The effectiveness of market mechanisms is closely related to the size and uniformity of the market. The Third Plenum of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China emphasized the need to "build a unified national market" and improve the basic system of the market economy. Accelerating the construction of an efficient, standardized, fair competition, and fully open national unified market is an inevitable requirement and important manifestation of a high-level socialist market economy system that can be both "opened up" and "managed". In our country, the problem of block segmentation greatly hinders the construction process of a unified national market. The adverse consequences it brings are numerous, such as difficulty in optimizing resource allocation nationwide, disruption of the fair competition environment, and limitations on achieving economies of scale for enterprises. Block segmentation covers the segmentation problems between "strips", "blocks", and "blocks". Specifically, the "regulations" manifest as conflicting policies between departments; The concentration of "blocks" is manifested in the prevalence of local protectionism; The main manifestation between the "blocks" is the unclear division of responsibilities between the central and local governments. In view of this, efforts should be made to solve the problem of fragmentation and effectively promote the construction of a unified national market. Enhancing the consistency of macro policy orientation has caused significant obstacles to the construction of a unified national market, mainly due to the inconsistency of policy objectives among different departments. Each department usually formulates policies based on their own scope of responsibilities and specific goals, which makes policy directions easily conflicting with each other and unable to achieve the effect of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, thus hindering the orderly construction of the complex system of a unified national market. For example, in the past, in order to promote coordinated regional economic development and optimize the spatial pattern of economic development, the central government provided significant policy support and fiscal assistance to underdeveloped areas. However, it cannot be denied that this approach has to some extent had a negative impact on the construction of a unified national market. To effectively address this issue, it is necessary to vigorously enhance the consistency of macro policy orientation, continuously improve the unity of policies, rules, and implementation coordination in various regions. However, in this situation, the space for underdeveloped regions to rely on traditional differentiated preferential policies to attract investment, enterprise entry, and industrial transfer will gradually shrink, and their original driving force for economic catch-up will also be constrained to some extent. Given this, there is an urgent need to further enhance macroeconomic governance capabilities. On the premise of ensuring that it does not affect the construction of a unified national market, we should continuously and targetedly enhance the attractiveness of underdeveloped areas to development factors such as capital, talent, and technology through the full play of industrial agglomeration effects and innovation diffusion effects, inject strong endogenous power into the economic development of underdeveloped areas, and avoid the "Matthew effect" from further widening regional economic disparities. This is not only based on the consideration of balancing fairness and efficiency, but also an inevitable requirement for achieving regional coordinated development. The main obstacle to fully mobilizing the enthusiasm of local governments in the national unified market lies in local protectionism, which is reflected in restrictions on market access and differences in industrial support policies. This restricts the smooth flow of factor resources between regions based on comparative advantages, hinders the formation of a unified national market, and fails to achieve economies of scale and efficiency improvements brought about by market integration. From the surface, the solution lies in restricting the administrative power of local governments, encouraging them to reduce their direct intervention in the market, avoiding using administrative means to protect local enterprises, and promoting the transformation of their economic functions into public service functions. However, the construction of a unified national market does not mean dismantling the powerful growth engine of local governments too early and hastily. On the contrary, local governments should effectively play a positive role in promoting high-quality development of the local economy without affecting the flow of factors and products between regions. Firstly, it is necessary to change the objective function, dynamic structure, and behavior of local governments to focus on the quality and efficiency of local economic development, and regulate their behavioral orientation. This means that local governments should not only focus on the speed of economic growth, but also pay more attention to the sustainability and quality of economic development. For example, by establishing a scientific assessment and evaluation system, local governments can be guided to increase investment in scientific and technological innovation, environmental protection, and improvement of people's livelihoods. Secondly, we will combine the construction of a unified national market with the deepening of reforms in key areas, and solve many "stubborn problems" that have long plagued sustainable economic development by introducing market mechanisms. As the saying goes, 'the one who tied the bell must untie it.' Local governments are encouraged to actively improve the local business environment and fully mobilize and protect the enthusiasm of enterprises through measures such as improving government administrative efficiency, reducing business operating costs, and strengthening intellectual property protection under the unified national market norms. The clear division of responsibilities between the central and local governments creates obstacles to the unified national market, mainly manifested in the unclear division of responsibilities between the central and local governments, which in turn leads to confusion in policy implementation and conflicts in resource allocation. Taking the situation of central and local fiscal revenue and expenditure as an example, the proportion of central fiscal revenue has been relatively high for a long time, and in 2022, the proportion of local fiscal revenue was only 53.41%. However, the proportion of local fiscal expenditure has been increasing year by year from 69.71% in 1994 to 86.35% in 2022, and remains high. The uneven distribution of power and financial power provides an inherent motivation for local governments to continue using administrative means to directly intervene in local economic activities, seriously hindering the construction and development of a unified national market. In this regard, it is necessary to accelerate the formation of a central and local fiscal relationship with clear rights and responsibilities, coordinated financial resources, and regional balance. Firstly, we should accelerate the establishment of a central government led industrial policy. On the basis of reasonably defining the local functions undertaken by local governments and clarifying their constraints, the central government's leading industrial policies should focus on providing the entire society with public goods supply for the unified market, balancing regional development gaps, and creating conditions for reducing transaction costs for enterprises and creating a market-oriented, rule of law, international first-class business environment. Secondly, local governments should adjust the direction of fiscal investment according to the actual situation. In the past, local governments excessively pursued economic growth, but now they should gradually shift their direction and invest more financial resources in important areas such as innovation, employment, social security, and ecological protection. Through this adjustment, not only will it help to build and improve a unified national market based on local economic decentralization competition, but it will also greatly enhance the sense of gain, happiness, and security of the people, reflecting the development concept of balancing economic development and social welfare. When innovation vitality is fully stimulated, the employment situation is stable and improving, social security is solid and reliable, and the ecological environment is beautiful and pleasant, the people's aspirations for a better life will be better met, and the country's development will be more sustainable, harmonious, and stable. (New Society)