国有资本划转养老保险基金与劳动力长期供给
|
摘要
国有资本划转养老保险基金通过"挤占公共财政收入"和"放松个人预算约束"两条路径影响劳动力供给。本文构建了一个包含国有资本划转、内生生育率和教育投入的世代交叠模型,考察划转对劳动力供给的长期影响。研究发现,与不划转相比,划转将降低劳动力数量和提高劳动力质量,但对劳动力总供给的影响不确定,它不仅取决于父母对子女数量和质量的相对重视程度,而且依赖于划转之后养老保险政策工具的选择,即降低养老保险缴费率还是提高养老金替代率。若选择降低缴费率,当父母相对很重视子女质量时,划转后劳动力总供给与划转率呈倒"U"型变化关系;当父母逐渐重视子女数量时,二者呈正向变化关系。若选择提高养老金替代率,无论父母对子女数量和质量的相对重视程度如何,划转后劳动力总供给与划转率都呈反向变化关系。从促进劳动力供给增长的角度看,划转的同时降低缴费率,并引导父母同等重视子女数量和质量,将有助于实现养老保险制度与劳动力市场的良性互动发展。
As ageing increases, the financial sustainability of the basic pension system in China is facing severe challenges. Both the proportion and the total number of working-age individuals are shrinking and the labor participation rate is also decreasing, leading to a decline in the labor supply. Against this background, the impact of the pension system reform on the labor supply has received high attention.The state-owned capital allocation to the pension fund can affect the labor supply through two channels. First, allocation squeezes public revenue. Under an unchanged fiscal expenditure structure, public education expenditure will decrease correspondingly. If public and private education expenditure are substitutive, parents will increasingly invest in private education for their children. The resulting economic pressure will inhibit their fertility propensity, leading to a decrease in the labor force. Second, pension fund revenue will increase, which may reduce the contribution rate or increase the pension replacement rate and loosen personal budget constraints. This will encourage parents to have children and increase private education investment, which promotes a rising labor force. The final net effect depends on the magnitude of the above two factors.To analyze the long-term effect on the labor supply of the state-owned capital allocation to the pension fund, we establish an overlapping generation model that includes the state-owned capital allocation, endogenous fertility rate, and educational investment. The results show that the allocation will reduce the quantity of the labor force but improve its quality, although the impact on the total labor supply is uncertain, as this depends not only on the relative importance parents attach to the quantity and quality of children, but also on the choice of pension policy tools in the post-allocation period. There are basically two options: to decrease the contribution rate or increase the pension replacement rate. If the contribution rate is decreased, the total labor supply and allocation rate will have an inverted "U"-shaped relationship: when parents pay much more attention to the quality of their children, the two become positively related as parents allocate greater value to the quantity of their children. If the pension replacement rate is increased, regardless of the relative importance parents attach to the quantity and quality of children, the total labor supply and the allocation rate are always negatively related.This paper has three policy implications. First, against the background of an increasing shortage in the labor supply, the establishment of a "labor friendly" state-owned capital allocation policy coordinated with the labor supply is important to promote sustainable economic and social development. Second, transforming the concept of population development based on controlling the number of children during the family-planning period, guiding parents to pay equal attention to the quantity and quality of their children, and providing relevant policies to alleviate fertility pressure will help to realize appropriate fertility levels. Third, scientifically choosing an appropriate pension policy tool will help to promote a positive interaction between the pension system and the macro economy. This paper makes three contributions. First, in terms of rationale, we emphasize that the allocation policy should focus not only on filling the pension fund gap, but also on its effects on important macroeconomic variables. Second, in terms of method, we introduce the economic mechanism of allocation into the framework of endogenous population growth. From the perspective of the replacement relationship between birth quantity and quality and methods of filling the pension fund gap, we explore the impact of state-owned capital allocation on the labor supply. Third, in terms of conclusions, by comparing and analyzing the changes in labor supply with different policy tools, we provide a theoretical foundation for reducing the contribution rate while performing the allocation, and also make suggestions for improving the labor friendly state-owned capital allocation policy.
As ageing increases, the financial sustainability of the basic pension system in China is facing severe challenges. Both the proportion and the total number of working-age individuals are shrinking and the labor participation rate is also decreasing, leading to a decline in the labor supply. Against this background, the impact of the pension system reform on the labor supply has received high attention.The state-owned capital allocation to the pension fund can affect the labor supply through two channels. First, allocation squeezes public revenue. Under an unchanged fiscal expenditure structure, public education expenditure will decrease correspondingly. If public and private education expenditure are substitutive, parents will increasingly invest in private education for their children. The resulting economic pressure will inhibit their fertility propensity, leading to a decrease in the labor force. Second, pension fund revenue will increase, which may reduce the contribution rate or increase the pension replacement rate and loosen personal budget constraints. This will encourage parents to have children and increase private education investment, which promotes a rising labor force. The final net effect depends on the magnitude of the above two factors.To analyze the long-term effect on the labor supply of the state-owned capital allocation to the pension fund, we establish an overlapping generation model that includes the state-owned capital allocation, endogenous fertility rate, and educational investment. The results show that the allocation will reduce the quantity of the labor force but improve its quality, although the impact on the total labor supply is uncertain, as this depends not only on the relative importance parents attach to the quantity and quality of children, but also on the choice of pension policy tools in the post-allocation period. There are basically two options: to decrease the contribution rate or increase the pension replacement rate. If the contribution rate is decreased, the total labor supply and allocation rate will have an inverted "U"-shaped relationship: when parents pay much more attention to the quality of their children, the two become positively related as parents allocate greater value to the quantity of their children. If the pension replacement rate is increased, regardless of the relative importance parents attach to the quantity and quality of children, the total labor supply and the allocation rate are always negatively related.This paper has three policy implications. First, against the background of an increasing shortage in the labor supply, the establishment of a "labor friendly" state-owned capital allocation policy coordinated with the labor supply is important to promote sustainable economic and social development. Second, transforming the concept of population development based on controlling the number of children during the family-planning period, guiding parents to pay equal attention to the quantity and quality of their children, and providing relevant policies to alleviate fertility pressure will help to realize appropriate fertility levels. Third, scientifically choosing an appropriate pension policy tool will help to promote a positive interaction between the pension system and the macro economy. This paper makes three contributions. First, in terms of rationale, we emphasize that the allocation policy should focus not only on filling the pension fund gap, but also on its effects on important macroeconomic variables. Second, in terms of method, we introduce the economic mechanism of allocation into the framework of endogenous population growth. From the perspective of the replacement relationship between birth quantity and quality and methods of filling the pension fund gap, we explore the impact of state-owned capital allocation on the labor supply. Third, in terms of conclusions, by comparing and analyzing the changes in labor supply with different policy tools, we provide a theoretical foundation for reducing the contribution rate while performing the allocation, and also make suggestions for improving the labor friendly state-owned capital allocation policy.
引文
程杰,2014:《养老保障的劳动供给效应》,《经济研究》第10期。
高奥、龚六堂,2015:《国有资本收入划拨养老保险、人力资本积累与经济增长》,《金融研究》第1期。
高奥、谭娅、龚六堂,2016:《国有资本收入划拨养老保险、社会福利与收入不平等》,《世界经济》第1期。
耿志祥、孙祁祥、郑伟,2016:《人口老龄化、资产价格与资本积累》,《经济研究》第9期。
郭凯明、龚六堂,2012:《社会保障、家庭养老与经济增长》,《金融研究》第1期。
郭凯明、颜色,2015:《性别工资差距、资本积累与人口转变》,《金融研究》第8期。
郭凯明、颜色,2016:《延迟退休年龄、代际收入转移与劳动力供给增长》,《经济研究》第6期。
刘学良,2014:《中国养老保险的收支缺口和可持续性研究》,《中国工业经济》第9期。
马忠东、吕智浩、叶孔嘉,2010:《劳动参与率与劳动力增长:1982—2050年》,《中国人口科学》第1期。
潘珊、龚六堂,2015:《中国税收政策的福利成本——基于两部门结构转型框架的定量分析》,《经济研究》第9期。
石智雷,2015:《多子未必多福——生育决策、家庭养老与农村老年人生活质量》,《社会学研究》第5期。
王海港,2005:《中国居民收入分配的代际流动》,《经济科学》第2期。
汪伟、郭新强、艾春荣,2013:《融资约束、劳动收入份额下降与中国低消费》,《经济研究》第11期。
吴延兵,2012:《国有企业双重效率损失研究》,《经济研究》第3期。
严成樑,2016:《延迟退休、内生出生率与经济增长》,《经济研究》第11期。
杨娟、赖德胜、邱牧远,2015:《如何通过教育缓解收入不平等?》,《经济研究》第9期。
杨俊、龚六堂、王亚平,2006:《国有股权型社会保障研究》,《经济研究》第3期。
杨俊、龚六堂,2008:《国有资本收入对养老保险的划拨率研究》,《金融研究》第11期。
袁诚、张磊、曾颖,2013:《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》,《经济学动态》第3期。
张川川、John Giles、赵耀辉,2015:《新型农村社会养老保险政策效果评估——收入、贫困、消费、主观福利和劳动供给》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期。
郑伟、陈凯、林山君,2017:《中国养老保险制度“参量式”改革效应评估及政策应用研究》,国家社会科学基金项目结题报告。
郑伟、孙祁祥,2003:《中国养老保险制度变迁的经济效应》,《经济研究》第10期。
Becker,G.S.,and R.J.Barro,1988,“A Reformulation of the Economic Theory of Fertility”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,103(1),1—25.
Becker,G.S.,K.M.Murphy,and R.Tamura,1990,“Human Capital,Fertility,and Economic Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,98(5),12—37.
Blankenau,W.F.,and N.B.Simpson,2004,“Public Education Expenditures and Growth”,Journal of Development Economics,73(2),583—605.
Blau,D.M.,and R.M.Goodstein,2010,“Can Social Security Explain Trends in Labor Force Participation of Older Men in the United States?”,Journal of Human Resources,45(2),328—363.
Brandt,L.,and X.Zhu,2010,“Accounting for China's Growth”,University of Toronto Working Paper,No.394.
Cipriani,G.P.,2014,“Population Aging and PAYG Pensions in the OLG Model”,Journal of Population Economics,27(1),251—256.
Ehrlich,I.,and F.T.Lui,1991,“Intergenerational Trade,Longevity,and Economic Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,99(5),1029—1059.
Ehrlich,I.,and J.Kim,2007,“Social Security and Demographic Trends:Theory and Evidence from the International Experience”,Review of Economic Dynamics,10(1),55—77.
Ferreira,P.C.,and M.R.D.Santos,2013,“The Effect of Social Security,Health,Demography and Technology on Retirement”,Review of Economic Dynamics,16(2),350—370.
French,E.,and J.Jones,2012,“Public Pensions and Labor Supply over the Life Cycle”,International Tax and Public Finance,19(2),268—287.
Galor,O.,and D.N.Weil,1996,“The Gender Gap,Fertility,and Growth”,American Economic Review,86(3),374—387.
Gruber,J.,and D.Wise,1999,Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World,University of Chicago Press.
Hern?s,E.,S.Markussen,J.Piggott,and K.R?ed,2016,“Pension Reform and Labor Supply”,Journal of Public Economics,142(1),39—55.
Hirazawa,M.,and A.Yakita,2009,“Fertility,Child Care Outside the Home,and Pay-as-you-go Social Security”,Journal of Population Economics,22(3),565—583.
Wang,L.,2015,“Fertility and Unemployment in a Social Security System”,Economics Letters,2015,133(1),19—23.
Wigger,B.U.,1999,“Pay-as-you-go Financed Public Pensions in A Model of Endogenous Growth and Fertility”,Journal of Population Economics,12(4),625—640.
Yew,S.L.,and J.Zhang,2009,“Optimal Social Security in a Dynastic Model with Human Capital Externalities,Fertility and Endogenous Growth”,Journal of Public Economics,93(3—4),605—619.
Zhang,J.,1995,“Social Security and Endogenous Growth”,Journal of Public Economics,58(2),185—213.
① “中成本”情景是指影响职工基本养老保险制度的人口、经济和制度参数的取值均为符合最佳估计、最有可能发生的情景。
(1)全面二孩政策提高了个人选择生育子女数量的自主权,生育决策成为多数适龄家庭需要面对的重要议题,因此可将生育率作为内生变量。遵循内生生育率文献的一贯做法,本文在模型中没有区分个人性别,每个成年人代表一个家庭都可以进行生育。
(2)私人教育与公共教育之间究竟是替代关系还是互补关系,尚缺乏充足的经验证据,本文假设二者呈替代关系,论文所得结论建立在该假设基础之上。欲展现私人教育与公共教育之间可能存在的各种关系,可建立CES型人力资本积累方程,类似于(8)式。
(3)子女成长情况的一般形式为nρth■。为简化模型,假设κ=1,则ρ表示相对于子女质量,父母对子女数量的重视程度。放松该假设会影响数量和质量的替代关系,但不会改变国有资本划转养老保险基金对劳动力供给的作用机制。
(4)本文定义的“划转率”与《划转部分国有资本充实社保基金实施方案》本质上是相同。《实施方案》要求划转承接主体通过持有的股权分红和国有资本运作收益弥补基金缺口,说明划转的基数是国有资本存量及收益。
(5)实际上,随着经济发展阶段变化,财政支出结构会进行相应调整,我国财政支出结构将由过去“重经济建设、轻民生保障”逐渐向同等重视经济建设和民生保障转变。由于本文研究的核心问题是国有资本划转,而非财政支出结构优化调整,为简化分析,假设财政支出结构保持不变。
(6)根据《国家人口发展规划(2016—2030年)》,2015年中国总和生育率在1.5—1.6之间,本文取1.5。由于假设每个人代表一个家庭都可进行生育,则生育率n=0.75。考虑到经济新常态下中国经济增速放缓,本文假设未来每年人均经济增长率为4%,则人力资本增长系数g=1.0430=3.243。
高奥、龚六堂,2015:《国有资本收入划拨养老保险、人力资本积累与经济增长》,《金融研究》第1期。
高奥、谭娅、龚六堂,2016:《国有资本收入划拨养老保险、社会福利与收入不平等》,《世界经济》第1期。
耿志祥、孙祁祥、郑伟,2016:《人口老龄化、资产价格与资本积累》,《经济研究》第9期。
郭凯明、龚六堂,2012:《社会保障、家庭养老与经济增长》,《金融研究》第1期。
郭凯明、颜色,2015:《性别工资差距、资本积累与人口转变》,《金融研究》第8期。
郭凯明、颜色,2016:《延迟退休年龄、代际收入转移与劳动力供给增长》,《经济研究》第6期。
刘学良,2014:《中国养老保险的收支缺口和可持续性研究》,《中国工业经济》第9期。
马忠东、吕智浩、叶孔嘉,2010:《劳动参与率与劳动力增长:1982—2050年》,《中国人口科学》第1期。
潘珊、龚六堂,2015:《中国税收政策的福利成本——基于两部门结构转型框架的定量分析》,《经济研究》第9期。
石智雷,2015:《多子未必多福——生育决策、家庭养老与农村老年人生活质量》,《社会学研究》第5期。
王海港,2005:《中国居民收入分配的代际流动》,《经济科学》第2期。
汪伟、郭新强、艾春荣,2013:《融资约束、劳动收入份额下降与中国低消费》,《经济研究》第11期。
吴延兵,2012:《国有企业双重效率损失研究》,《经济研究》第3期。
严成樑,2016:《延迟退休、内生出生率与经济增长》,《经济研究》第11期。
杨娟、赖德胜、邱牧远,2015:《如何通过教育缓解收入不平等?》,《经济研究》第9期。
杨俊、龚六堂、王亚平,2006:《国有股权型社会保障研究》,《经济研究》第3期。
杨俊、龚六堂,2008:《国有资本收入对养老保险的划拨率研究》,《金融研究》第11期。
袁诚、张磊、曾颖,2013:《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》,《经济学动态》第3期。
张川川、John Giles、赵耀辉,2015:《新型农村社会养老保险政策效果评估——收入、贫困、消费、主观福利和劳动供给》,《经济学(季刊)》第1期。
郑伟、陈凯、林山君,2017:《中国养老保险制度“参量式”改革效应评估及政策应用研究》,国家社会科学基金项目结题报告。
郑伟、孙祁祥,2003:《中国养老保险制度变迁的经济效应》,《经济研究》第10期。
Becker,G.S.,and R.J.Barro,1988,“A Reformulation of the Economic Theory of Fertility”,Quarterly Journal of Economics,103(1),1—25.
Becker,G.S.,K.M.Murphy,and R.Tamura,1990,“Human Capital,Fertility,and Economic Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,98(5),12—37.
Blankenau,W.F.,and N.B.Simpson,2004,“Public Education Expenditures and Growth”,Journal of Development Economics,73(2),583—605.
Blau,D.M.,and R.M.Goodstein,2010,“Can Social Security Explain Trends in Labor Force Participation of Older Men in the United States?”,Journal of Human Resources,45(2),328—363.
Brandt,L.,and X.Zhu,2010,“Accounting for China's Growth”,University of Toronto Working Paper,No.394.
Cipriani,G.P.,2014,“Population Aging and PAYG Pensions in the OLG Model”,Journal of Population Economics,27(1),251—256.
Ehrlich,I.,and F.T.Lui,1991,“Intergenerational Trade,Longevity,and Economic Growth”,Journal of Political Economy,99(5),1029—1059.
Ehrlich,I.,and J.Kim,2007,“Social Security and Demographic Trends:Theory and Evidence from the International Experience”,Review of Economic Dynamics,10(1),55—77.
Ferreira,P.C.,and M.R.D.Santos,2013,“The Effect of Social Security,Health,Demography and Technology on Retirement”,Review of Economic Dynamics,16(2),350—370.
French,E.,and J.Jones,2012,“Public Pensions and Labor Supply over the Life Cycle”,International Tax and Public Finance,19(2),268—287.
Galor,O.,and D.N.Weil,1996,“The Gender Gap,Fertility,and Growth”,American Economic Review,86(3),374—387.
Gruber,J.,and D.Wise,1999,Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World,University of Chicago Press.
Hern?s,E.,S.Markussen,J.Piggott,and K.R?ed,2016,“Pension Reform and Labor Supply”,Journal of Public Economics,142(1),39—55.
Hirazawa,M.,and A.Yakita,2009,“Fertility,Child Care Outside the Home,and Pay-as-you-go Social Security”,Journal of Population Economics,22(3),565—583.
Wang,L.,2015,“Fertility and Unemployment in a Social Security System”,Economics Letters,2015,133(1),19—23.
Wigger,B.U.,1999,“Pay-as-you-go Financed Public Pensions in A Model of Endogenous Growth and Fertility”,Journal of Population Economics,12(4),625—640.
Yew,S.L.,and J.Zhang,2009,“Optimal Social Security in a Dynastic Model with Human Capital Externalities,Fertility and Endogenous Growth”,Journal of Public Economics,93(3—4),605—619.
Zhang,J.,1995,“Social Security and Endogenous Growth”,Journal of Public Economics,58(2),185—213.
① “中成本”情景是指影响职工基本养老保险制度的人口、经济和制度参数的取值均为符合最佳估计、最有可能发生的情景。
(1)全面二孩政策提高了个人选择生育子女数量的自主权,生育决策成为多数适龄家庭需要面对的重要议题,因此可将生育率作为内生变量。遵循内生生育率文献的一贯做法,本文在模型中没有区分个人性别,每个成年人代表一个家庭都可以进行生育。
(2)私人教育与公共教育之间究竟是替代关系还是互补关系,尚缺乏充足的经验证据,本文假设二者呈替代关系,论文所得结论建立在该假设基础之上。欲展现私人教育与公共教育之间可能存在的各种关系,可建立CES型人力资本积累方程,类似于(8)式。
(3)子女成长情况的一般形式为nρth■。为简化模型,假设κ=1,则ρ表示相对于子女质量,父母对子女数量的重视程度。放松该假设会影响数量和质量的替代关系,但不会改变国有资本划转养老保险基金对劳动力供给的作用机制。
(4)本文定义的“划转率”与《划转部分国有资本充实社保基金实施方案》本质上是相同。《实施方案》要求划转承接主体通过持有的股权分红和国有资本运作收益弥补基金缺口,说明划转的基数是国有资本存量及收益。
(5)实际上,随着经济发展阶段变化,财政支出结构会进行相应调整,我国财政支出结构将由过去“重经济建设、轻民生保障”逐渐向同等重视经济建设和民生保障转变。由于本文研究的核心问题是国有资本划转,而非财政支出结构优化调整,为简化分析,假设财政支出结构保持不变。
(6)根据《国家人口发展规划(2016—2030年)》,2015年中国总和生育率在1.5—1.6之间,本文取1.5。由于假设每个人代表一个家庭都可进行生育,则生育率n=0.75。考虑到经济新常态下中国经济增速放缓,本文假设未来每年人均经济增长率为4%,则人力资本增长系数g=1.0430=3.243。