中国财政支出对全要素生产率影响研究

发布时间：2018-05-28 03:43

本文选题：财政支出 + 规模与结构　；参考：《云南财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：改革开放30多年来,中国经济以年均9%的增长率高速发展,但一般认为,这是片面依靠资本、劳动等生产要素大量投入的结果,全要素生产率的贡献度不高。随着中国经济进入新常态,资源环境对经济增长的约束日益加强,曾经的粗放型经济发展方式正面临巨大挑战。中国在未来是否会落入中等收入陷阱,患上“拉美病”、“印度病”正成为社会各界广泛关注的重大问题。当前,中央提出实施供给侧结构性改革,期望通过减税、放松管制等政策,改变供给结构,提升供给质量,有效提高全要素生产率,使我国绕过中等收入陷阱,实现经济的健康可持续发展。财政作为国家治理的基础和重要支柱,在供给侧结构性改革中被寄予了很高的期望。主流经济学家们主张,应当通过增加财政对科技、教育等领域的投入,夯实我国经济增长的基础,提高经济增长的质量,从而使全要素生产率成为我国经济增长的主要动力,彻底摆脱中国经济依靠要素投入的困境。在政府主导型市场经济体制背景下,这一主张成为主流并不意外,但依靠政府财政支出的增加,究竟能否有效提高全要素生产率?政府在发挥主导作用的同时,会不会对市场力量产生“挤出效应”?在各级政府巨大的财政压力之下,这种针对特殊项的支出扩张型政策是否可持续?这些问题,值得在理论和实践层面做进一步的探究。本文试图从财政支出的规模和结构两个层面研究财政支出对全要素生产率的实际影响,初步对这些问题做出解答,进而提出供给侧结构性改革背景下提高全要素生产率的对策与主张。在财政支出规模方面,研究表明:财政支出规模的变动对全要素生产率的提升具有直接影响,但不同类别的财政支出对全要素生产率的影响各不相同:经济发展支出通过增加资本存量影响全要素生产率,影响强度为0.0129;国防安全支出通过影响企业生产成本、外商直接投资以及社会RD投入来影响全要素生产率,影响强度为0.0245;教育科技支出通过增加人力资本、引导技术创新影响全要素生产率,影响强度为0.0323;行政管理支出对全要素生产率的影响为负,影响强度为-0.377;社会福利支出通过提升劳动力供给数量影响全要素生产率,影响强度为0.0219。基本结论是,从规模上看,基于有效提升全要素生产率的财政支出政策应该是:大幅增加经济发展、国防安全、教育科技和社会福利等四大类支出,同时大幅减少行政管理支出。但是,作为一个同时承担政治、经济、社会功能的政府而言,支出规模的调整是有限的。本文基于对支出结构的研究表明:由于存在财政支出规模和政府职能实现的双重约束,政府无法无限制地增加或减少某一领域的财政支出。世界主要经济国家政府支出结构变化的历史规律表明,即便中国在未来由建设型财政最终演变为福利型财政,其各项支出的调整范围也是有限的。因此,大规模增加教育、科技等对全要素生产力提升具有规模正效应的支出政策将难以持续,财政支出对全要素生产率的影响有限,市场力量的真正崛起与自我完善才是最终的解决之道。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up for more than 30 years, China's economy has developed rapidly with an average annual growth rate of 9%. However, it is generally believed that this is the result of a large amount of production factors such as capital and labor, and the contribution of total factor productivity is not high. As China's economy enters the new normal, the constraints of resource and environment on economic growth are increasingly strengthened. The mode of economic development is facing great challenges. In the future, whether China will fall into the Middle Income Trap and suffer from "Latin American disease", "India disease" is becoming a major concern of all sectors of the society. At present, the Central Committee has proposed to implement the structural reform of the supply side, which is expected to change the supply structure and improve the supply quality through tax reduction and loosening of control policies. Quantity, effectively improve the total factor productivity, make our country bypass the Middle Income Trap and realize the healthy and sustainable development of the economy. As the foundation and important pillar of the national governance, finance has been given high expectations in the structural reform of the supply side. The mainstream economists advocate that the investment should be invested in the fields of science and technology, education and so on. To consolidate the basis of China's economic growth and improve the quality of economic growth, so that the total factor productivity is the main motive force of China's economic growth and completely rid of the predicament of Chinese economy relying on the input of factors. Under the background of the government led market economy, this main trend is not surprising, but it depends on the increase of government expenditure. In addition, whether the government can effectively improve the total factor productivity? Will the government play a "extrusion effect" on the market force while playing the leading role? Under the huge financial pressure of the governments at all levels, is this special item of expenditure expansive policy sustainable? These problems should be further explored in the theoretical and practical aspects. This paper tries to study the actual impact of fiscal expenditure on total factor productivity from two aspects of the scale and structure of fiscal expenditure, and to answer these questions preliminarily, and then put forward the countermeasures and proposals to improve the total factor productivity under the background of the supply side structural reform. The change has a direct impact on the promotion of total factor productivity, but the impact of different types of fiscal expenditure on total factor productivity is different. Economic development expenditure affects total factor productivity by increasing the capital stock, and the impact intensity is 0.0129. RD input affects total factor productivity, the impact strength is 0.0245; education science and technology expenditure through increasing human capital, guiding technological innovation to influence the total factor productivity, the impact strength is 0.0323; the influence of administrative expenditure on total factor productivity is negative, the impact intensity is -0.377; social welfare expenditure by improving the quantity of labor supply quantity shadow The basic conclusion of the total factor productivity (TFP) is that the 0.0219. basic conclusion is that, on the scale, the fiscal expenditure policy based on the effective promotion of total factor productivity should be four major categories of expenditure, such as economic development, national defense security, education technology and social welfare, and significantly reducing administrative expenditure. The adjustment of the scale of expenditure is limited in government, economic and social functions. Based on the research on the structure of expenditure, the government can not increase or reduce the financial expenditure in a certain field without restriction due to the dual constraints of the scale of fiscal expenditure and the realization of government functions. The change of government expenditure structure in the world's major economic countries The rule of history shows that even if China eventually evolved from a constructive finance into a welfare finance in the future, the adjustment range of its expenditure is limited. Therefore, a large scale increase in education, technology and other expenditure policies that have positive effects on the promotion of total factor productivity will be difficult to continue, and the effect of fiscal expenditure on total factor productivity will be difficult. Limited, the real rise and self perfection of market power is the ultimate solution.
【学位授予单位】：云南财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：F812.45

【参考文献】