公營事業民營化問題之系統化探討

A Systematic Research on The problems of Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises

張炳榮(Bing-Rong Chang)

指導教授 ： 嚴奇峰

中原大學/商學院/企業管理研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200400591

摘要

論文摘要

自1980年底開始，公營事業民營化是台灣經濟發展過程中一個相當重要的政策，代表著國家經濟統理意識型態的轉變。同時，從跨國共同性和台灣的特殊性層面而言，民營化(私有化)做為一個「世界潮流」在台灣執行所產生的後果，亦確實具有階級和政黨的差異，少數資本家或財團以及執政黨基於同時為執政者和事業擁有者的便利性成為私有化的贏家及得到相當大利益，並在市場自由競爭的包裝之下，國會對於公有財產執政黨黨營化的現象甚至也失去監督的可能性，乃突顯公營事業產權的移轉並不只是單純的經濟政策或工具，而是會進一步深化現有社會權力不平等的狀態；民營化社會效果的產生也並非只是執行手段不當的問題，而是根源於用市場競爭以提昇效率（即「私有財產→自利動機→市場效率」）為政策正當化基礎的迷思。
公營事業的私有化、民營化的進行，並不只是純粹的經濟動機，而更包含了政治結盟、減低財政赤字、去除政治包袱等的政治動機，加上政府財政拮据，負債沉重，急切汲取公營事業盈餘以填補國庫空虛，又顯現出與民營化政策衝突矛盾，政府本身即成為民營化障礙！甚至於近來，多數私部門廠商對所謂民營化不重視更談不上強力要求，這也清楚顯示，私部門整體最大的關切其實一直都是自由化、市場與商機的開放，關切的本質重點是「公營事業的壟斷權力」，而不是「公營事業是否民營化」，顯證民營化的進行在政治動機上高於經濟效率的考量。
而相對於自由化，單純的民營化政策只能藉由股權出售，達到所有權移轉的效果，而未必導致競爭促進。由於公營事業本身擁有公共性和企業性的雙重性格，且公營事業所提供的服務，大多具有公共性的特質，藉由民營化雖能提高企業性、效率性；另一方面，卻可能造成缺乏營利誘因的公共服務供給的停止，帶給民眾另一種不便與負擔，且因公營事業私有化未必真的產生效率，更會產生社會的不平等以及拍賣了國家對社會責任的現象。另私有化的進行所產生的後果，不只是國有財產的財團化和執政黨黨營化，更使得國營事業勞工的權益被壓縮或拋棄，以及社會責任移轉給私人企業，將會製造更多的不平等（因為社會責任及提供公共財，絕非私人企業的核心議題及關切重點），而製造更多的不平等。尤其在台灣，當政治反對力量藉此使力得到了政權後，這問題也就不被關切，由此可知政治正當性並不會自動帶來「公共性」，「公共性」亦不會隨著威權之解體而自動產生，「公共性」需要有公共的政治與制度來支持。是以，處於貧富差距擴大、失業率高之市民社會，以及官商結合為一體的官商資本主義時代，這以官民對立為論述立場的問題更為凸顯，因為現今問題應是要重新建立「官」的「公共性」，確認「商」不等於「民」，要重新檢討公共政策，來確保除了「商」以外「民」的權益，俾建立新公共論述及新國有化政策。

關鍵字

系統化 ； 自由化 ； 公共化 ； 集團化 ； 民營化 ； 公營事業

並列摘要

Abstract
Privatization concept and related policy become more and more important in the economic development in Taiwan since end ‘80. This stands for an ideological transformation of national economic governance.
At the same time, regarding the worldwide commonality and Taiwan’s specificity, the results of privatization, symbolize as the trend of global thoughts, demonstrate divergent outcomes due to different social classes as well as political parties.
Some capitalists, consortiums or the ruling party obtain great benefits owing to the advantage of being both ruler and business owner. Under the vivid cover-up of the market competition, the congress might lose control of supervision in preventing the public property overtaken by the political parties. The entire phenomenon highlights the right usage of public properties is not only a matter of economic policy but also reflects the condition of social unequal treatment. And so do the result of privatization effect, it is not only the problem of impropriation of method used but also the disorientation of the concept of market competition to elevate the efficiency (private property → self-interest motive → market efficiency) in an illegal way.
The proceeding of privatization includes economic, political and social purposes as well as problems. Owing to the conflicts in different purposes of privatization, the government has become the obstacle itself. A more important phenomenon is the members of the private sector are obvious not concerning “privatization” at all! What they concern are deregulations and openness of the markets which were dominated by the governmental agencies. Therefore the problem of “monopolization” is much more critical than the “privatization.” This proves that the political motive has been taken into consideration in the first place and the economic motive only plays the second role.
In opposition to liberalization, the simplified privatization only transfer the property rights by selling the stocks but this may not lead to a competitive and efficient market. Although we can promote the industry with efficiency by privatization, but the paradoxical duality of satisfying both public welfare and profit-making of the state-owned enterprises may operate and result in a painful way. Public service may be postponed or abandoned owing to the lack of profit which will cause inconvenience and burden toward the public. And this inefficiency caused by the privatization can even result in the social inequality and the government’s irresponsibility. In other words, it may result in the syndication of the public property or being taken over illegally by the ruling party. This may further lead to the deprivation of the rights of labors in the state-owned businesses and cause more inequalities in the society. Ironically speaking, when the opponent political party acquires the civil power, this privatization issue once was the core problem seems to be not urgent anymore. The misuse of policy will not lead to publicity simultaneously and the publicity will not bear itself via the eruption of the authority. The publicity needs to be supported by a fair public policy and a healthy public system. Therefore, being in a society of expanding uneven distribution of wealth and high unemployment rate, as well as in an era full of capitalists and politicians, the confronting position between government and people is highly emphasized. The most urgent issue in nowadays is to establish the publicity statement of the government, and to confirm the capitalists’ interest do not equal to that of the people. And we need to review the public policy so as to ensure the rights and benefits of the people. Therefore, to establish a new statement of publicity and form a new public property policy is more important than ever.

並列關鍵字

Liberalization ； State-owned business ； Privatization ； publicity ； Systematic approach.

參考文獻

13.王振寰(2001)，「評張晉芬著〈台灣公營事業民營化－經濟迷思的批判〉」，台灣社會學刊，第二期。

44.周添城(1998)，台灣民營化的經驗，台北，中華徵信所企業股份有限公司。

50.翁興利、陳永愉、林曉雯（2002），「國營事業民營化執行問題與因應對策之研究」，研考雙月刊，第二十六卷第五期。

52.翁興利、陳永愉、林曉雯（2002），「國營事業民營化執行問題與因應對策之研究」，研考雙月刊，第二十六卷第五期。

56.翁興利、陳永愉、林曉雯(2002)，「國營事業民營化執行問題與因應對策之研究」，研考雙月刊，第二十六卷第五期。