作者：高小萍
出版社：中国财政经济出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
日本农村公共物品供给的相关制度安排（汉英对照）试读：
前言
1978年改革开放至今的30多年间，中国成为世界上经济增长最快的国家，年均经济增长率高达9.8％，2010年上半年中国的GDP已超过日本，位居世界第二，2011年依然保持着这一位置。中国经济的快速增长与现今日本经济停滞不前所形成的强烈反差要求我们慎重思考日本发展经验的可借鉴性和可借鉴内容。中国经济出现通货膨胀，面临人民币升值压力等问题的时候，让人想起日本也曾出现过这些状况，这需要中国进一步提高警惕，以避免重蹈日本的覆辙。然而，中国与日本在政治体制、经济发展水平与结构、宏观经济政策、调控能力、国内外环境等方面都存在诸多差异，这些制度性差异决定了中国经济发展不会重蹈日本覆辙；相反，有了日本的前车之鉴，中国更可以未雨绸缪，取其精华，去其糟粕，完善制度建设，促进社会经济的全面、健康、有序发展。
日本在经历了经济高速发展的二三十年之后，经济增长曾几度陷入波折，尤其是2007年之后，随着世界经济步入衰退周期，日本经济也陷入停滞。在此之前，日本经历了所谓的“失去的十年”经济萧条时期（20世纪90年代初至2002年）。实际上，这“失去的十年”是“调整的十年”，日本经济在经历了快速增长、短暂的经济衰退、经济泡沫、泡沫崩溃之后，进入一个相对稳定发展的时期。正如人类成长一样，一国的发展不可能长期处于亢奋的状态，需要调整，需要稳定。所以，这“失去的十年”更是“难得的十年”。
日本当前面临的问题并不影响中国借鉴学习日本农村建设的经验。日本农村建设，在内容上却远远超越农村本身，更确切地说，它是城乡一体化的发展过程。日本农村建设和发展，从根本意义上讲，是日本公共物品供给体系从城市延伸到农村的进程，而农村公共物品的供给最终还需要依托于非农经济的发展和城市化的进程。因此，日本农村建设的进程既是一个城乡一体化的进程，更是公共物品供给体系不断完善的进程。日本在经济萧条之前就已经进入后工业化阶段，基本消除了城乡差异和区域差距。而中国目前仍处于工业化的初中期阶段，经济结构优化的任务远未完成，城乡统筹发展还有很长的一段路要走，农村市场还需要全面启动。这一系列问题都需要从制度完善方面着手。因此，本书选择日本农村公共物品供给的相关制度安排进行研究，试图挖掘出可供中国学习参考的经验和教训。
从经济发展过程来看，多数国家在发展中都曾采取城乡有别的政策措施，并都在取得一定的经济增长成就后逐渐重视农村的发展，重视农村地区的公共物品供给，并最终实现城乡一体化的公共物品供给状态。如今，日本城乡差异并不大，城乡之间也没有明显的界限，通常情况下，居住在农村地区的居民和居住在城市地区的居民享有基本相同的公共物品。因此，人们普遍认为，日本的农村与中国的农村存在天壤之别，可以学习借鉴的内容不多。但是，日本的成就也是经过数十年的努力才实现的，例如，一系列的农业农村改良项目的实施才促成了农村的现代化。所以，本书更侧重于分析在这数十年农村发展过程中的制度和措施选择。分析农村公共物品供给不能只局限于对农村情况的分析，农村社会的发展、农村公共物品的供给与整个国家的政策制度密切相关，这些政策与制度是农村供给公共物品的依托。从发展战略来看，日本走的是一条相对均衡的发展道路，所以较早地重视消除城乡差异，在教育、社会保障、医疗等基本公共物品供给方面，较早地实现城乡一体化。而中国走的是“让一部分人先富起来”的道路，如今也要走均衡发展的道路，因此，首要任务就是消除基本公共物品供给的城乡差异，同时缩小各地公共物品供给的差异，保证各级政府供给公共物品的基本能力，平衡各地区的供给水平。
本书选择不同的地区分析研究日本不同农村集落在农村公共物品供给方面的作用形式。日本农村集落在参与公共物品供给上有较大的自由度，在政府保障一些普惠型公共物品供给的基础上，对于村级公共物品，农村集落可以通过民主表达选择是否参与政府组织的项目，政府对参与项目的集落给予相应的补贴。同时，日本的农业政策、地方自治和财政分配制度从各方面保障日本农村集落充分利用公共资源，满足其供给村级公共物品的资金需求、技术需求和人才需求。首先是国家对农业发展、改善农村生活条件、提高农民生活水平的重视，不同阶段采取相应的支持政策以协调城乡关系。第二，为提高行政效率，保证地方公共服务水平，日本实行了地方自治改革，让最接近居民的地方政府发挥重要作用。第三，日本法律制度明确规定各级政府的职责范围，这有利于各级政府各司其职。同时，与各级政府的职责相匹配的是，各级政府拥有自主性的收入来源，在分权化改革时，为使地方政府拥有更大的权利处理地方事务，中央政府赋予地方政府相应的税权，换言之，在增加地方政府事权的同时，增加地方政府的财权。第四，日本的社会化组织，尤其是农协，在政府的直接或间接支持下提供农村服务。直接支持主要是指提供资金、技术等，间接支持主要是政策、法律、税收优惠等。虽然中国经济发达的地区也有良好的农村集落，但是更多的经济落后地方受限于经济条件的制约，农村集落的功能极为有限，这就更需要政府履行提供普惠型基本公共物品的职责，加大对农村地区的补助，从而有利于这些农村集落的建设，为这些农村集落供给村级公共物品奠定良好的基础。
公共物品供给通过一定的机制实现，从供给主体角度分析，这一机制主要包括政府供给机制、市场供给机制和社会团体供给机制。在公共财政制度下，以满足社会公共需要为根本的政府，通过强制性税收制度获得主要政府收入，公共物品供给成为政府的主要职责。政府不仅要承担直接供给公共物品的主要责任，而且要运用法律手段、行政手段、经济手段促进市场供给机制和社会团体供给机制的发展与完善。由于农村公共物品是由多个层次组成的，有由政府为供给主体的基本公共物品，更有由社会自治团体为供给主体的社区性公共物品。农村公共物品不一定都由政府供给，从为农村基础设施建设、为农业发展服务的专业经济组织，到农村卫生医疗，实践证明农民合作组织和农民个体可以提供公共物品，而且在有些地区，他们提供公共物品的数量和质量不亚于政府提供的数量和质量。不同主体的供给方式适应不同类型公共物品，只有这些机制相互协调合作、相互补充才能实现农村公共物品的有效供给。
为更好展示日本经验及对中国的借鉴意义，本书按照以下结构进行论述。第一章介绍本书的研究背景、研究目的、研究的技术路线和研究范围。本书将农村公共物品的供给体系细分为公共物品的供给范围、供给方式、管理制度、制度环境和财政制度等五个方面，并从这几个角度，选择若干案例，分析日本在农村公共物品供给上的具体做法。第二章简要分析目前日本农村社区的发展和面临的问题，在此基础上以日本土地改良项目为切入点研究农业农村基础设施的供给方式，并具体分析两个农村社区的运作情况。第三章分别从日本农业政策、日本行政管理体制安排和日本农民服务组织三方面分析日本农村公共物品供给的制度环境。第四章重点研究制度环境中的财政制度安排，分析日本各级政府的职责划分、财权划分以及中央政府和地方政府对农村公共物品供给的财力保障。第五章从上述五个方面对日本农村公共物品供给进行经验总结，作为中国建设农村公共物品供给体系的借鉴。第六章在分析当前中国农村公共物品供给的现状和面临的问题以及日本经验启示的基础上，提出中国农村公共物品供给建设的若干建议，主要包括以城乡一体化为基础调整农村公共物品的供给范围，完善财政管理体制以提高财政支农资金的绩效，深化行政体制改革以提升乡镇政府能力，发挥民间组织的作用以调整农村社区公共物品的供给方式，等等。
需要说明的是，日本农村公共物品的相关制度安排只是反映日本在农业农村发展过程中的做法，简单的数字比较不能得出日本的经验可供中国借鉴的结论。如前所述，两个国家在传统观念、人文环境、政治基础、经济制度以及发展阶段等方面存在不小的差异。然而，尽管制度结构有所区别，中日两国在促进农村发展方面的投入和总体的制度安排也存在一定的相似性，如中央政府和地方政府的财政关系，中央政府通过政策规定地方政府提供基本公共物品，同时通过大量的转移支付资金支持地方政府履行公共物品供给的职责，因此，中央政府、地方政府以及其他社会组织共同承担公共物品的供给，从理论上分析，共担责任的参与机制有利于增强各方的合作意识，提高公共物品的供给效率。但是，在中国，同样的机制可能产生相反的效应，责任共担反而为各个供给者推诿责任提供了借口。所以，从某种程度上说，制度安排只是影响公共物品供给的一个因素，执政理念和服务意识在公共物品供给过程中起着更显著的作用，而这种理念和意识却不是一朝一夕能形成的。Preface
In the past three decades since China adopted the policies of opening up and reforms， China has become the fastest economically growing country in the world with an average annual economic growth rate of 9.8％．In the first half year of 2010， China's GDP surpassed Japan， ranking second in the world．And this position was maintained in 2011．The great contrast between China's rapid economic development and Japan's current economic stagnation may drive us to think carefully of whether Japanese experience could be meaningful for China and what China could learn from Japan．The period when inflation and the pressure of RMB appreciation emerged in China reminded us of Japan's past experience and made us take one step further to refrain from repeating Japan's mistakes．However， the institutional differences between China and Japan in areas of political system， economic development stage and structure， macroeconomic policies， regulatory capacity， social environment at home and abroad determine that China will not step on the old road of Japan．On the contrary， learning from Japan's lessons， China can make preparation beforehand by sorting out the good from the bad and perfect the institutional construction so as to promote China's comprehensive， healthy and orderly socioeconomic development.
After experiencing two to three decades of rapid economic development， Japan once ran into several ups and downs in economic growth．Especially since 2007 the global economy entered a cycle of recession， Japan's economy began to stagnate．And prior to that， Japan had experienced the so-called Lost Decade of economic depression from the early 1990s to 2002．Actually， the Lost Decade could be more understood as the Adjusted Decade because after the process of rapid growth， transient depression， economic bubbles and the collapse of bubbles， Japan's economy gained relatively stable development．Equal to human beings， a country may not keep on a high momentum of development for long．It needs adjustment and stability．So this Lost Decade is also a Precious Decade.
The meaning for China to learn Japanese experience in rural construction will not be diminished by the great challenges that Japan is currently confronted with．Japan's rural construction is far beyond the boundary of rural areas．More specifically， it is the process of urban-rural integration．Fundamentally， Japan's rural construction and development is the progress of public goods provision extending from urban areas to rural areas while public goods provision for rural areas ultimately depends on the non-agricultural development and urbanization．For this reason， Japan combines urban-rural integration with the systematic improvement of public goods provision in the process of rural construction．Before its economic recession， Japan had been at the post-industrial stage and at that time the urban-rural differences and regional disparities were basically eliminated．But for China， it is still in the early and mid period of industrialization with a long way to fulfill the task of improving economic structure， coordinating urban-rural development and activating rural markets， which requires perfection of institutional arrangements．So this book selects the research on Japan's related systems of rural public goods provision to find out experiences and lessons that China can learn.
In the process of economic development， most countries have adopted different policies for urban and rural development， during which they firstly tried to make achievement in economic growth and then turned their attention to rural development and rural public goods provision and eventually realized integration in urban-rural public goods provision．Since there are not distinct differences in Japan's urban and rural areas and the urban-rural boundary has become ambiguous， where residents， no matter living in rural areas or urban areas， can have normally equal opportunities to enjoy similar public goods， the status of China's rural areas is totally different from that of Japan．It seems that the meaning for China to learn from Japan is not as much as it could be．However， it also takes several decades for Japan to make such progress．For example， implementation of a series of agricultural and rural improvement projects contributed to modernization of Japan's rural areas．So the emphasis of this book is more placed on the institutional arrangements and measures in Japan's rural development in these few decades．To analyze the issue of rural public goods provision should not be limited within the rural problems because rural social development and rural public goods provision are closely related to policies and systems of the whole country which constitute the bases for rural public goods provision．Seen from development strategy， Japan has chosen a route of balanced development， so in its early stage Japan focused on eliminating urban-rural disparity and unified urban-rural public goods provision in the aspects such as education， social security and health care．In comparison， before China stepped on the road of balanced development， it had implemented the strategy of letting some people get rich first．Therefore， the urgent measure should be taken to eliminate the disparity in public goods provision between urban-rural areas and among various regions so that all levels of the government are capable of providing public goods to an equal extent.
The book is concerned with the study on systems of rural public goods provision in rural communities selected from different parts of Japan．Japan's rural communities are endowed with adequate freedom in participating in public goods provision．Based on the condition that the government provides generalized preferential public goods， as to the village-wide public goods， rural communities democratically decide on whether to participate in projects initiated by the government or not and they will be subsidized correspondingly if they choose to carry out those projects．Meanwhile， Japan's agricultural policies， local autonomy system and fiscal allocation system altogether enable rural communities to make full use of various public resources to satisfy the needs of funds， technology and human resources that are indispensible in providing village-wide public goods．At first， Japan has attached great importance to development of agriculture， improvement of rural living condition and advance of farmers’ living standards by means of implementing matching support policies in different periods to coordinate urban-rural relationship．Secondly， Japan has practised the reform of local autonomy to increase executive efficiency and ensure local public goods provision in which local governments that are most closely to residents are able to function fully．Thirdly， responsibilities of the government of all levels are clearly regulated in Japan's legal systems， which makes them perform their duties．At the same time， all levels of government have independent financial resources．During the process of decentralization reform when the national government empowered local governments with more authority in managing local affairs， the national government also transferred proportional tax collecting power to local governments．In other words， local financial resources increased according to the expanding responsibility of local governments．Fourthly， Japan's social organizations， especially agricultural cooperatives， which have participated in providing rural services， are supported by the government directly and indirectly， including direct financial and technological support and indirect policy， legal and tax preferential support．In China， there are not less well developed rural communities in some parts of rich regions， but more backward rural communities could only function limitedly because they are located in underdeveloped regions without adequate economic resources．These poor areas more need the government to fulfill the duty of providing generalized beneficial public goods and increasing subsidies for rural areas， which altogether can promote the construction of rural communities and establish favorable foundations for rural communities to supply their village-wide public goods.
Public goods are provided through a given mechanism， which includes government provision， market provision and social organization provision from the point of supply body．With the framework of public finance， for the common benefits， the government collects revenue from compulsory taxes and carries out its major task of providing public goods．Not only should the government directly provide major public goods， but also it should promote development and perfection of market supply and social organization supply mechanisms by taking legal， administrative and economic policies．Since rural public goods are comprised of different types， of which the basic public goods are supplied by the government and the community-wide public goods are provided by the social self-managing organizations， not all rural pubic goods are necessarily supplied by the government．The practice of specialized economic organizations which are working for rural infrastructure construction， agricultural development and even rural health care has proved that farmers’ cooperative organizations or farmers individually could provide some of rural public goods．And in some regions， quantity and quality of their provision is as good as that of government provision．So there are different supply modes to be compatible with different types of public goods．Only coordination， cooperation and complementation of these mechanisms could contribute to effective rural public goods provision.
To further reveal Japanese experience and its reference for China， this book concentrates on the following points．Chapter I introduces the research background， objective， route and scope．The book analyzes Japanese practice in rural public goods provision and illustrates several cases from five aspects， including supply range， mode， management system， institutional background and financial management system．Chapter II briefly discusses development and challenges of Japan's rural communities and furtherly studies the supply mode of agricultural and rural infrastructure based on Japan's Land Improvement Projects and finally analyzes operation of two rural communities in details．Chapter III deals with Japan's institutional backgrounds for rural public goods provision from three aspects of Japan's agricultural policies， administrative systems and farmers’ service organizations．Chapter IV details study on Japan's fiscal management system， including responsibility division and financial resource allocation among all levels of government， and the national and local government financial guarantee for rural public goods provision．Chapter V summarizes on Japanese experience in rural public goods provision from the above mentioned five aspects and presents the meaningful reference for Chinese establishment of rural public goods provision system．Chapter VI comes up with several suggestions for China after analyzing the current status and problems in China's rural public goods provision and learning from Japan's experience．These suggestions may be concluded as adjusting the scope of rural public goods based on urban-rural integration， improving performance of pro-agricultural and pro-rural fiscal funds by reforming the fiscal administrative framework， enhancing township institutions by deepening the reform of administrative systems， multiplying the mode of rural public goods provision by bringing social organizations into play and so on.
It should be clarified that Japan's institutional arrangement for rural public goods provision only demonstrates Japan's practice in its agricultural and rural development．It cannot be determined from numerical comparison alone whether Japan's practices would be effective in China since the two nations have their big differences， including traditional cultures， humanistic conditions， political bases， economic systems， development strategies and so on．Nevertheless， the total amount of investment in rural development and some institutional arrangements are to some extent similar in China and Japan．For example， as to the financial relationship between the central government and local governments， the central government formulates policies to regulate on basic public goods that local governments are required to provide and accordingly transfers a great many fiscal funds to local governments to fulfill their duties．So the central government， local governments and other social organizations share the responsibility of providing public goods．Theoretically， the sharing and participatory system will contribute to enhancing all stakeholders’ cooperative sense and increase efficiency of public goods provision．However， conversely in China， this results in a situation in which no one is willing to take responsibility， and everyone pushes the buck to the other．So， it seems that institutional arrangement is only one element that impacts rural public goods provision．Governing concept and service awareness that cannot take shape overnight do， in fact， have significant effects in public goods provision.1．绪论1.1 研究背景和目的
农村发展对中国有着重要的意义，所以农村问题一直是中国发展战略的中心问题。自从改革开放以来，中国的农村发生了很大的变化，尤其是进入21世纪以后，中央政府制定了多项政策用于发展农村，农村面貌焕然一新。2002年中国共产党第十六次全国代表大会提出将统筹城乡发展作为全面建设小康社会的重点。2006年全面取消农业税，很大程度上提高了农民的收入，减轻了农民的负担。这标志着社会主义新农村建设进入一个新的历史起点。同年，中央一号文件提出从经济、文化、政治、社会制度建设等方面建设社会主义新农村。在这些政策的指导下，各级政府不断加大农村经济社会发展的支持力度，极大地改善了农村的生产生活条件，提高了农民的生活水平，促进了农业的发展，加强了农村基础设施建设，并逐步建立起农村教育、医疗、社会保障等社会事业发展体系。虽然上述政策促进了农村的发展，但是城乡二元结构的局面没有得到根本的改变，因此，2010年中央一号文件再次强调统筹城乡发展，进一步夯实农业农村发展基础，这意味着农村建设又踏入一个新的阶段。那么，就需要对新农村建设有更深刻的理解，认识此轮农村改革与前期改革的差别，从而确定这个时期的改革任务并制定相应的措施。
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]