Schultz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, believes that education is not only consumption, but also a productive accumulation and an investment in human capital. "Every dollar invested in education generates more national income than every dollar invested in dams, roads, factories and other tangible capital goods." Schultz calculated the contribution of American education to economic growth from 1929 to 1957 through empirical analysis, and concluded that "the profit earned by material capital increased by 3.5 times, while the profit increased by education investment reached 7.5 times." The success of the United States catching up with Britain, Japan catching up with Europe and America, and South Korea catching up with Western Europe depends on giving priority to investment in human capital and developing education in advance. James heckman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2000, pointed out that the gap between China's investment in education and the world average level implies huge hidden dangers. At present, China's investment in human capital is far lower than that in material capital, accounting for about 2.5% and 30% of GDP respectively, while the figures in the United States are 5.4% and 17%. South Korea is 3.7% and 30% respectively. If this situation continues, it will not be conducive to the improvement of the overall quality of the people, and will make the supply of talent reserves necessary for national development safe.

1985 "the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China's decision on the reform of education system" puts forward: "the growth of education funds of the central and local governments is higher than the growth of recurrent fiscal revenue, and the average education funds will be gradually increased according to the number of students in school"; The Outline of Education Reform and Development in China promulgated by 1993 determines that by the year 2000, the proportion of fiscal education funds to GDP will reach 4%. 1995 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council's decision on accelerating scientific and technological progress put forward the strategy of rejuvenating the country through science and education; The education law promulgated in the same year put forward "the state guarantees the priority development of education" and stipulated "three increases" in financial education funds; ..... However, words are not equal to actions, issuing documents is not equal to actual implementation, and legal provisions are not equal to social reality. Many party and government officials regard education as a simple investment with no return, as a financial burden or even a burden. A considerable proportion of party and government officials regard the business that belongs to the main body of the market-enterprises-attracting investment and building factories as the "main business" of the government, and regard the government's own work-including public services such as education, medical care, social security and people's livelihood as insignificant or even dispensable "sideline". In order to boost the economy, on October 5th, 2008, the State Council decided that the central government would increase investment by 654.38 billion yuan in the fourth quarter, focusing on people's livelihood projects. Education naturally belongs to the people's livelihood project. The investment in education is only 4.4 billion yuan, accounting for 4.4% of the total. Among the 4 trillion investment arrangements this year and next, the total amount of medical and health care and cultural education is 40 billion, accounting for only 1% of the total. Most of the 10 trillion investment plans reported by provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions are basic projects such as railways, highways, power plants and real estate, and the proportion of people's livelihood projects does not exceed 15%. Only a few provinces think of rural education. The status of education can be seen from this.

Second, the legal system is not perfect.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China's decision on the reform of the education system stipulates: "The responsibility for developing basic education is handed over to local governments, and how to divide the management responsibilities at all levels is decided by the provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government). In addition to the state funding, a proper proportion of local mobile financial resources should be used for education, and the fiscal revenue of villages and towns should be mainly used for education. Local governments can levy additional education fees. " Article 54 of the Education Law stipulates: "The proportion of the national financial education expenditure to the gross national product shall be gradually increased with the development of the national economy and the growth of fiscal revenue, and the specific proportion and implementation steps shall be stipulated by the State Council. The proportion of education in the total fiscal expenditure at all levels in the country should be gradually increased with the development of the national economy. " Article 55 stipulates: "The educational expenditure of people's governments at all levels shall be listed as a separate item in the fiscal budget in accordance with the principle of the unification of administrative power and financial power. The growth of educational financial allocation of people's governments at all levels should be higher than the growth of recurrent fiscal revenue, and gradually increase the average educational funds according to the number of students in school to ensure the gradual increase of teachers' salaries and public funds per student. "It is not difficult to see from the above provisions that there are obvious defects in China's education funding guarantee system: First, the responsibilities are unclear. From the central government to the provincial, district (state, city), county and township governments in China, which level of government is responsible for what kind of education? What is the proportion of education funds undertaken by governments at all levels? The law lacks clear provisions. Second, improper authorization. The central government authorizes provincial governments to divide the responsibilities of local governments in managing basic education, and the Education Law authorizes the State Council to determine the proportion of national fiscal education expenditure to the gross national product, which is inappropriate. Because the State Council and the provincial government are "parties", both athletes and referees, it is difficult to be fair. Third, responsibility is hard to chase. Because the powers and responsibilities of governments at all levels on education investment are unclear, it is impossible to investigate the responsibility if the education investment is not up to standard. I have never heard of any party and government leaders being held accountable, punished or lost their official positions because of poor education.

The ratio of public finance expenditure to total social education expenditure is 86% in developed countries, 75% in developing countries, 80% in the world average, and only 46% in China. In 200 1 year, China's fiscal education expenditure accounted for only 3. 19% of GDP, and the world average was 5. 1%,1985-10/0/000 billion yuan. The government's investment is seriously insufficient, so the burden of education is passed on to the people. Tuition in colleges and universities has increased by 25 times in 20 years, while the income of residents has only increased by 12.6 times in the same period (not excluding the price increase factor). High tuition fees, high housing prices and high medical expenses are called the new "three mountains" that weigh on people.

Third, the financial system is unreasonable.

In 1980s, China carried out the financial system reform of "eating in different places". From the central government to the provinces, prefectures (cities), counties and township governments, they all set up their own finances and take care of them themselves. In the 1990s, China implemented the central and local tax sharing system, and the share of national tax was about 2.3 times that of local tax. Due to the different distribution of tax sources and financial resources, finance is more relaxed from bottom to top, and vice versa. Although there are organic laws of the central government and local governments in China, there are no clear provisions on the power and financial rights between the central government and local governments at all levels. Due to the unclear powers and responsibilities, "kitchen finance" also lacks specific division standards, which is quite arbitrary in actual operation. This financial system has a negative impact on education investment: First, the grass-roots government has no financial resources to guarantee education. The central government handed over the responsibility of basic education to local governments, which in turn handed it over to grass-roots governments at county and township levels. However, the financial situation in Chacha county and township is the most tense, and even wages can't be paid, so there is no money for education. County-level fiscal revenue only accounts for 2 1% of the national fiscal revenue, but the population it supports accounts for 7 1% of the national fiscal revenue. At present, the total debt of local governments in China exceeds 1 trillion. Second, because of unclear powers and responsibilities, no government at all levels is willing to take the initiative to invest in education; But the lower level finance depends on the higher level finance, and the local finance depends on the central finance. Over the years, Guangdong Province, whose GDP and fiscal revenue have been the first in the country, has hired 52,000 substitute teachers with wages below the minimum wage, while there are more than 60,000 vacancies for rural primary and secondary school teachers. Third, public finance has become the official "meal finance". Speaking of investment in education, officials say the financial situation is very tight. The fact is that the national fiscal revenue increased by 28 times from 1978 to 2005, but the administrative expenditure increased by 87 times, and the post consumption of civil servants increased by 140 times. China's administrative cost ranks first in the world. At the same time, China's public education investment is far below the world average for a long time. While many rural schools use dangerous buildings, the party and government organs are building large-scale projects, spending millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of yuan to build luxury office buildings of the White House and the Palace! While countless farmers are poor because of their studies, and thousands of school-age children in Qian Qian drop out of school because of poverty, the annual expenditure on bus consumption, public funds for eating and drinking, and public funds for travel by party and government organs is as high as 1 trillion yuan.

One of the characteristics of China's political system is that cadres at all levels are appointed and removed by higher-level party committees, that is, higher-level officials decide the fate of lower-level officials. Therefore, party and government officials at all levels are only responsible to their superiors, not to the people, and it is impossible for party congresses or people's congresses at the same level to have substantive binding force on them. On the one hand, party and government officials at all levels should act according to the will of higher-level officials and do whatever they want; On the other hand, officials at all levels should be "conspicuous" and quick-acting, but the investment in education often fails to see obvious results in the short term. This drives party and government officials to engage in attracting investment, engineering projects, GDP, demolition and construction, squares and roads, rather than investing in education. Another feature of China's political system is the decision-making of party and government leaders. This kind of decision is entirely the will of the Chief Executive, which is arbitrary and unscientific. It is called "patting the head to make a decision, patting the chest to ensure, patting the ass and leaving" by the masses. This decision-making system wastes people and money. On the one hand, more money is invested in the "achievement project" and "official reward project", which is not conducive to the guarantee of education funds; On the other hand, frequent decision-making mistakes have caused great investment waste. According to the World Bank's estimation, during the period from the Seventh Five-Year Plan to the Ninth Five-Year Plan, China's mistake rate was as high as 30%, and its capital was wasted by about 400-500 billion yuan, much higher than that of developed countries.

Fourth, the lack of constraints and incentives.

Although China's education law stipulates that "the proportion of national fiscal education expenditure to gross national product should be gradually increased with the development of national economy and the growth of fiscal revenue" and the education expenditure of local governments at all levels should be "three increases", there are no measures to punish those who fail to meet the standards or reward those who invest more, especially the lack of reward and punishment measures for administrative heads at all levels. The statistical announcement on the implementation of national education funds in 2003 issued by the Ministry of Education, the National Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Finance shows that the proportion of budgetary education funds to fiscal expenditure and the proportion of national fiscal education funds to GDP have both decreased compared with the previous year, and 17 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government have not met the growth requirements stipulated in the Education Law. However, the announcement belongs to the announcement, the education investment is not up to standard, the official is still there, and the salary is quite high. Because education investment has never become a hard indicator for the assessment of party and government cadres. Under the current system of our country, any cause and any work can only be implemented and achieved if it constitutes an effective restraint and incentive mechanism for party and government leading cadres; Otherwise, it will be indifferent and futile. Have you noticed that, for example, economic development, investment attraction, family planning, energy conservation and emission reduction, because of specific indicators, progress and measures, and because they are linked to the political achievements of party and government leading cadres-whether the work is done well or not is closely related to their ups and downs, everyone will strive for the first place and make achievements. However, an important reason for the long-term failure of education investment is the lack of such restraint and incentive mechanism.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~