行政垄断型行业与竞争性行业收入分配差距与合理化问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-30 04:20

本文选题：行政垄断 + 收入分配差距　；参考：《山东大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：行业收入分配差距问题是当前收入分配研究领域中的一个热点,本文为了解决行政垄断型行业与竞争性行业之间的不合理收入分配差距问题,在进一步厘清两种类型行业间收入差距的基础上,深入细致地对比分析了行业内部收入差距和非工资性收入差距问题,分别建立了测度两种类型行业间收入差距根源问题的计量模型；之后设计出测度典型竞争性行业收入大小的明瑟回归模型并将之用于估计行政垄断型行业的“理论收入”,进而推算得到了两种类型行业间“合理收入差距”与“不合理收入差距”的大小,那么,后者就是行业间收入分配差距合理化改革的目标；最后,本文认为行政垄断是造成两种类型行业间收入巨大不合理差距的制度性根源,针对于此,提出了具体系统的中观层面和微观层面的政策建议。其主要内容和创新点如下：首先,厘清了产生行业收入分配差距的政策渊源和政策推力作用过程,认为当前的收入分配差距严重失衡正是改革开放之后中国刺激经济增长的收入调控政策标准不明确、尺度失范、力度失控所致。中国收入分配不合理差距产生的政策根源就是在改革开放之初,为打破平均主义、大锅饭,推动和刺激经济增长,政府在收入分配领域采取的适当拉开收入分配差距的多种政策措施,“效率优先,兼顾公平”就是该时期制定收入分配政策的原则和依据。在收入分配政策具体的制定和执行过程中,由于没有现成的可供参考的合理化标准,“兼顾公平”往往流于形式,仅过分注重了“效率优先”,尤其是在转轨经济条件下市场经济体制不健全、相关配套法规不完善的背景下,各种利益主体都努力追求自身利益的最大化,占据重要资源领域的行政垄断行业更是借助于行政垄断谋取的巨额利润之便利,无限制的扩大了自身领导和职工的工资和福利,甚至不断曝出奢侈腐化、贪污浪费,乃至违法犯罪的现象和行为,最终导致了行业乃至全国收入分配的严重失衡现象。其次,区分了“行政垄断行业”与“行政垄断因素”对行业收入分配差距的贡献度,将极值法、离差法和泰尔指数(Theil index)相结合,测度出了“行政垄断行业”对全部行业之间收入分配差距的贡献度。本文将全部97个行业按照经济属性分为4个行业组,采用年均工资收入数据,先分别将行业组内各行业与参照对象的收入差距(离差)取绝对值并加总,得到各行业组收入差距；然后再将全部行业分别与参照对象的收入差距(离差)加总,得到收入总差距；那么,二者的比值就是各行业组对收入总差距的贡献度；参照对象分别取收入最低行业和全国平均收入行业,所得的测算结果分别作为行政垄断行业对全部行业收入差距贡献度的上限和下限；之后,再使用泰尔指数法进行测度以验证对比。第一种方法的测算结果表明,中国各行业之间存在着较大的收入差距,并且有逐年扩大的迹象；11个“行政垄断行业”对总差距的贡献度在18.38%-19.35%之间,与行业总量的比重相比,明显偏高。第二种方法测算的泰尔指数表明这主要是由行业组内的差距不断扩大所致,行业组间的贡献度较小；而行业总泰尔指数呈现出先扩大后缩小的迹象和趋势。就行业组间差距贡献度而言,行政垄断行业的行业组间泰尔指数为0.0425,是4个组别中最高的,而且呈现出先缩小后扩大的迹象和趋势,整体趋势是扩大的,显然,这意味着行政垄断行业的收入扩大了与其他行业之间的差距。第三,通过计量分析,确定了两种类型行业内部收入差距与各影响因素之间的量化关系,并将之作为评价行业内部收入差距合理与否的数量标准。本文抽样采用相关上市公司年报第一手数据,对比分析了典型代表性行政垄断行业与竞争性行业各自内部以及它们之间的收入差距情况,发现各自内部的收入差距情况是：电信业内部的收入差距是最大的,“高管平均收入”高出员工17.56倍；其次是银行业8.99倍；航空运输业最小,仅有2.75倍；石油、电力、银行、电信四个行业尽管员工的报酬总额与高管相比仍有较大甚至很大的差距,但是职工收入的年增长率均超过了高管年收入的年增长率；形成鲜明对比的是,两个竞争性行业的职工在较低的收入增长基数之上其增长速度远低于高管收入的增长速度。之后发现两种类型行业间收入差距的情况是：无论是相同层次的高管之间还是员工之间,行政垄断行业都比竞争性行业拥有绝对优势；不同层次的行业高管与员工之间的收入差距更是触目惊心：银行业高管平均收入高出交通运输设备制造业员工44.69倍,高出纺织业员工68.39倍,电信业分别高出二者43.33和66.34倍,铁路运输业相对最低,但也分别高出二者5.34和8.62倍。依据竞赛理论和行为理论进行的计量检验发现,本文的研究结论是支持竞赛理论而不是行为理论的；同时发现,总资产收益率对绝对收入差距和相对收入差距的影响都是最大的；更为重要的是,行业类型因素对绝对收入差距的影响都是正向的,而对相对收入差距的影响都是负向的,这说明行政垄断因素会导致绝对收入差距加大,而相对收入差距缩小,这一结论也得到了进一步邹(Chow)检验的支持。此外,本文还明确提出判断行政垄断行业收入分配是否合理的参照对象是由市场经济优胜劣汰条件产生的竞争性行业中的民营“上市公司”,详细设定了选取参照对象的合理化标准。第四,本文对比测算了行政垄断型行业的非工资性收入优势情况,它对两种类型行业间总收入差距的贡献度介于36.34%至38.78%之间,对非工资性收入方程的影响程度在75%左右,同样是行业收入差距存在和扩大的重要影响因素。 2007-2012年,代表性行政垄断型行业银行、航空运输、电力、石油和天然气开采、电信和铁路运输业的平均非工资性收入分别高出最低收入水平行业代表纺织业8.28、7.06、5.20、4.36、4.20、2.49倍,分别高出平均收入水平行业代表交通运输设备制造业6.53、5.54、4.03、3.35、3.22、1.83倍,差距非常明显；而且,非工资性收入在行政垄断型行业总收入中所占的比例远远大于竞争性行业相应的比例,6年平均分别高出纺织业14.63、6.37、17.25、11.84、12.34和12.22个百分点,高出交运设备制造业15.65、7.40、18.27、12.87、13.36和13.25个百分点。进一步研究发现,这种差距首先是源自于其提取基数即工资性收入,其次是源于其提取比例,行政垄断行业在这两方面都具有显著的优势,这又最终导致了两种类型行业间总收入的巨大差距。借助于明瑟方程和邹检验的计量分析结果证明,行政垄断是导致两种类型行业之间非工资性收入巨大差距的深层次原因。第五,尝试界定了典型行政垄断型行业与参照系行业收入分配的合理化差距,设计出了可以量化的参照标准。行政垄断型行业与其自身、交运设备制造业、纺织业和41个竞争性行业均值的“合理化”差距分别为42.71%、118.6%、155.97%和87.58%,对应的“不合理差距”分别为57.29%、157.7%、203.05%和117.2%。本文总结分析了国内外相关学者对于行业收入差距合理化研究的相关成果,采用中国上市公司中41个竞争性行业具体的微观面板数据,设计出了适合于本研究的明瑟回归方程,从而估计出了竞争性行业职工收入决定因素的方程,然后将行政垄断型行业的相关数据代入进行测算,推算得到了在现有条件下行政垄断型行业“应该”获得的职工“理论收入”,并将之分别与其自身、与交运设备制造业、与纺织业以及与41个竞争性行业平均的实际职工年均收入进行了详细的对比分析。总的结论是,行政垄断型行业的“理论收入”仅应占其实际收入的42.71%,实际收入明显超发了,不合理差距为57.29%；行政垄断型行业的“理论收入”与交运设备制造业和纺织业实际收入的比值分别是118.6%和155.97%,也就是说,前者确实“应该”高出后者,但是,两种类型行业的实际收入之比却分别是276.3%和359.02%,显然,高出的过多,“不合理差距”分别为157.7%和203.5%；行政垄断型行业的“理论收入”与41个竞争性行业实际收入的比值是87.58%,也就是说前者“应该”低于后者,但是,其对应实际收入之比却是204.77%,明显过高,不合理差距为117.2%,矛盾很突出。
[Abstract]:In order to solve the problem of the gap between the income gap and the non - wage income gap between the two types of industries , the problem of the gap between the income gap and the non - wage income gap in the industry is analyzed in detail in order to solve the problem of the gap between the income gap and the non - wage income gap between the two types of industries .
Then , the Ming - ther regression model is designed to measure the revenue size of the typical competitive industry , which is used to estimate the " theoretical income " of the administrative monopoly industries , and then the " reasonable income gap " and " unreasonable income gap " between the two types of industries are calculated , which is the goal of the rationalization of the gap between the income distribution gap between the two types .
Finally , this paper holds that the administrative monopoly is the institutional root cause of the huge unreasonable gap between the two types of industries . In view of this , the author puts forward the policy suggestions on the meso - level and micro - level of the concrete system . The main content and innovation points are as follows :

First , the policy origin and the policy thrust of generating the income distribution gap in the industry are clarified , and it is considered that the current income distribution gap is seriously unbalanced . After the reform and opening up , the income adjustment policy standard of China ' s stimulating economic growth is not clear , the scale is out of control , and the force is out of control .

In the beginning of the reform and opening up , the policy of income distribution in China is the principle and basis of the policy of income distribution in the period of reform and opening up .

Secondly , the contribution of " Administrative Monopoly Industry " and " Administrative Monopoly Factor " to the gap of income distribution in the industry is distinguished , and the contribution of " Administrative Monopoly Industry " to the income distribution gap between the whole industry is measured .

In this paper , all 97 industries are divided into 4 industry groups according to the economic attributes , and the income gap ( deviation ) of each industry in the industry group and the reference object is obtained by adopting the annual average wage data , and the income gap of each industry group is obtained ;
then add the whole industry to the income gap ( deviation ) of the reference object respectively to get the total income gap ;
Then , the ratio of the two is the contribution of each industry group to the total income gap ;
The reference objects take the lowest income industry and the national average income industry respectively , and the calculated results are taken as the upper limit and the lower limit of the contribution of the administrative monopoly industries to the income gap of all industries , respectively ;
The results of the first method show that there is a large income gap between China ' s industries , and there are signs of year - by - year expansion .
The contribution of the 11 " administrative monopoly industries " to the total gap is between 18.38 % and 19.35 % , which is obviously higher than that of the total industry . The second method determines that this is mainly caused by the widening gap in the industry group , and the contribution degree among the industry groups is small ;
The industry ' s overall Ther index shows signs and trends that shrink first . In terms of the contribution of the industry group , the industry group ' s industry group has the highest among the four groups , the highest among the four groups , and shows signs and trends that have been expanded first , and the overall trend is expanded , and it is clear that this means that the revenue from the administrative monopoly industry expands the gap with other industries .

Thirdly , through the measurement analysis , the quantitative relation between the inner income gap and the influencing factors of the two types of industries is determined , and the quantitative standard is used as the quantitative standard for evaluating the internal income gap of the industry .

In this paper , the first hand data of the relevant listed companies are used to analyze the income gap between the typical representative administrative monopoly industry and the competitive industries and the income gap between them , and the income gap in the telecom industry is found to be the largest , and the " high - pipe average income " is 17.56 times higher than that of the employees ;
Secondly , 8.99 times the banking industry ;
Air transport industry is the smallest , only 2.75 times ;
Oil , electricity , banking and telecom industry , although the total compensation of employees still has a big gap compared with the executives , but the annual growth rate of workers ' income exceeds the annual growth rate of the high - tube annual income ;
In contrast , workers in both competitive industries have grown at a much lower rate of growth than the growth of executives at a lower level of income growth . Two types of inter - industry income disparities are found to be that the executive monopoly industry has an absolute advantage over competitive industries , whether between executives at the same level or between employees ;
The income gap between industry executives and employees at different levels is more alarming : the average income of banking executives is 44.69 times higher than that of transportation equipment , 68.39 times higher than that of the textile industry , 43.33 and 66.34 times higher than that of the telecommunications industry , the lowest in rail transport , but also 5.34 and 8.62 times higher than both .

Based on the theory of competition and the theory of behavior , it is found that the conclusion of this paper is to support the competition theory rather than the theory of behavior ;
At the same time , it is found that the effects of the total asset yield on the absolute income gap and the relative income gap are the largest ;
More importantly , the influence of industry type factors on the absolute income gap is positive , and the impact on the relative income gap is negative , which indicates that the administrative monopoly factor can lead to an increase in absolute income gap , and the relative income gap is reduced , and the conclusion is supported by the further Zou ( Chow ) test .

In addition , the article also makes clear whether the reference object to judge whether the distribution of income distribution in the administrative monopoly industry is reasonable is the private " listed company " in the competitive industry , which is generated by the condition of the market economy , and the rationalization standard of the reference object is set in detail .

Fourthly , this paper compares the non - wage income advantage of the administrative monopoly industry , and the contribution between the two types of industry income gap is between 36.34 % and 38.78 % . The influence degree on the non - wage income equation is about 75 % , which is also the important influencing factor of the income gap of the industry .

In 2007 - 2012 , the average non - wage income of the representative administrative monopoly industry bank , air transport , electricity , oil and gas mining , telecommunications and railway transportation industry was 8.28 , 7.06 , 5.20 , 4.36 , 4.20 , 2.49 times higher than the lowest income level , respectively , which was 6.53 , 5.54 , 4.03 , 3.35 , 3.22 and 1.83times higher than the average income level industry , respectively , and the gap was obvious ;
Moreover , the proportion of non - wage income in the total income of administrative monopoly industries is much higher than that of competitive industries , and the average of six years is 14.63 , 6.37 , 17.25 , 11.84 , 12.34 and 12.22 percentage points higher than that of the transportation equipment , which is 15.65 , 7.40 , 18.27 , 12.87 , 13.36 and 13.25 percentage points higher than that of the transportation equipment .

By means of the Minther equation and the measurement of Zou test , it is proved that the administrative monopoly is the deep reason which leads to the huge gap between the non - wage income between the two types of industries .

Fifth , we try to define the gap between the typical administrative monopoly industries and the income distribution in the industry , and design the quantifiable reference standard . The " rationalization " gap between the administrative monopoly industry and its own , the delivery equipment manufacturing , the textile industry and the 41 competitive industries is 42.71 % , 118.6 % , 155.97 % and 87.58 % , respectively . The corresponding " unreasonable gap " is 57.29 % , 157.7 % , 203.05 % and 117.2 % , respectively .

This paper sums up the relevant achievements of the research on the rationalization of the industry income gap between the relevant scholars at home and abroad , and designs the Mingther regression equation which is suitable for the study by using the micro - panel data of 41 competitive industries in China ' s listed companies . The conclusion is that the " theoretical income " of the administrative monopoly industry should only account for 42.71 % of its actual income , the actual income is obvious and the unreasonable gap is 57.29 % ;
The ratio of " theoretical income " to the actual income of the transportation equipment manufacturing and textile industry in the administrative monopoly industries is 118.6 % and 155.97 % , respectively , that is , the former is " supposed to be " higher than the latter , but the ratio of the actual incomes of the two types of industries is 276.3 % and 359.02 % respectively , obviously , the " unreasonable gap " is 157 . 7 % and 203.5 % , respectively ;
The ratio of " theoretical income " to the actual income of 41 competitive industries in the administrative monopoly industries is 87.58 % , that is , the former " should be " lower than the latter , but the ratio of its corresponding actual income is 204 . 77 % , obviously too high , the unreasonable gap is 117.2 % , the contradiction is prominent .

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：F124.7

【参考文献】