Institutional Innovation And Theoretical Innovation Of China'S National Accounting System Reform

In 1992, the State Council formally approved the reform plan of China's national accounts system, set up a new national economic accounting system with SNA as the main body, and decided to pfer to the new national accounts track in 1995.

It has been continuously improved and improved recently, and a new supplementary version has recently been launched.

This reform is a fundamental reform of China's statistical system and a major institutional innovation. It not only makes our national accounting system compatible with international practice, but also benefits national economic management and international economic exchanges, and affects all aspects of economic and statistical theory construction.

Institutional innovation is bound to require theoretical innovation. This paper intends to clarify the theoretical innovation of the national accounting system.

MPS has solved the long-standing misunderstanding and misunderstanding. For a long time, there are two national accounting systems in the world. One is the MPS of material production, the other is SNA., which includes service production.

In the economic theory field of our country, including all political economics textbooks, it is recognized that material production is Marx's production viewpoint. He has a negative attitude towards service production, and he censure and criticize in many ways.

On this basis, it further affirms that the national accounting system MPS is based on Marx's labor theory of value, while SNA is guided by the theory of the three elements of the bourgeoisie and based on the theory of vulgar economics.

Obviously, this has brought great difficulties and resistance to the reform of China's national accounting system from MPS to SNA.

After many years of cold and heat, the leaders' courage and courage carried out fundamental reforms, and submitted to the State Council for approval. However, they were still criticized and criticized by some experts and scholars in the theoretical circles.

In the past ten years, after the study and discussion by all sides, theoretical problems have been gradually solved, with the exception of long-standing misunderstanding and misunderstanding, which are mainly manifested in the following two aspects.

(1) service production has been widely recognized, which overcomes the bias of production in the past.

Recognizing that social services are also productive activities, they must put into labor and output results, but the forms of output performance are different.

One is material form, one is service form, to meet people's material life and cultural life needs, for people's production and life directly and indirectly enjoy.

To this end, the third industry with service as the main content has been widely recognized. Of course, there still exist such differences in the depth of cognition.

Two, we gradually realized the misunderstanding of the theoretical basis of the two accounting systems.

In the past, we found that MPS was guided by Marx's labor theory of value, while SNA was based on the theory of the three elements of the bourgeoisie.

As we all know, the core of the theory of the three elements of the bourgeoisie lies in concealing exploitation, which has nothing to do with the scope of productive labour, or completely different things.

It can not be said that there is no exploitation of material production, and the exploitation of services, including services, has been exploited, and that MPS is guided by Marx's labor value, while SNA is based on the three element theory of the bourgeoisie.

The two kind of production has nothing to do with exploitation without exploitation.

If MPS is based on the theory of labor value, SNA, which includes services, is also the result of labor input and output. It is just the difference in the form of output.

The scope of SNA production has been broadened, and its theoretical basis should be extended to the labor theory of value.

Marx doctrine is the science of development and must keep pace with the times. The new national accounting system of our country can still be based on Marx's labor theory of value.

If it is considered inappropriate, Marx's view of material production can not be changed. Then we must say that it is based on the expanded labor theory of value, or that it is based on the three industrial labor theory of value.

The labor of the 123 industry, collectively known as social labor, is directly stated that our new national accounting system is based on the theory of social labor value.

Of course, we must make corresponding changes and adjustments to the understanding of the theoretical basis of the whole SNA.

In the past, the question of "the problem of" the "problem" has long denied the productive nature of service labor, but there are still some scholars who hold reservations about the productive nature of services, and some even hold negative opinions.

According to the author's understanding, the main reason lies in the habit of looking at problems from the micro perspective and from the enterprises.

If we really want to confirm the productivity of the third industry, which is the main content of the service, we should think about it from a macro perspective.

To identify the third industry, we should focus on the macro perspective and make macro thinking. The national economy is an organic whole. All departments are interdependent and interdependent, forming a network like economic connection.

From the perspective of microcosmic and macroscopical differences, different conclusions can be drawn.

For example, the agricultural production of some backward areas in China and cattle farming are not consuming electricity from microcosmic and farmers, but from macroscopic and social problems, agriculture needs fertilizers, pesticides, farm implements and simple farm implements.

Fertilizer, pesticide and iron and steel production require electricity, and there are countless levels of electricity consumption, which directly consume electricity and indirectly consume electricity, and indirectly, indirectly, in fact, they will be linked to all industrial sectors.

Leon's input-output method, through matrix algebra inversion, calculates the total consumption coefficient according to the direct and indirect consumption of all departments, which is of great theoretical and practical value.

This macroscopical thought has existed for a long time and has long been embedded in the theories of economics.

In terms of industry, it is the most difficult for people to understand, or most people doubt that their productive nature should be considered as public security and party and government.

I also held negative opinions for a while.

If we think macroscopically and think macroscopically, the problem will be solved.

Now our country implements the socialist market economy, and the market economy is also called the legal system economy. Only when the legal system is sound, the law must be followed and the law must be investigated, can the fair operation of the market be ensured.

It is easy to understand from the perspective of society and macroscopically only by looking at problems from microcosmic and enterprise.

Public security law is a link of socialized mass production. Without it, the market economy and social production can not run well.

Party, government and army, especially the army, are often linked to war. War means consumption. The larger the scale of war is, the more manpower and material resources will be consumed.

How can military activities be included in production?

The author did not understand in the past. If we think macroscopically, we need to have a stable environment for all kinds of production. Public security and defense can not be lack of safe production. It provides a stable environment for people's production and life, and creates a necessary basic condition for social production and people's life.

The lack of safety assurance is like an enterprise. Production and social reproduction cannot function properly without material and equipment.

Of course, some scholars have suggested that importance is not productive.

It is indispensable for many services to recognize its importance, especially the service of party, government and army. However, the importance is not equal to production activity and calculation of output value.

From the macro perspective, we can understand the productive nature of various service activities.

But there is one kind of service, though macro thinking and macro thinking, we still can not get the conclusion of production. That is science and technology.

Because all services, including public security, party, government and army, provide services for people's production and life. People can enjoy this service directly.

Science and technology alone are not.

The results of scientific and technological labor - various inventions and inventions can be written as paper reports, abstruse and unintelligible, boring, people do not understand it; they can also be drawn as formula charts, but they are no more than works of art, and people can not appreciate them; if only as knowledge skills, in the minds of technicians, it is even more difficult for people to enjoy production and life.

It can not reflect the function and function of scientific and technological productivity.

But technology is also very important, and scientific and technological productivity is the primary productive force.

Therefore, technology is very special, coupled with traditional theoretical distortions, which logically impede people from correctly understanding that technology is the great function and function of productivity and primary productivity.

This needs to be discussed in writing.

There are logical contradictions and defects in material production MPS. Many scholars have mentioned that service activities are very important and indispensable, but the importance is not equal to productive. This seems reasonable, but this is not the case.

Because society is important and indispensable, it must be used to produce and calculate output value. Otherwise, it will not only be unreasonable in theory and logic, but also lead to various contradictions and errors in national accounts.

The MPS system of material production has existed such contradictions and defects for a long time.

Over the past decades, the countries that have implemented the MPS accounting system, including China and the former Soviet Union, have criticized the service production on one hand, and on the other hand, they have blurred the results of the activities of a large number of service sectors as output value to the results of the material production sector.

First, look at economic theory. In the textbooks of political economics, on the one hand, material production is production, and we strongly criticize the view that we should serve production.

But in the use of national production results, it also takes consumption expenditure, including service expenditure, as consumption calculation, and takes cumulative expenditure, including service expenditure, as a cumulative calculation.

This is actually production based on MPS, using SNA, resulting in confusion.

In terms of statistical practice, it has accepted the material production viewpoint of political economy theoretically, insisting on material production, thinking that service is not production, and does not calculate output value. Actually, it takes service activity as production activity and calculates output value to add to total production.

Take public security as an example.

Many enterprises hire lawyers to maintain the interests of enterprises and pay unequal number of lawyers' fees.

In addition, there are advertising expenses, travel expenses, medical expenses, training fees, road maintenance fees and so on, all of which are some service expenditures. These service expenditures are non productive departments' activities and do not calculate their output value.

According to the balance principle of national economic accounting, it is not eligible to be used as intermediate consumption of units. That is, materialized labor consumes C and can only be listed as the redistribution of national income (V+m).

But in the cost accounting of enterprises, these services are listed as production costs (C+V) and counted in the total output value of enterprises.

In this way, there are two contradictions and defects.

(1) taking industrial production as an example, the industrial production service expenditure is included in the industrial production cost (C+V), which makes the service activities of various service departments, advertising departments, tourism departments, medical departments, education departments and maintenance departments, come to the total value of industrial production (C+V+m).

(2) taking industrial production as an example, the total industrial output value (C+V+m) - material consumption C= industrial net output value (V+m), as a result of the total industrial output value, including all kinds of service output value, and the deduction of industrial consumption C, according to the statistical system, only industrial production consumes raw materials, auxiliary materials and depreciation, and the provision for service expenditure can not be subtracted.

In this way, all service expenditures, including advertising, tourism, medical services and educational services, are retained in net industrial output without deduction.

That is to say, all kinds of service activities are calculated in the net output value of industry as the result of industrial production.

Similarly, the cost of travel, medical expenses, training fees and advertising expenses in the production of agricultural sector and construction sector is included in the cost of production and calculated in the total agricultural output value and gross output value of construction.

However, they are not deducted from material consumption, so that these services are included in the net output value of agriculture and the net output value of construction.

Is it all right to calculate the output value of various industries and services for the output value of industry and agriculture and the output value of construction industry?

Of course not!

It is far less practical to seek truth from facts. As a production, it will be better to calculate the output value of all kinds of services directly.

It can be seen that for service activities and the occurrence of economic income and expenditure, it is necessary to calculate output value as a production activity. The importance of productivity means that it is unacceptable and unquestionable.

Otherwise, people will be mistaken and make logical mistakes.

To sum up, from a macro perspective, we can easily and clearly identify that all kinds of services, including public security and party and government activities, are also productive activities, so that we can further recognize that the SNA system, which consistently adheres to the comprehensive production system, is a completely scientific national accounting system.

But we should pay attention to preventing two points: (1) mixing the nature of production with the quality and efficiency of production; (2) equating economic activities with economic returns.

Otherwise, there will be some misunderstanding and confusion.

On the contrary, insisting on the MPS system of material production, though theoretically recognizing that material production is production and denying that all kinds of services are production, in fact, calculating output value of various service activities is inconsistent and undeserved.

This further indicates that only