중국 국유기업과 한국 공기업 개념의 비교 연구 - 양국 현행법 규정을 중심으로

Abstract

The State-Owned Enterprises of China and Korea are very similar entities but they are not perfectly the same. SOEs in both countries are the entities which government are their stakeholder. Both of them are somewhat independent in their business activities and they are controlled and supervised by government under related regulations. Both of them are facing similar problems such as low efficiency of management, inflexible system etc. Naturally, solutions regarding these problems are similar too. However, government's ownership and commerciality are most important characters of Chinese SOEs. On the other hand, public interests are the core value of Korean SOEs. So their concrete notion and scope of SOEs are not exactly the same. The noticeable differences between Chinese and Korean SOEs are; first, Chinese SOEs are in charge of public interests, but according to existing law, there are almost no institutional systems to guarantee SOEs' public role. In order to ensure stable activity of Chinese SOEs in public sector, it is very important to supplement institutional shortcomings. Second, there are significant differences in logical structures between the general laws about SOEs: 'Law on State-owned Assets of Enterprises'(China) and 'Act on the Management of Public Institutions'(Korea). Chinese law model is for controlling and managing state assets, especially assets of enterprise. It means there is no need to determine whether an enterprise is a SOE or not. The government can control and manage its own assets of whatever the enterprise is. On the other hand, Korean law model is for controlling and managing SOEs' activity. If the enterprise or the institute is designated as a 'public institute', it has to owe some duty to report management condition etc. And if it isn't designated as a 'public institute', the government doesn't have any laws, regulations or minimum standards regarding such situation. Chinese model is good for managing SOEs' assets efficiently; Korean's model is better for managing SOEs' public characters. Lastly, some Chinese SOEs already became global companies. Generally, government intervention has had negative influence upon SOEs' performances. However, some Chinese SOEs achieved significant success. Meanwhile, the Korean government and also the academic society are reviewing of the SOEs' past privatization. And they are finding more flexible, various style of SOEs' reform. Chinese government's experience of managing enterprises could be meaningful implication for Korean SOEs' further reform.