透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.192.47.250
  • 學位論文

建構可行的民間融資提案(PFI)機制:以興辦社會住宅為例

Constructing a Viable Private Finance Initiative(PFI)Mechanism : A Case Study of Social Housing

指導教授 : 蘇彩足

摘要


建構可行的民間融資提案(PFI)機制:以興辦社會住宅為例 摘要 近二十年來,在「新政府運動」(Reinventing Government)以及「公私協力」(Public Private Partnerships)的潮流下,世界各國對於公共建設服務的提供方式,經歷了重大變革,政府的角色由過去的公共服務直接提供者(supplier),逐漸淡化成為管制者(regulator),甚至成為購買者(purchaser)。政府與民間的關係,也由過去的公共建設指揮監督關係,轉變成公共建設的合作夥伴關係,而民間對於公共事務的參與程度及所扮演的角色,也日益顯得關鍵及重要。 目前我國民間參與投資興建、營運公共建設之法律依據,主要規範於「促進民間參與公共建設法」(簡稱促參法)及「政府採購法」,惟政府採購法對於民間參與之優惠機制不足,且於法律適用上,政府規範各機關應優先適用促參法規定;而促參法雖有獎勵措施,卻又規定民間參與興建營運計畫自償率不得低於50%之適用門檻。因此,主辦機關為求計畫達到自償之目的,常須將附屬事業比例不斷擴大,令外界對於政府是否為促參而促參,提出政策正當性質疑。再者,低自償性公共建設完全以政府自辦方式辦理,不但限制了民間參與公共建設之機會,亦形成政府沉重的財政負擔,進而影響該類公共建設之完成時間,不利於國家總體經濟目標之及早實現。是以,不得不令我們省思,政府對於民間目前依法難以參與,卻須積極推動的「低自償性、高公益性」公共建設,應該跳脫以往追求計畫之高自償性或政府零出資的思維,以求突破現行民間參與公共建設途徑之限制。 所謂「他山之石,可以攻錯」,本研究乃期藉由各文獻探討英日PFI制度與我國現行民間參與模式之差異,並分析PFI重視公帑節省價值(VfM)之評估機制,並以政府興辦社會住宅為例,研擬將VfM模式導入評估之作法及採購流程,並結合我國促參審議機制,建立一套PFI評估機制,期能作為未來政府部門推動民間參與高公益低自償類型公共建設案之參考,並為我國推動PFI制度之可行性提出初探,以圖拋磚引玉。本文主要研究結論如下: 一、以PFI模式興辦社會住宅,係指政府與民間以長期契約約定,由民間出資興建社會住宅,並於興建完成提供約定品質之服務後,由政府相對給付以全生命週期成本計算之價款,再由政府以較低收費標準向承租者收取租金。因此,以PFI模式興辦社會住宅,可預期創造政府、民間機構及人民(承租者)三贏局面:就政府而言,可藉民間資金之投入,以延遲付款方式減輕財務負擔,並以民間之經營管理效率及早實現社會住宅政策;就民間機構而言,營運後若能符合成果規範,即保證有穩定之租金收入,可減除營運風險之負擔,增加民間參與投資意願;就人民而言,承租者可及早享有低租金且高品質的社會住宅福利設施。 二、在考量是否採行PFI模式興辦社會住宅之前,須先行評估興辦計畫之自償性,倘計畫具自償性,則以現行促參法規定方式辦理;如確認自償性不足致無法採促參法辦理時,再進一步評估興辦計畫是否符合PFI之適用條件;並俟確認興辦計畫符合PFI適用條件後,進行VfM定性及定量評估,且在興辦計畫評估結果具有VfM時,始得以PFI模式興辦社會住宅;倘經評估後發現採PFI模式未具VfM之效益,則仍宜以政府自辦方式興辦社會住宅。 三、經評估社會住宅興辦計畫適合以PFI模式辦理,主要理由:(一)計畫自償性不足。(二)符合「專案牽涉重大資本投資」、「服務內容可以成果規範發包」、「適用生命週期規劃」、「專案規模夠大」、「專案所涉技術穩定」及「專案提供之服務內容確定為長期所需」等PFI六項適用條件。(三)通過「適合以長期合約方式發包」(具可行性)、「PFI預期效益超過成本」(具有利性) 及「PFI可預期執行」(具可達成性)等 VfM定性評估條件。 四、由於國內現階段各項產業的公部門比較值(PSC)基礎資料並未建立完善,要直接運用英國VfM定量評估方式,實有困難。又考量PFI模式與有償BTO二者於兼具民間參與及政府採購雙元特性之性質較為相似,因此建議於政府比較基準之基礎資料庫未建構成熟前,以現行促參制度審議BTO模式有關經濟效益或財務面向之定量評估機制,再加上參考日本對風險移轉評估因子之建立,作為我國PFI模式VfM定量評估的機制。 五、因PFI係屬政府延遲付款之長期合約,為維持未來契約的長期有效性,確定長期付款之穩定性,以立法途徑建立PFI付款機制,確有其必要,爰建議政府立法訂定PFI條款,以突破解決政府如何於營運期間編列長期預算付款,以及興辦計畫自償率不足所受限制之問題。 六、基於PFI模式所具有之「民間以全生命週期的觀點規劃設計公共建設」及「成果規範與付費機制」相結合的優點,除有助於社會住宅營運管理品質及效率提升外,可預期的結果是:民間提供之社會住宅,在較佳之興建基礎及維護管理品質下,其建物之耐用年限可能遠比PFI契約簽訂之期間長。因此,當契約結束後,倘社會住宅建物仍具使用價值時,為有效利用既有建物繼續推動社會住宅政策,建議按其殘餘價值以有償方式移轉給政府,續為提供人民租用,以達到政府、民間機構及人民三嬴之綜效。

並列摘要


Constructing a Viable Private Finance Initiative(PFI)Mechanism : A Case Study of Social Housing Abstract Under the trend of Reinventing Government and Public Private Partnership, in the last two decades, every country has thus experienced substantial revolution concerning the provisions of public infrastructure and the government’s role has evolved from the direct supplier of the civil services into the regulator or even the purchaser of such services. As well as, the relationship between the government and the private sector has shifted from the directorship and suppression concerning the public infrastructure into the cooperation and partnership of such the public infrastructure. The private sector’s involvement level concerning the public infrastructure and role that the private sector plays have thus developed to be increasingly critical and important. In our country, private sector participation in public construction and public infrastructure operations follow the “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” and “Government Procurement Law”. However the preferential policy in “Government Procurement Law” for private participation is insufficient. Authority regulates that “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” should prevail at the moment of application. Despites the incentive to promote private participation does exist; the Act requires at least 50% of self-liquidating rate in the construction-operational plan as threshold level. Therefore, for the sake of the project to achieve requested self-liquidating target, the operational organ often tries to expand the proportion of ancillary business, which has been questioned by the public on the legitimacy promoting private participation in government infrastructure project. Furthermore, low self-liquidating public projects are being completely operated now, by the government oneself. That not only limits opportunities for private participation, but also piles up heavy financial burden for government treasury. These obstacles delay the completion time for public provision planning, and of course, affecting to the timeline of country's overall economic realization. All these force to come in reflection, though government needs actively promote "low self-liquidating, high public interest" projects, such obstinacy law situation sets private sector outdoor from participating public projects. In order to break the existing restrictions for private sector participation in public construction, Government should step outside the box and invert the past thinking of pursuing “high self-liquidating or government zero contribution”. There is a proverb that “An ass from Germany is a professor in Rome”. This paper studies relevant literatures concerning the differences between British and Japanese PFI mechanism and our national current regulations for the private sector’s participation and analyzed the evaluation mechanism for appraising that the PFI emphasizes “Value for Money, VfM” and taken an empirical study on the government’s initiating the public housing for devising how the VfM model could be applied in evaluation and the procurement procedures and then integrated our national auditing mechanism concerning the private sector’s participation and for establishing a PFI evaluation mechanism, expected to be referred by the government for promoting the private sector’s participation in the public infrastructure of high public interest and low-financing ratio and exploration of the feasibility of our national implementing PFI mechanism that can establish an innovative exemplar. This paper study concludes, as follow: I. Constructing the public social housing by means of the PFI model shall be defined as that the government signs a long-term agreement with the private sectors that offer the equity investment for constructing the public social housing and the government, following the construction completion and starting the service provisions as contracted, shall disburse the payment calculated according to the full Life Cycle Cost and then the government shall charge the rental from the lessee at discounted rates. Therefore, initiating the public social housing by means of the PFI can be expected to benefit the government, private enterprises and the people (the lessees). The government can defer the financing payment and relieve the financial burden due to the equity investment from the private sector and achieve the operation efficiency that can only be done by the private sector and early fulfillment of the public social housing policy. The private sector, if meeting the performance required as contracted, shall be rewarded with stable rental revenue, relieving the operation risk and promote the willingness for the private sector’s participation. The people, namely the lessees, can enjoy the high-quality public social housing at discounted rates earlier. II. Prior to finalizing the implementation f initiating the public social housing by means of the PFI mechanism, there shall evaluate the self-financing ability for the public projects as planned. If there proves to be able to achieve the self-financing, the current “Act for Promotion for Participation” shall apply. If there evaluates the “Act for Promotion for Participation” may not apply due to insufficient self-financing ability, further evaluation concerning shall be conducted for evaluating such the project can meet the applicable requirements as promulgated in the PFI. After the project as planned is proven to meet the applicable requirements of the PFI, the VfM qualitative and quantitative evaluation shall be conducted. Not until a project as planned to be initiated is proven to fare VfM can the PFI mechanism be applied in initiating the public social housing. However, if the PFI is evaluated to lack VfM, the government shall take the helm in initiating the public social housing instead. III. The PFI, being validated to be feasible for initiating the public social housing, shall require mainly such justifications as: (1) Insufficient self-financing (2) Meeting such 6 applicable requirements as “Such the Project Involving Significant Equity Investment”, “Service Provisions Being Able to be Implemented by Public Bidding due to being able to be evaluated its performance as promulgated”, “Applicable to the Life Cycle Planning”, “Such A Project being Significant Sufficiently”. “Stable Technology as Required by Such the Project as Planned” and “Such a Project’s Service Provision Being Validated to be Required for Long Term”. (3) Meeting the evaluation requirements of VfM Qualitative, including “Suitable For Long Term Contracting” (Faring Feasibility”, “Expected PFI benefits and returns Exceeding the Costs as Planned” (Faring Advantage) and “PFI being executable” (Faring Feasibility). IV. Where there have not yet established the complete basic data for each industry’s Public Sector Comparator currently, it shall be difficult for directly applying the British VfM Qualitative Evaluation. Moreover, both the PFI mechanism and the compensable BTO fare the dual characters of private sector participation and government procurement which are more similar, it is thus advised that the government, prior to constructing a complete basic database for the comparison benchmark, shall apply the current promotion mechanism auditing for appraising the relevant economic benefits of the BTO model or the quantitative evaluation mechanism of financing and integrate how the Japan has established the risk transfer evaluation factors as refereed for our national VfM quantitative evaluation mechanism concerning the PFI V. Where the PFI features that the government defers the payment as due by means of the long-term contracting, there does justification for promulgating the acts regulating the PFI liquidation mechanism for insuring the long-term stable repayment. It is thus advised that the government shall enact the PFI enforcement guidelines for solving how the government appropriate the long-term liquidation budget during the operation duration and the obstacles impeding the construction projects in case of insufficient self-financing ability VI. Due to PFI model combines advantage characteristics of "Life Cycle perspective design project" and "output specification and performance based reward mechanism". In addition to manage quality and efficient operation for social housing, it can also expect other favorable result, such as: with more favorable construction basis and maintenance quality, the public social housing can achieve more life span than the contracted as signed by the PFI. In consequence, if the social housing (the existing object) still remain value in use by the time the contract ends, it is advised to transfer the social housing (the existing object) to the government in return for remain value of the object; and to continue the provision of social housing and effective use of existing buildings (resources), that makes triple win synergy between the government, the private sector and the people.

參考文獻


廖偉智,2008,《政府大型PPP決策之承諾續擴現象研究:台灣高鐵個案研究》,國立台灣大學土木工程學系研究所碩士論文。
林定芃等,2012,《黃金十年的住宅政策》,國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告。
謝明瑞,2011,《開發國家與所得分配對房地產的影響》,財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告。
中華民國建築師公會全國聯合會,2003,《談英國公私合夥關係體現優質公共建設之良方研討會》, 行政院公共工程委員會出版。
林萬億,2003,〈論我國的社會住宅政策與社會照顧的結合〉,《國家政策季刊》,4(2):63-65。

被引用紀錄


葉小康(2016)。民間融資提案(Private Finance Initiative)導入低自償性公共工程之研究-以社會住宅為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201600724
林彥彤(2015)。商議空間:「促進民間參與」的地上權開發〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2015.10887
簡崧哲(2015)。公私協力(PPPs)的社會福利之研究:以臺北市微笑單車為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2015.01064
陳姿樺(2016)。新加坡組屋政策之研究-兼論對臺灣社會住宅的參考意〔碩士論文,逢甲大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6341%2ffcu.M0319459
朱瑞琪(2013)。臺北市公營住宅政策績效評估之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1209201312424400

延伸閱讀