转轨时期政府支出与居民消费关系的实证研究

本文在代表性消费者最优消费行为理论分析的基础上,运用1978～2006年的经验数据,对政府支出与居民消费的动态关系进行了实证分析。结果显示:政府支出对局居民消费的动态影响取决于政府支出的结构和时期;而且政府支出对城镇居民和农村居民消费的影响存在显著差异即呈现出典型的"二元结构"特征。基于此,本文就调整政府支出结构促进居民消费增长提出了相关的政策建议。     

财政支出结构对经济增长的外溢性研究——基于中国省际面板数据的实证检验

研究中国财政支出结构对经济增长的外溢效应,对于促进中国经济的长期平稳较快发展具有重要的理论和现实意义.本文基于一个三部门模型,从财政支出结构与经济区域相结合的角度,运用中国1997～ 2010年的省际面板数据进行实证研究.研究结果表明:(1)中国财政支出整体具有显著的外溢效应,其中购买性支出对经济增长具有正外溢效应,而转移性支出对经济增长具有负外溢效应;(2)区域发展水平对财政支出结构外溢效应的影响有所不同;(3)整体上看,购买性支出部门不具备要素生产率方面的优势,而转移性支出部门的生产效率优势较为明显.     

中国地方政府消费支出效率及其区域差距演化

本文利用两阶段研究框架分析分税制改革以来(1994～2006年)中国各省级政府消费支出的效率、区域差距演化及其影响因素.第一阶段,运用DEA非参数方法,以地区生产总值为产出,核算31个省(市、区)政府消费支出的效率得分,并描述支出效率的区域差距演化;第二阶段,利用面板数据受限Tobit模型,以各省(市、区)效率得分为因变量,分析政府消费支出效率区域差距演化的影响因素.结果表明,东部地区的政府消费支出效率显著强于中部和西部地区;区域间差距自分税制改革以来逐年缩小,尤其是东部和中部地区的效率差异在2006年前后已基本消失.区域间政府消费支出效率之所以出现了明显的趋同,既得益于中西部地方政府行政效率的提高,也得益于人力资本在区域间分布日趋平衡.     

基于产业结构差异的财政支出效应分析

文章基于产业结构差异的视角,运用中国省级1997年～2008年的面板数据,在预算约束面影响下考察了中国财政支出的增长效应。研究发现,各地区由于产业结构的差异,从而对于各类财政支出的消化程度是不同的,在第二产业为主的年份里,投资性支出的增长效应显著为正,社会消费性支出的增长效应显著为负,转移支出对增长有不显著负效应;第三产业为主的年份里,投资性支出的增长效应显著为负,社会消费性支出的增长效应显著为正,转移支出对增长有不显著正效应。因此,我国财政支出的调整应考虑各地区经济结构差异的现实。     

中国民生性财政支出对城乡居民消费差距影响的实证研究——基于1995～2009年省级面板数据的协整分析

本文从中国城乡居民消费差距的公共财政支出入手,分析政府民生性财政支出对居民消费影响的传导机制,建立政府民生性财政支出对城乡居民消费支出影响的异质性面板协整模型,并基于面板误差修正模型(PVECM)考察短期动态调节效应。研究表明,中国民生性财政支出对城乡居民消费差距存在长期稳定协整关系,除了少数省份外,绝大多数省份增加教育财政支出、社会保障财政支出、支农支出,以及少数省份增加卫生财政支出,有助于缩小其城乡居民的消费差距。面板误差修正模型估计结果显示,在短期内政府民生性财政支出的增加,有助于显著缩小城乡居民消费支出差距,但这一效应存在明显的地区差异。     

北京市政府消费对居民消费与经济增长影响研究

文章通过对北京市政府消费、居民消费与经济增长的研究,发现北京市政府消费比例过大对居民消费产生了挤出效应,降低了对经济拉动的影响力系数。而政府消费内部的不合理,行政管理费用比例过高是挤占居民消费的主要原因。因此,北京市需要降低政府消费的比率,优化政府消费内部结构,降低行政管理费用的支出,加大科教文卫方面的支出,提高居民消费,从而更快地促进经济的增长。     

我国西部经济发展中投融资机制研究

一、我国区域经济发展及投融资结构现状 国民收入核算中,国民生产总值包括全社会个人消费支出、私人国内总投资、政府购买支出(包括政府公共工程支出、产品与劳务购买支出以及转移支付)和净出口.由于居民消费和对外贸易对经济的拉动作用有限,民间投资和政府支出中的政府公共投资对经济增长起着决定性作用.本文以固定资产投资作为衡量全社会投资水平的统计标杆.     

政府收支规模、波动与经济增长

财政收入和支出的波动是宏观经济波动的重要来源，并对长期经济增长存在重要影响。本文分析了1981—2016年以来中国30个省级区域财政收入和支出及其细分项目的波动性对经济增长的作用。实证分析结果表明，产出波动性对长期经济增长存在显著的负向影响。政府收入的波动性对经济增长的影响为负，但政府支出的波动性提高则会促进经济增长。另外，财政收入的规模本身对长期经济增长存在负向影响。     

对外贸易、政府支出对我国经济增长的影响

本文以1978年到2008年的出口、政府支出和国内生产总值数据为样本,实证检验了对外贸易、政府支出对我国经济增长的影响。实证结果表明,对外贸易、政府支出与我国经济增长之间存在着长期协整关系:对外贸易、政府支出对经济增长有显著的正向影响;短期内,由于误差修正的原因,中国出口贸易和政府支出的过多或过少,都会降低中国经济增长。最后,本文根据实证结果提出适合我国国情的政策建议     

甘肃省财政支出与经济增长关系研究

文章基于甘肃省14个市(州)2010-2019年财政支出与经济增长的数据,分别建立了财政支出总量与结构对经济增长影响的面板数据模型.实证研究发现:第一,甘肃省财政支出规模对经济增长具有正效应;第二,甘肃省财政各项支出与经济增长呈非线性关系.根据分析,提出以下建议:发展高质量教育、培育具备专业知识和高技能人才、完善转移支...     

Does the expansionary government spending crowd out the private consumption?: Cointegration analysis in panel data

That whether expansionary government spending crowds out private consumption is examined by evaluating the intra-temporal elasticity of substitution between them. Using annual data (1981–2000) of 23 OECD countries, a linear deterministic cointegration relation between private consumption, government spending and their relative price is supported. We have two findings: first, the panel estimators plausibly compute the parameter estimates in general. Second, when cross-sectional correlation is considered by using a SUR estimator, the statistical significance of panel cointegration is improved. Thirdly, the intra-temporal elasticity of substitution indicates that government and private consumption are found to be complements, which shows that expansionary government spending does not crowd out private consumption.     

政府支出对居民消费的影响——对李嘉图等价之谜的中国经验分析

基于消费跨期最优化框架,政府支出对居民消费的影响主要取决于消费者相对风险规避系数及私人消费支出与政府支出之间的相关系数。对中国数据的分析表明：短期内,李嘉图等价不成立,政府支出与居民消费呈互补关系,即政府支出增加将导致居民消费增加,积极的财政政策在短期内是有效的;长期内,政府支出将完全挤占居民消费支出,因而支出政策不宜用于实现政府的长期经济目标。     

House prices, wealth effects, and the Singapore macroeconomy

This paper examines the effect housing wealth has upon aggregate consumption in Singapore. While past research has focused only on changes in private housing wealth, the residential market in Singapore is dominated by the public housing sector. The massive public housing segment can generate potentially different wealth effects from standard private housing markets given the former’s unique institutional features. In particular, public housing owners who sell their units at market rates can repurchase a public flat at subsidized prices whereas private homeowners typically cannot. We estimate the link between consumption expenditure and both private and public housing wealth using a VARX approach for the Q1:1990–Q4:2002 period. We find that changes in private house prices have no significant effect on aggregate consumption. In contrast, public housing wealth effects are larger and more persistent.     

生产性公共支出、最优税收与经济增长

本文在严成樑和龚六堂(2009)的基础上将消费性公共支出内生到家庭的效用函数中,在一个DGE框架下求解竞争性均衡问题,以此来考察生产性公共支出和税收对经济增长的影响。结论表明,生产性支出具有正的产出效应;生产性支出对家庭私人消费、公共消费的影响取决于政府设定的平滑税率。根据经验分析可知,生产性支出对经济的促进作用不如人口效应大,其中,基本建设支出并未对经济起到促进作用,可能已凸显出过度投资、重复建设等问题,这一现象在东西部地区更为明显;教育支出的增加促进了经济增长,并且在东中部地区较明显,而在西部地区仍未体现出来。     

政府审计、公款消费与费用操纵

采用双重差分方法实证检验政府审计对国有企业公款消费的影响,研究发现：在政府审计介入当年及以后年度,被审计的国企控股上市公司消费性现金支出费用化率和波动性显著下降,公款消费实质性减少,公款消费计入存货的费用操纵行为显著减少,政府审计对公款消费的监督和治理职能得以证实;然而,管理层仍然可能会将消费性现金支出转入非流动资产处置损失等营业外支出科目,并且在政府审计介入之后,消费性现金支出的粘性并没有显著降低,可见政府审计并没有完全解决公款消费相关的代理问题。     

Introducing the supply side into the LBS Model

This Briefing Paper describes a new version of the London Business School model, which incorporates our most recent research on the supply side. The changes reflect the desire to improve the specification of the supply-side of the model, and to capture the effects of taxes on the incentives to save, invest and to work, while still retaining the basic features of the income-expenditure framework. The main features of the new model are: - Gross domestic product is determined as the sum of the outputs of five sectors. Previously GDP was determined by the demand side as the sum of the expenditure components. - Domestic demand for the output of the private sector depends on domestic absorption and on the price of this output relative to import prices. Overseas demand for exports depends on world economic activity and on the price of exports relative to the world price of exports. - Supply depends on the capital stock, real unit labour costs and real raw material prices. In the short run, input prices are allowed to affect the mix between goods which are exported and those which are supplied to the domestic market. In the long run, however, the mix depends only on the price of exports relative to the price of domestically supplied goods (i.e., relative profitability). - In the short run, disequilibrium in the goods market is reflected in adjustments to prices, inventories and the external balance. - Since gross domestic product is determined by summing the output of each sector, output decisions are reconciled with expenditure decisions by making imports the difference between final expenditure and aggregate supply. - In the long run, increases in government expenditure crowd out private expenditure, but the effect takes several years to come through. - A cut in corporation taxes which is not financed by higher taxes elsewhere boosts the supply side by raising investment and the capital stock, but not by enough to raise revenues sufficiently to pay for the tax cut. Private sector saving increases but not by enough to fund higher public sector borrowing, so the current account goes into deficit. - In the short run, both supply and demand factors influence economic activity; in the long run, the path of the economy depends only on population growth, capital accumulation and technical progress.     

我国政府支出对居民消费产生引致还是挤出效应——基于可变参数模型的分析

本文利用可变参数模型对我国1978～2004年的数据进行了动态分析,结果表明:从总体上分析,在大多数年份政府支出对居民消费产生引致效应;从结构上分析,政府投资性支出对农村居民消费和城镇居民消费产生了挤出效应;从1998年开始,政府消费性支出对农村居民消费和城镇居民消费产生了引致效应;政府转移性支出在大多数年份对农村居民消费和城镇居民消费产生了引致效应。     

Does state preschool crowd-out private provision? The impact of universal preschool on the childcare sector in Oklahoma and Georgia

Universal preschool policies introduced in Georgia and Oklahoma offer an opportunity to investigate the impact of government intervention on provision of childcare. Since Georgia used a voucher-like program and Oklahoma utilized its existing public schools, the two states offer a case study of how government provision compares to government subsidization alone. Using a synthetic control group difference-in-difference estimation framework, we examine the effects of universal preschool on childcare providers. In both states there is an increase in the number of formal childcare centers. With the voucher-like program in Georgia, the overall increase in care is partly driven by an increase in the supply of formal childcare in the private sector and partly driven by new publicly-provided preschools. However, there is substantial crowd-out of private consumption of preschool. In Oklahoma, where universal preschool is publicly provided, the increase in the number of childcare providers occurred only in the public sector. The expansion of publicly-provided care seems to be driven largely by movement of employees from private centers to public settings. As such, this case-study comparison suggests that government subsidization through funding was more effective at expanding preschool than government provision.     

The effects of public spending externalities

We conduct a positive analysis on the effects of ‘externalities’ produced by government spending. To this effect, we estimate, using U.S. data, an RBC model with two salient features. First, we allow government consumption to directly affect the marginal utility of consumption. Second, we allow public capital to shift the productivity of private factors. We provide an identification analysis that supports the strategy adopted for estimating the parameters governing these two channels. On one hand, private and government consumption are robustly estimated to be substitute goods. Because of substitutability, labor supply reacts little to a government consumption shock, so the estimated output multiplier is much lower than in models with separabilities. On the other hand, our results point towards public investment being ‘unproductive’.     

Should governments fund science?

Empirical evidence shows the flaws in the 'linear model' of economic growth - in which government funds pure science which leads to applied science and enhanced economic growth. Adam Smith's model - in which academic science flows out of applied science - is nearer the mark. Governent funding of science cannot be justified on economic grounds and indeed tends to crowd out private funding.