Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)归海一刀published in(发表于) 2013/11/14 3:11:48 Officials of the national development and Reform Commission： will split China Railway Corporation to break monopoly
Gao Jianghong
Railway marketing requires more than one operation
Development and Reform Commission, Deputy Director of the Institute of comprehensive transportation of Li 堃 on November 12, said in an interview with a reporter, looks forward to advancing the work of reform, separation of the railway, on the basis of further reform of the separation of the railway infrastructures, breaking existing monopoly.
Li 堃 believes that after the separation of the railway infrastructures, road network Foundation company emphasizes service and basic facilities, ways to attract new investment in government commitment to return rail networks are constantly updated, and in operation form a more competitive company, a competitive market in order to maintain the efficiency and service.
Li 堃 said that in a year or two after straightening out management system of railway, the next step should be to split China Railway Corp.
Multiple operations
Of the 21st century: for railway reform, in what way?
Li 堃: third plenary session talking about more macro-level issues, are generally not to be excessive detail description. However, in the decision in detail, all the wording suggests that deepening the reform, and to set up comprehensive reform leading group, hoped to do specific programmes on specific issues in the future of this group.
Of the 21st century: the railway reform is in fact an old topic. This year, finally emerging from the separation step, the Ministry of railways will become the State railway company and China National Railway Corporation, which way to go next?
Li 堃: the railway reform in one sentence, I think is the market the way around how market-oriented reforms.
First step in separating the railway reform, has been achieved. Reformed split like PetroChina, Sinopec, to break the monopoly, a competitive market economy. Cannot be fully met from iron in General for railways, to more operational body.
Of the 21st century: breaking the monopoly is a wonderful aspiration, how to achieve this?
Li 堃: the classification guidance, some industries where the property does have a natural monopoly, you broke it is impossible. Such as infrastructure, transportation network, this property has a monopoly. Can't break, and unrealistic.
For properties that have a monopoly of this kind of infrastructure, can be managed by a company, or localized management, meaning to local control, like all over the road, although it is a large network of highways, but administrative power assigned to each provincial management.
Infrastructure belongs to the network block, not necessarily emphasize its competitive, but it should be emphasized that its basic and the service. Therefore does not necessarily require the breaking up of monopolies.
In another operation, it is necessary to break the monopoly. Total now is a monopoly in the iron railway company, no one can compete with it, so he does not have sufficient incentive to improve for the better, there must be a competitor, a number of transport subject to competition in the transport market, as airlines do.
On one hand, iron in General should be split across several companies, form the subject of several transport in form is no longer a monopoly. There was competition between these operators, such as CSR and CNR, previously the Ministry of railways, and subsequently marked out not mor call, was also split into two companies, competition with each other, both are internationally well known Chinese equipment manufacturer.
Break monopoly, is not only a farmer, also bringing in external, private capital, can figure out a certain transport and gradually form a comprehensive enterprise, and transport of iron can always compete in the enterprise. So that you can always iron monopoly broken.
Yet another method is to introduce social capital, like China, Shenhua will take part in railway construction and operation of the enterprises bigger and stronger, the formation of total iron in railway enterprises of common competition.
Separation of the railway infrastructures are better models
Of the 21st century: Europe and Japan the railway reform, there is also much controversy, such reforms may also be affected by a big stir, China's national conditions appropriate for such a reform, do you think?
Li 堃: I think it should be, it should be said that transport infrastructure are separated, because the nature of the it industry, power sector reform, its basic direction grid separated, although the railway passenger transport different from the power grid, but separated from the technique without any major problems.
Of course, if the separation of the railway infrastructures, and traditional models of management and operation are very different so it will involve a lot of personnel changes and configurations, there will also be interest allocation, designation, complex issues such as fee collection of assets.
In fact, this reform has been, later stressed that development, this programme has stopped. I think the separation of the railway infrastructures is a better model, not to say perfect, because what kind of reform programmes have a problem.
Of the 21st century: differing views in interviews was made, considers iron in newly established internal management Combs also did not easy, should not rush into reforms. In addition, a more serious problem is that during the 35 big construction tasks, separation of the railway infrastructures, wouldn't it be more detrimental to the building?
Li 堃: the argument has a certain logic. This separation, iron in General does take some time to think about what happens within it straighten out, what reform within.
But to see that internal impetus for reform will never be enough, dominated by internal changes, may have a problem. You see, right now, although the railway had a clear separation, but, until now, the national railway company was not listed, railways, traffic, and what to do with, national railway master, including the railway company and the Ministry have some Division of labour, but progress for so long, there is still no progress.
But I agree with the first iron in time to do internal comb, from the reform of the actual operation, you do need a digestive and straighten out all aspects of the time.
Another problem, I think from railway status for, network games separation may more conducive to construction, in the iron total now has is a enterprise, from enterprise operating management angle, built have more more lost have more more, this is why this year half and last year railway construction investment amount declined has, because as a Enterprise for, if short-term hard produces benefits, voted in more thanks to have more more, enterprise of investment how may has enthusiasm?
Investment in infrastructure it is losing money, the construction of railway lines, especially the Midwest, line construction in remote areas are countries need investment, transport companies may not be willing to vote, businesses are willing to put into operation the coal freight lines, national goals with corporate goals how do I line up?
So the separation of network and operation, road network by the company (which can be State-owned) monopolies or dominant, and construction was completed under the support from the State, such railway companies without large liabilities investment pressure operations can be better.
Split to attract investors
Of the 21st century, however, future demand for railway construction in the Midwest, the greater, the more difficult for money-making projects. And now the national railway construction funding is a big problem, want to introduce social capital participating in railway construction, according to your argument, after the separation of transport network, road network the company emphasizes its services and basic, such firms would have no more ways to attract investors to come in?
Li 堃: Yes, so they need the State to find ways to give fixed return on that investment, to this commitment in return, to attract investors. Infrastructure subsidies in return require classification, distinguish which money which does not make money, no money is impossible for investors to come in, most railway lines must be losing money in the Midwest, it needs Government-led Government needs to repay a promise, a 6% or a return for such a commitment, to attract investors.
As to the road network in the East of their busy shopping day, it is possible to profit, you can package listing, operate like airports and highways.
Return on investment in infrastructure because of longer, less attractive to investors, total rail operations and investments in infrastructure are now all together in a bundle, and limited its appeal to social. If you split it, an attractive asset to attract investors, unattractive assets yourself or attract investors steady returns, thus reaching a situation that everyone is willing to participate. Mixed together, they do not desire to participate can't come in.
The breaking up of monopolies so that the Community funds coming in, the State has no doubts on this principle in is simply the means of how to achieve it. Led by the iron in General, and probably does not meet this objective. If future operations and network separate operating business and basic business separate, separated from service and competitive, in order to achieve this goal. At one point, national deregulation, social capital can come in.
高江虹
铁路市场化需要多个运营主体
发改委综合运输研究所副主任李堃在11月12日接受记者采访时表示，期待在此后推进改革工作中，能够在铁路政企分开的基础上，进一步进行网运分离改革，打破现有的垄断局面。
李堃认为，网运分离之后，基础性设施的路网公司强调服务性和基础性，以政府承诺回报的方式吸引新投资持续更新铁路网，而在运营层面组建多个竞争性公司，形成竞争市场以保持效率与服务。
李堃表示，在一两年时间内理顺铁路管理体制之后，下一步就应该着手拆分中国铁路总公司。
建立多个运营主体
《21世纪》：对于铁路改革，应该以何种方式进行？
李堃：三中全会谈及的是更为宏观层面的问题，一般不会对细节予以过多描述。不过，其实在《决定》细节中，所有措辞都表明要深化改革，而且要成立全面深化改革领导小组，可以寄望于这个小组以后就具体问题做具体的方案。
《21世纪》：其实铁路改革是个老话题了。今年终于走出政企分开的一步，铁道部变成国家铁路局和中国铁路总公司，接下来该怎么走？
李堃：铁路改革用一句话说就是走市场化的路，围绕着怎么市场化来进行改革。
铁路改革的第一步政企分开，已经实现了。下一步改革也像中石油、中石化一样进行拆分，要打破垄断，形成竞争的市场经济。不能完全由中铁总一家来搞铁路，要多个运营主体。
《21世纪》：打破垄断是个美好的愿望，该怎么实现？
李堃：这个要分类指导，有些行业属性确实有自然垄断的地方，你把它打破了也不可能。比如基础设施、路网，这块具有垄断的属性。打破不了，也不现实。
对于这类有垄断属性的基础设施，可以还是由一家公司管，或者属地化管理，也就是说交给地方管，像各地的公路一样，虽然是一个大的公路网，但是管理权分配到各个省管理。
路网这块属于基础设施，不一定要强调其竞争性，而是应该强调其基础性和服务性。所以不一定要求打破垄断。
但是在另一个运营层面，却是必须要打破垄断的。中铁总现在是一家垄断的铁路企业，没人能跟它竞争，所以他并没有足够的动力去改善得更好，必须要有竞争者，多个运输主体来参与运输市场的竞争，像航空公司那样。
一方面，中铁总应该拆分成若干个企业，形成若干个运输主体，在形式上不再是垄断。这些运营公司之间是有竞争关系的，比如像南车和北车，以前都是铁道部的，后来划出来不归铁道部管，还分拆成了两家公司，互相竞争，两家都是国际上知名的中国装备企业了。
打断垄断，不但是要内部破题，还要把外部的、民营的资本引进来，可以先搞某一种运输，然后慢慢形成一种综合性企业，与中铁总能相抗衡的运输企业。这样就可以把铁总的垄断打破了。
还有一种方法是要把社会资本引进来，像中电投、神华等参与铁路建设运营的企业做大做强，形成中铁总以外的铁路企业共同竞争的局面。
网运分离是比较好的模式
《21世纪》：欧洲和日本所做的铁路改革，也存在很多争议，我国做这样的改革可能也会受到很大震动，你认为中国的国情适合这样的改革吗？
李堃：我觉得应该是可以的，应该说交通的基础设施都是分离的，因为它行业的特性决定的，从电力改革来看，它的基本方向也是厂网分离，虽然铁路客运跟电网不同，但从技术来说分离没有什么大问题。
当然，如果网运分离，和传统的管理、运营的模式很不一样，所以会涉及很多人员调整和配置，也会有利益怎么分配、资产怎么划定、费用怎么收等复杂问题。
其实这个改革方向一直是有的，后来强调发展，就把这个方案停下来了。我觉得网运分离是一个比较好的模式，虽不能说是十全十美，因为哪一种改革方案都有问题。
《21世纪》：在采访时有人也提出了不同意见，认为中铁总刚成立，内部管理梳理还没顺当，不应急于再改革。另外，一个比较严峻的问题是，十二五期间还有很大的建设的任务，网运分离的话，会不会更不利于建设？
李堃：这个说法有一定的道理。今年刚刚政企分开，中铁总确实需要一段时间思考它内部怎么理顺，内部到底怎么改革。
但是要看到，内部改革的动力永远是不够的，由着内部支配怎么改，可能会有问题。你看现在虽然铁路已经明确政企分开，可是，直到现在，国家铁路局还是没有挂牌，铁路局和交通部到底什么关系，国家给中铁总，包括铁路局和交通部都有一定分工，但是进展这么长时间，仍然没有多少进展。
不过我赞同先要给中铁总做内部梳理的时间，从改革实际操作来说，确实需要一个消化、理顺方方面面的时间。
另一个问题，我觉得从铁路现状来说，网运分离可能更有利于建设，中铁总现在已经是个企业，从企业经营管理角度，建得越多赔得越多，这就是为什么今年上半年和去年铁路建设投资额下降了，因为作为一个企业来说，如果短期很难产生效益，投进去越多亏得越多，企业的投资怎么可能有积极性？
基础设施这一块是个亏钱的投资，铁路线路的建设，尤其是中西部的、偏远地区的线路建设其实是国家需要投资，运输企业未必愿意投，企业愿意投运煤运货的线路，国家目标与企业目标如何一致得起来？
所以将路网与运营分离，路网由一家公司(可以是国资的)垄断管理或主导，建设也在国家的支持下完成，这样铁路运营公司没了大额负债投资的压力，运营才能更好。
拆分才能吸引投资者
《21世纪》：不过，越往后中西部铁路建设需求越大，越是哪些难以挣钱的项目。而且现在国家铁路建设的资金是个大问题，希望引入社会资本参与铁路建设，按您的说法，运网分离之后，路网公司强调其服务性和基础性，这样的公司岂不是更没办法吸引投资者进来了？
李堃：是，所以需要国家想办法，给予这类投资固定的回报，以这种承诺性的回报来吸引投资者。基础设施的补贴回报需要分类，分清楚哪些赚钱哪些不赚钱，不赚钱的让投资者进来是不可能的，中西部大多数铁路线路肯定是赔钱的，因此需要政府主导，政府需要给一个承诺的回报，6%或者8%承诺的回报，来吸引投资者。
至于东部的路网，他们的客流量大，有可能盈利，可以打包搞上市，像机场和高速公路那样运作。
基础设施因为投资大回报时间长，对投资者就缺乏吸引力，中铁总目前运营和基础设施投资都捆在一起，它对社会的吸引力有限。若是把它拆分开，把有吸引力的资产拿去吸引投资者，没有吸引力的资产自己干或者用稳定回报的方式吸引投资者，这样就达成一个大家都愿意参与进来的局面。混在一起，人家反而不愿意也没法子参与进来。
打破垄断，让社会资金进来，国家对这个大方向没有疑虑，无非是如何实现的手段问题。如果以中铁总为主导的，恐怕达不到这个目标。将来要是运营和网路分开，经营性业务和基础性业务分开，服务性与竞争性分开，才能实现这个目标。还有一点，国家还要放松管制，社会资金才能进来。
赞