For a long time, the popular traditional view regards China's state-owned enterprises as the product of copying the Soviet enterprise model. Although this helps to reveal the institutional roots and disadvantages of state-owned enterprises in China, it cuts off the growth history of state-owned enterprises in China in modern times, and it is difficult to clarify their historical background, roles and functions, and reveal the uniqueness of state-owned enterprises in China, thus underestimating the difficulty and complexity of state-owned enterprise reform in China.
State-owned enterprise system and unit system are no longer regarded as simple transplantation of Soviet system.
Anyone who is familiar with the experience of economic and social development and reform in contemporary China knows that how to reform the existing state-owned enterprise system and the unit management system closely related to it to revitalize it has always been the focus and difficulty of China's reform.
To solve this problem, we must understand the origin and development of China's state-owned enterprise system, correctly grasp the historical background of this system and its role and contribution in China's history.
Yes
Morris L.Bian, a professor of history at Auburn University in the United States, recently published the book The Formation of Modern State-owned Enterprise System in China: The Logic of Institutional Change in Harvard University Press, which provides us with a new perspective to deeply understand the state-owned enterprise system and unit system in China.
When did the institutional model of state-owned enterprises in China come into being? How is it formed? How did the "unit" system closely related to these problems become the basic social and economic organization in modern China? Why are there these unique institutional models? Up to now, the most popular view in academic circles at home and abroad is that it is regarded as the product of copying the Soviet socialist system, that is, the Stalin model, and few people have conducted in-depth research on it.
Since 1980s, academic circles have put forward some new ideas about the unit system. Although China's state-owned enterprise system and unit system are no longer regarded as a simple transplant of Soviet socialist system, and their research field is no longer limited to the history of China in the second half of the 20th century, they still tend to regard the formation of state-owned enterprise and unit system as a special system established under the special environment of revolution and construction.
As for the internal relationship between the formation of state-owned enterprise system and unit system and the historical and cultural tradition of China society itself, it is still denied or ignored by academic circles to varying degrees.
The central point of Mr. Bian Linan's book is to reveal that China's state-owned enterprise system and its closely related unit system are not purely imported, but an economic system gradually created and constantly improved by people from all walks of life under the harsh historical conditions of various internal troubles and foreign invasion in China's modern history.
It originated from the official weapons industry during the Westernization Movement in the late Qing Dynasty, and finally formed in the heavy industry and weapons industry during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression period.
1949 the founding of new China did not fundamentally cause historical fracture or sudden change, and the state-owned enterprise system and unit system that had been formed during the Republic of China were continued and further developed under the new situation.
The argument and logical system of this book are based on a large number of historical archives and other documents. The author summarizes the fundamental characteristics of China's state-owned enterprise system into three parts: first, the bureaucratic governance structure, that is, the hierarchical system of administrative bureaucrats is implemented within enterprises.
Second, the unique management and incentive mechanism, such as often using ideological activities and launching production competitions and other spiritual and psychological incentives to promote and improve production capacity.
Third, enterprises provide employees and their families with various social services and welfare, such as education, housing, medical care, health and other social services and welfare.
On this basis, the author has formed a theoretical framework to explain the emergence of China's state-owned enterprise system, which is discussed from seven parts: the development of weapons industry, the expansion of heavy industry, the corporate governance structure, the management and incentive mechanism of enterprises, the social services and welfare provided by enterprises, and the names of state-owned enterprises and "units". At the end of the paper, dozens of tables and details about the production and operation, sources of funds, internal organizational structure and personnel system of modern enterprises in China are attached.
Professor Bian Linan has been engaged in the study of corporate history in China for more than ten years. He paid attention to absorbing the relevant research results of domestic and foreign academic circles (including some mainland scholars) and based his conclusions on a large number of first-hand historical materials.
So this book is a masterpiece with a high academic level.
The theory of not resting on its laurels fills the deficiency of domestic related research.
Foolishly, the academic value of this book is mainly reflected in the following aspects:
First, this book has further changed the traditional theory that China's state-owned enterprises and units are simply copied from Stalin's Soviet model, and linked the emergence of a series of basic systems of state-owned enterprises with the social crisis in China caused by the invasion of foreign enemies in China in modern times, the ideological changes of various classes in China society, and the influence of the spread of western academic ideas, systems and cultural resources on China, which provides a new historical perspective for people to deeply understand the origin and characteristics of China's state-owned enterprise system, which has attracted much attention at present.
Moreover, the author traces the formation process of China's enterprise system back to the first half of the 20th century, especially the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression period, which is of great benefit for us to deeply understand the continuity and changes of China's historical development in the 20th century.
Second, China's domestic academic circles have long been concerned about the business history and growth history of enterprises, and some of them are just copies of departmental history and industry history. At present, domestic academic circles mainly focus on modern joint-stock enterprises and company systems, and the research period is mainly the pre-War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression period.
The research on state-owned enterprises in Kuomintang-controlled areas during the Anti-Japanese War only focuses on the debate on their nature and functions, the institutional innovation of internal management and incentive mechanism of state-owned enterprises in China during the Anti-Japanese War, the changes in the composition of enterprise management personnel, the introduction and promotion of internal cost accounting system, and the provision of internal social services and benefits. A series of research fields, such as wartime administrative organization reform and its influence on enterprise management, are still relatively weak links (if not completely blank) in domestic related research. This book deals with and studies these contents and promotes the research in these fields.
In addition, this book discusses in detail the development of China's weapons industry and heavy industry during War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's period by excavating the few historical archives used by the academic circles in the past. Some factories or enterprises rarely entered the field of vision of researchers in the past, such as Dadukou Iron and Steel Plant, which is discussed in detail in this book.
Therefore, the study of China's enterprise history in this book makes up for the deficiency of China's previous academic research to a great extent, which is of great significance to opening up new academic research fields.
The study on the essential characteristics of state-owned enterprises in China and the management of state-owned enterprises in China during the Anti-Japanese War needs further discussion.
Finally, some immature views and opinions are put forward for the author's advice.
First of all, regarding the essential characteristics of the state-owned enterprise system, the author summarizes it into three aspects, namely, bureaucratic governance structure, unique management and incentive mechanism that attaches importance to spiritual and psychological factors, and social services and welfare provided by enterprises. Are these three aspects accurate and appropriate? Is there anything missing? My feeling is that the above characteristics are more prominent in China's state-owned enterprises, but they are not necessarily the unique essential characteristics of state-owned enterprises.
In modern western large enterprises, it is not difficult to see a more obvious bureaucratic governance structure, the most typical of which is Japanese-style enterprises.
Paying attention to spiritual and psychological incentives and providing employees with relatively perfect social services and welfare are probably not unique to state-owned enterprises. As the author admits in his book, such examples can also be seen in some private enterprises in modern China. For example, Minsheng Company, a well-known private entrepreneur in Sichuan during the Republic of China, also paid attention to the spiritual encouragement of employees and provided various social benefits for employees within the enterprise.
However, what are the essential characteristics that distinguish state-owned enterprises from private enterprises? This problem obviously deserves further discussion.
Second, as the author said, many basic features of China's state-owned enterprise system after 1949 have matured in War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression's time, but I'm afraid there are still obvious differences between them.
For example, in terms of ideology, although the Anti-Japanese War also emphasized the development of heavy industry, the construction of national defense, the nationalization of enterprises related to the national economy and people's livelihood and national security, and advocated planned control of the economy, people did not deny the existence value of private enterprises during this period, nor did they completely deny the efficiency and role of the market in regulating the economy.
This is quite different from the 1950s when China society regarded the market as a scourge, and regarded private enterprises and even individual economy as an evil hotbed of capitalism.
In the management of state-owned enterprises, the state has adopted a large number of new intellectuals, promoted and implemented the cost accounting system within enterprises, and promoted the "administrative triple system" integrating graded responsibility, planning, execution and assessment, which is quite different from the management mode of state-owned enterprises after 1949.
Obviously, there are differences between these two state-owned enterprise systems in different historical stages, which can not be ignored. There are both historical continuity and variation with the changes of the times. Because of the choice of reform, there is obviously much to be done in the process of historical transformation.
In addition, the author of this book disagrees that some scholars only regard the formation of state-owned enterprises in China as a special product of China's revolutionary movement, but try to find the answer from within the state-owned enterprises in Kuomintang-controlled areas, which reflects the author's courage and historical knowledge.
However, the state-owned enterprises (or public enterprises) in War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression period were not unique to the Kuomintang-controlled areas, but also existed in red base areas, but the number and scale were small.
Moreover, the influence of state-owned enterprises and their management system in the base areas on the state-owned enterprise system after the founding of the People's Republic of China is obviously not to be underestimated.
Although the author touched on this in the book, due to the limitation of space, he failed to discuss it in depth, which inevitably affected the interpretation of China's state-owned enterprise system in the second half of the 20th century.
Thirdly, in the choice of research methods and theories, I think the author seems to have put too much emphasis on the role of ideology and relatively neglected the decision-makers' balance based on interests and losses.
When studying the state-owned enterprise system, some domestic scholars emphasize the class nature of the * * * regime and its monopoly on resources, but ignore its meeting social needs according to the requirements of the times, which is inevitably biased.
However, when considering the decision-making motives of citizens and their elites, the author of this book mainly focuses on coping with the crisis, and relatively ignores their consideration of party interests and personal interests. I am afraid it is also biased.
If the author can effectively use the national theory and transaction cost theory to analyze, it may make up for this deviation and make the research of this subject more comprehensive and in-depth.
(Yuan/Associate Research Fellow, Institute of Economics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)