我国中部崛起政策有效性的实证研究

本文采用差分内差分方法对我国中部崛起政策应对区域发展不均衡的有效性进行实证研究.实证表明,短期内经济增长出现了收敛,但这种收敛趋势在中长期中消失.短期内,政策促进人均GDP增长率提升0.75％,中长期仅提升0.19％.稳健性检验发现,城镇和农村人均消费水平在初始消费水平上均出现收敛,但前者的趋同效应大于后者.本文表明,中部各省与东部各省在近20年的发展中存在收敛趋势,政策在总体上是有效的,但在不同时期和不同群体的效果存在差异.     

基于RIMS Ⅱ的国防支出区域经济效应分析——以美国圣迭戈县为例

国防支出对区域经济影响的主要分析工具之一是投入产出分析技术。本文在RIMS Ⅱ(Regional Input-Output Mod-eling System,区域投入产出模型化系统)基础上,讨论了区域投入产出分析的主要乘数模型:产出乘数、就业乘数和收入乘数。将乘数模型应用于国防支出的区域经济效应研究,我们发现,国防支出通过驻地军事基地和装备采购支出对区域经济发展的影响是显著的。由于国防支出由中央政府支付,经济区域内国防支出的流入意味着为区域经济注入了必要的生产发展资金,推动经济区域内循环往复的生产、消费、税收和就业。同时,不同类型的国防支出流入在区域经济内发挥的经济效应是不同的。以生产武器装备,承接国防合同为主而流入大量国防采购资金、国防R&D资金的地区,显然要比经济区内单纯驻有军事基地的地区有更高的乘数效应,国防支出对区域经济的产出、收入和就业的经济效应更为明显。     

区域高质量发展测度与创新驱动效应的耦合检验

本文基于"创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享"的新发展理念构建高质量发展区域评价指标体系,采用熵值法对区域高质量发展水平进行了测算,并对不同区域高质量发展的路径进行了收敛趋势检验.为进一步明确高质量发展的驱动因素,研究使用耦合模型分析了地区创新能力与高质量发展水平之间的协调发展程度,使用条件收敛模型检验了高质量发展的创新机制.研究发现,2000—2017年中国区域高质量发展水平得到平稳提升,但存在"东高西低"阶梯状的地区差异,除东北地区外,高质量发展水平低的地区向高水平地区收敛的趋势明显,收敛存在约束性条件.2000—2017年中国创新能力及其与高质量发展的协调发展程度稳步提升,但在不同地区创新的驱动效应存在异质性.     

中国科技投资效率省际差异的实证分析

通过将我国科技创新活动合理划分为前期诱导、中期转化和后期实现三个阶段,实证分析了我国资本密集型创新模式下的省际科技投资效率差异的原因以及我国科技创新活动的演进机理。利用1999—2007年我国30个省市区的科技投资活动的面板数据,分别估算了各省科技投资活动的诱导乘数、转化乘数和实现乘数,结果发现,我国不仅东中西部各区域的技术创新效率差异较大,而且大区域内省际差异也很大,特别是我国东部很多省份科技投资效率存在"短板"。结合实证结果,对省际科技投资效率差异的原因进行了探讨,并提出了相应的对策建议。     

中国东部沿海县域农村经济增长的差异及其成因

基于东部沿海地区县域1980、1990、2000和2005年的农村发展数据,分析农村经济增长的差异特征,通过构建计量经济模型进一步揭示了农村经济增长的差异成因.结果显示:东部沿海整体及各省市内部农村经济增长区域差异趋于收敛,但省际的差异逐年增大;平坦的地形有利于农村经济增长,区位条件影响经济增长的效应并不明显;农地资源丰度与农村经济增长水平存在负向关系,人力资本强化了农村经济增长差异;经济基础是决定农村发展地域差异的主要成因,产业非农化进一步扩大了区域差异;城市化对农村经济增长的效应并不显著,政策等社会因素的经济增长效应存在明显的阶段性差异.     

"一带一路"国家经济增长收敛性效应实证分析------基于空间依赖性视角

本文基于2004-2013年"一带一路"沿线国家的面板数据,采用空间计量实证分析方法引入空间效应,对"一带一路"沿线国家经济绝对β收敛和条件β收敛进行实证分析.研究发现"一带一路"沿线国家经济存在着绝对β收敛和条件β收敛,并且存在显著的空间相关性,在引入空间效应后,可以小幅度提高"一带一路"沿线国家经济β收敛和条件β收敛速度,但是效果并不明显.因此,在推动"一带一路"战略,要注重经济地理重塑,发展空间集聚效应,有助于提升亚洲国家经济收敛速度,增加一体化效应.     

中国财政政策理论乘数和实际乘数效应研究

本文通过建立宏观经济模型,分别测算了我国的理论财政政策乘数和实际财政政策乘数.测算结果表明,这两种财政政策的乘数值都不大,尤其是实际作用乘数的值明显偏低,财政政策的挤出效应也不明显.就乘数的影响因素来看,其可能原因在于我国的边际消费倾向过低,同时消费存在很大的刚性.根据上述乘数的测算值,我们还分别估算了在两种模型下财政政策的综合乘数效应.显然,财政政策是政府调节经济的主要杠杆,其中政府购买支出是最主要的政策工具.此外,尽管理论和实际作用乘数相差很大,但两者最终形成的乘数效应对经济的拉动作用相差不大,甚至财政政策的实际乘数效应在多数年份超过理论乘数效应.     

中国数字经济发展的分布动态、区域差异及收敛性研究

基于数字经济理论内涵构建中国省际数字经济发展评价指标体系,利用主成分分析法进行测度,并采用Kernel密度估计、Dagum基尼系数及分解方法揭示数字经济发展的分布动态、区域差异及来源,利用变异系数和空间计量模型检验数字经济发展的σ收敛和β收敛特征.研究发现:2011—2018年,中国区域数字经济总体发展水平稳步提升;4大板块数字经济发展差异显著,区域间差异是总体区域差异的主要来源;空间分布呈非均衡性和渐进演进态势,空间集聚特征明显;除东北部外,全国和其他区域数字经济发展不存在明显的σ收敛;中国数字经济发展存在明显的绝对β收敛和条件β收敛趋势,且发展水平较低的西部和东北部具有较高的收敛速度;地区数字经济发展与经济增长的收敛性存在趋同,但收敛速度不同步.     

区域乘数效应与中国区域协调发展机制的安排

中国区域之间经济的不平衡发展一直受到人们关注,但是对于造成区域之间经济差距扩大的原因之一——区域间的乘数效应却往往被忽略。以国内外关于区域协调发展的制度安排或者具体政策研究为理论背景,对中国现行的区域协调发展机制进行客观的分析,可以看出,中国目前主要的几种区域协调机制还是不尽完善,要么在实施的过程中或多或少地存在问题,要么实施的效果差强人意。因此,不妨将区域间的乘数效应作为理论出发点,在此基础上,来构建区域协调机制成功与否的衡量标准。换句话说,在考虑到区域之间的关联乘数效应后,一项好的具有可实施性的区域协调发展机制至少要对所有区域造成的总效应呈现为正的状态。     

中国省级生态福利绩效区域差异性分解和收敛性研究

过去经济高速发展造成了严重的资源浪费、生态破坏和环境污染等问题,人们关注的重点逐渐从经济福利转向生态福利。文章在生态效率研究方法的基础上,确定生态福利绩效的测算方法为PCA-Super-SBM模型,以我国30个省份和东、中、西三个区域为研究对象,测算2004—2015年的生态福利绩效水平,在此基础上运用Theil指数和σ收敛、绝对β收敛研究我国生态福利绩效的区域差异性及其收敛性。初步发现东部、中部和西部的生态福利绩效的差距明显,我国生态福利绩效的差异性的主要组成部分是区域内差异,只有东部地区不具有σ收敛和绝对β收敛效应,中部和西部地区的具有β收敛效应,在中西部地区存在落后省份对先进省份的"追赶效应"。     

我国货币政策区域效应的度量与成因分析

本文利用时变参数状态空间模型估计了1985—2007年我国(及主要区域)的动态货币政策乘数,从新的视角论证了货币政策区域效应的显著存在性。此外,还从供给视角对货币政策区域效应的成因做了新的解释。研究表明,经济开放度、劳动生产率对货币政策区域效应有显著的正向影响,而地方政府行为对货币政策区域效应有显著的负向影响,这说明地方政府干预经济过多反而会削弱货币政策效力。     

The knowledge multiplier

The paper develops a formal model of external knowledge and identifies the role of knowledge multipliers. Social interactions and knowledge multipliers play a crucial role in determining the rate of technological change. The analytical identification of the knowledge multiplier expression constitutes a key step in the appreciation of the crucial role of knowledge interactions. First, social considerations endogenously change the knowledge production function of each firm. The knowledge multiplier is the specific mechanism by means of which external knowledge contributes to enhance the innovative capacity of each firm. The production function of knowledge shows that the larger the knowledge multiplier is the stronger are the cumulative positive effects of external knowledge on the generation of new knowledge. Second, social considerations explain the long-run dynamics of innovation. Social reinforcement and the knowledge multiplier determine the rise or fall in the rate of accumulation of technological knowledge.     

ON FISCAL MULTIPLIERS: ESTIMATES FROM A MEDIUM SCALE DSGE MODEL

This article contributes to the debate on fiscal multipliers, in the context of an estimated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model, featuring a rich fiscal policy block and a transmission mechanism for government spending shocks. I find the multiplier for government spending to be 1.07, which is largest on impact. The multipliers for labor and capital tax on impact are 0.13 and 0.34, respectively. The effects of tax cuts take time to build and exceed stimulative effects of spending by 12–20 quarters. I carry out counterfactual exercises to show how alternative financing methods and expected monetary policy have consequences for the size of fiscal multipliers.     

Growth and distribution in Russia and China: A Social Accounting Matrix analysis

The paper reports on the multiplier analysis of comparable Social Accounting Matrices for Russia and China. The benchmark is around 1990, which constitutes a crucial year in their transition to more mixed market-state economies. Growth multipliers in China are found to be higher than in Russia, reflecting more intensive and balanced circular flow interactions. Distribution multipliers are less regressive in China than in Russia, which reflect stronger trickle-down effects and weaker leakage-up effects in the income and expenditure patterns of rich and poor household groups in China as compared to Russia.     

Political incentives and local government spending multiplier: Evidence for Chinese provinces (1978–2016)

This paper uses data from Chinese provinces to examine the effects of political incentives of provincial leaders on local government spending multipliers over the post-economic-reform period. The estimation based on the local projection method provides three novel findings. Firstly, the estimated cumulative relative government spending multiplier is well above unity, and it is greater in the period after 1994 compared with before 1994. Secondly, the political incentives of provincial leaders augment the local government spending multipliers, and the effects are highly significant after 1994. Thirdly, the economic boom strengthens the augmenting effects of political incentives after 1994.     

Output effects of fiscal stimulus in Central and Eastern European countries

In spite of the rapidly growing research on fiscal multipliers over recent years, little evidence has been so far accumulated in developing and emerging economies. This paper investigates the nature and the size of fiscal multipliers in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Unlike most of the existing literature, we draw upon a panel vector error correction model, which appropriately captures the common long-term path of CEE countries, while allowing for different short-run dynamics, in an integrated setup. Our main results show that the spending multiplier is positive, but low on average. Moreover, its sign, significance and magnitude vary across CEE. Finally, both impulse and cumulative fiscal multipliers are sensitive to a wide range of CEE characteristics, including the exchange rate regime, the level of economic development, the fiscal stance and the openness degree.     

Persistent government spending and fiscal multipliers: The investment-channel

This paper inspects the mechanism shaping government spending multipliers in various small-scale DSGE setups with endogenous labor supply and capital accumulation. We analytically characterize the short-run investment multiplier, which in equilibrium can be either positive or negative. The investment multiplier increases with the persistence of the exogenous government spending process. The response of investment to government spending shocks strongly affects short-run multipliers on output and consumption.     

Government Expenditure in India: Composition and Multipliers

We estimate fiscal multipliers for total, capital (capex), and revenue (revex) Indian government expenditure using a two variable Structural Vector Auto-Regression (SVAR). Our quarterly data allows us to estimate both short- and long-run multipliers. We then extend and re-estimate the model including supply shocks and the monetary policy response sequentially and together and re-estimate the multipliers. The long-run capex multiplier remains much larger than the corresponding revex multiplier in all the estimations. The short run impact multiplier is the highest for revex, but does not rise after the first quarter. The capex peak multiplier in the 2nd quarter is 1.6–1.9 times larger. The cumulative multiplier is also the highest for capex, 2.4–6.5 times the size of the revex multiplier. Capex also reduces inflation more over the long-term. Despite this, capex shows greater volatility since it is more vulnerable to discretionary cuts. Monetary accommodation of capex and revex is allowed to differ. It varies in the absence/presence of supply shocks. The combination of a direct cut in capex and monetary tightening in response to a supply shock reduces the capex multiplier. The results are consistent with an elastic long-run aggregate supply. Disaggregated evaluation of spending policy, therefore, gives useful insights.

     

Biases in fiscal multiplier estimates

The size of fiscal multipliers is intensively debated as large (small) multipliers provide arguments to expand (cut) public spending. We use data on multiplier estimates from over a hundred scholarly studies, and ask whether the national imprint and various incentives that the authors face can help explain the large observed variance in these estimates. We complement this meta-analytical data with information on economists’ personal characteristics collected from their biographies and through a self-conducted survey. Our evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that national background and policy orientation of researchers matter for the size of multiplier estimates. We only find weak support for the hypothesis that the interests of donors financing the research are relevant. Significant biases largely disappear for teams of international co-authors.