People familiar with the situation said that the income distribution reform plan caused by the division of Interests

Where is the resistance to income distribution reform? "China Economic Weekly" reporter Guofang | Beijing report "The income distribution reform program can be issued at the end of the year is difficult to say, even if the introduction I think it can not solve the fundamental problem."　　"An official think-tank who has been involved in the drafting of the guidelines and rules for strengthening income distribution adjustment (i.e. income distribution reform) is pessimistic.　　He told China Economics Weekly that he feared the plan would end in disappointment.　　This is probably a bad news. This 2004 has been launched, and in 2007-2009, a draft of 6 consultation sessions was held before and after, with the leadership of the National Development and Reform Commission and the development of multisectoral participation. It was reported to the State Council in March this year and was returned and is still in the process of modification.　　Recently, the National People's Congress Financial Committee in the national income distribution issues in the Special research report proposed, as soon as possible to introduce income distribution reform program.　　The formulation of the programme has been carried out in secret, however, with the limited information revealed in various ways, the impetus for reform is faltering.　　"Cake" is harder than "cake" to look back at the beginning of the reform 30 years ago: Under the call of "some people get rich first", China started with a dual-track system with many flaws, catching up with the world at a rocket-like pace, but at the same time creating huge amounts of wealth began to create injustice and disparity.　　The negative effects of this wealth have caused concern among policy designers Deng Xiaoping in the early 90. During his stay in Shanghai in December 1992, he and his staff said: "After China has developed to a certain degree, we must consider the distribution problem ... The problem should be considered by the end of this century.　　He also specifically asked the staff to record the passage, and sent to the central leadership comrades to see.　　Such worries are growing. September 1993, he pointed to: "How the 1.2 billion of the population to achieve prosperity, wealth, how to distribute the rich, this is a big problem." The problem has come out, and it is more difficult to solve it than to solve the problem of development. He also said: "A small number of people get so much wealth, most people do not, so that the development of one day will be a problem."　　"For quite a long time," efficiency first, and fairness, is always the leading thought of development. "The issue of income distribution is too complicated, and the way countries generally deal with too complex problems is to shelve them first."　　"Some scholars have explained that.　　A more powerful explanation is that development is the absolute truth.　　Recently, the National Development and Reform Commission officials interviewed by the media, said that the Gini coefficient in China as early as 2006 years to achieve 0.49--this with the original "from the first rich to the rich" design difference is very far. "The reform of income distribution is not only an economic issue, but also a major political issue." Both the income distribution itself and the social conflicts and contradictions that it causes are major political issues. Wang Yukei, a professor at the National School of Administration, said in an interview with China Economic Weekly that the distribution problem could not be solved as soon as possible, the more the probability of economic problems becoming political problems.　　The central government must take precautions. 2007, the 17 report said: "Initial distribution and redistribution must deal with the relationship between efficiency and equity, redistribution more attention to equity."　　"In 2010, Premier Wen Jiabao made a similar statement on different occasions: not only through the development of the economy, the" cake "of social wealth, but also through a reasonable income distribution system to divide the" cake ".　　As Deng Xiaoping had expected, it was harder to divide the cake than the cake. The three limitations of the existing programme "now faces too many problems." The question of the benefit norm, the adjustment of interest, the problem of how to implement the details and so on.　　A person who declined to be named said. "The idea of reform in the scheme is basically what problems to solve, where the bulge is put pressure, are just a few symptoms and not the root causes of the content, a short-term behavior, rather than from a long-term perspective of the problem to think clearly, and then step by step to do. The official think-tank noted that there are major limitations to the scheme: first, the "Guidance and implementation rules for income distribution regulation" is limited to the government's "income distribution adjustment" and does not fully reflect the overall idea of income distribution reform. Secondly, the content of the program mainly includes increasing farmers ' income, increasing the support to low-income residents, raising wage income, adjusting personal income tax, and proposing solutions to the problems, and focusing on the financial and Tax means to regulate redistribution relations. Moreover, the programme focuses on adjusting the income distribution gap between the government, enterprises and residents, and only indirectly reflects the increase in wage income.　　The income gap between the monopoly industry and the general competition industry, the state-owned enterprises and the private enterprises is basically not involved.　　In his view, this is far from the big idea of "adjusting the distribution of national income" proposed by Premier Wen Jiabao in the government's work report this year. "In this pattern, each main body adjusts their relations, is not now said the simple ' low, expands, presses high ' the question." I understand the pattern of national income distribution, including government, enterprises, residents, between urban and rural, state-owned enterprises and private enterprises, low-income and high income between and so on. The present scheme is confined to the residents and does not touch on the interests of the Government or the enterprises. "He thinks that changing such a complicated, distorted pattern of income distribution, relying on the current plan is too thin, such a small plan can not bear such a large social theme." "Plainly is the small horse cart, is pulled not move." Wang Xiaolu, deputy director of the National Institute of Economic Reform of China, said: If the reform of the tax system and the reform of the government management system cannot be promoted, the problems caused by corruption and grey income will not be solved, but the focus on the issue of wage adjustment is difficult to reach the core of income distribution. Can't solve the real question.Problem。 "I think the solution must solve these problems: the big direction must know what should be changed?" What do people want to change? What should be changed from the needs of social development? From this point of view, there are still a lot of missing spots in this particular program.　　The person told the China Economic Weekly.　　Many of the comments were not heard-and this was almost a common gripe among many of the academics interviewed. Is the executive "pay limit order" effective? It should be said that the central adjustment of income distribution reform direction has been clear, the goal is to achieve equitable distribution, narrowing the gap.　　But the real push is faltering, because reform involves the restructuring of existing interests. "It's tough, but we're pushing it at 1.1," he said. "An official of the Ministry of Insurance said to the China Economic Weekly," whether it is the pay system of the top management of the state-owned enterprises, or the specific wage income distribution reform measures for the organs, institutions and enterprises, as well as the administrative measures on the total wages of SOEs and the regulations on wages, etc.　　Is the core issue of the new round of income distribution reform.　　However, the reform of the individual breakthrough in the scholars seem to highlight the weakness. "Reform, especially the distribution of income, such a comprehensive reform, not one of the individual breakthrough reform, the reform may solve some problems, but can not solve the fundamental problems and deep-seated problems."　　Zhu Lijia, a professor at the National School of Administration, is on the nail.　　Such powerlessness is particularly evident in the "pay-for-order" of top executives. September 16, 2009, the Ministry of Protection and other six departments issued the "on the further standardization of central Enterprises in charge of pay management guidance." It is the first time the Chinese government has issued an executive "pay order" for all the industry's central enterprises.　　In this document stipulates that the basic salary of central and central enterprises and the last year of the central enterprises in the average wage "" linked. "This document is in fact not limited to anything, there are not many operable things." If the problem of monopoly is not solved, the problem of the distribution of monopoly wages cannot be solved. The official think-tank said. They found that the central-and-central executives limited pay, often on the policy, there are countermeasures. Some executives are very tall, it is not possible to decline, just say can not let him higher. And those who were not so high, now that they have set the standard of punishment, he may think that there is still a chance to improve.　　They always find a good part of their policies. "Wages, income and the consumption of the consumer of state-owned enterprise executives can be circumvented by various means." In fact, you say how much he took, that is not clear. Others may think he has taken more, but you go to the enterprise to check, all meet the rules. And in fact he enjoyed far more than that. "Moreover, first, did not say clearly should take how much, second, did not say clearly took the not to take of how to do?" Third, from what channels can be counted out to take the wrong?　　These three fundamental problems have not been solved now, and are prevalent in state-owned enterprises and institutions. The insider analyses: this involves aA deep-seated problem--so far, all our statistics, all the underlying data, are not to say unreal, at least not completely true.　　The more relevant financial or financial allocations, or the right to enjoy the benefits of welfare, the more statistical information is incomplete, opaque, not standard. "Why is it so hard for income distribution reform to be implemented in our country?" Difficult is difficult at this point. "It's hard to get the details when the research group goes down, because it's not standard," he said.　　They found that each person's income is very complex, and in addition to the income of the salary scale, there are often grey incomes. "Some people say that the income of local civil servants is low, I do not agree with it, only look at the salary scale, his income is not high, but if the shadow income is included, it is definitely not low."　　"You can imagine the benefits of some areas of our country, but it's hard to get that information from existing statistical channels," says one researcher. "I mentioned early on the need to establish a transparent income survey system, but the income survey system was not established at all." If the investigation system does not come out, the wage system is not standardized, there are problems in judgment, decision-making will certainly be problematic.　　The official think-tank is worried.　　The reform department itself is resistance? Almost everyone is asking, what is the biggest drag on income distribution reform?　　Some people say that is a vested interest group, some people say is the urban and rural dual system, some people say is the industry monopoly. "All right, these are resistance. But I think the biggest drag on reform is the way to push it.　　"The official think tank even thinks that, in fact, the sector involved in the reform itself is resistance." The reform of income distribution is carried out under the leadership of the NDRC and the participation of many departments.　　He was very opposed to the "one-sector-led, multisectoral participation" reform model.　　In his view, the income distribution reform plan has been slow to be public, a big reason lies in this model of the interests of the division between the competition.　　Under the division system, there is a lack of normative consultation and communication mechanism between departments, the lead departments often need to pay a great deal of coordination costs, plus the game between the interests of the Department, the reform program is extremely difficult to launch. "It's too reliant on one department, these departments are very difficult to reconcile, coordination is to reach a consensus, the result is that the lead department has been very tired."　　He pointed out that the history of reform has shown that the more ambitious the theme of reform, the more from the side, the result is a grand reform of the fragmentation of ideas, the debris between the intertwined, mutual constraints, and ultimately the grand reform ideas difficult to achieve. However, this is precisely the most common pattern in our national policy formulation.　　In this mode, every department tends to think only from its own perspective. For example, in adjusting the distribution of interest structure, it was suggested that the monopoly industry is now state-owned enterprises, excess profits to return to society, so the state-owned enterprises to increase the profits to 50%.　　But Sasac does not do it, it wants to protect the interests of state-owned enterprises. In this logic: the government in the income distribution reform overall framework design, must from the Department function UltraEmerge from the overall perspective, the system and policy will not be mutually constrained. "The central government should have the determination to further deepen the reform and have the courage to break the monopoly, which is the most crucial." Wang Yukei also called on the central policymakers should make up their minds and dare to touch interest groups, which could fundamentally change the overall pattern of unreasonable income distribution. "But it is actually the sectoral interests that dominate our entire governance process." "It seems that the final outcome of the programme may be that the departments are relatively satisfied, but the people may not be satisfied."　　The insider guesses. "We want to limit high income, raise low income, but, low-income people, their opinions have not been heard?" What he said doesn't work, can it affect the decision? By what means can their opinions be heard?　　"These are the problems. "The relative satisfaction of several departments, the community is not satisfied, what is called Public policy?" Whether we want to balance the interests of the departments or the interests of the community is a fundamental thing. Zhu Lijia, a professor at the National School of Administration, believes that the biggest problem is whether we have a process of fair policy formulation. Should our salary scheme be widely consulted by different strata of society?　　Do you guarantee the right to participate, express and know people? He concluded by reminding: many people use reform for personal and sectoral interests, and income distribution reform has this tendency.