1994年财政体制改革方案出台后,对新财政体制的改革效应,众多学者进行了卓有成效的研究和评价,其中不乏真知灼见,但也产生了一些不切实际的模糊认识。一些人认为旧财政体制采用按企事业单位隶属关系划分中央财政与地方财政之间收支范围的做法,把企业收入与地方财政利益紧密联系起来,这样地方为了增加财政收入,就不可避免地要按本地财政收入最大化目标配置归自己支配的资源、封锁市场、干预企业经营。为此,用分税制代替财政包干制,可以消除上述弊端。因为分税制是按税种来划分中央财政与地方财政的收入范围,地方面对企业,无论是否隶属于自己,都一样能从中取得收入,这样使地区封锁失去了实际意义(何振一,1994)。上述看法笔者不能认同。我认为财政包干制中按企业隶属关系划分中央财政与地方财政收入范围的做法不是产生地方保护主义的根本原因,分税制(至少1994年公布的分税制方 After the promulgation of the fiscal reform program in 1994, many scholars conducted fruitful research and evaluations on the reform effect of the new fiscal system. Many of them have great insights and insights, but they have also produced some unrealistic ambiguities. Some people think that the old fiscal system adopted a system of dividing the revenue and expenditure between the central and local governments according to the affiliation of enterprises and institutions and closely linked the revenues of enterprises with the financial interests of local governments so that in order to increase fiscal revenue, such places inevitably had to According to the goal of maximizing local fiscal revenue, we allocate resources at our disposal, blockade markets and intervene in business operations. To this end, the tax system to replace the financial system, can eliminate the above drawbacks. Because the tax-sharing system divides the revenue scope of the central finance and local finance according to the tax type, local enterprises can earn income regardless of whether they belong to themselves or not, thus losing the practical significance of regional blockade (He Zhenyi, 1994). I can not agree with the above view. In my opinion, the division of the fiscal revenue by the central government and the local government by the affiliation of enterprises in the fiscal package is not the root cause of local protectionism. The tax-sharing system (at least the tax-sharing party announced in 1994