收入不平等会扩大家庭教育消费吗?——基于CFPS 2014数据的实证分析
|
摘要
教育是促进社会阶层合理流动的阶梯。在收入不均衡情况下,低收入家庭有强烈的动机通过加大教育投入来实现收入阶层的改善。文章采用CFPS2014微观调查数据,实证检验了收入差距对家庭教育消费的激励效应。结果表明,收入差距对家庭教育消费产生了显著的促进作用,但这一作用在不同组别呈现异质性:(1)收入差距对教育消费的影响在低收入家庭组显著,在高收入家庭组则不显著;(2)在有成员就读高中及以下教育层级的家庭组显著,在其他家庭组则不显著。在排除了消费的示范效应、克服了因忽视政府质量而导致的内生性偏误以及更换收入差距测度指标后,结果依旧稳健。研究表明,在教育机会平等化前提下,家庭会通过教育消费决策来实现收入阶层的改善。此外,将收入差距控制在合理范围内是规避居民"因教致贫"和"因教返贫"风险的重要手段。
Education is a ladder to promote the rational flow of social classes. In the case of uneven income,low-income families have a strong incentive to improve their income class by increasing their investment in education. Using CFPS2014 micro-survey data,this paper empirically tests the incentive effect of the income gap on family education consumption. The basic regression results show that the income gap has a significant role in promoting family education consumption. Specifically,for every 1 percentage point increase in the Gini coefficient which represents the income gap,family education consumption trend will increase by 1.359 percentage points. The heterogeneity analysis shows that,for families with different characteristics,there is obvious heterogeneity in the influence of the income gap on family education consumption. First,all samples are divided into high-income family groups and low-income family groups according to the average per capita household income. The results show that the influence of the income gap on family education consumption is significant in low-income families and not significant in high-income families. Second,all samples are divided into groups with families attending high school and other family groups according to the school hierarchy that family members attend. The results show that the influence of the income gap on household education consumption is significant in families with members attending senior high school and below the education level,but not significant in other family groups. In order to ensure the credibility of the basic regression conclusions,we also conduct a series of robustness tests,including eliminating"demonstration effects" of the consumption,overcoming endogenous biases caused by the neglect of government quality,changing measurement of the income gap,and so on. The results are still steady. The conclusions of this paper expand the explanation scope of the continuous increase of education consumption in China,and also have important policy reference values. On the one hand,in the case of income inequality,households have an internal incentive to increase investment in education to promote their income class. Therefore,it is necessary to protect the accessibility of public education opportunities,especially education opportunities to low-income groups,in which way they can achieve a reasonable mobility of social classes,and effectively avoid the generational transmission of income and poverty. On the other hand,because the income gap has a positive incentive effect on educational spending,it also means that an excessive income gap may cause households to over-consume in education,which in turn increases the economic burden on residents and reduces the level of family life. Therefore,relevant departments should control the income gap within a reasonable range and strengthen public education investment to avoid the family's potential risks of "poverty caused by education" and "poverty returned by education".
Education is a ladder to promote the rational flow of social classes. In the case of uneven income,low-income families have a strong incentive to improve their income class by increasing their investment in education. Using CFPS2014 micro-survey data,this paper empirically tests the incentive effect of the income gap on family education consumption. The basic regression results show that the income gap has a significant role in promoting family education consumption. Specifically,for every 1 percentage point increase in the Gini coefficient which represents the income gap,family education consumption trend will increase by 1.359 percentage points. The heterogeneity analysis shows that,for families with different characteristics,there is obvious heterogeneity in the influence of the income gap on family education consumption. First,all samples are divided into high-income family groups and low-income family groups according to the average per capita household income. The results show that the influence of the income gap on family education consumption is significant in low-income families and not significant in high-income families. Second,all samples are divided into groups with families attending high school and other family groups according to the school hierarchy that family members attend. The results show that the influence of the income gap on household education consumption is significant in families with members attending senior high school and below the education level,but not significant in other family groups. In order to ensure the credibility of the basic regression conclusions,we also conduct a series of robustness tests,including eliminating"demonstration effects" of the consumption,overcoming endogenous biases caused by the neglect of government quality,changing measurement of the income gap,and so on. The results are still steady. The conclusions of this paper expand the explanation scope of the continuous increase of education consumption in China,and also have important policy reference values. On the one hand,in the case of income inequality,households have an internal incentive to increase investment in education to promote their income class. Therefore,it is necessary to protect the accessibility of public education opportunities,especially education opportunities to low-income groups,in which way they can achieve a reasonable mobility of social classes,and effectively avoid the generational transmission of income and poverty. On the other hand,because the income gap has a positive incentive effect on educational spending,it also means that an excessive income gap may cause households to over-consume in education,which in turn increases the economic burden on residents and reduces the level of family life. Therefore,relevant departments should control the income gap within a reasonable range and strengthen public education investment to avoid the family's potential risks of "poverty caused by education" and "poverty returned by education".
引文
[1]安格斯·迪顿.健康、不平等和经济发展(下)[J].经济社会体比较,2016,(1).
[2]苍玉权.论基尼系数的局限及调整[J].数量经济技术及经济研究,2004,(4).
[3]陈刚,李树.政府如何能够让人幸福?--政府质量影响居民幸福感的实证研究[J].管理世界,2012,(8).
[4]陈烨.“因教致贫”的现象及其根治对策[J].中州学刊,2005,(4).
[5]陈永伟,顾佳峰,史宇鹏.住房财富、信贷约束与城镇家庭教育开支--来自CFPS2010数据的证据[J].经济研究,2014,(S1).
[6]陈宗胜,周云波.非法非正常收入对居民收入差别的影响及其经济学解释[J].经济研究,2001,(4).
[7]迟巍,钱晓烨,吴斌珍.家庭教育支出平等性的实证研究[J].教育与经济,2001,(4).
[8]辜胜阻,洪群联.对大学生以创业带动就业的思考[J].教育研究,2010,(5).
[9]华红琴,翁定军.社会地位、生活境遇与焦虑[J].社会,2013,(1).
[10]金烨,李宏斌,吴斌珍.收入差距与社会地位寻求:一个高储蓄率的原因[J].经济学(季刊),2011,(3).
[11]李强.政治分层与经济分层[J].社会学研究,1997,(4).
[12]刘润秋,赵雁名.人力资本投资悖论与适度人力资本投资[J].经济体制改革,2011,(1).
[13]刘生龙,周绍杰,胡鞍钢.义务教育法与中国城镇教育回报率:基于断点回归设计[J].经济研究,2016,(2).
[14]钱民辉.教育真的有助于向上社会流动吗--关于教育与社会分层的关系分析[J].社会科学战线,2004,(4).
[15]仇立平,肖日葵.文化资本与社会地位获得--基于上海市的实证研究[J].中国社会科学,2011,(6).
[16]沈百福,杨治平.居民教育支出与公共教育支出的国际比较[J].教育理论与实践,2013,(19).
[17]沈亚芳,沈百福.我国农村居民教育支出倾向变化及其解释[J].教育发展研究,2012,(5).
[18]王鹏.收入差距对中国居民主观幸福感的影响分析--基于中国综合社会调查数据的实证研究[J].中国人口科学,2011,(3).
[19]杨娟,赖德胜,邱牧远.如何通过教育缓解收入不平等?[J].经济研究,2015,(9).
[20]喻名峰,陈成文,李恒全.回顾与前瞻:大学生就业问题研究十年(2001-2011)[J].高等教育研究,2012,(2).
[21]余秀兰.教育还能促进底层的升迁性社会流动吗[J].高等教育研究,2014,(7).
[22]袁诚,张磊,曾颖.地方教育投入对城镇家庭教育支出行为的影响--对我国城镇家庭动态重复截面数据的一个估计[J].经济学动态,2013,(3).
[23]张国强.因教致贫的社会学分析[J].高等教育研究,2007,(3).
[24]张锦华,杨晖,沈亚芳,等.不确定性对城乡家庭教育支出倾向的影响研究[J].复旦教育论坛,2014,(6).
[25]周广肃,樊纲,申广军.收入差距、社会资本与健康水平--基于中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)的实证分析[J].管理世界,2014,(7).
[26]Becker E,Lindsay C M.Does the government free ride?[J].The Journal of Law and Economics,1994,37(1):277-296.
[27]Chen G F,Hamori S.Economic returns to schooling in urban China:OLS and the instrumental variables approach[J].China Economics Review,2009,20(2):143-152.
[28]Chung Y S,Choe M K.Sources of family income and expenditure on Children’s private,after-school education in Korea[J].International Journal of Consumer Studies,2001,25(3):193-199.
[29]Cole H L,Mailath G J,Postlewaite A.Social norms,savings behavior,and growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6):1092-1125.
[30]Corneo G,Jeanne O.Social organization in an endogenous growth model[J].International Economic Review,1999,40(3):711-726.
[31]Das J,Dercon S,Habyarimana J P,et al.When can school inputs improve test scores?[R].World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3217,2004.
[32]Fallon K M.Education and perceptions of social status and power among women in Larteh,Ghana[J].Africa Today,1999,46(2):67-91.
[33]Heckman J J,Li X S.Selection bias,comparative advantage and heterogeneous returns to education:Evidence from China in 2000[J].Pacific Economic Review,2003,9(3):155-171.
[34]Nordblom K.Is increased public schooling really a policy for equality?The role of within-the-family education[J].Journal of Public Economics,2003,87(9-10):1943-1965.
(1)张国强(2007)指出,“因教致贫”是指接受教育的社会个体因教育成本的投入而影响了个体或家庭的正常生活,并因此造成家庭经济贫困的现象;“因教返贫”是指家庭经济状况原本良好,因受教育子女较多或追求优质教育资源,造成家庭经济支出方向单一、额度过高,从而导致的家庭经济贫困现象。
(1)相关数据来源于教育部历年《全国教育经费执行情况统计公告》。
(1)基尼系数和泰尔指数使用Stata软件计算,具体指令为Inequal7。
(2)CFPS(2014)数据并未提供户主信息,本文使用“财务回答人”信息作为户主信息的替代。
(1)基本回归部分,收入差距用基尼系数表示。为了增强结论的可信性,我们将在后续使用泰尔指数进行稳健性检验。
(1)累积密度值为大于0且小于等于1的正数。为了便于系数解释,我们将其乘以100。
(1)1949年美国经济学家詹姆斯·S·杜森贝里(James Stemble Duesenberry)在其博士论文《收入、储蓄和消费者行为理论》中提出。
(2)不管采取第一种方式还是第二种方式,隐含的前提是其他消费与教育消费的示范效应是等同的,若不满足这一条件,那么回归结果可能因为排除了异质的示范效应而存在偏误。
(3)排除示范效应的分组回归结果与表4保持一致,限于篇幅不再报告,下同。
(1)剔除的教育支出主要包括学杂费、食宿费、择校费等项目,这些费用大多由学校统一收取,容易受到政府治理水平的影响。校外教育支出项目主要包括参考书和课外书费、教育软件费、课外辅导费等,这些项目支出主要由家庭自主决策,与政府质量无直接关系。
(2)由于CFPS2014只对15岁及以下子女的教育消费结构进行了调查,表6中的样本仅涵盖子女处于15岁及以下年龄的家庭,而这些子女绝大多数就读于高中及以下教育阶段。
[2]苍玉权.论基尼系数的局限及调整[J].数量经济技术及经济研究,2004,(4).
[3]陈刚,李树.政府如何能够让人幸福?--政府质量影响居民幸福感的实证研究[J].管理世界,2012,(8).
[4]陈烨.“因教致贫”的现象及其根治对策[J].中州学刊,2005,(4).
[5]陈永伟,顾佳峰,史宇鹏.住房财富、信贷约束与城镇家庭教育开支--来自CFPS2010数据的证据[J].经济研究,2014,(S1).
[6]陈宗胜,周云波.非法非正常收入对居民收入差别的影响及其经济学解释[J].经济研究,2001,(4).
[7]迟巍,钱晓烨,吴斌珍.家庭教育支出平等性的实证研究[J].教育与经济,2001,(4).
[8]辜胜阻,洪群联.对大学生以创业带动就业的思考[J].教育研究,2010,(5).
[9]华红琴,翁定军.社会地位、生活境遇与焦虑[J].社会,2013,(1).
[10]金烨,李宏斌,吴斌珍.收入差距与社会地位寻求:一个高储蓄率的原因[J].经济学(季刊),2011,(3).
[11]李强.政治分层与经济分层[J].社会学研究,1997,(4).
[12]刘润秋,赵雁名.人力资本投资悖论与适度人力资本投资[J].经济体制改革,2011,(1).
[13]刘生龙,周绍杰,胡鞍钢.义务教育法与中国城镇教育回报率:基于断点回归设计[J].经济研究,2016,(2).
[14]钱民辉.教育真的有助于向上社会流动吗--关于教育与社会分层的关系分析[J].社会科学战线,2004,(4).
[15]仇立平,肖日葵.文化资本与社会地位获得--基于上海市的实证研究[J].中国社会科学,2011,(6).
[16]沈百福,杨治平.居民教育支出与公共教育支出的国际比较[J].教育理论与实践,2013,(19).
[17]沈亚芳,沈百福.我国农村居民教育支出倾向变化及其解释[J].教育发展研究,2012,(5).
[18]王鹏.收入差距对中国居民主观幸福感的影响分析--基于中国综合社会调查数据的实证研究[J].中国人口科学,2011,(3).
[19]杨娟,赖德胜,邱牧远.如何通过教育缓解收入不平等?[J].经济研究,2015,(9).
[20]喻名峰,陈成文,李恒全.回顾与前瞻:大学生就业问题研究十年(2001-2011)[J].高等教育研究,2012,(2).
[21]余秀兰.教育还能促进底层的升迁性社会流动吗[J].高等教育研究,2014,(7).
[22]袁诚,张磊,曾颖.地方教育投入对城镇家庭教育支出行为的影响--对我国城镇家庭动态重复截面数据的一个估计[J].经济学动态,2013,(3).
[23]张国强.因教致贫的社会学分析[J].高等教育研究,2007,(3).
[24]张锦华,杨晖,沈亚芳,等.不确定性对城乡家庭教育支出倾向的影响研究[J].复旦教育论坛,2014,(6).
[25]周广肃,樊纲,申广军.收入差距、社会资本与健康水平--基于中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)的实证分析[J].管理世界,2014,(7).
[26]Becker E,Lindsay C M.Does the government free ride?[J].The Journal of Law and Economics,1994,37(1):277-296.
[27]Chen G F,Hamori S.Economic returns to schooling in urban China:OLS and the instrumental variables approach[J].China Economics Review,2009,20(2):143-152.
[28]Chung Y S,Choe M K.Sources of family income and expenditure on Children’s private,after-school education in Korea[J].International Journal of Consumer Studies,2001,25(3):193-199.
[29]Cole H L,Mailath G J,Postlewaite A.Social norms,savings behavior,and growth[J].Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6):1092-1125.
[30]Corneo G,Jeanne O.Social organization in an endogenous growth model[J].International Economic Review,1999,40(3):711-726.
[31]Das J,Dercon S,Habyarimana J P,et al.When can school inputs improve test scores?[R].World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.3217,2004.
[32]Fallon K M.Education and perceptions of social status and power among women in Larteh,Ghana[J].Africa Today,1999,46(2):67-91.
[33]Heckman J J,Li X S.Selection bias,comparative advantage and heterogeneous returns to education:Evidence from China in 2000[J].Pacific Economic Review,2003,9(3):155-171.
[34]Nordblom K.Is increased public schooling really a policy for equality?The role of within-the-family education[J].Journal of Public Economics,2003,87(9-10):1943-1965.
(1)张国强(2007)指出,“因教致贫”是指接受教育的社会个体因教育成本的投入而影响了个体或家庭的正常生活,并因此造成家庭经济贫困的现象;“因教返贫”是指家庭经济状况原本良好,因受教育子女较多或追求优质教育资源,造成家庭经济支出方向单一、额度过高,从而导致的家庭经济贫困现象。
(1)相关数据来源于教育部历年《全国教育经费执行情况统计公告》。
(1)基尼系数和泰尔指数使用Stata软件计算,具体指令为Inequal7。
(2)CFPS(2014)数据并未提供户主信息,本文使用“财务回答人”信息作为户主信息的替代。
(1)基本回归部分,收入差距用基尼系数表示。为了增强结论的可信性,我们将在后续使用泰尔指数进行稳健性检验。
(1)累积密度值为大于0且小于等于1的正数。为了便于系数解释,我们将其乘以100。
(1)1949年美国经济学家詹姆斯·S·杜森贝里(James Stemble Duesenberry)在其博士论文《收入、储蓄和消费者行为理论》中提出。
(2)不管采取第一种方式还是第二种方式,隐含的前提是其他消费与教育消费的示范效应是等同的,若不满足这一条件,那么回归结果可能因为排除了异质的示范效应而存在偏误。
(3)排除示范效应的分组回归结果与表4保持一致,限于篇幅不再报告,下同。
(1)剔除的教育支出主要包括学杂费、食宿费、择校费等项目,这些费用大多由学校统一收取,容易受到政府治理水平的影响。校外教育支出项目主要包括参考书和课外书费、教育软件费、课外辅导费等,这些项目支出主要由家庭自主决策,与政府质量无直接关系。
(2)由于CFPS2014只对15岁及以下子女的教育消费结构进行了调查,表6中的样本仅涵盖子女处于15岁及以下年龄的家庭,而这些子女绝大多数就读于高中及以下教育阶段。