| 宋亦明.国家维护能源安全手段的选择逻辑：产权制度的视角[J].国际安全研究,2020,(1):98-130 |
| 国家维护能源安全手段的选择逻辑：产权制度的视角 |
| The Logic in Choice of Means in Maintaining Energy Security: From the Perspective of Property Rights System |
| |
| DOI：10.14093/j.cnki.cn10-1132/d.2020.01.004 |
| 中文关键词: 产权制度 能源安全 能源公司 石油危机 企业自主性 |
| 英文关键词: property rights system, energy security, energy companies, oil crisis, corporate autonomy |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1569 |
| 全文下载次数: 1145 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 经济体量、能源禀赋、对外能源依赖程度等相仿的国家在应对同一场或情境相似的能源危机时所采用的手段经常呈现出明显的差异，以美国为代表的一部分国家主要依托行政或外交手段，而以中国为代表的另一部分国家则更依赖行政与商业的组合手段。为解释这一差异，就要突破能源安全研究惯有的地缘政治与供给需求分析视角，借助产权制度来考察政府与企业的权利责任边界以及政府借助企业力量维护能源安全的可能性和成本。基于美国应对1973年石油危机与中国应对2017年天然气紧缺的实证研究以及英法两国应对1973年石油危机的补充性分析，可以发现产权制度决定了企业的自主性与政府的处置成本。研究表明，在私有产权制度下，能源公司的自主性与政府的处置成本均较高，政府难以借助能源公司的力量应对能源危机，由此独自采取行政或外交手段保障能源安全；在公有产权制度下，能源公司的自主性与政府的处置成本均较低，政府更容易借助能源公司的力量应对能源危机，由此两者共同承担维护能源安全的责任并通过行政与商业相结合的手段维护能源安全。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In tackling the same or a similar energy crisis, countries with similar economic size, energy endowment and external energy dependency often adopt diametrically different measures. Countries represented by the United States mainly rely on administrative or diplomatic means while other countries represented by China are more inclined to apply a combined approach based on both administrative and commercial means. In order to explain such differences, this article intends to go beyond the traditional geopolitical and supply-demand perspectives in energy security researches and take advantage of the property rights system to examine the boundary of rights and responsibilities between the government and enterprises as well as the possibility and cost of the government’s leveraging of corporate capacities to maintain energy security. Based on empirical studies of the US response to the 1973 oil crisis and China’s response to the 2017 natural gas shortage, along with the complementary analyses about Britain and France’s responses to the 1973 oil crisis, this article finds out that the property rights system determines enterprises’ autonomy and the government’s disposal costs. Findings also demonstrate that under the system of private property rights, both the autonomy of energy companies and the disposal costs of the government stay on a high level, as a result of which the government can hardly turn to energy companies for help to cope with the energy crisis and have no other alternatives but to adopt administrative or diplomatic means to safeguard its energy security. However, under the system of public property rights, with both the autonomy of energy companies and the disposal costs of the government being much lower, the government is more likely to tackle the energy crisis with the help of energy companies. Under such circumstances, both parties can jointly assume the responsibility of maintaining energy security through an integrative approach based on both administrative and commercial means. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|