联系我们

论文查询结果	返回搜索

论文编号：	1728
作者编号：	1120050749
上传时间：	2009/6/18 15:37:15
中文题目：	国有企业制度解构动因与作用机制
英文题目：	Antecedents and Mechansim of D
指导老师：	张玉利
中文关键字：	国有企业 民营化 制度理论 制度<
英文关键字：	State-owned Enterprises Privat
中文摘要：	企业如何对自身进行变革以应对外部制度环境变化？这一问题已经成为战略管理关注的焦点之一。自20世纪80年代以来，由计划经济体制向市场经济体制的转型从根本上改变了原有企业的游戏规则。在这一进程中，一个重要的挑战在于：对于那些原有的在位企业而言，如何在一个不稳定的制度环境中实现自身重组或变革。然而在制度转轨的过程中，制度环境的不完善以及制度变革进程的不匹配导致了企业极大的不确定性。此外，这种重组要求企业脱离既有的组织惯例，以及与旧的体制框架脱离联系，从而导致了新的模糊性和认知冲突，从而形成对转型过程的合法性阻碍。 因此这方面研究的一个根本性的问题在于“在新的游戏规则不完善的情况下，组织是如何在这样一个新的游戏中进行竞争的？”。面对制度转型过程中广泛存在的“制度缺陷”以及由此产生的风险，令人感到不解的是，在一个仍然模糊的游戏规则之下，企业又是如何从根本上脱离原有的制度结构的束缚而代替以新的组织形式的？本研究关注的研究问题正在于：当处于一种不完全规则的游戏之中时，在何种条件下企业更可能参与到重组过程中？ 针对这一问题，我们研究了影响中国上市国有企业在1998——2006年间发生民营化的条件。民营化，被定义为“任何将部分或全部所有权或控制权从国有企业转向私人部门的过程”。民营化作为重要的制度转型过程，已经引发了经济学和管理学视角下的大量的相关研究。之前的这类研究主要关注于民营化之后阶段的调整和绩效问题，却很少对民营化发生的动因予以关注。我们依然缺乏系统的理论解释和充分的实证证据去回答何种企业在何种情况下更有可能参与到民营化过程中？正是这一问题构成了我们研究所的担负的重要挑战。在本研究中，基于对制度理论的应用和扩展，我们认为民营化不仅是一种经济效率的比较过程，而且构成了一个复杂的制度演化过程，这一过程高度嵌入于企业的内外部环境中 。我们认为民营化实质上引发了一个“制度解构”的过程，“制度解构”被定义为“既有制度被削弱以及消失的过程”。这一过程极大的改变了企业组织形式以及企业与外部环境之间的关系。基于“制度解构”概念，我们进一步探索了民营化发生的动因，认为民营化的发生受到源自于国家主导体制下的制度嵌入所产生的制度压力，以及源自于市场主导体制下的制度嵌入而产生的效率压力，而这两种压力分别受到企业内部特征的影响。在本研究中，我们发现：第一，企业对国家主导体制的嵌入程度降低了企业的民营化的可能性；第二，在企业面临更大的生存危机的情况下，基于市场主导体制下的效率压力则提高了企业民营化的可能性；第三，更为重要的是，这种效率压力并不必然导致企业放弃原有的国有体制，其作用同时取决于外部制度环境和资源特点的权变影响。我们认为，正是源自于制度转型的不完善性所产生的这种不确定性导致了企业民营化过程中的这种权变效应。 本研究的贡献主要体现在以下几个方面：首先，在以往大量基于民营化的研究中，民营化往往被视为给定的条件而主要关注民营化之后的阶段，而在本研究中，我们则主要着眼于民营化前端，分别从理论和实证的角度对民营化的动因进行了研究。其次，对于制度理论而言，针对目前制度理论学者“将制度解构的研究置于更广泛的制度变革背景之下”的理论呼吁，我们进一步探讨了在中国转型经济背景下，在两种竞争性制度逻辑和体制（国家主导体制vs市场主导体制）相互共存的独特制度情景下，影响组织制度解构的因素。第三，基于制度理论以及冗余资源观点之间的理论整合，我们检验了冗余资源在企业制度变革过程的作用，从而进一步彰显了制度解构过程中的企业行为机制，进而拓展了制度解构的理论构面。最后，对于针对民营化的相关研究大多基于中东欧以及前苏联的激进式制度变革的背景下，我们则进一步探讨了中国渐进式制度变革过程中的企业民营化行为。
英文摘要：	The issue ‘how do firms restructure themselves in response to institutional change? has become a focus of strategic management research, especially in the context of transition economies. Since the early 1980s, transition toward market-based institution has largely reshaped the ‘rules of game’ for incumbent organizations in former planned economies. One of their key challenges is to restructure themselves to a turbulent institutional environment. The incompleteness and misalignment of institutions during the ‘institutional upheaval’ raise the uncertainties faced by the organization. Moreover, restructuring requires departure from established routines, and disconnection from the residual structures of the old institutional framework. This process may create new ambiguities and cognitive challenges that may undermine its legitimacy. Hence, the essential question is ‘how do organizations play the new game when the new rules are not completely known?’. In view of the extensive ‘institutional voids’ and associated risks, it may be surprising that firms at all disengage from the old institutional structure and adapt new procedures to fit new, yet ambivalent, rules of the game. Thus, we investigate, under what conditions firms are more likely to engage in restructuring when facing incomplete rules of game. To address this question, we investigate the conditions under which Chinese state owned enterprises (SOEs) engage in privatization between 1998 and 2006, the probably most important institutional transition. Privatization, defined as ‘any measure that transfers some or all of the ownership and/or control over SOEs to the private sector’, has been extensively studied from both economic and organizational perspectives. This research has mainly focused on post-privatization restructuring and outcomes, while few studies have investigated the antecedents of privatization. In particular, we still lack of sound theories and empirical evidence to explain why some firms are more likely than others to be privatized. This challenge we take in this research. Introducing a new perspective into privatization and transitional research, we apply and advance institutional theory to argue that privatization is not only an efficiency-based process but also a complex institution-based process, which is highly embedded in the firm’s internal and external environment. We argue that privatization evokes a process of deinstitutionalization, defined as ‘the process by which institutions weaken and disappear’, which fundamentally changes the former SOEs’ form of organizing as well as its relationships with the environment. We explore the antecedents of privatization as a deinstitutionalizing process, especially in a distinct institutional environment characterized as co-existence of two competing systems, state-based and market-based systems. We find that (a) the extent to which firms are embedded in the state-based system plays a direct role in buffering their conversion to private sector, while (b) efficiency-based pressures push privatization when the survival of the organization is threatened. Yet, efficiency-based pressures do not necessarily lead to organizations’ abandoning state ownership as it is contingent on both institutional and resource characteristics of SOEs. We argue that the uncertainty arising from incomplete and misaligned institutions create institutional and resources contingencies that shape the privatization process. This research offers four contributions to the literature. First, while large part of literature on privatization considers privatization as given and focus on the post-stage of privatization, we empirically examine the antecedents of privatization. Second, responding to the call by institutional theorists to ‘place studies of deinstitutionalization in a broader context of institutional change’, we empirically examine a set of factors influencing deinstitutionalization of state-ownership in a context of co-existent competitive systems and logics. Third, we further examine the effect of slack resources on institutional change, thus extending institutional theory by explicating the role of behavioral influences on deinstitutionalizing processes. Fourth, where most of privatization and restructuring research has analyzed context of radical institutional change in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), we extend the research in the incremental change context of China, which is characterized by the co-existence of two competing systems rather than one systems replacing with another.
查看全文：	预览  下载(下载需要进行登录)