威權轉型後台灣公營銀行之
政治經濟分析

論文摘要過去台灣的公營事業，在國民黨威權統治下成了政黨利用來汲取國家政治經濟資源的工具。隨著民主化的發展，台灣的國營事業被要求檢討與釋放，因而開啟了一連串的民營化改革。然而在移轉民營的過程中，卻不斷的聽聞公營事業被「綠化」或是被利用來拉攏財團的情形，而國營機構的人事異動，也一直都給人「綠化」的聯想。國營事業掌握龐大的政治經濟資源，執政者很自然的會有將他納入控制範圍的想法。從世俗眼光來看，權力離不開金錢，台灣涵蓋了13種產業的公營事業中，與金錢最有關係，握有最多經濟資源的就屬公營銀行。公營銀行除了具有汲取性與分配性功能以外，其公營身份具有的政治特性與銀行具有的經濟特性，皆會伴隨國家政經結構的轉變而變化。因此本文嘗試以歷史脈絡下的政治經濟分析，全盤討論在威權體制下、威權轉型階段、以及政黨輪替後，公營銀行政治經濟角色的變遷。本文在第參、肆章的部分從歷史脈絡下針對兩個主軸來進行分析，一是政治結構轉變影響行為者職位權力的政治分析；另一是從公營銀行具有的經濟功能進行的經濟分析，再觀察兩者因銀行的「公營」身份而產生的互動關連。從過程中可以發現，因政治經濟結構的轉型，連帶影響政治經濟行為者們的結構性地位，而產生不同的互動關係；在公營銀行民營化之前，執政者以其對職位權力的掌控，掌握公營銀行的政治經濟資源，並利用以維繫自身的執政優勢；而民營化政策的出現到執行過程，則顯示了執政者對公股銀行資源的掌控，仍持續以其他方式存在，例如民營化過程的資源分配、再管制(re-regulation)制度的建立等。執政者以此與涉入其中的行為者們互動，進而建立其政治經濟利益結構，但是執政者對權力以及公營銀行所具有之政治經濟功能的利用方式，則因其各自的稟賦，而有不同的運用情況。

關鍵字

公營銀行；執政黨化；政商關係；政治經濟分析

並列摘要

Abstract The former state-owned enterprises in Taiwan, which had become the tools for the political party to extort national political and economical resources under KMT's centralism reign. With the development of democracy, these state-owned enterprises were requested for review and release. Thus, there were a series of privatization reforms provoked. However, under the privatization process, there were several events about state-owned enterprises partially favored to DDP or used to favor particular financial groups. Therefore, the personnel transfer in state-owned enterprises always gave people the association about especially partial favor to DPP. State-owned enterprises controlled a huge numbers of economic resources. The party in power naturally came up with the ideas to make the said business organizations under its control. In an earthy perspective, power always accompanied with money. In Taiwan, there were 13 types of state-owned enterprises with close relation to money. No doubt, the state-owned banks held the largest economic resources. For state-owned banks, aside from resource retrieval and distribution, they were also featured with political and economical functions changing with the alternation of national economic and politic structures. Thus, in this article, the politic and economic analysis was operated by means of history contexts to thoroughly discuss the changes happening to state-owned banks' economic and politic roles during the period of centralism reign, the alternating phase from centralism reign and power alternating for political parties. In Chapter 3 and 4, by means of history contexts, there were 2 axes for analysis. One is the politic analysis about the influence on the behaviors of people in power caused by politic structure changes. The other one is economic analysis on state-owned banks' economic functions. Furthermore, the interaction between both aforesaid analysis issues and the identities of state-owned banks were observed. From the process, it was found the transformation caused by politic and economic affect the structural status of politic and economic behavior doers to cause various interactions. Before the privatization of state-owned banks, people in power used their politic power to control the politic and economic resources owned by banks to keep their own reigning advantages. In addition, during the period from privatization policies to implementation, it showed that the control of people in power over the resource owned by state-owned banks can still existed in some other ways, such as the establishment for resource distribution of privatization and re-regulation. By means of this, people in power interacted with behavior doers therein to establish the lucrative economic and politic structures. However, the methods used by people in power for the politic and economic functions owned by state-owned banks came with separate features and the methods will be naturally different.