Study on the Relationship and Validity of the Management Evaluation Factors in Public Firms With a Focus on the Port Authorities
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
According to the results of the management evaluation of the nation’s public firms over the past seven years, the rating of the port corporation is generally insufficient. According to the results of the seven-year study 2011-2017, the average debt ratio of the port corporation was 34.5%, two to three times lower than that of the general public company, the operating profit ratio of sales was three times higher, and the value added per person was 1.6-1.9 times better. However, the aggregate score and grade were generally low, with 4.1% of the total number of employees of the general public corporation, 10% of the average total assets, and 1% of the average sales volume. The distributed analysis results and panel return analysis results show that the size significantly impacts the overall score and grade. Additionally, major business standards such as port volume, not controlled by the port corporation, appear to have a decisive influence on the low grade of the port corporation. Thus, it appears that improvement and supplementation of key business indicators of port construction are urgently needed in the management evaluation system, which can be properly controlled.
Abstract
According to the results of the management evaluation of the nation’s public firms over the past seven years, the rating of the port corporation is generally insufficient. According to the results of the seven-year study 2011-2017, the average debt ratio of the port corporation was 34.5%, two to three times lower than that of the general public company, the operating profit ratio of sales was three times higher, and the value added per person was 1.6-1.9 times better. However, the aggregate score and grade were generally low, with 4.1% of the total number of employees of the general public corporation, 10% of the average total assets, and 1% of the average sales volume. The distributed analysis results and panel return analysis results show that the size significantly impacts the overall score and grade. Additionally, major business standards such as port volume, not controlled by the port corporation, appear to have a decisive influence on the low grade of the port corporation. Thus, it appears that improvement and supplementation of key business indicators of port construction are urgently needed in the management evaluation system, which can be properly controlled.
참고문헌 (14)
- 안숙찬, "공공기관의 경영평가 결과와 기관특성에 관한 연구", 대한경영학회지, 27(6), pp.835~859 (2014), 대한경영학회
- 최성락, "경영 평가 제도의 성과 분석", 행정논총, 47(1), pp.183~208 (2009), 한국행정연구소
- 강윤호, "공기업 거버넌스 제도와 대리인 문제: 뉴욕․뉴저지 항만공사를 중심으로", 한국항해항만학회지, 33(10), pp.743~756 (2009), 한국항해항만학회
- Kim, J. K, "Performance of Public Enterprise Management Evaluation System and Future Tasks", Korean Administration Research, 10(14) (2001)
- Kwak, C. K., "Role and Performance of Management Evaluation System for the Control of Inefficiency of Government-invested Institutions", Journal of public enterprises (2003)
- Kwak, C. K, "Proposals Problems and Management Innovation of Public Enterprises", Journal of public enterprises (1995)
- 권세민, "지역항만 발전을 위한 항만운영기관의 역할에 관한 연구", 한국항해항만학회지, 35(5), pp.439~444 (2011), 한국항해항만학회
- 이은성, "공기업 경영평가 타당성과 개선방안에 관한 연구", 로지스틱스연구, 21(4), pp.51~65 (2013), 한국로지스틱스학회[DOI]
- Lee, H. Y, "Research methodology", pp.303~437 (2013), Cheongram
- Oh, Y. C, "A Study on the Development of the Management Evaluation System of Government-invested Institutions", Journal of public enterprises (2003)
- 박호철, "물류환경변화에 따른 부산항 운영사 재구성효과에 관한 실증연구", 한국항해항만학회지, 42(6), pp.507~517 (2018), 한국항해항만학회[DOI]
- 박석희, "공기업의 성과관리와 조직생산성: 가변수 검정방법을 통한 경영평가제도의 영향분석", 한국행정학보, 40(4), pp.511~530 (2006), 한국행정학회
- Shin, H. M, "An Analysis of the Influence of the Management Evaluation on the Performance of Public Enterprises: Focused on the Evaluation of the Head of the Agency", master's, pp.2011
- Song, D. H, "Focus on the Management Evaluation of Governmentinvested Institutions", pp.19~28 (1987), Korea Development Institute