我国地方政府支出与经济增长的关系研究
|
摘要
2008年底以次贷危机为爆点的全球性经济衰退,对中国的经济发展形成了极大的冲击,为此中国政府重启了双积极的财政政策和货币政策,并出台了规模空前的政府投资和经济刺激计划。积极财政政策的实施其效果是不容怀疑的,中国经济迅速复苏,并表现出强劲的增长势头。但是,基于财政支出的内容依旧更多的属于外延式扩张,如集中于基础设施建设环节且主要流向国有经济主导部门,而较少的涉及福利保障、消费刺激和技术进步及结构调整上,故而也有不同的声音聚焦在财政政策的有效性与持续性上,更多的关注政府支出的增加能否有效的传导到私人投资和消费环节,从而在完成总量刺激的同时,实现增长方式的扭转和增长质量的改善。
财政政策的增长效应是如何实现与传导的,政府该如何借助于支出的规模和结构优化提高财政调节的效率并形成可持续的增长路径,围绕这一问题而展开的研究早已从“政府是否该干预经济”衍生到“政府如何干预经济”,财政支出变化对经济的影响分析也从理论争论和探讨发展到实证的检验和判别。并集中于不同体制、政策和发展条件下,财政政策有效性的度量。将之与现阶段的中国实际相结合,则更加凸显出其价值与意义。大量逆周期财政政策的实施确实有效的刺激了经济增长,但是积极财政政策的实施在保证增长的同时,能否有效的传导到私人消费和投资环节?经济刺激计划能够在一个长时期内发挥作用并对中国经济的繁荣提供长久动力吗?本文正是由此出发,从增长、投资和消费三个途径对我国地方政府支出的增长效应进行再检验,并考察地方政府行为的典型特征如何反映在效应的传递上,从而对财政政策的有效性和持续性给出经验的判定。
具体的,本文在第一、二章中对政府支出增长效应的相关研究和基础理论进行了梳理,并借助于AD-AS以及IS-LM分析框架,刻画了政府支出的变化对增长、投资、消费和就业等经济系统的各方面产生的冲击,进而形成了政府支出对经济增长的影响路径。此后,在此基础上,在第三章中对地方政府支出与经济增长的总量效应进行了实证测度,结果证实了地方政府财政调节的主体地位,这也为本文将研究对象集中在省际政府提供了依据,但是,地方政府支出的增长效应呈现出显著的时变特征,更重要的是,政府支出不同构成对经济的作用存在着明显的差异,政府生产性支出与政府投资的增加对经济的刺激作用更为突出,在当前以区域经济增长为核心的政府考核和绩效评价体系下,政府的投资饥渴和投资冲动、政府支出结构偏重于生产性支出和微观经济领域而忽视福利与公共品提供,就不难解释了,投资性支出的增加的确能产生更显著的增长成绩,结构矛盾正是源自于不同层级政府间激励机制的扭曲。
第四章则主要集中在政府支出与私人投资的关系研究上,脉冲响应分析的结果实际否定了财政支出对私人投资的长期有效性,虽然,在短期内,政府支出的增加确实能够促进私人投资的上升,但是,这样的关系随着时间的推移将发生逆转,长期内,并没有呈现出明显的挤入效应。同时,中央投资的增加也无法显著的影响到私人投资的变化上。这部分的说明了这样一个事实,经济刺激计划更多的属于对私人投资和民营经济的替代,积极财政政策的实施仅通过产生出直接的社会需求而促进增长,结合我国产业和部门经济的结构差异,或许,这形成了两种循环,国有经济主导的行业内部,政府支出与投资的增加形成了强烈的产业需求,并通过产业链传导,微弱的反映在传统的竞争性领域和民营经济行业中,也一定程度促进了私人投资的上升,但是,两个循环的相对独立、有限货币供给条件下稀缺性上升导致的资金成本增加,却会在更长的时期挤出私人投资,进而形成“热者更热”与“冷者愈冷”的现实。如果再考虑到地方政府的投资偏好及国有资本对传统和下游产业的介入,这种挤出将在更短时间内发生。积极财政政策的实施实际恶化了结构失衡的格局。
在将视野从投资转移到消费环节,政府支出的增加能否改善消费水平,积极财政政策的实施又能够对国内消费市场的扩大和消费驱动机制的形成提供帮助吗?我们在第五章中进行了分析。基于模型的灵活性,我们在构建区域消费的面板模型时,导入了度量政府行为特征的控制变量。并确实得到了显著的结果。政府支出相对规模的差异,即大政府与小政府模式,以及政府支出的约束强弱,显著影响着财政政策对消费的传导与效果。总体看来,大政府模式下,财政政策对居民消费的挤入效应更为突出,同时地方政府的生产性支出对居民消费存在挤出效应,而非生产性支出的作用则正好相反。因此非生产性支出与转移支付的增加,确实能够对消费起到积极的促进作用。
但是,这一切必须有赖于政府支出约束机制的建设与监督机制的完善。实证结果实际展现了这样一副情景,随着省际政府职能转变及政府边界的清晰化,政府将主要精力投向公共服务建设,一个小政府的财政模式似乎是更为高效,但如果不辅之于有效的监督与制约机制,预算外资金比重的上升,地方政府资金支配能力的自主性得到强化,政府收支体系的扭曲程度进一步加深,财政政策也许得到相反的结论：财政支出的增加反而抑制了消费的增长。
最后,在对地方政府支出的增长效应完成初步度量后,我们在第六章还从效率的角度对我国省际政府的财政调节智慧与政府支出相对效率进行了分析。结合当前地方政府行为特征和目标诉求,我们调整了衡量政府效率时往往偏重于公共服务职能与公共品提供的能力差异的研究方向,重构了政府支出的投入产出核算体系,将政府支出效率的衡量更多的集中于调控目标的实现。结果表明,我国地方政府的支出效率确实存在着较大的差异,且具有很大的改善空间。从这个角度将,将目光更多的集中在效率的改善,而非支出规模的调节上,是未来财政政策优化的重要方向。
同时,分区域的政府效率考察也揭示了我国东、中、西部政府效率差异确实存在明显的区域特征。特别的是,结果展示出中部地区存在一个持续的效率恶化过程。在此基础上,针对政府效率的变迁与影响进行了进一步的分析。结论证实了“小政府更具效率”的假说,但有趣的是,在西部地区,更大规模的政府支出及政府干预的进一步增强,似乎对经济增长及政府效率提高能够产生积极影响。不同的经济发展水平条件下,政府效率的改善存在截然不同的路径。
At the end of 2008, a global economic recession which was triggered by submortgage credit crisis, brought about a great impact on the economic development in china. In response to this, Chinese government restarted the proactive fiscal policy and monetary policies, and worked out an unprecedented scale of government investment and economic stimulus package. The effect of the proactive fiscal policy is indubitable, and the evidence is china's rapid economic recovery and the strong growth momentum. However, the fiscal expenditure is still relaying on the expansion, such as focusing on the construction of infrastructure. And most of the expenditure goes to the leading state-owned companies, barely to the departments of welfare assurance, consumption simulating, technique improving or the adjustment of economic structure. Therefore, some people are concerning about the effect and continuity of the fiscal expenditure, which is, whether the increasing of the fiscal expenditure can bring about more private investments and consumptions, both adjust the mode and improve the quality of the growth along with the quantity raising.
How does the fiscal expenditure cause the growth? What should the government do in order to strengthen the efficiency of the adjustment and to form a continuous path of growth, by controlling the size and the structure of the expenditure? There has been a great many studies around these two questions, from whether the governmnent should do it to how to do it. And the research on the contributions of fiscal expenditure to economic growth varies from theoretical arguments to empirical analysis, focusing on the measurement of the effect under different conditions, such as different systems or policies, and comparing it with the current conditions in China. Studies show that anti-circle expenditure have a positive effect on the economic growth, but it can also bring about problems like unbalanced structure, the gaps in revenue allocation and too much relay on the investments and exports, which harms both the stability and quality of the growth. Can fiscal expenditure solve these problems? Can it cause more private consumptions and investments along with the growth? Can it provide long-term sopports to China's growing economy? Aiming to answer these questions, this paper reexamines the effect of local governments' expenditure on economic growth from three different ways, including the increasing, investments and consumptions. Also this paper tries to judge the efficiency and stability of fiscal expenditure by studying the impact of local governments' behavior on other growing paths.
Specificly, based on other researches on the growing effect of fiscal expenditure, Chapter Three provides a totally measurement of the expenditure and economic growth. Results show that local governments's fiscal expenditure has a leading position, which explains why the writer chooses governments in province level as the objects of this study. However, the growing effect of fiscal expenditure shows time-varying characteristics. Moreover, different kinds of fiscal expenditure differ in the impact. Since the expenditure in producing and investing fields has a stronger effect on the economic growth, it won't be difficult to understand why the governments are longing for investments and most expenditure goes to production and microecnomic fields rather than welfare and public goods under today's judging system. Therefore, the conflict in the structure results in the distort of judging system between different levels of local governments.
Chapter Four focuses on the relationship between the fiscal expenditure and private investments, and the result of impulse response analysis actually denies the long-term effect of the former to the latter. The increase in fiscal expenditure can speed up the raising in private investments in a short term, though, the relationship will turn around as time goes by. There isn't obvious Crowding-In Effects in the long term. In the meantime, central investments cannot bring about more private investments. The conclusion is that the stimulating plans in economy is more or less the replacement of private investments and nongovernmental economy, and positive fiscal expenditure can only cause the growth in economy by producing more direct social demands. And thus there have been two circles. One is among the state-owned economy and the other is in the privacy economy. In the first circle the increase in fiscal expenditure and investment creates a strong demand, which passes along the industrial chains to competitive industries, also the privacy economy, and finally causes a weak raise in private investments. Nevertheless, the relativity of these two circles and the increase in interest rates caused by the limit of money supply will crowd out private investments in a long term to form a relatively separate situation. If we bring in the preferences of local governments in investments, along with the interference of national assets to the traditional industries, this Crowd-Out Effect can happen in a rather shorter term. Therefore the positive fiscal expenditure actually worsens the unbalanced structure.
Chapter Five turns to the consumption area and try to answer the following questions. Can fiscal expenditure bring about more consumption, as well as enlarge the national market? Or can it help form the consumption driving system? Due to the flexibility of the model, we add controlling variable, which measures the characteristics of government behavior, to our local consumption model when using panal data, and it works well. The relative differences in the expenditure sizes, called as the Big Government Mode and Small Government Mode, as well as in the restrictions, have a positive impact on the effect of fiscal expenditure to consumption. General speaking, under Big Government mode, the Crowd-in Effect of fiscal expenditure to private consumption is stronger. In the meantime, the Crowd-out Effect of local governments'producing expenditure to private investments can be observed, while the non-producing expenditure works in the opposite way. Therefore, the increase in both non-producing expenditure and payments transfer has a positive contribution to the consumption.
Nevertheless, all of the above base on the building of the restraint system and the supervising department. The empirical study shows that a Small Government Mode seems more useful as the local governments'function turns to public services. However, without proper restraint system and supervising department, the amount of out-budget money will grow, and the distort in the local governments'input-output system will be strengthened, both of which may cause a totally different conclusion.
After all of the above research, in Chapter Six the writer analyzes the relationship between the wisdom of the local governments and the efficiency of the expenditures. According to the characteristics and demands of current local governments'behavior, we rebuild the input-output system of local government's expenditures by focusing the measurement of the expenditure's effiency on the achievement of controlling target, while most former studies put attentions on either the function of public services or the ability to provide enough public goods. Result shows big differences in local governments's expenditure efficiency, as well as great room for improvement. In this way, the optimization of future fiscal expenditure can be realized by improving the efficiency rather than enlarging the size.
Apart from that, the study of governments'efficiency also reveals the local characteristics of governments in different locations. Especially, the efficiency of the governments in the Middle Area is getting worse. Based on this, further study supports the Small Government Mode. But it differs in the West Area, in which the larger the size of the expenditures and the stronger the interference, the better the growth and efficiency of economy. As we can see, there're totally different ways to improve the efficiency while the progress of economy differs.
财政政策的增长效应是如何实现与传导的,政府该如何借助于支出的规模和结构优化提高财政调节的效率并形成可持续的增长路径,围绕这一问题而展开的研究早已从“政府是否该干预经济”衍生到“政府如何干预经济”,财政支出变化对经济的影响分析也从理论争论和探讨发展到实证的检验和判别。并集中于不同体制、政策和发展条件下,财政政策有效性的度量。将之与现阶段的中国实际相结合,则更加凸显出其价值与意义。大量逆周期财政政策的实施确实有效的刺激了经济增长,但是积极财政政策的实施在保证增长的同时,能否有效的传导到私人消费和投资环节?经济刺激计划能够在一个长时期内发挥作用并对中国经济的繁荣提供长久动力吗?本文正是由此出发,从增长、投资和消费三个途径对我国地方政府支出的增长效应进行再检验,并考察地方政府行为的典型特征如何反映在效应的传递上,从而对财政政策的有效性和持续性给出经验的判定。
具体的,本文在第一、二章中对政府支出增长效应的相关研究和基础理论进行了梳理,并借助于AD-AS以及IS-LM分析框架,刻画了政府支出的变化对增长、投资、消费和就业等经济系统的各方面产生的冲击,进而形成了政府支出对经济增长的影响路径。此后,在此基础上,在第三章中对地方政府支出与经济增长的总量效应进行了实证测度,结果证实了地方政府财政调节的主体地位,这也为本文将研究对象集中在省际政府提供了依据,但是,地方政府支出的增长效应呈现出显著的时变特征,更重要的是,政府支出不同构成对经济的作用存在着明显的差异,政府生产性支出与政府投资的增加对经济的刺激作用更为突出,在当前以区域经济增长为核心的政府考核和绩效评价体系下,政府的投资饥渴和投资冲动、政府支出结构偏重于生产性支出和微观经济领域而忽视福利与公共品提供,就不难解释了,投资性支出的增加的确能产生更显著的增长成绩,结构矛盾正是源自于不同层级政府间激励机制的扭曲。
第四章则主要集中在政府支出与私人投资的关系研究上,脉冲响应分析的结果实际否定了财政支出对私人投资的长期有效性,虽然,在短期内,政府支出的增加确实能够促进私人投资的上升,但是,这样的关系随着时间的推移将发生逆转,长期内,并没有呈现出明显的挤入效应。同时,中央投资的增加也无法显著的影响到私人投资的变化上。这部分的说明了这样一个事实,经济刺激计划更多的属于对私人投资和民营经济的替代,积极财政政策的实施仅通过产生出直接的社会需求而促进增长,结合我国产业和部门经济的结构差异,或许,这形成了两种循环,国有经济主导的行业内部,政府支出与投资的增加形成了强烈的产业需求,并通过产业链传导,微弱的反映在传统的竞争性领域和民营经济行业中,也一定程度促进了私人投资的上升,但是,两个循环的相对独立、有限货币供给条件下稀缺性上升导致的资金成本增加,却会在更长的时期挤出私人投资,进而形成“热者更热”与“冷者愈冷”的现实。如果再考虑到地方政府的投资偏好及国有资本对传统和下游产业的介入,这种挤出将在更短时间内发生。积极财政政策的实施实际恶化了结构失衡的格局。
在将视野从投资转移到消费环节,政府支出的增加能否改善消费水平,积极财政政策的实施又能够对国内消费市场的扩大和消费驱动机制的形成提供帮助吗?我们在第五章中进行了分析。基于模型的灵活性,我们在构建区域消费的面板模型时,导入了度量政府行为特征的控制变量。并确实得到了显著的结果。政府支出相对规模的差异,即大政府与小政府模式,以及政府支出的约束强弱,显著影响着财政政策对消费的传导与效果。总体看来,大政府模式下,财政政策对居民消费的挤入效应更为突出,同时地方政府的生产性支出对居民消费存在挤出效应,而非生产性支出的作用则正好相反。因此非生产性支出与转移支付的增加,确实能够对消费起到积极的促进作用。
但是,这一切必须有赖于政府支出约束机制的建设与监督机制的完善。实证结果实际展现了这样一副情景,随着省际政府职能转变及政府边界的清晰化,政府将主要精力投向公共服务建设,一个小政府的财政模式似乎是更为高效,但如果不辅之于有效的监督与制约机制,预算外资金比重的上升,地方政府资金支配能力的自主性得到强化,政府收支体系的扭曲程度进一步加深,财政政策也许得到相反的结论：财政支出的增加反而抑制了消费的增长。
最后,在对地方政府支出的增长效应完成初步度量后,我们在第六章还从效率的角度对我国省际政府的财政调节智慧与政府支出相对效率进行了分析。结合当前地方政府行为特征和目标诉求,我们调整了衡量政府效率时往往偏重于公共服务职能与公共品提供的能力差异的研究方向,重构了政府支出的投入产出核算体系,将政府支出效率的衡量更多的集中于调控目标的实现。结果表明,我国地方政府的支出效率确实存在着较大的差异,且具有很大的改善空间。从这个角度将,将目光更多的集中在效率的改善,而非支出规模的调节上,是未来财政政策优化的重要方向。
同时,分区域的政府效率考察也揭示了我国东、中、西部政府效率差异确实存在明显的区域特征。特别的是,结果展示出中部地区存在一个持续的效率恶化过程。在此基础上,针对政府效率的变迁与影响进行了进一步的分析。结论证实了“小政府更具效率”的假说,但有趣的是,在西部地区,更大规模的政府支出及政府干预的进一步增强,似乎对经济增长及政府效率提高能够产生积极影响。不同的经济发展水平条件下,政府效率的改善存在截然不同的路径。
At the end of 2008, a global economic recession which was triggered by submortgage credit crisis, brought about a great impact on the economic development in china. In response to this, Chinese government restarted the proactive fiscal policy and monetary policies, and worked out an unprecedented scale of government investment and economic stimulus package. The effect of the proactive fiscal policy is indubitable, and the evidence is china's rapid economic recovery and the strong growth momentum. However, the fiscal expenditure is still relaying on the expansion, such as focusing on the construction of infrastructure. And most of the expenditure goes to the leading state-owned companies, barely to the departments of welfare assurance, consumption simulating, technique improving or the adjustment of economic structure. Therefore, some people are concerning about the effect and continuity of the fiscal expenditure, which is, whether the increasing of the fiscal expenditure can bring about more private investments and consumptions, both adjust the mode and improve the quality of the growth along with the quantity raising.
How does the fiscal expenditure cause the growth? What should the government do in order to strengthen the efficiency of the adjustment and to form a continuous path of growth, by controlling the size and the structure of the expenditure? There has been a great many studies around these two questions, from whether the governmnent should do it to how to do it. And the research on the contributions of fiscal expenditure to economic growth varies from theoretical arguments to empirical analysis, focusing on the measurement of the effect under different conditions, such as different systems or policies, and comparing it with the current conditions in China. Studies show that anti-circle expenditure have a positive effect on the economic growth, but it can also bring about problems like unbalanced structure, the gaps in revenue allocation and too much relay on the investments and exports, which harms both the stability and quality of the growth. Can fiscal expenditure solve these problems? Can it cause more private consumptions and investments along with the growth? Can it provide long-term sopports to China's growing economy? Aiming to answer these questions, this paper reexamines the effect of local governments' expenditure on economic growth from three different ways, including the increasing, investments and consumptions. Also this paper tries to judge the efficiency and stability of fiscal expenditure by studying the impact of local governments' behavior on other growing paths.
Specificly, based on other researches on the growing effect of fiscal expenditure, Chapter Three provides a totally measurement of the expenditure and economic growth. Results show that local governments's fiscal expenditure has a leading position, which explains why the writer chooses governments in province level as the objects of this study. However, the growing effect of fiscal expenditure shows time-varying characteristics. Moreover, different kinds of fiscal expenditure differ in the impact. Since the expenditure in producing and investing fields has a stronger effect on the economic growth, it won't be difficult to understand why the governments are longing for investments and most expenditure goes to production and microecnomic fields rather than welfare and public goods under today's judging system. Therefore, the conflict in the structure results in the distort of judging system between different levels of local governments.
Chapter Four focuses on the relationship between the fiscal expenditure and private investments, and the result of impulse response analysis actually denies the long-term effect of the former to the latter. The increase in fiscal expenditure can speed up the raising in private investments in a short term, though, the relationship will turn around as time goes by. There isn't obvious Crowding-In Effects in the long term. In the meantime, central investments cannot bring about more private investments. The conclusion is that the stimulating plans in economy is more or less the replacement of private investments and nongovernmental economy, and positive fiscal expenditure can only cause the growth in economy by producing more direct social demands. And thus there have been two circles. One is among the state-owned economy and the other is in the privacy economy. In the first circle the increase in fiscal expenditure and investment creates a strong demand, which passes along the industrial chains to competitive industries, also the privacy economy, and finally causes a weak raise in private investments. Nevertheless, the relativity of these two circles and the increase in interest rates caused by the limit of money supply will crowd out private investments in a long term to form a relatively separate situation. If we bring in the preferences of local governments in investments, along with the interference of national assets to the traditional industries, this Crowd-Out Effect can happen in a rather shorter term. Therefore the positive fiscal expenditure actually worsens the unbalanced structure.
Chapter Five turns to the consumption area and try to answer the following questions. Can fiscal expenditure bring about more consumption, as well as enlarge the national market? Or can it help form the consumption driving system? Due to the flexibility of the model, we add controlling variable, which measures the characteristics of government behavior, to our local consumption model when using panal data, and it works well. The relative differences in the expenditure sizes, called as the Big Government Mode and Small Government Mode, as well as in the restrictions, have a positive impact on the effect of fiscal expenditure to consumption. General speaking, under Big Government mode, the Crowd-in Effect of fiscal expenditure to private consumption is stronger. In the meantime, the Crowd-out Effect of local governments'producing expenditure to private investments can be observed, while the non-producing expenditure works in the opposite way. Therefore, the increase in both non-producing expenditure and payments transfer has a positive contribution to the consumption.
Nevertheless, all of the above base on the building of the restraint system and the supervising department. The empirical study shows that a Small Government Mode seems more useful as the local governments'function turns to public services. However, without proper restraint system and supervising department, the amount of out-budget money will grow, and the distort in the local governments'input-output system will be strengthened, both of which may cause a totally different conclusion.
After all of the above research, in Chapter Six the writer analyzes the relationship between the wisdom of the local governments and the efficiency of the expenditures. According to the characteristics and demands of current local governments'behavior, we rebuild the input-output system of local government's expenditures by focusing the measurement of the expenditure's effiency on the achievement of controlling target, while most former studies put attentions on either the function of public services or the ability to provide enough public goods. Result shows big differences in local governments's expenditure efficiency, as well as great room for improvement. In this way, the optimization of future fiscal expenditure can be realized by improving the efficiency rather than enlarging the size.
Apart from that, the study of governments'efficiency also reveals the local characteristics of governments in different locations. Especially, the efficiency of the governments in the Middle Area is getting worse. Based on this, further study supports the Small Government Mode. But it differs in the West Area, in which the larger the size of the expenditures and the stronger the interference, the better the growth and efficiency of economy. As we can see, there're totally different ways to improve the efficiency while the progress of economy differs.
引文
①详见刘宁,中国分税制下的地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长[D],辽宁大学,2009
②还有一类针对地方政府支出的研究主要集中在地方政府的支出竞争行为上,并主要考察地方支出的溢出效应、资本流动和垂直竞争,详见Case (1993)及Baicker (2005)等。由于与本文的主旨存在偏离,此处不做过多介绍。
①邹恒甫(2002)认为政府支出中属于生产性抑或非生产性支出取决于该项支出在总支出中的相对稀缺程度,当某项传统意义划分的生产性支出超过最优规模,对经济增长开始表现为负效应时,其生产属性就随之消失了。
①世界银行：《中国：省际支出考察报告》,2007。
②周黎安(2008)将之描述为“强增长、弱发展”,并认为其主要源自委托代理模式中信息不对称和激励机制的扭曲,从而导致地方政府将资源投入强信号领域,而忽视难以量化和体现的公共服务环节。
①杨丹芳,《财政支出经济分析》,上海三联出版社,2001。
①张治觉,《中国政府支出与经济增长》,2008,湖南人民出版社,2002。
①模型的具体推导请参见《economic growth》,robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 2003, MIT compress, P220,
①部分的数据源于新华网208年11月25日的报道《地方政府出台18万亿投资计划,资金来源引关注》。
①本文第一章中已经对政府支出与经济增长关系的研究进行了详尽的介绍,此处不再赘述。
②高铁梅,计量经济分析方法与建模—Eviews应用及实例,2005,清华大学出版社：p353.
①详见张志超、何永江,论政府财政开支的挤出效应[J],财政研究,1997,1
①詹姆斯.D.汉密尔顿,刘明志译,时间序列分析[M],北京,中国社会科学出版社,1999年12月,p378-383.
①对于政府支出的划分,一个更细致的讨论可参见《2007-2008中国地方财政发展研究报告》P22-24,经济科学出版社,2009。
②“凯恩斯效应”的概念正是由此而衍生形成。当政府支出促进了私人消费的增加,就称其存在“凯恩斯效应”。
①陈娟(2008)的研究中,其基于消费量差异而进行的划分实际属于考察不同收入水平下政府行为的影响,而非严格意义上边际消费倾向的不同而产生的变化。
①财政支出的结构差异主要指支出中生产性支出与非生产性支出的相对比例变化。
②财政政策的方向指是扩张的还是收缩的,Bertola and Drazen(1993)、王立勇、刘文革(2009)都发现在不同方向下,政府支出与消费的关系存在差异。
③据刘尚希(2005)的估算,我国地方政府负债高达6万亿人民币。
④2008年开始,部分地区发行了地方政府公债。但是,由于中央财政兜底,因而并不会对地方政府产生债务约束,或者仅形成部分债务约束。
①掠夺之手的概念源自Shleifer and Vishny合著之《the grabbing hand:government pathologies and their cures》(掠夺之手：政府病及其治疗)。
①一部分的研究发现(王宏利,2006；张治觉,2007；张威,2008),地方政府支出中行政事业经费支出的影响与生产性支出和转移支付的影响都不相同,因而支出结构中的两项划分不能刻画支出结构的全部变化。
②由于数据限制,本文的研究并未将西藏及港澳台地区纳入考察体系中,同时将重庆市并入到四川省中。
①高铁梅主编,计量经济分析方法与建模—Eviews应用及实例[M],北京：清华大学出版社,2006：330.
①更详尽的分析请参见陈诗一、张军,中国地方政府财政支出效率研究：1978-2005[J],中国社会科学,2008第4期.
①Musgrave (1959)将政府职能集中在公共服务的提供上,并将之划分为资源配置、收入分配与经济稳定。
②基于“增量解决存量”的发展思路,大量落后及经济欠发达省份政府支出的主要目标仍集中于经济增长,而教育、医疗及交通、通讯等基础设施建设更多的依赖中央政府拨款及专项资金安排,“西部大开发”是一个典型的事例。
③Afonso (2005a、2005b、2008)认为,财政支出存在较强的滞后效应,特别是某些存量因素的影响,可能在一个较长时期内才能够观察到。但考虑到研究的时效性,我们仅采用了滞后一期的处理。
④正向与标准化处理指将所有变量数值向上平移一个单位,同时除以各变量均值使其围绕1波动。
①陈诗一、张军(2008)认为将衡量政府服务的多指标进行简单平均以计算综合指标,具有较为直观的经济含义,而主成份分析等赋权方法缺乏经济合理性。
②由于数据限制,本文的研究并未将西藏及港澳台地区纳入考察体系中,同时将重庆市并入到四川省中。
③由于产出数据采用了滞后一期处理,因而样本中不含2008年。
[1]布朗(Carol V.Brown).公共部门经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[2]陈建宝,戴平生.我国财政支出对经济增长的乘数效应分析[J].厦门大学学报,2008,(5)
[3]陈娟、林龙、叶阿忠.基于分位数回归的中国居民消费研究[J],数量经济技术经济研究,2008,(2).
[4]陈抗、Hillman、Aryel、顾清扬.财政集权与地方政府行为变化-从援助之手到掠夺之手[J].经济学(季刊),2002,(1)
[5]陈浪南、杨子晖.中国政府支出和融资对私人投资的挤出效应的经验研究[J].世界经济,2007, (1)
[6]陈诗一、张军.我国地方政府财政支出效率研究：1978-2005[J].中国社会科学,2008,(4).
[7]陈伟雄.福建省财政支出结构优化与经济增长的实证分析[J].新疆农垦经济,2009,(8)
[8]成园晨.“投资乘数失灵”带来的困惑与思索[J].经济研究,1999, (8)
[9]储德银、闫伟、蒋辉雨.政府支出、收入分配与城乡居民消费的经验分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2009, (5)
[10]楚尔鸣、鲁旭.基于动态面板的地方政府支出对居民消费的挤出效应分析[J].湘潭大学学报(哲社科版),2007, (11)
[11]丛树海、周炜、于宁.共支出绩效评价指标体系的构建[J].财贸经济,2005(3).
[12]董秀良、薛丰慧、吴仁水.中国财政支出对私人投资影响的实证分析[J].当代经济研究,2006,(5)
[13]董直庆、滕建洲.我国财政与经济增长关系：基于Bootstrap仿真方法的实证检验[J]，数量经济技术经济研究,2007,(1)
[14]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).
[15]高大伟、鞠晓峰.地方财政支出结构与经济增长实证研究[J].哈尔滨工程大学学报,2010, (6).
[16]高飞跃、邢风致.我国财政支出结构与经济增长关系的实证分析[J].现代经济信息,2010, (9)
[17]龚六堂、邹恒甫.政府公共开支的增长和波动对经济增长的影响[J].经济学动态,2001, (9).
[18]郭凤花.云南省财政支出与经济增长效应分析[J],经济问题探索,2009, (1)
[19]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.积极财政政策对区域经济增长与差异的影响[J],中国软科学,2005, (7).
[20]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).
[21]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).
[22]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).
[23]郭庆旺、赵志耘.论我国财政赤字的拉动效应[J],财贸经济,2007, (6)
[24]郭亚军、何延芳.我国1994-2001年财政支出状况的综合评价[J].财经研究,2003,(9)
[25]哈耶克.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[26]韩仁月、常世旺、段超.中国省际公共投资对私人投资的动态效应研究[J],财贸研究,2009,(6)
[27]韩远迎.财政支出结构与经济增长的实证分析[J],科技和产业,2007, (2)
[28]何庆光.政府公共投资、经济增长与市场化进程的实证分析[J].统计与决策,2010,(10)
[29]胡东书.经济发展中的中央与地方关系-中国财政制度变迁研究[M],上海：上海三联书店,2001
[30]胡书东.中国财政支出和民间消费需求之间的关系[J].中国社会科学,2002, (6).
[31]贾俊雪、郭庆旺、刘晓路,2006,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)
[32]姜洋、林霞.政府支出与居民消费：总量影响、结构效应和区域差异消费经济[J].消费经济,2009,(5)
[33]寇铁军、周波.政府支出的经济增长效应：1993-2005年间我国省级层面的分解分析[J].财贸经济,2007, (12)
[34]黎友焕、王凯.改革开放30年财政支出与中国经济增长——基于省级面板数据的实证分析[J].华东经济管理,2010, (1).
[35]李春琦、唐哲一.财政支出结构变动对私人消费影响的动态分析--生命周期视角下政府支出结构需要调整的经验证据[J].财经研究,2010,(6).
[36]李广众.政府支出与居民消费：替代还是互补[J].世界经济,2005, (5)
[37]李明雨、武彦民.我国财政支出与长期经济增长的实证分析[J].现代管理科学,2009,(12).
[38]李兴江、于艺.甘肃省财政支出结构优化与经济增长实证分析[J].财会研究,2010,(3)
[39]李泽楷.广东省财政支出与经济增长关系的实证研究——基于1978-2007年时间序列数据的验证[J].特区经济,2010, (2)
[40]梁文凤.财政支出对经济增长影响的实证分析——以陕西省为例[J].兰州商学院学报,2010,(2)
[41]梁文凤、常云昆、许文娟.陕西省财政支出结构对经济增长的效应——基于VAR模型和脉冲响应函数的实证分析[J].西安财经学院学报,2008, (4).
[42]梁学平.关于积极财政政策逐步淡出的问题的探讨[J].山东财政学院学报,2006,(3)
[43]辽宁省财政厅、东北大学联合课题组.财政支出效率综合评价研究报告[J].经济研究参考,2004,(46).
[44]林文珊.财政支出和经济增长的关系——对山东省16市面板数据的实证分析[J].财经视点,2008, (5)
[45]林毅夫、蔡肪,李周,中国的奇迹-发展战略与经济改革[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1994.
[46]刘华、郭凯.地方政府行为、财政支出结构与区域经济增长研究[J]南方金融,2009,(2)
[47]刘华.中国私人投资影响因素的经验分析-兼议传统私人投资理论在中国的适用性[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版),2005, (4)
[48]刘佩玲、苏勇.中国私人投资影响因素的实证研究[J],复旦大学学报,2003,(42-5)
[49]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)
[50]刘尚希、王宇龙.财政政策：从公共投资到公共消费[J].财政与发展,2008,(4).
[51]刘振亚、杨武.最优政府支出结构与平衡增长[J].南开经济研究,2009, (2)
[52]娄洪.长期经济增长中的公共投资政策[J].经济研究,2004,(3).
[53]骆晓强.财政分权与经济增长相关分析[D].浙江大学,2003.
[54]马拴友.政府规模与经济增长：兼论中国财政的最优规模[J].世界经济,2000(11).
[55]马斯格雷夫、布坎南.公共财政与公共选择-两种截然对立的国家观[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[56]毛中根、洪涛.政府消费与经济增长：基于1985-2007年中国省际面板数据的实证分析[J].统计研究,2009,(8)
[57]孟望生、崔萍.经济增长和财政支出结构的关系研究——以辽宁省为例基于协整理论的实证分析[J].集体经济,2009, (9)
[58]欧阳志刚.我国政府支出对经济增长贡献的经验研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2004, (5)
[59]钱颖一.现代经济学与中国经济改革[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[60]申琳、马丹.政府支出与居民消费：消费倾斜渠道与资源撤出渠道[J].世界经济,2007,(11).
[61]石柱鲜、刘俊生、吴泰岳.我国政府支出对居民消费的挤出效应分析[J].学习与探索,2005, (6).
[62]史弗莱·维什尼.掠夺之手-政府病及其治疗[J].北京：中信出版社,2004.
[63]世界银行.中国：省际支出考察报告[R].世界银行,2007.
[64]宋福铁.国债对于私人投资挤出效应的实证研究[J].财经研究,2004,(8)
[65]宋效中、李金玲、赵利民.我国财政支出结构与经济增长的实证分析[J].中国海洋大学学报,2008, (1).
[66]孙长青、赵桂芝、陈菁泉等.长期经济增长与中国财政支出结构优化研究[J].财经问题研究,2004, (12).
[67]田杰棠.近年来财政扩张挤出效应的实证分析[J].财贸研究,2002, (3)
[68]田青、高铁梅.政府支出对居民消费的动态影响研究——基于可变参数模型的实证分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2008,(6)
[69]汪碧瀛、周源.政府投资的经济增长效应测度研究——基于省级面板数据的分析[J].工业技术经济,2009, (11).
[70]汪柱旺、谭安华.基于DEA的财政支出效率评价研究[J].当代财经,2007,(10).
[71]王春元.我国政府财政支出结构与经济增长关系实证分析[J].财经研究,2009,(6).
[72]王海军、胡适耕、张学清.随机内生增长模型中的拥挤性政府支出[J].华中科技大学学报(自然科学版),2005, (1)
[73]王宏利.中国政府支出调控对居民消费的影响[J].世界经济,2006, (10)
[74]王俊海.我国政府支出对消费支出挤出效应的实证分析[J].华侨大学学报(哲学社科学版),2007, (3)
[75]王凯、庞震、潘颖.西部地区财政支出与经济增长——基于省级面板数据的单位根、协整和Granger因果检验的实证分析[J].兰州商学院学报,2010, (10).
[76]王立勇、高伟.财政政策对私人消费非线性效应及其解释[J].世界经济,2009,(9).
[77]王小利、李长青.中国政府公共支出在GDP长期增长中替代效应及互补效应的实证研究[J].数理统计与管理,2006,(3).
[78]王延军.政府支出与居民消费：替代或互补——基于非线性有效消费函数的实证分析[J].经济经纬,2007,(1).
[79]魏权龄.数据包络分析(DEA)[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[80]吴洪鹏、刘璐.挤出还是挤入：公共投资对民间投资的影响[J].世界经济,2007,(2).
[81]吴洪玮、蒋国洲.海南省财政支出结构对经济增长影响的实证分析[J].价值工程,2010, (8)
[82]吴贻林、卢晶.我国公共投资对私人投资影响的经验分析[J].财经问题研究,2008,(3).
[83]夏祥谦.我国财政支出结构的经济增长效应分析[J],现代管理科学,2009,(11).
[84]许先普.政府支出对居民消费的影响——对李嘉图等价之谜的中国经验分析[J].南京审计学院学报,2010, (1).
[85]严成樑、龚六堂.财政支出、税收与长期经济增长[J].经济研究,2009, (6).
[86]杨冠琼、蔡芸.中国地方政府生产率相对有效性的实证研究[J].经济管理,2005,(22).
[87]杨杰.江西财政支出与经济增长关系的实证研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,(3).
[88]杨俊、王燕.积极财政政策与私人投资关系的区域差异：基于中国东、中西部面板数据的检验和分析[J].财经科学,2007,(5).
[89]杨友才.地方财政支出结构与经济增长[J].山东大学学报,2009, (2).
[90]叶小榕、刘燕、杨杰.财政支出与经济增长的关系研究——基于1978-2007年中国省际面板数据的实证分析[J].西部财会,2009, (2).
[91]尹恒、叶海云.政府债务挤出私人投资：国际证据[J].统计研究,2005, (10).
[92]余可.地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长的空间计量分析[J].财经理论与实践,2008, (4)
[93]余可.中国分税制下的地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长[D],西南交通大学,2008
[94]余振乾,、余小方.地方财政科技支出绩效评价指标体系构建及其实施[J].中国软科学,2005,(4).
[95]袁东、王晓悦.关于公债挤出效应理论的几点认识[J].财政研究,2000, (6)
[96]曾令华.近年来的财政政策是否有挤出效应[J].经济研究,2000, (3)
[97]张钢、段澈.我国地方财政支出结构与地方经济增长关系的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006(3).
[98]张海星.公共投资与经济增长的相关分析—中国数据的计量检验[J].财贸经济,2004, (11)
[99]张寒阳.财政支出结构与经济增长关系——基于湖南省的数据分析[J].时代金融,2009, (11)
[100]张龙、贾明德.财政支出与财政收入对经济增长影响的实证分析[J].预测,2009,(1)
[101]张峁、李冰、杨帆.辽宁省财政支出对地区经济增长影响的动态分析[J].科技与管理,2010, (3)
[102]张峁、徐蓓蓓、江栋.地方财政支出对经济增长影响的空间计量分析——辽宁省为例[J].科学决策,2010, (5)
[103]张明喜.地方财政支出结构与地方经济发展的实证研究——基于聚类分析的新视角[J].财经问题研究,2008, (1)
[104]张明喜、陈志勇.促进我国经济增长的最优财政支出规模研究[J].财贸经济,2005,(10).
[105]张威.我国政府支出与居民消费关系研究[D],湖南大学,2008
[106]张雪楠.我国财政支出结构的优化与经济增长[J].现代经济信息,2010, (5)
[107]张志超、何永江.论政府财政开支的挤出效应[J].财政研究,1997,(1).
[108]张治觉、吴定玉.我国政府支出对居民消费产生引致还是挤出效应——基于可变参数模型的分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2007, (5).
[109]赵志耘、吕冰洋.财政赤字的排挤效应：实证分析[J].财贸经济,2005, (7).
[110]郑蝉娟、何先平、杨红梅.湖北省财政支出与经济增长的实证研究——运用面板数据的分析[J].长江大学学报,2008, (1).
[111]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作-兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004,(6).
[112]周然.我国财政支出与经济增长[J].中国经贸导刊,2010, (2)
[113]朱柏铭、祝燕君.财政支出与经济增长关系研究——基于中国1978-2005年数据的验证[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008, (3)
[114]朱玉春、种胜兵.财政支出及其构成与经济增长率关系研究[J].经济科学,2008,(5).
[115]庄子银、邹薇.公共支出能否促进经济增长：中国的经验分析[J].管理世界,2003,(7).
[116]Albert Alesina, SilviaArdagna, Roberto Perotti et.al.Fiscal Policy, Profitand Investment[J].American Economic Review,2002 92,571-589.
[117]Abraham Charnes, William Cooper,Edwardo Rhodes, "Measuring the Efficiency of Decision MakiMichael Farrell," [J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), vol.120, no.3,1957, pp.2532281.
[118]A. Charnes, W.Cooper, E. Rhodesl Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unit s [J] European Journal of Operational Research,1979, (4).
[119]Ahmed, H., Miller, S., M.,1999, Crowding-out and crowding-in effect of the components of government expenditure, [R]. SBDU working paper
[120]Antreas Athanassopoulos, Konstantino Triantis, "Assessing Aggregate Cost Efficiency and the RelatedPolicy Implications for Greek Local Municipalities," IN FOR, vol.36, no.3,1998, pp.66283.
[121]Arrow, K. J., M. Kurz. Public Investment, the rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy[M]. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1970
[122]Aschauer, D., J. Greenwood. Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Policy[R] Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy,1985(23),91-1381 Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
[123]Aschauer, D. Is government spending productive?[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1989 (23).
[124]Bairam Erkin and Ward Bert. The Externality Effect to Government Expenditure on Investment in OECD Countries J. Applied Economics 1993 vol 25.
[125]Barcker, K.J.Kuez, M., Public Inverstment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy[J], John Hopkins Press Baltimore,1970
[126]Barro, R. J. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1991,106 (2):407-443.
[127]Barro, R. J. Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1990 (98).
[128]Barro,Robert J. Determinants of economic growth:A cross-country empirical study,NBER Working Paper,1996,56-98.
[129]Barro. R. J., Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1990,2:407-444
[130]Barro.R. J., Xavier Sala-i-Martin。economic growth[M]. MIT compress, 2003,:220.
[131]Bose, N., Osborn, D., Public expenditure and economic growth:a disaggregated analysis for developing countries, The Manchester School Vol 75 No.5 2007 1463-6786 533-556
[132]C. A. Knox Lovell, "Production Frontier and Productive Efficiency," in H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell.
[133]C. A. K. Lovell,S. S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Producti ve Efficiency, New York:Oxford University Press,1993, pp.3267.
[134]Crain, Susan J., and Jae-Ha Lee.Intraday Volatility in Interest Rate and Foreign Exchange Spot and Futures Markets[J].Joumal of Futures Markets,1995,15: 395-421.
[135]David Bradford, Robert Malt, Wallace Oates, "The Rising Cost of Local Public Services:Some Evidence and Reflections," National Tax Journal, vol.22, no.2, 1969, pp.1852202.
[136]Devarajan, S., Swaroop, V., and Zou, H., The Composition of Public Expenditure and Economic Growth [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1996, 37 (2):313-344.
[137]Devarajan S., Swaroop, v., Zou, H., the composition of public expenditure and economic growth,1996, Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (1996),313-344.
[138]Devereux, M. B., Head, A. C., Lapham, B. J. Monopolistic Competition Increasing Returns, and the Effects of Government Spending [J]. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking,1996 (28).
[139]Easterly William and Rebelo Sergio. Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth An Empirical Investigation J. Journal of Monetary Economics 1993 vol 32.
[140]Engen, E., J. Skinner. Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth [R].NBER Working Paper No,4223,1992.
[141]Evans, P. Government Consumption and Growth[J]. Econmic Inquriy,1997 (35).
[142]Fisher Stanley. The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth J. Journal of Monetary Economics 1993 vol 32.
[143]Ghatak A. and Ghatak S.,1996. Budgetary deficits and Ricardian equivalence:The case of India,1950-1986 Journal of Public Economics 60,267-282.
[144]Graham M. Voss,2002. Public and private investment in the United States and Canada, Economic Modelling Vol.19,641-664
[145]Grier, K., G. Tullock. An Empirical Analysis of Cross2national Economic Growth: 1950-1980 [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1989 (24):259-276.
[146]H Davoodi,H.Zou, Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth:A Cross-Country Study [J] Journal of Urban Economics,199843244-257.
[147]Karras, G. The Optimal Government Size:Further International Evidence on the Productive or Government Services [J]. Economic Inquiry,1996:193-203.
[148]Kumbhakar, S.C. and C.A.K. Lovell,"Stochastic frontier analysis," 2000,New York: Cambridge University Press.
[149]Kaliappa Kalirajan, RicShand, "Frontier Production Functions and Technical Efficiency Measures," Journal of Economic Surveys, vol.13, no.2,1999, pp. 1492172.
[150]Kormendi, R., P. Meguire. Macroeconomic Determinants of Growth:Cross2country Evidence [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1985(16): 141-164.
[151]Kormendi Roger C. and Meguire Philip,1995. Government debt, Government spending, and private2sector Behavior:Reply. The American Economic Review,Vol.85,No.5,1357-1361.
[152]Landau, D. L., Government Expenditure and Economic Growth:A Cross2country Study[J]. Southern Economic Journal,1983,49 (3):783-792.
[153]Levine, R., D. Renelt. A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross2Country Growth Regressions[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:942-963.
[154]Levine Ross and Renelt David. A sensitivity analysis of cross2country growth regressions[J]. The American Economic Review,Vol.82,No.4,942-963.
[155]Lucas, R. E., Jr. On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,22:3-42.
[156]M.J. Farrell. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency [J] Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1957, (3).
[157]Michael Farrell, "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency," Journal of the Roy al S tatistical Society Series A (General), vol.120, no.3,1957, pp 2532281.
[158]Michael Farrell, "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency;" Abraham Charnes, William Cooper,Edwardo Rhodes, "Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unit s," European Journal of Operational Research, vol.2, 1978, pp.4292444.
[159]Mo, P.,H.. government expenditures and economic growth:the supply and demand sides[J]. Oxford working paper,2007.
[160]Musgrave,R. A. Fiscal systems [M]. New Haven and London:Yale University Press,1969.
[161]Oates,W.E., Fiscal Federalism[M]. New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich,1972.
[162]Phillips, A.W., "the relationship between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage in the Unite Kingdom,1861-1957", Economica, November 1958.
[163]R.D. Banker, A. Charnes, W. Cooperl Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in DataEnvelopment Analysis [J] Management Science,1984, (9).
[164]Rafael La Porta, Florencio, Shleifer, Vishny, Legal Determinants of External finance, The Journal of finance,52,1131-1150.
[165]Ram, R., Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1988,54:763-69
[166]Romer, PAUL, M.Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth [J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94:S1002-1037.
[167]S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Producti ve Ef f iciency, New York Oxford University Press,
[168]Samuelson, P. A. The pure theory of public expenditure, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.36, No.4 (Nov.,1954), pp.387-389
[169]Seruvatu, Jayaraman (2001). Determinants of Private Investment in Fiji, Working Paper, Economics Department Reserve Bank of Fiji. Serven L.1998.
[170]Swamy, P. A., Statistcal Inference in Random Coefficient Regression Models[M]. Berlin, Springer2Verlag,1971.
[171]Tiebout, Charles. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure."Journal of Political Economy,1956, (64):416-24.
[172]Weingast, Barry R..The Economic Role of Political Institutions:Market-preserving Federalism and Economic Development.[J] Journal of Law and Economic Organization.,1995, (11):1-31.
[173]Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, V., Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods:Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style[J].Journal of Public Economics,2000.,76:337-68.
②还有一类针对地方政府支出的研究主要集中在地方政府的支出竞争行为上,并主要考察地方支出的溢出效应、资本流动和垂直竞争,详见Case (1993)及Baicker (2005)等。由于与本文的主旨存在偏离,此处不做过多介绍。
①邹恒甫(2002)认为政府支出中属于生产性抑或非生产性支出取决于该项支出在总支出中的相对稀缺程度,当某项传统意义划分的生产性支出超过最优规模,对经济增长开始表现为负效应时,其生产属性就随之消失了。
①世界银行：《中国：省际支出考察报告》,2007。
②周黎安(2008)将之描述为“强增长、弱发展”,并认为其主要源自委托代理模式中信息不对称和激励机制的扭曲,从而导致地方政府将资源投入强信号领域,而忽视难以量化和体现的公共服务环节。
①杨丹芳,《财政支出经济分析》,上海三联出版社,2001。
①张治觉,《中国政府支出与经济增长》,2008,湖南人民出版社,2002。
①模型的具体推导请参见《economic growth》,robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 2003, MIT compress, P220,
①部分的数据源于新华网208年11月25日的报道《地方政府出台18万亿投资计划,资金来源引关注》。
①本文第一章中已经对政府支出与经济增长关系的研究进行了详尽的介绍,此处不再赘述。
②高铁梅,计量经济分析方法与建模—Eviews应用及实例,2005,清华大学出版社：p353.
①详见张志超、何永江,论政府财政开支的挤出效应[J],财政研究,1997,1
①詹姆斯.D.汉密尔顿,刘明志译,时间序列分析[M],北京,中国社会科学出版社,1999年12月,p378-383.
①对于政府支出的划分,一个更细致的讨论可参见《2007-2008中国地方财政发展研究报告》P22-24,经济科学出版社,2009。
②“凯恩斯效应”的概念正是由此而衍生形成。当政府支出促进了私人消费的增加,就称其存在“凯恩斯效应”。
①陈娟(2008)的研究中,其基于消费量差异而进行的划分实际属于考察不同收入水平下政府行为的影响,而非严格意义上边际消费倾向的不同而产生的变化。
①财政支出的结构差异主要指支出中生产性支出与非生产性支出的相对比例变化。
②财政政策的方向指是扩张的还是收缩的,Bertola and Drazen(1993)、王立勇、刘文革(2009)都发现在不同方向下,政府支出与消费的关系存在差异。
③据刘尚希(2005)的估算,我国地方政府负债高达6万亿人民币。
④2008年开始,部分地区发行了地方政府公债。但是,由于中央财政兜底,因而并不会对地方政府产生债务约束,或者仅形成部分债务约束。
①掠夺之手的概念源自Shleifer and Vishny合著之《the grabbing hand:government pathologies and their cures》(掠夺之手：政府病及其治疗)。
①一部分的研究发现(王宏利,2006；张治觉,2007；张威,2008),地方政府支出中行政事业经费支出的影响与生产性支出和转移支付的影响都不相同,因而支出结构中的两项划分不能刻画支出结构的全部变化。
②由于数据限制,本文的研究并未将西藏及港澳台地区纳入考察体系中,同时将重庆市并入到四川省中。
①高铁梅主编,计量经济分析方法与建模—Eviews应用及实例[M],北京：清华大学出版社,2006：330.
①更详尽的分析请参见陈诗一、张军,中国地方政府财政支出效率研究：1978-2005[J],中国社会科学,2008第4期.
①Musgrave (1959)将政府职能集中在公共服务的提供上,并将之划分为资源配置、收入分配与经济稳定。
②基于“增量解决存量”的发展思路,大量落后及经济欠发达省份政府支出的主要目标仍集中于经济增长,而教育、医疗及交通、通讯等基础设施建设更多的依赖中央政府拨款及专项资金安排,“西部大开发”是一个典型的事例。
③Afonso (2005a、2005b、2008)认为,财政支出存在较强的滞后效应,特别是某些存量因素的影响,可能在一个较长时期内才能够观察到。但考虑到研究的时效性,我们仅采用了滞后一期的处理。
④正向与标准化处理指将所有变量数值向上平移一个单位,同时除以各变量均值使其围绕1波动。
①陈诗一、张军(2008)认为将衡量政府服务的多指标进行简单平均以计算综合指标,具有较为直观的经济含义,而主成份分析等赋权方法缺乏经济合理性。
②由于数据限制,本文的研究并未将西藏及港澳台地区纳入考察体系中,同时将重庆市并入到四川省中。
③由于产出数据采用了滞后一期处理,因而样本中不含2008年。
[1]布朗(Carol V.Brown).公共部门经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[2]陈建宝,戴平生.我国财政支出对经济增长的乘数效应分析[J].厦门大学学报,2008,(5)
[3]陈娟、林龙、叶阿忠.基于分位数回归的中国居民消费研究[J],数量经济技术经济研究,2008,(2).
[4]陈抗、Hillman、Aryel、顾清扬.财政集权与地方政府行为变化-从援助之手到掠夺之手[J].经济学(季刊),2002,(1)
[5]陈浪南、杨子晖.中国政府支出和融资对私人投资的挤出效应的经验研究[J].世界经济,2007, (1)
[6]陈诗一、张军.我国地方政府财政支出效率研究：1978-2005[J].中国社会科学,2008,(4).
[7]陈伟雄.福建省财政支出结构优化与经济增长的实证分析[J].新疆农垦经济,2009,(8)
[8]成园晨.“投资乘数失灵”带来的困惑与思索[J].经济研究,1999, (8)
[9]储德银、闫伟、蒋辉雨.政府支出、收入分配与城乡居民消费的经验分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2009, (5)
[10]楚尔鸣、鲁旭.基于动态面板的地方政府支出对居民消费的挤出效应分析[J].湘潭大学学报(哲社科版),2007, (11)
[11]丛树海、周炜、于宁.共支出绩效评价指标体系的构建[J].财贸经济,2005(3).
[12]董秀良、薛丰慧、吴仁水.中国财政支出对私人投资影响的实证分析[J].当代经济研究,2006,(5)
[13]董直庆、滕建洲.我国财政与经济增长关系：基于Bootstrap仿真方法的实证检验[J]，数量经济技术经济研究,2007,(1)
[14]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).
[15]高大伟、鞠晓峰.地方财政支出结构与经济增长实证研究[J].哈尔滨工程大学学报,2010, (6).
[16]高飞跃、邢风致.我国财政支出结构与经济增长关系的实证分析[J].现代经济信息,2010, (9)
[17]龚六堂、邹恒甫.政府公共开支的增长和波动对经济增长的影响[J].经济学动态,2001, (9).
[18]郭凤花.云南省财政支出与经济增长效应分析[J],经济问题探索,2009, (1)
[19]郭庆旺、贾俊雪.积极财政政策对区域经济增长与差异的影响[J],中国软科学,2005, (7).
[20]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).
[21]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).
[22]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).
[23]郭庆旺、赵志耘.论我国财政赤字的拉动效应[J],财贸经济,2007, (6)
[24]郭亚军、何延芳.我国1994-2001年财政支出状况的综合评价[J].财经研究,2003,(9)
[25]哈耶克.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
[26]韩仁月、常世旺、段超.中国省际公共投资对私人投资的动态效应研究[J],财贸研究,2009,(6)
[27]韩远迎.财政支出结构与经济增长的实证分析[J],科技和产业,2007, (2)
[28]何庆光.政府公共投资、经济增长与市场化进程的实证分析[J].统计与决策,2010,(10)
[29]胡东书.经济发展中的中央与地方关系-中国财政制度变迁研究[M],上海：上海三联书店,2001
[30]胡书东.中国财政支出和民间消费需求之间的关系[J].中国社会科学,2002, (6).
[31]贾俊雪、郭庆旺、刘晓路,2006,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)
[32]姜洋、林霞.政府支出与居民消费：总量影响、结构效应和区域差异消费经济[J].消费经济,2009,(5)
[33]寇铁军、周波.政府支出的经济增长效应：1993-2005年间我国省级层面的分解分析[J].财贸经济,2007, (12)
[34]黎友焕、王凯.改革开放30年财政支出与中国经济增长——基于省级面板数据的实证分析[J].华东经济管理,2010, (1).
[35]李春琦、唐哲一.财政支出结构变动对私人消费影响的动态分析--生命周期视角下政府支出结构需要调整的经验证据[J].财经研究,2010,(6).
[36]李广众.政府支出与居民消费：替代还是互补[J].世界经济,2005, (5)
[37]李明雨、武彦民.我国财政支出与长期经济增长的实证分析[J].现代管理科学,2009,(12).
[38]李兴江、于艺.甘肃省财政支出结构优化与经济增长实证分析[J].财会研究,2010,(3)
[39]李泽楷.广东省财政支出与经济增长关系的实证研究——基于1978-2007年时间序列数据的验证[J].特区经济,2010, (2)
[40]梁文凤.财政支出对经济增长影响的实证分析——以陕西省为例[J].兰州商学院学报,2010,(2)
[41]梁文凤、常云昆、许文娟.陕西省财政支出结构对经济增长的效应——基于VAR模型和脉冲响应函数的实证分析[J].西安财经学院学报,2008, (4).
[42]梁学平.关于积极财政政策逐步淡出的问题的探讨[J].山东财政学院学报,2006,(3)
[43]辽宁省财政厅、东北大学联合课题组.财政支出效率综合评价研究报告[J].经济研究参考,2004,(46).
[44]林文珊.财政支出和经济增长的关系——对山东省16市面板数据的实证分析[J].财经视点,2008, (5)
[45]林毅夫、蔡肪,李周,中国的奇迹-发展战略与经济改革[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1994.
[46]刘华、郭凯.地方政府行为、财政支出结构与区域经济增长研究[J]南方金融,2009,(2)
[47]刘华.中国私人投资影响因素的经验分析-兼议传统私人投资理论在中国的适用性[J].中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版),2005, (4)
[48]刘佩玲、苏勇.中国私人投资影响因素的实证研究[J],复旦大学学报,2003,(42-5)
[49]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)
[50]刘尚希、王宇龙.财政政策：从公共投资到公共消费[J].财政与发展,2008,(4).
[51]刘振亚、杨武.最优政府支出结构与平衡增长[J].南开经济研究,2009, (2)
[52]娄洪.长期经济增长中的公共投资政策[J].经济研究,2004,(3).
[53]骆晓强.财政分权与经济增长相关分析[D].浙江大学,2003.
[54]马拴友.政府规模与经济增长：兼论中国财政的最优规模[J].世界经济,2000(11).
[55]马斯格雷夫、布坎南.公共财政与公共选择-两种截然对立的国家观[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[56]毛中根、洪涛.政府消费与经济增长：基于1985-2007年中国省际面板数据的实证分析[J].统计研究,2009,(8)
[57]孟望生、崔萍.经济增长和财政支出结构的关系研究——以辽宁省为例基于协整理论的实证分析[J].集体经济,2009, (9)
[58]欧阳志刚.我国政府支出对经济增长贡献的经验研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2004, (5)
[59]钱颖一.现代经济学与中国经济改革[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[60]申琳、马丹.政府支出与居民消费：消费倾斜渠道与资源撤出渠道[J].世界经济,2007,(11).
[61]石柱鲜、刘俊生、吴泰岳.我国政府支出对居民消费的挤出效应分析[J].学习与探索,2005, (6).
[62]史弗莱·维什尼.掠夺之手-政府病及其治疗[J].北京：中信出版社,2004.
[63]世界银行.中国：省际支出考察报告[R].世界银行,2007.
[64]宋福铁.国债对于私人投资挤出效应的实证研究[J].财经研究,2004,(8)
[65]宋效中、李金玲、赵利民.我国财政支出结构与经济增长的实证分析[J].中国海洋大学学报,2008, (1).
[66]孙长青、赵桂芝、陈菁泉等.长期经济增长与中国财政支出结构优化研究[J].财经问题研究,2004, (12).
[67]田杰棠.近年来财政扩张挤出效应的实证分析[J].财贸研究,2002, (3)
[68]田青、高铁梅.政府支出对居民消费的动态影响研究——基于可变参数模型的实证分析[J].社会科学辑刊,2008,(6)
[69]汪碧瀛、周源.政府投资的经济增长效应测度研究——基于省级面板数据的分析[J].工业技术经济,2009, (11).
[70]汪柱旺、谭安华.基于DEA的财政支出效率评价研究[J].当代财经,2007,(10).
[71]王春元.我国政府财政支出结构与经济增长关系实证分析[J].财经研究,2009,(6).
[72]王海军、胡适耕、张学清.随机内生增长模型中的拥挤性政府支出[J].华中科技大学学报(自然科学版),2005, (1)
[73]王宏利.中国政府支出调控对居民消费的影响[J].世界经济,2006, (10)
[74]王俊海.我国政府支出对消费支出挤出效应的实证分析[J].华侨大学学报(哲学社科学版),2007, (3)
[75]王凯、庞震、潘颖.西部地区财政支出与经济增长——基于省级面板数据的单位根、协整和Granger因果检验的实证分析[J].兰州商学院学报,2010, (10).
[76]王立勇、高伟.财政政策对私人消费非线性效应及其解释[J].世界经济,2009,(9).
[77]王小利、李长青.中国政府公共支出在GDP长期增长中替代效应及互补效应的实证研究[J].数理统计与管理,2006,(3).
[78]王延军.政府支出与居民消费：替代或互补——基于非线性有效消费函数的实证分析[J].经济经纬,2007,(1).
[79]魏权龄.数据包络分析(DEA)[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[80]吴洪鹏、刘璐.挤出还是挤入：公共投资对民间投资的影响[J].世界经济,2007,(2).
[81]吴洪玮、蒋国洲.海南省财政支出结构对经济增长影响的实证分析[J].价值工程,2010, (8)
[82]吴贻林、卢晶.我国公共投资对私人投资影响的经验分析[J].财经问题研究,2008,(3).
[83]夏祥谦.我国财政支出结构的经济增长效应分析[J],现代管理科学,2009,(11).
[84]许先普.政府支出对居民消费的影响——对李嘉图等价之谜的中国经验分析[J].南京审计学院学报,2010, (1).
[85]严成樑、龚六堂.财政支出、税收与长期经济增长[J].经济研究,2009, (6).
[86]杨冠琼、蔡芸.中国地方政府生产率相对有效性的实证研究[J].经济管理,2005,(22).
[87]杨杰.江西财政支出与经济增长关系的实证研究[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,(3).
[88]杨俊、王燕.积极财政政策与私人投资关系的区域差异：基于中国东、中西部面板数据的检验和分析[J].财经科学,2007,(5).
[89]杨友才.地方财政支出结构与经济增长[J].山东大学学报,2009, (2).
[90]叶小榕、刘燕、杨杰.财政支出与经济增长的关系研究——基于1978-2007年中国省际面板数据的实证分析[J].西部财会,2009, (2).
[91]尹恒、叶海云.政府债务挤出私人投资：国际证据[J].统计研究,2005, (10).
[92]余可.地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长的空间计量分析[J].财经理论与实践,2008, (4)
[93]余可.中国分税制下的地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长[D],西南交通大学,2008
[94]余振乾,、余小方.地方财政科技支出绩效评价指标体系构建及其实施[J].中国软科学,2005,(4).
[95]袁东、王晓悦.关于公债挤出效应理论的几点认识[J].财政研究,2000, (6)
[96]曾令华.近年来的财政政策是否有挤出效应[J].经济研究,2000, (3)
[97]张钢、段澈.我国地方财政支出结构与地方经济增长关系的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006(3).
[98]张海星.公共投资与经济增长的相关分析—中国数据的计量检验[J].财贸经济,2004, (11)
[99]张寒阳.财政支出结构与经济增长关系——基于湖南省的数据分析[J].时代金融,2009, (11)
[100]张龙、贾明德.财政支出与财政收入对经济增长影响的实证分析[J].预测,2009,(1)
[101]张峁、李冰、杨帆.辽宁省财政支出对地区经济增长影响的动态分析[J].科技与管理,2010, (3)
[102]张峁、徐蓓蓓、江栋.地方财政支出对经济增长影响的空间计量分析——辽宁省为例[J].科学决策,2010, (5)
[103]张明喜.地方财政支出结构与地方经济发展的实证研究——基于聚类分析的新视角[J].财经问题研究,2008, (1)
[104]张明喜、陈志勇.促进我国经济增长的最优财政支出规模研究[J].财贸经济,2005,(10).
[105]张威.我国政府支出与居民消费关系研究[D],湖南大学,2008
[106]张雪楠.我国财政支出结构的优化与经济增长[J].现代经济信息,2010, (5)
[107]张志超、何永江.论政府财政开支的挤出效应[J].财政研究,1997,(1).
[108]张治觉、吴定玉.我国政府支出对居民消费产生引致还是挤出效应——基于可变参数模型的分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2007, (5).
[109]赵志耘、吕冰洋.财政赤字的排挤效应：实证分析[J].财贸经济,2005, (7).
[110]郑蝉娟、何先平、杨红梅.湖北省财政支出与经济增长的实证研究——运用面板数据的分析[J].长江大学学报,2008, (1).
[111]周黎安.晋升博弈中政府官员的激励与合作-兼论我国地方保护主义和重复建设长期存在的原因[J].经济研究,2004,(6).
[112]周然.我国财政支出与经济增长[J].中国经贸导刊,2010, (2)
[113]朱柏铭、祝燕君.财政支出与经济增长关系研究——基于中国1978-2005年数据的验证[J].技术经济与管理研究,2008, (3)
[114]朱玉春、种胜兵.财政支出及其构成与经济增长率关系研究[J].经济科学,2008,(5).
[115]庄子银、邹薇.公共支出能否促进经济增长：中国的经验分析[J].管理世界,2003,(7).
[116]Albert Alesina, SilviaArdagna, Roberto Perotti et.al.Fiscal Policy, Profitand Investment[J].American Economic Review,2002 92,571-589.
[117]Abraham Charnes, William Cooper,Edwardo Rhodes, "Measuring the Efficiency of Decision MakiMichael Farrell," [J]. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), vol.120, no.3,1957, pp.2532281.
[118]A. Charnes, W.Cooper, E. Rhodesl Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unit s [J] European Journal of Operational Research,1979, (4).
[119]Ahmed, H., Miller, S., M.,1999, Crowding-out and crowding-in effect of the components of government expenditure, [R]. SBDU working paper
[120]Antreas Athanassopoulos, Konstantino Triantis, "Assessing Aggregate Cost Efficiency and the RelatedPolicy Implications for Greek Local Municipalities," IN FOR, vol.36, no.3,1998, pp.66283.
[121]Arrow, K. J., M. Kurz. Public Investment, the rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy[M]. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1970
[122]Aschauer, D., J. Greenwood. Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Policy[R] Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy,1985(23),91-1381 Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
[123]Aschauer, D. Is government spending productive?[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1989 (23).
[124]Bairam Erkin and Ward Bert. The Externality Effect to Government Expenditure on Investment in OECD Countries J. Applied Economics 1993 vol 25.
[125]Barcker, K.J.Kuez, M., Public Inverstment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy[J], John Hopkins Press Baltimore,1970
[126]Barro, R. J. Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries [J].Quarterly Journal of Economics,1991,106 (2):407-443.
[127]Barro, R. J. Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy,1990 (98).
[128]Barro,Robert J. Determinants of economic growth:A cross-country empirical study,NBER Working Paper,1996,56-98.
[129]Barro. R. J., Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1990,2:407-444
[130]Barro.R. J., Xavier Sala-i-Martin。economic growth[M]. MIT compress, 2003,:220.
[131]Bose, N., Osborn, D., Public expenditure and economic growth:a disaggregated analysis for developing countries, The Manchester School Vol 75 No.5 2007 1463-6786 533-556
[132]C. A. Knox Lovell, "Production Frontier and Productive Efficiency," in H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell.
[133]C. A. K. Lovell,S. S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Producti ve Efficiency, New York:Oxford University Press,1993, pp.3267.
[134]Crain, Susan J., and Jae-Ha Lee.Intraday Volatility in Interest Rate and Foreign Exchange Spot and Futures Markets[J].Joumal of Futures Markets,1995,15: 395-421.
[135]David Bradford, Robert Malt, Wallace Oates, "The Rising Cost of Local Public Services:Some Evidence and Reflections," National Tax Journal, vol.22, no.2, 1969, pp.1852202.
[136]Devarajan, S., Swaroop, V., and Zou, H., The Composition of Public Expenditure and Economic Growth [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1996, 37 (2):313-344.
[137]Devarajan S., Swaroop, v., Zou, H., the composition of public expenditure and economic growth,1996, Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (1996),313-344.
[138]Devereux, M. B., Head, A. C., Lapham, B. J. Monopolistic Competition Increasing Returns, and the Effects of Government Spending [J]. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking,1996 (28).
[139]Easterly William and Rebelo Sergio. Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth An Empirical Investigation J. Journal of Monetary Economics 1993 vol 32.
[140]Engen, E., J. Skinner. Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth [R].NBER Working Paper No,4223,1992.
[141]Evans, P. Government Consumption and Growth[J]. Econmic Inquriy,1997 (35).
[142]Fisher Stanley. The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Growth J. Journal of Monetary Economics 1993 vol 32.
[143]Ghatak A. and Ghatak S.,1996. Budgetary deficits and Ricardian equivalence:The case of India,1950-1986 Journal of Public Economics 60,267-282.
[144]Graham M. Voss,2002. Public and private investment in the United States and Canada, Economic Modelling Vol.19,641-664
[145]Grier, K., G. Tullock. An Empirical Analysis of Cross2national Economic Growth: 1950-1980 [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1989 (24):259-276.
[146]H Davoodi,H.Zou, Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth:A Cross-Country Study [J] Journal of Urban Economics,199843244-257.
[147]Karras, G. The Optimal Government Size:Further International Evidence on the Productive or Government Services [J]. Economic Inquiry,1996:193-203.
[148]Kumbhakar, S.C. and C.A.K. Lovell,"Stochastic frontier analysis," 2000,New York: Cambridge University Press.
[149]Kaliappa Kalirajan, RicShand, "Frontier Production Functions and Technical Efficiency Measures," Journal of Economic Surveys, vol.13, no.2,1999, pp. 1492172.
[150]Kormendi, R., P. Meguire. Macroeconomic Determinants of Growth:Cross2country Evidence [J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1985(16): 141-164.
[151]Kormendi Roger C. and Meguire Philip,1995. Government debt, Government spending, and private2sector Behavior:Reply. The American Economic Review,Vol.85,No.5,1357-1361.
[152]Landau, D. L., Government Expenditure and Economic Growth:A Cross2country Study[J]. Southern Economic Journal,1983,49 (3):783-792.
[153]Levine, R., D. Renelt. A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross2Country Growth Regressions[J]. American Economic Review,1992,82:942-963.
[154]Levine Ross and Renelt David. A sensitivity analysis of cross2country growth regressions[J]. The American Economic Review,Vol.82,No.4,942-963.
[155]Lucas, R. E., Jr. On the Mechanics of Economic Development[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,22:3-42.
[156]M.J. Farrell. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency [J] Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,1957, (3).
[157]Michael Farrell, "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency," Journal of the Roy al S tatistical Society Series A (General), vol.120, no.3,1957, pp 2532281.
[158]Michael Farrell, "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency;" Abraham Charnes, William Cooper,Edwardo Rhodes, "Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Unit s," European Journal of Operational Research, vol.2, 1978, pp.4292444.
[159]Mo, P.,H.. government expenditures and economic growth:the supply and demand sides[J]. Oxford working paper,2007.
[160]Musgrave,R. A. Fiscal systems [M]. New Haven and London:Yale University Press,1969.
[161]Oates,W.E., Fiscal Federalism[M]. New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich,1972.
[162]Phillips, A.W., "the relationship between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage in the Unite Kingdom,1861-1957", Economica, November 1958.
[163]R.D. Banker, A. Charnes, W. Cooperl Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in DataEnvelopment Analysis [J] Management Science,1984, (9).
[164]Rafael La Porta, Florencio, Shleifer, Vishny, Legal Determinants of External finance, The Journal of finance,52,1131-1150.
[165]Ram, R., Additional Evidence on Causality between Government Revenue and Government Expenditure [J]. Southern Economic Journal,1988,54:763-69
[166]Romer, PAUL, M.Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth [J]. Journal of Political Economy,1986,94:S1002-1037.
[167]S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Producti ve Ef f iciency, New York Oxford University Press,
[168]Samuelson, P. A. The pure theory of public expenditure, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.36, No.4 (Nov.,1954), pp.387-389
[169]Seruvatu, Jayaraman (2001). Determinants of Private Investment in Fiji, Working Paper, Economics Department Reserve Bank of Fiji. Serven L.1998.
[170]Swamy, P. A., Statistcal Inference in Random Coefficient Regression Models[M]. Berlin, Springer2Verlag,1971.
[171]Tiebout, Charles. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditure."Journal of Political Economy,1956, (64):416-24.
[172]Weingast, Barry R..The Economic Role of Political Institutions:Market-preserving Federalism and Economic Development.[J] Journal of Law and Economic Organization.,1995, (11):1-31.
[173]Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, V., Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods:Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style[J].Journal of Public Economics,2000.,76:337-68.