2008年10月25日和26日，由国家财政部、亚洲开发银行、北京大学和瑞典斯德哥尔摩经济学院联合主办的“纪念改革开放三十周年高层国际论坛”在北京大学中国经济研究中心（CCER）举行。聂辉华应邀参加此次会议，并对来自法国的Renard教授、英国诺丁汉大学的姚树洁教授以及复旦大学的张军教授的演讲进行评论。
相关新闻可参考搜狐文字实录（http://business.sohu.com/20081026/n260249064.shtml）。考虑到同声传译以及现场录入的纰漏，我将实际发言附上。相关新闻参考：http://business.sohu.com/s2008/gaigekaifang/。
Comments on CCER conference
by Huihua NIE (Renmin University)
It’s my pleasure to give some comments. My interest fields are contract theory and new institutional economics, so maybe I can’t provide professional suggestions for Prof. Renard and Prof. Yao. I just talk about my opinions on their topics.
My first comment for Prof. Renard. The process of Chinese reform is the process from planning economy to market economy, so market integration is not only the drive force to modernization, but also the endogenous object for China government. Prof. Renard has pointed out the importance and challenge of market integration in China. But the problem is, economic efficiency requires market integration, but political competition between regions may tend to market protection. Because the nature of political game for local governments is zero-sum game. In politics, some officers go up, but some officers go down or even go out. Therefore, there is a conflict between market integration and market disintegration. In order to eliminate the market disintegration problem, central government must tightly control local governments, which will lead to more centralized political authority and less democracy. So I think how China government trade off between economic incentives and political incentives is a huge challenge.
Second comment for Prof. Yao. As we all know, China obtains the fastest economic growth rate, but in the meanwhile she confronts the biggest gap of income distribution. As Prof. Yao said, the segmentation of rural and urban area is the main cause. However, the difference between vocations or industries is also the main factor. According to some news report, an unskilled worker can be paid 10 thousand Yuan per month in some monopoly industries, e.g. electric or telecommunication sector. These monopoly industries are all controlled by State-owned enterprises (SOEs). Actually SOEs have occupied about 90% in the top 500 companies in China. So, I suspect that nationalization is not the right direction of reform. But how can we get rid of the vested interests of SOEs? I do not know.
Third comment for Prof. Zhang. In the past, some people, including economists, believe that democracy is the necessary condition for economic growth. But the economic performance in East Asia has denied the conclusion. Now, we must rethink government’s role in economic growth. However, from a dynamic viewpoint, good economic performance in short time can not justify for the continuity of centralization. Prof. Zhang gave an explanation for thirty years of reform. I think the problem is: can we avoid “the grabbing hand” of government? On the one hand, we need regional competition; on the other hand, we must set up political institutions to constraint local governments. If local governments compete just for economic performance and political promotion under existing political framework, I think local governments will collude with enterprises. An good example is the high price of house. Now, the income from selling land has occupied about half of non-budget income of governments. Other things equal, an centralized country will first become richer, but later fall behind the democratic country. So, I don’t think the centralized political institutions will last. China must reform her political institutions, and there is no choice.