乡镇债务的经济增长效应研究
|
摘要
乡镇债务问题是近年来备受关注的政治问题和社会问题之一。从20世纪80年代开始,乡镇债务首次出现并愈演愈烈,成为政府债务领域的一个特殊现象。
20世纪90年代中期以前,乡镇负债主要是政府兴办企业所欠的债务,属于融资性债务；20世纪90年代中期,主要是“普九”和公共基础设施建设所欠的债务,以及为完成上级政府规定的达标任务、税费任务和发放工资等任务而欠的债务,债务用途由融资性负债转变为赤字性负债；2001-2003年,主要是清理“三金”、“三乱”和城镇化发展所欠的债务,同时,东部地区的政府逐渐从竞争性领域退出,转向通过提供优良的投资环境等方式吸引外部资本,债务资金的投向逐渐专注于基础设施建设；到了2003年以后,乡镇债务的产生则与新农村建设和政府提供公共服务有关,债务资金主要集中于公共品建设和经济活动两大领域,且用于经济活动的比例逐渐上升,债务投向呈现出向生产性负债转变的趋势。
乡镇债务不只存在于有财政赤字的地方,即使是有大量财政盈余的乡镇,政府负债也是普遍现象,且在经济越发达的地区,乡镇债务越多。鉴于乡镇债务的覆盖面广,规模大,个别地区的乡镇债务甚至引发了干群冲突,因此学界对于乡镇债务基本持否定态度。认为乡镇债务的存在会影响基层政权的稳定,会影响政府职能的正常履行,会影响农村公共产品的正常供给,会加重人民的偿债负担和损害人民的正当权益等等。然而,现有研究多停留在描述性分析阶段,且多关注了乡镇债务的政治效应和社会效应,而在一定程度上忽视了债务的经济效应。
如果从融资角度来看,政府通过举债还是征税的方式来筹集资金,在本质上是一样的,债务本身并无好坏之分。举债作为一种普通的融资方式,是政府获得收入来源的渠道之一,通过借债的方式来弥补短期财政收支缺口也是政府的惯用手段。由于与税收融资相比,债务融资的弹性更大、可操作性更强、选择面更广,既可举借短期债务,也可签订中长期债务合约,更容易满足政府的多样化资金需求,所以债务融资是一种比较理想的融资方式。由于政府债务的举债主体和用债主体都是乡镇政府,而政府运用资金的渠道或者说政府资金的投向具有相对固定性,所以债务资金必然与财政支出之间有一定的替代性或互补性。
而财政支出是政府影响经济增长的主要方式之一。经济增长理论认为,政府具有影响经济发展的能力,政府影响经济增长最简单的途径是要素积累。政府可以直接通过政府资本投资,如投资道路等基础设施,间接地通过政府预算——因为预算赤字可以吸收没有投资实物资本的储蓄——影响实物资本的积累,也可以通过文化、教育支出等影响人力资本的积累。政府还可以通过税收、规则、依法管理,以及其他许多政策工具来影响经济的发展。因此,无论是间接地通过财政支出,还是直接投资于实物资本和人力资本,政府债务资金必然会对经济增长产生影响。
公债经济学认为,政府债务主要通过利率和汇率机制来影响经济增长。政府举债或发债会影响社会的货币供应量,进而影响到均衡利率水平,对经济体产生投资效应、消费效应和储蓄效应等。在开放经济体中,政府债务的存在还会影响到汇率水平,产生贸易收支效应、资本流动效应和金融效应等。乡镇债务作为一种公共债务,也会影响到经济增长,但乡镇债务又不同于一般的公共债务。一方面,乡镇政府是基层政权组织形式,可以影响的区域和范围有限；另一方面,乡镇政府举债并非以发行政府债券的方式进行,所以乡镇债务难以影响到利率和汇率。因此,我们不能套用传统的利率和汇率机制来研究乡镇债务的经济效应。
鉴于乡镇债务与财政支出的特殊关系,本文将从财政支出角度来研究乡镇债务对区域经济增长的作用机制,并通过定量化研究来分析乡镇债务对区域经济增长的作用程度。期望通过此研究,能更加全面、深入地了解乡镇债务得以存在的经济诱因,为乡镇债务问题的解决建言献策。本文共分为七章,主要内容和研究结论陈述如下：
研究内容一：对乡镇债务影响区域经济增长的机制进行理论分析,从债务人渠道、财政支出的视角来勾勒乡镇债务影响乡镇经济增长的过程。
政府举债是政府获得资金的渠道之一,所以政府债务与税收一样能增加政府可资利用的资金总量,从而影响政府的预算约束条件。同时,政府债务是有成本的,到期需要偿还本息,因此必然增加财政支出中用于偿债的那部分支出,对财政支出规模产生影响。同时,债务资金被用于何种用途,是用于政府消费、公共投资还是转移支付,也会影响政府乃至社会的消费——投资比例,对财政支出结构和社会总需求产生影响。所以,这一部分我们主要从理论上分析乡镇债务与政府预算、债务与财政支出规模和结构,以及债务与社会总需求的关系,得到如下结论：
一方面,在财政收入不足以弥补财政支出缺口,而上级财政转移支付又不能及时足额到位的情况下,乡镇债务在一定程度上扮演了上级转移支付的角色,满足了政府的支出需求；另一方面,无论是否存在财政收支缺口,乡镇政府举债均会扩展政府的预算约束线,使得财政收入约束政府增加财政支出的能力弱化。这些都对政府的财政支出规模有扩张之效。
乡镇债务有生产性负债和非生产性负债之分,财政支出有投资性支出、消费性支出和转移性支出之分,因此债务资金与财政支出之间存在一定的替代性或互补性。生产性负债侧重影响政府的投资性支出,非生产性负债影响着政府的消费性和转移性支出,两种债务共同作用,影响着政府的投资——消费结构。
由于政府支出是拉动经济增长的第四驾马车,而乡镇债务影响着政府支出的规模和结构,所以政府债务是影响经济增长的因素之一。政府债务不仅通过公共投资和消费影响着社会资本存量,还通过资金的用途影响着社会总需求,引起了社会总需求的扩张。这两种影响共同决定着乡镇债务的经济增长效应。
研究内容二：对乡镇债务的财政支出效应进行实证分析,分别从债务规模和债务结构两个方面来考察乡镇债务对财政支出规模和结构的影响。
这一部分主要运用样本地区的乡镇调研数据,通过建立计量经济模型就乡镇债务规模和结构对乡镇财政支出规模和结构的影响进行实证研究,得到如下基本结论：
第一,乡镇债务规模对乡镇财政支出规模有显著的正向影响。无论短期还是中期,乡镇债务对财政支出规模的影响都是显著为正的。乡镇债务的存在不只会带来偿债费支出,由举债导致的预算约束弱化还会引发财政支出规模的膨胀,最终引起财政支出的增长。
第二,乡镇债务结构对乡镇财政支出结构也有明显影响,不同的债务用途对财政支出的影响不同。生产性负债(公益事业负债、农业项目负债和工业园区负债)对政府的投资性支出和消费性支出都有显著的正向影响；非生产性负债中的消费性负债(机构运转负债)对政府的消费性支出有显著的正向影响,对政府的投资性支出有正影响但不显著；转移性负债(兴办企业负债)对政府的投资性支出和消费性支出都没有明显影响。这些因素共同作用,影响着政府的投资——消费结构。
研究内容三：对乡镇债务的经济增长效应进行实证分析,分别从债务规模、债务结构和债务依存度三个方面来考察乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响。
这一部分主要运用实际调研数据,通过建立计量经济模型来对样本地区的乡镇债务的经济增长效应进行实证研究。除将所有样本作为总体进行研究外,还将样本按照人均纯收入水平和债务依存度高低进行了分组研究,得到如下基本结论：
第一,乡镇债务规模对乡镇经济增长有明显的正向影响。人均政府债务增加1元,可以带动乡镇GDP增长0.0053%；且在经济越发达的地区,政府债务的这种正面效应越大,说明政府债务对乡镇经济增长是发挥了一定积极作用的。但政府债务的系数估计值很小,意味着乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响力并不大。
第二,债务规模对乡镇经济增长的影响程度与债务依存度有关。乡镇债务对经济增长的正面效应随着债务依存度的提高而逐渐减弱。当债务依存度低于20%,尤其是低于10%时,乡镇债务对经济增长的正面效应是最大的。
第三,乡镇债务结构对乡镇经济增长也有明显的影响。首先,不同的债务用途对经济增长的影响不一样。在三种生产性负债中,公益事业负债和工业园区负债有助于促进乡镇GDP的增长,农业项目负债则对乡镇GDP增长有负面效应,但并不显著。其次,同种债务用途在不同地区对乡镇经济增长的作用也并不相同。在发达地区,三种生产性债务发挥的都是正效应；在欠发达地区,公益事业负债发挥的是正效应,农业项目负债和工业园区负债产生的是负效应；在中等地区,工业园区负债发挥的是正效应,而公益事业负债和农业项目负债产生的是负效应。但总体而言,生产性负债在欠发达地区和中等地区发挥的仍然主要是正效应。
由于乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响存在着明显的结构差异和地区差异,所以在对待乡镇债务问题时也要因地制宜、因用途而异。
Township government debt is one of the political and social problems getting more attention in recent years. From80decades of20th century, the township government debt first appearances and then becomes a special phenomenon in government debts'field.
Before the middle of90decades20th century, township government debts were mainly the arrearage owed by the enterprises held by township government, and those debts belong to financing debt. In the middle of90decades20th century, township government debts were mainly the debt caused by popularizing the nine-year compulsory education, constructing public infrastructure, and completing the task disposed by superior governments.From2001years to2003years, debts were due to clearing up rural financial organizations and promoting urbanization.At that time, the debt uses in east government changed gradually to public infrastructure construction. After2003years, township government debts were related to new countryside construction and supplying public service, and debt uses changed to productivity liability gradually.
Township government debts not only indwell township which had fiscal deficits, but also in township having financial surplus.Whereas the wide overlay and the large scale of township government debts, and some towns'government debt had initiated conflicts, academicians opposed township government debts. They thought that township government debts would affect the stabilization of grass-roots regime, influence the supply of rural public product, aggravate resident's burden and injure resident's rights and interests. However, those research payed too much attention on government debts'political and social effects, ignored government debts'economic effect to some extent.
From financing angle, debt is the same as other financing manners.lt is one of the resources that government gets revenue and a stock-in-trade to offset financial gap of income and expenses. Meantime, because of debt's large flexibility, strong maneuverability and broad selective surface, township governments are inclined to using debt financing.
Because the raising and using body of debt is township government, and government using capitals'channels are fixed relatively, there is certain substitutive or complementary between debt capital and government expenditure.
Government spending is one of main manners government use to influence economic growth. The theory of economic growth figures that government has the ability to affect economic development, and the most ordinary approach is to influence factor accumulation.Government could affects physical capital accumulation through infrastructure investment directly or through fiscal budget indirectly. Government could also influences human capital accumulation through cultural or education expenditure.Government could uses tax, rule, management according to law, and many other policy tools to affect economic development. Therefore, no matter investing directly to physical and human capital, or investing indirectly through government expenditure, township government debts must have effects on economic growth.
Public debt economics thinks that government debt influences economic growth mainly through interest rate and exchange rate mechanism.Raising debts or issuing bonds could affect money supply and equilibrium interest rate, give birth to investment effect, consumption effect or saving effect. In open economy, government debts could influence exchange rate, and then produce trade effect, capital flowing effect and financial effect. As public debt, township government debts affect economic growth too.But due to the limited influencing scope of township government, and the raising manner is not through issuing governmental bonds, we couldn't apply interest rate or exchange rate mechanism mechanically.
Whereas the special relationship between township government debts and financial expenditure, the text studies the influencing mechanism of township government debts from financial expenditure point, and analyses the influencing extent through empirical research.We hope through this research, we could have a more comprehensive and embedded understanding of township government debts'existing, and make more actual decisions on solving the problems of township government debts.The paper includes seven chapters, and the central contents and conclusions are presented as follows:
Part1:theoretical analysis of the mechanism township government debts influencing regional economy growth.
Debt is one of the channels government used to raising capital, so debt can affects budget constraints.Meanwhile, government must repay capitals and interests when it is expired, so it must increase the expenses on debt service and expand the scale of government spending. Otherwise, debt uses could influence government consumption expenditure and investment expenditure, and then affect the structure of fiscal expenditure and social aggregate demand.So that we analyse the relationship between debt and budget, debt and fiscal expenditure, debt and financial structure, as well as debt and social aggregate demand theoretically.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, under certain conditions, township government debts act as the role of superior transfer payment, bring repayment expenditure, and expand the budget constraints line. All of these would have a expand effect on financial expenditure.
Secondly, township government debts divide to productive debt and nonproductive debt, while financial expenditure plot investment expenditure, consumption expenditure and transfer expenditure.So there is certain substitutive or complementary between debt capital and government spending.Productive debt affects investment expenditure, nonproductive debt affects consumption expenditure and transfer expenditure, and they affect government investment and consumption structure jointly.
Thirdly, government expenditure is the forth carriage pulling economic growth, and it is influenced by township government debts, so township government debts must be one of the factors influencing economic growth.Government debt not only affect social capital accumulation through public investment and consumption, but also influence social aggregate demand through debt uses.The two actions decide jointly the economic growth effect of township government debt.
Part2:empirical analysis of the financial expenditure effect of township government debt.
In this section we use inquiry data to make an empirical research on the effect debt scale and debt uses act on government spending.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, debt scale has a notable positive influence on financial expenditure scale.No matter in short term or in long term, the increase of debt scale will induce the increase of financial expenditure.
Secondly, debt structure has an obvious influence on the structure of financial expenditure. Productive debt such as debt on commonweal project, debt on agricultural item, and debt on enterprises set up and industrial garden construction makes a notable positive effect on investment expenditure and consumption expenditure.Nonproductive debt likes debt on institution operations have an obvious effect on consumption expenditure, while transfer debt has no obvious influence on these two expenditure.
Part3:empirical analysis of the economic growth effect of township government debt.
In this section we use inquiry data to make an empirical analysis on the effect of township government debt acts on economic growth. We divide swatches into some groups according to average net income and debt's dependency,and analyse the economic growth effect of debt of these groups respectively.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, debt scale has a notable positive effect on economic growth.The marginal contribution of government debt average per capita on GDP average per capita is0.0053, and this contribution becomes more large in more developed regions.But this number is too small,so it indicates that the influencing degree of government debt scale on economic growth is very feeble.
Secondly, the influencing degree of debt scale on economic growth is relevant to debt's dependency.The positive effect degree of debt scale wears off along with the increase of debt's dependency. When debt's dependency is less than20%, especially less than10%, the positive effect of debt on economic growth is the biggest.
Thirdly, debt structure has obvious influence on economic growth. First of all, different debt use has different effect on economic growth. Among three productive debts, debts on commonweal project and industrial garden construction are in favor of economic growth, while debts on agricultural item have negative effect on economic growth, but the effect is not obvious.Next, the same debt use in different area has different effect on economic growth. In more developed areas, all of three productive debts exert positive effect. In less developed areas, debts on commonweal project exert positive effect, but debts on agricultural item and industrial garden construction produce negative effect. In middle areas, debts on industrial garden construction bring positive effect, while debts on commonweal project and agricultural item cause negative effect. Consequently, there exist distinct structural and regional differences in the effect of township government debt on regional economic growth,which we must pay much attention on.
20世纪90年代中期以前,乡镇负债主要是政府兴办企业所欠的债务,属于融资性债务；20世纪90年代中期,主要是“普九”和公共基础设施建设所欠的债务,以及为完成上级政府规定的达标任务、税费任务和发放工资等任务而欠的债务,债务用途由融资性负债转变为赤字性负债；2001-2003年,主要是清理“三金”、“三乱”和城镇化发展所欠的债务,同时,东部地区的政府逐渐从竞争性领域退出,转向通过提供优良的投资环境等方式吸引外部资本,债务资金的投向逐渐专注于基础设施建设；到了2003年以后,乡镇债务的产生则与新农村建设和政府提供公共服务有关,债务资金主要集中于公共品建设和经济活动两大领域,且用于经济活动的比例逐渐上升,债务投向呈现出向生产性负债转变的趋势。
乡镇债务不只存在于有财政赤字的地方,即使是有大量财政盈余的乡镇,政府负债也是普遍现象,且在经济越发达的地区,乡镇债务越多。鉴于乡镇债务的覆盖面广,规模大,个别地区的乡镇债务甚至引发了干群冲突,因此学界对于乡镇债务基本持否定态度。认为乡镇债务的存在会影响基层政权的稳定,会影响政府职能的正常履行,会影响农村公共产品的正常供给,会加重人民的偿债负担和损害人民的正当权益等等。然而,现有研究多停留在描述性分析阶段,且多关注了乡镇债务的政治效应和社会效应,而在一定程度上忽视了债务的经济效应。
如果从融资角度来看,政府通过举债还是征税的方式来筹集资金,在本质上是一样的,债务本身并无好坏之分。举债作为一种普通的融资方式,是政府获得收入来源的渠道之一,通过借债的方式来弥补短期财政收支缺口也是政府的惯用手段。由于与税收融资相比,债务融资的弹性更大、可操作性更强、选择面更广,既可举借短期债务,也可签订中长期债务合约,更容易满足政府的多样化资金需求,所以债务融资是一种比较理想的融资方式。由于政府债务的举债主体和用债主体都是乡镇政府,而政府运用资金的渠道或者说政府资金的投向具有相对固定性,所以债务资金必然与财政支出之间有一定的替代性或互补性。
而财政支出是政府影响经济增长的主要方式之一。经济增长理论认为,政府具有影响经济发展的能力,政府影响经济增长最简单的途径是要素积累。政府可以直接通过政府资本投资,如投资道路等基础设施,间接地通过政府预算——因为预算赤字可以吸收没有投资实物资本的储蓄——影响实物资本的积累,也可以通过文化、教育支出等影响人力资本的积累。政府还可以通过税收、规则、依法管理,以及其他许多政策工具来影响经济的发展。因此,无论是间接地通过财政支出,还是直接投资于实物资本和人力资本,政府债务资金必然会对经济增长产生影响。
公债经济学认为,政府债务主要通过利率和汇率机制来影响经济增长。政府举债或发债会影响社会的货币供应量,进而影响到均衡利率水平,对经济体产生投资效应、消费效应和储蓄效应等。在开放经济体中,政府债务的存在还会影响到汇率水平,产生贸易收支效应、资本流动效应和金融效应等。乡镇债务作为一种公共债务,也会影响到经济增长,但乡镇债务又不同于一般的公共债务。一方面,乡镇政府是基层政权组织形式,可以影响的区域和范围有限；另一方面,乡镇政府举债并非以发行政府债券的方式进行,所以乡镇债务难以影响到利率和汇率。因此,我们不能套用传统的利率和汇率机制来研究乡镇债务的经济效应。
鉴于乡镇债务与财政支出的特殊关系,本文将从财政支出角度来研究乡镇债务对区域经济增长的作用机制,并通过定量化研究来分析乡镇债务对区域经济增长的作用程度。期望通过此研究,能更加全面、深入地了解乡镇债务得以存在的经济诱因,为乡镇债务问题的解决建言献策。本文共分为七章,主要内容和研究结论陈述如下：
研究内容一：对乡镇债务影响区域经济增长的机制进行理论分析,从债务人渠道、财政支出的视角来勾勒乡镇债务影响乡镇经济增长的过程。
政府举债是政府获得资金的渠道之一,所以政府债务与税收一样能增加政府可资利用的资金总量,从而影响政府的预算约束条件。同时,政府债务是有成本的,到期需要偿还本息,因此必然增加财政支出中用于偿债的那部分支出,对财政支出规模产生影响。同时,债务资金被用于何种用途,是用于政府消费、公共投资还是转移支付,也会影响政府乃至社会的消费——投资比例,对财政支出结构和社会总需求产生影响。所以,这一部分我们主要从理论上分析乡镇债务与政府预算、债务与财政支出规模和结构,以及债务与社会总需求的关系,得到如下结论：
一方面,在财政收入不足以弥补财政支出缺口,而上级财政转移支付又不能及时足额到位的情况下,乡镇债务在一定程度上扮演了上级转移支付的角色,满足了政府的支出需求；另一方面,无论是否存在财政收支缺口,乡镇政府举债均会扩展政府的预算约束线,使得财政收入约束政府增加财政支出的能力弱化。这些都对政府的财政支出规模有扩张之效。
乡镇债务有生产性负债和非生产性负债之分,财政支出有投资性支出、消费性支出和转移性支出之分,因此债务资金与财政支出之间存在一定的替代性或互补性。生产性负债侧重影响政府的投资性支出,非生产性负债影响着政府的消费性和转移性支出,两种债务共同作用,影响着政府的投资——消费结构。
由于政府支出是拉动经济增长的第四驾马车,而乡镇债务影响着政府支出的规模和结构,所以政府债务是影响经济增长的因素之一。政府债务不仅通过公共投资和消费影响着社会资本存量,还通过资金的用途影响着社会总需求,引起了社会总需求的扩张。这两种影响共同决定着乡镇债务的经济增长效应。
研究内容二：对乡镇债务的财政支出效应进行实证分析,分别从债务规模和债务结构两个方面来考察乡镇债务对财政支出规模和结构的影响。
这一部分主要运用样本地区的乡镇调研数据,通过建立计量经济模型就乡镇债务规模和结构对乡镇财政支出规模和结构的影响进行实证研究,得到如下基本结论：
第一,乡镇债务规模对乡镇财政支出规模有显著的正向影响。无论短期还是中期,乡镇债务对财政支出规模的影响都是显著为正的。乡镇债务的存在不只会带来偿债费支出,由举债导致的预算约束弱化还会引发财政支出规模的膨胀,最终引起财政支出的增长。
第二,乡镇债务结构对乡镇财政支出结构也有明显影响,不同的债务用途对财政支出的影响不同。生产性负债(公益事业负债、农业项目负债和工业园区负债)对政府的投资性支出和消费性支出都有显著的正向影响；非生产性负债中的消费性负债(机构运转负债)对政府的消费性支出有显著的正向影响,对政府的投资性支出有正影响但不显著；转移性负债(兴办企业负债)对政府的投资性支出和消费性支出都没有明显影响。这些因素共同作用,影响着政府的投资——消费结构。
研究内容三：对乡镇债务的经济增长效应进行实证分析,分别从债务规模、债务结构和债务依存度三个方面来考察乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响。
这一部分主要运用实际调研数据,通过建立计量经济模型来对样本地区的乡镇债务的经济增长效应进行实证研究。除将所有样本作为总体进行研究外,还将样本按照人均纯收入水平和债务依存度高低进行了分组研究,得到如下基本结论：
第一,乡镇债务规模对乡镇经济增长有明显的正向影响。人均政府债务增加1元,可以带动乡镇GDP增长0.0053%；且在经济越发达的地区,政府债务的这种正面效应越大,说明政府债务对乡镇经济增长是发挥了一定积极作用的。但政府债务的系数估计值很小,意味着乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响力并不大。
第二,债务规模对乡镇经济增长的影响程度与债务依存度有关。乡镇债务对经济增长的正面效应随着债务依存度的提高而逐渐减弱。当债务依存度低于20%,尤其是低于10%时,乡镇债务对经济增长的正面效应是最大的。
第三,乡镇债务结构对乡镇经济增长也有明显的影响。首先,不同的债务用途对经济增长的影响不一样。在三种生产性负债中,公益事业负债和工业园区负债有助于促进乡镇GDP的增长,农业项目负债则对乡镇GDP增长有负面效应,但并不显著。其次,同种债务用途在不同地区对乡镇经济增长的作用也并不相同。在发达地区,三种生产性债务发挥的都是正效应；在欠发达地区,公益事业负债发挥的是正效应,农业项目负债和工业园区负债产生的是负效应；在中等地区,工业园区负债发挥的是正效应,而公益事业负债和农业项目负债产生的是负效应。但总体而言,生产性负债在欠发达地区和中等地区发挥的仍然主要是正效应。
由于乡镇债务对乡镇经济增长的影响存在着明显的结构差异和地区差异,所以在对待乡镇债务问题时也要因地制宜、因用途而异。
Township government debt is one of the political and social problems getting more attention in recent years. From80decades of20th century, the township government debt first appearances and then becomes a special phenomenon in government debts'field.
Before the middle of90decades20th century, township government debts were mainly the arrearage owed by the enterprises held by township government, and those debts belong to financing debt. In the middle of90decades20th century, township government debts were mainly the debt caused by popularizing the nine-year compulsory education, constructing public infrastructure, and completing the task disposed by superior governments.From2001years to2003years, debts were due to clearing up rural financial organizations and promoting urbanization.At that time, the debt uses in east government changed gradually to public infrastructure construction. After2003years, township government debts were related to new countryside construction and supplying public service, and debt uses changed to productivity liability gradually.
Township government debts not only indwell township which had fiscal deficits, but also in township having financial surplus.Whereas the wide overlay and the large scale of township government debts, and some towns'government debt had initiated conflicts, academicians opposed township government debts. They thought that township government debts would affect the stabilization of grass-roots regime, influence the supply of rural public product, aggravate resident's burden and injure resident's rights and interests. However, those research payed too much attention on government debts'political and social effects, ignored government debts'economic effect to some extent.
From financing angle, debt is the same as other financing manners.lt is one of the resources that government gets revenue and a stock-in-trade to offset financial gap of income and expenses. Meantime, because of debt's large flexibility, strong maneuverability and broad selective surface, township governments are inclined to using debt financing.
Because the raising and using body of debt is township government, and government using capitals'channels are fixed relatively, there is certain substitutive or complementary between debt capital and government expenditure.
Government spending is one of main manners government use to influence economic growth. The theory of economic growth figures that government has the ability to affect economic development, and the most ordinary approach is to influence factor accumulation.Government could affects physical capital accumulation through infrastructure investment directly or through fiscal budget indirectly. Government could also influences human capital accumulation through cultural or education expenditure.Government could uses tax, rule, management according to law, and many other policy tools to affect economic development. Therefore, no matter investing directly to physical and human capital, or investing indirectly through government expenditure, township government debts must have effects on economic growth.
Public debt economics thinks that government debt influences economic growth mainly through interest rate and exchange rate mechanism.Raising debts or issuing bonds could affect money supply and equilibrium interest rate, give birth to investment effect, consumption effect or saving effect. In open economy, government debts could influence exchange rate, and then produce trade effect, capital flowing effect and financial effect. As public debt, township government debts affect economic growth too.But due to the limited influencing scope of township government, and the raising manner is not through issuing governmental bonds, we couldn't apply interest rate or exchange rate mechanism mechanically.
Whereas the special relationship between township government debts and financial expenditure, the text studies the influencing mechanism of township government debts from financial expenditure point, and analyses the influencing extent through empirical research.We hope through this research, we could have a more comprehensive and embedded understanding of township government debts'existing, and make more actual decisions on solving the problems of township government debts.The paper includes seven chapters, and the central contents and conclusions are presented as follows:
Part1:theoretical analysis of the mechanism township government debts influencing regional economy growth.
Debt is one of the channels government used to raising capital, so debt can affects budget constraints.Meanwhile, government must repay capitals and interests when it is expired, so it must increase the expenses on debt service and expand the scale of government spending. Otherwise, debt uses could influence government consumption expenditure and investment expenditure, and then affect the structure of fiscal expenditure and social aggregate demand.So that we analyse the relationship between debt and budget, debt and fiscal expenditure, debt and financial structure, as well as debt and social aggregate demand theoretically.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, under certain conditions, township government debts act as the role of superior transfer payment, bring repayment expenditure, and expand the budget constraints line. All of these would have a expand effect on financial expenditure.
Secondly, township government debts divide to productive debt and nonproductive debt, while financial expenditure plot investment expenditure, consumption expenditure and transfer expenditure.So there is certain substitutive or complementary between debt capital and government spending.Productive debt affects investment expenditure, nonproductive debt affects consumption expenditure and transfer expenditure, and they affect government investment and consumption structure jointly.
Thirdly, government expenditure is the forth carriage pulling economic growth, and it is influenced by township government debts, so township government debts must be one of the factors influencing economic growth.Government debt not only affect social capital accumulation through public investment and consumption, but also influence social aggregate demand through debt uses.The two actions decide jointly the economic growth effect of township government debt.
Part2:empirical analysis of the financial expenditure effect of township government debt.
In this section we use inquiry data to make an empirical research on the effect debt scale and debt uses act on government spending.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, debt scale has a notable positive influence on financial expenditure scale.No matter in short term or in long term, the increase of debt scale will induce the increase of financial expenditure.
Secondly, debt structure has an obvious influence on the structure of financial expenditure. Productive debt such as debt on commonweal project, debt on agricultural item, and debt on enterprises set up and industrial garden construction makes a notable positive effect on investment expenditure and consumption expenditure.Nonproductive debt likes debt on institution operations have an obvious effect on consumption expenditure, while transfer debt has no obvious influence on these two expenditure.
Part3:empirical analysis of the economic growth effect of township government debt.
In this section we use inquiry data to make an empirical analysis on the effect of township government debt acts on economic growth. We divide swatches into some groups according to average net income and debt's dependency,and analyse the economic growth effect of debt of these groups respectively.The conclusions are as follows:
Firstly, debt scale has a notable positive effect on economic growth.The marginal contribution of government debt average per capita on GDP average per capita is0.0053, and this contribution becomes more large in more developed regions.But this number is too small,so it indicates that the influencing degree of government debt scale on economic growth is very feeble.
Secondly, the influencing degree of debt scale on economic growth is relevant to debt's dependency.The positive effect degree of debt scale wears off along with the increase of debt's dependency. When debt's dependency is less than20%, especially less than10%, the positive effect of debt on economic growth is the biggest.
Thirdly, debt structure has obvious influence on economic growth. First of all, different debt use has different effect on economic growth. Among three productive debts, debts on commonweal project and industrial garden construction are in favor of economic growth, while debts on agricultural item have negative effect on economic growth, but the effect is not obvious.Next, the same debt use in different area has different effect on economic growth. In more developed areas, all of three productive debts exert positive effect. In less developed areas, debts on commonweal project exert positive effect, but debts on agricultural item and industrial garden construction produce negative effect. In middle areas, debts on industrial garden construction bring positive effect, while debts on commonweal project and agricultural item cause negative effect. Consequently, there exist distinct structural and regional differences in the effect of township government debt on regional economic growth,which we must pay much attention on.
引文
[1]Barro R. Are government bonds net wealth?[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1974,(82):1095-1017
[2]Barro R. Federal Deficit Policy and the Effects of Public Debt Shocks[J]. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking,1980,12(4):747-762
[3]Bohnh.The Behavior of U.S.Public Debt and Deficits[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1998, 113(3):949-963
[4]Blanchard O. J. Debt, Deficits and Finite Horizon[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1985, (93): 223-247
[5]Buchanan J.M.Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem.Journal of Political Economy,1976, (84):337-342
[6]Buiter W. H. Public Debt in the USA:How much, How bad and Who pays?[C]. CEPR Discussion Paper,1993, (791)
[7]Cavaco-Silva Anibal. A. Economic Effect of Public Debt[M]. St. Matin's Press Inc,1977
[8]Coats W. L. and Khatkhate D. R. Money supply implications of commercial bank's financing of government debt in developing countries[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics Statistics,1978, (21): 73-193
[9]Diamond PA. National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model[J]. The American Economic Review, 1965,55(5):1126-1150
[10]Dornbush R. Debt and monetary policy:the policy issues, in G.Calvo and M.King(eds.).The Debt Burden and its Consequences for Monetary Policy[C].MacMillan Press,1998,3-22
[11]Engen Eric M. and R. Glenn Hubbard. Federal Government Debt and Interest Rates: Forthcoming[J]. NBER Macroeconomic Annual,2004
[12]Franz GGovernment Debt as a Generator of Economic Growth[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1957,39(2):183-192.
[13]Graham Fred C. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior: Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1995, (85):1348-1356
[14]Hamilton J. and Marjorie F. On the Limitations of Government Borrowing:A Framework for Empirical Testing[J]. American Economic Review,1986, (76):808-816
[15]Kormendi Roger. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior[J]. American Economic Review,1983,73 (5):994-1010
[16]Kormendi Roger and Philip Meguire. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:Reply and Update[J]. American Economic Review,1990, (80):604-617
[17]Kormendi Roger and Philip Meguire. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:Reply[J]. American Economic Review,1995, (85):1357-1361
[18]LIN Shuanglin. Government Debt and Economic Growth in an Overlapping Generations Model[J]. Southern Economic Journal,2000,66(3):754-763
[19]Modigliani Franco and Arlie G. Sterling. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:A Further Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1990, (80):600-603
[20]Persson M. and Svesson L. Debt, cash flow and inflation incentives:a Swedish example, in GCalvo and M.King(eds.). The Debt Burden and its Consequences for Monetary Policy[C].MacMillan Press,1998,28-62
[21]Thomas Laubach. New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt[R]. Working Paper Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,2003
[22]TsaiLily. The Dangers of Decentralization:Fiscal Management and Informal Institutions in Rural China[C].Paper presented at the conference,2006
[23]Tsung-wu Ho. The government spending and private consumption:a panel integration analysis[J].International Review of Economics and Finance,2001, (10):95-108
[24]安东尼.B.阿特金森等.公共经济学[M].上海：上海三联书店,1992
[25]陈东平、陈彩虹、潘军昌.合约视角下的乡村债务问题解析[J].贵州社会科学,2009,(9)：10-15
[26]陈共、类承曜.关于我国债务负担率及债务依存度的考察[J].财政研究,2002,(11)：2-6
[27]陈永正等.乡级财政：扩张冲动与自筹制度[J].经济学家,2004,(2)：104-108
[28]陈志勇.公债学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
[29]大卫·李嘉图.李嘉图著作和通信集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981
[30]丹尼斯·缪勒.公共选择[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992
[31]邓大才.乡村社区过度负债的体制探源[J].北京社会科学,1999,(2)：131-134
[32]邓大才.乡镇债务为何屡减屡增?[J].南风窗,2002,(2)：34-35
[33]邓大才,乡镇为何愿意借债[J],乡镇经济,2003.2,46－47
[34]董上海.后税费时代乡镇政府职能转变问题研究[J].乡镇经济,2008,(11)：16-19
[35]杜爽.乡村债务规模及风险评估问题初探[J].农村经济,2009,(9)：119-123
[36]段应碧、宋洪远.中国乡村债务问题研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006
[37]樊宝洪.乡镇财政与农村公共产品供给研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2007
[38]冯健身.公共债务[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2000
[39]付启敏、朱廷春.乡镇债务形成的原因及其化解对策浅析[J].农村经济,2004,(9)：57-58
[40]付文林、沈坤荣.中国公共支出的规模与结构及其增长效应[J].经济科学,2006,(1)：20-29
[41]高培勇.国债运行机制研究[M].北京务印书馆,1995
[42]高培勇.论举借国债的经济作用机制[J].经济研究,1996,(9)：24-31
[43]宫晓霞.取消农业税对乡镇财政的影响及对策[J].中央财经大学学报,2005,(8)：9－11
[44]郭红玉.国债宏观经济效应研究[M].京：对外经济贸易大学出版社,2005
[45]郭宏宇、吕风勇.我国国债的财富效应探析——1985－2002年间我国国债规模对消费需求影响的实证研究[J].财贸研究,2006,(1)：53-58
[46]郭进伟.公共支出结构与经济发展绩效[D].吉林大学博士论文,2007
[47]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.财政投资的经济增长效应：实证分析[J].财贸经济,2005,(4)：40-47
[48]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.政府公共资本投资的长期经济增长效应[J].经济研究,2006,(7)：29-40
[49]郭庆旺、吕冰洋、张德勇.财政支出结构与经济增长[J].经济理论与经济管理,2003,(11)：5-12
[50]郭晓东.乡镇债务危机的形成机理、症结及治理[J].南京经济学院学报,2003,(1)：58-62
[51]韩俊.中国县乡公共财政危机：表现、成因、影响与治理——湖北省襄阳县、河南省鄢陵县、江西省泰和县案例研究[J].公共管理评论,2005,3：60-72
[52]胡光辉.地方政府性债务危机预警及控制研究[D].吉林大学博士论文,2008
[53]黄伯勇.从财政体制的角度析我国乡镇债务问题[J].社会科学研究,2008,(2)：86-88
[54]黄伯勇.乡镇财政透明度对乡镇债务的影响分析[J].现代经济探讨,2008,(10)：48－51
[55]吉洁.我国县乡财政负债现状的实证研究[J].商业研究,2008,(10)：125－129
[56]贾俊雪、郭庆旺、刘晓路.资本性支出分权、公共资本投资构成与经济增长[J].经济研究,2006,(12)：47-58
[57]贾康、白景明.县乡财政解困与财政体制创新[J].经济研究,2002,(2)：3-9
[58]贾中波.乡镇债务状况分析及对策研究——以山东省临沭县为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2005
[59]蒋斌、蒲勇健、饶茜.县级政府财政困境：一个不完全信息动态博弈模型[J].2006,(3)：47-51
[60]蒋瑛.湖南省乡镇政府债务问题研究[D].湖南大学硕士论文,2007
[61]康锋莉、郑一萍.政府支出与经济增长近期文献综述[J].财贸经济,2005,(1)：68-71
[62]类承曜.国债的理论分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002
[63]类承曜.李嘉图等价定理的理论回顾和实证研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2003,(2)：9-13
[64]李冬梅.中国地方政府债务问题研究：兼论中国地方公债的发行[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006
[65]李景耀.中国乡镇债务问题研究[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2007
[66]李海东、唐燕、黄细兵.成本视角下的乡村债务问题分析[J].乡镇经济,2007,(6)：78－80
[67]李梅.乡镇债务的现状、成因和对策——基于江苏A市乡镇债务情况的调查与分析[D].苏州大学MPA专业学位论文,2007
[68]李士梅.公债经济学[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006
[69]李燕华.我国乡镇政府负债的成因[J].统计与决策,2003,(8)：34-35
[70]林国庆.公共债务·地方财政·经济发展——中国地方公共债务问题研究[D].厦门大学博士论文,2003
[71]刘华.公债的经济效应研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004
[72]刘溶沧、马栓友.赤字、国债与经济增长关系的实证分析——兼评积极财政政策是否有挤出效应[J].经济研究,2001,(2)：13－19
[73]刘尚希、于国安.地方政府或有负债：隐匿的财政风险[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002
[74]鲁燕.乡镇债务的产生与根源问题研究——以重庆市为例[D].重庆大学硕士论文,2006
[75]马栓友.积极财政政策的效应评价[J].经济评论,2001,(6)：33-37
[76]马栓友等.国债与宏观经济的动态分析[J].经济研究,2006,(4)：35-46
[77]宓燕.地方政府债务绩效评价指标体系研究[J].经济与管理,2006,(12)：64-67
[78]牛竹梅.中国乡村债务问题研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2007
[79]裴育、欧阳华生.我国地方政府债务风险预警理论分析[J].中国软科学,2007,(3)：110-114,119
[80]沈裕谋.乡镇债务形成机理及合理性研究[D].湖南大学硕士论文,2006
[81]时建龙.国债：“挤出效应”还是“挤进效应”[J].财贸研究,1997,(2)：37-38
[82]宋宜存.乡镇政府债务问题研究[D].苏州大学硕士论文,2005
[83]宋洪远、谢子平、张海阳.乡村债务的规模、结构、风险及效应分析[J].农业经济问题,2004,(6)： 4-16
[84]苏雪燕、刘明兴.乡村非正式关系与村级债务的增长[J].中国农村观察,2006,(6)：50-61
[85]谭秋成.财政考核、制度租金榨取与乡镇债务[J].中国农村观察,2004,(6)：2－13
[86]王华.乡镇债务的成因及化解对策研究——主要以四川省某些乡镇为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2004
[87]王军辉、王淑珍.县乡债务形成的原因及化解对策探析——以河北省保定市部分县乡为例[J].农业经济问题,2005,(10)：65-68
[88]王小利.我国政府公共支出对GDP长期增长效应的动态分析——基于VAR模型的实证研究.统计研究[J],2005,(5)：26-31
[89]王郅强、文宏.我国化解乡镇债务的障碍分析——对黑龙江省H市乡镇政府负债状况的调 查[J].乡镇经济,2006,(1)：57-60
[90]文宏.后农税时代我国乡镇债务问题研究[D].吉林大学硕士论文,2007
[91]文宏、叶勇.化解乡镇债务中的博弈问题研究[J].重庆工学院学报,2006,(10)：29-31
[92]文先明.乡村债务的成因及治理[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4)：45-49
[93]“我国农村财政制度创新与政策选择”课题组.乡镇财政：制度框架与政策改革[J].中国农村经济,2002,(4)：4-10
[94]吴理财、李芝兰.乡镇财政及其改革初探_洪镇调查[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4),13－25
[95]吴业苗.乡村债务的清偿路径与机制[J].农村经济,2005,(11)：111-114
[96]“乡镇财政赤字与债务研究”课题组.乡镇财政赤字与债务研究报告[J].经济研究参考,2002,(78)：2-11
[97]谢虹.地方政府债务风险构成及预警评价模型构建初探[J].现代财经,2007,(7)：63-65
[98]谢子平、王艳敏.乡村公共负债水平与债权结构分析：以江西G县和C县为例[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4)：3844
[99]续竞秦、张林秀、罗仁福.乡镇债务的现状、体制成因及其治理——基于税费改革后对5省50个乡镇的调查[J].现代经济探讨,2010,(1)：60-63
[100]阎坤.中国县乡财政困境分析与对策研究[J].农村·农业·农民,2006,(3)：12-14
[101]尹恒.政府债务妨碍长期经济增长：国际证据[J].统计研究,2006,(1)：29-34
[102]尹恒.政府债务问题研究[M.北京师范大学出版社,2007
[103]袁东.公共债务与经济增长[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2000
[104]詹姆斯.M.布坎南.民主过程中的财政[M].上海：上海三联书店,1992
[105]张德强.乡村债务的合理存量及偿还思路研究[J].农业经济问题,2007,(3)：65-68
[106]张金艳.农村财政体制与乡镇负债研究——以江西省乡镇为例[D].浙江大学博士论文,2003
[107]张雷宝.公债经济学[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007
[108]张治觉.中国政府支出与经济增长：理论和实证研究[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2008
[109]赵志耘.公债经济效应论[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1997
[110]赵志耘、郭庆旺.论公债对总需求的影响,财政研究,1996,(4)：48-52
[111]赵志耘、郭庆旺.论公债融资对经济增长的影响[J].财贸经济,1997,(2)：14-19
[112]郑炎成.浅析县域公共债务对县域居民收入的减量影响——基于湖北省和重庆市X、Y、Z三县的初步调查分析[J].全国商情(经济理论研究),2008,(2)：3-4
[113]朱钢.农村税费改革与乡镇财政缺口[J].中国农村观察,2002,(2)：13-20
[114]朱钢、谭秋成、张军.乡村债务[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006
[115]朱玺.国债政策的经济增长效应研究[D].复旦大学博士论文,2004
[2]Barro R. Federal Deficit Policy and the Effects of Public Debt Shocks[J]. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking,1980,12(4):747-762
[3]Bohnh.The Behavior of U.S.Public Debt and Deficits[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1998, 113(3):949-963
[4]Blanchard O. J. Debt, Deficits and Finite Horizon[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1985, (93): 223-247
[5]Buchanan J.M.Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem.Journal of Political Economy,1976, (84):337-342
[6]Buiter W. H. Public Debt in the USA:How much, How bad and Who pays?[C]. CEPR Discussion Paper,1993, (791)
[7]Cavaco-Silva Anibal. A. Economic Effect of Public Debt[M]. St. Matin's Press Inc,1977
[8]Coats W. L. and Khatkhate D. R. Money supply implications of commercial bank's financing of government debt in developing countries[J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics Statistics,1978, (21): 73-193
[9]Diamond PA. National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model[J]. The American Economic Review, 1965,55(5):1126-1150
[10]Dornbush R. Debt and monetary policy:the policy issues, in G.Calvo and M.King(eds.).The Debt Burden and its Consequences for Monetary Policy[C].MacMillan Press,1998,3-22
[11]Engen Eric M. and R. Glenn Hubbard. Federal Government Debt and Interest Rates: Forthcoming[J]. NBER Macroeconomic Annual,2004
[12]Franz GGovernment Debt as a Generator of Economic Growth[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1957,39(2):183-192.
[13]Graham Fred C. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior: Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1995, (85):1348-1356
[14]Hamilton J. and Marjorie F. On the Limitations of Government Borrowing:A Framework for Empirical Testing[J]. American Economic Review,1986, (76):808-816
[15]Kormendi Roger. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior[J]. American Economic Review,1983,73 (5):994-1010
[16]Kormendi Roger and Philip Meguire. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:Reply and Update[J]. American Economic Review,1990, (80):604-617
[17]Kormendi Roger and Philip Meguire. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:Reply[J]. American Economic Review,1995, (85):1357-1361
[18]LIN Shuanglin. Government Debt and Economic Growth in an Overlapping Generations Model[J]. Southern Economic Journal,2000,66(3):754-763
[19]Modigliani Franco and Arlie G. Sterling. Government Debt, Government Spending and Private-Sector Behavior:A Further Comment[J]. American Economic Review,1990, (80):600-603
[20]Persson M. and Svesson L. Debt, cash flow and inflation incentives:a Swedish example, in GCalvo and M.King(eds.). The Debt Burden and its Consequences for Monetary Policy[C].MacMillan Press,1998,28-62
[21]Thomas Laubach. New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt[R]. Working Paper Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,2003
[22]TsaiLily. The Dangers of Decentralization:Fiscal Management and Informal Institutions in Rural China[C].Paper presented at the conference,2006
[23]Tsung-wu Ho. The government spending and private consumption:a panel integration analysis[J].International Review of Economics and Finance,2001, (10):95-108
[24]安东尼.B.阿特金森等.公共经济学[M].上海：上海三联书店,1992
[25]陈东平、陈彩虹、潘军昌.合约视角下的乡村债务问题解析[J].贵州社会科学,2009,(9)：10-15
[26]陈共、类承曜.关于我国债务负担率及债务依存度的考察[J].财政研究,2002,(11)：2-6
[27]陈永正等.乡级财政：扩张冲动与自筹制度[J].经济学家,2004,(2)：104-108
[28]陈志勇.公债学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
[29]大卫·李嘉图.李嘉图著作和通信集[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981
[30]丹尼斯·缪勒.公共选择[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992
[31]邓大才.乡村社区过度负债的体制探源[J].北京社会科学,1999,(2)：131-134
[32]邓大才.乡镇债务为何屡减屡增?[J].南风窗,2002,(2)：34-35
[33]邓大才,乡镇为何愿意借债[J],乡镇经济,2003.2,46－47
[34]董上海.后税费时代乡镇政府职能转变问题研究[J].乡镇经济,2008,(11)：16-19
[35]杜爽.乡村债务规模及风险评估问题初探[J].农村经济,2009,(9)：119-123
[36]段应碧、宋洪远.中国乡村债务问题研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006
[37]樊宝洪.乡镇财政与农村公共产品供给研究[M].北京：中国农业出版社,2007
[38]冯健身.公共债务[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2000
[39]付启敏、朱廷春.乡镇债务形成的原因及其化解对策浅析[J].农村经济,2004,(9)：57-58
[40]付文林、沈坤荣.中国公共支出的规模与结构及其增长效应[J].经济科学,2006,(1)：20-29
[41]高培勇.国债运行机制研究[M].北京务印书馆,1995
[42]高培勇.论举借国债的经济作用机制[J].经济研究,1996,(9)：24-31
[43]宫晓霞.取消农业税对乡镇财政的影响及对策[J].中央财经大学学报,2005,(8)：9－11
[44]郭红玉.国债宏观经济效应研究[M].京：对外经济贸易大学出版社,2005
[45]郭宏宇、吕风勇.我国国债的财富效应探析——1985－2002年间我国国债规模对消费需求影响的实证研究[J].财贸研究,2006,(1)：53-58
[46]郭进伟.公共支出结构与经济发展绩效[D].吉林大学博士论文,2007
[47]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.财政投资的经济增长效应：实证分析[J].财贸经济,2005,(4)：40-47
[48]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.政府公共资本投资的长期经济增长效应[J].经济研究,2006,(7)：29-40
[49]郭庆旺、吕冰洋、张德勇.财政支出结构与经济增长[J].经济理论与经济管理,2003,(11)：5-12
[50]郭晓东.乡镇债务危机的形成机理、症结及治理[J].南京经济学院学报,2003,(1)：58-62
[51]韩俊.中国县乡公共财政危机：表现、成因、影响与治理——湖北省襄阳县、河南省鄢陵县、江西省泰和县案例研究[J].公共管理评论,2005,3：60-72
[52]胡光辉.地方政府性债务危机预警及控制研究[D].吉林大学博士论文,2008
[53]黄伯勇.从财政体制的角度析我国乡镇债务问题[J].社会科学研究,2008,(2)：86-88
[54]黄伯勇.乡镇财政透明度对乡镇债务的影响分析[J].现代经济探讨,2008,(10)：48－51
[55]吉洁.我国县乡财政负债现状的实证研究[J].商业研究,2008,(10)：125－129
[56]贾俊雪、郭庆旺、刘晓路.资本性支出分权、公共资本投资构成与经济增长[J].经济研究,2006,(12)：47-58
[57]贾康、白景明.县乡财政解困与财政体制创新[J].经济研究,2002,(2)：3-9
[58]贾中波.乡镇债务状况分析及对策研究——以山东省临沭县为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2005
[59]蒋斌、蒲勇健、饶茜.县级政府财政困境：一个不完全信息动态博弈模型[J].2006,(3)：47-51
[60]蒋瑛.湖南省乡镇政府债务问题研究[D].湖南大学硕士论文,2007
[61]康锋莉、郑一萍.政府支出与经济增长近期文献综述[J].财贸经济,2005,(1)：68-71
[62]类承曜.国债的理论分析[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002
[63]类承曜.李嘉图等价定理的理论回顾和实证研究[J].中央财经大学学报,2003,(2)：9-13
[64]李冬梅.中国地方政府债务问题研究：兼论中国地方公债的发行[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006
[65]李景耀.中国乡镇债务问题研究[M].重庆：重庆出版社,2007
[66]李海东、唐燕、黄细兵.成本视角下的乡村债务问题分析[J].乡镇经济,2007,(6)：78－80
[67]李梅.乡镇债务的现状、成因和对策——基于江苏A市乡镇债务情况的调查与分析[D].苏州大学MPA专业学位论文,2007
[68]李士梅.公债经济学[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006
[69]李燕华.我国乡镇政府负债的成因[J].统计与决策,2003,(8)：34-35
[70]林国庆.公共债务·地方财政·经济发展——中国地方公共债务问题研究[D].厦门大学博士论文,2003
[71]刘华.公债的经济效应研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004
[72]刘溶沧、马栓友.赤字、国债与经济增长关系的实证分析——兼评积极财政政策是否有挤出效应[J].经济研究,2001,(2)：13－19
[73]刘尚希、于国安.地方政府或有负债：隐匿的财政风险[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002
[74]鲁燕.乡镇债务的产生与根源问题研究——以重庆市为例[D].重庆大学硕士论文,2006
[75]马栓友.积极财政政策的效应评价[J].经济评论,2001,(6)：33-37
[76]马栓友等.国债与宏观经济的动态分析[J].经济研究,2006,(4)：35-46
[77]宓燕.地方政府债务绩效评价指标体系研究[J].经济与管理,2006,(12)：64-67
[78]牛竹梅.中国乡村债务问题研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2007
[79]裴育、欧阳华生.我国地方政府债务风险预警理论分析[J].中国软科学,2007,(3)：110-114,119
[80]沈裕谋.乡镇债务形成机理及合理性研究[D].湖南大学硕士论文,2006
[81]时建龙.国债：“挤出效应”还是“挤进效应”[J].财贸研究,1997,(2)：37-38
[82]宋宜存.乡镇政府债务问题研究[D].苏州大学硕士论文,2005
[83]宋洪远、谢子平、张海阳.乡村债务的规模、结构、风险及效应分析[J].农业经济问题,2004,(6)： 4-16
[84]苏雪燕、刘明兴.乡村非正式关系与村级债务的增长[J].中国农村观察,2006,(6)：50-61
[85]谭秋成.财政考核、制度租金榨取与乡镇债务[J].中国农村观察,2004,(6)：2－13
[86]王华.乡镇债务的成因及化解对策研究——主要以四川省某些乡镇为例[D].中国农业大学硕士论文,2004
[87]王军辉、王淑珍.县乡债务形成的原因及化解对策探析——以河北省保定市部分县乡为例[J].农业经济问题,2005,(10)：65-68
[88]王小利.我国政府公共支出对GDP长期增长效应的动态分析——基于VAR模型的实证研究.统计研究[J],2005,(5)：26-31
[89]王郅强、文宏.我国化解乡镇债务的障碍分析——对黑龙江省H市乡镇政府负债状况的调 查[J].乡镇经济,2006,(1)：57-60
[90]文宏.后农税时代我国乡镇债务问题研究[D].吉林大学硕士论文,2007
[91]文宏、叶勇.化解乡镇债务中的博弈问题研究[J].重庆工学院学报,2006,(10)：29-31
[92]文先明.乡村债务的成因及治理[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4)：45-49
[93]“我国农村财政制度创新与政策选择”课题组.乡镇财政：制度框架与政策改革[J].中国农村经济,2002,(4)：4-10
[94]吴理财、李芝兰.乡镇财政及其改革初探_洪镇调查[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4),13－25
[95]吴业苗.乡村债务的清偿路径与机制[J].农村经济,2005,(11)：111-114
[96]“乡镇财政赤字与债务研究”课题组.乡镇财政赤字与债务研究报告[J].经济研究参考,2002,(78)：2-11
[97]谢虹.地方政府债务风险构成及预警评价模型构建初探[J].现代财经,2007,(7)：63-65
[98]谢子平、王艳敏.乡村公共负债水平与债权结构分析：以江西G县和C县为例[J].中国农村观察,2003,(4)：3844
[99]续竞秦、张林秀、罗仁福.乡镇债务的现状、体制成因及其治理——基于税费改革后对5省50个乡镇的调查[J].现代经济探讨,2010,(1)：60-63
[100]阎坤.中国县乡财政困境分析与对策研究[J].农村·农业·农民,2006,(3)：12-14
[101]尹恒.政府债务妨碍长期经济增长：国际证据[J].统计研究,2006,(1)：29-34
[102]尹恒.政府债务问题研究[M.北京师范大学出版社,2007
[103]袁东.公共债务与经济增长[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2000
[104]詹姆斯.M.布坎南.民主过程中的财政[M].上海：上海三联书店,1992
[105]张德强.乡村债务的合理存量及偿还思路研究[J].农业经济问题,2007,(3)：65-68
[106]张金艳.农村财政体制与乡镇负债研究——以江西省乡镇为例[D].浙江大学博士论文,2003
[107]张雷宝.公债经济学[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2007
[108]张治觉.中国政府支出与经济增长：理论和实证研究[M].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2008
[109]赵志耘.公债经济效应论[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1997
[110]赵志耘、郭庆旺.论公债对总需求的影响,财政研究,1996,(4)：48-52
[111]赵志耘、郭庆旺.论公债融资对经济增长的影响[J].财贸经济,1997,(2)：14-19
[112]郑炎成.浅析县域公共债务对县域居民收入的减量影响——基于湖北省和重庆市X、Y、Z三县的初步调查分析[J].全国商情(经济理论研究),2008,(2)：3-4
[113]朱钢.农村税费改革与乡镇财政缺口[J].中国农村观察,2002,(2)：13-20
[114]朱钢、谭秋成、张军.乡村债务[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006
[115]朱玺.国债政策的经济增长效应研究[D].复旦大学博士论文,2004
© 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 |