The reform of state-owned enterprises is a topic that has been continually being discussed since the beginning of the last century, constantly deepening, and constantly emerging new problems. This year's government work report once again emphasizes the need to "accelerate the reform of state-owned enterprises' state-owned assets" and "deepen the reform of mixed ownership." Why should we constantly discuss the reform of state-owned enterprises? It is necessary to constantly break the shackles of institutional mechanisms and truly release the vitality of the market as the main body of the market.
What is a business? It is an organization that provides products and services to the society and makes profits. Unlike a purely profit-driven enterprise, an important mission undertaken by state-owned enterprises is to preserve and increase the value of state-owned assets and to assume the responsibility of social services outside the market.
How to balance this seemingly "contradictory" relationship? In my opinion, efficiency is still the first. Only when the company develops and grows itself, has vitality and vitality, can it “take more effort” to undertake more social responsibilities in addition to the company’s own duties. If a state-owned enterprise is ill, or is a "zombie enterprise", relying on the blood transfusion of the government and the bank, what about social responsibility?
Since the reform and opening up, one of our basic experiences has been "takenism." Capitalism can engage in a market economy, and socialism can also engage in a market economy. Capitalism can engage in mixed operations, and we can do the same. As long as the subject is in, control is in, position is in, these technical aspects of operation, can serve the "dao". This "dao" is the responsibility of state-owned enterprises.
The shortcomings of the institutional mechanisms of state-owned enterprises are the continuous elimination of the lesions to be eliminated. In fact, the introduction of mixed ownership reform of social capital has long been a model of our familiar “forced reforms”: by introducing strategic investors or social capital, the structure of shareholders has become more diverse. At this time, state-owned enterprises must be driven by performance, must be accountable to shareholders, must be put into the arms of the market, and meet more yuan, more direct and more brutal competition.
Competition is a good medicine to stimulate vitality. In the competition, the bad habits that the state-owned enterprises used to lie in the greenhouse, such as organizing, administrative, "waiting for", and rewards and punishments, must be changed. In fact, if any private enterprise has such a problem, it is not far from being eliminated. Therefore, in essence, the reform of state-owned enterprises calls for the crisis consciousness and competition consciousness of state-owned enterprises.
The logic is clear, but there are still many areas to explore at the technical level. For example, can employees of state-owned enterprises hold shares? What percentage is it? In major areas such as electricity, oil, natural gas, railways, and military industry, how do we balance the relationship between the national economy and the people's livelihood and the profit-seeking of enterprises? These problems are worth exploring, but they must also be encouraged to explore, and it is by no means based on the “problem problem” because the wasteland has been delayed for a long time.
China is facing a critical period of reform and transformation, and it is also facing the external environment of globalization, with risks and opportunities coexisting. The more we go to this period, the less we can delay the reform, because the problems brought about by the reform must be resolved by reform. After the introduction of the central top design, we are looking forward to more powerful reformers and exploring more excellent cases and methodologies for the reform of state-owned enterprises.
