香港邮政署“营运基金”管理体制改革之研析：结构、运作及其对生产力水平的作用.doc
约50页DOC格式手机打开展开
香港邮政署“营运基金”管理体制改革之研析：结构、运作及其对生产力水平的作用,页数：50字数：41384 内容提要 香港公营部门的改革应被视为整个世界行政发展进程中的一部分，它与“新公共管理”理念与国际行政改革步伐是基本一致的。本文在这个大视野下，探...
内容介绍
此文档由会员 Facebook 发布
香港邮政署“营运基金”管理体制改革之研析：结构、运作及其对生产力水平的作用
页数：50 字数：41384
香港邮政署“营运基金”管理体制改革之研析：结构、运作及其对生产力水平的作用 内容提要 香港公营部门的改革应被视为整个世界行政发展进程中的一部分，它与“新公共管理”理念与国际行政改革步伐是基本一致的。本文在这个大视野下，探讨了香港公营部门改革中采取的一种形式──“营运基金”管理体制，并以香港邮政署作为个案研究的对象。 本文的写作实际上围绕着一系列问题的提出。文章试图求证这些问题的答案，虽然政府管理有时是没有明确的答案的。文章中涉及了以下主要问题：在政府内部市场化采用的不同管理体制与模式之间，港府以什么标准筛选施行营运基金的组织，目的为何？邮政署作为一个具有行业垄断性质的组织，尤其在邮件和邮票业务服务上，它为什么要采用营运基金管理体制，其改革的动力来自何方？作为一种分权的结构，邮政署与其政策和资源管理部门是如何分权的，这种分权体系对邮政署的行为将带来什么影响，而在两者的互动和讨价还价过程中，维持利益均衡可能采取的多种策略组合是什么？任何一种制度变迁和制度安排，都会对组织绩效产生重要的影响。那么，营运基金这种制度规则，会对邮政署的生产力具有什么作用，是激励还是障碍呢？同时提出的问题还有邮政署取得的业绩，是得益于营运基金体制性的改革，还是其天然的垄断地位，抑或是其它方面的原因？总体来讲，本文突出探讨营运基金现行权力结构的运作方式及与组织绩效改进之间的联系，并试图运用政治学、公共选择和新制度经济学的一些理论作出初步的分析。 本文的基本观点是，营运基金的施行具有明显的实验性和渐进性的特征，这一性质决定了营运基金分权框架受到了比较严格的限制，分权结构的解释权来者于上层，组织内部市场化的程度极为有限。尽管邮政署在施行营运基金以后，从内部组织结构到程序管理作了大幅度的调整，也取得了很大的业绩。但现行权力结构在很多方面约束了商业化运营的方式，因此，从经济效率角度，营运基金体制对其改进是组织的动力不够充分。从主管政策机构而言，在管制营运基金组织的过程中，存在着信息不完全和信息不对称这一巨大约束，由此政府在管制价格、投资回报率、成本控制、管制政策调整周期、以及融资与补贴渠道等政策制定上都难以达到十分理想的境地，所形成的刺激机制也有一定限度。同时邮政署作为一个垄断组织，缺乏外部竞争与比较价格，它有多大的动力进一步控制成本，改进服务质素是一个疑问。从长期看，营运基金形式也不足以根本克服组织内部的动力缺失问题。笔者认为，进一步的市场化措施，或者说将某些服务项目进一步向市场开放，容许一些私营机构进入特定的邮政服务市场，应是推动公营邮政组织内在动力的的源泉之一。由此，提出一个更深层次的问题是，在诸多的理念和利益牵制中，政府与邮政署等营运基金组织进一步分权的“底线”究竟在哪里？ 主题词：香港邮政署、营运基金、改革 Abstract As 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（变迁）对经济绩效的影响是无可非议的。……制度常常是那些诱致生产率增长的部分和那些抑制生产率的部分的混合。制度变迁差不多同时为这两类活动活动创造了机会。……但它总的来讲是不断增强了对从事生产活动的组织的激励。”[1] ───道格拉斯·诺斯 1．背景：香港部分公营部门实施“营运基金”管理的性质与目标 在一部分公营部门中注入企业化的“营运基金”管理体制和运作方式，是香港政府推行的公营部门改革总体方案中的重要组成部分，也被公认为是改革所采用的措施或过渡性阶段之一。 80年代末，在“新公共管理”理念的影响下，以及国际性的公营部门改革浪潮推动下，港府力臆通过公营部门自觉的改革举措，维持和强化香港在周边地区的竞争优势地位、提高有限资源的使用效率和公营机构的生产力水平、满足市民日益增长的和多元化的需求诉求、推进香港经济、政治、社会全面的发展。 1989年3月，香港财政司拟定和颁布的“公营部门改革”报告（Finance Branch，Public Sector Re
页数：50 字数：41384
香港邮政署“营运基金”管理体制改革之研析：结构、运作及其对生产力水平的作用 内容提要 香港公营部门的改革应被视为整个世界行政发展进程中的一部分，它与“新公共管理”理念与国际行政改革步伐是基本一致的。本文在这个大视野下，探讨了香港公营部门改革中采取的一种形式──“营运基金”管理体制，并以香港邮政署作为个案研究的对象。 本文的写作实际上围绕着一系列问题的提出。文章试图求证这些问题的答案，虽然政府管理有时是没有明确的答案的。文章中涉及了以下主要问题：在政府内部市场化采用的不同管理体制与模式之间，港府以什么标准筛选施行营运基金的组织，目的为何？邮政署作为一个具有行业垄断性质的组织，尤其在邮件和邮票业务服务上，它为什么要采用营运基金管理体制，其改革的动力来自何方？作为一种分权的结构，邮政署与其政策和资源管理部门是如何分权的，这种分权体系对邮政署的行为将带来什么影响，而在两者的互动和讨价还价过程中，维持利益均衡可能采取的多种策略组合是什么？任何一种制度变迁和制度安排，都会对组织绩效产生重要的影响。那么，营运基金这种制度规则，会对邮政署的生产力具有什么作用，是激励还是障碍呢？同时提出的问题还有邮政署取得的业绩，是得益于营运基金体制性的改革，还是其天然的垄断地位，抑或是其它方面的原因？总体来讲，本文突出探讨营运基金现行权力结构的运作方式及与组织绩效改进之间的联系，并试图运用政治学、公共选择和新制度经济学的一些理论作出初步的分析。 本文的基本观点是，营运基金的施行具有明显的实验性和渐进性的特征，这一性质决定了营运基金分权框架受到了比较严格的限制，分权结构的解释权来者于上层，组织内部市场化的程度极为有限。尽管邮政署在施行营运基金以后，从内部组织结构到程序管理作了大幅度的调整，也取得了很大的业绩。但现行权力结构在很多方面约束了商业化运营的方式，因此，从经济效率角度，营运基金体制对其改进是组织的动力不够充分。从主管政策机构而言，在管制营运基金组织的过程中，存在着信息不完全和信息不对称这一巨大约束，由此政府在管制价格、投资回报率、成本控制、管制政策调整周期、以及融资与补贴渠道等政策制定上都难以达到十分理想的境地，所形成的刺激机制也有一定限度。同时邮政署作为一个垄断组织，缺乏外部竞争与比较价格，它有多大的动力进一步控制成本，改进服务质素是一个疑问。从长期看，营运基金形式也不足以根本克服组织内部的动力缺失问题。笔者认为，进一步的市场化措施，或者说将某些服务项目进一步向市场开放，容许一些私营机构进入特定的邮政服务市场，应是推动公营邮政组织内在动力的的源泉之一。由此，提出一个更深层次的问题是，在诸多的理念和利益牵制中，政府与邮政署等营运基金组织进一步分权的“底线”究竟在哪里？ 主题词：香港邮政署、营运基金、改革 Abstract As 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（变迁）对经济绩效的影响是无可非议的。……制度常常是那些诱致生产率增长的部分和那些抑制生产率的部分的混合。制度变迁差不多同时为这两类活动活动创造了机会。……但它总的来讲是不断增强了对从事生产活动的组织的激励。”[1] ───道格拉斯·诺斯 1．背景：香港部分公营部门实施“营运基金”管理的性质与目标 在一部分公营部门中注入企业化的“营运基金”管理体制和运作方式，是香港政府推行的公营部门改革总体方案中的重要组成部分，也被公认为是改革所采用的措施或过渡性阶段之一。 80年代末，在“新公共管理”理念的影响下，以及国际性的公营部门改革浪潮推动下，港府力臆通过公营部门自觉的改革举措，维持和强化香港在周边地区的竞争优势地位、提高有限资源的使用效率和公营机构的生产力水平、满足市民日益增长的和多元化的需求诉求、推进香港经济、政治、社会全面的发展。 1989年3月，香港财政司拟定和颁布的“公营部门改革”报告（Finance Branch，Public Sector Re
