Within the previous planned economy and centralized regime, the control was very strict. There was corruption for getting a business license and inside deals by those self-employed business, private enterprises and collective enterprises occurred. Now I think under the current market economy, less government intervention means less corruption and more transparency. Complicated bureaucratic and prescreening procedures and other forms of intervention in the economy will increase the risks of rent seeking and corruption. So I think a much better way to tackle corruption is to reduce the government intervention in the economy. 

Q:It is very interesting. In the past, it was the government that led the whole country forward. But now you are saying that in order to continue the development, the government should step back. Right? 

I think the role the government plays in the economy should be restricted to certain aspects, for example, developing annual plans or five-year plans,  providing guidance and setting goals for local authorities and other government departments. But in many cases, the government goes too far and only brings on waste and inefficiencies. This should be changed. For example, if someone wants to build a project, let’s say, to install a boiler unit, if he needs to go through very specific sets of procedures such as what type of boiler he can use, and he has to ask permission from the authorities, then there is a higher risk of corruption. Government's investment in infrastructure and providing guidance for economic growth should continue. Yet, in certain areas, it's better not to control too much.