The SOE reform in China
Zhou Dayong
Summer semester 2003
Europa-University Viadrina,Germany
Abstract:
The essay tries to study the process of the state-owned enterprise (SOE) reform in China. Chinese economic reform resulted in significant influences on all social aspects, SOEs as an especially economic sector suffers a change both in internal management as well in the outside economic environment. I try to discuss in the essay, that the Chinese SOE reform has made large progress, however, SOE can’t conquer many problems by itself, the resolution of SOE lies in elimination of SOE by a further reform including property transition and construction of a fairer market.
Outline
1. History of the SOE reform in China
2. The main problems left in the reform
3. The reasons of SOE problem behind
4. Argue of some reform plans and suggestion
5. Conclusion
1. The history of the SOEs reform in China
1.1 the establishment of SOE
In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) came into power in Mainland China. One goal of the CCP was to lead China into a modern socialism society. In economic scale, it meant mainly industrialization. According to CCP’s policy, the form of industrial organization must be based upon state owned enterprises. The state-owned industrial system was set up by two ways. One was the new enterprise after the liberation. At the end WWII, most industrial sectors in China, such as communication network, transportation and power industry were destroyed and had to be rebuilt, at the same time, military industries and financial sector e.g. banking system was directly nationalized from the former control of Gongmin Party. Another way was transformation from the private ownership to state-owned enterprises. The private properties were regulated under state management, in some cases, for instance in commercial scale, the former private enterprises were bought by local government gradually. Till 1952, about 83% of industrial companies were controlled by the state; a socialism economic system was announced established. (Fig 1)
1.2 The reform began from 1978
Until Chinese economic reform began in 1978, public ownership in forms of state-owned and collectivized were only legal ownership of property. In industrial sector, the enterprises were controlled respectively under central or local governments, the latter made decisions for the enterprises, the enterprises were not profit seeking economic entities, they were simply workshops to execute centrally set policies.
In 1970s, the discontent of economic situation accumulated constantly, because the defects of central planning system became obviously more and more. Around 1978, the rural reform took place from grass roots and spread quickly, till 1982, the collectivized people commune had to be abolished. In company with the reform, the free market in a certain degree was developed. At the same time, the problem of lack of autonomy in SOE, which led to low efficiency, was also taken into account. Therefore, from 1978 on, the Communist Party, under the leading of Deng Xiaoping, put hand to solve the SOE problem. From 1978 to 1984, the efforts of the reform concentrated on giving the SOEs more autonomy by allowing them increased authority over the allocation of their profits, and limited production autonomy. The rest profits could be used either to finance increased investments or to pay bonuses to employees. Besides, administrative control over SOEs was decentralized to local governments. But as the prices were still centrally determined and SOEs did not realize the cost of their fixed and working capital, the reforms did not improve much the resource allocation or the utilization of capital. (1)
1.3 Contract is the main form in the second phase.
From 1985 to 1992 was the second phase of the SOE reform. The policy named Zhenqi Fenkai (separating government from enterprises), the central government decided to turn SOEs into truly independent production and management entities, and stipulate that enterprises must take responsibilities for their own profits and losses by means of contracts and leasing. The common practice was: the enterprises sign a manage contract with the responsible authorities. Under the contract, enterprises were not only allowed to retain the extra profits after they had fulfilled the contracted quotas, but also allowed to arrange their own manage including dismiss or enroll personnel. By the end of 1987, about 80% of state-owned industrial enterprises adopted the contracts system. In 1991, over 90% of the previously contracted enterprises signed the second round of contracts. Meanwhile, based on the first round contract practice, the content of the contract was improved; the authority introduced more rational norms to examine the fulfillment of contract. A multiple index system was formed, which included economic efficiency index, development potentiality index and management index etc.
During this period, the practice of shareholding reform appeared as well. This new creature was adopted at first by village enterprises, which come from the former collective enterprises. The village enterprises were always short of capital, so they raised money from the village residents. Along with the reform moved forward from countryside to cities, the shareholding system was also introduced into SOE reform. Early in April 1984 Chinese reform committee organized a seminar to discuss the exploitation of shareholding in SOE reform. That conference drew a conclusion that shareholding system is a rational way to restructure the collective and state owned enterprises in cities. In July the same year, the first shareholding company after Chinese liberation—Beijing Tianqiao department store (shareholding) came onto horizon. Till 1991, there were already 709 state owned enterprises restructured along shareholding system. These enterprises included industrial sector companies, trade companies, also financial enterprises, construction enterprises etc.
Besides, in the second phase of SOE reform, tax system had also a great change. Instead of handing in profit, SOEs paid a certain portion of tax according to their revenue level. The State and local government collected tax separately; this measure was implemented to loose the relation between SOE and local authority.
However, during this period, the SOEs showed their weakness in competition with the new developed private companies, joint venture companies and township and village enterprises, because at one side, the manager of SOEs didn’t get use to do business in a free market, the attitude of waiting, relying on government and begging for help were widespread. At another side, the relationship between government and enterprises became more complicated, because, although under the contract system, the government have no right to interfere in the SOEs management, they still rely on each other: the government need the SOE to have good performance in order to settle surplus labor forces and continue to play a role in maintain the social stability, at the same time, to increase the government’s revenue to deal with the raising infrastructure investment and other expense. The SOE, on the other side, need the protection of the authority, in order to obtain more chance to get loans, subsidizes or orders in government arranged projects. Besides, even though most of direct subsidies form the state have been cancelled, many domestic savings were also channeled into SOEs, because banks had been directed to take up the role of making "loans" to SOEs instead of the state. The total of non-performing loans has grown so large that it started to endanger the banking system. (2)
1.4 The MES is the key point in the third phase of the reform and the achievements
Form 1993 on, the reform moved into the third phase, the aim called setting up the modern enterprises system (MES). The Third Plenary Session of the 14th Party Central Committee in November 1993 proposed: "It is the inevitable request for market economy to set up modern enterprise system, it is a direction of the SOE reform of China. "This indicates that SOE reform enters a new stage of system innovation. In 1994 the State Council determined to chose 100 state-run large and medium-sized enterprises to launch an experiment to implement restructure along MES. The basic demands of the experiment were to "define right and responsibility clearly, separate government function from enterprise management, and operate scientifically”. Those requirements were in fact the basic characters concerning modern enterprises system. Along the policy of building MES system, and based upon the development of the whole economy, there were many achievements reached in the third phase.
1) By 2000, most large and middle scale SOEs have set up modern enterprise system tentatively. According to the investigation in 2473 enterprises of State Statistics Bureau 2000, 2016 enterprises have restructured, account 81.5%. Among those enterprises, 603 turned to Co., Ltd., accounts for 29.9%; 713 were restructured to limited companies, accounts for 35.4%; the number of solely state-owned company is 700, accounts for 34.7%. As for their management, 82.2% established shareholders’ meeting, 95.1% established the board of directors, and the board of supervisors has been established in 84.5% of enterprises. Therefore, corporate governance structure has already taken shape in SOEs.
2) In this phase, during" the Ninth Five-Year Plan", China began to adjust the state-run economic layout strategically, The idea called Zhuada Fangxiao (to grab the big ones and let the small ones go). The reform for medium and large SOEs focused on fostering a batch of trans-regional, inter-trade, inter-ownership big SOE groups through reorganizing, transforming, uniting annex. In 1997, the number of national large-scale enterprise groups expands to 120. For instance, under approval by the State Council, China Petrochemical Corporation, China Oil and Natural Gas Corporation were predominated to two large groups, whose assets of enterprise group reached in 40 billion dollars, such measure improved the intensification degree and international competitiveness of Chinese petrochemical industry greatly. Another example was in telecommunication market, six major SOE telecom groups (China Telecom, China Mobile, China Unicom, China satellite communication, China railway communication) were predominated. So a new form of competition in field of communication service took shape.
By the end of 2001, national key enterprises add up to 2710, total assets up to 1,280,450 million dollar. Among 179 super-huge enterprise groups, whose business income is over 500 million dollar, there are 165 state-owned or state-holding enterprise groups.
3) During this phase, separating government function from enterprise management was strengthened harder than before. Chinese government started administrative organization structure reform in 1998. Through this administrative restructure, the departments of the State Council reduced from 40 to 29. At provincial level, government departments reduced from 55 on average to 40, about 20% departments were simply. Some departments were cancelled totally. The cancellation of government departments indicated that the SOE stay in the charge of specialized official department manages changed completely. Meanwhile, the administration rank of the state-owned enterprise were cancelled, some administrative approval procedure were simplified.
4) To relieve the social burden of SOEs, re-employment service center were set up to shunt the redundant staff of enterprises. It has been a great difficult problem of the SOE reform from begin on that enterprises are overstaffed. It is an important measure of revitalizing the SOEs to dismiss and distribute workers. In June 1998, the state council required all regions to set up re-employment service center system. National Ministry of Labor and Social Security emphasized that the laid-off worker in SOEs must 100% enter the re-employment service center. The re-employment service center determined to provide serve functions such as grant basic living cost, withhold social insurance, organize job training and launch employment etc. for laid-off worker. The fund, which used for ensuring laid-off worker's basic life and paying the social insurance premium, come from financial budget, enterprise as well as societies (namely form contribution or from laid-off worker themselves), each part bears 1/3 of the whole fund. The re-employment service center provides service for laid-off workers for at longest 3 years. When they can’t reemploy after this period, can still enjoy unemployment compensation or the society relieve according to relevant regulation.
In this reform stage, re-employment service center played a positive role on maintain social stability. From 1998 to the end of 2001, 25,500,000 laid-off workers emerged (Fig 3) in national state-owned enterprises, among them more than 17 million people were reemployed, more than 3 million people retired. However, re-employment service center was only a transitional institute, because the SOE had to still take responsibility to settle down those laid off workers. According to a new policy, all laid-off workers after 2001 are treat as unemployed and have to enter free labor force market.
5) In order to extricate SOE from predicament, especially to resolve the problem of high liability-asset ratio, by December 2000, 580 SOEs began to implement debt-to-share swap, that mean the enterprises’ debt were recalculated as share (enterprises’ equity), so that the interest burden of SOEs were lightened. In the process, most of unperformed loans would be calculated as shares, which would be gathered and supervised by a new state commission-- State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). Till 2001, the total amount of money of debt-to-equity swap account 40,5 billion dollars, and the result was that the average asset-liability ratio of debt-to-share swapped enterprises dropped from more than 70% to under 50%.
2. The main problems left in the reform
After three steps reform, the SOE acquired more autonomy, as we have seen, the whole economic circumstance were also better. But because the reform did not touch the socialism idea from begin on, thus the transition of ownership of SOE was left basically unchanged, the defects of SOE could not changed completely. In the context of China’s economic reforms, there are still a few problems in SOE sector existed and have also a deep influence.
First of all, the interventions from the government still maintained influence in SOE. The administrative relation between enterprise and government is still remaining. Even the Local State Assets management office was established, it belong to the same bureaucratic system like former authorities. It can appoint or remove senior executives of SOEs. If enterprise applies to the broad structure, the directors in broad are appointed by it. The office has also a say in the transfer of holdings, corporate mergers, closures or other major changes to the enterprises, it is also charged with the tasks of clarifying property rights and settling disputes (3) . It seemed that the state assets supervisory takes the place of former authority above the SOEs. Moreover, the local government maintains still strong power in local enterprise, they rely on each other as we discussed above. So long as the enterprises are state-owned, whether they are big groups, stock companies or little entities, it is difficult to shaking off the directly or indirectly control from the government.
Secondly, because of the long tradition, enterprises are still taking responsibilities for their employees in pension, medical areas, therefore the so-called “soft budget constraint” cannot be given up completely. Although we have discussed that the Chinese government has managed to start re-employment plan, SOEs also take a part of the fund to support the plan. Correspondenly, government had to shoulder some failures resulted from the mismanagement of SOEs’ and avoid from their bankruptcy, in order to prevent the enterprise from bankrupcy and thus endanger the social stability.
Thirdly, the management of SOEs has low quality compare with other economic sectors. Though SOEs have produced an average 10% growth rate in the value of industrial output during the period 1978-98, this rate is considerably below the average of other sectors. The problem has two reasons. One of them is lacking of the inner incentive of the managers. The SOE managers are not entrepreneurs in the true sense, but bureaucrats at any rate. Their appointment by the government not basically according to their managerial capability, but based on their rankings in the bureaucratic hierarchy through the politic system. Another factor concerns the supervision within the SOE, it is also lacking in most cases. In practice, the position of supervisor in a enterprise is normally taken by staff within the enterprise and in most cases, the position of president of the supervision committee is taken by somebody within the enterprise, who is under the leadership of the directors and managers in his ranks both at work and in the Party. This system makes it very hard for the supervision committee to fully perform its authority (4) .
Fourth, the high liability-asset ratio is also regarded as a fatal problem of SOEs. It was observed, that during the reform period, the liability-asset ratio of industrial SOEs rose from around 11% in 1978 to approximately 65% in 1997. In as many as one-fourth of industrial SOEs, liabilities have even come to exceed assets; these enterprises are in fact insolvent. The World Bank suggests that in debt restructuring may be necessary for the most heavily indebted enterprises to bankrupt. After the implement of debt-to-share swap, the ratio decreased, but the debtor, in most cases are banks, didn’t collect the loan back, so it made the SOE even harder to get new loan for production. (5)
Furthermore, the whole process of the SOE reform companied by a serials of social problems, in compare to some difficulties such as lack or reserve labor force, ageing of the equipments, the most troublesome is the unemployment in large scales. In addition, in rural areas, millions of flowing population has been produced because of the bankruptcy and low profitability of the township and village enterprise. In urban China there are frequent reports about workers’ unrest. Although until now China still maintain a relative political stability, the menace will not fade away in a short time.
国家计委、财政部关于发布国境卫生检疫收费管理办法及收费标准的通知
国家计委 财政部
国家计委、财政部关于发布国境卫生检疫收费管理办法及收费标准的通知
1994年6月22日，国家计委、财政部
各省、自治区、直辖市物价局（委员会）、财政厅（局），卫生部：
现将修订后的《国境卫生检疫收费管理办法》和《国境卫生检疫收费标准》印发你们，请按照执行。
进口食品卫生检验收费管理办法和收费标准仍按原国家物价局、财政部《关于发布国境卫生检疫和进口食品检验收费管理办法及标准的通知》（〔1992〕价费字248号）附件三和附件四执行。
附件：一、国境卫生检疫收费管理办法
二、国境卫生检疫收费标准
附件一：国境卫生检疫收费管理办法
第一条 根据《中华人民共和国国境卫生检疫法》及检疫法实施细则的有关规定，制定本办法。
第二条 本办法适用于各卫生检疫机关、货主及其代理人和其他有关单位、个人。
第三条 各卫生检疫机关依法对入境出境人员、交通工具、集装箱以及可能传播检疫传染病的行李、货物、邮包等物品实施检疫、传染病监测、卫生处理、检验以及检疫技术服务等，收取检疫费。
（一）卫生检疫机关对需要实施卫生处理的交通工具、集装箱、货物、行李、邮包进行卫生处理，收取卫生处理费。
（二）卫生检疫机关对入境出境的交通工具、集装箱、货物、行李、邮包等实施蒸熏处理，收取蒸熏处理费。
（三）卫生检疫机关应有关单位的要求，派员到国家正式对外开放口岸以外的地方进行检疫、监测、卫生处理，每派出一人工作一日收费30元，有关单位免费提供往返交通工具或缴纳交通费。
（四）卫生检疫机关应有关单位的要求，外出预防接种、体检，每派一人次收费30元。有关单位应免费提供往返交通工具或缴纳交通费。预防接种、体检按规定收取预防接种费和体检费。
第四条 卫生检疫收费标准以检疫实际消耗为基础，并考虑技术难易程度等因素制定。
第五条 因对外索赔、复议超过检疫有效期限的进出口货物等需要复检的，复检后卫生检疫机关收取检疫、检验费。
第六条 接受检疫检验的物品，卫生检疫机关不能自检的项目，由卫生检疫机关委托其他单位检验，其委托检验的费用由卫生检疫机关支付，卫生检疫机关再按规定的标准向报检单位或个人收取。
第七条 报检单位或个人因故撤销检疫、卫生处理、撤检时，未作技术准备的收取30元撤检手续费；已做技术准备的按收费标准的50％计收；开始实施检疫、卫生处理的，按收费标准的100％计收。
第八条 本办法未规定收费标准的检疫、传染病监测、卫生处理、检验等零星项目的收费标准，由国家卫生检疫机关参照同类项目的收费标准制定试行收费标准，并报国家计委、财政部备案，试行期限为两年。试行期限终止两个月以前，报国家计委、财政部重新审批。
第九条 某些特殊的检疫、监测、卫生处理、检验项目，如国外援助物品等，根据实际情况经国家卫生检疫机关批准后可酌情减免收费。
第十条 自卫生检疫机关开具收费通知20日内，报检单位和个人应交清全部检疫费，逾期未交的从第21日起，每日加收未交检疫费5‰的滞纳金。
第十一条 卫生检疫收入是卫生检疫机关的业务收入，全部纳入单位预算管理，抵补事业经费。任何单位或个人均不得少报或多报，更不准隐瞒、截留或坐支。要严格按照《国境卫生检疫单位财务管理办法》和《国境卫生检疫单位执行（事业行政单位预算会计制度）的补充暂行规定》执行。
第十二条 各口岸卫生检疫机关收取国境卫生检疫费，均按本办法规定的收费标准执行，不得擅自增加收费项目，提高收费标准，违者按国家有关规定予以查处。
第十三条 国家卫生检疫机关、各口岸卫生检疫机关和有关部门对卫生检疫费的收入和使用要加强监督和管理。对挪用、浪费和违反财经纪律的要及时查处。
第十四条 本办法自1994年8月1日起执行。过去颁布的有关国境卫生检疫收费的规定同时废止。
附件二：国境卫生检疫收费标准
单位：元
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 项 目 |计算单位 | 收费 | 备 注
号 | | | 标准 |
----------|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------
一 |入境、出境卫生检疫费 | | |客轮增加50％
1 |船舶 | | |
（1） |10001总吨以上 | 艘次 | 300 |
（2） |5001—10000总吨 | 艘次 | 200 |
（3） |1001—5000总吨 | 艘次 | 100 |
（4） |1000总吨以下 | 艘次 | 50 |
2 |飞机 | | |
（1） |起飞重量100吨以上 | 航班次 | 60 |
（2） |起飞重量100吨以下 | 航班次 | 40 |
3 |火车 | 车厢 | 4 |
4 |汽车及其他车辆 | 车次 | 1 |
5 |集装箱 | 箱次 | 4 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
续表
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 项 目 |计算单位 | 收费 | 备 注
号 | | | 标准 |
----------|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------
6 |邮包、货物 | 件 | 1 |
二 |传染病监测费 | | |
1 |签发预防接种证书 | 次 | 10 |
2 |接种霍乱疫苗 | 次 | 6 |
3 |接种黄热病疫苗 | 次 | 40 |
4 |其他接种 | 次 | 2 |疫苗费用按实计收
5 |签发健康证书 | 份 | 10 |
6 |换发健康证书 | 份 | 10 |缺项目按标准另收
7 |验收外国人健康证书 | 份 | 20 |同上
8 |出具诊断书，病情摘要 | 份 | 10 |译外文加倍
9 |体验 | | |按当地标准
10 |医疗及药品 | | |同上
三 |卫生处理费 | | |
1 |签发船舶卫生证书 | 份 | 100 |
2 |船舶卫生检查 | | |仅对申请电讯卫生检
| | | | 疫的船舶，需做卫
| | | | 生处理的免收
（1） |10001总吨以上 | 艘次 | 350 |
（2） |5001—10000总吨 | 艘次 | 300 |
（3） |1001—5000总吨 | 艘次 | 220 |
（4） |1000总吨以下 | 艘次 | 120 |
3 |船舶鼠患检查发证 | 份 | 100 |
4 |船舶鼠患检查 | | |
（1） |10001总吨以上 | 艘次 | 500 |
（2） |5001—10000总吨 | 艘次 | 400 |
（3） |1001—5000总吨 | 艘次 | 300 |
（4） |1000总吨以下 | 艘次 | 150 |
5 |船舶延期免予除鼠证书 | 份 | |按第4项减半计收
6 |签发消毒、除鼠、除虫证书 | 份 | 40 |
7 |船舶器械、毒饵除鼠 | 艘次 | |
（1） |10001总吨以上 | 艘次 | 700 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
续表
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 项 目 |计算单位 | 收费 | 备 注
号 | | | 标准 |
----------|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------
（2） |5001—10000总吨 | 艘次 | 500 |
（3） |1001—5000总吨 | 艘次 | 400 |
（4） |1000总吨以下 | 艘次 | 200 |
8 |船舶薰蒸除鼠、除虫 | 总吨 | 1 |超过1万总吨，超过
| | | | 部分按80％计
| | | | 收，包括除蟑螂、
| | | | 蚊蝇等；客轮加收
9 |船舶除虫 | | | 60％
（1） |5001总吨以上 | 艘次 | 700 |
（2） |1001—5000总吨 | 艘次 | 500 |
（3） |501—1000总吨 | 艘次 | 300 |
（4） |500总吨以下 | 艘次 | 200 |
10 |船舶消毒 | 总吨 |0．05 |来自疫区或被污染的
| | | | 船舶客轮加收
| | | | 60％，薰蒸加倍
11 |飞机消毒、除鼠、除虫 | | |
（1） |起飞重量201吨以上 | 架次 | 600 |
（2） |101—200吨 | 架次 | 500 |
（3） |51—100吨 | 架次 | 400 |
（4） |50吨以下 | 架次 | 300 |
12 |列车消毒、除鼠、除虫 | 每车厢 | 100 |
13 |汽车消毒、除鼠、除虫 | | |
（1） |大车 | 辆次 | 60 |
（2） |小车 | 辆次 | 30 |
14 |集装箱卫生处理 | | |其他参照本项标准，
| | | | 薰蒸加倍
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7—13项药品费用按市场价两倍计收，是指凡到外地采购，特殊包装（如
用钢瓶等包装）或需在危险品仓库存放的药品。例如：氢氰酸、溴化甲浣、磷
化铝、次氯酸钙、环氧乙烷、过氧乙酸、甲由药等。
续表
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 项 目 |计算单位 | 收费 | 备 注
号 | | | 标准 |
----------|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------
（1） |大箱（40英尺） | 每箱 | 60 |
（2） |小箱（20英尺） | 每箱 | 30 |
15 |货物消毒、除鼠、除虫 | 吨 | 5 |
16 |饮水消毒 | 百吨 | 70 |有污染的饮水，
| | | |16、17项不足百
| | | |吨按百吨计
17 |废水消毒 | 净吨 | 70 |药品费另收
18 |压舱水消毒 | 百吨 | 70 |对装自霍乱疫区
| | | |压舱水的
19 |垃圾消毒 |每立方米 | 50 |
20 |厕所消毒 |每蹲位次 | 20 |
21 |粪便消毒 | 吨 | 20 |
22 |尸体、棺柩、骸骨、骨灰检 | | |
| 查签发许可证 | 具 | 100 |
23 |尸体、棺柩、骸骨消毒 | 具 | 200 |
24 |邮包卫生处理 | 包 | 2—5 |
四 |废旧物品卫生处理费 | | |未列项目按货物
| | | |总值的2‰计收
1 |废旧物品批件 | 份 | 20 |
2 |旧家具 | 件 | 3—5 |
3 |旧床上用品 | 件 | 2—5 |
4 |旧衣服 | 件 | 2—10|
5 |旧地毯 |每平方米 | 2 |
6 |旧玩具 | 件 | 1—5 |
7 |旧餐、茶具 | 套 | 2—5 |
8 |旧电器 | 件 | 5—10|包括冰箱、空调、
| | | |电扇、电视机等
9 |旧自行车、轮椅、推车 | 辆 | 3 |
10 |旧摩托车 | 辆 |10—15|
11 |旧汽车（大车） | 辆 | 40 |
12 |旧汽车（小车） | 辆 | 20 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
续表
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 项 目 |计算单位 | 收费 | 备 注
号 | | | 标准 |
----------|----------------------------|----------|----------|--------------------
13 |旧轮胎 | 条 | 2 |
14 |废旧橡胶 | 吨 | 30 |
15 |废旧塑料 | 吨 | 30 |
16 |旧五金 | 吨 | 5—10|
|其中：旧钢材 | 吨 | 3 |
17 |旧碎布 | 吨 | 30 |
18 |动物皮（干） | 吨 | 30 |
19 |动物皮（湿） | 吨 | 15 |
20 |动物毛、人发 | 吨 | 30 |
21 |动物骨 | 吨 | 10 |
22 |废旧木材 |每立方米 | 5 |
23 |废纸 | 吨 | 2—5 |
24 |废旧棉絮 | 吨 | 2—5 |
25 |签发废旧物品许可证 | 份 | 10 |
五 |实验室检验费 | | |执行当地标准
六 |其他 | | |
1 |签发食品卫生许可证 | 份 | 50 |
2 |年度换发食品卫生许可证 | 份 | 20 |
3 |公共场所监督、监测 | | |执行当地标准
4 |微生物等特殊物品审批 | 份 | 50 |
5 |外出检疫、监测、卫生处理 | 每人日 | 30 |
6 |外出预防接种、体检、检验 | 每人次 | 30 |
7 |外出使用交通工具 | | |执行当地标准
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
