论我国海洋环境准公共物品市场化供给方式选择

海洋环境是具有非排他性和非竞争性的公共物品,可以分为海洋环境纯公共公共物品、俱乐部物品和共有资源三类。随着社会经济的发展,政府全部承担海洋环境公共物品面临着巨大压力,出现了产出低效率、供不应求等问题,海洋环境公共物品的供给需要探求市场化的供给方式。根据海洋环境公共物品的分类,政府在海洋环境纯公共物品供给过程中发挥主要作用,海洋环境准公共物品由市场供给,供给方式主要有BOT、PPP、TOT三种。     

中国农村公共物品投资情况及区域分布

中国农村能否快速发展在很大程度上取决于农村公共服务和基础设施的改善。本文利用抽样调查数据对农村村级公共物品投资状况进行了初步的研究，包括农村公共物品投资的规模、分布、资金来源及其投资目的等。研究表明，农村村一级组织和农民自己负担了他们公共物品投资的很大一部分。上级政府的公共物品投资策略有助于统筹区域发展，降低区域差异。针对目前农村公共物品投资和融资的特点，在农村税费和农业税减免等改革的大背景下，如何保障农村公共物品投资的持续增长，是各级政府应当予以特别关注的新问题。     

建立公益林生态效益补偿制度的理论依据

本文引用国内外专家对森林生态价值问题的研究成果 ,说明森林具有生态价值。可是 ,由于目前公益林所发挥的生态效益被无偿享用 ,使公益林的生态价值得不到补偿 ,投入的成本也无法回收 ,因此必须给予补偿。同时 ,本文运用公共物品和外部性理论论证了公益林属于公共物品 ,具有明显的外部经济性 ,市场机制无法保障公益林的有效供给 ,所以公益林补偿必须由政府干预。     

浅议城市社区公共物品供给

城市社区日益成为社会公共物品供给与消费的基本单元。然而，在既有的供给体系下，社区普遍存在公共物品供给短缺。改革传统的管理与服务方式，建立新的公共物品供给体系，满足社区不断增长的需求，已成为城市社区建设的中心任务。     

森林生态补偿绩效研究综述与展望

森林具有公共物品的非排他性与非竞争性特征,森林生态补偿在解决市场机制失灵造成的外部性、调节森林生态保护的利益相关者之间利益关系等功能方面发挥着越来越重要的作用。文章回顾了我国森林生态补偿的制度建设及其发展过程,综合梳理了森林生态补偿绩效的评价指标体系与评价方法、森林生态补偿绩效的评价结果及其影响因素等研究进展发现,由于学者对森林生态补偿绩效的评价指标与评价方法运用的不一致,导致了评价结果出现较大的差异。因此,森林生态补偿绩效研究应该更加关注社会效应指标的完善、补偿效率测算的效应滞后性和补偿制度的可持续性等问题。     

应该努力扩大农村公共物品供给

目前，农村公共物品供给晋升重不足，已影响农材农材乃至整个经济的发展。究其原因，一是农材公共物品的供给没有纳入公共财政收支范畴，二是中央与地方政府关于农材公共物品供给的责权划分不合理，三是自上而下的供给决策机导致 农村公共物品供求结构失衡，四是农村公共物品选择和监督机制缺位，要扩大农村公共物品的供给，必须加大对农村公共物品的财政支持力度，拓宽农材公共资金的融资渠道，明确中央和地方政府提供农村公共物品的职责，改革农村公共物品投资决策程序，加强对公共资源使用的监督。     

我国公益林经营现状与经济政策改进

从我国公益林建设现状入手,分析公益林经营现存的问题。以经济学理论为支撑,借助森林分类经营理论对公益林进行经济学划分,将其按照非私有物品的特性,分为完全公共物品属性的公益林、非完全公共物品属性的公益林、部分具有私人物品属性的公益林、可参与市场交易的公益林。在这种划分的情况下,采取不同的资金来源方式、补偿方式及管护方式。最后给出了政策创新建议。     

我国公共物品低效供给的表现与对策

改革开放以来,我国人民群众的私人物品需求在很大程度上得到满足的同时,公共物品供给短缺和低效的局面却没有得到有效缓解.公共物品的高成本与非均衡供给、反公共物品现象及派生外在性问题是我国公共物品低效供给的主要表现.提高我国公共物品供给效率,必须推动政府、社会和市场三位一体的多元化供给格局的构建,逐步实现从"经济建设型政府"向"公共服务型政府"的转变,并让公众切实地参与到公共物品的生产与提供过程中来.     

我国城市化进程对公共管理的挑战、原因与对策

当代中国的城市化主要体现为政府主导型城市化.在这种背景下,城市化对公共管理提出了多方面的挑战:公共物品需求飞速增加,需求主体日益复杂;公共物品供给严重不足;供给主体单一等.对此,我们必须加快公共管理体制的配套改革;加强城市基础设施建设与管理;推进公共物品提供主体的多元化.     

森林碳生产的激励机理分析

分析指出森林碳生产的激励原因在其经济属性,包括公共物品特性与生产的正外部性;运用供求曲线对森林碳生产进行经济解释;论证了产权制度安排与碳价格给付的森林碳生产激励办法;指出产权制度安排激励办法的现实困难,提出尽快开征碳税的建议。     

林木良种生产与公共产品提供的理论分析

文章从公共管理视角,运用传统的公共产品需求和供给理论阐述了林木良种生产的公益性特征,解释了林木良种的公共产品属性。指出,需求主体对林木良种的选择愿意低,不发达的林业产业对林木良种的需求弹性低,公益性林木良种使用激励不足等,是供需调节市场失灵的主要原因。     

私有林与中国林业发展

发达国家和经济转型国家的私有林具有以下特征:木材生产大多由采伐公司承担,集约经营程度和竞争力与它的规模有较强的正相关性,公共品或准公共品性质趋强,以及非农林主增多、老龄林主增多、林地平均规模趋小等。根据国际经验判断,私有林也应成为中国林业发展的选择。在现阶段发展私有林,需要改进林木采伐管制,确保采伐指标的公平分配,削弱森林部门征收税费的能力,相信农民的能力,并规范政府的行为。     

公共林业的性质与外部性问题解决途径的探讨

本文以西方公共经济学理论为依据 ,对目前人们有关公共林业性质的认识提出了质疑。公共林业中的公益林并不是纯公共物品 ,在此基础上探讨了公共林业生产和消费性质 ,并从其性质出发分析公共林业外部性问题的解决途径 ,试图建立起一个我国政府干预林业的最佳模式 ,此模式下政府扶持的最终目的是让市场机制更有效地发挥出来     

Editorial - Multiple-use forestry

The problem of multiple-use forestry arises because (1) a forest can be managed to provide a wide range of products and services, (2) the different uses are not perfectly compatible with each other, and (3) some products are not priced in markets and many of the services a forest provides have the characteristics of public goods. Examples of major forest products include, in addition to timber, edible berries, fungi, and hunting games. Forests also provide recreation opportunities and various environmental services (such as regulating local climate, reducing soil erosion, reducing pollutants in the atmosphere, regulating the global climate, providing habitats for wildlife, etc.). The outputs of nontimber goods in general depend on the quantity and structure of the forest, which can be changed by various forest management activities. However, a forest state most suitable for the production of one good is usually not optimal with respect to another good. Typically, there does not exist a set of management activities that simultaneously maximize the outputs of timber and all other goods.Another way to understand the conflicts between different uses is to view standing timber as an intermediate product of forestry investment, which is employed as an “input” for the production of timber products and nontimber goods. Thinking in this way, the conflicts arise partly because timber production and nontimber uses compete for the same input, and partly because of the differences in the “production technology” among different nontimber goods. A change in the standing timber may have positive impacts on some nontimber uses, but have negative effects on others. Because of the conflicts among different uses, it requires that both timber products and nontimber goods should be explicitly incorporated into forestry decision-making in order to achieve the greatest benefits to the forest owner and/or the public.Most of the economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions have explicitly or implicitly adopted the view that multiple-use should be achieved in individual stands. Each stand should be managed to produce an optimal mix of timber products and nontimber goods. Another view of multiple-use forestry is to manage each stand for a primary use, whereas multiple-use concerns are addressed by allocating different stands in a forest to different uses. A general argument in support of the primary-use view is that specialization makes for efficiency. The production of timber and nontimber goods is a joint process, however. Strictly speaking, one cannot separate timber production and the production of different nontimber goods. For example, managing a stand for timber production does not exclude the possibility of producing some nontimber goods in the stand. Since every stand usually produces more than one product, efficient multiple-use forestry requires that each stand should be managed for an optimal mix of timber and nontimber outputs. On the other hand, it may well be the case that the optimal multiple-use mix for a particular stand consists of a maximum output of one product. In this case the optimal multiple-use management decision would coincide with the optimal decision pertaining to a single use. In other words, it may be optimal to manage a particular stand for one primary use. Using the terminology of economics, primary-use may be efficient for stands in which the multiple-use production set is nonconvex. Recent research has explored several sources of nonconvexity in the multiple-use production set. However, there is no evidence supporting the argument that specialization is always more efficient than multiple-use management of individual stands. From an economics viewpoint, efficient primary-use is special cases of multiple-use stand management.A widely recognized limitation of multiple-use stand management is that, by considering each stand separately, one neglects the interdependence of nontimber benefits and ecological interactions among individual stands. The nontimber benefits of a stand depend on the output of nontimber goods from other stands. Likewise, the nontimber output from one stand affects the value of nontimber goods produced in the other stands. Ecological interactions among individual stands imply that the output of nontimber goods from two stands in a forest differs from the sum of the outputs from two isolated stands. These interdependence and interactions imply that the relationship between the nontimber benefits of a stand and the stand age (or standing timber stock) cannot be unambiguously determined - it depends on the flow of nontimber goods produced in the surrounding stands. Therefore, it is improper to determine optimal decisions for the individual stands independently. In stead, efficient multiple-use forestry decision should be analyzed by considering all the stands in a forest simultaneously.Another serious limitation of multiple-use stand management is that each stand is treated as a homogenous management unit to be managed according to a uniform management regime. One implicitly assumes that the boundaries of each stand is exogenously given and will remain unchanged over time. This assumption imposes a restriction on the multiple-use production set, thereby creates inefficiency. As an example, consider a large stand with a nonconvex production set. It may be possible to eliminate nonconvexity in the production set and push the production possibility frontier outwards by dividing the stand into several parts and managing each part for a primary-use. It may also be efficient to combine two adjacent stands into one to be managed following a uniform regime, because of the presences of fixed management costs, and/or because the relationship between some nontimber outputs and stand area is not linear.In contrast to income from timber production, nontimber goods produced at different time points are not perfect substitutes. The rate at which a forest owner is willing to substitute a nontimber good produced at one time point for that produced at another time point changes with the outputs of the nontimber good at the two time points. In general cases, the nontimber goods produced at one time point cannot be consumed at another time point, and the marginal utility of a nontimber good decreases when its output increases. This provides a motivation for reducing the variation in the output of nontimber goods over time. An effective approach to coordinating nontimber outputs over time is to apply different management regimes to different parts of a stand, or apply the same regime to adjacent stands, which would change the boundaries of the stands. Preserving the existing stand boundaries would limit the possibility of evening out the nontimber outputs over time, and thereby lead to intertemporal inefficiency in multiple-use management.In previous studies of multiple-use forestry decisions the nontimber outputs or benefits are usually modeled as functions of stand age or standing timber stock. Future flows of nontimber goods or benefits are incorporated into a stand/forest harvest decision model to explore the implications of nontimber uses for optimal harvest decisions. While stand age and standing timber stock may have significant impacts on nontimber outputs, other forest state variables, e. g. the spatial distribution of stands of different ages/species, may be of great importance to the production of nontimber goods. Recognition of such forest state variables could change the relationship between timber production and nontimber outputs and therefore change the optimal forest management decisions.In summary, multiple-use forestry is not simply an extension of timber management with additional flows of benefits to be considered when evaluating alternative management regimes. Recognition of multiple uses of a forest leads to two fundamental changes of the forestry decision problem. First, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income is no longer separable from forest management decisions. In general, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income depends on future flows of nontimber goods, implying that the consumption-saving decision should be made simultaneously with the decision on the production of timber and nontimber goods over time. Secondly, it is no longer appropriate to optimize the management regime for each stand separately. The nontimber outputs from a forest depend on the age distribution of individual stands, and on a wide range of other forest state variables such as the spatial distribution of stands of different ages and tree-species composition. Ecological interactions and interdependence among stands imply that management regimes for different stands should be optimized simultaneously. In addition to changing rotation ages and harvest levels, efficient multiple-use forestry requires optimizing the spatial allocation of harvests, redefining the boundaries of stands, coordinating the choices of tree species in regeneration of harvested area and so on.The lack of rigorous production functions for nontimber goods imposes a severe restriction on attempts to perform comprehensive economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions. This restriction in itself is no justification for ignoring many of the key aspects of multiple-use forestry problem and modeling the problem as one of determining the optimal rotation age or optimal harvest level. It requires that economic models of multiple-use forestry should be developed with special consideration of the vague and imprecise information regarding the relationships between nontimber outputs and forest state variables.Peichen GongDepartment of Forest EconomicsSE-90183 UmeåSweden     

国有林区营林业发展中政府行为的思考

通过对国有林区林业局的抽样调研,首先对营林业的主体和客体的现状进行了总结,还针对营林业的现状进行了因果分析;其次总结了目前政府对国有林区营林业的作用现状,借鉴交易成本理论和公共产品理论,在森林分类经营理论的基础上将营林业划分为商品林和公益林两部分,进而研究出椭圆形政府作用边界模型,最后提出国有林区营林业政府行为的4种模式:"进"、"退"、"补"、"改"4种行为模式。     

涉及国际碳汇贸易的林业项目碳汇价值的确定——基于森林碳汇经济学特性的分析

论证了森林碳汇的经济学特性,针对国际碳汇贸易蓬勃发展这一现状,从公共物品和外部性的角度,对涉及国际碳汇贸易林业项目碳汇价值量的确定问题进行了探讨,认为涉及国际碳汇贸易林业项目的森林碳汇给项目所在国带来了2方面效益,即由碳汇贸易带来的经济效益和森林提供碳汇服务带来的生态效益,进而导出了碳汇价值量的估算模型。     

试论天然林资源的经济学特性及实施天保工程的经济效益

天然林资源是经济物品,而非自由物品;天然林资源具有既可以提供公共物品又可以提供私人物品的两重性;提供公共物品的天然林资源是一种缺乏需求弹性的商品。比较实施天然林保护工程与否得出结论:从长期来看,实施天然林保护工程有利于国民经济的总体长远发展,对林区经济实现可持续发展是必不可少的。     

基于PSO的PPE模型的民生评价研究——吉林森工集团178户职工的调查数据

利用基于PSO(粒子群优化算法)构建的PPE(投影寻踪评价)模型,运用吉林森工集团泉阳、湾沟、三岔子3个林业局178户林业职工的调查数据,根据实证分析的计算结果对吉林森工集团3个林业局民生状况进行全面综合评价,以期对该区域的民生水平进行有效的检测。在研究结果的基础上,对吉林森工集团3个林业局的民生发展提出需要狠抓林区经济社会发展整体水平、加大教育投入力度、提高林区职工的就业质量、提升林区整体社会保障等公共服务水平、打造精品小区等相关对策建议。     

Forester networks: The intersection of private lands policy and collaborative capacity

Privately owned forestland provides abundant ecosystem goods and services to society at scales beyond the individual forest parcel. However, successful mechanisms to encourage broad-scale management in privately owned, multifunctional, landscapes are relatively limited. In the United States, state agency and private foresters may be poised to help facilitate landscape-scale management given their role as gatekeepers to private landowner incentive programs or emerging markets for ecosystem goods and services. A key question remains as to the collaborative capacity of public and private sector foresters, especially in the face of evolving private forestry incentive programs, some of which have shifted toward public–private partnerships (PPP's). We used qualitative interviews and a social network survey with professional foresters in Northern Wisconsin, an area with a high demand for diverse forest ecosystem services, to identify the structure of current business networks among land managers in the region and characteristics of these relationships that may influence collaboration. Of the nearly 300 different individual professionals identified, most (86%) were state, consulting, or industry foresters, suggesting a relatively homogeneous network of professionals and potential need for other types of natural resource professionals to tie into existing foresters’ networks. We found that central network positions were occupied by all three types of foresters, while the qualitative analysis suggested the private forestry incentive program is likely driving, in part, network configuration. Interviews yielded a nuanced understanding of foresters’ relationships, including the impact of forest policy changes on public–private partnerships and specifically the growing role of private foresters in providing private lands forestry services and the need for successful mechanisms to reduce conflict and improve collaborative capacity among professionals.