Ownership Reform And Corporate Government Structure In State-owned Enterprise In The Economic System Transition In Russia And China

Since1980s, both Russia and China, as socialist countries with deep history inpolitical, economic, and regional relations, have chosen to transform their traditionalplanned economic system into market economic system, and make structural adjustmentof ownership system on the basic status. Under the planned economic system in bothcountries, patterns of ownership are unitary: public ownership is the main one, andstate-owned enterprise leads the national economy. Therefore, the reformation ofstate-owned sectors becomes the key point in both countries economic systemreformations, which cause more and more people to concern. They both start from properright reform, then transit to corporate governance and the goal is to make marketeconomic system. So they can be compared in the economic sense. Comparing andstudying the experience and lessons of reform which had been accumulated for more than20years in Russia and more than30years in China, can be very useful and practical, notonly to enlarge their theoretical field, but to complete their economic system reform. It’sno doubt that studying the theories and experience of ownership reform in Russianstate-owned enterprises, summing-up the experience and lessons, studying the successesand mistakes of state-owned enterprise reform in China, will make very important sensefor the deep advancement of chinese state-owned enterprise reform, and vice visa.The dissertation studied the state-owned enterprises reforms mainly, compared andanalyzed roundly the theory and practice of state-owned enterprise reform in both Russiaand China, with comparative analysis, positive and normative research methods.Firstly, the comparision of the reasons why both countries reformed the state-ownedenterprises. In Russia, the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union denied thesocialism system thoroughly, people puzzled and stirred their socialism belief, and theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union announced to dissolve, led bourgeois to controlsuperstructure and the Soviet Union to disintegrate. After disintegration, to get the aids ofwestern developed countries, they accepted the suggestions and demands of them, that is,introduce the market system and privatize the state-owned enterprises in the economy.Furthermore, they push from the top to the bottom on the economic transition to thecapitalism with Jacobinical manner in the whole country, and make the state-owned enterprises privatize by enacting laws and decrees. On the contrary, China persists in themain body of state-owned system and the central task of economic construction andreforms the state-owned enterprises, on the premise of keeping politics and socialstability. The difference of political and economic reasons of state-owned reform betweenthe two countries makes their theoretical base of property right reform completelydifferent. Property right reform in Russia is based on the Coase’ western property right,its substance is private property theory. However, chinese property reform is based on theMarxism property theory, and its substance is public property theory. Essentially, thenature of property right reform in both countries is different.Secondly, the comparision of the goals of the state-owned enterprise reform in bothRussian and China. The goal of property right reform in Russia state-owned enterprise isto carry out privatization by selling state-owned and local-owned properties to make abroad private owners class, and make a private ownership structure finally. The goal ofstate-owned enterprise reform in China is to diversify the body of the property right byliberating and developing the productive force, and set up a modern enterptisesystem,strengthen the enterprise energy and promote the common development of thediverse ownership of economy. The different goals of state-owned enterprise reform willfinally affect the manner and the process of them.Thirdly, the comparision of the route of the state-owned property right reform.Russia make the state-owned enterprise privalazation reform massively and Jacobinicallywith”big privalazation” and “small privalazation”. China erects the modern state-ownedenterprise on the base of persevering in the public ownership with the different reformmethod. China reform the state-owned enterprise progressively, induced, and from part tounitary. It is this kind of difference between the state-owned enterprise reforms that led tothese two countries the different direction and produced the different effects.Fourthly, the comparision of the effect of state-owned enterprise reform between thetwo countries.Generally speaking, the stock corporation owned by state less are betterthan those solely funded by the state; corporation changed more better than unchanged.But contrasting the two countries, the effect of state-owned enterprise reform in China isevidently better than those in Russia.Fifthly, the comparision of the corporate government structure. Compare the corporation government structure in both corporate, analyzed deeply the characters andreason of the two “insider control”; comparing the external governance mechanism, theweakness of external governance mechanism strengthened the problem of insider control,and comparing with the internal governance mechanism, it is more difficult to reform theexternal governance mechanism, and makes much more sense for the success of thestate-owned enterprise reform.Finally, summing up as a whole and learning from the experience of state-ownedenterprise reform, the ideas and solution plans for chinese state-owned enterprise reformare put forward.