부산대학교 도서관

Going into the 1990’s, due to a rise in demand for social infrastructure, welfare, environment and education, it became very difficult for the government to increase investment in social overhead capital facilities without increasing borrowing and relying solely on state funds. For this reason, a mechanism for private investment was established in 1994 through the Act on Private Investment in Infrastructure. This legislation aimed at efficiently resolving the issue of distribution of state finance and securing funds for construction of social infrastructure facilities. Based on BTO and BTL schemes, our private investment business has provided an efficient supply of funds to social infrastructure at an early stage which, in turn, has increased benefit to the public and brought greater stability to management of public finance. Initially, regional state universities showed interest in private investment, seeing it as a viable solution to the lack of facilities expansion caused by weakening financial conditions and strong reliance on state funds. However, Pusan National University’s failed attempt and changing business climate soon caused interest to decline. Recently, there have been positive developments in business conditions including the implementation of new private investment schemes, namely BTO-rs, BTO-a, by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance in 2015. Chonbuk National University has continued to hold interest in private investment, having decided to retain its private investment department. However, lack of accurate profit and loss calculation analysis has prevented further development. In this regard, a profit and loss calculation analysis focusing on Chonbuk National University as a case study has been carried out. The output should enable domestic higher educational institutions to utilise private investment at opportune moments to promptly secure much needed space and deliver savings to the national budget. With a focus on the BTO scheme, a commonly used method in private investment, analysis models for benefit-cost ratio, net present value and internal rate of return have been applied to assess the economic efficiency of private investment. The results for this research’s case study were as follows: (1) benefit-cost ratio was at 1.176, greater than the standard value of 1; (2) net present value was at KRW 7.514 billion, greater than the basic economic efficiency rate of 0; and (3) internal rate of return was at 8.20%, greater than the social discount rate (i.e. economic efficiency rate) of 5.5%. All three models showed positive economic efficiency. In the instance of fluctuations in one of construction fee (+/- 15%), social discount rate (+/- 1%) or rent (+/- 15%), all three areas still showed economic efficiency. Having said that, in the case of mixed fluctuations such as construction fee rise of 15% combined with a fall in rent of 5% or a rise in social discount rate in 1%, or construction fee rise of 10% combined with a fall in rent of 10%, economic efficiency was absent. For the facilities reviewed in this research, BTO, BTL, BTO-rs and BTO-a schemes were compared against each other with a focus on internal rate of returns. It was found that for a private investor the BTO-rs scheme would be most appropriate because even at the face of a fall in investment cost, the benefit-cost ratio and internal rate of returns would be maintained. For the past five years, internal return rate for domestic BTO schemes have been lower by 2.03% than the standard return rate of 10.23%. In this regard, carrying campaigns to actively draw in private investors seem necessary. For the same time period, BTO schemes have been higher by 3.16% than the average return rate of 5.04% for BTL schemes, making BTL schemes financially burdensome for state authorities and thus, not a suitable option to take. BTO-a schemes were not seen to be suitable as they focus on limiting loss and this function is not very useful considering, as shown above, economic efficiency still exists in the event of fluctuations in one of construction fee, social discount rate or rent.