The Comparative Study of the UK and Japan's Rail Privatization, Focusing on Policy Process and Outcomes

영국과 일본의 철도민영화 비교 연구 - 추진과정과 성과를 중심으로 -

  • Published : 2008.02.29

Abstract

Recently, most of countries have been adopting the policies that aim to deal with the Problems of road congestion, environmental problems and the decreasing the volume of rall. A vital important subject is the reform of railways. Actually, the reform of railways has been carried out in various kind of ways, however the most epoch-making policy has been privatization of railways. Historically, Japan made the first step when it carried out regional privatization, unifying the infrastructure and operation. It created a 6 passenger enterprises and 1 freight enterprise. Meanwhile, in the case of the UK, discussion about rail privatization started the middle of 1980 and was implemented in 1994. It was implemented according to a functional division based on a separation of infrastructure and operation, creating a lot of different enterprises. With regard to the UK and Japan, there have been some debates about the methods of privatization, in particular, some scholars suggest that the rail accidents in the UK are a result of division of the infrastructure and operation. In addition to, some insist that the accident which occurred on 27th April 2005 at Hukujiyama in Japan was also attributable to the emphasis on profitable management. This paper examines the process and outcomes of rail privatization between the UK and Japan, especially focusing on different methods of privatization. This paper may provide some lessens for rail privatization policy. First, the rail privatization policy needs a enough time to complete the scheme. Second it is require to participate in the consumer, mass communication and rail of ncers who are involved the operation. Third, it is essential to have a huge investment, high technology and strong organization to drive.

각국은 도로혼잡과 지구온난화 등 환경문제 그리고 철도 수송 분담율 감소 등의 문제에 적극적으로 대처하기 위해 여러 가지 노력을 경주하고 있다. 그 가운데 가장 핵심적인 내용은 구조개혁을 통한 철도부문의 경쟁력 향상이다. 구조개혁은 상하분리, 민간위탁, 조직의 통폐합, 민영화 등으로 추진되고 있지만 그 중 시장 메커니즘을 적극적으로 활용하는 방안이 민영화이다. 일본은 1987년에 최초로 사하 일체와 지역별 민영화방식으로 전국을 6개 지역회사와 1개의 화물회사로 분할하여 추진하였다. 한편 영국은 1980년대 중반부터 논의를 시작하여 194년에 철도민영화를 단행하였다. 영국철도는 상하를 분리하고 기능별로 분리, 노선별로 프랜차이즈 하는 방식을 채택하였다. 그간 일본철도는 상하 일체 방식으로 영국은 상하 분리 방식의 민영화로 대별되어 각각의 장단점에 대한 많은 논의가 있었다. 특히 영국의 경우 몇 번의 대형 사고발생 원인을 기능별, 상하 분리의 민영화방식에서 찾는 분석도 있었다. 본 논문에서는 양국의 각기 다른 민영화방식에 초점을 맞추고 추진 배경과 성과 분석을 통하여 보다 합리적인 민영화정책의 추진요소과 시사점을 발견하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 양국철도민영화는 철도투자와 정치적인 영향력, 추진일정 그리고 이를 추진한 그룹의 차이에의해 철도민영화방식에 차이가 생겼고, 이 때문에 양국은 다른 성과를 가져왔다. 성공적인 철도민영화는 철도에 대한 충분한 투자 하에 정치적인 일정보다는 철도발전의 계획에 따라, 그리고 철도관련이해관계자들이 민영화과정에 참여하고, 민영화를 가능케 하는 기술적인 조건 등이 구비될 경우 성공적으로 추진된다는 교훈을 얻을 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Avans, A. W. (2004), "Rail Safety and Rail Privitisation in Britain", Inaugural Lecture, 16 June2004
  2. BBC, 20 October, 2000
  3. Bradshaw, B. (2000), "New Direction for Britain's Railway: British Railways Privatisation", McGraw-Hill Company pp.229-241
  4. Bradshaw, B. (2000), "Integrated Transport Policy", Ashgate, pp.129-154
  5. Department for Transport (1991), "Transport Statistics Great Britain, 1991 Edition", p.3, p.38, p.114, p.180
  6. Department for Transport (1993), "Transport Statistics Great Britain, 1993 Edition", p.53
  7. Department for Transport (2004), "Transport Statistics Great Britain, 2004 Edition", p.16, p.17, p.26, p.29, p.30, p.52, p.60, p.101, p.103, p.128, p.146, p.147
  8. Department for Transport (2004). "The white paper on the future of rail"
  9. Department for Transport (2005), "Transport Statistics Great Britain, 2005 Edition".(www.dft.gov.uk)
  10. Foster, C. (1994), "The Economics of Rail Privatisation", CRI (Centre for The Study of Regulated Industries)
  11. Gourvish,T. (2002), "British Rail, 1974-97", Oxford University Press, p.370, p.515
  12. Hall, S. (2003), "Beyond Hidden Dangers" Isan Allen, p.120
  13. HSC (2001), "Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part 1Report : HSC Action Plan-Progress Report to December 2001"
  14. HSC(2002), "Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry Part 2 Report:Progress Report to March 2002"
  15. HSE (2002), "Hatfield derailment investigation-Interim recommendations of the Investigation Board"
  16. Mathieu Gerard (2003), "The reform of UK railway-privatization and its results" JRTR34. pp.16-31
  17. MIT and Cambridge University (2000), "Problems of De-regulation - The case of UK Railways" (http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/electricity/ index.htm)
  18. Nash, C.A. (2003), "Integrated Future and Transport Choices", Ashgate, pp.252-257
  19. Obermauer, A. (2001), "National Railway Reform in Japan and EU: Evaluation of Institutional Changes", JRTR29, Dec.2001, p.30
  20. OPRAF(1997/8), "Annual Report"
  21. Preston, J.M., Root, A. (1999), "Changing Trains", Ashgate, pp.71-74
  22. Preston. J.M (2001), "Development of Market Models for Increased Competition in Railroad Passenger Traffic", University of Oxford TSU, p.102
  23. Railways Act (1993)
  24. Smith, A.S.J (2004), "Essay on Rail Regulation: Analysis of the British Privatisation Experience" Ph.D Thesis University of Cambridge
  25. SRA (2002),(2004)(2005), "National Rail Trend"
  26. SRA (2003)(2004), "Customer Satisfaction Survey"
  27. The Times, 17July2006
  28. Velde, D.M, Mizutani, F, Preston, J.M,, Hulten. S (1998), "Railway reform and entrepreneurship: A tale of three countries", University of Oxford, Tsu Ref 871, pp.10-11
  29. Wolmar.C. (2001), "Broken Rail", AURUM PRESS, pp.180-201
  30. Wolmar.C. (2003), "Unlike the UK ,the sun is rising on Japan s' privatisation", Rail470, www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/470.shtml
  31. John, G. Ikenberry, David, A.Lake & Michael Mastanduno. (1988). "Introduction: approach to explaining American foreign economic policy". 42(1):1-14
  32. James, A. Dunn. Jr, Anthony, Perl. (2001). "Toward a New Model Railway for 21st Century: lessons for Five Countries". Transportation Quarterly. 55(2):43-57
  33. James, G. March&Johan, P. Olsen. (1984). "The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political in Political Life". American Political Science Review. 77
  34. Letteney A. Robert. (2005)."Passenger rail privatization: A lesson from Japan", www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/04070
  35. 赤澤昭三.(1994). "經濟政策と公企業", 89-99. 税務経理協会
  36. 石井晴夫武ּ井孝介. (2003). "郵政事業の新展開", 126-130. 郵研社
  37. 大山耕輔.(1996). "行政指導の政治經濟學", 53-54. 有斐閣
  38. 国鉄再建監理委員会.(1985). "国鉄に関する意見"
  39. 郵政3事業の運営方向に諮問会議.(2002). "諮問報告書"
  40. 角本良平.(1989). "国鉄改革の検証".白桃書房
  41. 草野厚.(1989). "国鉄改革". 中公新書
  42. 森田郎.(1991). "制度に関する一考察(上)".季刊行政管理研究. 56:54-60
  43. 山田徳彦.(2001). "国鉄改革の経済学", 104-105. 成文堂
  44. 運輸省(1987), "鉄道統計年報"
  45. 国土交通省(1996), "運輸白書"
  46. 国土交通省(2001), "運輸白書"
  47. 国土交通省(2005), "運輸白書"