Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28955
標題: 影響所得分配不均之實證分析
Empirical Analysis of Factors Affecting Income Inequality
作者: 李芷蘅
Lee, Chih-Heng
關鍵字: 所得不均
Income inequality
迴歸模型
不均度分解
Regression model
Inequality decomposition
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 一、中文部分 1. 朱雲鵬、林金源(2002),「台灣所得分配之政策探討」,行政院研究發展考核 委員會委託研究報告 2. 吳慧瑛(2003),「二十年來教育發展之經濟評估」,臺灣經濟預測與政策,33: 2,97-130 3. 林金源(1997),「家庭結構變化對台灣所得分配及經濟福利變化的影響」,人 文及社會科學集刊,9:4,39-63 4. 林金源、朱雲鵬(2002),「台灣跨期薪資所得不均度之研究:因素分析法的應用」,經濟論文,30:3,341-361 5. 林金源、朱雲鵬(2003),「移轉所得對台灣所得分配的影響」,人文及社會科學集刊,15:3,501-538 6. 曹添旺(1996),「台灣家庭所得不均度的分解與變化試析,1980~1993」,人文及社會科學集刊,8:2,181-219 7. 曹添旺、陳建良、陳隆華(2006),「國際化對台灣製造業男性工資差異之影響」,人文及社會科學集刊,18:2,343-383 8. 劉瑞文(2001),「產業結構變遷對國內就業與所得分配的影響」,經濟論文叢刊,29:2,202-233 9. 鄭保志、李宜(2010),「台灣政府各項移轉收支的重分配效果比較:1976–2006之全面性與局部性分析」,經濟論文叢刊,38:2,233-288 10. 饒志堅、蔡鈺泰、連子惠、莊文寬、葉芳珠、黃麗妃(2008),「全球化對所得分配影響之研究」,統計專題研究報告,行政院主計處 二、英文部分 1. Aaberge, R., Bjorklund, A., Jantti, M., Pedersen, P. J., Smith, N., and Wennemo, T. (2000), “Unemployment Shocks and Income Distribution: How did the Nordic Countries Fare during their Crises?”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 102, No. 1: 77-99 2. Achdut, Lea (1996), “Income Inequality, Income Composition and Macroeconomic Trends: Israel, 1979-93”, Economica, Vol. 63, No. 250, Supplement: Economic Policy and Income Distribution: S1-S27 3. Agenor, Pierre-Richard (2002), “Does Globalization Hurt the Poor?”, Policy Research Working Paper, the World Bank 4. Aghion, Philippe, Caroli, Eve and Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia (1999), “The Perspective of the New Growth Theories”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, No. 4: 1615-1660 5. Ahluwalia, Montek (1976), “Income Distribution and Development”, American Economic Review, Vol. 66, No. 5: 128–135. 6. Alderson, Arthur S. and Nielsen, Francois (2002), “Globalization and the Great U-Turn: Income Inequality Trends in 16 OECD Countries”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 107, No. 5: 1244–99 7. Atkinson, A. B. and Brandolini, Andrea (2001), “Promise and Pitfalls in the Use of “Secondary” Data-Sets: Income Inequality in OECD Countries as a Case Study ”, Journal of Economic Literature 8. Baltagi, Badi H. (2008), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (4th Edition), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom. 9. Baltagi, Badi H. and Song, Seuck Heun (2006), “Unbalanced Panel Data: A Survey”, Statistical Papers, 47: 493-523 10. Barro, Robert J. (2000), “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, 5: 5–32 11. Basu, Parantap and Guariglia, Alessandra (2007), “Foreign Direct Investment, Inequality, and Growth”, Journal of Macroeconomics, 29: 824–839 12. Becker, Gary S. and Chiswick, Barry R. (1966), “Education and the Distribution of Earnings”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 56, No. 1/2: 358-369 13. Becker, Gary S (1975), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research 14. Chintrakarn, Pandej, Herzer, Dierk, and Nunnenkamp, Peter (2011), “FDI and Income Inequality: Evidence from A Panel of U.S. States”, Economic Inquiry 15. Chiswick, Barry R. (1971), “Earnings Inequality and Economic Development”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 85, No. 1: 21-39 16. Choi, Changkyu (2006), “Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Domestic Income Inequality?”, Applied Economics Letters, 13, 12:811-814 17. De Gregorio, Jose and Lee, Jong-wha (2002), “Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence from Cross-Country Data”, Review of Income and Wealth, Ser. 48, No. 3 18. Galor, Oded and Tsiddon, Daniel (1997), “Technological Progress, Mobility, and Economic Growth”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 3: 363-382 19. Feenstra, Robert C. and Hanson, Gordon H. (1997), “Foreign Direct Investment and Relative Wages: Evidence from Mexico’s Maquiladoras”, Journal of International Economics, 42: 371–393 20. Lerman, Robert I. and Yitzhaki, Shlomo (1985), “Income Inequality Effects by Income Source: A New Approach and Applications to the United States”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 67, No. 1: 151-156 21. IMF (2007), “Globalization and Inequality”, World Economic Outlook 22. Jenkins, Stephen P. (1995), “Accounting for Inequality Trends: Decomposition Analyses for the UK, 1971- 86”, Economica, Vol. 62, No. 245: 29-63 23. Kaya, Ezgi and Senesen, Umit (2010), “Gini Decomposition by Gender: Turkish Case”, Brussels Economic Review, Vol. 53, Issue 1: 59-83 24. Knight, J.B. and Sabot, R. H. (1983), “Educational Expansion and the Kuznets Effect”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 73, No. 5: 1132-1136 25. Kuznets, Simon (1955), “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 45, No. 1: 1-28 26. Lindert, Peter H. and Williamson, Jeffrey G. (2003), Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?, Bordo, Michael D., Taylor, Alan M., and Williamson, Jeffrey G. (eds), Globalization in Historical Perspective, University of Chicago Press 27. Martins, Pedro S. and Pereira, Pedro T. (2004), “Does Education Reduce Wage Inequality? Quantile Regression Evidence from 16 Countries”, Labour Economics, 11: 355– 371 28. Mincer, Jacob A. (1974), Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, Columbia University Press 29. OECD (2011), “An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings”, Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, OECD report 30. Paul, Satya (2004), “Income Sources Effects on Inequality”, Journal of Development Economics 73: 435–451 31. Podder, Nripesh And Chatterjee, Srikanta (2002), “Sharing the National Cake in Post Reform New Zealand: Income Inequality Trends in Terms of Income Sources”, Journal of Public Economics 86: 1–27 32. Shorrocks, A. F. (1980), “The Class of Additively Decomposable Inequality Measures”, Econometrica, Vol. 48, No. 3: 613-625 33. Stolper, Wolfgang F. and Samuelson, Paul A. (1941), “Protection and Real Wages”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1:58-73 34. Sullivan, Dennis and Smeeding, Timothy (1997), “Educational Attainment and Earnings Inequality in Eight Nations”, Luxembourg Income Study, Working Paper No. 164 35. Tsai, Pan-long (1995), “Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality: Further Evidence”, World Development, Vol. 23, No. 3:469-483 36. Wood, Adrian (1994), North-South Trade, Employment, and Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World, Oxford: Clarendon Press 37. Wood, Adrian (1997), “Openness and Wage Inequality in Developing Countries: The Latin American Challenge to East Asian Conventional Wisdom”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol.11, No. 1: 33-57
摘要: 本文採用全球所得不均的迴歸模型與台灣家戶所得不均的不均度分解法,藉由全球總體與台灣家戶個體資料,綜合分析影響台灣所得不均的因素。全球迴歸結果顯示貿易全球化是造成所得不均的因子,對開發中國家的影響大於對已開發國家的影響;而教育年數、初等教育、中等教育與教育不均都是不均化因子;GDP的走勢符合Kuznets的理論,但農業部門勞動力比重的影響則不顯著。 台灣所得來源拆解,產業主所得對整體不均的貢獻度,多數時間大於受雇人員報酬的貢獻度,主要所得與移轉性收入所得類別都是不均化的因子,移轉性支出類別則為均化因子,對私人移轉性支出與社會保險支出是均化功能最強的兩項移轉支出,稅負移轉支出中,綜合所得稅的均化功能最佳,房屋地價稅均化功能低且持續減弱中。 當依戶長教育程度的不均度進行分解,國小以下群組的家戶,組內所得不均度最高,國中與高中職兩個群組的家戶,組內所得不均度最低,教育程度群組間的不均度造成整體所得不均上升。台灣家庭型態中的單人家庭與夫婦二人家庭有最高的組內不均度,特別是單人家庭的就業情況表示可能有很大比例為無就業者的家庭,核心家庭與三代同堂家庭的平均就業人數最高,有較高的所得收入與較低的組內所得不均。
Through the global macro data and micro income data of Taiwan household, we construct world panel regression and use inequality decomposition method, to analyze the factors which affect income inequality. The regression result shows that trade globalization is an inequalizing factor, and it has larger influence to developing countries than to developed countries. Education year, primary, secondary education and education inequality all worsen income inequality. Although the trend of GDP fits Kuznets’ theory, the labor force percentage of agriculture sector is not significant. The decomposition of Taiwan income inequality by income source indicates that the contribution from entrepreneurial income to inequality is larger than it from compensation of employees. The two most powerful transfer expenditures are transfer expenditure to private and social insurance expenditure. Income tax has the highest effect to reduce inequality among all taxes. The equalizing effect of house tax and land value tax are low and decrease over time. While decomposing income inequality by household head’s education level, we find that below elementary school level has the highest within group income inequality. Primary and secondary school level have the lowest within group income inequality. Between group effect causes the overall inequality to increase. When decomposing income inequality by family type, single-person family and husband-wife family have the highest within group income inequality, and the former’s employment condition implies there is a large percentage of unemployment in this kind of family. Nuclear family and three-generation family have the highest average employment number of family members, so they have higher average income and lower within group inequality.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28955
其他識別: U0005-2908201216264800
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2908201216264800
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.