|
BEIJING, Sept. 27 -- The Gini coefficient, an international statistical
measure of inequality where zero expresses complete equality while one
represents complete inequality, has reached 0.45 in China, according to the
United Nations Development Programme.
The UN organization shows 20 per cent of China's population at the poverty
end accounts for only 4.7 per cent of the total income or consumption while 20
per cent of China's affluent population accounts for 50 per cent of the total
income or consumption.
Among various domestic calculations of the coefficient, a report by the
Institute of Labour and Wage Studies of the Ministry of Labour and Social
Security points out that since 2003, China's income inequality has worsened
rapidly and has now reached the "orange" level, the second most serious by the
institute's standards. If no effective measures are taken, it could worsen to
reach the most serious "red" level.
The widening gap between the rich and the poor has aroused widespread
concern from home and abroad. It is one of the biggest problems that Chinese
economic and social development has to tackle emphatically.
The widening gap has come at the same time as the country's market-oriented
reform. It is inevitable, from the historical perspective, because the gains
made by different groups under the reforms vary at different social and economic
stages of development.
For example, farmers benefited most from the early reforms as the country
initially launched its reform and opening up drive in the early 1980s. Later, as
the reform drive spread to urban areas, individual business people and financial
speculators began to sail before the wind and get rich.
But things must not spiral out of control. There should be a bottom line
for China's reforms, which have seen part of the population getting rich before
others can catch up on the wealth ladder, an exemplary interpretation of the
late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping's "common affluence" theory.
China's wealth gap has surpassed the international warning level of a Gini
coefficient of 0.4. Worse, this income gulf appears to be continuing to expand.
If the trend goes unchecked, the country's goal of common prosperity for
all of its people will not be achieved and the widening gap may trigger social
unrest.
It is worth noting that according to the experiences of many other
countries, a nation will encounter an increasing number of social problems when
its per capita GDP grows from US$1,000 to US$3,000. China is currently at this
stage.
Decision makers should not turn a blind eye. To find an effective solution
to the problem, we should first analyze the reasons why the gap has been
widening.
Some scholars point the finger at the policy of "giving priority to
efficiency with due consideration to fairness" in development, which was
initiated at the start of China's reform and opening up.
Balancing between efficiency and fairness is crucial for fast and
sustainable social and economic development. Before China's market reform
started more than two decades ago, social wealth had been distributed in a
completely equal way. Being an equal-shares-for-all society, China needed to
spur entrepreneurship to accumulate wealth to lay down the foundations for
further reforms. Priority has thus naturally been given to efficiency.
Emphasis on efficiency does not mean giving up our pursuit of social
fairness, of course. Seen from a historical perspective, the policy was a good
choice considering the social realities at that time.
The problem is the policy has gone awry in terms of its implementation.
Economic theory tells us that primary distribution deals with promoting
efficiency while redistribution of income promotes fairness. But in practice,
some people have accumulated a mountain of wealth under the auspices of
promoting efficiency. While they get rich, the taxation and social security
system, or the re-distribution arrangement, have failed to adequately promote
social fairness.
The core of China's social inequality is, in the words of Wu Jinglian, an
influential economist, inequality of opportunities. Although entrepreneurship
and diligence account for the success of some rich people, many of the start-ups
have grabbed wealth through colluding with government officials to engage in
power-for-money deals.
In the State sector, some enterprises take advantage of their status as
monopolies to gain excessive profits. On the other hand, some government
officials and corporate managers misappropriate State assets through
under-the-counter deals.
Inequality of opportunities not only blocks the fair distribution of income
but affects economic efficiency, as demonstrated by the country's inefficient
monopolized sectors.
No doubt, narrowing the income gap and promoting the fair distribution of
wealth is an urgent task for China. But the nation remains at the developmental
stage of social wealth accumulation. It may not yet be time for us to rush to
change the traditional relationship between promoting efficiency and fairness.
The key to solving the problem is to fully engage the government in
promoting social fairness in harmony with developmental efficiency.
The government must carry out its duty to safeguard social fairness.
The national legislature has kick-started the revision of the personal
income tax regime. This is a welcome message that shows the country has realized
the necessity of making a policy adjustment.
There are many other things for the government to accomplish, such as the
orderly reform of State asset property rights, breaking up monopolies and the
establishment of a sound social security system.
It should be noted that some have declared market-oriented reforms to be
the cause of the enlarged income gap.
Admittedly, the wealth gulf is related to the country's market-oriented
reforms, but it is not an inevitable result of the process.
There are many market-based economies in the world that do not suffer from
the scourge of an excessive wealth gap.
Many of the problems China suffers are the result of its incomplete market
reforms, in which the government plays a dominant role in many areas where the
market should take control.
(Source: China Daily) |