政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/31387

政大典藏 > College of International Affairs > Graduate Institute of Russian Studies > Theses > Item 140.119/31387

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31387

Title:	俄羅斯民營化政策之研究─從葉里欽到普欽
Authors:	陳爾龢
Contributors:	王定士陳爾龢
Keywords:	俄羅斯民營化經濟政策新制度主義財產權葉里欽普欽
Date:	2002
Issue Date:	2009-09-14 10:05:26 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	俄羅斯在轉型的十年當中，所面臨的是影響層面深遠的政治制度及經濟制度的變遷。同時，由於新制度主義將制度視為內生變數，而影響政治和經濟的結果。此外，在俄羅斯的經濟轉型的過程當中，由中央計劃的經濟模式轉變成為市場經濟的模式。因此，對於民營化政策的制度設計就顯得更為重要。經過十年的民營化，原有的決定國家經濟生活本質特徵的國家所有制在經濟生活中的統治地位已得到徹底改造，俄羅斯已經建立了市場經濟的基礎，但從新制度主義的結構來看，這一基礎尚不健全，在基本經濟制度建設中都還存在許多負面後果。因為經濟轉型的直接目的是建立市場經濟制度架構，根本目的是為了消除無效率的制度基礎，實現資源的最適化配置，促進經濟的快速增長和社會福利效用提高的極大化。按照這一標準衡量，俄羅斯的所有制改革和國有企業改革存在著嚴重的失誤，對俄羅斯經濟的發展產生了不可低估的負面影響。俄羅斯民營化的失誤首先在於其目標和方式出了嚴重問題：民營化首先是作為一項政治綱領提出來的，具有十分明確的政治動機。特別是楚拜斯的大規模民營化計畫，首先是為了克服對轉型的政治約束，力圖通過民營化來根本改變所有制結構，以保證轉型過程的不可逆轉，同時培育和形成一個廣泛的私有者階層，成為新社會制度的政治基礎。當民營化取得政治上的收益後，其經濟意義才會顯現出來。為了實現民營化的政治目標，俄羅斯採取了強制的方法來改造國有企業，在條件不成熟的情況下把企業推向市場，由於這些企業不具備適應市場的應變能力，並不能對市場訊息做出正確的反應，沒有解決國有企業的管理機制問題，也沒有達到提高企業生產效率的目的。民營化過程中國有資產大量流失。民營化後出現的新企業主多半曾經是黨、政府和原國有企業的精英成員，這意味著民營化使得國有企業領導人和投機者侵吞國有資產提供了一個捷徑。在探討民營化政策時，1992年開始的民營化只不過為資本向少數人手中的集中提供了法律架構。民營化對財產在分配過程中的經濟犯罪和投機，引發了社會嚴重貧富差距，還產生了腐敗、犯罪等大量負面現象，導致了社會的不安定。民營化的一個結果是寡頭政治的出現。寡頭政治的出現，延緩了俄羅斯的民主化進程，同時也阻礙了經濟領域的公平競爭。 The transformation of Russia over the last decade had involved wide-ranging institutional political and economic change. At the same time, with institutionalism regarded institutions as endogenous variables, it influenced political and economic outcomes .In addition, during the process of Russia economic transition from central planning economic model to market economic model. As a result, the institution design of privatization policy was guite important. For the privatization in a decade, the state ownership, which decided the former characteristics of the national economy nature, had been completely restructured. Russia had already built the foundation of market economy, but in the view of new institutionalism structure, the foundation was not sound. In the fundamental economic institutional utilities, there still would be to exist in many negative outcomes. Because the direct objective of economics transition was to build the framework of market economy institution, the basic objective for the purpose disminished inefficient institutional foundation, and to realize the resource optimal distribution, to promote economy rapid growth and specical welfare utility maximize. To measure in the standard, the ownership reform of Russia existed serious mistakes, which influenced Russia’s economy development in negative influence over estimated. The privatization of Russia, at first, made serious mistakes in objectives and forms. Privatization firstly is posed as a policital document, which had a very obvious motivation, especially in the Chubais mass privatization program. In the first place, it overcame the political constraints of transition, and attemped to change the structure of ownership to assure the process of transition to no reversion. At the same time, develop and form a private class to become a political basis for the new society institutions. When the privatization got the political revenues, the economy meaning would reveal. For the purpose of realization the political objective of privatization, Russia took compulsory measures to reform the state of enterprises, in the premature situation, to push these enterprises to the market. Owing to these enterprises not having the ability of suiting the market, they could not do the right response for the market information. And they could not solve the problems of the management mechanism of the state of enterprises, and they could not achieve the purpose of raising the efficiency of enterprise production. In the process of privatization, national assets greatly lost. After privatization, most of new enterprise owners were ever party, government, and previous state-owned enterprise elite members. It meant that privatization made state-owned enterprise leaders and opportunists a short cut to invade national assets. In discussing privatization policies, privatization, which began in 1992, merely provided the structure of laws for centerlization capital among few people. Privatization invoked seriously distance of the rich and the poorin society and resulted in corruption, crimes etc. massive nagative phenomena in the process of distribution of economic crimes and opportunities. It resulted in the unstability of society. The other consequence of privatization was the oligarchy politics came out. While the oligarchy appeared, it delayed the progress of democratization in Russia. At the same time, it prevented from fare competition in economic sphere.
Reference:	參考書目中文部分王克敏，「俄羅斯國有企業改革透視」。東北亞論壇 1 (長春: 1998): 63-67。王承宗，「俄羅斯經濟概況與發展前景」。問題與研究 37 2 (臺北: Feb1998): 37-54。王金存，「越南與俄羅斯國有企業改革比較」。世界經濟 3 (北京: Mar 1997): 5-9。王金存，「俄羅斯經濟轉軌模式反芻」。東歐中亞研究 1 (北京: 1999): 45-51。王立新，「俄羅斯股份制改革評析」。東歐中亞研究 5 (北京: 1998): 41-46。王躍生，新制度主義。臺北：揚智，2000。王世才，「俄羅斯經濟的現狀及發展趨勢」。東歐中亞研究 2 (北京: 2000): 49-56。王定士，「俄羅斯金融寡頭在民主化與經濟改革的角色：1992-1999」。俄羅斯學報 1 (臺北: 2001): 11-60。王正泉，劇變後的原蘇聯東歐國家,1989-1999。上海：東方，2002。網路資料朱曉青、寇靜，「俄羅斯金融危機剖析」。金融論文在線 24 Oct 2000, http://www.finance-cn.com/jryd/jrwj/011.htm。宋錦海，「對俄羅斯轉軌過程中幾個重大問題的探討」。中國社科院東歐中亞所 3 Nov 1997, http://www.cass.net.cn/chinese/s24_oys/Production%5Cprojects33.html。孔令棟，「產權變革和寡頭壟斷」。東歐中亞研究 5 (北京: 2000): 44-48。丘昌泰和陳欽春，「法律經濟分析：政策分析途徑初探」。「政策分析的理論與實務」學術研討會論文集 (臺北: 2001): 1-20。江岷欽，公共組織理論。臺北：空大，1995。李玉珍，「俄羅斯經改初探」。問題與研究 31 11 (臺北: Nov 1992): 62-72。李德偉，世紀末的變革：現代市場經濟的困惑與演變。北京：中國經濟，1992。李建民，「俄羅斯私有化的進展與現狀」。俄羅斯中亞東歐研究 1 (北京: 2003): 51-59。林繼文，「創設、選擇與演化：制度形成的三個理論型範」。中國政治學會九十年年會暨學術研討會論文 (臺北: Jan 2001):1-21。林樹煌，「休克療法與共黨國家經濟體制轉型之比較─以波蘭、俄羅斯與中國大陸比較為例」。共黨問題研究 27 10 (臺北: Oct 2001): 66-84。何景榮譯，Jan-Erik Lane and Svante Ersson 著，新制度主義政治學。臺北：韋伯，2002。吳玉山，遠離社會主義。臺北：正中，1996。吳玉山，俄羅斯經濟改革之研究 1992-1994。臺北：行政院國科會專題研究計劃，1997。吳玉山，俄羅斯轉型 1992-1999：一個政治經濟學的分析。臺北：五南，2000。吳若予，「台灣公營事業民營化政策的政治分析」。「政策分析的理論與實務」學術研討會論文集 (臺北: 2001): 1-26。胡鍵，「俄羅斯主導利益集團的演變與制度變遷」。東歐中亞研究 5 (臺北: 2000): 38-43。洪美蘭，經濟激進轉型策略─中東歐之經驗與啟示。臺北：翰蘆，2002。郭連成，「俄羅斯經濟轉軌成效與問題分析」。東歐中亞研究 5 (北京: 2000): 12-17。婁芳，「俄羅斯：從計劃到市場的艱難過渡─透視21世紀的經濟改革目標」。東歐中亞研究 5 (北京: 2001): 32-36。高安邦，政治經濟學。臺北：五南，1996。許新，「俄羅斯經濟轉軌評析」。東歐中亞研究 4 (北京: 2000): 33-40。許新，「俄羅斯私有化的含意和理論基礎」。俄羅斯中亞東歐研究 1 (北京: 2003): 44-50。許玉君，「停滯性通貨膨脹」。聯合報，7 Apri 2003，C1。陳金貴，，「私有化初探」。行政學報 21 (臺北: Jun 1989): 51-64。陳坤銘等譯，R.H. Coase 著，廠商、市場與法律 (The Firm ,the Market ,and the law)。臺北：遠流，1995。詹中原，民營化：公共行政理論與實務之分析。臺北：五南，1993。張樹華，「轉軌期俄羅斯社會的分層與結構轉型」。東歐中亞研究 4 (北京: 1997): 61-67。張樹華，私有化是禍？是福？俄羅斯經濟改革透視。北京：經濟科學，1999。陸南泉，「蘇聯走近衰亡的勃列日涅夫時期」。東歐中亞研究 6 (北京: 2001): 64-73。景維民，「俄羅斯未來發展的障礙分析」。東歐中亞研究 4 (北京: 2002): 31-35。黃立茀，「俄羅斯激進經濟改革與金融工業集團」。東歐中亞研究 6 (北京: 1997): 35-44。喬宇譯，Joseph R. Blasl, Maya Kroumova,and Douglas Kruse 著，克林姆林宮的經濟私有化。上海：遠東，1999。黃永鵬，，「試析普京對金融工業寡頭的規範與整頓」。東歐中亞研究 4 (北京: 2001): 25-29。莊文忠，「制度的研究：『新制度論』的觀點比較與『後現代制度論』的發展」理論與政策 16 4 (臺北: Jan 2003): 15-44。馮紹雷，制度變遷與對外關係─1992年以來的俄羅斯。上海：人民，1997。馮舜華，「俄羅斯的股份制和公司治理」。世界經濟 11 (北京: Nov 2001): 3-10。馮舜華，「普京時期俄羅斯經濟走勢的制度分析」。東歐中亞研究 1 (北京: 2002): 11-16。董曉陽，俄羅斯利益集團。北京：當代，1999。熊秉元，「『市場之尺』和『心中之尺』─論釋寇斯定理和布坎楠對寇斯定理的質疑」。中研院經濟所經濟論文 21 2 (臺北: Sep 1993): 331-355。虞虹編，R.H. Coase 等著，財產權利與制度變遷─產權學派與新制度學派譯文集 (Property Rights and Institutional Changes) ，上海：新華，1990。蔡熊山等譯，Arend Lijphart,and Calos H. Waisman 著，新興民主國家的憲政選擇(Institutional Design in New Democracies) ，臺北：韋伯，1999。翰林譯，James A. Caporaso,and David P. Levine 著，政治經濟學理論(Theories of Political Economy) ，臺北：風雲，1998。顏愛靜譯，Eirik G.. Furubotn,and Rudolf Richter 著，制度與經濟理論：新制度經濟學之貢獻(Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics)。臺北：五南，2003。謝俊義，「新制度主義的發展與展望」，中國行政 68 (臺北: Aug 2000): 1-26。關雪凌，「制度變遷中的俄羅斯經濟轉軌戰略─理想化和現實性的衝突與調整」。東歐中亞研究 5 (北京: 2000): 3-11。薩公強，「俄羅斯國營企業私有化述評」，問題與研究 32 3 (臺北: Mar 1993): 55-68。英文部分 Abramovitz, M.. “The Privatization of the Welfare State: A Review.” Social Work 31 4 (Auburn: 1986): 257-264. Ascher, K.. The Politics of Privatisation: Contracting Out Public Services. London: Macmillan Education, 1987. Aslund, Anders. Gorbachev’s Struggle for Economic Reform: The Soviet Reform Process, 1985-88. London: Pinter Publishers, 1989. Aslund, Anders. Russian Economic Reform at Risk. London: Pinter Publishers,1995. Aslund, Anders. Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc. N. Y.: Camberidge University Press, 2002. Blanchard, Olivier Jean, Kenneth A. Froot, and Jeffrey D. Sachs The Transition in Eastern Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994. Blanchard, Olivier, Rudiger Dornbusch, Paul Krugman, Richard Layard,and Lawrence Summers Reform in Eastern Europe. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994. Boycko, Maxim, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny Privatizing Russia. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995. Brabant, Jozef M. van The Political Economy of Transition: Coming to Grips With History and Methodology. London: Routledge, 1998. Bulter, S. M. “Change the Political Dynamics of Government.” Proceedings of The Academy of Political Science 36 3 (London: 1987): 4-13. Chin, Anthony T. H. and Guan Ng Hock Economic Management and Transition Towards a Market Economy: an Asian Perspective. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 1996. Cox, Terry From Perestroika to Privatisation: The Politics of Property Change in Russian Society 1985-1991. Hong Kong: Avebury, 1996. Dehoog, R. H. “Human Services Contracting: Environmental Behavioral ,and Organizational Conditions.” Administration and Society 16 4 (London:Feb 1985): 427-454. Demsetz, H. ”Toward a Theory of Property Rights” American Economic Review 57 (Wisconsin: 1967): 340-352. Eisinger, P. K. “French Urban Housing and Mixed Economy: The Privatization of the Public Sector.” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 459 (London: Jan 1982): 134-147. Fischer, Stanley ”Stabilization and Economic Reform in Russia” The Economics of Transition: Eastern Europe and East Asia Compared Taipei: MIT/Epoch Foundation Symposium,1992. Hanke, S. H. “Privatization: Theory, Evidence, and Implementation.” Proceedings of The Academy of Political Science 35 4 (London: 1985): 101-113. Hanke, S. H. “Privatization Versus Nationalization.” Proceedings of The Academy of Political Science 36 3 (London: 1987): 1-3. Handler, Joel F. Down from Bureaucracy: The Ambiguity of Privatization and Empowerment. New Jersey: Princeton university press, 1996. Hartle, T. W. “Sisyphus Revisited: Running the Government Like a Business.” Public Administration Review 45 2 (Washington,D. C.: Mar 1985): 341-351. Hetzner, C. “Keeping the Aspidistra Flying: That Cherite Privatization and the Creation of the Enterprise Culture.” Journal of Public Administration 11 5 (Cambridge: 1988): 623-650. Kay, J. ,Mayer C. ,and Thompson D. Privatization: The UK Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Lavigne, Mrie The Economics of Transition: From Socialist Economy to Market Economy. N. Y.: Palgrave, 1999. Levine, H. M. Public Administration Debated New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1988. Lundgvist, L. J. “Privatization: Toward a Concept for Comparative Policy Analysis.” Journal of Public Policy 8 1 (Cambridge: Jan-Mar 1988): 1-19。 Manchester, L. D. “Delivering Services with Vouchers-An Option Worth Considering.” Public Management 68 12 (Washing,D.C.: 1988): 23-24. Moore, J. “The Success of Privatisation.“ in Kay , J. , Mayer C. ,and Thompson D. Privatization: The UK Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986 pp.94-97. Mcfaul, Michael Russia’s 1996 Presidential Election─The End of Polarized Politics. California : Hoover Institution Press, 1997. Nelson, Lynn D. and Irina Y. Kuzes Property to the People: The Struggle for Radical Economic Reform in Russia. N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1994. Nelson, Lynn D. and Irina Y. Kuzes Radical Reform in Yeltsin’s Russia : Political, Economic, and Social Dimensions. N. Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1995. Nigro, F. A. ,and Nigro L. G. Modern Public Administration. N. Y.: Harper and Row Publishers, 1989. North, Douglass C. Structure and Change in Economic History. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1981. North, Douglass C. ,and Robert Paul Tomas The Rise of Western World: A New Economic History N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1999. North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Palumbo, D. J. ,and Maupin J. “The Poltical Side of Privatization.” Journal of Management Science Policy Analysis 6 2 (London: Mar 1989): 24-40. Peacock, A. “Privatization in Perspective.” Three Banks Review 144 (N.Y.: 1984): 3-25. “Privatization: Toward More Effective Government.” The Bureaurcrat 17 2 (York: 1988):38-44. Puffer, Sheila M., Daniel J. McCarthy,and Alexander I. Naumov, The Russian Capitalist Experiment: From State-Owned Organizations to Entreneurships Cheltnham,UK: Edward Elgar, 2000. Ramanadham, V. V. “Monitoring and Regulatory Aspests of Privatization in Five Former Centrally-Planned Economies.” Privatization And After: Monitoring and Regulation London: Routledge, 1995. Sakwa, Richard Russian Politics and Society. N. Y.: Routledge, 1993. Savas, E. S. Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Sink Government. New Jersey: Chathdm House, 1982. Slavich, P. “Grassroots Privatization-The Management Challenges.” Sloan Management Review 28 3 (N.Y.: 1987): 55-61。 Weddell, Kenneth “Privatizing Social Services in the U.S.A.“ Social Policy and Administration 20 1 (London: May 1986): 14-27. Zahariadis, Nikolaos Contending Perspectives in International Political Economy. N. Y. : Harcourt Brace, 1999.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學俄羅斯研究所 89263001 91
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089263001
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Russian Studies] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
index.html	0Kb	HTML2	512	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...