In this issues

USEFUL LINKS
Unirule Institute of Economics
China-Review
CCPPP

SUBSCRIBE
To subscribe to Unirule's bi-monthly newsletter, please mail to
unirule@unirule.org.cn

Unirule

Unirule
The Unirule Institute of Economics (Unirule) is an independent, nonprofit, non governmental (NGO) think tank, which was jointly initiated in July of 1993 by five prominent economists, Prof. Mao Yushi, Prof. Zhang Shuguang, Prof. Sheng Hong, Prof. Fan Gang, and Prof. Tang Shouning. Unirule is dedicated to the open exchange of ideas in economics in general, with a particular focus on institutional economics, and maintains a highly prestigious status within academic circles.

Address: Zhengren Building,6th Floor, No. 9, Chong Wen Men Wai Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100062, China
Tel. 8610-52988127
Fax. 8610-52988127

Books


 

The Natural Law is the Gentlemen's Mission
By SHENG Hong


Rules and Prosperity
By FENG Xingyuan


 

A History of China
By YAO Zhongqiu

 


On Hayek
By YAO Zhongqiu


The Limits of Government ⅡI
By YAO Zhongqiu


Capital Freedom of China
2011 Annual Report

By FENG Xingyuan and
MAO Shoulong


Coase and China
Edit by ZHANG Shuguang and SHENG Hong

Where the Chinese Anxieties Come From
By MAO Yushi


Humanistic Economics
By MAO Yushi


Food Security and Farm Land Protection in China
By MAO Yushi ,ZHAO Nong and YANG Xiaojing


Report on the Living Enviroment of China's Private Enterprises
By FENG xingyuan and
HE Guangwen


Game: Subdivision, Implementation and Protection of Ownership of Land
By ZHANG Shuguang


The Nature, Performance and Reform of State-owned Enterprises
By Unirule Institute of Economics


Rediscovering Confucianism
By YAO Zhongqiu



Virtue, Gentleman and Custom
By YAO Zhongqiu


China's Path to Change
By YAO Zhongqiu




The Great Wall and the Coase Theorem
By SHENG Hong



Innovating at the Margin of Traditions
By SHENG Hong





Economics That I Understand
By MAO Yushi





Why Are There No Decent Enterprisers in China?
By ZHANG Shuguang



What Should China Rely On for Food Security?
By MAO Yushi and ZHAO Nong





Case Studies in China’s Institutional Change (Volume IV)





Unirule Working Paper (2011)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Highlights

On Marx’s Writings of Freedom of the Press

by ZHANG Shuguang, Chairman, Unirule Academic Committee
Translated by MA Junjie, Researcher, Unirule Institute of Economics


Karl Marx, a world-renowned thinker, has left us a precious legacy that’s worth study, research, and critical reflection. One of the cores of his work is his thought on freedom of the press.


In Review of Book Checks in Prussia 1842, Karl Marx wrote, “without the freedom of the press, all other freedoms are nothing but illusions. […] The freedom of the press itself is a reflection of thoughts, and liberty, and ultimately, kindness.” (Other quotes are also from this article if not referred to otherwise). Such is the truth. As he said, it is not because the freedom of the press laid with fundamental characteristics, but that it constitutes a part, or a form, for the wholeness of freedom. “One form of freedom constrains and influences another form of freedom, just like one part of the body constrains and influences another part of the body. One form of freedom is at issues, so is the wholeness of freedom. One form of freedom is rejected, so is the wholeness of freedom.”


Without freedom of the press and freedom of expression, men are no other than fools. Although they have their own heads, they will come to distorted and misguided conclusions, and conduct false actions as they see and hear warped and false information. Sooner or later, such a man will develop a kind of habit, or reflex, that rejects all true information. To put it in a simile, if waste is put into an exquisite machinery, nothing more than waste should be expected out of it. And the machinery will also fail as time goes.


People may have forgotten that in the long time before the reform and opening up, one message flooded all newspapers, radio stations, and publications in mainland China: socialism is incomparably good, and we are living such a happy life; whereas, people in the capitalist world such as US, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, are miserable and desperate for emancipation, waiting to be liberated by us. However, after the reform and opening up, the wall was torn down, and Chinese people were amazed to find the whole capitalist world, including the countries and regions aforesaid, was way more developed than mainland China. People in the capitalist countries enjoyed more freedom, and better lives. Comparably speaking, mainland China was less developed with a problematic institution that needed to be changed. Reforms were called for. 


Since there was basically no freedom of the press, the other freedoms were hindered too. For instance, various essentials of life were supplied and purchased with tickets and could not be exchanged freely; individuals were not allowed to transfer commodities and sell them from one place to another, otherwise they could face serious criminal charges of speculation and “taking the capitalist path”; farmers were restrained to live in rural areas and not allowed to enter cities freely; urban citizens were not allowed to work from their residential cities, let along travelling freely to Beijing and Shanghai, resulting in long-term separate lives for couples; individuals were not allowed to listen to foreign radio, otherwise, they would be charged with listening to enemy broadcast, nor were they allowed to create associations as they could be charged with being an “existing anti-revolutionist.” During the Cultural Revolution, ridiculous as it may sound, people were not allowed to step on, sit on, drawing upon, or hang reversely the portrait of the supreme leader, Chairman Mao. Such examples are numerous. At that time, what freedoms people had was quite apparent.   

Marx wrote, “As people had to consider the books containing free thinking as illegal, they tend to consider things illegal free and those free illegal, and vice versa. Censorshipis killing the national spirit. The government opens its ears to nothing but itself knowingly. However, it deceives itself and believes it has heard the people’s voice. The government asks the people to support this self deception.” This is straight to the point. Under despotic rule, everything is reversed. The government shifts tactics to deceive itself and others in order to maintain its rule. One fitting example is the great famine during 1959 and 1961 that led to millions of casualties. That was when Mao Zedong advocated “upholding three red flags”, overtaking the UK and the US rapidly, as well as transforming into a communist society. That was also when government officials of almost all levels exaggerated their performances and spoke in favour of Mao’s fantasies. Thanks to the limited disclosure by the press and the “red terror”, those who were famished and witnessed others die of hunger could not speak out what really happened, otherwise, they would be labeled as a rightist and “anti-revolutionist”, which led to severe persecution. Even till today, this period of the history is still concealed by the government, hidden from the citizens. Whoever attempts to reveal this history is smeared as historical nihilism. The press is manipulated against the disclosure of such a history. Therefore, it can be said, the book checks, or censorship, is annihilating the spirit of the nation, the integrity of man, and the benevolence of individuals. Only those who have no conscience whatsoever are in favour of such an institution.


Marx wrote, “You admire the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety … however many the persons and whatever the objects in which it is refracted, must produce only the official color!” How well put is it! The nature is of various forms, shapes, and colours, and so should the human society be: plural and various. Based on this spirit, the Chinese government advocated the policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend”. It aimed to pump new life to the historic rejuvenation of China, but how did it end? Half a century has passed. Let’s see how many masterpieces have been created in literature, arts, and academic thinking? And how many masters have emerged out of this policy? How many theories have been created? It is not only disappointing, but also humiliating to examine the outcome of this policy.


There is a tradition that runs thousands of years to suppress the freedom of the press and carry on despotism in thinking. Early examples include “burning of books and burying of scholars” (Fenshu Kengru, 焚书坑儒) by Qin Shi Huangdi, the literary inquisition (Wenziyu,文字狱) of Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty that led to dismissal and death penalty of government officials. However, some pedantic scholars distorted the historical literature and claimed there was a free society in ancient China. They even distorted what Confucius said, “The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it.” (民可使由之,不可使知之) into “If the people can be mobilised, then mobilise them; if not, educate them. ” (民可使,由之;不可使,知之). Such unorthodoxical interpretation is apparently false and ridiculous.


When it came to the modern times, the wave of liberal democracy was so strong that China had to follow. China consented to, approved of, and granted the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that recognised the freedom of the press, expression, and opinions as the basic human rights. Article 35 of China’s Constitution also stipulates that “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” So how is this Article put into practice? I believe everyone knows.


The anti-rightist movement and the Cultural Revolution were no different from a modern version of literary inquisition. The 1959 Lushan Meeting was also a modern version of discussing court policies. Even up till today, over three decades from the reform and opening up, there is still regulation, censorship, and approval needed for speaking of certain topics and publishing certain articles and books. We don’t have the faintest idea when it is allowed to create a newspaper, a magazine, or a TV station. The Internet is supposed to be a free domain, a virtual free world. However, everything is up to the Internet policy and authorities. They preside the Internet content and determine what should be deleted or blocked at their will. If their orders are not followed, you can be punished. Of course there are countermeasures. Those who are good at Internet technology and learn to “jump over the wall” (the Great Fire Wall) can enjoy a glimpse of the free world outside; and those who are not, well, they’ll have to make do.


Recently there has been a new policy of forbidding “improperly discussing the central government” (Wangyi Zhongyang, 妄议中央), which does not differ much from improperly discussing the court policy in Qing Dynasty. According to some newspaper, some Party officials interpreted this policy by referring to the Party’s “democratic centralism” principle, which does not hold much water. The democratic centralism is an organisational principle of the Communist Party of China, not a principle of opinions. The organisation should follow this principle, not men’s opinions and thinking. Discussion is needed even if actions are being taken, as the actions can be erroneous. Discussion is examination, therefore, supervision. The three red flags, namely, the general line (Zongluxian, 总路线), the Great Leap Forward (Dayuejin, 大跃进), and the people's commune (Renmin Gongshe, 人民公社), were erroneous in the first place and people were not allowed to discuss them. The discussion was even forbidden in meetings of the Party’s Central Committee, which led to the Great Famine and the economic crises that resulted in millions of casualties. Is this lesson not serious enough? Why is discussion and criticism not allowed? Decision makers may decide whether to take or leave the suggestions, but the people should have the right to discuss government policies. The freedom of expression is the freedom of choice for decision makers. Let it be known that silence is not always good, and unanimity is only an illusion. Since the Chinese government claims to be a disciple of Karl Marx, then his teachings should be reviewed and the freedom of the press should be upheld.

(This article was originally published by Financial Times Chinese: http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001065344)

 



 

Current Events

Unirule Western Classics Reading Club 5th Mentor Meeting Held at Unirule Office in Beijing

October 30th, Unirule Western Classics Reading Club 5th Mentor Meeting was held at Unirule Office in Beijing.

In the morning, discussion on religions and freedom, politics, and freedom and democracy was heated. In the afternoon, all the attendants had free discussion on a wide range of subjects covered in the book. Professor MAO Shoulong and Associate Professor WANG Jianxun attended the meeting and gave keynote speeches. (To read more)

 

 

 

Seminar of Rent-Seeking Theory and Anti-Corruption Studies Held in Beijing

November 14th, a Seminar on Rent-Seeking Theory and Anti-Corruption Studies was held at Unirule Office in Beijing. About 100 papers were submitted to this conference, and 21 were selected by the committee that were later presented on the meeting. Some of the experts attending the meeting include MAO Yushi, ZHANG Weiying, MENG Chang, LU Xianxiang, HUANG Shaoan, YAO Zhongqiu ,SHENG Hong, FENG Xingyuan, ZHAO Nong, YANG Qijing, LIU Yejin, ZHU Junsheng, GUAN Weili, etc..

Professor YAO Zhongqiu opened the seminar. He said that it was useful to imply empirical and theoretical truth on eradicating the smog of the society, i.e., corruption. Mr. MAO Yushi gave an opening speech. He said it was key for us to follow great pioneers of rent-seeking theory, such as Tullock and Buchannan. Even though Rent-Seeking has become an ordinary word in daily life in China, studies and research was not enough. He hoped this seminar would push forward research in this area.

To units were held in the morning. Unit 1 was moderated by Professor ZHAO Weiying, and Unit 2 by Professor HUANG Shaoan. (To read more)

 

 

Seminar on “Breaking the Administrative Monopoly in the Land Resource Allocation” Held in Beijing

On the morning of November 26th, a seminar on “Breaking the Administrative Monopoly in the Land Resource Allocation” was held at Unirule Office in Beijing. Present at the meeting include Professor SHENG Hong, Director of Unirule; Professor QIN Hui, Tsinghua University; Professor ZHENG Fengtian, Renmin University of China; Ms. QIAN Pu, CCPPP of Unirule; Dr. YANG Junfeng, non-residential researcher of Unirule; and another 40 audience. (To read more)

 

 

Public Governance Index Report of 30 Capital Cities in China 2015 Released in Beijing

November 28th, Public Governance Index Report of 30 Capital Cities in China 2015 was released at Unirule Beijing Office.

 

This Index measures the quality of public governance of China’s 30 provincial capitals. The Index was built upon 14 factors: political barriers, administrative cost, non-tax income percentage, financial investment percentage, private economy percentage, administrative licensing amount, number of NGOs, government disclosure, government integrity, and public service level. The result was obtained from wide range survey, and the total remarks is 10. (To read more)


 

 

 

Unirule Master Thoughts Class(2015) 5th Session Held in Beijing

 

November 28th to 29th, Unirule Master Thoughts Class(2015)  5th session was held in Beijing. This session was joined by Professor SHENG Hong, Director of Unirule Institute of Economics; Mr. MAO Yushi, Honorary President of Unirule; and Professor ZHANG Qianfan, Peking University. (To read more)

 

 

 

 

News

Unirule 10-D Spatial Simulation Planning Model (SSPM)

The Unirule 10-D Spatial Simulation Planning Model (SSPM) is a mathematical and computational model based on economics. It is developed by a Unirule research team led by Professor SHENG Hong. SSPM is designed to simulate the development scale, economic density, industry distribution, resource constraints, ecological preservation, institutional influence, policy effect, and the evolution process in the next ten to twenty years or even longer period for a region. SSPM provides reference for the regional economic development strategy making, which can be directly adopted in the planning on regional economic development, population, land use, industry development, townships, water and ecology.

So far, SSPM has been adopted in the industry planning of Qianhai Area, Shenzhen, and the economic development planning of Yangcheng County, Shanxi Province.

Learn more about the SSPM

 


Current Researches/ Consulting

Improving China’s Implimentation and Supervision Institution of the Constitution

At present, research on the implimentation and supervision institution of China’s constitution is insufficient. Multiple problems exist in the current studies, such as the lack of a cultural perspective, and empathetic understanding of China’s political tradition; a lack of authentic Chinese perspective and an indulgence of Westernized framework of analysis; and a lack of reflection of the reality and the existing political framework.

 

The research on China’s constitution review institution should put the protection of civil rights and constitutional construction first, with a reflection of China’s reality and take in the advantages of external researches. A plausible research approach is as follows: 1. This research ought to provide a right relief mechanism; 2. It should take into account that China is a vast country with imbalanced regional development realities which foster unique and differentiated conceptions of the law and politics in general; 3. It should be built upon the current constitutional structure and take into account the interactive system of the power of the party, the National People’s Congress, etc. in order to make it a progressive research, which can enable the elements of constitutionalism to supplement the current constitutional framework; 4. Scrupulous examination should be given to constitutional practices in other regions and cultures, especially those influenced by the Chinese culture or with a similar institutional set-up, such as Taiwan and France; 5. Observations should be made in regard to the traditional Chinese institutions, such as the institution of the expostulation system (“谏议制度”, or giving advice),  supervision system, and the institutions established in this light, e.g., Taiwan’s Control Yuan.

 

Improving Entrepreneurs' Survival Environment: Abolishing Death Penalties in Relation to Fund-Raising Cases in China

In recent years, environment for private enterprises has been taking a deteriorating turn, which attracts attention from the media and the academia. The causes are complex and multi-faceted, including: 1, the abuse of powers by government officials as the government powers expand; 2, “the private-owned deteriorating with the state-owned advancing” (guojin mintui) worsens the picture where the survival environment for private enterprises gets more and more squeezed; 3, external demands of enterprises decrease while internal cost increases; 4, financial suppression escalates with the industrial restructuring and updating lagging behind; and 5, the fluctuation of macroeconomic policies by the government poses uncertainty for production and investment. Moreover, many innocent entrepreneurs were labeled and persecuted for their “gangster behaviors” by the policy and law enforcements in Chongqing city, which was just a glimpse of similar occasional “gangster crashing” movements in the country. Many entrepreneurs are suppressed and sanctioned in the name of “illegal fund-raising”. According to active law, the court can sentence entrepreneurs to death penalty with this charge.

 

Unirule Institute of Economics is planning to undertake research on the problems of the crime of “illegal fund-raising” and specific methods to abolish this charge.

 

It is fit for Unirule to carry out this research project. Unirule Institute of Economics is a non-profit, non-governmental organization, which focuses on institutional economics with expertise in economics, laws, and politics. It has been dedicated to independent research on China’s institutional reforms and public policies as well as the reform of private finance. In 2003, 2011, and 2013, Unirule held seminars on the cases of Mr. SUN Dawu, Ms. WU Ying, and Mr. ZENG Chengjie. These seminars have been very influential before and after the close of the cases.


Unirule Institute of Economics has undertaken research projects in corporate finance and private finance in recent years. Over the years, Professor FENG Xingyuan has been carrying out pioneering research on private finance and private enterprises. He has gained rich experience and published many publications and papers on relevant topics, including “Report on the Freedom of China’s Corporate Capitals”, “Report on the Survival Environment of China’s Private Enterprises 2012”, research on the risks of private finance, etc. In August 2013, Professor FENG Xingyuan and his research team completed and released the “Report on Private Enterprise Fund-Raiding in West Hunan and the Case of Mr. ZENG Chengjie”, which analyzed and assessed the process, nature, problems, and causes of a series of events and proposed policy recommendations concerning the fund-raising activities in West Hunan and the case of Mr. ZENG Chengjie.

 

Business Ethics Declaration of Chinese Entrepreneurs

Over the last three decades, China’s economy has been embracing rapid growth with entrepreneurs being a key drive. The biggest and most significant structural change is the rise of entrepreneurs who constitute the pillar of the society nowadays. Today, the biggest, and the youngest group of entrepreneurs are going international, bridging China and the world.

However, because of the abnormal political, social and ideological environment of China for the last five decades, Chinese entrepreneurs happen to be widely confused and for the last thirty years, the emerging group of entrepreneurs has been suffering from severe anxiety over identity:

Firstly, due to the long time anti-market ideological propaganda by the authorities, many entrepreneurs believe they have the “original sin”. They are led to believe that their profits are based on exploiting the workers, which further leads to their confusion and anxiety over the ethical justification of their fortune and profits.

Secondly, this anti-market ideology also affects the public; leading the public to envy the fortune of entrepreneurs while disrespect them since their deeds are “unethical” and “dishonest”. This public opinion, in return, affects entrepreneurs’ self-identity. They, therefore, can’t convince themselves of the contributions they make to the society, or identify themselves within the social hierarchy.

Thirdly, Chinese entrepreneurs, especially those whose enterprises have gone international, are bothered with this severe identification anxiety. Chinese people stand out in entrepreneurship, so do Chinese enterprises. But what are the driving forces behind? Thanks to the long time culture break-up from the traditions, and the anti-tradition propaganda, Chinese entrepreneurs find it hard to comprehend and identify their cultural and social roles. This leads to the chaotic and restless mental state of entrepreneurs. This also results in the lack of a cultural supportive pillar for enterprise management in China.

“Business Ethics Declaration of Chinese Entrepreneurs” aims to provide answers to the anxiety over identity for Chinese entrepreneurs, to re-identify them by providing authentic and orthodoxical conceptions, to help them mature their thoughts and corporate social responsibilities.

This research project is committed to establishing a value system for Chinese entrepreneurs. To confront the anxiety over identity for Chinese entrepreneurs, this project provides answers to the three questions below:

1.Do Chinese entrepreneurs have the “original sin”?
2.What do Chinese entrepreneurs contribute to the society?
3.How do Chinese entrepreneurs gain respect?

 

An Economic Research of Chinese Urban Smog Management

The issue of smog has been on the spotlight in China that no matter government officials, ordinary citizens, or journalists and the press have expressed serious concern and anxiety towards it. Unirule Institute of Economics takes on this research topic and is conducting an economic research on China’s urban smog management.


The urban smog is attributed to multiple factors with many interest parties involved, which also makes it an economic issue. Unirule seeks to find a solution to the management of smog by the design of institutions from an economic point of view.

 

 

Fairness and Efficiency of Financial Resource Allocation

The first scale problem of the fairness and efficiency of financial resource allocation is whether the overall tax bearing standard falls within the optimal interval, whether the design of tax kinds and the mechanism will harm the development of the economy. The second scale problem is whether the expenditure structure of the existing financial resource allocation, especially transfer payment, obeys the principal of justice, and the efficiency of financial expenditure especially the general administrative costs.


Unirule Institute of Economics is going to undertake research on the fairness and efficiency of financial resource allocation with the emphasis on the second scale problem. In order to fulfill the ideal of justice in a society, the involvement of financial resource allocation is one of the methods, and a universal one. A state can promote justice by implying financial expenditure in two ways: the direct and the indirect way. When applying the direct way of implying financial expenditure measures to promote justice, financial expenditure is directly distributed to individuals to fill the gap of incomes between individuals.

 

Among the financial expenditure items of China are pensions and relief funds for social welfare, rural relief funds as well as social insurance funds. The indirect way is by governments' increase in expenditure used for supporting agriculture and villagers, construction of infrastructure, education and medical treatments. This research is on the justice of financial resource allocation and it deals mainly with whether the transfer payment of financial resources obeys the second rule of Rawls's theory of justice, which states that when violation to the first rule has to be made, resource allocation can be towards the poorest group of people. Besides the justice issue, efficiency is also involved in the financial resource allocation. The administrative costs of China have long been above the average standard of other countries in the world, therefore, a big amount of public financial resources are wasted (trillions of RMB per year as estimated). In regard with the efficiency issue of the financial resource allocation, this research deals mainly with the change of ratio of administrative costs by government agencies (in addition to other costs, such as medical treatments of government officials covered by public budgets, and housing subsidies) of financial income. The reform of the fiscal and taxation system is one of the core issues in China's on-going reforms. This research aims not at a comprehensive examination of the fiscal and taxation system, but a specific aspect which is the "fairness and efficiency of financial resource allocation", and evaluating the status quo of China's financial resource allocation.

Research on China's Urbanization on the Local Level

Urbanization is one of the most essential economic and social policies of the new administration. The emphasis of this policy is posed on medium and small cities as well as townships. As noticed, there are thousands of industrialized townships in China with their social governance lagging far behind their economic development.


Firstly, a big population is located in between the urban and rural level, which can't transform into citizens. Hundreds of millions of people have left their villages and moved to commercialized and industrialized towns. They are in industrial and commercial occupations and it is highly unlikely that they would go back to their villages. However, they are not entitled to local Hukou registration, which further leads to the deprivation of various rights, for example, the right of education.

Secondly, public governance in such industrialized and commercialized towns, in general, is at a rudimentary level. The number of officially budgeted posts is asymmetric with the population governed, which leads to the employment of a large number of unofficially budgeted staff and unjustified power to govern. There is a lack of financial resources for the local government to carry out infrastructure construction or to provide public goods sufficiently. Thirdly, the urbanization results in imbalanced development of the structure of society. Since the industrialized and commercialized townships are unable to complete urbanization, urbanization in China has basically become mega-urbanization which is dominated by administrative power. Local governments centralize periphery resources with administrative power and construct cities artificially, which impedes townships and villages from evolving into cities by spontaneous order. Fourthly, industry upgrading can't be undertaken in those industrialized and commercialized townships and the capacity for future economic development is greatly limited. The industry upgrading is, in essence, the upgrading of people. Enterprises ought to draw and maintain technicians, researchers, and investors, to meet their needs for living standards, which cannot be satisfied by townships. Similarly, the lagging urbanization reversely sets back the cultivation and development of the service industry, especially the medium and high-end services.


Unirule Institute of Economics is going to carry out research on urbanization of China on the local level, aiming at improving public governance of the industrialized townships, optimizing the urbanization methodologies, and improving the "citizenization" of migrant workers, therefore further pushing social governance towards self-governance and democracy.

 

Research on the Public Governance Index of Provincial Capitals

At the beginning of the year 2013, Unirule conducted field survey, including more than 10 thousands of households in 30 local capital cities. According to the field survey, the Public Governance Index was derived. The main conclusions of the PGI report as below:


Three statements summarize the status quo of public governance in provincial capitals. Firstly, public services have generally just gotten a pass. Secondly, protection to civil rights is disturbing. Finally, governance methodologies need improvements. These statements point out the solution: the structure of the society needs to be altered from that with a government monopoly to a civil society with diverse governance subjects. The ranking of provincial capitals in the public governance assessment from the top to the bottom is as follows: Hangzhou, Nanjing, Urumqi, Tianjin, Chengdu, Shanghai, Beijing, Nanchang, Xi'an, Xining, Shijiazhuang, Wuhan, Guangzhou, Yinchuan, Hohhot, Chongqing, Shenyang, Changsha, Jinan, Kunming, Nanning, Haikou, Fuzhou, Guiyang, Harbin, Hefei, Changchun, Zhengzhou, Taiyuan and Lanzhou.

Generally speaking, all provincial capitals are graded comparatively low in the three public governance assessments from 2008 to 2012. Even those that ranked the highest in performance have just barely passed the bar of 60 points. Few provincial capitals with poor public governance got over 50 points.


There is a certain amount of correlation between the changes of ranking and improvements in public governance in provincial capitals. In the short term, should the capital cities be willing to raise their rankings, they can achieve this by increasing transparency in government information and civil servants selection, encouraging local non-governmental organizations, or promoting wider participation in local affairs. There is but a weak correlation between public governance and the local GDP level. However, a strong correlation exists between the rankings and the equity of local fiscal transfer payment. That is to say, a region gets a higher ranking in public governance if subsidies to local social security, medical care, education and housing are distributed more to the poorest residents in that region. On the contrary, a region's ranking falls if such resources are distributed with prejudice to the groups with high incomes. This phenomenon shows that equity is of significance in the assessment of the government by the people.


When residents are not satisfied with medical care, elderly support system, water supply and electricity supply, the situation can be improved when they complain to the government. But when similar situations take place in public transportation, environment greening, heating systems, and garbage management, whether by collective actions or filing complaints to government agencies, residents can hardly be satisfied with what the government does.


According to the three public governance assessments carried out from 2008 to2012, we discovered that the Gini coefficient of residents in provincial capitals was decreasing and the income fluidity was improving. From 2010 to 2012, citizens' comments on protection of civil rights are deteriorating, especially in terms of property and personal security. The request for freedom of speech is also increasing. For the moment, citizens in provincial capitals have a low evaluation on the cleanness and honesty of local governments.

 

Research on Disclosure of Government Information


Room for reforms is getting narrower as the opening-up and reforms deepen. It also leads to a more stabilized vertical mobilization of the demographic structure with the conflicts in the distribution of interests exacerbating. A collaborative system centering the political and law system and involving close cooperation between the police, courts, petition offices, and the city guards (Chengguan) is developed to deal with social unrest. This system is operated by local governments and finalized as a system of maintaining stability (Weiwen). There have been Internet spats over the amount of Weiwen funds. It is unsustainable to maintain such a Weiwen system, and the disclosure of government information is the most significant approach for this end. The essence of public governance is to dissolute conflicts instead of hiding and neglecting them. And one way to achieve this is by sufficient communication. Public and transparent appraisement and supervision cannot be achieved without transparent government information, otherwise the result will be the exclusion of citizens from public governance.


Unirule Institute of Economics has been undertaking research on the disclosure of government information since 2011. This research is carried out not only from the perspective of the regulations for the disclosure of government information which evaluates whether governments of various levels are obeying the regulations and their performances, but also by examining information disclosure laws in developed countries while looking at the status quo in China. There are seven aspects where government information disclosure can be improved, namely, information disclosure of government officials, transparency of finance, transparency in the decision-making mechanism, transparency in administration, transparency in public services, transparency of enterprises owned by local governments, and transparency in civil rights protection.

 

Upcoming Events

Unirule Biweekly Symposiums

Unirule's Biweekly Symposiums are known in China and throughout the world for their long history of open and in-depth discussions and exchanges of ideas in economics and other social sciences. Over 380 sessions have been held and over 15,000 scholars, policy makers, and students, as well as countless readers on the web, have directly and indirectly, and participated in the Biweekly Symposium for close to 20 years.

Biweekly Symposiums begin at 2 p.m. every other Friday and are free and open to the public.

Schedule
Biweekly Symposium No. 537: 6th Nov., 2015
Biweekly Symposium No. 538: 20th Nov., 2015

 

Previous Biweekly Symposiums

Biweekly Symposium No. 535: Protecting Rights V.S. Maintaining Stability: The 3rd Round of Judicial Reforms and Social Order Transformation

Lecturer: LI Xuan

Host: SHENG Hong , Director of Unirule Institute of Economics

Commentators: LI Dun, XU Xin, XIONG Wenzhao

Professor LI Xuan, Central University of Finance and Economics, thought there was a new round of judicial reforms which featured the attack on four judges in Shiyan, Hubei Province, the Tianjin Explosion and the Liuzhou Explosion. These cases showed the injustice in judicial practice that resulted in attacks and vengeance by the seemingly victims.

Professor LI Xun emphasised that only by protecting citizens’ rights by law, could there be a fundamental change in stability maintaining of the society. He then introduced the three rounds of judicial reforms in accordance to three periods: the first round of judicial reforms by the Supreme Court in 1998- 2007; the second round led by Committee of Political and Legal Affairs, CPC Central Committee in 2008- 2013; and the third round led by the highest authorities since 2013.

 

 

Biweekly Symposium No. 536: From Entrepreneurial Chaos to Growth:A Policy Agenda

Lecturer: Pontus Braunerhjelm

Host: ZHANG Shuguang, Chairman of Unirule Academic Committee

Commentators: ZHOU Fangsheng, HAN Chaohua

Professor Pontus Braunerhjelm, Swedish Entrepreneur Forum, introduced their latest research on entrepreneurship and economic growth. He started with questions to the current economic policies widely adopted by governments around the world, and then released new data on entrepreneur activities, and lastly shared his opinion on the influence of such activities upon policy-making.

The report was entitled “The entrepreneurial code – A Comparative Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics in China, Europe and the U.S.”. (available here:http://entreprenorskapsforum.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GEM_INT_Report_2015_Oct_web.pdf).
 

 


Editor: MA Junjie
Revisor: Hannah Luftensteiner

 

Comments? Questions? Email us at unirule@unirule.org.cn




If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line

“天则”语出《诗经》“天生烝民,有物有则”,取意为“合乎天道自然之制度规则”,其中的“制度”既包括企业、市场等经济制度,也包括政治、文化制度。天则经济研究所是一个非营利、非政府和有着独立精神的民间智库。

北京天则所咨询有限公司,北京天则经济研究所(Unirule Institute of Economics)版权所有。
地址:北京市东城区崇文门外街道崇外大街9号正仁大厦6层  邮编:100062
电话:8610-52988126 Email:unirule@unirule.org.cn