(3.238.96.184) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/15 06:12
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:林雅苓
研究生(外文):Ya-Ling Lin
論文名稱:船籍選擇影響因素與第二船籍制度之分析
論文名稱(外文):Analyses of Key Influence Factors for the Choice of Ship Registrations and Ship Second Registry System
指導教授:鍾政棋鍾政棋引用關係
指導教授(外文):Cheng-Chi Chung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:航運管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:87
中文關鍵詞:出籍權宜船籍層級分析法船舶登記制度
外文關鍵詞:Flagging-outFlag of convenienceAnalytical Hierarchy ProcessShip registry system
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:9
  • 點閱點閱:631
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:91
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
近年開放設籍國家採取寬鬆管制與優惠措施吸引全球船舶入籍,導致許多國家面臨船噸嚴重出籍。依據聯合國UNCTAD (2007)資料顯示,我國輪僅剩407萬餘載重噸,且有持續惡化趨勢。國內外許多船籍相關研究,卻顯少針對臺灣船籍選擇影響因素進行滿意度分析,或僅建議構建第二船籍制度卻無具體方案內涵。因此本文應用層級分析法(AHP)探求船籍選擇影響因素及船籍選擇偏好之差異。並採用重要與表現分析法(IPA)與重要表現與容忍分析法(IPTA)評估船籍選擇影響因素優先改善之順序,並探討全球設籍制度,作為構建臺灣第二船籍制度之具體建議,研究結果如下:
1.船籍選擇影響因素研究結果顯示,就四個目的層而言,以「經濟與財稅考量」最為重要。其中以「船員成本高低」為首要關鍵因素。
2.船籍選擇影響因素滿意度分析顯示,應最優先改善「兩岸航行限制」與「優惠獎勵措施」;其次優先改善「設籍稅捐規費」;第三優先改善「雙重船級費用」、「船舶戰時徵用」與「船員所得稅捐」;第四優先改善的準則為「行政程序效率」與「光船租賃設籍」。
3.構建臺灣第二船籍制度,本文建議措施為:(1)推動兩岸直航,且建議暫以其他旗幟代替國旗。(2)船舶戰時徵用時,政府予以補助。(3)船員僅保留船長及/或輪機長僱傭國籍船員,且提供國籍船員免稅優惠。(4)開放更多認可的船級協會。(5)開放全球船舶均可入籍。(6)允許光船租賃船舶入籍與除籍。(7)採用噸位稅制取代營利事業所得稅制,且設籍規費計算單位改以船噸計費。
本文研究結果可以提供航運公司作為營運策略研擬,與政府單位檢討船籍政策之參考。
In recent years, the open-registry countries offer less restrictive regulations and preferential policies to attract more vessel tonnages to flag in, which results in flagging-out in many other countries. According to the statistic of UNCTAD, the total deadweights of national tonnages in Taiwan is 4.07 million deadweights, and the tonnages are still going down. There have been many literature related to ship registry published in Taiwan and other countries; however, only few of them analyze the degree of satisfaction the key influence factors of ship registry provides in Taiwan. Some just give the suggestion of establishing the second registry policy without any substantial details or methods. Therefore, this study used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to construct a better hierarchical analysis framework to analyze the key influence factors of ship registry and the preference of ship registrations. In addition, the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) supplemented by “Tolerance” is adopted to evaluate the severity of the key influence factors needed improvements, investigate the ship registry policies and to construct a solid second registry policy for Taiwan. The outcomes are showed as follows:
1.Among the key influence factors of ship registry, the results indicate that “ Economy and tax reasons” is the most important, especially “Crew Costs” which is among the sixteen evaluation criteria in “ Economy and Tax Reasons”.
2.According to the analysis of the key influence factors on satisfaction, “Cross-Strait Operation Restrictions” and “Incentives” are the first two key influence factors requiring improvements. The second prior factor is “Registry and tax charges”, followed by “Dual class charges”, “Ship requisitions” and “Crew income taxes”. The fourth important ones are “Efficiency of Bureaucracy” and “Bareboat-charter registry”.
3.The contents of ship second registry in Taiwan: (1) Acceleration of direct flights between Taiwan and China; meanwhile, replace Taiwan’s flag with another flag.. (2) Ship requisitions with subsidies. (3) Hire Taiwanese crew to be the master and/or the chief enginner, and supply crews free of crew income taxes. (4) Open more Classification Societies. (5) Remove registry limitations in Taiwan (6) Allow the registry and cancellation of Bareboat-charter ships(7) Adopt Tonnage tax system to replace corporation income taxes and calculate registry charges with ship tonnages.
The study result can provide shipping companies in making relevant decisions and government a self-criticism of ship registry policy.
謝誌 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究範圍與目的 3
1.3 研究內容與方法 4
1.4 研究流程與架構 6

第二章 文獻回顧與評析 9
2.1 航運自由化政策 9
2.2 船籍選擇影響因素 10
2.2.1 國際與組織規範 10
2.2.2 政治與市場環境 10
2.2.3 經濟與財稅考量 11
2.2.4 法規與制度限制 12
2.3 全球船舶設籍制度 13
2.3.1 船舶設籍制度分類 13
2.3.2 船舶設籍制度定義 15
2.4 航運國家對權宜船籍制度之因應 17
2.4.1 亞洲國家 17
2.4.2 歐美澳國家 179
2.5 綜合評析 20

第三章 全球航運國船噸與船籍制度現況分析 29
3.1 船噸現況分析 29
3.1.1 全球與臺灣 29
3.1.2 第二船籍國家 30
3.1.3 準權宜船籍國家 32
3.1.4 權宜船籍國家 33

3.2 船舶設籍制度案例分析 34
3.3 綜合討論 36
第四章 研究方法與分析架構 37
4.1 層級分析法與分析架構 37
4.2 重要與表現分析法 44
4.3 重要表現與容忍分析法 45

第五章 實證分析與討論 47
5.1 問卷調查與分析 47
5.2 船籍選擇關鍵影響因素之分析 48
5.2.1 整體評估權重分析 48
5.2.2 不同群體評估權重差異分析 49
5.3船籍選擇關鍵影響因素之滿意度分析 53
5.4 船籍關鍵選擇因素及其滿意度綜合討論 54
5.4.1 船籍選擇影響因素評估準則權重與滿意度之彙整分析 54
5.4.2 設籍方案選擇偏好之差異分析 58
5.5 臺灣第二船籍制度之建議措施 59
5.5.1 法規分析 61
5.5.2 船員分析 62
5.5.3 設籍制度分析 63
5.5.4 稅捐與規費分析 64
5.6 構建我國第二船籍制度之綜合評析 65

第六章 結論與建議 67
6.1 結論 67
6.1.1 船籍選擇影響因素及其滿意度方面 67
6.1.2 我國第二船籍制度之建議措施方面 69
6.2 建議 71

參考文獻 73

學生簡歷與著作
【中文部分】
1.王世發(2007),香港船舶註冊-您的業務夥伴,兩岸航運與物流研討會論文集,中華航運學會,台北,頁305-308。
2.方福樑(2004)「國際運輸工人聯盟與權宜船關係發展之研究,兩岸航運與物流研討會論文集,中華航運學會,台北,頁85-96。
3.包嘉源、鄒良彥(2006),國輪發展政策之探討,航運與港埠管理研討會論文集,國立臺灣海洋大學,頁1-17。
4.任維廉、呂堂錦(2005),「應用多重期望於服務品質屬性之改良排序與改善方案之研擬-以汽車客運為例」,運輸學刊,第十七卷,第四期,頁423-448。
5.林光、張志清、陳一平(2001),「國輪出籍問題與因應對策之研究」,航運季刊,第十卷,第四期,頁1-18。
6.林光與倪安順(2004),兩岸航運發展與航商對兩岸直航意見調查,兩岸航運與物流研討會論文集,中華航運學會,台北,頁27-41。
7.林玲圓、梁金樹、丁吉峰(2004),「臺灣地區航商選擇登記本國船籍或權宜船籍分析」,海運學報,第十三期,頁203-213。
8.陳昊旻(2000),「從消失中的美國船旗看我國國輪未來之發展」,海運月刊,十二月號,頁2-12。
9.陳世圯(1999),「我國航業發展與未來措施之展望」,海運月刊,七月號,頁8-11
10.許源、李南(2003),「我國船舶海外移籍的特點與船籍政策之取向-中外船籍問題研究之ㄧ」,生產力研究,第六期,頁119-121。
11.黃承傳、鍾政棋(2005),「我國散裝船舶設籍關鍵影響因素之分析」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十四卷,第一期,頁27-62。
12.黃玉玲(2007),「貨櫃船舶設籍關鍵影響因素與設籍方案之評選」,國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理研究所碩士論文。
13.張志清(1999),「新加坡之海運發展政策」,航運季刊,第八卷,第一期,頁44-64。
14.馮正民、鍾政棋、袁劍雲(2002),「船舶設籍對船東船員成本之影響」,運輸計劃季刊,第三十一卷,第三期,頁663-678。
15.楊繼明(2005),「我國國際海運政策之研究-從保護到解制之變革」,國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文。
16.楊鈺池(2000),「我國國輪海運競爭力之發展與因應對策(三)」,航貿周刊,第十五期,頁50-53。
17.賴雅婷、林財生、張志清(2007),船舶登記條件及航業稅制度分析,兩岸航運與物流研討會論文集,中華航運學會,台北,頁291-304。
18.鍾政棋、張雅涵、張志清(2006),「我國船舶設籍問題與因應對策之研擬」,航運季刊,第十五卷,第三期,頁41-62。
19.交通部(2006),船舶登記法及船舶規費之檢討研究,交通部運輸研究所,台北。
20.交通部(2004),推動建購國輪新船五年免徵營利事業所得稅政策說明,交通部運輸研究所,台北。
【英文部分】
21.Alderton, T. and Winchester, N. (2002), “Globalisation and De-regulation in the Maritime Industry,” Marine Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 35-43.
22.Celik, M., Er, D. I. and Ozok, A. F. (2007), “Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: the Case of Turkish Maritime Industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online 1 October 2007.
23.Chiu, R. H. (2007), “The Liberalization of Shipping in Taiwan,” Marine Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 258-265.
24.Cullinane, K. and Robertshaw, M. (1996), “The Influence of Qualitative Factors in Isle of Man Ship Registration Decisions,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 321-336.
25.Ding, J. F. and Ling, G. S. (2005), “The Choices of Employing Seafarers for the National Shipowner in Taiwan: an Empirical Study,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 123-137.
26.Frankel, E. G. (1992), “Hierarchical Logic in Shipping Policy and Decision Making,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 211-221.
27.Goulielmos, A. M. (1998), “Flagging Out and the Need for a New Greek Maritime Policy,” Transport Policy, Vol. 5, pp. 115-125.
28.Guo, J. L., Ye, K. D. and Liang, G. S. (2007), “Exploring Employment Condition Dilemmas: an Interview Study with Seafarers,” International Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 130-143.
29.Haralambidesa, H. E. and Yang J. (2003), “A Fuzzy Set Theory Approach to Flagging Out: Towards a New Chinese Shipping Policy,” Marine Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 13-22.
30.Hwang, C. L. and Lin, M. J. (1987), Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria, Springer-Verlag, New York.
31.Klikauer, T. and Morris, R. (2003), “Human Resources in the German Maritime Industries: ‘Back-sourcing’ and Ship Management,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 544-558.
32.Klikauer, T. and Donn, C. (2004), “Varieties of Industrial Relations in the Shipping Industry: a Comparison of two Anglo-Saxon Liberal Market Economies and Two European Coordinated Market Economies,” New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 39-61.
33.Lee, T. W. (1996), “Flagging Options for the Future: a Turning Point in Korean Shipping Policy?” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 177-186.
34.Leggate, H. (2004), “The Future Shortage of Seafarers: Will it Become a Reality?” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 3-13.
35.Leggate, H. and McConville, J. (2005), “Tonnage Tax: Is It Working?” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 177-186.
36.Li, K. X. and Cheng, J. (2007), “The Determinants of Maritime Policy” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 521-533.
37.Llacer, F. J. M. (2003), “Open Registers: Past, Present and Future,” Marine Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 513-523.
38.Marlow, P. and Mitroussi, K. (2008), “EU Shipping Taxation: The Comparative Position of Greek Shipping,” Maritime Economics and Logistics, Vol. 10, No. 1-2, pp. 185-208.
39.Martilla, J. A. and James, J. C. (1977), “Importance-Performance Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 77-79.
40.Paixiao, A. C. and Marlow, P. B. (2001), “A Review of the European Union Shipping Policy,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 187-198.
41.Parasurman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. L. (1991), “Understanding Customer Expectations of Service,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 173-189
42.Prescott, J. (2003), “Editorial: the UK Shipping Policy,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 271-274.
43.Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Shipping [the Rochdale Report] (1970), Cmnd 4337, HMSO, London, p. 16.
44.Sambracos, E., and Tsiaparikou, J. (2001), “Sea-going Labour and Greek Owned Fleet: a Major Aspect of Fleet Competitiveness,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 55-69.
45.Saaty, T. L. (1980), The Analysis Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York.
46.Shashikumar, N. (1994), “Comparative Maritime Policies: a U.S. Dilemma,” Transportation Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 32-39.
47.Sletmo, G. K. and Holste, S. (1993), “Shipping and the Competitive Advantage of Nations: the Role of International Ship Registers,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 243-255.
48.Sletmo, G. K. (2001), “The End of National Shipping Policy? A Historical Perspective on Shipping Policy in a Global Economy,” International Journal of Maritime Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 333-350.
49.Spruyt, J. (1994), Ship Management, 2nd Ed., Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd., London.
50.Stopford, M. (1988), Maritime Economics, Routledge, London.
51.Thanopoulou, H. A. (1998), “What Price the Flag? The Terms of Competitiveness in Shipping,” Marine Policy, Vol. 22, No. 4-5, pp. 359-374.
52.Tenold, S. (2003), “A Most Convenient Flag-the Basis for the Expansion of the Singapore Fleet, 1969-82,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 255-268.
53.Toh, R. S. and Phang, S. Y. (1993), “Quasi-flag of Convenience Shipping: The Wave of the Future,” Transportation Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 31-39.
54.UNCTAD (1998-2007), Review of Maritime Transport, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations, UNCTAD/RMT, New York and Geneva.
55.Veenstra, A. W. and Bergantino, A. S. (2000), “Changing Ownership Structures in the Dutch Fleet,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 175-189.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top