自從八○年代民營化與解除管制實施以來，相關辯證一直難以停歇。儘管民營化與解除管制的支持論者仍認為，藉由民營化或解除管制，導入市場競爭，不但會帶來價格調降、服務改善的效果，還可以擴大消費者的利益，而給予高度評價。然而，反對論者卻批判：實施民營化或解除管制後，事業在競爭過程中所產生不良的結果將影響偏遠地區或低所得等經濟弱者的利益。也因此，如欲平息上述爭議，政府所能發揮之職能即扮演著關鍵性角色。 本文以我國兩大公營交通事業－台鐵與台汽為例，來觀察分析政府在實施民營化與解除管制政策的過程中，其所扮演之角色與職能的演變。研究結果發現，民營化所象徵之意義，乃是國家與社會責任的重新分配，但絕非是政府放棄對於民營化領域之管制與監督，其所涉及的僅是管制理論基礎與方式之改變。然而，從實証觀察與分析中卻發現，我國政府雖然推行該政策，卻未認清其非代表著政府職能減少或後退，而僅是政府職能由公共服務的提供者轉變為監督者之事實。

Ever since the implementation of privatization and de-regulation in 1980s, related dialectic issues have long been ones which can hardly be ceased. Despite the fact that the supporters have given high appraisal to the induction of privatization and de-regulation into market competition through privatization or de-regulation as they think such practice will not result in price drop, but lead to the effect of service improvement and maximize consumer's profit. Notwithstanding the supports' argument, the opponents, however, have brought up criticisms that the poor results arising from the course of business competition will give effects upon the profits of the remote areas or economically-disadvantaged groups after the implementation of privatization and de-regulation. To address aforesaid controversial issues, what function the government can produce will play a key role. This essay takes Taiwan Railway Administration and Taiwan Motor Transport Company Ltd., top two state-owned traffic services in Taiwan, as the case study to analyze the government's role during the course of privatization and de-regulation policy and delve into the change of government's function. Findings indicate that privatization symbolizes the redistribution of national and social responsibilities, rather than government's abandonment of control and supervision over the area of privatization, while the involved issue is only the change of theoretical foundations and methods of control. Notwithstanding, empirical observation and analysis show that despite the promotion of the said policy by Taiwan government, one issue is not identified clearly that it doesn't means the decrease of recession of government's function but the fact that government's function is shifted from the provider of public services to the supervisor.