Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28322
標題: 不同類別的公共投資對所得分配之影響 -分量迴歸模型的應用
The Impact of Different Category Public Investment on Income Distribution-An Application of Quantile Regression Model
作者: 梁永隆
Liang, Yung-Lung
關鍵字: Quantile regression;分量迴歸;Public investment;Income conditional distribution;Panel data;公共投資;所得條件分配;追蹤資料
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 一、中文部份 朱雲鵬 (1991),「家戶大小與所得分配:1980與1989年台灣實證研究」,『中 國經濟學會年會論文集』,287-307。 朱雲鵬與陳昭南 (1988),「臺灣所得分配變動趨勢的分析」,『迎接挑戰開創新政:一次海內外知識份子的大辯論』,227-249。 吳蕙如 (1990),「政府公共投資與製造業生產力之關係-理論與實證」,國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。 尚瑞國(1992),「政府支出行為與經濟成長之研究」,國立政治大學經濟研究所碩士論文。 林胤豪(1999),「所得與政府教育及國防支出之長期關係分析」國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。 林維徵 (2008),「台灣家戶的所得分配:分量迴歸之擬真分析」,國立暨南大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。 林金源 (1995),「家庭結構變化對台灣所得分配的影響」,『台灣經濟學會年會論文集』,161-178。 徐宜霙 (1996),「財政支出對經濟成長之影響的研究-台灣之實證經驗」,國立政治大學財政研究所碩士論文。 曹添旺與張植榕 (1998),「家庭屬性與家庭所得-台灣的實證研究」,『台灣經濟學會年會論文集』,211-240。 馮智捷 (2000),「臺灣公共投資對私部門經濟影響之研究」,國立台北大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。 黃台心 (2005) ,計量經濟學 (Principles of Econometrics),台北:雙葉書廊。 蔡吉源(1997),「社會福利支出對臺灣總體經濟的影響」,台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。 魏春玉 (1999),「台灣公共投資對個人所得及服務業影響之研究」,國立中興大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。 二、英文部份 Abrevaya, J. (2001), “The Effects of Demographics and Maternal Behavior on the Distribution of Birth Outcomes,” Empirical Economics, 26: 247-257. Agnew, J. and S. Corbridge (1995), Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy, London: Routledge. Alesina, A. and D. Rodrik, (1994), “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109:465-490. Aschauer, D. A. (1989), “Is Public Expenditure Productive,” Journal of Monetary Economic, 23: 177-200. Barkin, D. (1999), Global Economy, Metropolitan Dynamics and Urban Policies in Mexico, Cities 16: 149-170. Barro, R. (1990), “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Political Economy 98: S103-S125. Boldrin, M. and F. Canova (2001), “Inequality and Convergence in Europe’s Regions: Reconsidering European Regional Policies,” Economic Policy, 16: 207–253. Buchinsky, M.(1995), “Estimating the Asymptotic Covariance Matrix for Quantile Regression Models: A Monte Carlo Study,” Journal of Econometrics, 68: 303-338. Costa-i-Font, J. and E. Rodriguez-Qreggia (2005), “Is the Impact of Public Inevstment Neutral Across the Regional Income Distribution? Evidence from Mexico,” Economic Geography, 81(3): 305-322. Darby, M. (1979), Effects of Social Security on Income and the Capital Stock, Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute Publisher. Duffy-Deno, K. T. and R. W. Eberts (1991), “Public Infrastructure and Regional Economic Development: A Simultaneous Equations Approach,” Journal of Urban Economics, 30: 329-343. Evans, P and G. Karras (1994),“Is Government Capital Productivity? Evidences from a Panel of Seven Countries,”Journal of Macroeconomics, 16: 271-279. Gramlich, E. (1994), “Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay,” Journal of Economic Literature, 32: 1176–1196. Hansen, N. M. (1965), “The Structure and Determinants of Local Public Investment Expenditures,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 47: 150–162. Hanson, G. H. (1997),“Increasing Returns, Trade, and the Regional Structure of Wages,”Economic Journal, 107: 113-133. Hanson, G. H. (1998),“Regional Adjustment to Trade Liberalization,”Regional Science and Urban Economics, 28: 419-444. International Monetary Fund (1986), A Manual on Government Financial Statistics, Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund. International Monetary Fund (2008), Government Finance Statistics, Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund. Koenker, R. and G. Bassett (1978), “Regression Quantiles,” Econometrica, 46: 33-50. Koenker, R. and K. F. Hallock (2001), “Quantile Regression,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15: 143-156. Lynde, C. and J. Richmond (1992), “The Role of Public Capital in Production,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 72: 37-44. Melly (2005), “Decomposition of Differences in distribution using quantile regression,” Labour Economics, 12: 577-590. Mesa-Lago, C. (1997), “Social Welfare Reform in the Context of Economic-Political Liberalization: Latin American Cases,” World Development, 25:497-517. Munnell, A. (1990a), “Why Has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment,” New England Economic Review, January-February: 3-22. Munnell, A. (1990b), “How Does Public Infrastructure Affect Regional Economic Performance?” New England Economic Review, Septemper-October, 11-32. Nijkamp, P. (1986), “Infrastructure and Reginal Development: A Multidimensional Policy Analysis,” Empirical Economics, 11: 11-14. Perotti, R. (1996), “Growth, Income Distribution and Democracy: What the Data Say,” Journal of Economic Growth, 1:149-187. Sala-i-Martin, X. (1997), “Transfers, Social Safety Nets, and Economic Growth,” IMF Staff Papers, 44:81-102. Scott, A. J. (1998), Regions and The World Economy: The Coming Shape of Global Production, Competition and Political Order, Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press. Silva, J. A. and R. M. Leichenko (2004), “Regional Income Inequality and International Trade,” Economic Geography, 80: 261-286. Solow, R. M. (1956), “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70: 65-94. Storper, M. (1992), “The Limits to Globalization: Technology Districts and International Trade,” Economic Geography, 68: 60-93. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (2009), “List of Oil-producing States,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states. World Bank (2006), Word Development Indicators, Washington, DC., World Bank.
摘要: 
本文採用1972至2004年共29國的公共投資及所得的追蹤資料(panel data),利用Koenker and Bassett (1978)的分量迴歸法(Quantile Regression,簡稱QR)來探討公共總支出、公共教育支出、公共保健支出、公共福利支出及公共安全支出與所得條件分配之間的關係。使用分量迴歸法可以分析在不同分量(quantile)之條件分配下,上述五個公共投資對於所得水準的影響。本文主要的貢獻在於,以全球的觀點解釋不同類別的公共投資是否影響所得條件分配?各國政府應致力於哪種類別公共投資才可提升所得水準,以降低國際間的不均度?
本研究的實證結果顯示:一、於最低分量(0.1)及最高分量(0.9),公共總支出(落後2期)分別對所得呈現顯著地正向及負向的影響,這表示最低所得水準國家,公共總支出的貢獻較大,有助於提升所得水準。二、於各分量下,公共教育支出,對所得影響效果並不顯著;惟在普通最小平方法下,公共教育支出(當期)對所得呈顯著正向關係,這代表平均而言,公共教育支出對各種所得水準國家皆有貢獻,其能有效提升所得水準。三、於中低(0.25)及中高(0.75)分量以上,公共保健支出(當期)對所得皆呈現負向的影響,惟考量落後效果之公共保健支出對所得之影響並無顯著性。四、於中低分量(0.25)以下及最高分量(0.9),公共福利支出(當期),對所得有顯著的正向影響,惟於中低分量(0.25)以下,公共福利支出(落後2期),對所得則呈現顯著的正向關係,這表示中低所得水準以下及最高所得水準國家,公共福利支出的貢獻較大,可有效提升所得水準。五、於中分量(0.5),公共安全支出(落後2期)對所得呈顯著正向影響,由此可見,於中所得水準國家,公共安全支出的貢獻較大,有助提升所得水準。最後,我們考慮解釋變數可能具有內生性的問題,採用兩階段最小平方法來修正變數內生性的問題,其估計結果均不會改變本文的結論,且支持實證結果的穩健性。

In this paper, we used a panel data set of 29 countries in public investment and income from 1972 to 2004, which employed quantile regression approach (abbreviated QR), based on Koenker and Bassett (1978), to explore the relationship of the total public expenditure, public expenditure on education, public health expenditure, public welfare spending, public safety expenditure with the income conditional distribution. Quantile regression approach can analyze the effects of the above five categories of public investment on income across quantiles in the conditional distribution. The main contribution of this paper is that a global point of view to explain whether the different types of public investment affect the income conditional distribution. In order to reduce international inequality, governments should devote to which categories of public investment that can raise income level.
The empirical results of the paper is showed as follows. First, total public expenditure which has two lags is presented significantly positive and negative effects on income at the lowest quantile (the 0.1 quantile) and the highest quantile (the 0.9 quantile) . This means that total public spending will help raise income level in the minimum income level of countries, which has larger contribution. Second, the effect of public education spending on income is not significant at the 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 0.9 quantiles. However, in the ordinary least squares, current public expenditure on education has significant positive relationship with income. This means that, on average, public expenditure on education to the countries possess the contribution of various income levels, which can effectively enhance the income level. Third, current public health spending has negative effect on income at the 0.25 quantile and the above of the 0.75 quantile. However, consider the lagged effect of public health spending on the income is not significant. Fourth, current expenditure on public welfare has a significant positive impact on income below the 0.25 quantile and the 0.9 quantile. However, the public welfare spending which has two lags is presented significantly positive relationship with income below the 0.25 quantile. This means that public welfare spending has larger contribution to lower and the highest income levels of the countries, which can effectively enhance the income level. Fifth, public safety expenditure which has two lags is presented significantly positive effect with income at the 0.5 quantile. Thus, public safety expenditure has larger contribution to the middle income level of the countries. Finally, we consider the explanatory variables may have endogeneity problem, using a two-stage least squares method to modify the endogenous variables in the problem, the estimated results will not change the conclusions of this article, and the support of the robustness of empirical results.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28322
其他識別: U0005-1901201000284600
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


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