시장경쟁 방안과 서비스 효과에 대한 연구

• 영문명: The Study on the Plan of Competition and Effect of Service: In the Case of the Privatization of Railway Industry in Japan and Britain.
• 발행기관: 연세대학교 사회과학연구소
• 저자명: 조창현(Jo, Chang-Hyon)
• 간행물 정보: 『사회과학논집』제35권, 93~126쪽, 전체 34쪽
• 주제분류: 사회과학 > 사회과학일반
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2005.05.30

국문 초록

조직은 환경의 변화에 따라 적응되어야 하는데, 철도산업의 환경 변화에 따라 조직의 변화․개혁이 필요하게 된다. 교통산업의 변화에 따라 철도행정 조직이 효율화를 위해 민영화로 개혁을 논의되고 단행되었던 것이다. 민영화에서 성공적인 조직개혁을 위해 사례의 비교분석이 필요하다. 일본과 영국의 각 정부는 침체하는 철도산업을 새로운 교통환경에서 활성화하기 위하여 분할.민영화 정책을 결정하였다. 그리고 시장경쟁체제를 구축하여 서비스를 향상시키고 안전성과 공공성을 보장하면서 수익성을 창출하고자 하였다. 일본정부는 6개의 지역별 여객철도운송회사와 1개의 전국적 화물철도운송회사로 대규모 조직으로 분할하였고, 영국정부는 약 100개의 단위사업별로 소규모 조직으로 분할하였다. 이러한 조직개편(민영화)의 과정을 살펴보면, 철도산업 침체에 대한 구체적인 정책목표, 경쟁력 강화 방안, 정부 규제완화 방식 등 세부적인 내용이 다르고, 민영화의 효과 및 평가가 상이하게 나타났다. 본 연구는 양국의 사례에서 외형적인 철도 민영화 방안의 차이점과 유사점을 비교 분석하거나 효과 대비 방안을 단순 비교 분석하는 것에 추가하여, 정치․이념적 논리, 경제적 논리, 조직적 논리를 토대로 체계적인 심층분석을 통해 조직분할방식, 구축된 시장형태, 민영기업의 경영방식, 정부의 규제감독으로 구분하여 잠재적인 인과관계 및 메커니즘을 파악하고자 한다. 즉, 개편할 적절한 민영화 조직의 규모․수에 대한 고려, 기업의 자율적인 전문경영의 허용 방식, 기업 간의 실질적인 경쟁 방식 및 정도, 정부의 규제․감독의 완화 방식 및 유지 등의 분석요인들이 어떠한 상호 연관되면서 기업의 생산성과 서비스 향상에 영향을 주게 되는가를 연구한다.

영문 초록

An Organization in the railway industry needs to be changed and adapted along with environmental changes of transportation. We have to make a comparative study of two cases of Japan and Britain for the successful organizational reformation in the privatization of railway. Each government made a policy of separative privatization in the railway s industry for the efficiency and productivity, to market competitive system, to improve services, to secure safety and public interest, and to make a profit. In Japan, the organization of railway was divided into 6 TOCs regionally with integrating infra and operation and 1 FOC nation-wide, establishes several special institutions. In Britain, the organization of railway was divided into about 100 small institutions with 25 TOCs, 6 FOCs, 3 ROSCOSs, 13 BRISs, Railtrack, and especially adopt franchising in the sector of TOC to promote competition and improvement of services by make short-term contract with TOCs. Between of them, there were many differences, such as policy target, plans of competition, governmental method of regulation and supervision, and effect and evaluation of privatization. So, this study is focusing first on the comparison of plans and effects of railway s privatization, second on finding out the correlation and mechanism of similar and different facts - method of organizational separation, shape of organized market, business method of privatized enterprise, regulation and supervision of government - on the basis of political․ideological logic, economic logic, organizational logic. There were some special features in there. First, there was difference in railway market between Japan and Britain. In Japan, regionally separated JR did compete with a private railways and automobiles, so had to make and develope services better for competitiveness, made many investment in improving its infras and services. In Britain, TOC had powers of monopoly, so did not need to compete services with other TOCs. Second, franchising had self-contradictions. it reduced possibilities of entrance into railway market and induced the monopoly of track by one selected TOC. it also had possibilities to restrict the development of services within the contract with government in open competitive bidding because of pursuing more profits. Third, franchising also made another problem. Franchising permitted short-term operations, prevented TOC from investing a big project with large capital, forbade the subsidiary business and reduced a subsidy gradually. So TOCs did not have long-term project and did not improve the level of services, but pursuing short-term business project like a raise of fare. Fourth, government made a mistake in controlling the balance of railway market. It intervened railway market so to make confusion in principle of supply and demand. TOC resided within regulation and supervision of government, avoiding responsibilities of market obligation such as principles of supply and demand. Government did not make TOC observe the principles of market competition throughly. Many elements made a difference in results of two cases. Although government had a good idea and ideology such as neo-liberalism doctrine, it failed to make a privatization of railway without following many principles of economy.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 일본과 영국의 철도 민영화 현황

Ⅲ. 일본과 영국의 민영화 비교 분석

Ⅳ. 민영화 방안의 세부 고찰 : 경쟁력 강화를 중심으로

Ⅴ. 결론

키워드

한국 철도산업 정부조직개혁 공기업 민영화 일본과 영국 비교연구 Korean railway industry reformation of governmental structure comparative study in British and Japanese privatization of public enterprise