achieve this consensus?
Zheng Yongnian: I think the primary premise is to meet some basic requirements, such as social equity, sustainable economic development, and jumping out of middle-income traps. So my idea is more realistic. Some people now have dozens of houses, and some people can't afford a suite. In such a situation, I don't think we can talk about the level of common ideas. We must first solve these thorny problems, create a basis for reaching consensus, and then talk about ideas. I think that the "very high" thing is of little significance to the people. The people in the Chinese circle are very realistic. They all strive for specific interests by resorting to the ideals of lofty ideals.
03: Influence is only a by-product, it should not be the direction pursued by think tanks.
Times Weekly: What are your expectations for the development of China's think tanks?
Zheng Yongnian: Of course, China needs a lot of think tanks, and now it seems that there are thousands of institutions that call themselves think tanks. But I am more pessimistic. We are engaged in the think tank of the Institute of Public Policy (IPP), or because we want to be a new type of think tank and do something really.
Times Weekly: Why are you more pessimistic about the development of think tanks?
Zheng Yongnian: Mainly because many think tanks are not independent and not objective. This is actually not only a political system issue of a country, but also an attitude of intellectuals. Singapore’s intellectuals are more independent and objective. I have written articles before that the independence of intellectuals does not necessarily have to be related to the government. But Chinese intellectuals tend to be too close to power or interests.
Times Weekly: From another perspective, China's think tanks still have room for development.
Zheng Yongnian: The space is very big. There are too many people in China, too many people are arrogant, and there are too many people in the government. These two people have no constructive things and cannot meet the needs of the realities. So useful think tanks are very few.
Times Weekly: What do you think should be done in a good way?
Zheng Yongnian: Independent observation and objectivity are the most important. Specifically, such as the design of the mechanism, the political environment, the personality of intellectuals, cultural issues. American think tanks are different from Europe, and different countries in Europe are different. Japan and Singapore are different, but in any case, objectivity is a universal standard. How to be objective? I think different political environments and cultural systems have different ways. China is also actively exploring.
Times Weekly: There are so many think tanks that give advice to the government. How do you feel that the government can adopt its own advice?
Zheng Yongnian: Although there are many think tanks in China, many of them are unintelligible. Last year, a national think tank conference was held in Beijing. Everyone talked about how to influence the government. I don't think think tanks can always think about how to make an impact. As long as we can make real research, it will naturally have an impact. According to my experience, as long as you are telling the truth and approaching reality, even if the government does not agree, it will have an impact in the end. So influence is just a by-product, not something that a think tank should pursue.
Think tanks are to build a bridge between knowing and doing. Max Weber proposes instrumental rationality and value rationality. We must first ask whether there is feasibility in value, no feasibility is irrational, and it is utopia. The task of the think tank is to study what kind of tools are used to achieve this value, which we can do. The think tank can tell the governor what the actual situation is, and there are several paths to achieve this goal. As for which path to choose, it is decided by politicians, and we cannot interfere.
Times Weekly: What kind of support should the government give in terms of policy?
Zheng Yongnian: First of all, we must encourage the folk think tanks to explore different roads, and it is no problem at all. Secondly, it is very important to give it a relaxed political environment and allow everyone to engage in rational debates. There is no rational consensus on the space without rational arguments.
However, my concern is still in the intellectual community. I feel that the Chinese intellectual community is not a climate. The government does not limit what you think, as long as you can objectively reflect the problem. China's intellectual community lacks the tradition of independent and objective research.
Cob Par Light ,Led Cob Par,Cob Led Par Light,Cob Led Stage Lighting
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co., Ltd , https://www.bigdipper-laser.com