【作者】 金鑫；

【导师】 冯向东；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 高等教育学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 独立学院是我国高等教育体制改革中出现的一种新的办学模式,是中国高等教育大众化进程中一种新的制度创新。独立学院在短短十年的时间里发展迅速,呈现蓬勃发展之势。教育部2008年4月1日正式实施《独立学院设置与管理办法》(教育部26号令),更加强调独立学院在法律和制度上的独立地位,进一步明确独立学院的民办属性,促进独立学院管理体制和运行机制改革创新。26号令的出台,昭示了独立学院规模扩张的年代已经结束,独立学院进入一个关键的制度变迁时期。大学法人治理结构是现代大学制度的核心。在独立学院进入规范管理、提高质量的阶段,其治理结构的构建和完善更显得十分关键,研究治理问题也更显得重要和迫切。独立学院法人治理结构是在坚持教育公益性的前提下,以独立学院产权制度安排为核心,对举办高校、投资方以及独立学院自身等利益相关者的权利分配与制衡所作的一套制度安排。治理目标、产权制度、治理机制和利益相关者问题构成独立学院治理结构的基本框架。在独立学院创立初期,没有现成的经验可供借鉴,独立学院与投资方通过签订的办学协议及办学章程来相互制约。办学章程是其法人治理结构最初设计的最好体现,从中反映出我国独立学院最初的制度设计存在先天缺陷。首先,最初的制度设计中,独立学院法人治理目标是朝着寻求各自利益分配的方向,凸显了资本的逐利性。其次,产权机制设计不合理,对于举办高校所提供的无形资产如何核定其价值?举办高校投入的无形资产与投资方投入的有形资产如何量化成独立学院的总资本?等等问题均不明确。最后,独立学院独立法人地位不明确。最初的制度设计只是谈及了公办高校与投资方两方,而忽视了独立学院这样一个重要的独立办学实体。目前,我国的独立学院按照投资与合作方式分类,主要包括“校中校”模式和“公办高校+投资方”模式两大类型。他们的办学模式不同,各自面临的现实问题也是不同的。对于“校中校”模式的独立学院,,独立学院成为举办高校的附属部门,其产权机构单一,法人财产和法人权力容易受到母体高校的侵蚀。对于“公办高校+投资方”模式的独立学院,存在两大问题：首先,社会投资方在学校产权结构中占主导地位,获得学校声誉索取权与剩余控制权的主导地位,从而获得对独立学院的控制权。其次,独立学院的内部决策机制不合理,即董事会成员结构不合理,董事会决策不民主。无论是哪种模式的独立学院,面对26号令,其法人治理结构的完善刻不容缓。构建独立学院法人治理结构的基本准则是：独立学院合理的法人治理结构应当体现教育的公益性；独立学院合理的法人治理结构应当适合独立学院的办学模式；独立学院合理的法人治理结构应当有利于独立学院的持续健康发展。此外,为了使独立学院步入健康、持续发展的轨道,必须依靠强有力的制度支撑。而持续、强有力的制度供给,无论如何设计,都必须结合独立学院自身的特点。关键要注意三个问题：正视“校中校”模式的客观存在问题；正视投资办学和捐资办学的差异；正视资本的寻利性和教育的公益性的矛盾。更多还原

【Abstract】 Independent Institute is not only a new educational model emerged in the reform process of China’s higher education system, but also a new system innovation made in the popularization process of China’s higher education. In this decade, Independent Institute develops rapidly and shows a booming trend. The official execution of Measures for the Setup and Administration of Independent Institute (Decree No.26 of Ministry of Education) on April 1,2008, further emphasized on the legal and institutional independence of the Independent Institute, further defined the private property of the Independent Institute and promoted the Independent Institute’s management system and operation mechanism reform and innovation. The release of Decree No.26 made clear that the expansion era of the independent Institute had ended and the Independent Institute entered into a crucial system change period. The university’s corporate governance structure is the core of the modern university system. After entering into the standard management and the quality improvement stage, constructing and improving the governance structure has become more critical. Meanwhile, the research of the governance issues has become more important and urgent.Independent institute’s corporate governance structure is a series of systems established with the prerequisite of adhering to public welfare education, focusing on the independent Institute’s property right system, based on the right distribution and balance among the investors, the independent institute and the host university. The governance target, property right system, governance mechanism and stakeholder issues constitute the basic frame of the independent Institute’s governance structure.After establishing the independent institute, there was no ready-made experience for reference in the early stage. Thus, the independent institute and investors signed an institute establishment agreement and school charter to constrain each other. School charter reflected the corporate governance structure’s original design best. It also reflected the independent institute’s birth defects in original system design. First, in the original system design, the independent institute’s corporate governance goal was to seek for the benefit and distribute the benefit. It highlighted the capital’s profit pursuit. Second, the property right mechanism design was unreasonable. How to assess the value of the intangible assets provided by the host university? How to quantify the intangible assets invested by the host university and tangible asset invested by the investors into the independent institute’s total capital? Such issues were not clear. Finally, the independent institute’s independent corporate status was not clear. The original design of the system only talked about the public universities and investors, but neglected the independent institute’s identity-an important independent educational entity.At present, in accordance with the investment and cooperation way, China’s independent institutes can be classified into two types, "School within a school" model and "Public universities + investor" model. Different institute systems face their own different practical problems. The independent institute with the "school within a school" model becomes a subsidiary department of the host university. It is of single property right structure and its corporate property and corporate power are vulnerable to the erosion of the parent university. The independent institute with the "Public Universities +investor" model has two major problems:First, the social investors dominate the property right of the institute and dominate the institute’s reputation claim and residual control right, so as to control the independent institute. Second, the independent institute’s internal decision-making mechanism is unreasonable, i.e. the board member structure is irrational and the board’s decision-making is undemocratic.In the face of Decree No.26, the corporate governance structure of the independent institute shall be improved without delay, no matter which kind of model is adopted. The basic criteria to construct the independent institute’s corporate governance structure: the independent institute’s reasonable corporate governance structure should reflect the education’s public welfare, suitable for the institute institute’s running model and advantageous for the independent institute’s sustainable and sound development. In addition, in order to make the independent institute develop more health and sustainable, the institute’s system must rely on the strong system support. Meanwhile, the sustainable and strong system, no matter how to design, must be combined with the independent institute’s characteristics. The key is to pay attention to three issues:the "School within a school" model has objective problems; face up the difference between the institute established by investment and donation; face up the contradiction between the capital’s benefit pursuit and education’s public welfare.更多还原