【作者】 周培坤；

【导师】 庄宗明；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 世界经济， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪80年代以前,我国民用机场一直采用事业单位投资管理体制,80年代中期,我国开始在个别机场实行“企业化”的改革试点,机场以企业体制进行运作。无论机场以何种体制进行运作,我国绝大多数机场均出现经营性亏损,而几乎在机场一直亏损的背景下,我国中央政府却不断地进行新机场的建设和原有机场改、扩建。在此不断亏损和不断建设的过程中,中央政府明显感觉到机场投资体制和经营管理体制上的弊端,因此,自2003年开始,我国中央政府开始将机场下放到地方政府并进行企业化改革。应该说,我国中央政府执行的改革措施是一种涉及到机场所有权和机场经营管理体制两个问题的合二为一的改革措施。由于这种改革是在这两个问题是在没有得到系统的研究的情况下进行的,机场行业对中央政府的改革措施并不认同。为了对我国机场改革措施做一个正确的评价,也为我国机场进一步改革提供理论基础和实践经验的借鉴,我对国际民航发达国家的机场投资体制和经营管理体制进行了系统的分析。经过比较分析,我总结出了以美国为代表的美国模式和以英国为代表的英国模式,并对两种模式进行了比较分析。结论如下表:由此可见,美国机场是作为公用基础设施进行定位,但美国机场由政府投资,美国机场的改革措施是进行所有权下放,而下放是为了理顺美国联邦政府与地方政府的关系,不涉及机场性质定位的改变,美国机场并没有实行企业化的经营管理模式。英国机场是作为盈利性企业来定位的,因此,英国机场可以上市募集投资资金,机场并没有一个由中央政府向地方政府的下放过程,而是直接私有化并上市,也由于这种定位,机场采取了企业的经营管理模式。在国际比较分析的基础上,本文分析了我国政府在机场改革上合二为一的改革方式的弊端,并通过建立机场盈利模型来说明中央政府在机场一刀切的企业化改革方式不符合机场运营的实际。按照模型,机场只有达到一定旅客吞吐量的情况下才可能盈利,也只有盈利才可能实行企业化改革。因此,我国民航总局可以学习美国,将机场下放。但机场是否可以企业化,则要区别对待,对于那些吞吐量长期都很少的机场,则不能实行机场企业化的改革。在机场经营管理的改革上,我国民航总局提出了机场要由经营型向管理型转化的改革方向。为此,我比较了美国模式与英国模式下机场的经营管理模式,结论是,机场经营管理体制上,民航总局所要做的事情就是明确机场的经营权,包括机场经营权和商业经营权,而至于经营权如何实现其价值,则应由机场所有者根据其对机场的定位来决定,而不应由民航总局统一规定,当然,民航总局学习国外的做法,在机场经营权上做统一要求,则是可以的,但这需要总局在明确的机场经营权的基础上进行。更多还原

【Abstract】 Before 1980s, civil airports in China have been invested and managed as public institutions. Since mid-1980s, China started its "corporatization reform" trials at certain airports, which was to operate the airport as an enterprise.However, no matter operation under which system, the vast majority of Chinese airports were in financial loss. Despite that, the central government has been continuously building new airports and upgrading existing airports. During this process of continuous construction and financial loss, the central government has obviously felt the disadvantages within its airport investment and management systems. Since 2003, Chinese central government started to hand down its airports to local governments and inaugurated the airport corporatization reform program.It should be noted that the reform executed by the central government is a type of reform that involves two issues-airport ownership and airport management system. As the reform was undertaken without a systematic research of the two issues, the airport industry is in disagreement with it.In order to make a well-founded evaluation of the reform as well as to provide theoretical basis and practical experiences for further reforms, I have conducted a systematic examination of the airport investment and management systems of some countries with advanced aviation industry. Through comparison and analysis, I have come up with two models, i.e. the US model represented by US airports and the UK model represented by UK airports, and have compared the two as follows:It can be seen from the above that US airports are oriented as public infrastructure and are invested by the government. The US reform is ownership hand-down so as to streamline the relationships between the federal and local governments with no change to the nature of the airports. The US airports have not adopted a corporatized management mode. Whereas UK airports are oriented as profit-gaining enterprises and thus can acquire their investment funds by listing in the stock markets. There is no hand-down from central to local governments, but direct privatization and listing in the stock markets. And because of this orientation, the UK airports have adopted a corporatized management mode.Based on the above international comparison and analysis, this thesis examines the disadvantages of China’s 2-in-l airport reform program and explains through an airport profit model that the central government’s uniform corporatization reform is not in accordance with the airport operation reality. According to the profit model, an airport can achieve profitability only after reaching a certain passenger volume, and only after achieving profitability can the airport undertake its corporatization reform. Therefore, CAAC may learn from the US to hand down its airports, but should deal with airport corporatization on a case-by-case base. For those airports with very small passenger volume during a long term, corporatization reform should not be imposed. In terms of airport management reform, CAAC has proposed the transformation direction from operational airport mode to managerial airport mode. In this thesis, I have also compared the management modes of the US and UK airports, and have come to the conclusion that, in terms of airport management system, what CAAC should do is to clarify the operation power of the airports, including airport operation and commercial operation powers, whereas to the issue of how to realize the value of operation power, it should be decided by the airport owners based on their orientation of the airport, not by the uniform rule of CAAC. Of course, CAAC may learn from other countries and impose uniform requirements in regard to airport operation power, but this can be carried out only after CAAC clarifies the operation power of the airports.更多还原