「統一定價」與「競爭機制」—液化石油氣產業之研究

機構典藏 > College of Business and Management > Graduate Institute & Department of Industrial Economics > Proceeding > Item 987654321/85149

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/85149

Title:	「統一定價」與「競爭機制」—液化石油氣產業之研究
Other Titles:	Uniform pricing and competitive mechanism: a study of liquefied petroleum gas industry
Authors:	莊春發
Contributors:	淡江大學產業經濟學系
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2013-04-08 15:24:13 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	臺北市：行政院公平交易委員會
Abstract:	任何產業政府部門可藉由直接管制加以規範，亦可藉由市場力量所形成的競爭機制予以規範。液化石油氣產業早期因為供應與經銷階段屬於獨占市場結構，的確造成市場機制的若干限制，形成經濟無效率的不利結果，因此政府選擇以直接管制為規範手段。同時間，政府配合採行液化石油氣經銷商利潤限制的手段，以及最終價格分區管制等的配套措施，消費者的權益並未受到太大的損害。液化石油氣市場解除管制之後，目的主管機關卻忽略了配套措施的必要性，以至於產生地下分裝場、地下分銷商的出現，從而產生市場殺價的行為。隨後，上下游業者即不斷產生違反公平交易法之行為，而受到嚴厲的處罰，處罰之金額幾乎使得液化石油氣產業變成公平會的最大供養產業。審酌液化石油氣過去兩種管制政策的結果，可以發覺政府以市場機制替代原有的管制政策，因欠缺妥善的配套措施，從而衍生液化石油氣市場的許多問題，例如鋼瓶未按期檢查產生社會安全的危害可能;地下分銷商、分裝場的出現，產生市場交易的失序行為，它直接間接促成業者進行聯合行為的不法行為。目的主管機關亦輕忽從業人員的再教育的重要性，致使採用市場機制管理市場時，許多業者未能適應新制而觸犯公平法而受罰，其所累積的金額更令人印象深刻。衡酌液化石油氣市場兩種不同的管制制度r 競爭機制」所造成的社會成本，相對於「統一定價」的管制似乎並不便宜。政府應採用何種制度管理液化石油氣產業較為通宜，政策上仍有再思慮的空間。Direct control of government and competitive mechanism induced by market power are two common conduits to regulate industries. In the early phase, the supply and dealer system of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) industry belonged to a monopolistic structure, which indeed brought about several limitations for market mechanism while resulted in disadvantage of economic efficiency. Hence, the government's regulation is not only plausible but necessary. The supplementary measures of profit restraint to the LPG dealers and of territory limitation to final price implemented by government prevented serious damages for customers' interest. Since the deregulation of LPG market, the administration ignored the necessary of the supplementary measures. Illegal LPG bottling factories and distributors were emerged and led to undercutting behavior in the market. Then, the upstream and downstream industries continuously violated the Fair Trade Law. The most server punishment almost made the LPG industry become the large supporter of Fair Trade Commission. It can be found by reviewing the two regulating policies that due to the deficiency of proper supplementary measures government uses market mechanism to substitute the original control policy would cause many sequel as for LPG market. For instances, security problems might be induced by the events that the LPG steel cylinders are not checked as scheduled, uncontrollable behavior of market trading induced by the emergence of illegal LPG bottling factories and distributors would directly or indirectly stimulate the happening of collusion. Furthermore, the administration also disregarded the importance of reeducation for the people who works in the related industries. The result refers to that when regulating with market mechanism many firms would not accommodate new rule easily and violate the Fair Trade Law frequently. The large amount of accumulated forfeit made deep impression for people. Gauging the two regulation systems of the LPG market, the social cost of the 'competitive mechanism' is relatively not cheaper than the 'uniform pricing'. Accordingly, there is the room to rethink the question that which mechanism is more adequate for managing the LPG industry from the viewpoint of public policy.
Relation:	第16屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會論文集，頁1-44
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute & Department of Industrial Economics] Proceeding

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
index.html	0Kb	HTML	166	View/Open

Loading...