從證券櫃買中心到台北交易所的制度演進（1994-2024）：歷史制度論的觀點

Abstract

1994年11月1日財團法人中華民國證券櫃檯買賣中心（下稱櫃買中心）正式設立，到2024年11月正好屆滿30年。2015年櫃買中心報經主管機關核准將英文名稱變更為「Taipei Exchange」，也就是｢台北交易所｣，但它的中文名稱卻仍沿用舊名，形成中英文名稱各自表述的特殊現象。此外，櫃買中心的業務實質與法律地位長期處在一個不甚明確的狀態，相關法律規範亦不夠完備。 本研究採取歷史制度論（historical institutionalism）觀點，就櫃買中心30年來的制度演進進行研究，以質性研究方式，蒐集公開及未公開資料，訪談產官學各界人士，並經由筆者長期服務於櫃買中心的近距離觀察、理解，試圖發掘櫃買中心歷次改革未能成功的緣由，並探詢櫃買中心永續發展的可行途徑。 本研究發現，櫃買中心的設立的決策，一部份是受到當年行動者偏好所主導。初期櫃買中心具有試驗性質，櫃買市場則扮演預備市場的角色，但隨即透過交易制度的調整精進，逐步發展成為與台灣證券交易所平行競爭的市場。2005年開始的證券期貨周邊單位的四合一的整併方案，以及2019年的櫃買中心組織調整規劃方案，相隔十餘年分別出現了制度改革的關鍵節點（critical juncture），但都因為行動者的積極度不足或職位異動而未竟其功。最終還是在路徑依賴（path dependence）的相對穩定特質之下，未能發生制度變遷。2021年7月開板的台灣創新板，以及2024年11月在｢亞洲資產管理中心｣政策下的所成立「資本市場服務團」，帶來了不同的市場樣貌，櫃買中心面對這樣的外在刺激，能否成為制度轉折的｢關鍵節點｣，抑或再次回到｢路徑依賴｣的情境，仍有待時間觀察。 本研究認為，櫃買中心仍應在既有基礎上致力拓展新業務，經營自己的特色市場，並強化綜合性交易所的形象，培育人才，提供優質服務，同時持續在適當時機爭取明確法律定位，成為名實相符的台北交易所。本研究對櫃買中心制度演進的觀察及所建立的架構，應可作為未來研究者持續探討櫃買市場發展的參考。

On November 1, 1994, the Taipei Exchange (officially the "Over-the-Counter Securities Exchange" in Chinese, referred to hereafter as OTC), was formally established. In November 2024, it will mark its 30th anniversary. In 2015, the OTC secured approval from the regulatory authority to change its English name to "Taipei Exchange," but its Chinese name remained unchanged, resulting in a unique situation where the English and Chinese names are expressed differently. Furthermore, the OTC’s actual business operations and legal status have long been in a state of ambiguity, with its legal framework remaining incomplete. This study adopts a historical institutionalism perspective to explore the institutional evolution of the OTC over the past 30 years. Using qualitative research methods, it collects both publicly available and unpublished materials, conducts interviews with representatives from the industry, government, and academia, and incorporates the author's close observations and understanding gained from long-term service at the OTC. The study seeks to uncover the reasons behind the repeated failure of the OTC's reforms and explore feasible pathways for its sustainable development. The findings reveal that the decision to establish the OTC was partly driven by the preferences of key actors at the time. In its early stages, the OTC had an experimental nature, with the OTC market serving as a preparatory market. However, through adjustments and improvements to the trading system, it gradually developed into a competitive market parallel to the Taiwan Stock Exchange. Key moments of institutional reform, such as the four-in-one integration plan for securities and futures peripheral units initiated in 2005 and the organizational restructuring plan for the OTC proposed in 2019, emerged more than a decade apart but failed to achieve success due to insufficient engagement or position changes among key actors. Ultimately, under the relatively stable characteristic of path dependence, institutional change did not occur. The establishment of the Taiwan Innovation Board in July 2021 and the Capital Market Service Group under the “Asian Asset Management Center” policy in November 2024 present new market scenarios. Whether these external stimuli will serve as critical junctures for institutional transformation or merely result in a return to the path-dependent state remains to be seen. This study concludes that the OTC should continue to build on its existing foundation to expand new business lines, develop a distinctive market niche, enhance its image as a comprehensive exchange, cultivate talent, and provide high-quality services. Concurrently, it should strive to secure a clear legal status at opportune moments, aligning its name and functions as the Taipei Exchange. The study’s observations on the institutional evolution of the OTC and the framework it establishes may serve as a reference for future researchers exploring the development of the OTC market.