For example, the chaos in an industry is caused by the absence of managers.
Question 2: What do you mean by * * * vacancy? This is mainly manifested in several aspects:
First, there is no distinction between government and enterprise, and the function of investors is disordered. At present, state investment is decided and managed by * * *, which will bring many problems. First of all, * * * holds two positions, which includes both the administrative power of economic regulation and the ownership of state-owned investment assets with asset management functions. The two functions of administration and investment management are mutually exclusive in many aspects. * * * has these two functions at the same time, which will inevitably lead to mutual interference and disorder in economic relations. The confusion of function conflict leads to the contradiction of functions, which leads to the absence state. He should be a market supervisor, but now he has become an active market participant. It is contradictory to participate in investment according to market rules or as a supervisor.
Second, the main body of the enterprise is absent. The enterprise reform in China has gone through three stages: benefit redistribution, contract responsibility system and shareholding system reform. However, these reforms can only make enterprises passively accept "external power" without touching the original property rights relationship, but can not make enterprises form "endogenous power" on the basis of clarifying the property rights relationship. Therefore, the problems that have plagued state-owned enterprises for a long time, such as unclear property rights, unclear powers and responsibilities, lack of vitality and weak constraints, have not been fundamentally solved, thus making it impossible for state-owned enterprises to truly become independent legal persons with independent operation, self-financing, self-risk and self-development.
Third, the main body of the bank is absent. China's financial reform lags behind the enterprise reform. Therefore, in the case that enterprises have not yet become the main body of the capital market, the gap between banks and the main body of the capital market is even greater. Its specific performance is: banks are not the main business entities of fund management. At present, the property right of bank funds is state-owned, and the property right of credit assets formed by various deposits and borrowed funds is the main body of investment. The property right of accumulated funds formed by retained profits over the years is not clearly defined, so it is rather vague. In terms of fund management, banks have formed a situation in which government and enterprises are integrated and responsibilities and rights are seriously out of touch, which is far from reaching the main position of fund management. In addition, banks are not independent business entities in capital operation, market allocation entities in capital operation, and independent interest entities in capital gains.
Question 3: What does insider control mean? Vision Consulting believes that the so-called "insider control" refers to the separation of ownership and management rights (control rights) in modern enterprises. Because the interests of the skeleton owner and the operator are inconsistent, the operator controls the company, that is, the phenomenon of "insider control" It still belongs to the category of internal control. The following are the reasons for the formation of insider control and their solutions.
Reason: The formation of insider control is actually the problem of "absence of owner" and the mismatch between control right and residual claim right in corporate governance. 1, the subject of property right of state-owned assets is absent; 2. Absence of creditor's rights subject of state-owned assets; 3. Mismatch between residual claim and control right
Impact: Insider control will make it clear that the company's financing rights, investment rights and personnel rights are in the hands of the company's operators, that is, insiders, and it is difficult for shareholders to effectively supervise.
Solution: At present, the problem of insider control in corporate governance, that is, the operator abuses his power and the supervision is out of control, can be said that the problem lies inside the enterprise and the root is outside the enterprise, that is, the slack of external responsibility and the lack of external governance function.
(1) Establish a legal person property right system that meets the requirements of modern market economy, and improve and standardize the corporate governance structure.
(two) straighten out the principal-agent relationship of state-owned property rights.
(III) Strengthening the internal supervision mechanism of the company.
(IV) Improve and strengthen the company's external supervision system.
Question 4: Who is the subject of structural adjustment * * * undoubtedly plays a very important role in agricultural structural adjustment. However, we can't ignore the fact that * * * is not the direct undertaker of the structural adjustment results. Farmers and leading agricultural enterprises are the direct recipients of the results of structural adjustment. Words like structural adjustment are too big for farmers. They are more concerned about what they can sell and how much they can earn this year. They are very careful about what to plant. In this sense, Guangdong farmers' cautious attitude towards structural adjustment is also a reflection of farmers' active ability to adapt to the market and their outstanding status.
However, due to the overall knowledge structure, shortage of funds and other issues, the main position of decentralized farmers is still very weak.
The absence of the subject of agricultural modernization is a long-standing problem in China's agriculture, and many people place their hopes on agricultural enterprises to make up for this vacancy. Because enterprises seem to be born with a keen sense of smell and can accurately grasp the rapidly changing market, it is the best choice to undertake the important task of connecting the market and organizing technological innovation. Facts have proved that in some places, some well-developed leading agricultural enterprises really deserve this position. Whether it is short-term pain or long-term benefit, under the interest binding mechanism, enterprises and farmers jointly bear the consequences of agricultural structural adjustment. Therefore, it cannot be denied that agricultural leading enterprises are also one of the important subjects of structural adjustment. Because their market development ability, technological innovation ability and capital operation ability are beyond the reach of small-scale peasant economy, they are more likely to coincide with * *' s strategic development vision and play a vital role in agricultural structural adjustment.
After defining the main body of agricultural structural adjustment, whether enterprises can be successfully pushed to the foreground is the key to the final realization of agricultural strategic structural adjustment.
Question 5: Are other organizations the subject of civil rights capacity? Personally, from the perspective of broad civil law, the subject of civil rights capacity should include natural persons, legal persons and other organizations. However, the General Principles of Civil Law clearly stipulates that only citizens and legal persons have the capacity for civil rights. Personally, I think it was limited by the legislative technology and conditions at that time, mainly because the civil law theory of the former Soviet Union had too deep influence and did not adopt the dual orientation of civil subject, and the civil subject of other organizations was absent under the planned economy system. With the development of society and the establishment of market economy system, legislation has gradually broken through the dual orientation of civil subjects in the General Principles of Civil Law, such as the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Contract Law: "The contract referred to in this Law is an agreement between natural persons, legal persons and other organizations with equal subjects to establish, change and terminate civil rights and obligations."
Question 6: What do you mean by evaporation and distribution? Rights issue, also known as rights issue from public shares, mainly includes shares purchased by other legal persons and individuals in accordance with relevant systems during the process of rights issue, or when it is difficult to implement rights issue due to the absence of the main body or lack of funds.
It comes from the following sources:
First, state-owned shares are converted into public shares;
Second, legal person shares are converted into public shares;
Third, the existing rights issue accepts the new shares generated after the share delivery or rights issue. As the state-owned shares and legal person shares have not yet been listed, the rights issue cannot be listed temporarily, but it enjoys the same rights as the listed shares.
Question 7: Why do you want to block the dangerous house? 1. If the house is identified as dangerous, does it need to be demolished? Defining responsibility is the first step. There are many responsible subjects that may cause dangerous houses. Improper use by developers, builders, designers and even owners, such as savage decoration, change of use, random construction, etc. , must be determined before the analysis of specific problems.
Two, the house was identified as dangerous, the main responsible person should bear legal responsibility according to the reasons of the dangerous situation. Due to the problems existing in the construction process, in violation of the "Building Law", "Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects" and other laws and regulations and mandatory norms, resulting in dangerous buildings, units such as project bidding, survey, design, construction, supervision and quality supervision shall bear corresponding responsibilities according to law.
3. According to the relevant laws and regulations, if the responsible subject is absent, and the corresponding regulatory subject or the corresponding competent department has fulfilled its supervision and management duties, the owner or user shall bear the responsibility; If the relevant competent department neglects to perform the corresponding duties, it shall bear the corresponding responsibilities.
Fourth, the reason is clear, and after the responsibility is determined, the maintenance and reinforcement of dangerous houses are also facing many tests. According to the reporter's investigation, at present, China's property maintenance fund is mainly aimed at the maintenance, renewal and transformation costs of the parts and facilities of the property after the warranty period expires, such as roof leakage, external wall peeling, elevators, fire-fighting facilities and other maintenance. "Dangerous building" refers to the main structural problems of the building itself, that is to say, the main structural problems that need to be solved by dangerous buildings should be borne by the lifelong warranty party, and the maintenance fund cannot be used for the maintenance and reinforcement of dangerous buildings.
5. From the legal point of view, the buying and selling of houses between owners and developers is a contractual relationship. If the cause of the dangerous house is not caused by the damage of the owner and others, and it is not force majeure, then the lifelong warranty responsibility of the main structure of the house and the maintenance and reinforcement costs of the dangerous house should also be borne by the developer; If it is a dangerous building caused by design and construction problems, the developer can claim compensation from the design unit and the construction party after taking responsibility.
Question 8: What are the difficulties for our society to implement the administrative accountability system? Why? How to solve the first, the current situation of implementing administrative accountability system in China.
At present, the administrative accountability system implemented in China has the following characteristics:
1. On the basis of the original policies and regulations, the central government and the state have successively promulgated a series of policies and regulations on administrative accountability. These laws and policies include the Provisions on the Investigation of Administrative Responsibility for Extraordinary Safety Accidents promulgated by the State Council in 20001,the Regulations on Inner-Party Supervision in China (for Trial Implementation) promulgated by the Central Committee in 2004, the Regulations on Disciplinary Actions in China, the Interim Provisions on Resignation of Party and Government Leading Cadres, and the Implementation Outline for Comprehensively Promoting Administration according to Law issued by the State Council. The Civil Servant Law, which was passed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in 2005 and formally implemented in 2006, has become the main basis of administrative accountability punishment in China at present, which indicates that the administrative accountability system in China is developing in the direction of institutionalization and legalization.
2. The era of administrative accountability from central to local. China's administrative accountability began in the SARS period in 2003. Since then, administrative officials who have neglected their duties, dereliction of duty or important responsibilities in major safety accidents and environmental pollution incidents have been investigated and dealt with. At the request and deployment of the central government and the State Council, local governments have gradually carried out administrative accountability. For example, in 2004, Beijing Miyun Lantern Festival stampede accident, Jilin Zhong Bai commercial building fire accident, Zhejiang Haining catastrophic fire accident, Anhui Fuyang inferior milk powder poisoning baby incident, Hunan Jiahe abuse of administrative power illegal demolition case and other cases, those responsible for the accident were all "dismissed" because of "accountability".
3, local * * * have introduced administrative accountability measures and regulations, so that administrative accountability is gradually institutionalized. The Interim Measures of Changsha Municipal People's Administrative Accountability in August, 2003 is the first administrative accountability regulation in China, and the Interim Measures of Chongqing Municipal Chief Executive Accountability in May, 2004 is the first administrative accountability regulation in China. Since then, Nanjing, Tianjin, Xiangtan, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hainan and many other places.
4. From a national perspective, the implementation of the administrative accountability system has achieved remarkable results. Although the implementation of China's administrative accountability system is still in its infancy, the development in various places is also very uneven. In some places, it was caught earlier, and the measures and systems were relatively perfect, while in others, it was relatively backward. However, from a national perspective, the implementation of the administrative accountability system has still achieved remarkable results. According to the report of Chongqing Evening News on August 2 1 day, 2006, since the implementation of administrative accountability system in Chongqing in 2004, * * * has conducted 49 administrative accountability systems, involving 89 officials. 65438+ February of the same year 10 According to Xinhua News Agency, since the implementation of administrative accountability in Gansu Province in 2005, 4,735 problem officials have been punished by party discipline and discipline, and 39 of them have been transferred to judicial organs for suspected crimes.
Second, China's implementation of administrative accountability problems
Effectiveness: This is a core policy, not a law.
Since the implementation of the administrative accountability system, the central government has successively promulgated a series of policies, such as Regulations on Inner-Party Supervision in China (Trial), Regulations on Disciplinary Actions in China, and Interim Provisions on Resignation of Party and Government Leading Cadres. Undeniably, the implementation of the accountability system embodies the concept of responsibility to a certain extent, and the policy guidance of the central and state is essential. However, to effectively regulate the illegal, dereliction of duty and other behaviors in government management activities, if there is no corresponding legal system to support it, it may have a temporary effect, but it will not last long, and it is difficult to fundamentally solve the problem. Only perfect legislation is the most basic and effective prerequisite and guarantee for governing the country and accountability according to law. At present, the main problems that all parties expect the administrative accountability system to solve are precisely: there is accountability, but there is no accountability law. Accountability officials need to be legalized and institutionalized, and need to be improved through legislation, not just relying on policies and administrative orders.
(2) The form is local regulations rather than national laws.
So far, there is no national law on administrative accountability in China, and the only special legislative forms of administrative accountability are basically local regulations. Since 2003.
Starting from the second half of 2008
More than a dozen places such as Changsha, Nanjing, Tianjin, Xiangtan and Guangzhou have issued special provisions on administrative accountability, among which "Trial Measures for Administrative Accountability in Tianjin", "Interim Measures for Accountability of Chief Executives of Departments in Chongqing" and "Interim Provisions for Accountability of Chief Executives in Hainan Province" are provincial-level specialized banks in China ... > >
Question 9: The significance of the official accountability system Due to historical reasons, incomplete institutional reforms and other reasons, some responsibilities and authorities between the * * * and * * * departments at all levels in China are not clear enough, and there are cases where relevant departments shirk their responsibilities and wrangle. In the process of accountability, it is not clear whether the accountable officials are responsible for leadership, direct responsibility, indirect responsibility or other responsibilities, and how to determine the responsibilities between the party and government, between different levels, and between deputies and deputies. It's hard to draw a conclusion. Unclear powers and responsibilities will lead to unclear responsible persons, and the effect of accountability will inevitably be discounted. The accountability system without a clear responsibility system is just a decoration. Therefore, an important basis of the official accountability system is to clearly define the power and responsibility of each official, and the accountable person should be an official with clear responsibility, but there are still shortcomings in this aspect in reality. In fact, the subject of accountability is single, but it is subordinate, which is not conducive to the fairness of accountability. The so-called accountability subject is who will be accountable. In the process of official accountability in China, the subject of accountability is relatively single, and what we practice more is a kind of "top-down accountability", that is, the accountability of superiors to subordinates within the * * * department. In fact, * * * officials only have the power of the public after being authorized by the National People's Congress, and the object of their accountability should be the people, and the subject of their accountability should also be the people. According to the constitution, people's congresses at all levels are the highest organs of state power, and administrative organs, judicial organs and procuratorial organs are all responsible to the people's congresses, and deputies to the people's congresses have the highest right of inquiry. But unfortunately, the supreme power of many local people's congresses has not been reflected. It is undoubtedly an important way for higher authorities to investigate the responsibility of lower authorities, which is also in full compliance with the law. However, if the accountability system is only the accountability of the higher authorities to the lower authorities, it is difficult to ensure the fairness of the accountability results, and it is easy to have accountability "white bars". Therefore, the absence of accountability subjects leads to unfair or untrue accountability, which is a major problem facing the implementation of official accountability system at present. In the process of legalization of accountability, strict and meticulous regulations can make law enforcers and offenders have laws to follow, and officials who violate discipline and administrative inaction will also be bound by rules and regulations, turning the shock of laws and regulations into vigilance at work, so as to complete the task rigorously and conscientiously. First of all, the official accountability system must be legalized. To establish a real accountability system and operate it effectively, we must establish a corresponding legal system. Second, the accountability system is procedural. Due process is an essential element of any sound system, and it is the guarantee for the accountability system to advance along the track of rule of law and avoid falling into the misunderstanding of rule by man. The procedure of accountability involves all aspects of the whole process of accountability, with many contents, but the following three points are more urgent: First, the procedure of identifying responsibility. With a clear division of responsibilities, it is necessary to identify the ownership and weight of responsibilities through certain procedures, otherwise the problem of "scapegoat" may appear and deviate from the original intention of the problem. The second is the initiation procedure of accountability. That is, under what circumstances can the relevant officials be held accountable, which can also be called a trigger mechanism. That is, under what circumstances can the relevant officials be held accountable, which can also be called a trigger mechanism. The third is the accountability response procedure. That is, what procedures are used by accountable officials to explain their actions.