اقدامات بهره وری کل عوامل تلفن هنگ کنگ

Since the early 1960s, the Hong Kong Telephone Company (HKTC)—the dominant firm in Hong Kong's local telephone market—has undergone several regulatory reforms. The company has been subject to price control, rate-of-return regulation and price-cap regulation. This paper estimates the total factor productivity (TFP) growth of HKTC. The empirical results show that the estimated TFP growth of HKTC was 2.31–3.56% per year between 1964 and 1998. TFP growth varied substantially under different regulatory regimes, and the importance of the scale effect relative to the technological effect diminished over time.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in measuring the productivity and efficiency of telecommunications companies. Various methods have been used for measuring productivity change, including the growth accounting approach to total factor productivity (TFP) measurement, the Divisia aggregation method, the Malmquist index of TFP, the Törnqvist productivity index and data envelopment analysis (DEA).

Since the early 1960s, HKTC has been subject to various regulatory controls—from price control before 1975 and rate-of-return regulation from 1975 to 1991, to price-cap regulation from 1992 to 1998. As part of the compensation for HKT's early surrender of its international licence, HKTC was allowed to raise the residential tariff by 30% in 1999, and then by HK$10 (US$1.28) each year in 2000 and 2001. Since 2001, the company has not been subject to any maximum price control. The Hong Kong government believes that competition in the local market is sufficient to constrain price increases. Based on the Divisia aggregation method and the growth accounting approach, the average TFP growth of HKTC was 2.31–3.56% per year over the period between 1964 and 1998. The TFP growth rate varied substantially under different regulatory regimes. HKTC allowed its customers to enjoy most of the productivity growth by lowering the real price of local telephone service. The contribution of the scale effect was small, which might have been due to the small market size. The importance of the scale effect relative to the technological effect in TFP growth diminished over time.