公營事業民營化前後經營績效比較之研究

Comparative Research of Operating Performance forPrivatized State-run Business with Pre-Privatization.

林聰敏(Tsong-Min Lin)

指導教授 ： 劉立倫

中原大學/商學院/企業管理研究所/碩士(2004年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200400184

摘要

論文提要內容：
本研究係針對政府公營事業民營化的其中十八家公司為範圍，先探討民營化公司經營績效，然後再藉由「因素分析方法」（Factor Analysis Method；FAM）及「群集分析方法」（Cluster Analysis Method；CAM）等統計方法、檢定各民營化公司財務比率資料，比較民營化前後經營績效之整體表現，與各經營績效優劣特性分類，在摒除經濟景氣和市場因素等影響之前提下，經實證分析研究結果發現：
一、公司整體營運績效財務指標方面：
1、在衡量獲利能力之股東權益報酬率、資產報酬率、營業毛利率、純益率財務指標方面：表現比較優異者有四家，主要係致力拓展組織、提昇人員素質，修增營業項目及營業多角化，精簡人力降低成本等因素影響，致獲利能力提昇。表現明顯大幅下降者有五家，係配合政府政策與改善經營體質政策，而陸續打銷呆帳及處理不良資產，致使營業純益率劇降，而影響獲利能力。
2、在衡量資產運用效率之總資產週轉率、固定資產週轉率財務指標方面：表現優異者有五家係因擴廠策略正確，產能達經濟規模，且民營化後資金運用趨於靈活，資產週轉率提高，致營業收入增加。表現微幅下降者有八家，係因營收成長幅度無法隨著資產規模擴充的幅度所致。
3、在衡量員工生產效率之每人營收、每人淨利財務指標方面：表現提昇者有六家，主要係因增加營運，精簡組織人力，致用人成本與管銷費用減少等因素影響，致提昇員工生產效率。表現微幅下降者有四家，係積極打銷呆帳及處理不良資產，致使員工生產效率好壞與員工人數變動方向不全然一致。
4、在衡量財務結構之負債比率及流動比率等財務指標方面：各公司民營化後受可擁有較多元化的籌資方式之賜，其負債比率除五家少數公司外，其餘均有明顯下降。另受民營化使經營更具有彈性與自主性，而得以積極進行擴張財務策略規劃之前提下，其流動比率除少數四家外，其餘亦均有所提高。
二、比較各民營化公司民營化前後經營管理績效整體表現，計有十一家公司民營化後經營管理績效較民營化前為佳，佔六一‧一一％。另有七家公司民營化後經營管理績效較民營化前為差，佔三八‧八九％。
三、經營管理績效特性分類方面，研究發現有六家公司為經營管理績效差者；有一家公司為高營收低報酬者；有九家公司為經營管理績效佳者；有三家公司為高報酬低流動者。

關鍵字

民營化 ； 公營事業

並列摘要

Abstract:
The gravity of this study is on the operation performance of 18 state-run enterprises after privatization. Factor Analysis Method (FAM) and Cluster Analysis Method (CAM) in statistics will be used to assess the financial ratios of these enterprises before and after privatization that demonstrated their overall operation performance. The findings from empirical analysis are shown as follows, let alone the effect of the economic situation and the market:

I. Financial Indicators reflecting the overall operation performance of the company:
1. Indicators for profitability--- Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), Gross Profit Margin, Profit Margin : Four of the 18 enterprises demonstrated outstanding performance, given their efforts in organizational development, upgrading human resources, fine-tuning their scope of business, and diversification in operation, as well as cutting down the cost in human resources. Five out of the 18 showed their decline in profitability, as they supported government policy in overhauling their organizations in reducing bad debts and writing off non-performing loans (NPL). These contributed to their sudden drop in profitability.
2. Indicators for efficiency---Total assets turnover rate, fixed assets turnover rate: Five out of the 18 demonstrated their strength in performance, given their proper plant expansion strategies which lead to the economy of scale in production capacity, and the proper use of capital through privatization. As a result, they have high turnover rate in utilizing their assets and increased their revenue. Eight out of the 18 showed their decline in utilization of assets because the growth in revenue did not proportionate the growth of asset size.
3. Indicators in productivity of employees--- revenue per head and net profit per head: Six out of the 18 enterprises performed much better than the others in this respect, given the increase in operation volume and the successful downsizing of the organization. These contributed to the decrease in the cost of human resources and management expenses, which in turn enhance the productivity of the employees. Four out of the 18 showed slight decline in this respect because they actively spent their effort in writing off bad debts and non-performing loans (NPL) that made the productivity of the employees incongruent with the number of employees.
4. Indicators in financial structure---debts ratio and current ratio: These companies have more varieties of access to finance after privatization. With the exception of five enterprises, all demonstrated their significant drop in the debts ratio. With higher flexibility and autonomy in running the operation after privatization, which allows them to actively seek financial resources, the current ratio of all except four improved.
II. In comparing the management efficiency of the companies before and after privatization, we discovered that eleven of them performed better after privatization or 61.11% of the total , On the other hand, 7 of them (or 38.89%) worse after privatization.
III. In comparing the attributes of management efficiency of these companies, the study showed that there are six poor performers in operation management; one yielded high revenue with low rate of return; nine are good performers in operation management; and three yielded high return but low current ratio.

並列關鍵字

State-run Business Privatized

參考文獻

13.孫克難（民國75年），「台灣地區公營事業經營績效之決定因素試析」，財團法人中華經濟研究院經濟專論。

52.Agrawal, A. & C. R. Knoeber（1996） "Firm Performance mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, pp.377-397

53.Boardman, A. E. and Vining, A. R.（1989）“Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises”, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol XXXII （April）.pp1-27.

55.Boubakri, N. and Cossert, J. C.（1998）, “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries,” Journal of Finance, Vol.53, No.3, （June）, pp.1659-1679.

56.Domberger, S. and Piggott, J.（1986）, “Privatization Policies and Public Enterprise: A Survey”, The Economic Record, June. pp145-162. pp.59-84.