财政支出、空间溢出效应与城乡收入差距演变

基于政府竞争的视角,在考虑财政支出空间溢出效应的背景下运用空间计量分析方法分析1998-2013年我国政府财政支出对城乡收入差距的影响.理论模型表明,财政支出的空间溢出效应为正时,泰尔指数与财政支出的关系为倒“U”型,财政支出的空间溢出效应为负时,泰尔指数与财政支出的关系为“U”型,且财政支出对泰尔指数的边际效应会随着财政支出的空间溢出效应的变化而变化.区域层面的空间计量分析表明,东中西部地区不同城镇化阶段下政府间的竞争对各项财政支出产生有差异的空间溢出效应,且对地区城乡收入差距产生不一致的影响方向和影响程度.实证结果显示医疗卫生支出的空间溢出效应在东中部地区显著为正,在西部地区显著为负;社会保障支出与科学技术支出的空间溢出效应只在中部地区显著;而教育支出以及农林水事务支出的空间溢出效应在三个地区都不显著.     

城市化、社会保障支出与城乡收入差距——来自中国省级面板数据的经验证据

采用1997—2011年面板数据的变截距及变系数模型,对中国30个省市的城市化率、社会保障支出与城乡收入差距之间的关系进行实证分析。结果显示:就全国而言,城市化率、社会保障支出与城乡收入差距呈正相关;就地区而言,大部分地区城市化率的提高扩大了城乡收入差距,而半数以上的地区其社会保障支出对城乡收入差距的缩小有一定促进作用,但不同地区其影响呈现一定的差异性。其政策含义在于,可通过建立城市反哺农村机制和完善社会保障体系来缩小城乡收入差距,促进社会公平。     

财政分权、公共品供给与城乡收入差距

基于1994年～2004年间省级面板数据的估计结果显示,农村公共品供给增加对降低城乡收入差距有显著的作用.而地区间预算外收入和宏观税负的提高都是拉大城乡收入差距的因素.财政分权程度、政府财政支出的结构也对城乡收入差距有显著的影响.另外,中国持续扩大的城乡收入差距与农村发展落后有关,城市化未能带来城乡收入差距的缩小.     

财政支出结构与城乡收入差距——基于东、中、西部地区省级面板数据的经验分析

本文基于中国三大地区的省级面板数据,构建计量模型,实证考察财政支出结构对城乡收入差距的影响。实证结果表明,政府财政支出结构对城乡收入差距有显著影响,不同财政支出项目的影响方向不同,且财政支出结构对城乡收入差距的影响在中国三大地区存在差异性。因此,研究财政支出结构对城乡收入差距的影响,不能仅就全国范围考察,还需分区域进行。本文最后根据实证结果提出了一些缩小城乡收入差距的政策建议。     

城市化、财政支出与城乡公共服务差距

本文在统计上比较全面地描述中国城乡医疗卫生、教育和社会保障等方面的差距。根据Lewis的二元结构理论和Lipton的政府财政支出具有偏向城市的理论,通过回归分析,考察了城市化和政府财政政策对城乡公共服务差距的影响。研究发现,城市化和财政政策都是影响城乡公共服务差距的重要因素,但它们的作用大体上是相反的。城市化有助于缩小城乡公共服务差距,而财政政策通常会扩大城乡公共服务差距。     

财政支出结构、产业结构和城乡居民收入差距——基于1978—2006年省级面板数据的研究

通过观察财政支出结构和产业结构对城乡居民收入差距的影响,提出了两者关系的基本假设。然后用1978～2006年省级面板数据的回归结果,研究发现财政农业支出对是否能够缩小城乡收入差距不明确,文教科卫支出有利于缩小城乡收入差距,而行政管理支出加剧城乡收入不平等。另外,第一、二产业的发展都能缩小城乡收入差距。最后给出了相关政策建议。     

制度变迁、地方政府行为与城乡收入差距——来自中国省级面板数据的经验证据

本文采用1997—2009年面板数据的变截距及变系数模型,利用控制地区经济开放程度、产业结构变迁、城市化率等因素,对中国30个省市的制度变迁、地方政府支出决策与城乡收入差距之间的关系进行实证分析。结果显示:就全国而言,制度变迁、地方政府对经济活动的干预和地方政府投资性支出均与城乡收入差距呈正相关,而地方政府保障性支出则与城乡收入差距呈负相关;就地区而言,大部分地区在市场化过程中的制度变迁、地方政府投资性支出扩大了城乡收入差距,而半数以上的地区其政府支出规模及其内部保障性支出对城乡收入差距的缩小则有一定促进作用,但不同地区其影响呈现一定的差异性。其政策含义在于,我国在推进市场化进程的同时还要兼顾公平与效率,加强地方政府对收入不平等的调节作用,完善地方财政支出结构特别是社会保障体系,以此来缩小城乡收入差距。     

城市化、城市倾向的经济政策与城乡收入差距

基于 1 987— 2 0 0 1年间省级面板数据的估计结果显示 ,城市化对降低统计上的城乡收入差距有显著的作用。而地区间人口户籍转换、经济开放、非国有化和政府对经济活动的参与都是拉开城乡收入差距的因素。政府财政支出的结构也对城乡收入差距有显著的影响。研究结果表明 ,中国持续扩大的城乡收入差距与地方政府实施的带有城市倾向的经济政策有关。     

财政支出倾向、金融市场失衡与城乡收入差距

本文基于新古典增长理论,构建了一个刻画财政支出倾向、金融市场失衡与城乡收入差距之间关系的动态一般均衡模型,并使用1996-2010年间中国宏观经济统计数据进行参数校准和数值模拟.研究结果表明,在其他因素不变的情况下,城乡金融市场发展差异性对城乡收入差距有显著影响,财政支出倾向的影响次之.财政支出的城市倾向策略,一方面促进了城市经济的发展,另一方面也不可避免地扩大了城乡收入差距.最后,本文据此给出了政策建议.     

制度变迁、地方政府行为与城乡收入差距 ——来自中国省级面板数据的经验证据

本文采用1997-2009年面板数据的变截距及变系数模型,利用控制地区经济开放程度、产业结构变迁、城市化率等因素,对中国30个省市的制度变迁、地方政府支出决策与城乡收入差距之间的关系进行实证分析。结果显示：就全国而言,制度变迁、地方政府对经济活动的干预和地方政府投资性支出均与城乡收入差距呈正相关,而地方政府保障性支出则与城乡收入差距呈负相关;就地区而言,大部分地区在市场化过程中的制度变迁、地方政府投资性支出扩大了城乡收入差距,而半数以上的地区其政府支出规模及其内部保障性支出对城乡收入差距的缩小则有一定促进作用,但不同地区其影响呈现一定的差异性。其政策含义在于,我国在推进市场化进程的同时还要兼顾公平与效率,加强地方政府对收入不平等的调节作用,完善地方财政支出结构特别是社会保障体系,以此来缩小城乡收入差距。     

公共支出结构对收入不均等影响研究——基于公共服务均等化视角分析

收入不均等影响到社会公平与经济发展,而收入公平分配是政府的主要责任,也是政府公共支出的依据之一.影响收入分配不均等的因素有很多,其中由于政府相应责任缺位,公共支出结构偏向,使得公共支出中基本公共服务支出不足是其主要原因.本文实证分析得出公共支出总量与结构严重影响基本公共服务供给,进而影响着收入不均等的水平,成为社会公平和稳定的重要因素.政府应从制度上进行公共支出改革,规范督促地方政府优化公共支出结构,不断提高对民生支出的主动性,逐步缩小基本公共服务的差距,缩小收入不均等的水平.     

公共资本性支出、经常性支出与内生经济增长

本文基于一个含有两类不同产出能力的公共商品的内生增长模型,通过数理分析得出在市场经济条件下最优公共支出结构的依据是公共商品各自的产出弹性.进而采用面板数据模型对13个发达国家1972～2009年的公共支出实践进行了实证研究.实证结果表明,经常性(资本性)支出对经济增长有正(负)效应.该研究结论为平衡预算下的公共支出结构决策提供了参考依据.     

省级社会保障公共支出分类比较研究

中国省级社会保障公共支出存在着类型化的可能。通过选取"社会保障公共支出水平"、"经济发展水平"和"政府力量"三个变量作为分类框架和指标,利用2005—2008年度截面数据测算,可以将各省份区分为东中西三大类型区域。统计分析发现,这三类区域不仅在省级社会保障公共支出相对比重之间存在着显著的差异,而且各区域也形成了不同的社会保障发展机制。     

Functional components of public expenditure,fiscal consolidations,and economic activity

This paper analyses how the functional components of public expenditure and spending‐driven consolidations affect the economic growth, unemployment, and income inequality. A dynamic panel data least squares dummy variable estimator estimator is employed over a sample of 15 European Union countries during the period 1990–2012. The empirical results show that real GDP growth decreases when fiscal austerity measures are implemented, especially if they are spending‐driven. Cuts in public expenditure undermine economic growth, namely if they slash spending on public order, recreation, and education. Spending cuts on education, in particular, affect the investment in human capital, harming not only growth but also economic, social, and human development. The unemployment rate also proved to be significantly boosted when austerity measures restrict spending on education, whereas income inequality rises when social protection expenditures are cut.     

The political economy of public education

I study the relationship between income inequality and public spending in education in a voting model. Voters collectively choose the uniform quality level of public education, the amount of a public good, and the tax rate on labor income. Parents can decide to opt-out of the public education system by purchasing private education at the desired quality level, and children’s expected income is assumed to be increasing in the quality of education. I show that higher income inequality is associated with higher governmental spending in education if and only if the expected marginal returns to education are larger for the children of relatively low income parents. In turn, better public education tends to reduce future inequality. These results are consistent with most findings in the empirical literature about public investment in education. Lastly, I show that for other kind of publicly provided goods, such as health care, the relationship with income inequality exhibits an ambiguous or opposite sign.     

Effects of monetary and government spending policy on economic inequality

Using detailed micro-level income and expenditure data, we study the effects of monetary and government spending policy shocks on income and expenditure inequality in the US from 1990 to 2018. We find that expansionary monetary and government spending policy shocks systematically decrease income, disposable income and expenditure inequality. There is evidence of time variation on the effects and monetary policy and transfer payment shocks. Various impulse responses suggest that the impacts of the policy shocks increase during and after the Great Recession. The responses of income and expenditures of households at different percentiles suggest that expansionary monetary and government spending policy have a larger positive impact on households with low income and expenditures relative to those at the top of the distribution. We do not find evidence of the significant impact of Quantitative Easing policies on income inequality, however, expenditure inequality appear to increase due to the policies.     

Political economy of income distribution dynamics

Income distribution varies considerably across countries; it tends to become more equal with development in some countries, but just the opposite occurs in other countries. This paper provides a theoretical investigation of the persistent differences in income distribution across countries over time. Motivated by the relationship between income distribution and public spending at different school levels for a broad range of countries over the past 30 years, the analysis centers on the role of public education where specific investments interact with political involvement by different socio-economic groups. Socio-economic groups may form lobbies to influence education policy making. The formation of lobbies is endogenous. Persistent inequality is caused by persistent lobbying efforts of the wealthy that lead to an allocation of public education spending more biased toward them.     

Inequity in American Schools: A New Perspective on the Distributional Effects of School Expenditures on Economic Well‐Being

This article explores how inequities in public K‐12 school spending impact the distribution of economic well‐being across American households with public school students in 1989 and 2000. Adapting concepts from the public finance literature, I explore the impact of school spending on the vertical and horizontal equity and its impact relative to other types of public spending on social programs and taxation. Conventionally, vertical equity refers to the size of the income gaps between households. Horizontal equity refers to the ranking of households along the income distribution with any change in ranks producing horizontal inequity. My main findings show that school spending, when converted into a component of income, served to reduce extended‐income inequality through improvements in vertical equity without the discriminatory implications of exacerbating horizontal inequity across households. Additionally, this impact was at least as large as that of spending on other social programs. This finding bolsters standard arguments for equity and progressivity of school finance across students.     

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。     

Inequality and income: The mediating effects of social spending and risk

This paper estimates models of social spending, income risk, and per capita income levels using data from a post-war panel of OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. The objective is to test two theories about the pathway from inequality to per capita income. According to one theory, inequality reduces incomes because it induces social spending, which acts as a drag on the economy. The results here suggest, however, that inequality does not seem to induce social spending, and social spending does not seem to lower per capita incomes. According to a second theory, inequality causes upheaval which adds to the volatility of per capita income, which may reduce the level of per capita income. The results suggest, however, that volatility, measured here as the standard deviation of per capita income, has little measurable impact on either per capita income or social spending. The mainsprings of per capita income are more likely to be the traditional factors: the work force, human capital, and physical capital.
JEL classification: E6.