公共债务的收入分配效应:理论机制与实证检验——基于跨国面板数据的经验证据
|
摘要
将日趋严峻的全球债务风险问题和收入不平等问题结合,有助于从经济社会多维视角理解公共债务的风险"内涵",深化和丰富收入不平等财政干预机制的"内容"。本文从理论上阐述了公共债务影响收入不平等的可能机制,基于全球1980年至2017年跨国面板数据,实证分析得到了与研究假说一致的公共债务分配效应证据。研究发现,公共债务加剧了各国内部的收入不平等,选择多种公共债务指标和收入不平等指标得到的结论依然稳健,金融发展和基础设施建设是公共债务影响收入不平等两个重要的传导机制,基础设施建设投资产生的收入差距抑制效应并不能扭转总体的收入差距扩大效应;公共债务的收入不平等效应在发达国家和高税制累进度国家会得到缓解,一系列稳健性检验也证实了结论的可靠性。管控公共债务的"社会风险"、缓解财政干预机制的分配扭曲效应,需要适当降低公共债务规模,规范公共债务用途、优化公共债务结构、提高公共债务的使用绩效,提高税制累进度,建立责权利对等的"借用还"机制,扩大公共债务的分享受益范围。
This paper theoretically expounds the possible mechanism of public debt affecting income inequality,and empirical analysis has obtained evidence of public debt distribution effect consistent with the research hypothesis. The study finds that public debt has aggravated income inequality within countries(regions). And the conclusions obtained by selecting various public debt indicators and income inequality indicators are still robust. Among them, financial development and infrastructure construction are important factors of transmission mechanism that affect income inequality. The decreasing effect on income gap from infrastructure construction investment cannot countervail the total income gap expansion effect; the income inequality effect of public debt will be alleviated in developed countries and countries with high tax progression. A series of robust tests also confirm the reliability of the conclusion. To control the "social risk" of public debt and alleviate the distorted effect of fiscal intervention mechanism, it is necessary to reduce the scale of public debt appropriately, regulate its use,optimize its structure, improve its performance, improve the progression of the tax system, establish a "borrowing,using and repaying" mechanism of equal rights and responsibilities, and expand the scope of public debt sharing.
This paper theoretically expounds the possible mechanism of public debt affecting income inequality,and empirical analysis has obtained evidence of public debt distribution effect consistent with the research hypothesis. The study finds that public debt has aggravated income inequality within countries(regions). And the conclusions obtained by selecting various public debt indicators and income inequality indicators are still robust. Among them, financial development and infrastructure construction are important factors of transmission mechanism that affect income inequality. The decreasing effect on income gap from infrastructure construction investment cannot countervail the total income gap expansion effect; the income inequality effect of public debt will be alleviated in developed countries and countries with high tax progression. A series of robust tests also confirm the reliability of the conclusion. To control the "social risk" of public debt and alleviate the distorted effect of fiscal intervention mechanism, it is necessary to reduce the scale of public debt appropriately, regulate its use,optimize its structure, improve its performance, improve the progression of the tax system, establish a "borrowing,using and repaying" mechanism of equal rights and responsibilities, and expand the scope of public debt sharing.
引文
[1]Barro&Robert J.Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?[J].Journal of Political Economy,1974,82(6):1095-1117.
[2]Caminada K,Goudswaard K&Koster F.Social Income Transfers and Poverty:A Cross-Country Analysis for OECD Countries[J].International Journal of Social Welfare,2012,21(2):115-126.
[3]Glyn,A.The Cost of Stability:The Advanced Capitalist Countries in the 1980’s.New Left Review,1992,September-October.
[4]Higgins S&Lustig N.Can a Poverty-Reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor?[J].Journal of Development Economics,2016,Vol.122,pp.63-75.
[5]Immervoll,Herwig H L&Nogueira J R.The Impact of Brazil’s Tax-Benefit System on Inequality and Poverty,and Policy in Latin America.MIT Press.
[6]Kaynak P&Sayan S.The Link Between Budget Deficits and Income Inequality in Turkey.New Economics Papers.
[7]Lambert P J&Pfahler W.Income Tax Progression and Redistributive Effect:The Influence of Changes in the Pre-tax Income Distribution.Public Finance,2009,Vol.47(47),pp.1-16.
[8]Michl T R.Debt,Deficits,and the Distribution of Income[J].Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,1991,13(3):351-365.
[9]Pasinetti L L.Ricardian Debt/Taxation Equivalence in the Kaldor Theory of Profits and Income Distribution[J].Cambridge Journal of Economics,1989,13(1):25-36.
[10]Salti N.Income Inequality and the Composition of Public Debt[J].Journal of Economic Studies,2015,42(5).
[11]Sigrid Rohrs,&Winter,Christoph.Wealth Inequality and the Optimal Level of Government Debt[J].ECON-Working Papers,2011.
[12]Thomas R.Michl.Capitalists,Workers,and the Burden of Debt[J].Review of Political Economy,2006,18(4):449-467.
[13]Vogel E.Optimal Level of Government Debt:Matching Wealth Inequality and the Fiscal Sector[J].European Central Bank Working Paper,No.1665,2014.
[14]You J I&Dutt A K.Government Debt,Income Distribution and Growth[J].Cambridge Journal of Economics,1996,20(3):335-351.
[15]大卫·李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].郭大力,王亚楠译.译林出版社,2014.
[16]高培勇.以税收改革奠基收入分配制度改革[J].经济研究,2013,48(3):8-9.
[17]郭庆旺,陈志刚,温新新,吕冰洋.中国政府转移性支出的收入再分配效应[J].世界经济,2016,39(8):50-68.
[18]郭庆旺,吕冰洋.论要素收入分配对居民收入分配的影响[J].中国社会科学,2012(12):46-62+207.
[19]黄祖辉,王敏,万广华.我国居民收入不平等问题:基于转移性收入角度的分析[J].管理世界,2003(3):70-75.
[20]刘冲,周黎安.高速公路建设与区域经济发展:来自中国县级水平的证据[J].经济科学,2014(2):55-67.
[21]卢洪友,杜亦譞.公共教育融资的平等与增长效应-基于生育率和人力资本双重视角的理论与实证研究[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,71(3):135-146.
[22]刘穷志.公共支出归宿:中国政府公共服务落实到贫困人口手中了吗?[J].管理世界,2007(4):60-67.
[23]刘穷志.间接税归宿的累退性与居民收入不平等[J].经济管理,2011,33(1):166-171.
[24]李实.完善收入分配政策体系实现社会公平[J].社会治理,2016(6):110-113.
[25]刘晓光,张勋,方文全.基础设施的城乡收入分配效应:基于劳动力转移的视角[J].世界经济,2015,38(3):145-170.
[26]李永友,郑春荣.我国公共医疗服务受益归宿及其收入分配效应-基于入户调查数据的微观分析[J].经济研究,2016,51(7):132-146.
[27]梅冬州,陈金至,曹玉瑾.货币低估与收入不平等[J].世界经济,2018,41(5):53-75.
[28]聂海峰,刘怡.城镇居民间接税负担的演变[J].经济学(季刊),2010,9(4):1385-1402.
[29]祁毓,卢洪友.污染、健康与不平等-跨越“环境健康贫困”陷阱[J].管理世界,2015(9):32-51.
[30]王翠琴,薛惠元.新型农村社会养老保险收入再分配效应研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(8):140-146.
[31]汪昊,娄峰.中国财政再分配效应测算[J].经济研究,2017,52(1):103-118.
[32]王庶,岳希明.退耕还林、非农就业与农民增收-基于21省面板数据的双重差分分析[J].经济研究,2017,52(4):106-119.
[33]王晓军,康博威.我国社会养老保险制度的收入再分配效应分析[J].统计研究,2009,26(11):75-81.
[34]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报,2005(2):268-274.
[35]亚当·斯密.国富论(上下册(1759))[M].郭大力,王亚楠译.译林出版社,2014.
[36]岳希明,徐静,刘谦,丁胜,董莉娟.2011年个人所得税改革的收入再分配效应[J].经济研究,2012,47(9):113-124.
[37]岳希明,张斌,徐静.中国税制的收入分配效应测度[J].中国社会科学,2014(6):96-117+208.
[38]杨天宇.中国居民收入再分配过程中的“逆向转移”问题研究[J].统计研究,2009,26(4):19-25.
[39]杨长涌.我国政府债务对收入分配的影响研究-基于1978-2007年的考察.中国言实出版社,2013.
[40]张川川.养老金收入与农村老年人口的劳动供给-基于断点回归的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2015(6):76-89.
[41]钟春平,陈三攀,徐长生.结构变迁、要素相对价格及农户行为-农业补贴的理论模型与微观经验证据[J].金融研究,2013(5):167-180.
[42]周钦,田森,潘杰.均等下的不公-城镇居民基本医疗保险受益公平性的理论与实证研究[J].经济研究,2016,51(6):172-185.
[43]张勋,万广华.中国的农村基础设施促进了包容性增长吗?[J].经济研究,2016,51(10):82-96.
(1)详见《世界不平均报告2018》:https://wir2018.wid.world/。
(2)详见《Fiscal Monitor(October 2018)》,https://www.imf.org/en/search#q=Fiscal%20Monitor&sort=relevancy。
(3)数据来自2018年十三届全国人大一次会议财政部部长肖捷答记者问。
(4)本文包含全球187个国家和地区的样本数据,文中“跨国”“国家”“一国”“各国”指代“跨国(地区)”“国家(地区)”“一国(地区)”“各国(地区)”。
(1)在政府主要收入形式中,税收收入具有“无偿性”,如果从委托代理关系角度来理解政府和公众关系,税收收入又具有特殊的“有偿性”,这种有偿性是通过提供“非竞争性”和“非排他性”的公共服务来进行补偿的。
(1)本文将曾为社会主义国家并在1989-1992年解体(结束)或解体(结束)后仍为社会主义的国家,在本文样本范围内选取了42个国家。
(1)限于篇幅,五年平均稳健性检验的中介效应分析回归表和异质性分析回归表未展示,留存备索。
(2)限于篇幅,系统GMM回归结果表未展示,留存备索。
[2]Caminada K,Goudswaard K&Koster F.Social Income Transfers and Poverty:A Cross-Country Analysis for OECD Countries[J].International Journal of Social Welfare,2012,21(2):115-126.
[3]Glyn,A.The Cost of Stability:The Advanced Capitalist Countries in the 1980’s.New Left Review,1992,September-October.
[4]Higgins S&Lustig N.Can a Poverty-Reducing and Progressive Tax and Transfer System Hurt the Poor?[J].Journal of Development Economics,2016,Vol.122,pp.63-75.
[5]Immervoll,Herwig H L&Nogueira J R.The Impact of Brazil’s Tax-Benefit System on Inequality and Poverty,and Policy in Latin America.MIT Press.
[6]Kaynak P&Sayan S.The Link Between Budget Deficits and Income Inequality in Turkey.New Economics Papers.
[7]Lambert P J&Pfahler W.Income Tax Progression and Redistributive Effect:The Influence of Changes in the Pre-tax Income Distribution.Public Finance,2009,Vol.47(47),pp.1-16.
[8]Michl T R.Debt,Deficits,and the Distribution of Income[J].Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,1991,13(3):351-365.
[9]Pasinetti L L.Ricardian Debt/Taxation Equivalence in the Kaldor Theory of Profits and Income Distribution[J].Cambridge Journal of Economics,1989,13(1):25-36.
[10]Salti N.Income Inequality and the Composition of Public Debt[J].Journal of Economic Studies,2015,42(5).
[11]Sigrid Rohrs,&Winter,Christoph.Wealth Inequality and the Optimal Level of Government Debt[J].ECON-Working Papers,2011.
[12]Thomas R.Michl.Capitalists,Workers,and the Burden of Debt[J].Review of Political Economy,2006,18(4):449-467.
[13]Vogel E.Optimal Level of Government Debt:Matching Wealth Inequality and the Fiscal Sector[J].European Central Bank Working Paper,No.1665,2014.
[14]You J I&Dutt A K.Government Debt,Income Distribution and Growth[J].Cambridge Journal of Economics,1996,20(3):335-351.
[15]大卫·李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].郭大力,王亚楠译.译林出版社,2014.
[16]高培勇.以税收改革奠基收入分配制度改革[J].经济研究,2013,48(3):8-9.
[17]郭庆旺,陈志刚,温新新,吕冰洋.中国政府转移性支出的收入再分配效应[J].世界经济,2016,39(8):50-68.
[18]郭庆旺,吕冰洋.论要素收入分配对居民收入分配的影响[J].中国社会科学,2012(12):46-62+207.
[19]黄祖辉,王敏,万广华.我国居民收入不平等问题:基于转移性收入角度的分析[J].管理世界,2003(3):70-75.
[20]刘冲,周黎安.高速公路建设与区域经济发展:来自中国县级水平的证据[J].经济科学,2014(2):55-67.
[21]卢洪友,杜亦譞.公共教育融资的平等与增长效应-基于生育率和人力资本双重视角的理论与实证研究[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,71(3):135-146.
[22]刘穷志.公共支出归宿:中国政府公共服务落实到贫困人口手中了吗?[J].管理世界,2007(4):60-67.
[23]刘穷志.间接税归宿的累退性与居民收入不平等[J].经济管理,2011,33(1):166-171.
[24]李实.完善收入分配政策体系实现社会公平[J].社会治理,2016(6):110-113.
[25]刘晓光,张勋,方文全.基础设施的城乡收入分配效应:基于劳动力转移的视角[J].世界经济,2015,38(3):145-170.
[26]李永友,郑春荣.我国公共医疗服务受益归宿及其收入分配效应-基于入户调查数据的微观分析[J].经济研究,2016,51(7):132-146.
[27]梅冬州,陈金至,曹玉瑾.货币低估与收入不平等[J].世界经济,2018,41(5):53-75.
[28]聂海峰,刘怡.城镇居民间接税负担的演变[J].经济学(季刊),2010,9(4):1385-1402.
[29]祁毓,卢洪友.污染、健康与不平等-跨越“环境健康贫困”陷阱[J].管理世界,2015(9):32-51.
[30]王翠琴,薛惠元.新型农村社会养老保险收入再分配效应研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012,22(8):140-146.
[31]汪昊,娄峰.中国财政再分配效应测算[J].经济研究,2017,52(1):103-118.
[32]王庶,岳希明.退耕还林、非农就业与农民增收-基于21省面板数据的双重差分分析[J].经济研究,2017,52(4):106-119.
[33]王晓军,康博威.我国社会养老保险制度的收入再分配效应分析[J].统计研究,2009,26(11):75-81.
[34]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报,2005(2):268-274.
[35]亚当·斯密.国富论(上下册(1759))[M].郭大力,王亚楠译.译林出版社,2014.
[36]岳希明,徐静,刘谦,丁胜,董莉娟.2011年个人所得税改革的收入再分配效应[J].经济研究,2012,47(9):113-124.
[37]岳希明,张斌,徐静.中国税制的收入分配效应测度[J].中国社会科学,2014(6):96-117+208.
[38]杨天宇.中国居民收入再分配过程中的“逆向转移”问题研究[J].统计研究,2009,26(4):19-25.
[39]杨长涌.我国政府债务对收入分配的影响研究-基于1978-2007年的考察.中国言实出版社,2013.
[40]张川川.养老金收入与农村老年人口的劳动供给-基于断点回归的分析[J].世界经济文汇,2015(6):76-89.
[41]钟春平,陈三攀,徐长生.结构变迁、要素相对价格及农户行为-农业补贴的理论模型与微观经验证据[J].金融研究,2013(5):167-180.
[42]周钦,田森,潘杰.均等下的不公-城镇居民基本医疗保险受益公平性的理论与实证研究[J].经济研究,2016,51(6):172-185.
[43]张勋,万广华.中国的农村基础设施促进了包容性增长吗?[J].经济研究,2016,51(10):82-96.
(1)详见《世界不平均报告2018》:https://wir2018.wid.world/。
(2)详见《Fiscal Monitor(October 2018)》,https://www.imf.org/en/search#q=Fiscal%20Monitor&sort=relevancy。
(3)数据来自2018年十三届全国人大一次会议财政部部长肖捷答记者问。
(4)本文包含全球187个国家和地区的样本数据,文中“跨国”“国家”“一国”“各国”指代“跨国(地区)”“国家(地区)”“一国(地区)”“各国(地区)”。
(1)在政府主要收入形式中,税收收入具有“无偿性”,如果从委托代理关系角度来理解政府和公众关系,税收收入又具有特殊的“有偿性”,这种有偿性是通过提供“非竞争性”和“非排他性”的公共服务来进行补偿的。
(1)本文将曾为社会主义国家并在1989-1992年解体(结束)或解体(结束)后仍为社会主义的国家,在本文样本范围内选取了42个国家。
(1)限于篇幅,五年平均稳健性检验的中介效应分析回归表和异质性分析回归表未展示,留存备索。
(2)限于篇幅,系统GMM回归结果表未展示,留存备索。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |