----在“统筹城乡就业和社会保障论坛”上的发言

（2007年9月2日）

 

  今天，第二届吉林国际劳动保障论坛隆重召开了，与会各位嘉宾将就“统筹城乡就业和社会保障”一题展开研讨。首先，我代表吉林省劳动保障协会向应邀出席此次论坛的中国劳动保障学会会长华福周女士、秘书长韩兵先生表示热烈地欢迎和衷心地感谢！向应邀参加此次论坛的国内外嘉宾表示热烈欢迎和诚挚的问候！向一直以来关心、帮助吉林劳动保障事业发展的各位朋友表示真诚的感谢和崇高的敬意。

    当今世界，就业和社会保障已经成为关系人类生存与发展的重要问题，受到世界各国政治家、专家学者，甚至普通百姓的关心和关注。可以说一个国家就业和社会保障制度建设的好坏直接决定着人民的福祉和社会的稳定。

    新中国成立伊始，我国实行的是城乡二元制社会管理模式。就业方面，在城市实行高度集中的国家计划体制，国家制定年度计划和目标，实行就业微观分配制度；在农村农民主要从事农业生产，依靠土地实现就业。社会保障方面，城市建立了以劳动保险为主体内容的全面保障型社会福利制度，其内容几乎包括了社会生活的各个方面；在农村，则实行以集体经济为基础的集体福利，孤寡老人与孤儿有农村五保制度，乡村居民依靠含有福利因素的集体分配获得保障。当时，尽管中国整体经济落后，经济基础比较薄弱，但新中国成立后的数十年间，中国政府为保障和增进城乡居民的福利做出了很大的努力，并让城乡居民得到了相应的就业和社会保障。

    然而，随着经济体制逐渐转型，城乡二元制逐渐被打破，原有的就业和社会保障制度也必将适应从计划经济体制到社会主义市场经济体制的转变。统筹城乡发展、实现城乡一体化已经成为国家改革发展中的重要任务，关系到改革开放的大局和经济社会发展的长期前景。统筹城乡就业和社会保障作为统筹城乡经济社会发展的重要内容，得到了中国各级政府的高度重视。进一步打破城乡界限，逐步统筹就业和社会保障，使广大城乡居民共享改革发展的成果，已经成为了大势所趋和社会各界的共识。因此，加大统筹城乡就业和社会保障方面的研讨和交流，更好地促进统筹城乡就业和社会保障的步伐，就具有了现实的重要性和紧迫性。

    今天，非常有幸能与来自不同国家和地区的专家学者共同研讨。希望与会各位嘉宾、专家、学者畅所欲言，为中国尤其是吉林实现统筹城乡就业和社会保障事业发展提供理论和实践指导。

借此机会，我就统筹城乡就业和社会保障谈几点看法，请大家批评指正：

    众所周知，一个国家发展应该是统筹城乡发展、统筹区域发展、统筹经济社会发展、统筹人与自然和谐发展。在市场经济条件下，形成社会公平的基础要靠建立完善的就业和社会保障体系来建立，使城乡居民最基本的生存权和发展权得到尊重。统筹城乡就业和社会保障，有利于实现社会公平，有利于推动工业化、城镇化和城乡一体化进程，有利于形成推动经济社会协调可持续发展。鉴于此，国家高度重视发展就业和社会保障事业，将完善社会保障制度作为社会制度建设的重要方面，明确要逐步实现就业比较充分，收入分配比较合理，劳动关系基本和谐稳定，社会保障体系比较完善，管理服务规范高效的劳动保障发展目标。就业方面，国家实行积极的就业政策，统筹城乡就业，扩大就业规模，加大农村劳动力转移就业工作力度，改善进城农民工就业环境，落实帮扶城市弱势群体就业各项政策等；社会保障方面，在城镇包括养老、医疗、失业、工伤和生育保险在内的社会保障制度全面建立，在农村最低生活保障制度正在逐步建立，社会养老保险制度正在积极探索，新型合作医疗改革试点正在加快推进。随着改革的不断深化，体制转轨和结构调整过程中的突出矛盾基本得到化解，就业形势基本稳定，社会保险覆盖面不断扩大，基金支撑能力逐步加强，统筹城乡就业和社会保障体系逐步健全，对促进城乡经济社会发展、保障城乡居民基本生活和维持稳定发展的大局将起到重要作用，对广大人民群众特别是广大农民共享改革发展成果将起到巨大的促进作用，也必将极大地加快社会主义和谐社会建设和全面建设小康社会的伟大历史进程。

    吉林省是农业大省，又是东北老工业基地。截至2006年底全省总人口为2723万人，其中乡村人口1280.6万人，占全省总人口的47％；城镇人口为1442.4万人，占全省总人口的53％。扩大就业和发展社会保障事业任务异常繁重，特别是统筹城乡就业和社会保障工作形势严峻、需要破解的难题较多，为此，吉林省政府更是将做好统筹吉林城乡就业和社会保障工作放在了重要位置，付出了极大努力，也取得了显著成绩。

    在统筹城乡就业方面：2003年以来，我省把统筹城乡就业作为实施积极就业政策的重点，大力开展“全民创业促就业”系列活动，加快农村劳动力转移，大力发展农村劳务经济，加大农村转移劳动力就业培训，积极落实各项促进就业政策措施，收到了较好效果。

    ----覆盖城乡的公共就业服务体系初步建立。到目前为止，全省建立了街镇乡、社区劳动保障服务站（所）2352个，配备了9347名专兼职工作人员，大部分行政村还配备了劳动保障协理员。各级人力资源市场逐步向乡镇延伸，初步形成了连接全省及省内外的公共就业服务体系。

    ----城乡一体化的就业信息网络基本形成。省、市、县、乡、村五级人力资源登记管理、用工信息传递、就业及培训动态管理的信息服务网络基本建立。目前，全省共建立乡镇级劳动工作保障平台620余个，省外劳务输出办事处（联络处）、基地180余个。就业供求信息传递的高效快捷为实现城乡就业人员的合理有序流动创造了条件。

    ----城乡劳动力职业技能培训体系初具雏形。我省在统筹城乡就业、加快农村劳动力转移过程中，将输前培训作为重要环节。省、市、县、乡都建有不同规模的培训机构，基本做到了贴近农民、贴近市场、贴近企业。为促进城镇失业人员和农村劳动力实现技能就业和稳定就业奠定了坚实基础。

    ----农民工权益合法保障机制基本建立。农民工问题是我国改革发展进程中必须正确面对并切实加以妥善解决的重要问题。2003年以来，我省通过高度重视农民工工作，加大执法监察力度，经过几年的努力使拖欠农民工工资等现象得到基本遏制。2005年以来，通过组织开展农民工专场招聘洽谈会等形式，为农民工进城务工提供绿色通道。实施了针对农民工参加的工伤保险“平安计划”，计划用三年时间，将矿山、建筑等高风险企业的农民工纳入工伤保险制度之内。实施农民工参加城镇基本医疗保险的专项扩面行动，目前已经有43万农民工参加城镇居民基本医疗保险。初步实现了农民工“就业有指导、技能有培训、工伤有保险、患病有医保”的保障体系。

    在统筹城乡社会保障方面：目前，我省养老、失业、医疗、工伤、生育五项社会保险制度已经基本建立。城镇职工基本养老保险实现省级统筹，做实个人账户到6％，初步实现了由现收现付制向部分积累制的根本性转变，降低了人口老龄化高峰带来的养老金预期支付风险，积极探索建立与省情相适应的农村养老保险制度；以城镇职工基本医疗保险和城镇居民基本医疗保险制度为基础，大额医疗保险补助、公务员医疗补助为补充的医疗保险制度基本实现城镇居民全覆盖；在农村建立了新型合作医疗制度，目前全省已有1162.5万人参加了这一制度，提前实现了以县（市、区）为统筹单位全覆盖的目标；在农村建立了低保制度，并逐步提高了低保标准，今年低保金将达到360元；全省专门针对农民工和被征地农民的社会保障制度建设正在稳步落实之中，我省已经研究制定了《被征地农民就业培训和社会保障工作实施意见》，对被征地农民就业、就业培训、养老、失业和医疗保险等做出了具有操作性较强的政策规定，强调被征地农民就业、就业培训和社会保障资金不落实的地方不允许征地。社会保险的覆盖范围实现了过去只涵盖城镇职工的单一群体逐步扩展到整个城镇居民、农民工、被征地农民等众多人群的转变，并开始向农村延伸；社会保障水平也逐步提高。社会保险基金平稳运行，保证了各项社会保险待遇按时足额发放。截至目前，吉林省“五大险种”覆盖1681.6万人次，几乎覆盖全部城镇居民。（养老保险489.32万人，其中退休人员142.43万人；城镇职工、居民医疗保险616.38万人；失业保险223.57万人；工伤保险190.04万人，其中农民工15.56万人；生育保险162.27万人）。

    经过几年的实践和探索，吉林统筹城乡就业和社会保障工作摸索出了一些好的经验和做法，但同时也客观存在着一些问题和挑战，这些问题一方面属于制度、体制性问题，另一方面属于工作中的薄弱环节，需要通过不断改革、完善制度架构，加大工作力度，逐步得以推进和落实。

统筹城乡就业方面，存在的问题主要有：一是城乡二元结构障碍，农民工进城就业待遇平等政策落实得不够好。由于城乡二元制的户籍制度长期存在，使一些城市户口门槛过高，农民工难以进入城市定居。近些年，我省经济发展较快，但农民工工资增长较慢，收入水平不高。另外，不同程度存在的就业歧视现象如不签订劳动合同、不缴纳社会保险费等问题一定程度上挫伤了农民进城务工积极性。二是农民工文化技能素质需要提高，培训投入不足。我省农村富余劳动力大约363万人，具有较高文化水平和较高技能的人员比例不高，而且由于投入不足，使现有培训机构设置及能力远远达不到农村劳动力转移培训要求。三是法律制度不完善，农民工合法权益缺乏保障。虽然这几年从国家到地方在农民工合法权益维护方面做了大量工作，但缺乏强有力的法律和制度性保障。四是城乡统筹就业的市场机制进展缓慢，市场化就业有待推进。人力资源市场中介组织发育不充分、不规范，职业介绍、技能培训、就业指导、信息发布、权益维护等方面市场化运作程度不高，很多工作是靠政府在组织和推动，市场化推进统筹城乡就业局面还没有完全形成。

    统筹城乡社会保障方面主要面临以下几个问题：一是非经济单位、民营企业参保率较低。目前非公经济从业人员数量增长迅速，但部分非公经济单位、民营企业逃避责任，不积极为职工办理社会保险，有的拖欠缴纳保费，致使扩面难度增大，严重侵害了劳动者的合法权益，影响了市场公平竞争环境。二是适合农民工的养老保险制度亟需建立。随着工业化与城镇化的不断推进，越来越多的农民进城务工，但是农民工的收入水平偏低，按现行的养老保险费率缴费比较困难；农民工流动性较强，社会保险难以在不同地区转移接续；部分农民工只顾眼前利益，自身参保意识不高，解决好他们的“老有所养”仍无保障。三是农民养老保险制度缺失。目前我省农村养老保险制度尚在探索之中，农民特别是农村老年人的生活主要依靠土地上的劳作和子女的供养。随着农村青壮年劳动力不断向城镇转移和农村老龄化程度的加深，传统的土地养老模式很难持续下去。

    健全覆盖城乡居民的多层次的就业和社会保障制度，将满足和保障公民求职就业的需要，满足基本的养老、医疗等需求，必将为构建和谐社会奠定更加扎实的基础。我们认识到坚持统筹城乡就业和社会保障，不等于在农村建立与城镇完全一致的就业和社会保障制度，而是要实现既统一、又有区别的就业和社会保障制度。从以人为本的角度思量和考虑，统筹城乡发展就是使城市地区和农村地区的人获得资源的机会大致相当，因而生活质量也能大致相当，差距不会太大。也就是说，地区之间是不能趋同的，但人与人之间获得资源的机会可以拉平。要实现这个目标，关键在于要素的充分流动，资本进入农村，使农村地区的人获得资源的可能性增加；农村的劳动力可以流入城市寻找发展机会，那留下的人就有更多机会；土地也应该以适当的方式流转，不使农村人口的流动受到束缚；产品也能便捷地在城乡之间贸易。

    在统筹城乡就业方面，一是逐步完善城乡统筹就业服务体系。建立和完善覆盖城乡的公共就业服务体系。培育中介组织，提高市场服务能力。二是完善城乡劳动力职业技能培训体系。加大农村富余劳动力培训力度，制定城乡劳动者培训计划，落实资金政策，充分调动各类培训机构积极性。三是建立切实维护城乡劳动者权益的劳动用工管理体系。以《劳动合同法》颁布和实施为契机，完善对企业劳动用工的管理，坚持推广农民工工资支付保障制度，切实保障农民工与城市工人享有同等的工资福利待遇，保障农民工的合法权益不受侵害。

统筹城乡社会保障方面，一是需要加大力度消除绝对贫困。前不久，国家提出在全国广大农村建立最低生活保障制度，这一制度的建立必将为农村低收入群体带来福音。二是加大建立和完善统筹城乡社会保障制度建设。在城镇，要从城镇职工扩展到全体城镇居民，加快提高基本养老、基本医疗和失业、工伤、生育五大社会保险的覆盖面。在农村，全面推行新型农村合作医疗制度，配套完善农村公共卫生服务体系；着力构建适合农民工特点的“低费率、可转移”的养老保险政策框架和与社会经济发展相适应的农村人口养老保障制度。着力解决工业化、城市化推进过程中出现的广大农民工、被征地农民和广大农民的社会保障问题。三是加强覆盖城乡的劳动保障工作平台建设。建立畅通、高效的乡镇、社区服务信息网络系统，充实专业基层劳动保障工作队伍，尽快提高管理服务水平。

    中国是一个发展中国家，虽然持续27年的经济社会发展奇迹，使国家逐渐走向富强，人民逐渐实现富裕，社会保障制度逐步建立和完善。但是我们的事业正处于起步阶段，我们应该着眼于中国的现实国情，着眼于吉林省的现实省情，放眼世界，向包括欧盟、日本、韩国等在内的已经有比较成熟社会保障制度的国家学习和借鉴，学习、借鉴他们的成功经验和做法，避免走弯路、避免付出不必要的代价。

在我们国家快速发展的进程中，关注民生，改善民生，统筹城乡就业和社会保障，是各级政府和广大专家学者们不容推卸的责任和使命。但我们清醒地认识到完善的社会保障体系建设对于我们来说，还是一个长期的艰巨的必须持之以恒的过程。

    总之，改革是为了社会进步，改革是为了实现更好的发展。只有让广大人民群众共同分享改革发展的成果，我们的社会才能健康和谐地发展。让我们共同努力为中国的劳动保障事业，为吉林的统筹城乡就业和社会保障工作做出自己应有的贡献。

    谢谢。

 

 

 

 

尊敬的主席先生，女士们，先生们：

    上午好！很高兴出席今天的会议。 “他山之石，可以攻玉”，吉林省举办统筹城乡就业和社会保障论坛，研讨劳动保障的理论和实践问题，对推进吉林省劳动保障事业的发展，促进国际交流与合作，具有极为重要的历史和现实意义。中国政府高度重视就业和社会保障工作，并积极致力于开展在这一领域的国际交流与合作。在此，受中欧社会保障合作项目项目主任戴广义同志委托，我简要介绍一下中欧社会保障合作项目的有关情况。

近年来，中国与欧盟合作全面推进，双方不仅政治关系良好，经济合作进展迅速，社会发展领域，包括社会保障领域也日益成为中欧合作中新的重要合作领域。2004年12月8日，温家宝总理出席中欧第七次领导人峰会期间，中国政府与欧盟签署了《中国-欧盟社会保障合作项目财政协议》。根据协议，项目的执行机构为中国劳动和社会保障部；项目执行期为5年（2006年?2010年），主要内容包括政策开发和加强能力建设两个方面；项目总预算为4000万欧元。其中，欧盟提供2000万欧元，为项目聘请中外专家、组织开展培训、研讨和出国考察、实习等活动提供支持；中国政府投入2000万欧元，主要用于社会保障能力建设中心的建设以及设备和项目办人员经费开支等。中欧社会保障合作项目，是中国政府和欧盟在社会保障领域开展的研究内容最多、投入最大、历时最长的国际合作项目，对双方进一步加强合作，增进交流，扩大共识，共同推动社会保障事业的发展，具有重要意义。经过双方的共同努力，项目于2006年4月1日正式启动。

    中欧双方高度重视中欧社会保障合作项目。为确保项目的顺利实施，中国政府成立了有商务部、国家发改委、民政部、财政部和劳动保障部组成的项目指导委员会；劳动保障部部党组确定了“突出重点、注重实效；精心组织、规范操作”的指导思想和项目实施工作原则，并成立了由刘永富副部长任组长、各业务司局主要负责人任成员的项目实施工作领导小组。欧洲议会议长、欧盟驻华代表团大使、德国劳动和社会事务部副部长、英国外交部次官等欧盟高官先后到项目办访问，考察和了解项目进展情况。

    在劳动保障部党组的高度重视和项目领导小组的正确领导下，在项目指导委员会和劳动保障部有关业务司局的指导下，项目办坚持贯彻和落实劳动保障部党组确定的项目实施工作指导思想和工作原则，精心组织，规范操作，并不断加强与有关部门和欧盟以及国际专家组的交流、沟通与协调，项目实施工作取得了显著成效。

    一是建立了中国和欧盟及其成员国在社会保障领域的高层对话机制。2006年7月，欧洲议会议长博雷利先生访华，与中国劳动保障部田成平部长就进一步加强和深化中欧在社会保障领域的合作进行了会谈。2006年9月，我们在北京成功举办了第一次中欧社会保障高层圆桌会议；今年6月，第二次中欧社会保障高层圆桌会议在欧盟轮值主席国及成员国德国成功召开；今后，中欧社会保障高层圆桌会议还将每年在中国和欧盟两地交替举行。通过对话与交流，双方进一步增进了了解，加深了友谊，扩大了共识，为中国与欧盟成员国进一步开展双边和多边合作奠定了良好的基础。

    二是社会保障培训中心已建成并投入使用。中国政府认真履行项目协议，并不断加大对项目的投入。在国家发展改革委和财政部的大力支持下，劳动保障部建立了社会保障能力建设中心，总投资超过3000万欧元。去年6月，中方又投入1000万欧元开工建设中欧社会保障合作项目综合服务大楼。社会保障能力建设中心既是项目的办公场所，同时也是举办项目活动和开展社会保障培训的基地。自去年以来，我们已在能力建设中心举办了两期社会保险经办系统负责人培训班，对164名来自省市级社保经办系统负责人进行了培训；此外，还先后开展了社会保险精算、能力建设中心师资、中欧项目周期管理和省级试点计划开发等培训活动。年底前，我们还将开展劳动保障系统厅局长政策开发与管理实施和中欧项目试点省工伤保险管理的培训活动。

    三是全面启动了政策开发活动。结合中国政府和劳动保障部重点推进的工作，今年我们重点开展了农民工养老保险政策、农村新型养老保险制度、城镇医疗保险费用支出管理、社会保障基金管理、经办管理体系和能力建设、失业保险促进就业政策、工伤预防和康复及工伤保险费率、流动人口社会保险等7个方面的政策研究和开发工作。截止8月底，除国际专家组6名长期专家，我们已先后聘请了27名国际和29名国内短期专家参与项目的政策研究和开发活动。

    四是组织开展了研讨和出国考察等活动。今年5月，我们在辽宁省大连市举办了养老保险个人账户管理与投资运营学术研讨会；7月份，在北京召开了“在中国医疗保险现状下使用按病种付费（DRG）作为费用控制工具”的研讨会；9月?12月，我们还将相继举办和召开农民工养老保险、城镇居民医疗保险、基金监管和绩效管理、经办能力建设等相关内容的研讨会。今年的6月和7月，我们先后组织了转型国家医疗保险管理研究和社会保险实施与管理机构能力建设两个出国考察团赴欧洲考察；9月?12月，我们还将组织工伤预防与康复制度研究、社会保障基金管理与运营研究、养老保险基金管理、人力资源政策与实施等4个项目出国考察团赴欧洲考察；同时，还将选派社会保险经办机构专业人员去欧盟成员国参加精算培训和工作实习。

    五是省级试点前期准备工作就绪，明年将全面启动。经劳动保障部研究决定，选定了北京、吉林、山东、湖南、四川和甘肃等6个省市作为项目试点地区；确定了养老保险省级统筹、失业保险促进就业、医疗保险、被征地农民社会保障、工伤保险和加强经办机构能力建设等六个方面的试点内容。目前，省级试点的工作计划已完成，正在审核之中，明年将全面启动。

    此外，我们借助中欧项目这一平台，积极促进开展与欧盟成员国的双边和多边合作，与英国、德国、法国等欧盟成员国在反欺诈、工伤保险、医疗保险、能力建设等社会保障领域建立了合作；帮助部社会保障能力建设中心与法国国家社会保障高等研究培训中心建立了姊妹校关系，签定了交流合作协议。同时，为了使国际专家组更多地了解中国国情和社会保障现状，使项目的实施更具针对性、实用性和可操作性，我们多次组织国际专家对劳动保障部有关司局、卫生部和国家发改委等部门进行了访谈，并赴6个试点省份开展调研活动。

 

    女士们，先生们，中欧社会保障合作项目的实施，为双方进一步加强交流与合作，共同推动社会保障事业的发展，提供了良好的契机，项目实施成果已经开始显现。结合中欧社会保障项目的实施，我愿借此机会就在吉林省实施开展中欧项目省级试点和促进在社会保障领域的国际合作与交流，提三点意见和建议：

    一是项目的实施要充分考虑中国国情，贴近实际。我们需要学习借鉴欧洲及其他国家先进的理念和经验，同时，更要从中国国情和社会保障发展的实际出发，按照科学发展观的要求，建立和健全中国经济发展水平相适应的、有中国特色的社会保障体系。二是项目的实施要突出重点，注重实效。中国社会保障需要研究的问题很多，项目的实施应紧紧围绕中国社会保障面临的突出矛盾和重点难点问题，对完善制度、加强管理进行重点研究，项目研究的内容要有针对性、实用性和可操作性，务求实效。三是项目的实施要促进双方扩大合作，实现共赢。要充分发挥国际合作项目的纽带作用，促进双方在社会保障领域的全面合作与交流，共同发展。

 

    女士们，先生们，社会保障已成为世界各国最基本的社会经济制度。中国政府高度关注广大国民的切身利益，提出了构建社会主义和谐社会的战略思想，并明确了建立覆盖城乡的社会保障体系的目标和任务。促进经济发展和社会进步，是中国与欧盟及世界各国政府共同的使命；社会保障保障制度的改革与可持续发展是我们面临的共同挑战。让我们携起手来，共同努力，为推进社会保障事业的健康发展，增进人民福祉做出新的、更大的贡献！

 

    预祝吉林省举办统筹城乡就业和社会保障论坛取得圆满成功。

    谢谢大家。

It must surely be the policy objective of every country that its citizens, who have spent their adult life working for the good, not only of themselves and their families, but also of their compatriots, should receive adequate income to maintain a reasonable standard of living during their retirement when they are no longer in a position to work.. While it is easy to adopt such a statement as a policy principle, it is far less easy to implement it in the light of financial, administrative and procedural constraints. These constraints are particularly relevant when attempting to provide for retirement income for agricultural and other rural workers. However, my understanding is that the central Government intends these constraints and problems to be overcome so as to be able to operate both urban and rural pension systems universally in China by the year 2020. For the 100 million rural workers and the 40 million farmers whose land has been requisitioned, this is a major task, as currently only 12% of the rural population is covered ? it is hoped that this will rise to 60% - and only 3.5 million rural elderly receive a pension.

For me it is especially pleasing and appropriate to be asked to discuss the issue of rural pensions here in Jilin province. One of the problems for myself and my international colleagues under the EU-China Social Security Reform Co-operation Project is that we generally fly from Beijing into cities in China without having the opportunity to visit the countryside in between. However, when I was last here in Jilin province, our hosts in the labour and social insurance bureaux took us into the country to a village in Nong’an county to give us an idea of the rural life of the province. So the first opportunity I had of seeing rural life in China was here in Jilin province. I received the impression of being in Northern France with large areas as far as the eye could see under maize cultivation.  Since then I have had the opportunity to see very different rural life in Shanxi province and in Qinghai in a world of shepherds and yak-herders living a semi-nomadic existence in tents while looking after their herds and flocks 4,000 metres high on the wide upland grasslands.

 

Designing a pension system for rural residents must, therefore, encompass not only rural communities with a settled way of life and a permanent place of residence as here in Jilin province, whether those communities work in agriculture, eg by growing crops or keeping pigs or chickens, or working in some other rural activity ? tractors and other farm machinery need to be repaired ? or some small rural industry. It must also accommodate those members of the rural population with no fixed place of residence. 

 

My task today is to look at how the European Union provides a pension system for rural workers, but before doing so, I need to identify some of the problems that must be addressed, whether in a European or a Chinese context. Only then can we consider how European countries have dealt with them ? not all in the same way ? and what, if anything, China can learn from European experience.

 

What are the particular issues that arise when designing a pension system for rural residents?

 

i)                    In general, rural workers have low incomes ? or at least lower incomes than their urban counterparts. Some subsistence farmers provide enough food for the needs of their family, but have no excess to sell. That means that they are not in a position to afford to contribute to a pension scheme, or have no cash to do so. When I was in a rural community in Shanxi province last year, I came upon a project designed to assist rural farmers and increase their income. Many farmers produced more vegetables than they needed for their own needs, but the cost of transporting the excess to Taiyuan, whose restaurant owners would have been happy to buy them, was too great for them to take them to sell there. However, when the project promoted a co-operative marketing arrangement, through which the excess produce of a number of local farmers could be combined and transported to Taiyuan, the profit from the sale increased the farmers’ income and raised their standard of living, possibly enabling them to be in a better position to contribute to a pension system. Similarly, projects to buy farmers’ surplus milk to make cheese and to improve the genetic strain of their pigs to increase the number of litters per year and the number of piglets in each litter were also designed to increase farmers’ incomes. When farmers’ incomes rise above subsistence level, even if only by small micro-projects, not only are they more likely to be able to contribute towards a pension scheme, but they may begin to consider the possibility of making provision for their retirement.

ii)                  Not all rural workers will remain rural workers throughout their life. Increasing and expanding urbanisation means that some rural communities will be absorbed into the neighbouring town, or a farmer’s land will be eaten up by the development of, for instance, a new motorway. The ex-farmer’s hukou is in some places amended from being rural to being urban. In other areas the distinction between a rural and urban hukou has been abolished. The issue arises, therefore, whether, if someone joins a rural pension scheme while working on a farm, he will remain a rural worker all his working life, or may become eligible to join an urban pension scheme, a scheme for migrant workers, or a special scheme for farmers who have lost land. If so, how, if at all, are the respective contribution periods co-ordinated?

iii)                Many younger rural workers move from their rural community to work as migrant workers in a city, or possibly over a number of years in a number of different cities, depending on what work is available. They may from time to time return to their rural home to work on the family farm. The return may be for a number of years (or permanently, eg if a family member dies), or it may be for a particular season of each year, eg harvest-time, or because there is no longer any work available in the city to which they went. The same issue arises of co-ordinating contribution periods.

iv)                Some workers who live in a rural community may travel to an urban community to work, but come home each evening to look after a small farm, eg milking cows before going to, and after returning from, work, or supporting a spouse or other family member who undertakes the majority of the farm activity. Would such persons be entitled or required to participate in a rural pension scheme or a scheme for migrant workers or an urban scheme? The question of demarcation is likely to arise.

v)                  As I have already mentioned, not all rural residents live in a settled community. Here in China, there are herders of yaks, sheep and goats in the mountainous areas who follow their herds to provide summer pasture in the high grasslands. Europe does not have much experience of nomadic or semi-nomadic herders on which to draw for assistance, but in sub-Arctic Finland there are itinerant reindeer herders. I have asked the Finnish Social Security Ministry to let me know how they provide a pension system, collect contributions and pay pensions to people without a permanent home. I shall explain a little about the Finnish social insurance system for farmers a little later.

 

These categories may be eligible to participate in a rural pension scheme at some time in their life, but at other times they may participate in an urban social insurance scheme or some other special arrangement for migrant workers. Frequent moves between different locations could result in them having paid insufficient contributions, or having spent insufficient periods working in any single location, to qualify for a pension from any of the places where they worked. Without some form of aggregation or transferability a rural worker who spends some periods working in several urban locations could participate in social insurance throughout his working life and still fail to receive a full pension on retirement.

 

There are four alternative methods of supporting rural workers who do not qualify for an old age pension or whose pension is too low to provide an adequate retirement income. These are:

 

i)                    The land which they hold. Persons with a lifetime of agricultural or similar rural work may continue working on the land, even after retirement age, and derive subsistence or additional income from their continued agricultural activity.

ii)                  Rural elderly people may obtain support from their children or other members of their family. The children may live with them or close to them and provide financial or other support, or they may work on the family farm, which they have taken over from their parents. Alternatively, the children may have moved away for higher education, or otherwise, and send money back to support their elderly parents. (A married couple may have their respective parents living far from where they live and possible in different provinces, eg a couple in Beijing may have their respective parents in Sichuan and Heilongjiang provinces.)

iii)                The elderly rural population may be supported by a minimum living standard allowance if their income is below the relevant level.

iv)                The elderly rural population may move into a retirement care home to be looked after and supported there.

 

The major problems with providing a social insurance system for rural workers are:

i)                    Most agricultural workers have low incomes. They either cannot afford to contribute to a social insurance scheme or may be unwilling to do so because of the limited resources that they have for day to day living.

ii)                  How are rural incomes determined? Where rural workers are employees this is not a problem. However, if they are self-employed farmers, there is always a problem to identify how much of any income they receive for their produce is profit and how much must be offset against the costs of production, eg seed, feedstuff for animals, agricultural implements, etc.

iii)                The problem of collecting contributions from, and paying pensions to, mobile workers, whether migrants or semi-nomadic herders.

iv)                The level of pensions derived from individual accounts derived from low contributions. Where the accumulation income is less than the rate of inflation, is a major disincentive to participation.

v)                  Perhaps, most importantly, will there be a comparable or higher level of Government matching member contributions and can it be afforded? Where there is a high level of matching contributions, as, for instance, in Qingdao and Yantai ? where for 7% of earnings contributed by the farmer, the local collective matches 7% and the municipal government a further 6%, participation in rural pension arrangements is relatively high; where there is no such matching, participation is in most cases non-existent. It is significant that the central Government is looking towards a system where farmer contributions are supported along these lines. And yet the cost to government authorities is vast. To provide ¥60 a month (¥720 a year) to 100 million rural workers would require a subsidy of ¥72bn per year. It is unlikely that this funding will come from the central Government.

 

How, therefore, do Member States of the European Union deal with these issues?

 

The first comment to make is that due to urbanisation the proportion of the European population engaged in agriculture is, in comparison with China, very small. Out of a total population of 491 million in the European Union, data shows that only about 18 million are engaged full time in agriculture ? although of course there are others employed in a rural community in non-agricultural employment and many workers who live in villages commute to the nearest town.

 

Certain European Union Member States: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland and Romania, have separate schemes for agricultural workers or self-employed rural workers, which I shall explain later.

 

Elsewhere in Europe rural workers, whether working in agriculture or otherwise, are entitled, and in most cases required, to participate, either as employees or as self-employed workers, in the same social security scheme, and on the same basis, as all other workers. They (and, where they are employed, their employers) pay the same contributions and they receive the same pensions and other benefits as comparable urban workers. However, in Lithuania farmers and members of their family are exempt form compulsory participation in the social insurance scheme.

 

The advantage of universal participation in the general social insurance scheme is that no problem arises in amalgamating contributions paid in respect both of periods of rural work activity and periods when contributors work in urban areas, or engage in non-agricultural employment. Contributions paid in respect of all their work periods are aggregated towards the meeting the requirements for entitlement to, and the calculation of, their pension under the social insurance scheme. There is no need for any transfer between schemes, nor does the retired worker qualify separately for pensions in respect of the rural and urban employment periods. Perhaps, most importantly, the worker does not fail to qualify for a pension on the ground that he has not worked for a sufficiently long period in any one location.

 

Denmark overcomes the problem of rural pension provision in a different way. In Denmark entitlement to the basic social old age pension is based, not on contributions, but on residence. This means that all Danish residents, whether urban or rural, qualify for their basic pension on the basis of their residence in Denmark, not on the fact or nature of their work. Thus, for the purpose of the Danish social pension, rural workers are treated identically with any other categories of workers, irrespective of their earnings or contributions during their working life.

 

Denmark, however, also has a contributory supplementary pension scheme, which is compulsory for employees and employers, but to which the self-employed, including the rural self-employed, may voluntarily contribute if they have completed at least three years as an employee. This condition would exclude those self-employed rural workers whose work is undertaken entirely and solely in agriculture, but it enables migrant workers who move between rural and urban activity to continue to build up entitlement to a supplementary pension during their rural self-employment.

 

In most other European countries pension entitlement depends on the satisfaction of contribution conditions. These conditions vary considerably between Member States. The old age pensions of some Member States are directly linked to the pensioner’s earnings during his working life ? this means that those such as agricultural workers who have had low earnings while of working age, will receive a low pension on retirement. However, Spain, Italy and Luxembourg provide a minimum pension so that, even though workers’ earnings and contributions might justify a lower pension, they will receive a pension of at least the guaranteed minimum. Other states, eg Netherlands, provide a flat-rate pension, allowing workers the option to supplement their retirement income by participating in a 2^nd or 3^rd pillar pension arrangement to provide a supplementary pension.

 

For those rural employees who are paid wages on a basis comparable to urban workers, the calculation of contributions is based on their earnings. As already stated, it is not always easy to identify the earnings of self-employed agricultural workers. In practice, the earnings of agricultural workers are normally determined by European Member States on a net basis agreed with the national tax or social insurance institution, after deducting agreed costs of production. In some cases, farmers are found to have a negative income. Farmers may be required to produce accounts to the tax or social insurance institution to demonstrate the extent to which their income consists of profit and to what extent it must be offset against costs of production. Where this is not possible, the institution is likely to produce an estimate to determine the contribution liability.

 

The European Union’s common agricultural policy is designed to maintain financial support to Europe’s agricultural sector. This means that some European farmers are comparatively wealthy, especially where, for instance, they have large areas of cereal production. But many others are poor with very low incomes. As pensions are generally based on social pooling ? in many cases, eg Germany, with proportional Government funding ? individuals with low incomes may be subsidised to provide pensions at a level higher than subsistence level. 

 

Nevertheless, farmers can still find it difficult to afford to pay social insurance contributions. Several Member States have a threshold below which contributions are not payable. Farmers and other agricultural workers with earnings, or income from self-employment, below the national threshold are excepted from liability to pay social insurance contributions, but failure to pay may result in failure to satisfy the contribution conditions for entitlement to a pension.

 

Several Member States, however, have a provision to enable low paid workers below the threshold for contribution liability to pay social insurance contributions voluntarily to maintain their pension entitlement. Other states have contribution conditions for pension entitlement which allow contributors to have gaps in their contribution record, but still to qualify for a full pension. This can assist farmers who cannot afford to contribute in certain years because of low earnings or due to bad harvests, flooding, culling of stock due to disease, or other disasters.

 

Great Britain has a provision in relation to its earnings-related second pension element that treats certain employees whose income is below the contribution threshold as having earnings at that threshold for the calculation of their pension. This assists rural employees with very low earnings to obtain a higher pension that their earnings would justify. The excess cost is met, not from contributions, but out of central government revenues. However, this provision does not assist self-employed workers, including self-employed farmers.

 

In most Member States farmers may continue to work on their land even after reaching pension age. Pensioners can supplement their pension through earnings, but in a few states there is a limit as to the amount that may be earned before the pension is reduced. In Spain it is not permitted to have earnings while in receipt of a full pension, but even here it is possible to receive a partial pension while earning. In some states, pensioners may postpone claiming their pension and so obtain increments; in others the pension becomes payable automatically at pension age.

 

Turning to states with a separate scheme for rural workers, in Finland, the Farmers´ Social Insurance Institution handles farmers’ statutory insurance protection. Its participants include all farmers, fishermen and reindeer breeders living in Finland. It is designed to secure their livelihood in cases of disability, old age and the provider’s death, in the same way as other statutory employment pension insurances protect other occupational groups.

It entitles farmers to a daily sickness allowance and farmers’ holiday substitute service. Its employment accident insurance compensates costs or disability resulting from an accident or an occupational illness related to the farmer’s work. If an agricultural worker becomes disabled, he can receive a disability pension and can also be rehabilitated so that he is better able to work on the farm, or can be trained for a new occupation. When retirement age approaches, a farmer becomes entitled to part-time pension. A farmer may receive an old-age pension starting at the age of 63?68 years.

If a farmer permanently gives up farming, he is entitled to farmers’ early retirement aid. Farmers’ early retirement aid encourages changes of generation and increases the size of farms. If the farmer dies, his or her widow or widower and children are covered by survivors’ pension and group life insurance. Farmers who practise animal husbandry as a main occupation and are insured are legally entitled to 24 days of annual holiday. All farmers are entitled to substitutes during sickness or parental leave and to holiday substitute services subject to a charge.

The insurance applies to independent farmers, etc. aged 18 to 67, their spouse or close relatives. Farming practised by a group of companies or by a family-owned company is also subject to the legislation. It is also possible to insure pensioners engaged in agriculture. Earnings are calculated for each insured person according to the value of the work input. All pensions, compensations, daily allowances and insurance premiums are calculated on the basis of these earnings. A farmer’s insurance-based earnings depend on the area of the field, garden or forest. Earnings are also affected by the related activities carried out on the farm and by its productivity. A reindeer breeder’s earnings are based on the number of registered reindeer and of workdays. A fisherman’s earnings are determined according to taxable income.

The institution’s field of activity, its administration and sources of financing are laid down by law, but it functions as a private insurance institution. Its administrative body includes representatives of the insured and of the State.

There are about 88,000 Finnish farmers and nearly 171,000 pensioners covered by the legislation and institution. The State part-finances the social security provided by the institution. Its share accounts for two thirds of the benefits that the institution pays. The insurance premiums paid by farmers cover about one fifth of the benefits.

 

In Austria the special scheme for farmers covers farm proprietors, and family members. 20.3% of the cost of pensions is met from farmers’ contributions and 78.7% from government funds, with 1% from other sources, with farmers paying 15% of the insurable value of their property up to a ceiling. Pensions are calculated on the same basis as for urban workers.

 

In France there is a social security scheme for self-employed farmers, covering the head farmer, farm workers and family members who work on the farm. Farmers’ contributions are determined according to their income. The pension is calculated on the basis of a flat rate pension calculated according to the years of participation and a proportional element calculated according to a statutory formula.
 
The German pension system for self-employed farmers is funded 25% by flat rate contributions paid by the farmers themselves and 75% from Government revenues, but average contributions are under half of those paid by workers in the general scheme for employees. In Germany, however, farmers may qualify for a pension after 15 years participation, but only if they give up agricultural activity.

 

In Greece the basic social security system for farmers covers compulsorily self-employed farmers, employees working in agriculture, stock breeders, beekeepers and fishermen and certain other self-employed persons working in areas with less than 5,000 inhabitants. It is funded by member contributions and a government subsidy. Members of the family are covered but exempt from contributions. A pension is payable after 15 years participation.

 

In Italy, farmers pay contributions calculated according to the type of land cultivated (lower contributions, eg for mountainous land), the number of years and work days involved and the income from farming activity. Distinctions are made between farm workers, including tenant farmers who do not own land, farm owners who practise their farming activity exclusively or predominantly, and farm owners whose main occupation is farming, but who also engage in other activities. For tenant farmers and farm workers, the farm owner pays 50% of the contribution liability. Pensions are payable after a minimum of 5 years participation, but the rate depends on the amount of contributions paid. Pensioners who continue to farm remain liable for contributions, but at 50% of the normal rate.   

 

Poland has an Agricultural Social Insurance Fund. The legislation under which it operates requires old age and disability pensions for agricultural workers to be no lower than the old age and disability pensions provided for comparable workers in the social insurance scheme for workers not in the agricultural sector. Coverage is compulsory for all agricultural workers cultivating at least one hectare of land, but is voluntary for those cultivating less than one hectare. The Polish institution operates a Pension and Disability Fund and a separate Contribution Fund to meet the cost of accident, sickness and maternity insurance. Old age, survivors’ disability and funeral pensions are paid out of the Pension and Disability Fund. Although this is partly funded by flat rate contributions paid quarterly by workers, 90% of the cost is met from Government funding. Pensions are paid either through banks or the post office, with roughly half paid through each.

 

In addition to the social insurance pension, most Member States have a means-tested social assistance provision that guarantees that retirees can receive income at least at a rate laid down by legislation. While this assists those, particularly agricultural workers, who have very low incomes in retirement, it may act as a disincentive to their voluntary participation in social insurance and/or supplementary pension schemes. If they participate in social insurance, but the pension for which they qualify is less than the social assistance level, it is supplemented to that social assistance level. This may result in them receiving in aggregate exactly the same benefit as their neighbours who failed to participate in social insurance. To reduce the disincentive effect some Member States have introduced measures to remove the cut-off effect of a fixed social assistance level, but replaced it with a tapering arrangement under which those who have saved or participated in social insurance can receive a higher amount than those who did not.

 

Although farmers whose land is requisitioned for urbanisation receive compensation ? in some cases the amount can be very large ? there is no provision for a separate scheme for farmers who have lost land. It is then up to them to use the compensation to save for their retirement.

 

As in China, elderly parents are regularly supported by their children. However, with the movement towards the cities, fewer children continue to live with their parents, unless they decide to continue to farm the land previously farmed by the parents.

 

Our EU/China Social Security Reform Project has commissioned a survey of rural pension provision in China and hopes to organise a study tour next year to Europe to identify what China can adopt and adapt from the different European experiences in the field of rural pensions. I would hope that as a result a good system of rural pensions may be introduced throughout China in 2020.

 

日本国工商联农业产业商会主席

日中百人委员会理事长

柴田静峰

 

绪论：

“社会保障”符合二律背反原理，就是“贫困的社会更需要社会保障，但如果不够富足的社会又无法提供理想的社会保障”。中国也不例外，中国社会科学院在60年代末的报告书中指出：“中国现在的三大社会问题是社会差距、医疗难、高额医疗费用，失业”，并警告说中国的社会保障问题是社会最重要的问题，像这样，在中国如何一边持续高成长，将成果的分配公平化，创造出足够的工作岗位，一边充实社会保障成了最重要的政治、经济课题，胡锦涛主席所领导的中国政府指出，以持续每年平均8?9%的经济增长，实施“三农政策”，充实社会保障制度为目标，缩小城市农村、沿海内陆、大城市小城市、大企业小企业的所得差距，实现和谐社会的政策转换，这种观点不仅在中国国内得到支持，在日本等海外诸国也得到支持，为了实现这一目标，维持经济的持续成长，缓和农民的迁移限制，确保必要的财政收入，通过新税制完成所得再分配，改革城市居民冠以适当的社会保障是有必要的。中国的社会保障问题与日本相比更为复杂，要一下子完成全体的改革是不可能的，之能分部分改革，这样完成全体问题的解决必须要花费时间。

一方面，日本国民经过迂回曲折的过程，达到了农民都能享受国际高水平的社会保障阶段，但是，由于经济成长率低下，老龄化的极速发展，财政状况恶化（政府债务金额对GDP的比率在先进国家中最高）等问题，子孙后代不能在享受现代水准的社会保障的可能象增高，社会保障改革逐渐成为国民最关心的问题，以下是基于日本的经验，对中国社会今后将如何发展提出一点个人意见。

1、日本的经验：战前、民主改革、π系数、收入再分配、社会保障的完善。

日本经济社会在过去一个世纪内并不是一直是“社会主义的”（即多公共规则，少贫富差额），明治维新后，政府改革了封建土地所有制，将各地封建诸侯（大名）的土地进行国家收购，并再将土地分发到农民手中，让农民支付和江户时代一样的地租（产出的一半但从缴纳物品改为缴纳金钱）。以此巩固国家次阿正的基础，这种行政策，让市场经济进行中的农民层分解开来，分成少数的世袭大地主和多数的无土地的农民，后者无外乎成为侍奉大地主的人或迁移到城市成为企业劳动者或成为城市的非正式职员，得到少量薪金，或成为士兵，或成为流动人口。另一方面国家利用财政资金培养大工业，（但是国家摒除了经济基础设施，国有企业瞬间民营化），像这样的30年代的日本厨艺典型的原始资本积累、弱肉强食的资本主义社会。日本政府的财政来源主要依靠地租、少数资本家和劳动权所缴纳的税金，由于“富国强兵”政策，军事负担逐步提高，劳动者和农民的生活水平极其低下，20年代在政府的指导下推动了协同组合，所谓协同组合是将家庭的相互扶助在小范围内连接起来，政府将协同组合活用，制定了国民健康保险法，逐渐将公共医疗设施推广到农村，5你那后，除城市以外，接近国民皆保险的状态，但是这项嘉华的实行因世界大战而被中断。

战败后，制定了新宪法，日本的政治、经济、社会体系取得了大的改观。进行了包括田地解放、土地改革（把从大地主处收缴的田地分配给农民）、财团解体、税制改革等“民主改革”。开始了高成长，国民的所得（平均的）20%?25%左右被储存起来了，（先进国家中最高水平），汇兑率低、输出增长，“民主改革”为了军事费用负担低，为了世界市场经济平稳发展，为了国民不懈努力，是日本国民人均所得上升到先进国家的水平，以及实现无所得及地域差异的平等社会成为可能。而针对田地自己所有，农业技术法杖，农产品价格维持政策（大米生产辅助金），农业基础建设的政府支援，支持了农业生产性的高成长，另外，高成长是指，几年内农业想都市迁移与兼业农民的增加，因农闲期时“出外赚钱”而给自家带来更大收入，使农民整体收入上升了，60年代时，农村的剩余人口迎来了“转换点”，“人手不足”的中小企业劳动者雇佣金上升超过了大型企业，企业规模、收入差异减小了，这样，到了70年代是，日本的社会主义经济社会成立了。

战败后混乱时期，日本政府为生活贫困者在旧国民保障制度上增加了一些应急措施，1961年，根据新宪法第25条精神，制定了以全体国民为对象的“国民权保险、国民全年金”制度。一开始，年金给付金（退休金）缺乏可信度，工资的上升，保险、退休金制度的制约条件有所缓解，医疗基本水平和退休金水平赶上了经济增长成为可能。1973年推行老人医疗实现免费，同时又采纳了完善的健康保险给付内容。给付额的通货膨胀、浮动工资制（按当时物价指数有所浮动）等一系列措施。那年被定为日本的“福祉元年”。

这样的保障制度的完善，经济π系数增长，通过增加税收，日本政府的财政收入很顺利增长，军拥费的GDP率也比其他国家低，政府财政支出的同时，社会保障关系利益能够得到很大的提升。关心体恤社会底层人，日本国民已达到共识。虽然冷战结束后，日本有泡沫经济的经验，但是增长率一直呈下游水准，物价也下滑，进入了过去没有经历的时代。另一方面人口结构进入“少生育，老龄化”，人口下降的同时，国民储蓄急剧回落。平均每人的个人资产仍是世界最高水平，但国债大，财政改革监督未透明化，这样的问题必须解决。支付金给付实施的检查、增加税收、年金制度改革都很棘手。借鉴日本的类似现象，应该研究一下中国的问题了。

    2、中国的社会保障制度和特殊的经济发展

（1）农村的贫困、市场经济化，收入差呈4倍增长，四个现代化，“先富论”。

我第一次访问中国是30年前，访问了当时认为比较富裕的广东的农村，第一次看到当地的“人民公社”的贫困状态时，我惊呆了。农民在没有社会保障制度的生活很沉重，尽管如此，当时的中国城市、农村[同样的贫穷]，在那第二年，中国又开展了实现四个现代化的口号。20年后，使人们的所得呈4倍的改革开放开始了。1992年，邓小平主席的《南巡讲话》之后发表后，推进了经济特区的设立以及外资的引进。2006年，中国的GDP为2.4兆美元，约为日本的1/6，但人均收入却为日本的1/20。

（2）社会主义市场经济告诉发展，但收入差扩大。

文革时期的人民公社是非自然的产物，努力的人得不到回报，所以结果没人认真工作，努力的人得不到回报，所以结果没有人认真工作。邓小平的“先富论谋求经济高速发展，努力的人或企业有更多的收益，而且虽然在不久之后产生某种程度上的收入差，但收入差在趋向缩小，其结果是在农村人民公社解体，城市周边的农民以种植蔬菜,水果,养鱼等  富裕,工业更加迅速发展,国家的生产结构为工业.

第一部分农业成为第二成长动力.人民热烈欢迎邓小平在92年提出的“南巡讲话”。外资迅猛增加，在沿海地区的OEMENT，主要是从内地来的民工，工资低热爱劳动，使用外国的技术、机械，做出精良的商品，所以国际竞争力增强。另一方面，在70年代前的主力??国有企业，企业结构重组，市场占有率下降。经济以每年10%速度增长，富裕阶层和中间阶层形成。中国的内需扩大，内资和外资产生激烈的竞争，各阶层间和各地区间所得差扩大。特别是内地农民低收入，无社会保障的情况未得到改善，农民不满情绪高涨，因此，在过去的30年间，中国的收入差距进入了在低中档收入国家中最不平等的行列。如果考虑所有的不动产、股票、动产，农村和城市之间的家庭收入，资产差距扩大数十倍。

 

在中国的大城市，“都市与农村间的所得差不是很大问题，反对缩小差距”这样认为的人很多。但“无论农村城市间的收入差怎样扩大，农民怎样向中央、地方政府抗议，都没有必要关心这些问题”，这样认为的人仍是极少数的，政府也同样在思考这些问题，胡锦涛领导的中国政府提出解决“三农问题”，这受到了广大人民的好评，但是，解决问题不是简单的事情，中国面临着：农村的社会保障制度的完善问题，在不久的将来，应对高龄化社会的问题。

覆盖全体国民的社会保障制度是最终目标，其内容，水平与该国的发展阶段，经济平均成长率，经济波动、财政状况，所得差、扶助家庭组织的多少，经济基础设施的整备状况等有很大关系，在日本，在20世纪前期，也没能实现完善的社会保障制度。虽然在新加坡，有高度的社会保障体系，但个人收入差距大，个人主义强的美国，即使在现在，也没有能实现国民皆保险，皆有养老金。

过去几年的成长率的扩大和农村、城市间的差距扩大的主要原因是由于第一次产业政策，向第二、三次产业移动，世界银行做出了这样的说明，根据世界银行的这种分析，今后，合理地促进农民向城市移民，对社会弱势群体实施所得再分配政策是非常必要的。除了人口少，财政收入来自石油的国家之外，“高福利，少负担”的梦想是不可能实现的，所以，持续改善的社会保障体系是很必要的。

虽然说是农民向城市移动，但7亿农民一起向城市迁入，给予他们同国有企业、外资企业、优秀民营企业相同的社会保障是不现实的。当然，像大城市周边的富裕的农民和东北三省那样。土地土质好，或用协同组合，合理利用土地，不种转基因作物，种植玉米，大豆、高级大米的地区例外。除此之外，特别是内地的农业没有多大希望。但基本来说，“当了农民，一生的命运改变就无法改变了”，农民不接受这种制度，所以农民比率的减少和所得再分配的差距应不要脱离国际标准。

所得再分配，除了依靠向城市进入的农民外，还依靠“社会弱者”的收入增加，但主要通过补助金，税金的减少，社会基础设施的整备等实施，所以，财政收入扩大和社会保障的财政分配率的增大是非常必要的，在这方面，日本的经验值得借鉴的。当然，“日本和中国在政治、经济、社会等各方面有很多不同之处，模仿日本的做法就会取得成功”，并不是想说这些，而只是作为参考。

首先，财政收入扩大，为此，提高征税效率，新设继承税，个人所得税等征税，农业生产业的提高，个体经营者成为社会保障制度的对象等等，这些事很有效果的。其次，对社会保障的财政分配率的增大，赤字国有企业的合理化，缩小军事费用等非常有有效的途径。为了扩充普及社会保障制度，为了使资助努力和所得再分配成为重要因素。国民的统一性是非常必要的。对社会保障的重要性，对社会弱者的国家支援的必要性，对国民齐心协力的必要性，学生、社会人要正确的认识，为此通用学校和社会教育活动等的教育体制的完善是非常重要的。

最后在吉林省等东北三省，国际性粮食价格上涨，农业生产业的提高，经济基础建设也得到了改善。在充分利用这种有利条件下，更应该活用。东北三省土质好，土地恢复快，加强了不种植转基因作物的管理，但在水资源不足，山地多的地区，经济基础建设差的地区，不可能以同样的方法，快速提高农业生产性，所以想关注以吉林省的农工业为中心的发展和社会保障制度的进展。