民間參與公共建設計畫政府出資決策基準之改善方案研究

為了解決政府財政赤字持續擴大、公共建設財源不足等問題，政府開始運用各類型的民間參與模式來興建公共建設。除了引進民間資金和提升服務水準外，並藉以減輕政府財政負擔，因此促參模式與政府採購模式便成為我國兩大系統。民間參與公共建設計畫之財務可行性，我國現行評估指標主要是以「自償率」為主，並以此作為政府是否需出資以提高民間參與可能性之基準，但由於自償率僅代表「損益兩平」的門檻，無法衡量出計畫是否具備足夠之民間投資誘因，於是政府出資額度在缺乏依據評估其合理性的情況下，往往成為爭議的來源。本研究主張以專案內部報酬率(PIRR)、股東內部報酬率(EIRR)與分年償債比率(DSCR)分別代表政府、民間投資者及融資機構等三方立場之利益，強調可行性來自三贏的前提，以取代自償率作為計畫財務可行性之評估指標。因此本研究目的在建立一套以上述三項指標為可行性評估基準之財務試算表，對於非完全自償促參模式，評估非自償部分政府選擇出資補貼或投資模式的最佳出資比，作為政府進行促參案件財務可行性評估及決定政府出資額度時之決策支援工具。本研究以一民間參與軌道建設計畫為例，進行財務試算表之設計。本案原本在先期計畫中評估自償率為52.15%，並擬由政府出資48.56億投資其建設之ㄧ部。本研究則分別假設三種政府參與方式，包括政府補貼中長期貸款利息、參與民間機構股本之出資、與組合型促參模式（以政府參與民間機構股本之投資加上補貼貸款利息）等，再分別計算各種出資方式之PIRR、EIRR及DSCR。上述三種模式之試算結果，發現若以滿足民間廠商基本投資報酬率，同時融資機構之還款風險需獲得保障為原則，政府在此案例中恐難在現行法令約束之出資額度下，使其具有民間參與誘因。此種情況下，該案是否適合採民間參與模式，可能存在再檢討之必要性，也顯示目前僅以自償率作為民間參與可行性判定之門檻，並不足以確保民間投資意願，而可能使招標過程因流標及所衍生如變更招標條件之需求，反付出更多的採購與社會成本。

關鍵字

政府出資；民間參與公共建設；自償率

並列摘要

In order to solve the problems such as continuously increasing governmental budget deficits and insufficient financial resources for infrastructure, the government begins to apply various kinds of private participation models to the construction of infrastructure, so as to mitigate the governments’ financial burdens, in addition to introducing private funds and enhancing service level. Therefore, the Private Participation Promotion Model and the Government Procurement Model have become the two main systems in our country. As for the financial feasibility of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects , the existing evaluation indicators in our country are mainly based on “Self-Liquidation Ratio (SLR)”, which also serves as the standard for whether the government has to provide funding to enhance the possibility of private participation. However, SLR only represents the threshold of “breakeven”, unable to measure whether a project has sufficient incentives for private investment. Consequently, because the reasonability of governmental funding amount can not be evaluated, due to lack of basis, the source of disputes tends to occur. This study claimed that Project Internal Rate of Return (PIRR), Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), and Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) should respectively represent the benefits to the three parties—government, private investor, and finance institution, which emphasized that the feasibility comes from the premise of tri-win, so as to substitute SLR and then serve as the evaluation indicators for projects’ financial feasibility. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish a set of Trial Balance based on the aforementioned indicators as the feasibility evaluation standard. As for the Private Participation Promotion Model with non-complete self-liquidation, the evaluation was made aimed at the best funding ratio of funded subsidies or investment models selected by governments in the aspect of non self-liquidation, to serve as the decision support instrument for governments to undertake financial feasibility evaluations of private participation promotion cases and decide governmental investment amount. In this study, based on one Private Participation in Rail Construction Project as the example, the design of a financial trial balance was undertaken. In the primary project, the SLR of this case was evaluated to be 52.15% originally, while the government intended to provide funding of NT$ 48.56 hundred millions in one part of such construction. In this study, three kinds of governmental participation ways were hypothesized respectively, including: governmental subsidies for middle/long term loan interest, participation in funding private institutions’ capital stock, and combinative private participation promotion model (governmental participation in making investment in private institutions’ capital stock, plus subsidies for loan interest). Then, the PIRR, EIRR, and DSCR for each kind of funding way were calculated respectively. According to the trial balance results of the aforementioned three models, the findings indicated: If the principle was that private vendors’ basic Rate of Return should be satisfied while payment risk in finance institutions should be guaranteed, the government might be unable to have the incentives for private participation in this case, due to the funding amount restrained by the existing laws and decrees. Under such a kind of situation, it is necessary to re-explore whether such a case is suitable for being undertaken by means of private participation model. This also showed: At present, only SLR is applied to the threshold for determining the feasibility of private participation, which is not enough for confirming the willingness of private investment. Instead, in the process of bid invitation, due to bid failure and the derivative needs such as modification of bid invitation conditions, many more purchasing and social costs will occur.