俄羅斯民營化政策之研究─從葉里欽到普欽

• Main Author: 陳爾龢
• Language: 中文
• Published: 國立政治大學
• Subjects: 俄羅斯; 民營化; 經濟政策; 新制度主義; 財產權; 葉里欽; 普欽
• Online Access: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cdrfb3/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&i=sid=%22G0089263001%22.

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.