Market Reform and the Widening of the Income Gap
2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 32; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/02529203.2011.573348
ISSN1940-5952
Autores ResumoAbstract 在市场化过程中，中国出现了收入差距不断扩大的趋势，从而社会上出现了一些将收入差距扩大的原因归结为市场化改革的错误认识。本文通过对我国改革开放以来收入分配格局变化的主要特点和导致收入差距扩大的原因加以细致实证分析， 对一些模糊认识加以澄清。本文认为在个人收入差距扩大的诸多因素中，传统计划 体制遗留下来的一些制度和政策，在部门利益和地方利益驱使下新形成的有悖于市 场体制规则的制度和政策，政府对市场缺失和市场扭曲采取的不作为态度，对资本 节制和劳动保护的不足，政府对经济的过度干预，成为导致收入差距扩大和收入分 配不公的最重要因素。 关键词: 收入差距 改革 城乡 中国 In the course of marketization in China, there has been a trend for the income gap to become ever wider. Some people have mistakenly attributed the gap to market reforms. This article provides a detailed empirical analysis of the changes in income distribution patterns and the reasons for the increasing income gap to clear up such misunderstandings. We believe the most important factors in the widening of the income gap and unequal income distribution are institutions and policies inherited from traditional economic planning; newly emerging systems and policies driven by departmental and local interests that run counter to market laws; lack of government action on gaps or distortions in the market; insufficient capital regulation and labor protection; and excessive government intervention in the economy. Keywords: income inequalityreformurban‐ruralChina Notes 1 This article was written by Li Shi. Zhao Renwei participated in discussion and revision. The authors would like to thank Wu Jinglian, Zhang Wenmin, Zhu Ling and Han Chaohua for their helpful suggestions for revision. The article was first published in Journal of Legal and Economic Studies (洪范评论), 2007, no. 3. The authors carried out some revision and rewriting before the article was translated into English. 2 According to the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the distribution of urban residents' income was significantly more unequal by the end of the 1980s than in the early stages of reform, with the Gini coefficient being 40–50 percent higher. See Ren Caifang and Cheng Xuebin, “Distribution Gap as Seen in Urban Residents' Income.” Even when in‐kind income and subsidies were accounted for, the gap in the income distribution remained similar. For example, the Bureau estimated that urban Gini coefficient was 0.23 for monetary income in 1988; the Institute of Economics in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated that it was 0.23 for disposable income (including monetary and in‐kind income). See Zhao Renwei and Keith Griffin, eds., Analysis of Chinese Residents Income Distribution. 3 Li Shi and Yue Ximing, “A Survey of the Chinese Urban‐Rural Income Gap.” 4 Ibid. 5 Zhao Renwei and Li Shi, “Increase and Causes of the Income Gap among Chinese Residents.” 6 Li Shi and Yue Ximing, “A Survey of the Chinese Urban‐Rural Income Gap.” 7 Martin Ravallion and Chen Shaohua, “China's (Uneven) Progress against Poverty.” 8 Zhao Renwei and Keith Griffin, ed., The Distribution of Income in China. 9 Khan et al., “Household Income and Its Distribution in China.” 10 Li Shi and Yue Ximing, “A Survey of the Chinese Urban‐Rural Income Gap.” 11 Li Shi et al., “Changes in Income Inequality in China, 2002–2007.” 12 The income discussed here is based on the disposable income of urban residents and net income of rural residents, following the National Bureau of Statistics of China. To a certain degree, the two concepts involve problems of consistency and comparability. This will be discussed further below. 13 Li Shi and Yue Ximing, “A Survey of the Chinese Urban‐Rural Income Gap.” 14 Li Shi et al., “Changes in Income Inequality in China, 2002–2007.” 15 Yue Ximing et al., “Explaining Incomes and Inequality in China.” 16 Deng Quheng & Shi Li, “What Lies behind Rising Earnings Inequality in Urban China? Regression‐based Decompositions.” 17 Zhang Junsen et al., “Economic Returns to Schooling in Urban China,1988 to 2001”; Li Shi and Ding Sai, “Long Term Trends in the Rate of Return to Education in Urban China.” 18 Deng Quheng et al., “Wage Income Differences among Chinese Urban Employees—An Analysis Based on Regression Equations.” 19 Yue Ximing et al., “Explaining Incomes and Inequality in China.” 20 Zhao Renwei and Li Shi, “Increase and Causes of the Income Gap among Chinese Residents”; Li Shi and Zhao Renwei, “Re‐studies on Distribution of Chinese Residents' Income.” 21 The ratio of urban to rural per capita income decreased from 2.6:1 in 1978 to 1.8:1 in 1983 (see China Statistical Abstract 2005, p.102). 22 Huang Peihua and Deepak Bhattasali, China: State Development and Local Finance; Jia Kang, Studies on Local Financial Issues. 23 For a useful discussion on the relationship between regional income gaps and the centralization of the political and distributional system, see Chen Zhiwu, “Can State Ownership and Government Control Really Facilitate Balanced Development?” 24 John Knight and Li Shi, “Wages, Firm Profitability and Labor Market Segmentation in Urban China,” pp. 205–228. 25 Party and government and public sector incomes increase more slowly than those in monopoly sectors, but their rate of growth is much faster than in other sectors. For example, their average wages were 1.3 percent lower than those of urban workers' in 1990, yet by 2003, they were 13 percent higher. Their incomes were only 2 percent higher than those in the manufacturing sector in 1990, yet were 27 percent higher by 2003. See China Statistical Yearbook 2004. 26 One study by our project group indicates that compared with 1995, 2002 saw a sharp increase in the average income gap between monopoly/public sectors and competitive sectors. Our decomposition analysis indicates that there is a clear rise in the proportion of the income gap accounted for by the division of the market; see Démurger et al., “Economic Liberalization with Rising Segmentation in China's Urban Labor Market.” 27 Wu Jinglian, “Beware of Turning the Market Economy into Crony Capitalism.” 28 For countries in economic transition, “transition” refers not only to economic but also to political transformation. We call the two kinds of reform the “two legs.” We therefore refer to reform that emphasizes economic reform but carries out little or no political reform as “putting our weight on one leg.”
Referência(s)