透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.210.224.114
  • 期刊

後威權下再論“民營化”

Re-examination of Privatization in Post-authoritarian Times

摘要


1990年代初,反威權的政治運動曾與新自由主義思潮密切結合,因而經濟自由化、「民聲化」(私有化)被認為是「解構黨國」的必要手段。但當具政治正當性的新政府上台、公營事業領導者異主之後,原先為解構而進行私有化的論據是否失效?本文歷史性探討推動私有化的力量,然後再討論在後威權時代該如何看待私有化這公共政策議題。 自1989年始推動私有化至今,新舊政府私有化的方式皆甚為可議,不單有圖利財團之爭議,並且私有化被定義為將官股比例降至半數以下,因此官方多仍握有控制權但不用被監督。解嚴後,國家隨即開始開放特許市場,種種跡象顯示私部門主要關切的是合營事業的壟斷權,而不是其私有化與否。因此,自由化之後,與民爭利說已不再是推動私有化的主要力量。 新舊政府推動私有化的動機包括:錢權交換,新自由主義意識型態影響,籌措(短期)財源,卸下負擔政策任務的包袱等。民主化過程中,政治競賽導致賦稅日減財政赤字擴大,籌措財源日漸成為政府推動私有化的重要動機。因社會運動力量薄弱,其所提出的社會民主的訴求難以抗衡新自由主義意識型態的霸權,以及政治向資本的全面傾斜。 自由化以來寡佔壟斷已再現,社會分化已日益嚴重,重新確認社會公平的價值與公共服務政策目標實為當務之急。因此,我們反對進一步私有化,反對為籌措(短期)財源而私有化,反對無條件全面自由化,更重要的應是建立完善遊戲規則。公營事業本身應進行革新,進一步專業化企業化,健全公司治理機制,政策任務應透明化、去黨派化,監督機制透明化,績效評估公開化,政策任務應重新界定,以確認社會公平的價值與公共服務政策目標。

並列摘要


In the early 1990s, anti-authoritarian sentiment was high. The political movement partly relied upon neo-liberal arguments, calling for economic liberalization and privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as a way to dismantle the authoritarian rule. As we have entered post-authoritarian times, we need to re-examine the issues of privatization, for anti-authoritarian motives no longer apply. The results of privatization have not been satisfactory. Some cases are suspected of corruption. The government considers an SOE privatized once it reduces its share holdings below 50%. In most cases, the government retains control but escapes formal monitoring. Since democratization began in the late 1980s, political competition led to numerous rounds of tax cuts and consequently a continuous decline in tax revenue and an increase in fiscal deficit. The urgent need to raise revenue has gradually become an important motive for privatization. Neo-liberal doctrine reins supreme, providing justification for privatization. Liberalization in the last couple decades has led to an increase in concentration of economic power and social stratification. The decline in social services has meant that people with less income and those in remote areas now receive fewer services. Privatization of SOEs has also raised the unemployment rate. The problems of social justice implicated in privatization have not received the attention in public policy discourse they deserve. It is proposed here that further privatization be put on hold until due process can be assured; that privatization should not be done merely to raise revenue; that there should be no unconditional liberalization; and that it is more important to establish appropriate rules of the game. There should also be a proper supervision mechanism, freeing SOEs from the influences of partisan politics. Most of all, we need to give SOEs a new mission, with social. justice-oriented policy goals.

參考文獻


瞿宛文(2003)。台灣社會研究叢刊#11。台北:
夏鑄九、劉昭吟(2003)。越界蘭花。台灣社會研究季刊。49,97-134。
瞿宛文(2001)。自由化與全球化之後的台灣石化業。台灣社會研究季刊。44,13-47。
(2003).Special Report on America's Electricity Crisis.The Economist.23,16-18.
Chang, H-J.(1997).The Economics and Politics of Regulation.Cambridge Journal of Economics.21(6),703-728.

被引用紀錄


王華理(2006)。以公民權視野檢視台灣媒體改革運動之研究〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2006.00595
張炳榮(2004)。公營事業民營化問題之系統化探討〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fcycu200400591
戴 國 榮(2006)。台灣國營事業之組織轉型與面臨之挑戰:以中油公司為例〔碩士論文,元智大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6838%2fYZU.2006.00081
黃若慈(2014)。惡水之爭-大高雄的自來水水質爭議與都市供水治理〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.01229
王建今(2012)。邁向企業城市? 台北市產業發展與都市再發展的政策與實質〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2012.01959

延伸閱讀