Research On Governmental Responsibility Of The Privatization Of The Urban Public Transportation In China

In the 1990s, in order to solve some public problems including the shortage of funds, the pressure on public finances, and also to improve the quality and efficiency of public transport, our country presented an upsurge in privatization reform of urban public transport. Among these cities, Hubei Shiyan caused a great reaction in which the privatization reform of urban public transport, but after experiencing only a short period of 5 years, the reform came out to be finished by government recovery. In 2008, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Guangzhou and some other cities implement the city’s public bicycle project, becoming China’s first series of cities which operating public bicycle. So far, there are 61 cities in China has set up the public bicycle.In less than 10 years, this project has contributed to ease the pressure of urban transport, meanwhile it has also exposed many problems, such as difficulties in signing the cards, the problems of managing bicycles and so on. Although Privatization Reform of China’s urban public transport has been operated with so many problems, this does not mean the failure of it, The problem is not caused by the privatization itself, but the government get rid of the financial burden as well as the accountability which the government should in charge, it loosens the deregulation during the introduction of market and competitive mechanisms.In the process of urban public traffic privatization, government is not only the consignor but also the agent, and represent of the public responsibility and the interests of citizens, privatization is not the purpose of the reform, the ultimate goal of city public traffic privatization reform should be a more effective government make a better society and solve the citizen’s daily travel problems. This article, starting from the corresponding concepts and theories, taking Wuhan public bicycle project and Shiyan public traffic privatization reform as an example, analyzed and summarized through three pairs of contradictions of urban public traffic privatization reform in our country, public interests and the interests of the enterprise and deregulation and introducing competition mechanism, unloading financial burden and public responsibility for three pairs of contradictions. The key to solve the contradiction is the government’s roles and responsibilities of relocation. We must relocate the government’s role as a controller, coordinator and supervisor in the reform process of the Privatization of the Urban Public Transportation and the corresponding responsibilities of government should be analyzed and improved from three perspectives---regulations, organizational construction and standard operation.