Fairness of public policy
0 
A public policy will never produce desired result unless it represents fairness and justice.
Shenzhen government's policy to give housing subsidies to the executives of some big enterprises is problematic when it comes to fairness. So is the policy by Chaoyang district government in Beijing, which mandates financial institutions in the district to increase the housing reserve fund for their employees.
For the entrepreneurs, who are mostly millionaires or billionaires, the Shenzhen government intends to show that it cares about the contribution these people have made to local economy. The housing subsidies of 3,000 yuan a month mean little to these rich people except for their symbolic solace. The Chaoyang district government intends to attract more financial institutions to have their headquarters in the district.
It is understandable that these local governments are trying their best to attract investment and retain the wealthy enterprises and institutions they already have. Yet, when it comes to the fairness and justice of such policies, these local governments are following a principle of expediency - as long as investment can be attracted for local economic growth, policies can be tilted in favor of enterprises no matter whether they are fair or not.
In Shenzhen's case, the local government is clearly spending taxpayers' money to curry favor with billionaires. Those very wealthy people do not need such housing subsidies, they have more than enough money to buy and maintain their houses.
Maybe they should be rewarded for their contributions to the local economy. But there are other ways, giving them honorary titles perhaps, to show the government's appreciation of what they've achieved. On the question of spending taxpayers' money, local governments need to act with caution and the local people's congress should be consulted so that the money can be spent exactly as it should be.
In the case of Chaoyang district, it is undoubtedly unfair that the tax-free increase in the housing reserve fund is only for the employees of financial institutions.
As all know, the income of employees in financial institutions is much higher than the average income of urban residents. This policy will definitely increase the income of these employees and therefore further widen the income gap between highly paid and meagerly paid occupations.
In both instances, the local governments have placed economic growth before everything else. A lack of concern for the overall socioeconomic progress and people-first policymaking is a problem.
