宋圭武观点189发展中人口大国应探索建立城乡适度二元模式，发展经济学也需要大创新

发展经济学二元经济社会理论认为，只要选择合适的发展路径，二元最终会一元化。但从一些发展中国家的实践看，各国从二元向一元转变的过程中，效果并不理想。一些国家盲目推进一元化，结果导致对“二元”中的每“一元”都不利，并最终引致“城市病”和“农村病”并发。对发展中国家，尤其是对发展中人口大国而言，要消除城乡二元应是一个长期过程。如何消除发展中的城乡二元，理性的选择是首先要尽可能防止城乡二元差距过大，在此基础上，再探索建立一个适度城乡二元经济社会结构，然后随着经济社会发展水平的不断提高，再逐步向城乡一元模式过渡。建立一个适度城乡二元经济社会的好处是：虽然从表面看，有二元不平等问题，但由于社会有序度增加，最终，对农村和城市两方面都有好处，最终社会总福利增加。

如何建立一个适度城乡二元经济社会？

第一，城乡产业要适度分割。实行适度产业分割，可防止城乡之间产业恶性无序竞争，这对城市和乡村都是一种保护，尤其对农村保护效果更好。同时，城乡适度产业分割，也是防止城乡居民收入差距过大的产业基础。为此，建议制定城乡产业准入政策，规定哪些产业城市可以经营，哪些产业农村可以经营。一般情况，乡村应主要从事农业和农产品加工业，以及一些地方特色产业，还有乡村旅游业等。城市应主要从事工业和高新技术产业等，也包括部分旅游业等。

第二，城乡社会事业要适度有别。对于一个发展中农业人口大国，要实现城市和乡村在教育、医疗、卫生等方面一样水平，客观需要一个长期过程，为此，在推进城乡一体化的过程中，可先探索城乡社会事业适度有差别模式。乡村应形成一个社会事业低成本自循环模式。比如医疗，乡村应更好发挥中医作用，要把中西医有效结合起来，教育也要立足乡村特点发展乡村教育，还有卫生制度，也要根据乡村特点来设计，不能完全照搬城市模式。若城乡一样模式和水平发展社会事业，最终有可能既导致城市社会事业低效率，也导致乡村社会事业低效率。

第三，城乡各种要素要适度流动。完全限制城乡要素流动，也不好，不利于资源配置均衡。但要实现城乡要素完全自由流动，也需要一定的生产力基础，包括完善的市场机制等。若市场机制不健全，放任城乡要素过度自由流动，由于市场的盲目性，很容易导致既产生城市病，又产生农村病。为此，应探索科学设置乡村要素流入城市的门槛标准。比如，乡村人要落户一个城市，应至少要求在该城市有稳定就业和稳定收入，包括稳定住房等。

第四，城乡体制制度要适度有别。城市体制制度设计要更多体现市场在资源配置中的决定性作用，乡村体制制度设计则要更好发挥政府作用。

第五，城乡发展目标最终应是实现福利均衡。福利均衡是指从综合角度考虑，实现城乡福利水平最终大体看齐，而不仅仅是收入水平大体看齐。这里综合角度，是指要综合考虑收入、休闲、基本公共服务等多方面因素。具体而言，一是在收入水平方面，城乡适度有别，城市可略高于乡村。对于一个发展中农业人口大国，要实现乡村和城市收入水平一样化，是一个长期的过程。在这个长期过程中，应允许城乡收入水平有一个适度差距，但也要坚决防止城乡收入差距过大。一般情况，城市居民收入和乡村居民收入保持在2：1左右就算适度。二是在休闲水平方面，城乡适度有别，乡村可略高于城市。一般情况是，城市人生产生活节奏快，相对忙碌，乡村人生产生活节奏慢，相对休闲。这里虽然乡村人收入低，但休闲也是一种福利。三是在基本公共服务方面，城乡大体看齐。最终，综合考虑收入、休闲、公共服务等多方面因素，城乡福利实现综合持平；同时，城乡产业之间形成有机分工紧密一体化关系，二者协调互养高质量共同发展。好，谢谢，谢谢。

Song Guiwu's viewpoint 189 suggests that developing countries with large populations should explore establishing a moderate dual urban-rural model, and that development economics also needs a major innovation.

The dual economy-society theory of development economics believes that as long as the right development path is chosen, dualism will eventually become monistic. However, from the practices of some developing countries, it can be seen that the transition from dualism to monism in various countries has not been ideal. Some countries blindly pushed for monism, resulting in unfavorable outcomes for both "dualism"'s "one side" and "the other." Ultimately, it led to the coexistence of "urban diseases" and "rural diseases." For developing countries, especially for large population developing countries, eliminating urban-rural dualism should be a long-term process. How to eliminate the urban-rural dualism of development? A rational choice is to first try to prevent the urban-rural dual gap from becoming too large, on this basis, explore the establishment of a moderate urban-rural economic and social structure, and then gradually transition to an urban-rural monistic model as economic and social development levels continue to improve. The benefits of establishing a moderate urban-rural dual economic and social structure are: although there is a dual inequality issue on the surface, due to an increase in social orderliness, ultimately, it is beneficial to both rural and urban sides, and ultimately, social welfare increases overall. How to establish a moderate urban-rural dual economic and social structure? First, urban and rural industries should be moderately segregated. Implementing moderate industrial segmentation can prevent the malicious and disorderly competition between urban and rural industries, which is a form of protection for both cities and rural areas, especially for rural areas. At the same time, moderate industrial segmentation between urban and rural areas is also the industrial basis for preventing the gap in income between urban and rural residents from becoming too large. Therefore, it is suggested to formulate urban-rural industrial entry policies, specifying which industries can be operated by urban areas and which industries can be operated by rural areas. Generally speaking, rural areas should mainly engage in agriculture, agricultural product processing industries, and some local specialty industries, as well as rural tourism. Urban areas should mainly engage in industrial and high-tech industries, as well as some tourism industries. Second, urban and rural social welfare should be moderately differentiated. For a developing agricultural population country, achieving the same level of education, medical care, and public health in urban and rural areas objectively requires a long-term process. Therefore, in the process of promoting urban-rural integration, it can first explore a moderately differentiated model of urban-rural social welfare. Rural areas should form a low-cost self-circulation model of social welfare. For example, in terms of medical care, rural areas should better utilize the role of traditional Chinese medicine and effectively combine traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. Education should also be based on the characteristics of rural areas to develop rural education. The health system should also be designed based on the characteristics of rural areas, and cannot be copied from urban models in a blind manner. If urban and rural social welfare were to develop in the same pattern and at the same level, it is possible that both urban and rural social welfare would be inefficient in the end. Third, urban and rural factors should flow moderately. It is not good to completely restrict the flow of urban and rural factors, as it is not conducive to balanced resource allocation. However, it also requires a certain level of productive force as a basis, including a sound market mechanism. If the market mechanism is not sound, allowing urban and rural factors to flow freely and excessively will easily lead to both urban and rural problems due to the blindness of the market. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the scientific setting of the threshold standards for the flow of rural factors into cities. For example, when a rural person wants to settle in a city, at least the requirement should be that they have stable employment and income, including stable housing. Fourth, urban and rural institutional systems should be moderately differentiated. The institutional system design for urban areas should reflect the decisive role of the market in resource allocation more, while the institutional system design for rural areas should better play the role of the government. Fifth, the ultimate goal of urban and rural development should be to achieve welfare equilibrium. Welfare equilibrium means achieving a roughly equal level of welfare from a comprehensive perspective, rather than just roughly equal income levels. The comprehensive perspective means considering multiple factors such as income, leisure, and basic public services. Specifically, firstly, in terms of income levels, there should be a moderate difference between urban and rural areas, with urban income levels slightly higher than those in rural areas. For a developing agricultural population country, achieving equal income levels between rural and urban areas is a long-term process. In this long-term process, it is acceptable to allow for a moderate gap in income levels between urban and rural areas, but it is also crucial to prevent the gap from being too large. Generally, keeping the ratio of urban residents' income to that of rural residents at around 2:1 is considered moderate. Secondly, in terms of leisure levels, there should also be a moderate difference between urban and rural areas, with rural areas slightly higher than urban areas. Generally speaking, urban residents have a fast-paced and busy lifestyle, while rural residents have a slower and more leisurely lifestyle. Although rural residents have lower income, leisure is also a kind of welfare. Thirdly, in terms of basic public services, urban and rural areas should be on par. Ultimately, after taking into account income, leisure, and public services, the overall welfare of urban and rural areas should be balanced; at the same time, the industries in urban and rural areas should form an organic and integrated relationship of complementary development, with mutual support and nurturing. Thank you, thank you.