在初次分配上强调公平，这在改革开放以来属首次。此前，中国政府处理收入分配的主要原则是：初次分配注重效率，再分配注重公平。

　　在改革开放的早期，邓小平为了改变计划经济下“大锅饭”的状况，提供人们劳动生产积极性，提出了“让一部分人和一部分地区先富裕起来，走共同富裕的道路”。反映到国家的分配理论就是“效率优先，兼顾公平”。

　　但是在将近30年的改革过程中，效率有了，一部分和一部分地区也的确富裕起来了，但公平消失了，共同富裕的道路可望而不可见。近年来，越来越大的收入差异更导致社会的急剧分化，成为了社会不稳定的一个主要因素。

　　（实际上，过大的收入差异也是经济不可以持续发展的一个重要根源。少部分社会成员过度消费，但大部分人则消费不足，仅仅停留在维持生计的水平。内部的消费不足转而迫使中国产品的大量外销，从而导致和西方社会的贸易冲突的升级。这当是另外一个需要专门加以讨论的问题。）

效率和公平性要兼顾

　　为了建设一个和谐社会和保障经济的可持续发展，这些年来，政府在二次分配方面下足了功夫。各方面的公共政策不断向低收入者或者社会弱势群体倾斜。但各项政策的实际效果距人们的期望还有很大的差异。

　　很多年来，政府的财政收入急剧增长，增长速度为世界上所少见，但中国的收入差异也在同步增长。这个现象表明，中国的收入差异问题并不在于各级政府的二次分配不力，而是因为初次分配造成的收入差异过大。

　　初次分配出了大问题，就无法通过政府主导的二次分配来达到公平。十七大报告开始强调初次分配也要处理好效率和公平的问题，说明领导层已经对此问题有了新的认识。

　　实际上，稍微了解一下马克思主义政治经济学，对这个现象并不难解释。穷人或者低收入者只有把自身投入到劳动力市场才能求生存和发展，或者说自身的劳动力是获取财富的唯一来源。

　　而富人则不同。富人除了劳动力，还掌握资本和其它生产要素。在这样情况下，要缩小穷人和富人之间的收入差异，至少要求低收入者的收入增长必须较富人快。

　　但是市场经济运作规则决定了富人的收入增长会永远比穷人快。在经济全球化的今天，资本已经成了获取财富的最主要手段。或者说，全球化是财富分配不公的新动力。

　　要改变市场本身的规则，遏制全球化对财富分配差异的恶化，就必须求助于政治，就是说需要政府来干预市场，干预收入分配，在市场和政府之间达到一个均衡状态。（维持市场和政府之间的均衡实际上也就是欧洲民主社会主义理论的核心。）

　　回到中国的例子。一次分配哪里出了问题？贫富差异的急剧扩大不仅仅是因为社会群体的收入增长过慢，更为重要的是一些社会群体的收入增长过快。

　　这尤其表现在国有企业部门。国有企业特别是大型国有企业这些年来形成了高度垄断。垄断企业的资本应当说属于全民，但这些企业内部经常自行决定工资水平。

　　除高工资外，垄断企业还有很大一部分收入属于灰色收入。高工资加上灰色收入使得垄断企业的收入远较非垄断企业的高。

　　更为严重的是，国有企业盈利了，利益就在内部分配。但如果一旦亏损，就要求助于国家，国家就要用纳税人的钱来救济这些企业。这样，垄断部门总是能够在自身利益的最大化的同时把亏损转移给全社会。这一过程不仅恶化了收入差异，更使得社会公平与正义荡然无存。

很多企业还是原始资本主义

　　中央层面搞垄断，背后还有相当的理性，因为一些产业具有战略重要性。但中国的情况是，不仅中央搞垄断，而且地方的各个层面，省政府、市政府、县政府都要搞垄断。越到下面，垄断就越是毫无理性。

　　往往是哪里有利可图，政府就要进行垄断，造成了与民争利的局面。各个层面的垄断非常不利于中小企业的发展。尽管中国的中小企业也在发展，但其生存环境非常不好。而在收入差异比较小的国家，中小企业在其中扮演了一个主导的角色。

　　在非国有部门也存在着收入差异问题。在这个部门，很多企业实行的是非常原始的资本主义生产方式。这些企业要不利用国家法律的不健全，要不置国家法律于不顾，忽视企业工人的基本权利，如最低工资制、安全生产环境和最基本的医疗保险等。

　　现在，领导层认识到了一次分配过程中公平的重要性。但如何把认识落实为政策则面临着巨大的挑战。

　　如何限制国有企业的垄断，节制国有资本，防止国有资本与民争利？如何改善中央垄断企业的企业治理，在市场运作基础上增进公共利益？如何限制甚至取消地方层面的垄断，给中小企业创造一个有利的生存和发展环境？如何保障非国有部门的基本劳工权利，尤其是数以亿计的农民工的权益？

　　这些问题的解决都超越了分配制度本身，而需要深刻的经济和政治变革。

　　再者，十七大报告强调，再分配更加注重公平。这没有错。但可以再进一步说，二次分配在注重公平的同时也必须强调分配过程中的效率。

　　二次分配往往被理解成为对穷人的救济。救济穷人当然需要，但这仅仅是二次分配中很小的一部分功能。如果二次分配只注重公平，而忽视效率，那么就会步西方福利国家的后尘。

政策须向中小企业倾斜

　　一些西方国家在二次分配过程中过分注重公平，而忽视了效率，结果养了一大批懒人，就是人们常说的福利国家病。社会成员利用国家力量（往往是通过选举制度）对企业和个人增收过高的税率，从而影响效率。生产效率的低下又反过来影响国家福利的可持续性。

　　所以，更为有效的方式是二次分配也同样要强调效率，就是说除了对穷人进行必须的救济外，政府可以大力投资于有利于经济可持续发展的基础设施建设，重视教育和人力资源的培养，国家的财政和金融政策也可以向中小企业倾斜。

　　诸如此类的政策举措就可以为各社会群体提供机会参与经济发展过程，通过参与发展得到应有的财富分享。这样才可以在效率和公平之间造就一个良性循环，保障两者的可持续性。

　　中共的新分配论述对现存的社会主义理论提出了新挑战。胡锦涛在十七大报告中坦诚，“党的执政能力同新形势新任务不完全适应，对改革发展稳定一些重大实际问题的调查研究不够深入”。

　　可以这样说，因为对一些重大问题研究不深入，从而影响了有效政策的制定和执行，从而影响了执政党的执政能力。从建国到今天，中国的理论和政策界犯了两次教条主义。

　　第一次就是社会主义的教条主义，认为计划经济可以解决一切问题。但最近20多年间又犯了资本主义的教条主义，认为市场经济可以解决一切问题。

　　邓小平强调，贫穷不是社会主义，资本主义可以用来增加社会财富。这并没有错。但是在实际政策制定和执行过程中，多数人往往把此理解为先资本主义，后社会主义。这里资本主义成了社会主义不可逾越的阶段。

　　这种理解是典型的教科书式的理解方法。在中国理论和政策界，很多人习惯于从教科书来理解现实，而不是用现实去修改教科书。

　　很少有人认真地去考察中国本身的经济，也很少有人去考察西方资本主义的实体经济。实际上，在今天，即使在最典型的资本主义经济方式中（如美国），也包括有社会主义的成分。例如劳工力成本中已经包含有人权概念。

　　在西方，没有任何资本可以忽视劳动者的基本权利，忽视他们的最低工资，忽视他们的最低限度的医疗保险等等，也没有资本可以忽视环境保护等社会责任。

　　因此，有必要用批评的眼光来对待现存资本主义和社会主义概念，从考察世界各国实体政治经济体系来重组中国的政治经济体系。这应当是中国思想解放和理论创新的根源。

·作者是英国诺丁汉大学中国研究所教授、研究主任

　　Party Congress stresses fair distribution of wealth but dogmatism remains a problem

　　One of the most notable results of the 17th Communist Party Congress was a new stress on the fair distribution of wealth to cope with the enormous gulf between rich and poor in China, but dogmatism remains a serious problem in tackling social inequalities, said Professor Zheng Yongnian, Head of Research at the China Policy Institute of the University of Nottingham, in his weekly column in the Singapore newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. The Party had ditched Deng Xiaoping\'s dictum that "We should let some people and some regions get rich first and take a shared road to prosperity" which prioritised distribution and made fairness a secondary consideration, Zheng said. He said Deng\'s policies had certainly worked in so far as they made some people and places richer, "but fairness has disappeared," he added.

　　"The shared road to prosperity is hoped for but cannot be seen. In recent years, increasingly great income disparities have resulted in serious social divisions and are an important factor in social instability," he wrote.

　　Zheng said the government had tried hard to reduce these disparities and had implemented a wide range of policies aimed at those on low incomes and the weakest members of society, "but there is a big gap between the results of all these policies and people\'s expectations."

　　The leadership was now aware of these problems which were exacerbated by globalisation, and there is now a need for "the government to interfere in the market, to intervene in income distribution and reach a balance between the market and the government," he added.

　　"The dramatic widening in the gap between rich and poor is not only because the income of [some] social groups has increased too slowly, but more significantly the income of some social entities has increased too fast," Zheng said.

　　He said this was particularly the case with stateowned enterprises, which had in many cases become monopolies.

　　"Capital in monopoly enterprises should belong to the people, but these enterprises often decide salary levels internally," he said.

　　"Apart from salaries, incomes in a large proportion of monopoly enterprises still fall into the category of \'grey income\'. High salary levels combined with grey income cause incomes in monopoly enterprises to be far higher than incomes in nonmonopoly enterprises," Zheng wrote.

　　Grey income is the practice of paying additional subsidies and allowances to managers and employees, often in ways that avoid or evade tax.

　　Even more seriously, if they make a loss they go to the state for help, and so they rely on taxpayers to bale them out, making them a social burden which further exacerbates income disparities and social injustice.

　　While monopolies at a central level could be defended due to their strategic importance, provincial and local monopolies were even more harmful, Zheng argued, as they threatened the development of smaller companies. He said small and medium sizedcompanies play a leading role in countries with a relatively small gap between rich and poor.

　　"The leadership is now aware of the importance of fairness in the process of primary distribution. But how to turn this awareness into policy is an enormous challenge," he added.

　　Zheng said that some western countries had emphasised social justice at the expense of economic efficiency, which had resulted in widespread laziness and "welfare state sickness." It was essential that the government invested heavily in basic infrastructure that benefited sustainable economic development, including education and human resources, and that small and mediumsized companies received appropriate financial incentives.

　　He said a lack of research had resulted in inappropriate policies and poor implementation, and this had this had affected the Party\'s efficacy, while dogmatism had further exacerbated problems.

　　"The first way it has done this is the dogmatism of socialism, believing that a planned economy can solve all problems. But in the last 20 years capitalism has also become a dogma, with a belief that the market economy can solve all problems.

　　"Deng Xiaoping stressed that poverty is not socialism and capitalism can increase social prosperity. This is quite right. But in the process of devising and implementing policy most people take this to mean stressing capitalism and demoting socialism...

　　"This view is a classic textbook understanding of the matter. Among Chinese theoreticians and policymakers, many people are used to understanding reality through textbooks, but they do not revise textbooks in the light of reality," Zheng declared. * This is an English summary of Professor Zheng Yongnian\'s column of 13 November, 2007, by Michael Rank for CPI.

《联合早报网》