多家企業國營化與產業補貼政策分析

An Analysis on State-Owned Firms and Industrial Subsidy Policy

10.30087/APEMR.201109.0001

沈采瑱；陳芳岳

國營化 ； 生產補貼 ； Privatization ； Subsidy Policy ； State-owned Firms

亞太經濟管理評論

15卷1期（2011 / 09 / 01）

1 - 20

繁體中文

在產業中有多家廠商生產力異質的情況下，本文分析在政府不同特性的補貼政策（定額與從量補貼）中，選擇性與全面性補貼對社會福利的影響。本文證明當補貼程度高於特定水準時，選擇性補貼的福利水準將高於全面性補貼，而且高成本廠商的生產力越差，產業中獲得補貼的總家數就應該越少。不過高成本廠商家數佔產業總家數比例越高時，則應獲得補貼的家數就應該要越多。我們也證明補貼程度越高，受補貼總家數就要越少。當補貼程度低於特定水準時，則所有高成本廠商皆應獲得補貼，而且此時福利水準的高低將與補貼程度呈現正向關係。最後，唯有補貼程度等於某特定水準時，全面性補貼下的福利才會與選擇性補貼下的福利水準相等。本文也對從量與定額補貼政策的福利效果作政策排序分析。

We analyze the welfare effect of a selective and a comprehensive subsidy policy. We find that the selective subsidy policy has a higher welfare than the comprehensive subsidy policy does when the subsidy level is high enough. In addition, the number of subsidized firms should be fewer if the productivity of high-cost firms is low. Also, the number of subsidized firms increases with the proportion of high-cost firms in the industry. We further prove that the government should limit subsidized firms when the subsidy level becomes higher. When the subsidy level is low enough, the government should subsidize all high-cost firms and the welfare level is positively related with the subsidy level. Besides, only if the subsidy level reaches a critical value, the social welfare by the comprehensive subsidy policy is equivalent to that by the selective subsidy policy.

1. Bös, D.(1991).Privatization: A Theoretical Treatment.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
2. Cremer, H.,Marchand, M.,Thisse, J. F.(1989).The Public Firms as an Instrument for Regulating an Oligopolistic Market.Oxford Economic Papers,41,283-301.
3. De Fraja, G.,Delbono, F.(1989).Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly.Oxford Economic Papers,41,1-17.
4. Dung, T. H.(1993).Optimal Taxation and Heterogeneous Oligopoly.Canadian Journal of Economics,26,933-947.
5. Fershtman, C.(1990).The Interdependence between Ownership Status and Market Structure: The Case of Privatization.Economica,57,319-328.
6. Fujiwara, K.(2007).Partial Privatization in a Differentiated Mixed Oligopoly.Journal of Economics,92(1),51-65.
7. Lahiri, S.,Ono, Y.(1997).Asymmetric Oligopoly, International Trade, and Welfare: A Synthesis.Journal of Economics,65,291-310.
8. Lahiri, S.,Ono, Y.(1988).Helping Minor Firms Reduces Welfare.Economic Journal,98,1199-1202.
9. Matsumura, T.(2003).Consumer-benefiting Exclusive Territories.Canadian Journal of Economics,36,100-1025.
10. Matsumura, T.(1998).Partial Privatization in Mixed Duopoly.Journal of Public Economics,70,473-483.
11. Matsumura, T.,Shimizu, D.(2010).Privatization Waves.The Manchester School,78,609-625.
12. Megginson, L.(1998).The Impact of Privatization.Economic Reform Today,1,11-15.
13. Megginson, L.,Netter, J.(2001).From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization.Journal of Economic Literature,39(2),321-389.
14. Myles, G.(2002).Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and The Order of Firm's Moves: An Irrelevance Result for the General Case.Economics Bulletin,12,1-6.
15. Ohnishi, K.(2010).Partial Privatization in Price-setting Mixed Duopoly.Economics Bulletin,30(1),309-314.
16. Ono, Y.(1990).Foreign Penetration and National Welfare under Oligopoly.Japan and the World Economy,2,141-154.
17. Pal, D.,White, M. D.(1998).Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy.Southern Economic Journal,62,246-281.
18. Poyago-Theotoky, J.(2001).Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and the Order of Firm's Moves: An Irrelevance Result.Economics Bulletin,12,1-5.
19. Tomaru, Y.(2006).Mixed Oligopoly, Partial Privatization and Subsidization.Economics Bulletin,12(5),1-6.
20. Ushio, Y.(2000).Welfare Effects of Commodity Taxation in Cournot Oligopoly.Japanese Economic Review,51,268-273.
21. White, M. D.(1996).Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Subsidization.Economics Letters,53,189-195.