中俄两国保险业效率比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-07 15:06

本文选题：保险　切入点：效率　出处：《山东大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：二十世纪后二十年世界经济的一个显著的变革就是诸多的发展中国家从政府主导的经济向市场经济过渡的进程。其中最为显著而且又具备鲜明的不同特色的是中国和俄罗斯的改革。中俄两国在20世纪前半期发生了共产主义革命并均在经济进程中力图推行社会主义公社制度的社会生产运行保障体系。但是,随着强有力的中央计划经济时代的逐渐落幕,中俄两国均开始转向市场经济。1970年代末期的中国改革,作为典型的“渐进式”改革的代表,在过去的35年间取得了举世瞩目的经济成就,在21世纪初甚至成为世界经济增长的最强的推动力。另一方面,俄罗斯在社会剧变之后,从1990年代初期,实施了“休克”疗法,强制性迅速过渡到市场经济体制。“渐进式”改革与“休克”疗法两种截然不同的路径自诞生开始便存在着巨大的争议。中国和俄罗斯的经济改革进程也因此被广泛的关注。事实上,尽管在1990年代初期,西方的经济学家就已经普遍认同经济从计划到市场的过渡的两种转变：稳定性(也就是稳定的宏观政策,有效的控制通货膨胀和保持国际收支平衡)；自由化(由市场而不是政府官僚机构来决定市场价格)；私有化(生产资料从政府向私人的转移)。然而,经济学家对于这些变革的进程并不一致。中俄两国提供的渐进式和激进式两种范式,经过20多年的实践,均得到了较大的发展和成绩,目前经济学家普遍认为,在市场经济进程的两种范式并没有绝对的正确与否,政策制订者必须结合两国的实际经济状况和改革过程中的具体问题进行实际分析,从而不断提升市场经济的效率沿袭总体的经济改革的脉络,中国和俄罗斯两国在金融领域也分别实施了渐进与激进的方式来启动改革。尽管两国改革的路径有较大差异,但是改革路径上的较大差异并不能掩盖中俄两国金融改革的共性,即总体而言都是在政府参与和推动下,自上而下地进行改革。具体而言,差异性体现在,中国金融体制改革和新框架的形成并没有根本性地触动原有的利益格局,而是经过多年有步骤、分阶段的试点,而后采用相应的改革才确立的。对比俄罗斯,在改革之初就对金融体制实施大规模且快速地整体转变,直接地触动了原有的利益格局,并且为了加速该进程,俄罗斯政府实施了金融自由化政策,包括银行运营自由化、金融业务自由化、金融价格自由化和行业进入自由化。这些政策使得俄罗斯在较短的时间内就建立了同发达经济市场国家所具有的金融制度框架。显然,不同转轨路径下的制度安排,对金融体制转变的影响会有差异。在激进模式下,俄罗斯在较短时间内摆脱了旧的金融体制的束缚,迅速地建立起了新的适应市场化需求的金融体制。目前俄罗斯在金融领域已经初步建立了市场导向型、高度开放的金融体系,为提高金融对经济的促进作用打下了一定的基础。值得指出的是,目前中国金融领域的改革的进程,相对于整体经济体制改革而言,还相当滞后。一方面,中国相对垄断和相对封闭的金融业在面对市场化经济的发展中显得过于保守,在很大程度上限制了金融的运行效率并降低了整体经济的运行效率,另一方面,相对封闭的金融业也帮助中国避免了亚洲金融危机、美国次贷危机等多次国际金融风暴的冲击。同时由于中国贸易的增长,国际收支状况良好,外汇储备持续增加。因此,尽管进一步的金融改革应该开放金融市场,实现完全的金融自由化,但在中国的金融改革实践中并非没有阻力,特别是在是否应该加快改革进程的问题上并未取得广泛共识。从这个意义上说,探讨俄罗斯金融业发展状况和效率,将对我国下一步金融改革具有非常强的借鉴意义。进入21世纪以来,中国的保险业得到了充分的发展,竞争也日益加剧。但是总体而言,我国的保险行业的发展相对于发达国家还有很大差距。特别是作为金融业的“三驾马车”之一的保险业,资产规模巨大,涉及客户众多,是社会发展的“稳定器”和经济发展的“助推器”。在新兴市场经济国家的转轨发展中,社会保障制度改革相对缺失或缓慢并引发了众多的社会问题,因此商业化保险对转轨国家的社会改革具有非常强的政策补偿作用。目前保险业也经受着市场结构以及业务渠道的剧烈变化考验,保险理论也在不断更新,需要更适应经济和自身的发展。而在现有的发展水平之下,我国保险公司的自身效率还相对低下,随着资本市场的逐步开放,保险业的竞争将从渠道、规模转向风险经营、精细管理,激烈的竞争不会减弱只会加强。如果不能采取有效的措施来促使我国保险公司加强发展和提高效率,那么在优胜劣汰的市场机制下,国际资本的进入,市场结构的转变将给我国保险业带来巨大的冲击。本文从比较研究的角度,以俄罗斯为主要对照,探讨分析我国保险业的真实效率,并在此基础上深入研究我国保险业效率。由于保险的对经济的作用复杂,在发挥自身功能的同时,对各种国民经济总量指标如社会灾害事故损失总量、社会融资总量、社会就业总量和国内生产总值等均产生着显著的影响。因此,对保险业效率的研究不仅应立足于保险功能的角度,还应该同时考虑到研究保险业的微观效率和宏观效率。这样的研究才更具有全面性和合理性。基于上述分析,本文从保险业的效率出发,使用数据包络分析和全要素生产率分析的方法,分别测算并分析了中国和俄罗斯两国保险业的微观效率和宏观效率。并在此基础上本文考察了宏观环境因素与两国保险体系稳定和效率的辩证统一关系。本文选取了2008至2012年中国15家保险公司及俄罗斯14家保险公司,共29家大型保险公司,采集了样本机构3项投入3项产出的数据。本研究并参考国内外保险业效率研究文献,使用数据包络分析(DEA)方法,对两国主要保险公司进行效率计算与变量比较分析,总结了各时间阶段比较分析的数据结果。从两国保险业技术效率平均值看,中国2008年到2012年的保险行业平均效率一直徘徊在0.7左右,该效率属于中等水平。相比而言,俄罗斯一直维持在0.9以上的高效率域,这表明中国保险公司总体的技术效率和俄罗斯差距较大。由于技术效率可进一步分解为纯技术效率和规模效率,进一步的考察发现：两国保险公司差距较大的效率指标是纯技术效率,纯技术效率反映的是公司的经营管理水平,因此从实证研究的结果可以说俄罗斯的保险公司经营管理水平比中国保险公司高。笔者认为三方面的因素造成了这样上述现象。第一,市场上经营主体数量少,国有保险公司在市场上占主导,其他公司规模不大,不利于市场形成充分有效竞争。虽然中国保险公司数量逐年增加,2012年已达150家,但是与俄罗斯的保险市场逐年淘汰后的400多家主体比起来还较少,而且在中国几家国有控股保险公司的资产总额和市场份额都占有很高比例,形成了寡头垄断市场。因此加快开放保险市场营造良好竞争氛围将会有利于提升市场效率和公司运营效率。第二,保险市场尚处于粗放经营规模竞争的阶段,保险企业更倾向于扩大保费收入获取资金,重视销售业绩和积累资金能力,对公司经营管理水平不够专注,行业内出现总体专业人员质量不高、高端人才严重缺乏、人才流失严重等现象。总的来说专业人才更有利于公司提高经营管理纯效率,开展更加严密的风险控制。第三,保险投资渠道较窄,投资收益较低,风险管理能力有待提高。中国的保险业经营活动已经从以前单纯经营保险业务到了扩展资产和负债业务的两端,多渠道投资收益能够弥补保险业务的亏损,平滑保险经营的业务风险。进一步的,本文从全要素生产率的视角,运用多个指标来衡量保险业的发展与经济发展的关系,实证结果这表明在过去30年里,我国的保险业无论从规模还是深度上,都发展迅速,并且远超同期的经济增长。但是,我国的全要素生产率对保险业发展具有决定作用而保险业的发展对我国的生产率的提高则没有明显作用。这再次体现出我国保险业总体运行效率仍然不高。这些因素阻碍了我国保险业的发展,从而不利于保险功能的充分发挥。而俄罗斯的保险业的发展与全要素生产率之间存在互相的溢出,与中国保险业相比效率较高。但是,值得指出的是,尽管无论对于中国经济还是对于俄罗斯的经济而言,全要素生产率对保险业增长和发展有重要的拉升作用。但与发达国家,甚至是其他的新兴亚洲国家相比,两国的保险产业,无论是在保险密度还是深度上,仍有较大差距,也具有更大的未来发展的潜力。基于效率比较分析,本文指出中国未来保险业发展的政策建议为：明确保险的本质意义,发挥保险的转移风险提供保障职能；从制度上吸取俄罗斯的经验,加快保险业的市场化进程；提升保险业经营效率；完善保险监管,提升监管水平；加速保险业创新步伐,以创新驱动保险业健康发展等。
[Abstract]:In the first half of the 20th century , China and Russia began to move towards a market economy . However , in the beginning of the 1990s , China and Russia began to shift to market economy . However , in the early 1990s , China and Russia have been widely concerned . In fact , although in the early 1990s , Western economists have generally accepted the two shifts in transition from plan to market : stability ( i.e . , stable macroeconomic policies , effective control of inflation and maintaining international balance ) ;
liberalization ( market prices are determined by markets rather than government bureaucracy ) ;
However , economists generally agree that the two paradigms in the process of market economy are not correct or not , and the policy makers must combine the actual economic situation of the two countries and the specific problems in the reform process to continuously improve the efficiency of the market economy .

In contrast to Russia , the reform of China ' s financial system and the formation of the new framework have not fundamentally triggered the original interest pattern , but it has been established by the corresponding reforms . In contrast , the Russian government has set up the financial system framework with the developed economic market countries in the short time . Obviously , the system arrangement under different transfer paths will have different effects on the financial system transition .

In the radical mode , Russia has been freed from the old financial system in a short time and has set up a new financial system adapted to the market demand rapidly . At present , Russia has set up a market - oriented and highly open financial system in the financial field , laying a foundation for improving the promotion of the financial contribution to the economy .

On the one hand , China ' s relatively monopoly and relatively closed financial industry are too conservative in the face of the development of the market economy . On the other hand , the relatively closed financial sector also helps China avoid the impact of the Asian financial crisis and the US subprime crisis .

Since entering the 21st century , China ' s insurance industry has been fully developed and the competition is increasing . In general , China ' s insurance industry has a great gap with the developed countries . In the transition development of emerging market economy countries , the reform of social security system is relatively missing or slow and has caused many social problems . At present , the insurance industry has been continuously updated . With the gradual opening of capital market , the transformation of insurance industry will bring great impact on China ' s insurance industry .

Based on the above analysis , this paper analyzes the micro - efficiency and macro - efficiency of the insurance industry in China and Russia . Based on the above analysis , this paper studies the micro - efficiency and macro - efficiency of the insurance industry in China and Russia .

The paper selects 15 insurance companies and 14 insurance companies in China from 2008 to 2012 , 29 large insurance companies and collects 3 output data from sample institutions .

The author thinks that three factors have caused the above - mentioned phenomenon . First , there are fewer operating subjects in the market , the state - owned insurance companies dominate in the market , and other companies are not large in scale , which is not conducive to the full and effective competition of the market . Although the number of Chinese insurance companies has increased year by year , the total assets and market share of several state - controlled insurance companies in China have a high proportion , and the oligopolistic market is formed . Therefore , it will be beneficial to improve the market efficiency and the company ' s operational efficiency .

Second , insurance market is still in the stage of rough management scale competition , insurance enterprise prefers to expand premium income to obtain funds , pay attention to sales performance and accumulation fund ability , have not focus on the management level of the company , the quality of high - end talents is not high , high - end talents are serious lack , the brain drain is serious , etc . In general , professional talents are more favorable for the company to improve the pure efficiency of management and management , and carry out more rigorous risk control .

Third , the insurance investment channel is narrow , the investment income is low , the risk management ability is to be improved . The insurance business activities of China have been from the previous simple operation insurance business to the two ends of the extended assets and liabilities business , and the multi - channel investment income can make up for the loss of the insurance business and smooth the business risk of insurance business .

In the past 30 years , China ' s insurance industry has a decisive role in the development of the insurance industry , and the development of the insurance industry has played an important role in the growth and development of the insurance industry . However , it is worth pointing out that , in contrast with the developed countries and even the other emerging Asian countries , the insurance industry of the two countries still has a larger gap in the insurance density or depth , and has the potential for greater future development .

Based on the comparative analysis of efficiency , this paper points out that the policy suggestion of China ' s future insurance industry is to make clear the essential significance of insurance , and to provide the guarantee function for the transfer risk of insurance .
Draw Russia ' s experience from the system and speed up the market - oriented process of insurance industry ;
improve that operational efficiency of the insurance industry ;
Improve the supervision of insurance and improve the level of supervision ;
Speed up the pace of innovation in insurance industry to drive the healthy development of insurance industry .

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：F842;F845.12

【参考文献】