香港郵政署“營運基金”管理體制改革之研析：結(jié)構(gòu)、運作及其對生產(chǎn)力水平的作用


頁數(shù)：50 字數(shù)：41384

香港郵政署“營運基金”管理體制改革之研析：結(jié)構(gòu)、運作及其對生產(chǎn)力水平的作用內(nèi)容提要香港公營部門的改革應被視為整個世界行政發(fā)展進程中的一部分，它與“新公共管理”理念與國際行政改革步伐是基本一致的。本文在這個大視野下，探討了香港公營部門改革中采取的一種形式──“營運基金”管理體制，并以香港郵政署作為個案研究的對象。本文的寫作實際上圍繞著一系列問題的提出。文章試圖求證這些問題的答案，雖然政府管理有時是沒有明確的答案的。文章中涉及了以下主要問題：在政府內(nèi)部市場化采用的不同管理體制與模式之間，港府以什么標準篩選施行營運基金的組織，目的為何？郵政署作為一個具有行業(yè)壟斷性質(zhì)的組織，尤其在郵件和郵票業(yè)務服務上，它為什么要采用營運基金管理體制，其改革的動力來自何方？作為一種分權(quán)的結(jié)構(gòu)，郵政署與其政策和資源管理部門是如何分權(quán)的，這種分權(quán)體系對郵政署的行為將帶來什么影響，而在兩者的互動和討價還價過程中，維持利益均衡可能采取的多種策略組合是什么？任何一種制度變遷和制度安排，都會對組織績效產(chǎn)生重要的影響。那么，營運基金這種制度規(guī)則，會對郵政署的生產(chǎn)力具有什么作用，是激勵還是障礙呢？同時提出的問題還有郵政署取得的業(yè)績，是得益于營運基金體制性的改革，還是其天然的壟斷地位，抑或是其它方面的原因？總體來講，本文突出探討營運基金現(xiàn)行權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)的運作方式及與組織績效改進之間的聯(lián)系，并試圖運用政治學、公共選擇和新制度經(jīng)濟學的一些理論作出初步的分析。本文的基本觀點是，營運基金的施行具有明顯的實驗性和漸進性的特征，這一性質(zhì)決定了營運基金分權(quán)框架受到了比較嚴格的限制，分權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)的解釋權(quán)來者于上層，組織內(nèi)部市場化的程度極為有限。盡管郵政署在施行營運基金以后，從內(nèi)部組織結(jié)構(gòu)到程序管理作了大幅度的調(diào)整，也取得了很大的業(yè)績。但現(xiàn)行權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)在很多方面約束了商業(yè)化運營的方式，因此，從經(jīng)濟效率角度，營運基金體制對其改進是組織的動力不夠充分。從主管政策機構(gòu)而言，在管制營運基金組織的過程中，存在著信息不完全和信息不對稱這一巨大約束，由此政府在管制價格、投資回報率、成本控制、管制政策調(diào)整周期、以及融資與補貼渠道等政策制定上都難以達到十分理想的境地，所形成的刺激機制也有一定限度。同時郵政署作為一個壟斷組織，缺乏外部競爭與比較價格，它有多大的動力進一步控制成本，改進服務質(zhì)素是一個疑問。從長期看，營運基金形式也不足以根本克服組織內(nèi)部的動力缺失問題。筆者認為，進一步的市場化措施，或者說將某些服務項目進一步向市場開放，容許一些私營機構(gòu)進入特定的郵政服務市場，應是推動公營郵政組織內(nèi)在動力的的源泉之一。由此，提出一個更深層次的問題是，在諸多的理念和利益牽制中，政府與郵政署等營運基金組織進一步分權(quán)的“底線”究竟在哪里？主題詞：香港郵政署、營運基金、改革AbstractAs a part of the recent international administrative reform trend all over the world, reinventing public sector in Hong Kong Special administrative Region is consistent with the process, as well as its value of the “New Public Management ”. In this article, I try to analyze the “Trading Fund” system which was selected by Hong Kong Government as one of the forms in its public sector reform. Hong Kong Post Office is my case study of the “Trading Fund” system.This study actually revolved round with a series of problems which I put forward during my research. I try to answer those questions, although it sometimes is very tough for government management to draw definite conclusions. The article involves the following main problems:First , among the several interior market reform systems that Hong Kong government designed & selected, what kinds of traditional departments should be chosen to carry out “Trading Fund”system. What are its criteria? What are its objectives?Secondly, Hong Kong Post Office is of monopoly for post services, especially in mail, parcel and stamp business etc. With the obvious nature, why is post office willing to carry out the new“Trading Fund”system? What does its motivations come from?Thirdly, as a decentralization structure, how are authority and powers be divided between Post Office and its policy branch under “Trading Fund”structure? How does it influence internal behaviors of the Post Office. In the process of collective bargaining, the Post Office may choose what kinds of behavior strategies.Fourthly, any institutional change can produce a great impact on organizational performance in positive and negative perspective, and how does the “Trading fund”structure influence Hong Kong Post Office’s productivity improvement?Finally, in recent years, Was the splendid performance of Hong Kong Post Office a result of the “Trading Fund”system reform ,or itself monopoly nature, or other objective reasons?In brief, the key issue in this article is the links between organizational performance and the “Trading Fund”structure arrangement with Hong Kong Post Office as a case study.My basic opinion is that Hong Kong “Trading Fund”system reform is an obvious features of experimentalism and gradualism. Due to this, decentralization structure has a great limit and restriction. After the Post Office “Trading Fund”was set up, it has adjusted internal organizational structure and management procedures and improved its productivity greatly. But it is doubtly that the performance was completely beneficial from the “Trading Fund”system . In terms of economic efficiency, the “Trading Fund”system cannot give agencies enough motivations for improving their internal productivity constantly. On the one hand because of the policy and control branches, there are such restrictions as unsymmetry of and incomplete information in the process of policy making; on the other hand because of the Post Office as a “Trading Fund”regulatory organization, there are such restrictions as monopoly, no competitive pressure and no comparative advantage services’ prices , therefore I cannot determine how much motive force from inner “Trading Fund”organizations for controlling their costs and improving their services’ quality.In my opinion, the “Trading Fund”system is not the end of the part of public sector’s reform, the future of the Post Office“trading Fund” development may be to enforce competitive and marketing mechanism which permit private corporations engaging in some kinds of mail and parcel services by contracting out or other means. In essence, “Trading Fund”organizations will further adjust decentralization structure with their policy and resource management branches, and a more difficult problem will be raised－what is the “baseline”of the “Trading Fund”organizations in next the decentralization process?Key Words: Hong Kong Post Office, Trading Fund, Reform“制度（變遷）對經(jīng)濟績效的影響是無可非議的?！贫瘸３Ｊ悄切┱T致生產(chǎn)率增長的部分和那些抑制生產(chǎn)率的部分的混合。制度變遷差不多同時為這兩類活動活動創(chuàng)造了機會?！偟膩碇v是不斷增強了對從事生產(chǎn)活動的組織的激勵?！盵1] ───道格拉斯·諾斯1．背景：香港部分公營部門實施“營運基金”管理的性質(zhì)與目標在一部分公營部門中注入企業(yè)化的“營運基金”管理體制和運作方式，是香港政府推行的公營部門改革總體方案中的重要組成部分，也被公認為是改革所采用的措施或過渡性階段之一。80年代末，在“新公共管理”理念的影響下，以及國際性的公營部門改革浪潮推動下，港府力臆通過公營部門自覺的改革舉措，維持和強化香港在周邊地區(qū)的競爭優(yōu)勢地位、提高有限資源的使用效率和公營機構(gòu)的生產(chǎn)力水平、滿足市民日益增長的和多元化的需求訴求、推進香港經(jīng)濟、政治、社會全面的發(fā)展。1989年3月，香港財政司擬定和頒布的“公營部門改革”報告（Finance Branch，Public Sector Re