居民收入差距对消费倾向的实证分析

经历了20世纪80～90年代补偿型消费需求猛增期后，90年代末消费趋于疲软，中国经济出现明显的消费不足现象，需求约束对经济增长的影响日益明显。如何运用经济学理论，对近几年的消费现状进行定性、定量分析成为理论界的热点。     

我国居民收入差距扩大对消费需求的影响

近年来,我国居民收入发生了新的变化,主要表现为城镇居民收入差距扩大;不同地区、行业的居民收入差距扩大;城乡之间居民收入差距扩大;城镇与乡村居民的基尼系数断上升。这种变化对城乡居民的消费倾向、总体消费水平,乃至国家的内需拉动政策都产生了一定的影响。其原因在收入分配结构和产业结构的不合理。因此,政府应加大税收对居民收入差距的调节力度;完善社会保障体系,加大转移支付力度;减轻农民负担,增加农民的购买能力。     

浅谈居民收入差距扩大对消费的影响

改革开放 2 0多年来 ,我国城镇居民收入普遍提高 ,越来越多的家庭摆脱了贫穷 ,实现了小康。但是 ,近年来贫富差距呈现扩大趋势 ,贫富悬殊问题较为突出。我国是社会主义国家 ,允许一部分人先富起来和实现共同富裕是统一的。然而 ,收入差距的扩大带来的负面影响 ,直接关系到扩大内需政策的成败。因此 ,有必要对此问题进行研究     

影响中国城镇居民边际消费倾向的因素分析

增加居民消费支出是促进经济增长的源泉之一 ,城镇居民消费水平的高低不仅取决于收入的多少 ,还取决于边际消费倾向的大小。文章主要分析了影响城镇居民边际消费倾向的因素 ,认为收入水平的差距、物价水平的高低 ,消费信贷的发展以及预防性储蓄动机四个因素相互作用 ,共同影响我国城镇居民边际消费倾向。     

基于收入差距视角的消费需求不足问题研究

一直以来,我国居民消费需求都处于疲软状态,而居民收入差距是造成该现状的重要原因之一.基于我国居民收入差距呈不断扩大的趋势,本文从消费能力、消费结构和消费环境三方面来论述居民收入差距对消费需求的影响,并提出相关对策与建议.     

我国城乡居民消费差距：现状、原因及对策

目前我国城乡居民消费差距较大,而影响城乡居民消费差距的因素可归结为收入水平和边际消费倾向两个因素。从我国实际来看,农民边际消费倾向并不低,因此,影响城乡居民消费差距的根本因素是城乡居民收入差距过大。要缩小城乡居民消费差距,必须采取各种有效措施提高农民收入。     

持久性收入对中国农民消费影响分析

运用弗里德曼的持久性收入假说分析我国农民的消费问题,并利用计量经济学的方法对中国历年农民消费统计数据进行分析,得出“持久性收入及持久性收入的边际消费倾向对我国现阶段农民消费支出影响较大”的结论,并从增加持久性收入和提高持久性收入的边际消费倾向两个方面就增加农民消费提出政策建议。     

收入的增长趋势与不稳定性对中国农户消费倾向的影响

收入的增长趋势和收入的不稳定性对农村居民的消费倾向有明显的反方向的影响,即收入增长的速度越快,收入越不稳定,农村居民的消费倾向就越低。     

从居民收入差距看扩大消费需求

温家宝总理在《政府工作报告》中指出：“要努力增加城乡居民收入，提高居民购买水平；加大收入分配调节力度，提高中低收入居民的消费能力。”对于缩小收入差距，扩大消费需求，促进经济增长，有着重要的指导意义。改革开放以来，随着我国经济的发展，我国居民的收入不断增加，但收入差距却日益扩大，严重阻碍着消费需求的增长，为此必须调整收入分配格局，缩小收入差距，扩大消费需求。     

扩大农村消费需求——基于边际消费倾向的分析

农村消费的扩大是启动内需的关键一环.文章以边际消费倾向为切入点,利用ELES模型估算了各类消费品的边际消费倾向及收入弹性,根据其实证分析结果,建议应优先关注和加强对居住、文教娱乐用品及服务、交通和通讯、医疗保健、家庭设备用品及服务这几大类消费品在农村市场上拓展的研究,采取积极措施扩大农村消费.     

Household Debt,Consumption, and Income Inequality

Using the Johansen and Engle–Granger cointegration tests, we show that there is one cointegrating relationship between household debt, consumption, and income inequality in the United States for the period from 1929 to 2009. Given this result, we use a Vector Error-Correction model to further understand the dynamics among the three variables. Results indicate that increases in income inequality and consumption directly contribute to increases in household debt. Interestingly, the results reveal some feedback from household debt to income inequality. We also show that debt-driven consumption should be viewed with caution as the results show that increases in household debt correspond with future declines in the rate of consumption.     

Household Income Inequality and Income Mobility: Implications Towards Equalizing Longer-Term Incomes in India

This paper addresses three important questions. First, what are the trends, levels and sources of income inequality in India? Second, how have been the patterns of income mobility? And finally, exploring the relationship between income mobility and income inequality in the context of India. Results, based on recent India Human Development Survey (IHDS) longitudinal data, advocate that not only is income inequality very high, nonetheless, it has increased – mainly attributable to different income sources – in India. The paper also focused on whether or not this income mobility equalizes longer-term incomes. Results suggest income mobility has resulted in-albeit not robust- equalizing longer-term incomes. Thus, based on imperative findings, the paper suggests, the nature of longer-term well-being is crucial to designing policy interventions to effectively tackle inequality and in this context, economic mobility can be seen as an avenue to long-term equality.     

收入不平等对人口健康影响的研究综述

自1970年代以来,西方学者从理论假设和实证研究两个角度对收入不平等对于人口健康产生的影响进行了深入而广泛的研究,采用跨国数据进行的研究基本上证实了收入不平等对于人口健康产生的不利影响,而采用跨地区数据以及个人数据进行的研究得出的结论则不尽一致.本文主要从理论假设、实证研究和影响途径三个角度对收入不平等对于人口健康的相关研究进行梳理和归纳,以期对我国的相关研究有所启示.     

收入不平等对经济增长影响的实证研究

采用联立方程分析方法,实证分析了收入不平等对经济增长影响的三种机制,探讨了收入不平等如何通过影响物质资本投资、人力资本投资和居民消费来作用于经济增长。结果表明,从长期看收入不平等的扩大会刺激物质资本投资,但不利于人力资本投资和居民消费增长,收入不平等对经济增长的长期影响为负。因此,从经济发展的角度政府不应容忍收入不平等的过分扩大。     

The Effect of Better Information on Income Inequality

We consider an OLG economy with endogenous investment in human capital. Heterogeneity in individual human capital levels is modelled by a distribution of innate ability across agents. This distribution is common knowledge but, at young age, no agent knows his/her ability. The production of human capital depends on each individual’s investment in education. This investment decision is taken only after observing a signal which is correlated to his/her true ability, and which is used for updating beliefs. Thus, a better information system affects the distribution of human capital in each generation. Assuming separable and identical preferences for all individuals, we derive the following results in equilibrium: (a) If the relative measure of risk aversion is less (more) than 1 then more information raises (reduces) income inequality. (b) When a risk sharing market is available better information results in higher inequality regardless of the measure risk aversion. We are grateful to Alex Cukierman, Zvi Eckstein, Yona Rubinstein and Daniel Tsiddon. An anonymous referee made extremely useful comments and suggestions. Financial support from the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (GIF) is gratefully acknowledged.     

The role of diminishing marginal utility in the ordinal and cardinal utility theories

We illustrate the role of the law of diminishing marginal utility in the two main modern utility theories, the ordinal and cardinal utility theories, using a generalised total utility function. In short, the ordinal utility theory, in which utility is immeasurable, must abandon the law of diminishing marginal utility; the cardinal utility theory, although able to retain this law, suffers from keeping the unrealistic view of utility measurability, which Samuelson criticises as “infinitely improbable.” A new utility theory with the advantages of the two mentioned theories (i.e. the notions of both diminishing marginal utility and utility immeasurability) but without the disadvantages (i.e. the law of diminishing marginal utility is excluded and utility is measurable) therefore still seems to be a Holy Grail deserving search and development by economists.     

中国居民家庭的收入变动及其对长期平等的影响

本文利用“中国经济、人口、营养和健康调查”1 989— 1 997年期间 4期家庭收入和家长特征的模块数据 (paneldata) ,用时间依赖定义收入变动 ,度量了全体家庭和分4种类型的家庭在上世纪 80年末至 90年后半期的收入变动。发现在总体收入分配中 ,高比例持续贫困的发生比较分散 ,并不固定在哪一类型的家庭上。平均而言 ,农村家庭的持续贫困比例稍高。与此相反 ,持续高收入的家庭集中在城市、郊区和城镇 ,农村的富裕家庭变动大 ,收入不稳定。分组家庭之间 ,农村家庭的收入变动最大。分组家庭内部 ,家长为中年和壮年人的家庭人收入景况较好 ,富裕老人家庭能否保持富裕在农村和在其它分组差别很大。总体而言 ,我国居民家庭收入分配的变动在这一时期减慢 ;收入变动在所有4个时期内都有利于分配的平等 ,2 0世纪 90年代中期后在农村和城镇家庭的作用大幅减弱 ,但对改善城市家庭的平等分配作用增强。     

中国农村的收入差距与健康

随着收入差距的扩大,收入分配对健康和健康不平等的影响日益受到关注。本文利用中国健康营养调查(CHNS)1997年和2000年农村的面板数据回答两个问题:收入差距对健康的影响以及影响健康的方式;收入差距的扩大是否会导致健康不平等的加剧,尤其是低收入人群的健康是否受到更为不利的影响。研究发现,首先收入差距对健康的影响存在滞后效应;其次,收入差距对健康的影响呈现“倒U”型,在收入差距较高时,收入差距对健康的影响主要为负向的,一个可能的原因是收入差距影响到公共卫生设施的供给。再次,收入差距的扩大会加强收入效应,其含义是如果低收入人群的收入更容易受到负向冲击,那么收入差距对低收入人群的健康更为不利。     

Income Mobility and Income Inequality in Rural China

The economic literature has argued for a long time that income mobility could attenuate the degree of cross-sectional inequality by offering people opportunities to improve their socio-economic position. Using the longitudinal data from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) from 1989 to 2011, we measure income mobility as the degree to which longer-term incomes are distributed more or less equally than yearly income. Five main results are emphasized. First, there is strong income mobility in rural China that partly offsets yearly income inequality. Second, income mobility has decreased since the 2000s, indicating that income distribution is becoming more rigid. Third, mobility is mainly associated with transitory income fluctuations, particularly in the two tails of the distribution. Fourth, income mobility has an equalizing effect on income distribution. Fifth, we show that non-agricultural income mobility has substantially increased over the period and that its equalizing nature has also recently increased. While the development of the non-agriculture sector in rural China was a crucial factor in explaining the increase in rural inequality until the mid-2000s, we suggest that the large-scale generalisation of such non-agricultural opportunities partly accounts for the decline in rural inequality observed since the mid-2000s.