 |
On Interpreting the Three Agricultures
On Interpreting the "Three Agricultures"
Selected Parts of the Speeches in Peking University and the Chinese Agriculture University (2003.3.13-14)
Sun Dawu
Ladies and Gentlemen, good evening. I feel honored to speak in this hallowed place, especially as a farmer. For me, a farmer and private entrepreneur, to speak at Peking University, a haven for free speech and thinking, is a special sign of things and holds special meaning, no matter how well I speak. I hope you do not hold too many expectations of me, since I am, after all, a farmer.
Part One: On Interpreting the "Three Agricultures"
First, I would like to comment on some contemporary mainstream opinions. Let us begin by reviewing the attempts at restructuring Chinese agriculture. The restructuring project has been in place for many years now. Initially, they promoted the "three highs policy": high quantity, high efficiency, and high quality. What was the result of this? We attained high quantity but not high efficiency, high quality but not corresponding high prices. Take, for an example, vegetable and fruit production: here, supply far exceeds demand. According to some sources, our vegetable production has grown to 250 million mu; that is, two fen for everyone in the country. This year, we produced 440 million tons,approximately 76% of the world's vegetable production. As for fruit, everyone knows that many fruit trees are no longer picked. Speaking from personal experience, I own 1500 mu of American grapes, which can still find some demand. My neighbor, however, no longer harvests his grapes. The price for his fruit, 20 to 30 cents per jin, cannot even cover the cost. In ancient times, when the Concubine Yang wanted leechees, they had to transport it from Ling Nan by relay horses. Nowadays, however, leechees barely sell at 90 cents (per jin) when demand is low.
If this trend continues, how far can the restructuring project go? What darkened its prospects? When discussing these problems with a student here, I came to the following conclusion: all our problems happened because a hundred chefs are serving one customer. I once traveled to the Shaan Xi and Shan Xi. The rural officials there still encourage farmers with the "three highs" slogan, telling them to aim at the big markets in Beijing and Shanghai. This kind of thing is absolutely ridiculous: when one billion farmers all aim at urban markets, there will be no supply/demand equilibrium to speak of.
Another official policy is "building small towns and cities". We have been building for at least ten years, yet successful examples, although not altogether nonexistent, are still extremely rare. There might be some along the eastern shoreline, yet further west, even when a small town or city is established, it has no practical function other than a few parks, roads, and apartments, built by government money and labor. If farmers themselves do not voluntarily build these towns and cities, after the construction has finished, the officials immediately begin taxing and feeing them to refund official finances. Even if this does not happen, and you allow farmers to live in these towns for free, will they actually move there? I don't think so. What will they do there? Enjoy life? That's impossible, since farmers don't have the money to enjoy anything! We really should not promote "construction of small towns and cities" anymore. In 1998, I attended a discussion in Zhong Nan Hai about rural policy. Representatives from Mian Yang, in Si Chuan Province, were sharing their "successful experiences" in the meeting. What experience did they share? They sold urban residencies to farmers. A wave of dread washed over me upon hearing that.
Now we want to "move farmers into cities" and say that "the hope for farmers lays in urbanization." Again, I don't believe in this. Take, for example, Beijing. It's a political center, cultural center and also commercial center. Our country wants to place economic development at the center of things, yet our cities are constructed around politics. What, then, can farmers do in cities? Only a few can enter into some small business, while even fewer can really excel. But, on the whole, most end up as cheap labor. This is a great potential danger. Farmers won't rebel in rural areas; but when rural problems become urban problems, then the country is going to fall into chaos. On the other hand, in 20 years, our population will be 2 billion. How much of that can the cities accommodate? I read online yesterday that we have 1.4 billion now, with 0.93 billion in rural areas, another 0.15 to 0.18 in small towns and counties, but only 0.2 in cities. How much capacity do the cities have? Moreover, what can farmers do in cities? Can we encourage farmers to urbanized rural areas? Who is going to provide the money? The government doesn't have the resources. Even if it did, it wouldn't throw those resources into building cities for farmers. Urbanizing farmers is a distant and unrealistic dream.
If, however, you want to treat farmers like urban residents, you have to give them basic social welfare. Does the government have enough money to do this? These suggestions are fine, but very unrealistic. "Public education" has been in effect for ten years, but how much of it has reached rural areas? If we add on the cost of public education in all rural areas, how much money will the government have left to pay the teachers? If even education is a problem, then the rest is even more unrealistic. They might be pleasant dreams, but they don't match China's current economic situation, regardless of who runs the government.
Finally, let us discuss the "formalization of fees into taxes" and the reduction of financial burdens in rural areas. This policy has actually had some effect, reducing about 40% of nationally regulated fees. I once did some research of my own on three villages, and found this number accurate. On average, a farmer with 1.5 mu of land pays 70 to 80 yuan per year in these nationwide taxes. The problem is that the reduced taxes and fees, the agriculture tax, and eight official fees (the public welfare fee, the public investment fee, the official organization fee, the education fee, the local military fee, the transportation fee, the public health and vaccination fee, and the public safety fee) don'ft constitute very much of the actual financial burden of farmers. Apart from the national taxes, all the local bureaus collect their own fees, which are not reduced at all. We have pork fees, grain fees, waterway fees, and even water fees. Can these also be reduced? The local bureaus collect a lot of money through these fees, especially from mid-seized and small companies. I certainly don't mind saving 40 yuan of national taxation, but can that really help farmers become wealthy? Zhu Rongji says that national taxes and fees sum up to about 120 billion a year. The real sum farmers have to pay, according to Li Changping, is more like 300 billion. I actually consider this too conservative, the actual sum being some 600 billion. People see things in different ways. Zhu Rongji sees things from the central government, and therefore thinks that, for example, our county waterway bureau has about 30 people. Their expenses, however, are enough for 330 people, which is what Li Changping sees. I, who have to bear with them directly, feel the number is more like 660 people, considering all the bribes they collect without any official documentation. If you don乫t believe this, consider how rural savings have grown so much these years. Go see the extravagant houses and mansions built in the counties, and you'll wonder where the money all came from.
I seriously doubt one of our official statistics: our GDP has grown by 10000 billion over the past year. I do believe, however, two other official stats: our national taxation increased by 1600 billion (20%) last year, while national savings increased by 1500 billion. Why do I doubt the GDP stat? Let us begin with farmers. The average farmer earned 2400 yuan in pure profit last year. One farmer told me that his cost of production amounted to about 500 yuan per mu, while each mu produced about 400 kilos of wheat and 400 kilos more of corn, 800 kilos in total. The official price was 1 yuan a kilo, which gave him 800 yuan in earnings. Upon reducing the 500 yuan in production costs, his profit was 300 yuan. Supposing that the average farmer fared similarly, I don't really understand how the 2400 yuan of "pure profit" was calculated.
I do believe taxes increased by 1600 billion, and it actually felt more like 2600 billion to me. My oil-station, from its establishment in January 21, 1997, up to August 22, 2001, cost me 298200 (in taxes and various other expenditures, such as treating officials to lunch and dinner). Of that sum, 138800 came in the form of national taxation, while a "land tax" cost me 39000. Of that 39000, 31000 was collected without official documentation, which meant that only 7000 actually entered the official treasury. Therefore only 145000 worth of taxation entered the treasury. That's only half of my total cost, while the other half was all spent in "appeasing" local officials with meals and gifts. Some might say that I did this willingly. That's nonsense, who would spend money like that willingly? Others might say I did all that to pay less tax, which is even more absurd. All my tax documents are clear and complete, and they show no such thing at all.
National savings has increased by so much, but companies are falling apart one by one. Corruption is no longer even secretive, but is publicly displayed in all those expensive mansions. Let me make a bold estimate: of the 9000 billion national savings, 80% is owned by less than 5% of the population, not 20%, as the official stats say. 5% is about 65 million people, if each one of those 65 million saved 100 thousand, they would have 6500 billion in total savings. If our country really had 20% of the population own 80% of all savings, then we would actually be in very good shape, and have a lot of money for economic development. This is certainly not the actual case.
Someone told me this afternoon that many Peking University students are very practical and materialistic people, and that they don't care about the country and its policies. I told him not to think that way. Most Peking University students are from ordinary families, or even very poor ones. People need to be fed and clothed properly before they can think about others and the country at large. Given our current economic situation, we can't realistically demand that students still think like they did during the May Fourth Movement. At that time, most students were from wealthy families. Even Mao Zedong, who came from a wealthy farmer family (possibly even a landlord family), was looked down upon when he worked in the Peking University library.
Returning to our discussion on "formalizing of fees into taxes," I don't believe that policy is really practical. Reduction will have its long-term consequences: how will we pay government employees? While the central government always fears that farmers will cause social trouble, I think they fear even more that officials will cause trouble, since the government still relies on their work. The taxes paid by farmers might still be too heavy for their puny earnings, but they actually constitute only 15% of total GDP. That means that 1 billion people are producing only 15% of our GDP! Farmers want to produce more for the country, and they also have the ability to do that. Farmers really want to work hard, but they still are too poor to serve the country well. If they could really make a decent living, do you think there would still be protests over a puny 70 yuan worth of taxation? Without bad officials, how can there be bad citizens? Without official oppression, why would farmers rebel? We all think farmers fare badly today; in the War of Liberation, however, farmers won the final victory simply by pushing carts and doing manual labor! As long as you give farmers hope, they will support you. What is the situation today? Farmers see no hope at all. Therefore I believe farmers need another revolution.
Last modified December 17, 2005
sundawu,sun,dawu,Peking University,China Agriculture University,strategic
(II)On Interpreting the 'Three Agricultures'
(III)(IV) On Interpreting the 'Three Agricultures'
SUN Dawu: Philosopher (homepage)
Sundawu1
Send E-Mail to: meprettybetty1@yahoo.com
Copyright © 2005 SUN Dawu 孙大午. All Rights Reserved