Welcome to free paper download website

On the five key issues of corporate governance in China from the dual field of view of the law and economics

Author: LiHuaZhen ZhangZuo From: www.yourpaper.net Posted: 2009-03-30 04:57:54 Read:
[Abstract] After more than development, China's market economy reform is entering a stage of the hard times of attack, the Chinese company is at a crossroads. China's current situation, similar to that of Korea, we are not anti-recall the history of the Korean economy. Year, the Korean company has created the Korean miracle make the world wonder, but did not last long, and later a large area of ??retreat, resulting in the cold wave of the Korean economy. Is sunny the Chinese economy and Chinese companies can avoid repeating the mistakes in Korea? What should be done?
[Key words] the corporate governance structure, the reform of property rights, separation of ownership the imputation rights, China's stock market, the Coase Theorem

Year, the Korean company has created the Korean economic miracle "make the world wonder, but did not last long, and later a large area of ??retreat, resulting in today's Korean economic cold. After more than twenty of development, China's market economy reform is entering a stage of attack hard times, China is at a crossroads. Then sunny the Chinese economy and Chinese companies can avoid repeating the mistakes in Korea? What should be done?
, Property rights reform: It is private VS virtual private
China's current situation, similar to that of Korea, we are not anti-recall the history of the Korean economy. Few years after the Korean War, South Korea's economic backwardness in North Korea. In 1961, Park Chung-hee took power, began to take drastic measures for economic reform, get rid of the Korean War established and inherited the State of the KMT ownership. Due to the strong influence of the United States to South Korea, Park Chung-hee government chose to follow the example of the United States and Europe "full privatization road. After 20 years, the former prosperity opponents (North Korea) economy close to collapse, while South Korea has become the "Asian economic miracle" after Japan and the Orient new power plant, steel, oil tankers, TV, cars and so the influx of the world market. A number of companies in South Korea stormed into the top 500 list of the world, it seems that everything will continue to be sunny down. In the 1990s, the Korean economy lost its various contradictions as if the accumulation of pent-up volcano, explosive. 1997 Southeast Asian financial crisis acts as a fuse, triggering the Asian economic crisis in 98 years, South Korea's volcano finally detonated, the economic situation worsened, the Korean company into the world's top 500 large companies (including) one after another earthquake occurred landslide area.
A narrow strip of water in China and South Korea also experienced the impact of the Asian economic crisis in 98 years, China's economic strength was not as good as South Korea, but China has effectively withstood the storm. What are the reasons? The key one is that like South Korea, China did not "fully privatized, the government can effectively integrate and use of economic resources to resist the Great Recession. Korea's economic resources are mostly in private hands, the government macro-control means to mobilize private resources, but, as we all know, the macro-control is often only in "normal times" play a significant role, such as the economic crisis class "extraordinary period" can not be immediate and effective. (Note here that can not be "immediate", rather than negative macro-control and long-term effects of the economic crisis.)
But this does not mean that China should not corporate property rights reform. Decades of planned economy-style state-owned, has been shown to lack of energy. Thus, faced with the dilemma: Should privatization in the end? Privatization and to what extent? Excessive privatization, will repeat the mistakes of Korea, was short-lived, unhealthy 500.
In this dilemma, the "virtual privatization" seemed like a new way. The traditional public The lack of vitality, because it denies that the exclusion of the reasonable private rights of the State-owned Enterprises, salary dead, operators of state-owned enterprises can not be normal legal way to advocate for private rights, and thus a two consequences: one is malpractice, "to bring down the state-owned enterprises"; another is not misappropriation of state-owned assets, but the loss of operating enthusiasm, mediocrity, caused the collapse of state-owned enterprises "negative". Speaking from the point of view of the corporate governance structure, precisely because of this reason, the state-owned enterprises to the private sector does not have the desire to operate and vitality.
The Western privatization is a "real privatization" is completely privatization. Although it can effectively solve the problem in the corporate governance structure, hatch to give birth to today's developed market economy, but it is not a "one size fits all" general rule, it is not suitable for China's national conditions. Western reality privatization of its essence lies not in private, but that can motivate the "OK" to care, maintenance, supervision of the operating state of the enterprise, the enterprise to a "good direction", and ultimately, it the entire national economy upward instead of falling down. So, if I could find a competent (s) "OK" to run the business, supervision of enterprises, can make the enterprise full of vitality. Allow and encourage state-owned enterprises operating on the basis of the state-owned corporate shares, so that they also become shareholders of state-owned enterprises. According to the Coase theorem, once the external internal, they care about the operating conditions of the state-owned enterprises will be able to motivate, and ultimately, they get a huge self-interest, the state-owned enterprises has also been a good development, increase the value of state-owned assets also achieved.
And "It privatization" corresponding "virtual privatization" is not, in essence, privatization, public (or nationalization), the image of the point that it is "dressed in the garb of privatization public ownership. " This approach, private equity is derived from the state-owned shares, both state-owned shares in the share structure of the entire enterprise, private shares, is a mixed ownership. It is not a Western-style thoroughly it is privatized, but also to achieve its essence (ie incentive "OK" to care, maintenance and supervision of the business situation of enterprises), which can be called virtual privatization.
Second, the company operating mode: the separation of ownership and unity of VS rights
Whether we want to see the results and conclusions, it is beyond doubt a fact that - in order to practice "state-owned enterprises to establish modern enterprise system, the key lies in the theory of separation of ownership", 20 years, from the central government to local cities and counties, to scholars from the official policy, relish in the "separation of ownership". 20 years of practice: separation of ownership and has not achieved the desired results.
In fact, the West the past two decades the resurgence of a wave to two right one "big wave" from the separation of ownership and return. Practiced in the West separation of ownership and the company has occurred frequently operators corruption, the manager layer against the company and the interests of shareholders, major shareholders manipulated the damage to minority interests, even multinational companies to bring down internal serious incidents. In this social context, the rise of the West "SMEs will become the mainstream enterprise of the 21st century" wave, many large companies and thus also of much smaller, of the whole as a casual, Group companies are also no longer the traditional "Branch" system, have changed over the parent - subsidiary corporations. This practice of the (total branch system, the branch is not an independent legal entity; system of parent and subsidiary companies, all subsidiaries are independent small and medium-sized enterprise legal person) to avoid separation of ownership and bring drawbacks.
Western "unity of ownership" wave, strong evidence of a fact: the separation of ownership is not a panacea to solve the crux of the Chinese state-owned enterprises deep reform of state-owned enterprises in China in 20 years to miss the deep nature of .
Therefore, we must rediscover the reform of state-owned enterprises in China. According to the Coase theorem, in the state-owned enterprises, people's personal interests and objectives often with the organization (ie state-owned enterprises) interests and objectives without departure from the competent officials and operators, in these circumstances, the interests of the state-owned enterprises, but is a kind of "external" factors; their own interests is a kind of "internal" factors. There is no doubt that the government and state-owned enterprises, both organizations rather than a natural person, but a "big" organization, a "small" organization. The sociology organization itself is no life, there is no will, it can not go as natural as thinking decision-making, the government and state-owned enterprises are not "directly" to safeguard their own interests. Ultimately, you must by officials and managers "agent (representative) government and state-owned enterprises to make decisions. In the process of "proxy", officials and managers in external factors (ie the government and the interests of state-owned enterprises) and internal factors (that is, their own interests), and concerned about the latter at the expense of the former.
As China's economic law expert Liu Dahong pointed out: the real root cause of the state-owned enterprises is that it does not address "natural person" (ie officials and managers) and "organizations" (ie, the government and state-owned enterprises) stakes, not between the "natural person" and "organization" to build a set of effective corporate governance structure (including external and internal structures), both external and internal of convergence. Separation of ownership of the reform, only in this big organization (government) and small organizations (that is, the state-owned enterprises), and without deep deep into the relationship between the natural and the organization.
 1/3    1 2 3 Next Last
Please consciously abide by Internet-related policies and regulations.
Tips: Log in to comment, the user name to enter comments directly from your personal space, so that more friends to meet you.

Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links

Top