過去探討民營化與政府補貼政策之文獻，大多將焦點著重在政府與廠商間的互動，鮮少將廠商因應消費者消費型態改變所衍生出的其他生產活動納入考量。有鑑於此，本文沿用White (1996)一文之分析架構，建構一混合寡占模型，並分別引入近年來受到消費者重視的企業社會責任(corporate social responsibility, CSR)以及環境企業社會責任(environmental corporate social responsibility, ECSR)。
本文研究顯示: (1)當生產不具外部性時，公私營廠商皆從事CSR活動的情況下，民營化政策中立性定理(privatization neutrality theorem)成立。(2)當生產具負向外部性時，公私營廠商皆從事ECSR活動的情況下，民營化政策中立性定理則無法成立。甚至當污染的邊際損害很大，而消費者對企業從事ECSR活動的偏好不顯著時，政府的最適政策將由補貼轉為課稅。(3)當生產會對環境造成汙染時，即使在公私營廠商皆從事ECSR活動的情況下，民營化仍會對整體社會福利造成負面影響，這與一般探討民營化與環境議題的文獻結果一致。

In the past, the literature on privatization and government subsidy policies are mostly focused on the interaction between government and manufacturers, and rarely considered other production derived from the changes in consumer’s consumption patterns. On that account, this paper follows the analysis framework of White (1996), and constructed a mixed oligopoly model introducing the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) that have been valued by consumers in recent years.
This paper shows:
(1) The Privatization Neutrality Theorem is established when the production of both public and private firms is not external and are engaged in CSR activities.
(2) The Privatization Neutrality Theorem cannot be established when both public and private firms have a negative production externality and are engaged in ECSR activities. When the consumer’s preference for ECSR activities is not significant, and even the marginal damage of pollution is tremendous, the government’s optimal policy will be converted from subsidies to taxation.
(3) When the production leads to environmental pollution, even if both public and private firms are engaged in ECSR activities, privatization will still have a negative impact on social welfare; which is consistent with the general literature of privatization and environmental issues.

胡憲倫、許家偉、蒲彥穎（2006）。策略的企業社會責任：企業永續發展的新課題。應用倫理研究通訊，40，37-50。
Alves, C. and Santos-Pinto, L. (2008). A theory of corporate social responsibility in oligopolistic markets. Working Paper.
Becchetti, L. and G. Trovato (2011). Corporate social responsibility and firm efficiency: A latent class stochastic frontier analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36(3): 231-246.
Berens, G., van Riel, C. B., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 35–48.
Beladi, H. and Chao, C.-C. (2006). Does privatization improve the environment? Economics Letters, 93(3):343–347.
Cato, S. and T. Matsumura (2012). Long-run effects of foreign penetration on privatization policies. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 168, (3) 444-454.
Cremer, H., Marchand, M., and J. F. Thisse (1989). The Public Firm as an Instrument for Regulating an Oligopolistic Market” Oxford Economic Papers 41, 283-301.
De Fraja, G. and F. Delbono (1989). Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly. Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 302-311.
Fliess, B., Lee, H. J., Dubreuil, O. L. & Agatiello, O. (2007). CSR and trade: Informing consumers about social and environmental conditions of globalised production, Trade Policy Working Paper No.47 - PART I Working Party of the Trade Committee TD/TC/WP(2006)17/FINAL.
Fjell, K. and J. Heywood (2004). Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and the Order of Firm’s Moves: The Relevance of Privatization. Economics Letters, 83, 411-416.
Garella, P.G., Petrakis, E. (2006). Minimum quality standards and consumers information. Economic Theory, Forthcoming.
George, K. and La Manna, M.M.A. (1996). Mixed Duopoly, Inefficiency, and Public Ownership. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, pp.853-860.
Häckner, J. (2000). A note on price and quantity competition in differentiated oligopolies. Journal of Economic Theory 93, 233-239.
Hashimzade, N., Khodavaisi, H., & Myles, G. (2007). An irrelevance result with differentiated goods. Economics Bulletin, 8(2), 1-7.
Hirose, K., S.H. Lee and T. Matsumura (2017). Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility: A Note on the First-mover Advantage under Price Competition. Economics Bulletin 37, pp.214-221.
Ella Joseph (2002). Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility: Is Market-based Regulation Sufficient? New Economy9(2): 96-101.
Kato, K., & Tomaru, Y. (2007). Mixed oligopoly, privatization, subsidization and the order of firms’ moves: several types of objectives. Economics Letters, 96, 287-292.
Kopel, M. (2009). Strategic CSR, Spill-Over and First-Mover Advantage. Working Paper (Institute of Organization and Economics of Institutions, Graz, Austria).
KPMG (2015). KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015.
Lafferty B. A., Goldsmith, R. E. (1992). Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High versus a Low Credibility Endorser Is Used in the Ad. Journal of Business Research, (2): 109-116.
Lin MH, Matsumura T (2018). Optimal privatization and uniform subsidy policies: a note. J Public Econ Theory.
Liu, C.-C., Wang, L.F.S., and S.-H. Lee (2015a). Environmental Corporate Social Responsibilities in Differentiated Duopoly: A Welfare Analysis. Taiwanese Agricultural Economic Review, 22(2): 121-146.
Liu, C.-C., Wang, L.F.S., and S.-H. Lee (2015b). Strategic environmental corporate social responsibility in a differentiated duopoly market. Economics Letters 129, 108–111.
Manasakis, E. Mitrokostas, and E. Petrakis (2007). Corporate social responsibility in oligopoly. Working Paper 07-07, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
Matsumura, T. (1998). Partial privatization in a mixed duopoly. Journal of Public Economics, 70, 473-483.
Matsumura, T., & Tomaru, Y. (2012). Market structure and privatization policy under International competition. Japanese Economic Review, 63, 244-258.
Matsumura, T., & Tomaru, Y. (2013). Mixed duopoly, privatization, and subsidization with excess burden of taxation. Canadian Journal of Economics, 46(2), 526-554.
Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: A European perspective. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 13 No. 6, June 2013.
Myles, G. (2002). Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and the Order of Firms’ Moves: An Irrelevance Result for the General Case. Economics Bulletin, 12, 1-6.
Ohori, S. (2006). Trade Liberalization, Consumption Externalities and the Environment: A Mixed Duopoly Approach. Economics Bulletin 17(5), 1-9.
Pal, D., and M. D. White (1998). Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy. Southern Economic Journal 65, 264-281.
Poyago-Theotoky, J. (2001). Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and the Order of Firms’ Moves: An Irrelevance Result. Economics Bulletin, 12, 1-5.
Robertson,T.S.& Gatignon, H. (1986).Competitive effects on technology diffusion. Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 1-12.
Scrimitore, M. (2014). Quantity competition vs. price competition under optimal subsidy in a mixed duopoly. Economic Modelling 42, 166-176.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., and Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.
Tomaru, Y. (2006). Mixed Oligopoly, Partial Privatization and Subsidization.Economics Bulletin 12, 1-6.
Tomaru, Y. and M. Saito (2010). Mixed Duopoly,Privatization and Subsidization in an Endogenous Timing Framework. Manchester School 78, 41-59.
White, M. D. (1996). Mixed oligopoly, privatization and subsidization. Economics Letters, 53, 189-195.
Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G. and Ramsay, J. (2006). Drivers of environmental behaviour in manufacturing SMEs and the implications for CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, pp. 317–330.
Zikos, V. (2007). Stackelberg Mixed Oligopoly with Asymmetric Subsidies.Economics Bulletin, 12(13), pp. 1-5.