Author: stonesee

外资进入传媒

外资现在可以进入传媒发行领域，但不可以进入编辑领域。

Media sector opened wider
(January 23,2003 )(China Daily)

Publication management rules will be adjusted to allow more foreign and private capital into the book, newspaper and magazine distribution market, an official from the State Press and Publication Administration (SPPA) told China Daily Wednesday.

The new rules will remove the current restriction whereby only State-owned enterprises can enter China’s publications wholesale market, said Liu Bo, director of the administration’s distribution department.

“Overseas capital and privately owned businesses can both enter wholesale publications distribution in the form of joint ventures,” he said.

But State capital should hold a controlling stake in such joint ventures.

Liu said the rules are being revised in line with the promises China made when joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001.

He said China will accept and handle applications from overseas investors to invest in the book, newspaper and magazine distribution sector once the rules go into effect. The regulations could be published as early as the first quarter of this year.

More than 60 overseas companies have set up offices on the Chinese mainland with the intention of investing in the publications distribution business. They are likely to be the first to have their applications approved, according to some industry insiders.

But China will allow no overseas investment in the editing sector, and a few of the 140 WTO members have pledged only limited access to overseas investors in their respective editing sectors, said Liu Bingjie, deputy director of the SPPA.

In keeping with its WTO commitments, China should open its entire book, newspaper and magazine wholesale and retail sector to overseas investment during its third year of WTO membership. It should also lift all restrictions limiting the number of overseas- funded distribution companies, geographical locations and share-holding rights.

Deputy Director Liu said the books, newspapers and magazines involved will primarily be those published on the Chinese mainland.

Last year, China opened up the retail business in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin municipalities, Guangzhou in South China’s Guangdong Province, Dalian in Northeast China’s Liaoning Province, Qingdao in East China’s Shandong Province and the country’s five special economic zones — Hainan, Shantou, Shenzhen, Xiamen and Zhuhai.

This year, all mainland provincial capitals, together with Chongqing Municipality and Ningbo in East China’s Zhejiang Province, will allow foreign capital into their retail markets.

Although State capital will no longer be the sole player in the publications distribution market, senior managers of State-owned distribution companies have expressed confidence they can face the challenges.

“Despite the protection lost, the change in the distribution market will actually lift the pressure put on us by readers, who are demanding more and more books,” Ha Jiuru, president and general manager of the Shanghai Xinhua Distribution Group, told China Daily.

Ha’s group is one of the top distribution groups in the country.

He said competition for market share by non-State capital should encourage existing players to develop into stronger firms rather than going on the defensive.

“We will not be limited to wholesale and retail business. There is much more space in the distribution business for State-owned groups to get established and developed,” he said.

The Shanghai Xinhua Distribution Group established a publication trade centre late last year. Ha said this was an attempt to make a breakthrough in the traditional distribution business.

The centre is composed of a hall displaying new books, an online display and trade platform and a large bookstore. Ha said the centre lets buyers and sellers do both spot trading and forward business, which is new in China’s current distribution market.

“政府失灵”和“市场失灵”

说的是痛快淋漓啊！

为什么“政府失灵”比“市场失灵”更加危险？
作者：汪丁丁 2003-1-23 19:14:16
出处：

首发《财经》

斯蒂格里兹论证过“市场失灵”，基于“信息不对称性”；弗里德曼论证过“政府失灵”，基于“官僚化”的政府行为。于是经济学家，特别是持“中间立场”的经济学家们，把市场与政府都看做可能失灵的制度而相提并论。
　　其实，任何一般原理，只要足够抽象，就总会倾向于“中间立场”。只有把一般原理运用于具体场合时，只有当经济学在运用当中转变为政治经济学时，人们才意识到：与市场的失灵相比，政府的失灵是更需要警惕和后果更严重的失灵。
　　个别市场的失灵，即便存在极端的“信息不对称性”，毕竟难以扩展到一切市场。一切市场都失灵的情景，在经验上是难以想像的，例如，我们很难想像我们日常消费的米、面、衣物、家具、住房，以及分工监督这些商品的质量的全部专家的名誉，都是假的，都难以辨别。关于“合谋博弈”的基本原理告诉我们：相互竞争着的专家以及供给商们，不论怎样谈判，都难以结成稳固的垄断联盟。正是基于“托拉斯”的内在的不稳定性，我们明白，一切市场都失灵的情景，在经验世界里难以想像，故而几乎不可能。
　　另一方面，政府的失灵，在我们多数中国人（以及俄国人、东德人、匈牙利人、保加利亚人等等）的经验当中，足以扩展为政府的“普遍失灵”——即普遍的无效率。这是因为，不像“市场失灵”的情况那样，导致了“政府失灵”的既得利益群体，他们所垄断的，不再是市场信息，而是真实的政府权力——名义上合法的、执行特定意图的权力。
　　权力对竞争性资源配置的扭曲作用，不再像“市场失灵”那样由于内在的不稳定性而难以扩展为普遍情况。恰恰相反，政治权力对经济资源的垄断，天然地具有一种“收益递增”效应。如哈佛学者施莱佛曾经指出过的那样：腐败所带来的好处，提供着政府官员为更大的腐败设置管理权力的激励，从而腐败意味着更大的腐败，“寻租”意味着无穷无尽的“设租”与“寻租”（Andrei Schleifer，and Robert Vishney，1993，“corruption，”The quarterly Journal of Economics vol.58，599～617）。
　　正是在上述意义下，我们一贯强调反腐败需要有足够大的“力度”。所谓“足够”，就是要使惩罚足以抵消无穷无尽地设租与寻租所带来的好处。而当被惩罚的人员恰好就在政府内部时，我们明白，这类惩罚的力度很难“足够大”。所以，为了把反腐败的力度真实地增加到“足够大”，我们一贯强调独立于政府管制的舆论监督对于反腐败的极端重大的、无论怎样强调都不会过分的意义。
　　为什么“政府失灵”比“市场失灵”更加危险？因为政府的失灵可以被腐败者的“收益递增”自动地扩展为政府的“普遍失灵”，而市场的普遍失灵在经验世界里几乎不可能出现。
　　这篇文章叙述的北京出租车管理问题，凡我认识的居住在北京的学者，一致认为是长期以来应当解决而未能解决、而且越演越烈的问题。为什么“越演越烈”？因为随着“北京奥运会”日期临近，北京出租业所包含的“租”也日趋积累。
　　以我熟悉的一家管理着5000辆出租车的“民营”出租车公司为例，每车每月“份钱”5000元，每年共收入3亿元的“份钱”。对制度经济分析而言，更关键的是，每辆出租车的司机“以车代押”在公司里押了5万元“保证金”，从而出租车司机们处于被公司“敲竹杠（hold－up）”的境地难以自拔。2002年，这家公司规定每辆出租车必须更换白色座套，必须由公司定期清洗这些白色座套，为此，每车每月必须向公司支付清洗费30元。据一位出租车司机匡算，仅此一项规定（设租），公司的年纯利就可以增加100万元。你不满意吗？你可以退租，但必须从你的保证金里扣除3万元的“提前终止合同”罚款。
　　工人们被公司“敲竹杠”而难以自拔，因为出租车的资本初置费用其实是工人们自己支付的，只是由于公司拥有政府认定的“经营牌照”，工人们不得不把自己的资产折价抵押给公司。要么，工人们就必须支付移居和移车的费用，从北京移居到“敲竹杠”程度较弱的城市，姑且不问是否有这类城市。
　　最后，我们必须看到，北京的出租车公司为了缓解与司机们的冲突，从北京郊区招聘了大批通过驾证考试的、更容易管理的农民司机。也就是说，北京出租车司机们的收入，在均衡状态下，将与北京郊区的农民司机的收入趋同。竞争性的劳动力市场天然具有效率方面的合理性，尽管出租车司机们或许不满意这一竞争的结局。我们关注的，是隐藏在出租业巨大利益的诸多分配环节当中的几乎难以避免的腐败。以足够的力度消除这些腐败，很可能进一步改善出租业的经济效率。