日本PFI法下民間參與公共建設之法制與實務

The Legal System and Practice of Private Participation in Infrastructure under Japanese Act on Promotion of Private Finance Initiative

楊舜宇(Shun-Yu Yang)

指導教授 ： 林明昕

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201701796

摘要

自1994年獎勵民間參與交通建設條例以及2000年促進民間參與公共建設法公布施行以來，我國實務上已有許多以官民合作方式推動公共建設之案例。然而，實務運作之結果，發生諸多爭議，例如依據獎參條例實施之台灣高鐵及高雄捷運均面臨嚴重財務危機，而必須透過政府介入解決；又如因政府與民間之間，在事業契約上對於風險分擔及權責歸屬分配之不完備，致使風險產生時，雙方互相推責等，再再導致官民之間缺乏互信，使得促參案件無法順利推行。

本文藉由考察日本於1999年公布施行之PFI法之實務運作現況、基本方針及各式指引，輔以數則實際案例，探討PFI方式與促參方式之差異性，思考是否有值得參考借鏡之處。本文認為在事業設施之種類上，我國不若日本來得豐富多元，政府應可考慮推行至更多不同類型之設施；在事業評估過程方面，可參考日本PFI之Value For Money(VFM)以及風險分擔機制。此外，對於自償率較低，缺乏民間投資誘因之公共建設方面，可引進購買服務型(Service Sold to the Public Sector)事業方式，以政府出資之方式，達成早期提供公共服務、移轉風險、舒緩政府預算壓力及發揮民間創意思考等目標。

關鍵字

PFI法 ； 促參法 ； 獎參條例 ； VFM ； 風險分擔 ； 購買服務型

並列摘要

Since the promulgation of the Statute for Encouragement of Private Participation in Transportation Infrastructure Projects (the Encouragement Statute) in 1994 and the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (PPIP Act) in 2000, we already have many public infrastructural cases conducted with the participation of private enterprises. However, there were many disputes in actual practices; such as the severe financial crisis of THSR and KMRT, which required the governmental interference to solve. In addition, the incompleteness of risk allocation and distribution of authority & responsibility in PPIP contracts resulted in shirking responsibility between the Government and the private sectors when risk occurred. A lack of mutual trust leads to the failure promotion of PPP cases.

By studying the actual practice of Japanese Act on Promotion of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in 1999, the other fundamental policies and several actual cases, this study tried to figure out the difference between PFI and PPIP, and sought for the worth-learning points. This study suggests that the variety of infrastructural facility in Taiwan is not as rich as Japan; therefore, Taiwan government should consider carrying out more type of facility. On the other hand, the Value for Money (VFM) and the risk allocation mechanism of Japanese PFI are worth learning from to improve the process of PPP case evaluation. Furthermore, the government should consider introducing the “Service Sold to the Public Sector” to those low self-liquidation ratio (SLR) infrastructures which are also lack of incentives for private sectors to invest; in order to achieve the goals of early supply of public service, risk transfer, pressure lightening on government budget and the best use of creativity & know-how from private sectors.

並列關鍵字

PFI Act ； PPIP Act ； the Encouragement Statute ； VFM ； risk allocation ； Service Sold to the Public Sector

參考文獻

林淑馨(2015)。〈民間融資提案制度的理想與現實：以日本為例〉，《民主與治理》，2卷1期，頁37-63。

王以國(2009)。〈從促參法修正談我國通訊傳播網路產業輔導之法制化〉，《科技法律透析》，21卷4期，頁21-27。

劉淑範(2011)。〈公私夥伴關係（PPP）於歐盟法制下發展之初探：兼論德國公私合營事業（組織型之公私夥伴關係）適用政府採購法之爭議〉，《臺大法學論叢，40卷2期》，頁505-568。

林明鏘(2009)。〈工程與法律教學研究之科際整合：以臺大小巨蛋判決為例〉，《臺大法學論叢》，38卷3期，頁109-171。

蘇南、陳昆成(2012)。〈論BOT制度的土地徵收與使用〉，《財產法暨經濟法》，31期，頁45-102。