公共支出转型及其经济发展效应研究
|
摘要
转型背景下政府公共支出的经济发展效应是公共经济领域关注的基本问题。改革开放30多年来,中国经济实现了高速增长,政府的财政政策发挥了重要作用,特别是适应市场经济发展的公共支出政策的不断调整。当前,中国经济快速增长的同时伴随着社会公平问题日益突出,经济发展失衡问题集中爆发。随着经济社会的发展,人们对于公共服务的需求不断增加,与此同时近年来政府在公共服务领域失责程度不断加剧。在这一过程中,经济转轨的体制背景是一个具有重要影响的约束条件。结合体制转轨的背景,基于政府职能由经济建设型向公共服务型转变的视角,对政府经济职能的执行成本——公共支出进行研究,分析与政府职能转变相适应的政府公共支出转型及其对经济发展的影响,具有一定的理论价值和实践意义。
领域文献研究发现,国内外公共支出相关文献的研究内容主要涉及了公共支出的涵义与范围、公共支出的规模与结构、公共支出对于经济增长的影响、公共支出对于社会公平的影响四个方面。综合分析发现,以往的研究主要存在以下几点局限:第一,政府公共支出调整多以促进经济增长率最大化为唯一目标;第二,公共支出多归类为生产性支出和非生产性支出,对经济增长或社会公平的影响缺少了二者的协同分析;第三,经济水平考察通常侧重于经济总量分析;第四,公共支出调整对具体的经济制度与经济体制多有忽略。
鉴于此,本研究结合发展经济学、公共经济学等相关理论,构建了一个统一的公共支出分析框架,把经济增长与社会公平统一于经济发展的理论框架之中,基于政府职能转变的视角对公共支出转型及其对经济发展的影响等进行了分析。
本研究的主要内容有以下几个方面:
(1)从公共产品与政府职能理论分析入手,对政府职能转变与公共支出转型的关系进行了理论分析。经济转型使政府的行为目标和约束条件都发生了根本性的变化。公共支出是政府行为的数量反映,体现政府政策选择和执行成本。公共支出结构的变化有效度量了政府职能的转变。在中国,随着经济体制转轨,政府职能从经济建设型向公共服务型转变,公共支出结构也应当从原来的经济建设型转向公共服务型。
(2)考察中国公共支出转型中公共支出规模与结构变化的时空特征,并通过部分发达市场经济国家和发展中国家经济发展水平与公共支出规模结构的国际比较,剖析了中国政府在安排公共支出方面存在的与政府职能转变不相适应的问题。研究发现:中国的公共支出结构事实上已经从经济建设型转向公共服务型;改革开放以来中国政府提供的公共服务产品还较短缺,其公共服务职能并没有得到切实的增强。
(3)依据公共支出转型中规模结构调整与经济发展水平关系的理论推论,采取中国1980~2006年的时间序列数据和省级横截性数据,运用向量自回归方法实证检验了政府公共支出转型中公共支出规模结构调整与经济发展水平之间的长期和短期均衡关系及其因果关系。研究发现:政府预算内经济建设支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平之间存在较显著的正相关关系;政府预算内公共服务支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平显著负相关,即在中国目前经济社会发展水平还较低、社会公共设施和公共服务水平与市场经济较发达国家相比也非常不足的情况下,教育、医疗、卫生等公共设施与服务水平表现为对经济发展水平的负向作用;基本公共服务支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平正相关;政府预算内支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平为反向变动关系;长期而言,经济建设支出、地方财政支出是经济发展的格兰杰原因,公共服务支出、基本公共服务支出和政府预算内支出不是,而基本公共服务支出与经济发展呈双向因果关系,反过来,经济发展水平还是政府预算内支出增加的长期原因。另外,本研究还采用最小二乘法估计了公共服务支出总量与结构对经济增长与社会公平的影响。研究发现:中国公共服务支出占GDP的比重与经济增长率负相关,与社会不公平程度正相关,这一结论说明了公共服务支出的增加并没有带来预期的经济增长效应,同时也没有导致全社会成员公平地享有经济增长的好处;一般公共服务支出占总支出的比重的增加抑制了经济增长,也不利于提升社会公平;科教文卫等基本公共服务支出占总支出的比重的增加对经济增长有促进作用,同时能显著提升社会公平。
(4)结合中国实际,对公共支出由经济建设型向公共服务型转型的影响因素进行了分析。研究发现:经济总量规模、体制因素、收入不平等状况、财政供养人口和转移支付规模为公共支出转型的重要影响因素,但其对公共支出转型的影响程度具有非均衡性。
最后为六点政策建议:(1)政府公共支出政策应从效率观转向以再分配为核心的公平增长观,以公平促发展;(2)加快公共支出转型,进一步提高公共服务性支出尤其是基本公共服务支出比重,把建立公共服务体系作为推进政府职能转型的主要任务;(3)尽快实施基本公共服务均等化,发挥其调节社会收入公平的作用;(4)加快公共财政体制建设,克服政府支出严重低效浪费现象;(5)进一步完善转移支付制度;(6)注重适度调节公共支出总量来提高公共支出转型程度。
The effect of economic development of government public expenditures on the background of economic institutional transition is a fundamental issue in the field of public economy. More than 30 years of reform and opening up, Chinese economy has realized high growth and government's fiscal policy has played an important role, especially the policy of public expenditures adjustments in the development of the market economy. At present, China's rapid economic growth accompanied by an increasingly prominent issue of social equity, and the imbalance of economic development broke out. With the economic and social development, the demand for public services increased, while the degree of duty default of government public service aggravated in recent years. In this process, the background of economic institutional transition is one significant constraint condition. Combined with the background of the system transition, based on the perspective of government function changing from economic construction model to public service model, the article researched government public expenditures - the implementation cost of government economic functions, analyzed government public expenditures transition and it's impact on economic development adapting to the change of government function, which having a theoretical value and practical significance.
Studies in the field of literature found that the researched context of correlative literature of public expenditures home and abroad mainly deals with the meaning and scope of public expenditures , the scale and the structure of public expenditures , the effect of public expenditures on economic growth, and the effect of public expenditures on social equity. Comprehensive analysis found that previous studies mainly have some limits: First, previous researches of government public expenditures adjustment more target promoting economic growth maximizing as a sole goal; Second, public expenditures were more classified as productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure, and their effects on economic growth or social equity lack synergy analysis; Third, the economic level usually focused on the analysis of economic gross; Fourth, previous analysis of public expenditures adjustment more neglected specific economic institution and economic system.
In view of this, combined with the correlative theories of development economics, public economics and so on, this research constructed an unified analysis framework of public expenditures, united economic growth and social equity into an unified theoretical framework of economic development, analyzed public expenditures transition and its effect on economic development based on the perspective of transition of government functions.
The study mainly includes the following areas:
(1) From the theories of public goods and government functions, the research analyzed the relationship of government functions change and public expenditures transition. Economic transition made the government conduct objectives and constraints conditions fundamentally change. Public expenditures not only reflect the quantity of government's actions, but also embody government policy choices and implementation costs. The changes in the structure of public expenditures effectively measure the transition of government functions. In China, with economic system transition, government functions changed from the economic development model to public services model, public expenditures' structure should also transited from original model of economic development to public service model.
(2) Studying the temporal and spatial characteristics of Chinese public expenditures scale and structure changes in public expenditures transition, making international comparison about the level of economic development and the scale or the structure of public expenditures of some developed market economic countries and developing countries, the article analyzed the problems that exist in the arrangements of public expenditures not meeting government functions transition. The study found: the structure of Chinese public expenditure had actually changed from economic development model to public service model; Since reform and opening up, public services products provided by Chinese government were still very shortage, and government public service functions had not been effectively enhanced.
(3) Based on the theory inference of the relationship between the scale and structure adjustment of public expenditures in transition and the level of economic development, adopting Chinese 1980～2006 time series data and provincial cross-sectional data, using the newly developed vector autoregressive (VAR)methods and co-integration theory, the research empirically tested the long-term and short-term equilibrium relationships and their causal relationship between the scale and structure adjustment of public expenditures in transition and the level of economic development. The study found: Government budget economic constructive expenditures ratio in nominal GDP more significantly positive correlated with the level of economic development; Government budget public services expenditures ratio in nominal GDP significantly positive correlated the level of economic development, namely the current level of economic and social development in China still relatively low, public facilities and public services also inadequate compared with more developed market economy countries, education, health care, health and other public facilities and services played an negative role in economic development; Basic public services expenditures ratio in nominal GDP had positive correlation with the level of economic development; Government budget expenditures ratio in nominal GDP negatively correlated the level of economic development; In the long term, economic constructive expenditures and local financial expenditures were the granger causes of economic development, public services expenditure, basic public services expenditure and government budget expenditures were not granger causes of economic development. Basic public services expenditures and economic development had two-way causal relations. On the contrary, the level of economic development was the long-term reason of government's budget expenditures increasing. In addition, in order to better analyze the effect mechanisms of public expenditures transition, this paper, using OLS method, estimated the role of the gross and structure of public services expenditures to economic growth and social equity. The study found: The increasing of public services expenditures did not produce expected effects of economic growth and did not let people fairly sharing in goods of economic growth too; Normal public services expenditures negatively correlated economic growth and social equity; Basic public services expenditures significantly promoted economic growth and social equity.
(4) Combining with Chinese practices, the research analyzed the effect factors of public expenditures transition from economic construction model to public service model. The study found: the scale of economic gross, institutional factors, income inequality, the population of financial support and the size of transfer payments are important effect factors of public expenditures transition, while the effect extent are not balanced.
Finally, for the six-point policy proposals: (1) Government's public expenditure policy should shift from efficiency concept to equity growth concept with the core of redistribution; (2) Speed up public expenditures transition to further increase public service expenditures, especially basic public services expenditures proportion, have the establishment of public service system as the main task to promote government functions transition; (3) Implement basic public services equalization as soon as possible, playing its regulating role of social income equality; (4) Speed up the construction of public finance system and overcome seriously lower effectiveness and wastefulness of government expenditures; (5) Further improve the system of transfer payments; (6) Pay attention to adjust moderately the total of public expenditures to improve the degree of public expenditures transition.
领域文献研究发现,国内外公共支出相关文献的研究内容主要涉及了公共支出的涵义与范围、公共支出的规模与结构、公共支出对于经济增长的影响、公共支出对于社会公平的影响四个方面。综合分析发现,以往的研究主要存在以下几点局限:第一,政府公共支出调整多以促进经济增长率最大化为唯一目标;第二,公共支出多归类为生产性支出和非生产性支出,对经济增长或社会公平的影响缺少了二者的协同分析;第三,经济水平考察通常侧重于经济总量分析;第四,公共支出调整对具体的经济制度与经济体制多有忽略。
鉴于此,本研究结合发展经济学、公共经济学等相关理论,构建了一个统一的公共支出分析框架,把经济增长与社会公平统一于经济发展的理论框架之中,基于政府职能转变的视角对公共支出转型及其对经济发展的影响等进行了分析。
本研究的主要内容有以下几个方面:
(1)从公共产品与政府职能理论分析入手,对政府职能转变与公共支出转型的关系进行了理论分析。经济转型使政府的行为目标和约束条件都发生了根本性的变化。公共支出是政府行为的数量反映,体现政府政策选择和执行成本。公共支出结构的变化有效度量了政府职能的转变。在中国,随着经济体制转轨,政府职能从经济建设型向公共服务型转变,公共支出结构也应当从原来的经济建设型转向公共服务型。
(2)考察中国公共支出转型中公共支出规模与结构变化的时空特征,并通过部分发达市场经济国家和发展中国家经济发展水平与公共支出规模结构的国际比较,剖析了中国政府在安排公共支出方面存在的与政府职能转变不相适应的问题。研究发现:中国的公共支出结构事实上已经从经济建设型转向公共服务型;改革开放以来中国政府提供的公共服务产品还较短缺,其公共服务职能并没有得到切实的增强。
(3)依据公共支出转型中规模结构调整与经济发展水平关系的理论推论,采取中国1980~2006年的时间序列数据和省级横截性数据,运用向量自回归方法实证检验了政府公共支出转型中公共支出规模结构调整与经济发展水平之间的长期和短期均衡关系及其因果关系。研究发现:政府预算内经济建设支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平之间存在较显著的正相关关系;政府预算内公共服务支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平显著负相关,即在中国目前经济社会发展水平还较低、社会公共设施和公共服务水平与市场经济较发达国家相比也非常不足的情况下,教育、医疗、卫生等公共设施与服务水平表现为对经济发展水平的负向作用;基本公共服务支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平正相关;政府预算内支出的名义GDP占比与经济发展水平为反向变动关系;长期而言,经济建设支出、地方财政支出是经济发展的格兰杰原因,公共服务支出、基本公共服务支出和政府预算内支出不是,而基本公共服务支出与经济发展呈双向因果关系,反过来,经济发展水平还是政府预算内支出增加的长期原因。另外,本研究还采用最小二乘法估计了公共服务支出总量与结构对经济增长与社会公平的影响。研究发现:中国公共服务支出占GDP的比重与经济增长率负相关,与社会不公平程度正相关,这一结论说明了公共服务支出的增加并没有带来预期的经济增长效应,同时也没有导致全社会成员公平地享有经济增长的好处;一般公共服务支出占总支出的比重的增加抑制了经济增长,也不利于提升社会公平;科教文卫等基本公共服务支出占总支出的比重的增加对经济增长有促进作用,同时能显著提升社会公平。
(4)结合中国实际,对公共支出由经济建设型向公共服务型转型的影响因素进行了分析。研究发现:经济总量规模、体制因素、收入不平等状况、财政供养人口和转移支付规模为公共支出转型的重要影响因素,但其对公共支出转型的影响程度具有非均衡性。
最后为六点政策建议:(1)政府公共支出政策应从效率观转向以再分配为核心的公平增长观,以公平促发展;(2)加快公共支出转型,进一步提高公共服务性支出尤其是基本公共服务支出比重,把建立公共服务体系作为推进政府职能转型的主要任务;(3)尽快实施基本公共服务均等化,发挥其调节社会收入公平的作用;(4)加快公共财政体制建设,克服政府支出严重低效浪费现象;(5)进一步完善转移支付制度;(6)注重适度调节公共支出总量来提高公共支出转型程度。
The effect of economic development of government public expenditures on the background of economic institutional transition is a fundamental issue in the field of public economy. More than 30 years of reform and opening up, Chinese economy has realized high growth and government's fiscal policy has played an important role, especially the policy of public expenditures adjustments in the development of the market economy. At present, China's rapid economic growth accompanied by an increasingly prominent issue of social equity, and the imbalance of economic development broke out. With the economic and social development, the demand for public services increased, while the degree of duty default of government public service aggravated in recent years. In this process, the background of economic institutional transition is one significant constraint condition. Combined with the background of the system transition, based on the perspective of government function changing from economic construction model to public service model, the article researched government public expenditures - the implementation cost of government economic functions, analyzed government public expenditures transition and it's impact on economic development adapting to the change of government function, which having a theoretical value and practical significance.
Studies in the field of literature found that the researched context of correlative literature of public expenditures home and abroad mainly deals with the meaning and scope of public expenditures , the scale and the structure of public expenditures , the effect of public expenditures on economic growth, and the effect of public expenditures on social equity. Comprehensive analysis found that previous studies mainly have some limits: First, previous researches of government public expenditures adjustment more target promoting economic growth maximizing as a sole goal; Second, public expenditures were more classified as productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure, and their effects on economic growth or social equity lack synergy analysis; Third, the economic level usually focused on the analysis of economic gross; Fourth, previous analysis of public expenditures adjustment more neglected specific economic institution and economic system.
In view of this, combined with the correlative theories of development economics, public economics and so on, this research constructed an unified analysis framework of public expenditures, united economic growth and social equity into an unified theoretical framework of economic development, analyzed public expenditures transition and its effect on economic development based on the perspective of transition of government functions.
The study mainly includes the following areas:
(1) From the theories of public goods and government functions, the research analyzed the relationship of government functions change and public expenditures transition. Economic transition made the government conduct objectives and constraints conditions fundamentally change. Public expenditures not only reflect the quantity of government's actions, but also embody government policy choices and implementation costs. The changes in the structure of public expenditures effectively measure the transition of government functions. In China, with economic system transition, government functions changed from the economic development model to public services model, public expenditures' structure should also transited from original model of economic development to public service model.
(2) Studying the temporal and spatial characteristics of Chinese public expenditures scale and structure changes in public expenditures transition, making international comparison about the level of economic development and the scale or the structure of public expenditures of some developed market economic countries and developing countries, the article analyzed the problems that exist in the arrangements of public expenditures not meeting government functions transition. The study found: the structure of Chinese public expenditure had actually changed from economic development model to public service model; Since reform and opening up, public services products provided by Chinese government were still very shortage, and government public service functions had not been effectively enhanced.
(3) Based on the theory inference of the relationship between the scale and structure adjustment of public expenditures in transition and the level of economic development, adopting Chinese 1980～2006 time series data and provincial cross-sectional data, using the newly developed vector autoregressive (VAR)methods and co-integration theory, the research empirically tested the long-term and short-term equilibrium relationships and their causal relationship between the scale and structure adjustment of public expenditures in transition and the level of economic development. The study found: Government budget economic constructive expenditures ratio in nominal GDP more significantly positive correlated with the level of economic development; Government budget public services expenditures ratio in nominal GDP significantly positive correlated the level of economic development, namely the current level of economic and social development in China still relatively low, public facilities and public services also inadequate compared with more developed market economy countries, education, health care, health and other public facilities and services played an negative role in economic development; Basic public services expenditures ratio in nominal GDP had positive correlation with the level of economic development; Government budget expenditures ratio in nominal GDP negatively correlated the level of economic development; In the long term, economic constructive expenditures and local financial expenditures were the granger causes of economic development, public services expenditure, basic public services expenditure and government budget expenditures were not granger causes of economic development. Basic public services expenditures and economic development had two-way causal relations. On the contrary, the level of economic development was the long-term reason of government's budget expenditures increasing. In addition, in order to better analyze the effect mechanisms of public expenditures transition, this paper, using OLS method, estimated the role of the gross and structure of public services expenditures to economic growth and social equity. The study found: The increasing of public services expenditures did not produce expected effects of economic growth and did not let people fairly sharing in goods of economic growth too; Normal public services expenditures negatively correlated economic growth and social equity; Basic public services expenditures significantly promoted economic growth and social equity.
(4) Combining with Chinese practices, the research analyzed the effect factors of public expenditures transition from economic construction model to public service model. The study found: the scale of economic gross, institutional factors, income inequality, the population of financial support and the size of transfer payments are important effect factors of public expenditures transition, while the effect extent are not balanced.
Finally, for the six-point policy proposals: (1) Government's public expenditure policy should shift from efficiency concept to equity growth concept with the core of redistribution; (2) Speed up public expenditures transition to further increase public service expenditures, especially basic public services expenditures proportion, have the establishment of public service system as the main task to promote government functions transition; (3) Implement basic public services equalization as soon as possible, playing its regulating role of social income equality; (4) Speed up the construction of public finance system and overcome seriously lower effectiveness and wastefulness of government expenditures; (5) Further improve the system of transfer payments; (6) Pay attention to adjust moderately the total of public expenditures to improve the degree of public expenditures transition.
引文
[1]阿瑟·奥肯.平等与效率——重大的抉择[M].华夏出版社,1999.
[2]阿瑟·刘易斯.二元经济论[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1989.
[3]安体富.民生财政:我国财政支出结构调整的历史性转折[J].地方财政研究,2008,5:6-10.
[4]安体富.完善公共财政制度逐步实现公共服务均等化[J].财经问题研究,2007,7:5-10.
[5]安体富,王海勇.我国公共财政制度的完善[J].经济理论与经济管理,2005,4:22-28.
[6]保罗·A·萨缪尔森,威廉·D·诺德豪斯.经济学(第12版)[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992.
[7]毕世杰.发展经济学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
[8]布朗,杰克逊.公共部门经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[9]蔡继明.从中共十三大到中共十七大——解读平等、效率和公平关系的演变[J].经济学动态,2008,1:72-77。
[10]蔡社文.我国社会保障支出水平分析[J].预算管理与会计,2004,7:17-19.
[11]陈海威.中国基本公共服务体系研究[J].科学社会主义,2007,3:100-102.
[12]陈继明.政府职能转型与公共支出的相关分析[J].经济管理,2007,6:80-85.
[13]迟福林.中国经济体制转轨:进程、挑战与目标[J].转轨通讯,2004,3:12-14.
[14]大卫·李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].上海:商务印书馆,1976.
[15]邓子基.现代西方财政学[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,1994.
[16]丁元竹.促进我国基本公共服务均等化的战略思路和基本对策[J].经济研究参考,2008,.48:12-13.
[17]丁元竹.当代社会发展必须面对和需要解决的八大问题[J].经济社会体制比较,2007,6:63-70.
[18]丁元竹.统筹发展应以公平为目标[J].瞭望,2004,31:64.
[19]冯秀华.公共支出[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[20]冯彦明,夏杰长.就业机会:政府必须提供的一种公共产品[J].经济学动态,2004,7:23-25.
[21]弗里德曼.弗里德曼文萃[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1991.
[22]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,2006,1:20-29.
[23]高培勇.市场经济体制与公共财政框架[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[24]高强.高强部长在中央机关形势报告会上定调医改思路[J].医院领导决策参考,2005,16:6-11.
[25]高尚全.尽快解决弱势群体的社会保障问题[J].人民论坛,2005,9:11-12.
[26]耿明斋.统筹区域发展与基本公共服务均等化[J].惠及13亿人的基本公共服务论坛(中国海南改革发展研究院),2007.
[27]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,2001,9:67-73.
[28]郭杰.政府支出对GDP的影响[J].财经科学,2003,4:49-52.
[29]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,2003,11:5-12.
[30]哈维·S·罗森.财政学(第四版)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社2000.
[31]汉森.财政政策与景气循环[M].北京:外文书店,1980.
[32]黄范章.探索、建设社会主义市场经济体制的30年[J].经济学动态,2008,8:17-23.
[33]吉利斯(Gillis)和帕金斯(Perkins).发展经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[34]杰拉尔德·M·迈即(Meier,G.M.).发展经济学的先驱理论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1995.
[35]凯恩斯.就业利息和货币通论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1983.
[36]孔祥利.政府公共支出与经济增长相关性的实证分析——利用斜率关联模型求解的一种新方法[J].人文杂志,2005,2:74-78.
[37]寇铁军,金双华.财政支出规模、结构与社会公平关系的研究[J].上海财经大学学报,2002,12:17-23.
[38]李斌.小城镇可持续发展公平性评价的定量探讨[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2005,1:85-90.
[39]理查德·A·马斯格雷夫.比较财政分析[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1996l.
[40]李春林,屈驳韵.基于Pannel-Data的地区财政支出结构优化模型研究[J].数理统计与管理,2005,4:60-63.
[41]李茂生,陈昌盛.现代市场经济社会的财政职能[J].中国社会科学院,2005,11:19-24.
[42]李永友.公共支出与国民产出——基于瓦格纳定律的实证检验[J].财经研究,2005,7:102-113.
[43]李永友,沈坤荣.财政支出结构、相对贫困与经济增长[J].管理世界,2007,11:14-26.
[44]林鹏.构建公共财政的支出框架.国有资产研究[J],2000,1:26-28.
[45]刘溶沧,马拴友.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,2001,2:13-19.
[46]刘诗白.市场经济与公共产品[J].经济学动态,2007,6:19-22.
[47]娄洪.长期经济增长中的公共投资政策——包含一般拥挤性公共基础设施资本存量的动态经济增长模型[J].经济研究,2004,3:10-19.
[48]罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[49]洛克.政府论[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[50]罗斯托.经济成长的阶段[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[51]罗斯托.政治和成长阶段[M].剑桥大学出版社,1971.
[52]刘泽,侯风云.农村儿童为何失学?——基于多层模型的经验研究[J].北京师范大学学报,2007,2:72-82.
[53]吕炜.公平增长与公共支出的政策安排[J].经济社会体制比较,2004,5:12-29.
[54]吕炜,王伟同.发展失衡、公共服务与政府责任[J].中国社会科学,2008,4:52-64.
[55]马斯格雷夫.比较财政制度[M].上海:上海三联书店1996年中译本,1969.
[56]迈克尔·托达罗(Todaro,M.P.).第三世界的经济发展(上册):发展经济学教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1988.
[57]迈克尔·托达罗(Todaro,M.P.).经济发展与第三世界[M].北京:中国经济出版社,1992.
[58]穆勒.功用主义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1957.
[59]钱纳里(Chenery,W.).结构变化与发展政策[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1991.
[60]乔宝云.增长与均等的取舍[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[61]乔锦忠.优质高等教育入学机会分布的区域差异[J].北京师范大学学报,2007,1:25-30.
[62]青木昌彦等.政府在东亚经济发展中的作用—比较制度分析[M].赵辰宁等译.北京:中国经济出版社,1998.
[63]上海财经大学公共政策研究中心.2000中国财政发展报告[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2000.
[64]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长——中国数据的计量检验与实证分析[J].中国社会科学,2001,5:82-93.
[65]世界银行.中国:推动公平的经济增长[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[66]斯蒂格利茨.经济学[M].高鸿业等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1997.
[67]苏挺.财政政策与经济发展[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1990.
[68]孙文祥,张志超.财政支出结构对经济增长与社会公平的影响[J].上海财经大学学报,2004,6:4-10.
[69]王建军.刍议公共支出决策[J].江西财税与会计,1997,7:5-6.
[70]王力.浅议加强地方税税源的控管[J].内蒙古财会,2003,2:26-27.
[71]维托·坦齐,卢德格尔·舒克内希特.20世纪的公共支出[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[72]夏杰长.充分就业与构建和谐社会[J].中国金融, 2005,5:22-23.
[73]夏杰长.财政政策目标重新定位及其改革思路[J].经济学动态,2004,10:31-34.
[74]项怀诚.中国财政体制改革[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,1994.
[75]谢秋朝,侯菁菁.公共财政学(第一版) [M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[76]亚当·斯密.国富论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1988.
[77]亚里士多德.尼各马科伦理学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[78]亚里士多德.政治学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[80]阎坤,于树一.转轨背景下的公共支出结构失衡[J].经济研究参考,2004,80:2-15.
[81]杨继,杨卫.内生增长中的公共支出理论综述[J].经济学动态,2003,5:70-73.
[82]易丹辉.数据分析与Eviews应用[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2002.
[83]余天心,王石生.充分认识与把握解决“三农”问题的难点[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2003,6:92-93.
[84]曾五一,李海涛.中国区域间教育平等状况的统计考察[J].统计研究,2007,7:31-35.
[85]张彬.西部地区基本公共服务体系建设:差距、成因及对策[J].内蒙古大学学报,2007,9:17-19.
[86]张得让.政府采购支出的合理规模及其确定[J].财政研究,2002,6:23-27.
[87]张东豫,莫光财.基本公共服务均等化:基于地区差异及分析[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2007,4:89-92.
[88]张钢,段澈.我国地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长关系的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006,3:90-96.
[89]张清.财政支出和经济景气指标动态均衡关系研究[J].财政研究,2002,11:14-19.
[90]张晓峒.计量经济分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[91]张馨.中国财政制度对发展观的影响及“治本”建议[J].改革,2007,8:5-11.
[92]张馨.财政公共化改革:理论创新·制度变革·理念更新[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[93]中国经济增长与宏观稳定课题组.增长失衡与政府责任——基于社会性支出角度的分析[J].经济研究,2006,10:4-17.
[94]中国社会科学院财政与贸易经济研究所课题组.出口退税体制的问题与政策建议[J].税务研究,2005,6:32-36(2006中国社会科学院A类重大课题《重要战略机遇期的公共财政建设》部分成果).
[95]邹薇.公共支出对经济增长的效应:一个新的分析思路.制度经济学研究(第1卷)[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2003.
[96]庄子银,邹薇.公共支出能否促进经济增长[J].管理世界,2003,7:4-12.
[97] Alfred Greiner. Debt sustainability in the European Monetary Union: Theory and empirical evidence for selected countries[J]. Oxford Economic Papers, 1996, 59: 194-218.
[98] Arrow, K.& M. Kurz. Public investment, the rate of return and optimal fiscal policy[M]. John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1970.
[99] Aschauer, D.. Is government spending productive[J]? Journal of Monetary Economics, 1989, 23: 177-200.
[100] Barro, R.. Government Spending in a simple Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 8: 103-125.
[101] Barro, R.. Economic growth in a cross section of countries[J]. Quarterly Journal of Political Economy, 1991, 3: 103-125.
[102] Blankenau & Simpson. Human Capital Investment and Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2004, 96: 332-341.
[103] Chen,Shaohua and Yan Wang. China’s Growth and Poverty Reduction:1 nds between 1990 and 1999. world Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2001.
[104] Devarajan, V. Swaroop, H. Zou. The composition of public expenditure and economic growth[J]. Journal of monetary economics, 1996, 37: 313-344.
[105] Devereus, Head, Lapham. Government Expenditures and Economic Development: 1970-1990[J]. Journal of Montary Economics, 1996, 23: 313-317.
[106] D.HoltznEakin. PublicnSectorCapitalandtheProductivityPuzzle[M]. SyracuseUniversity, 1991.
[107] Engen E., J.Skinner. Fiscal policy and economic growth. NBER Working papers, No.4223, 1992.
[108] Evans, P. Government Consumption and Growth[J]. Economic Inquiry 1997, 35, 209-217.
[109] Gemmell. An Impirical Research on Government Size to Economic Growth[J]. Journal ofUrban Economics, 1983, 36: 98-115.
[110] Gramlich, E.. Infrastructure Investment A Review Essay[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1994, 32: 1176-1196.
[111] Grier, K., G. Tullock. An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth: 1950-1980[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1987, 24: 259-276.
[112] Hulten, C., Schwab, B.. Public Capital Formation and the Growth of Regional Manufacturing Industries[J]. National Tax Journal, 1991, 44: 121-134.
[113] Jalali, Naini. Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: Based on public product[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2000, 23: 637-656.
[114] Laudau, D.. Government and Economic Growth: An Empirical Study for 1960-1980[J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1986, 68: 783-792.
[115] Mark Gradstein. the Political Economy of Public Spending on Education,Inequality,and Growth. World Bank Policy Research W0rking Paper 3162,November 2003.
[116] Munnell, A.. Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1992, 6: 189-198.
[117] Nelson, Singh. an Endogenious Economic Growth Model[J]. Journal of Economic Studies,1994, 32: 1309-1317.
[118] Ram. Government Expenditure Structure and Economic Growth: International Evidence [R]. Policy research Work Paper, No.1607, May 1986.
[119] R.A.Musgrave. FiscalSystems[M]. YaleUniversityPress, 1969.
[120] Richard Kohl &Kevin O’Rourke. What is new about Globalization:Implication for Income Inequality inDeveloping Countries. OECD-EA,2000.
[121] Rostow, W.. Politics and the Stage of Growth[M]. Cambridge University Press,1971.
[122] Rubbinson. Government expenditures and econmic growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1977, 2: 119-128.
[123] Shabin Yaqub. How Equitable Is Public Spending on Health and Education? Background Paper to WDR 1, 2000.
[124] Sowell. Government Size and Economic Growth[J]. A Joint Economic Committee Study, 1980, 23: 215-223.
[125] Summers,R., A.Heston. A new Set of international Comparisons of Real Product and Price Levels: Estimates for 130 Countries[J]. Review of Income and Wealth, 1988, 34: 1-25.
[126] World Bank. Making Transition Work for Everyone:Poverty and Inequality in Europe and Central Asia. Washington D.C.,2000.
[127] World Bank.The East Asian Miracle:Economic Growth and Public Policy[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1993.
[128] World Bank. Transition:The First Ten Years Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington,D.C.,2002.
[2]阿瑟·刘易斯.二元经济论[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1989.
[3]安体富.民生财政:我国财政支出结构调整的历史性转折[J].地方财政研究,2008,5:6-10.
[4]安体富.完善公共财政制度逐步实现公共服务均等化[J].财经问题研究,2007,7:5-10.
[5]安体富,王海勇.我国公共财政制度的完善[J].经济理论与经济管理,2005,4:22-28.
[6]保罗·A·萨缪尔森,威廉·D·诺德豪斯.经济学(第12版)[M].北京:中国发展出版社,1992.
[7]毕世杰.发展经济学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
[8]布朗,杰克逊.公共部门经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[9]蔡继明.从中共十三大到中共十七大——解读平等、效率和公平关系的演变[J].经济学动态,2008,1:72-77。
[10]蔡社文.我国社会保障支出水平分析[J].预算管理与会计,2004,7:17-19.
[11]陈海威.中国基本公共服务体系研究[J].科学社会主义,2007,3:100-102.
[12]陈继明.政府职能转型与公共支出的相关分析[J].经济管理,2007,6:80-85.
[13]迟福林.中国经济体制转轨:进程、挑战与目标[J].转轨通讯,2004,3:12-14.
[14]大卫·李嘉图.政治经济学及赋税原理[M].上海:商务印书馆,1976.
[15]邓子基.现代西方财政学[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,1994.
[16]丁元竹.促进我国基本公共服务均等化的战略思路和基本对策[J].经济研究参考,2008,.48:12-13.
[17]丁元竹.当代社会发展必须面对和需要解决的八大问题[J].经济社会体制比较,2007,6:63-70.
[18]丁元竹.统筹发展应以公平为目标[J].瞭望,2004,31:64.
[19]冯秀华.公共支出[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2000.
[20]冯彦明,夏杰长.就业机会:政府必须提供的一种公共产品[J].经济学动态,2004,7:23-25.
[21]弗里德曼.弗里德曼文萃[M].北京:北京经济学院出版社,1991.
[22]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,2006,1:20-29.
[23]高培勇.市场经济体制与公共财政框架[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[24]高强.高强部长在中央机关形势报告会上定调医改思路[J].医院领导决策参考,2005,16:6-11.
[25]高尚全.尽快解决弱势群体的社会保障问题[J].人民论坛,2005,9:11-12.
[26]耿明斋.统筹区域发展与基本公共服务均等化[J].惠及13亿人的基本公共服务论坛(中国海南改革发展研究院),2007.
[27]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,2001,9:67-73.
[28]郭杰.政府支出对GDP的影响[J].财经科学,2003,4:49-52.
[29]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,2003,11:5-12.
[30]哈维·S·罗森.财政学(第四版)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社2000.
[31]汉森.财政政策与景气循环[M].北京:外文书店,1980.
[32]黄范章.探索、建设社会主义市场经济体制的30年[J].经济学动态,2008,8:17-23.
[33]吉利斯(Gillis)和帕金斯(Perkins).发展经济学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[34]杰拉尔德·M·迈即(Meier,G.M.).发展经济学的先驱理论[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1995.
[35]凯恩斯.就业利息和货币通论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1983.
[36]孔祥利.政府公共支出与经济增长相关性的实证分析——利用斜率关联模型求解的一种新方法[J].人文杂志,2005,2:74-78.
[37]寇铁军,金双华.财政支出规模、结构与社会公平关系的研究[J].上海财经大学学报,2002,12:17-23.
[38]李斌.小城镇可持续发展公平性评价的定量探讨[J].中国人口、资源与环境,2005,1:85-90.
[39]理查德·A·马斯格雷夫.比较财政分析[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1996l.
[40]李春林,屈驳韵.基于Pannel-Data的地区财政支出结构优化模型研究[J].数理统计与管理,2005,4:60-63.
[41]李茂生,陈昌盛.现代市场经济社会的财政职能[J].中国社会科学院,2005,11:19-24.
[42]李永友.公共支出与国民产出——基于瓦格纳定律的实证检验[J].财经研究,2005,7:102-113.
[43]李永友,沈坤荣.财政支出结构、相对贫困与经济增长[J].管理世界,2007,11:14-26.
[44]林鹏.构建公共财政的支出框架.国有资产研究[J],2000,1:26-28.
[45]刘溶沧,马拴友.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,2001,2:13-19.
[46]刘诗白.市场经济与公共产品[J].经济学动态,2007,6:19-22.
[47]娄洪.长期经济增长中的公共投资政策——包含一般拥挤性公共基础设施资本存量的动态经济增长模型[J].经济研究,2004,3:10-19.
[48]罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[49]洛克.政府论[M].瞿菊农,叶启芳译.北京:商务印书馆,1996.
[50]罗斯托.经济成长的阶段[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[51]罗斯托.政治和成长阶段[M].剑桥大学出版社,1971.
[52]刘泽,侯风云.农村儿童为何失学?——基于多层模型的经验研究[J].北京师范大学学报,2007,2:72-82.
[53]吕炜.公平增长与公共支出的政策安排[J].经济社会体制比较,2004,5:12-29.
[54]吕炜,王伟同.发展失衡、公共服务与政府责任[J].中国社会科学,2008,4:52-64.
[55]马斯格雷夫.比较财政制度[M].上海:上海三联书店1996年中译本,1969.
[56]迈克尔·托达罗(Todaro,M.P.).第三世界的经济发展(上册):发展经济学教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1988.
[57]迈克尔·托达罗(Todaro,M.P.).经济发展与第三世界[M].北京:中国经济出版社,1992.
[58]穆勒.功用主义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1957.
[59]钱纳里(Chenery,W.).结构变化与发展政策[M].北京:经济科学出版社,1991.
[60]乔宝云.增长与均等的取舍[M].北京:人民出版社,2002.
[61]乔锦忠.优质高等教育入学机会分布的区域差异[J].北京师范大学学报,2007,1:25-30.
[62]青木昌彦等.政府在东亚经济发展中的作用—比较制度分析[M].赵辰宁等译.北京:中国经济出版社,1998.
[63]上海财经大学公共政策研究中心.2000中国财政发展报告[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社,2000.
[64]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长——中国数据的计量检验与实证分析[J].中国社会科学,2001,5:82-93.
[65]世界银行.中国:推动公平的经济增长[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
[66]斯蒂格利茨.经济学[M].高鸿业等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1997.
[67]苏挺.财政政策与经济发展[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1990.
[68]孙文祥,张志超.财政支出结构对经济增长与社会公平的影响[J].上海财经大学学报,2004,6:4-10.
[69]王建军.刍议公共支出决策[J].江西财税与会计,1997,7:5-6.
[70]王力.浅议加强地方税税源的控管[J].内蒙古财会,2003,2:26-27.
[71]维托·坦齐,卢德格尔·舒克内希特.20世纪的公共支出[M].北京:商务印书馆,2005.
[72]夏杰长.充分就业与构建和谐社会[J].中国金融, 2005,5:22-23.
[73]夏杰长.财政政策目标重新定位及其改革思路[J].经济学动态,2004,10:31-34.
[74]项怀诚.中国财政体制改革[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,1994.
[75]谢秋朝,侯菁菁.公共财政学(第一版) [M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[76]亚当·斯密.国富论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1988.
[77]亚里士多德.尼各马科伦理学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[78]亚里士多德.政治学[M].北京:商务印书馆,1997.
[80]阎坤,于树一.转轨背景下的公共支出结构失衡[J].经济研究参考,2004,80:2-15.
[81]杨继,杨卫.内生增长中的公共支出理论综述[J].经济学动态,2003,5:70-73.
[82]易丹辉.数据分析与Eviews应用[M].北京:中国统计出版社,2002.
[83]余天心,王石生.充分认识与把握解决“三农”问题的难点[J].中国特色社会主义研究,2003,6:92-93.
[84]曾五一,李海涛.中国区域间教育平等状况的统计考察[J].统计研究,2007,7:31-35.
[85]张彬.西部地区基本公共服务体系建设:差距、成因及对策[J].内蒙古大学学报,2007,9:17-19.
[86]张得让.政府采购支出的合理规模及其确定[J].财政研究,2002,6:23-27.
[87]张东豫,莫光财.基本公共服务均等化:基于地区差异及分析[J].甘肃行政学院学报,2007,4:89-92.
[88]张钢,段澈.我国地方财政支出结构与地区经济增长关系的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报,2006,3:90-96.
[89]张清.财政支出和经济景气指标动态均衡关系研究[J].财政研究,2002,11:14-19.
[90]张晓峒.计量经济分析[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2000.
[91]张馨.中国财政制度对发展观的影响及“治本”建议[J].改革,2007,8:5-11.
[92]张馨.财政公共化改革:理论创新·制度变革·理念更新[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[93]中国经济增长与宏观稳定课题组.增长失衡与政府责任——基于社会性支出角度的分析[J].经济研究,2006,10:4-17.
[94]中国社会科学院财政与贸易经济研究所课题组.出口退税体制的问题与政策建议[J].税务研究,2005,6:32-36(2006中国社会科学院A类重大课题《重要战略机遇期的公共财政建设》部分成果).
[95]邹薇.公共支出对经济增长的效应:一个新的分析思路.制度经济学研究(第1卷)[M].北京:经济科学出版社,2003.
[96]庄子银,邹薇.公共支出能否促进经济增长[J].管理世界,2003,7:4-12.
[97] Alfred Greiner. Debt sustainability in the European Monetary Union: Theory and empirical evidence for selected countries[J]. Oxford Economic Papers, 1996, 59: 194-218.
[98] Arrow, K.& M. Kurz. Public investment, the rate of return and optimal fiscal policy[M]. John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1970.
[99] Aschauer, D.. Is government spending productive[J]? Journal of Monetary Economics, 1989, 23: 177-200.
[100] Barro, R.. Government Spending in a simple Model of Endogenous Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1990, 8: 103-125.
[101] Barro, R.. Economic growth in a cross section of countries[J]. Quarterly Journal of Political Economy, 1991, 3: 103-125.
[102] Blankenau & Simpson. Human Capital Investment and Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2004, 96: 332-341.
[103] Chen,Shaohua and Yan Wang. China’s Growth and Poverty Reduction:1 nds between 1990 and 1999. world Bank Policy Research Working Paper,2001.
[104] Devarajan, V. Swaroop, H. Zou. The composition of public expenditure and economic growth[J]. Journal of monetary economics, 1996, 37: 313-344.
[105] Devereus, Head, Lapham. Government Expenditures and Economic Development: 1970-1990[J]. Journal of Montary Economics, 1996, 23: 313-317.
[106] D.HoltznEakin. PublicnSectorCapitalandtheProductivityPuzzle[M]. SyracuseUniversity, 1991.
[107] Engen E., J.Skinner. Fiscal policy and economic growth. NBER Working papers, No.4223, 1992.
[108] Evans, P. Government Consumption and Growth[J]. Economic Inquiry 1997, 35, 209-217.
[109] Gemmell. An Impirical Research on Government Size to Economic Growth[J]. Journal ofUrban Economics, 1983, 36: 98-115.
[110] Gramlich, E.. Infrastructure Investment A Review Essay[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1994, 32: 1176-1196.
[111] Grier, K., G. Tullock. An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth: 1950-1980[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1987, 24: 259-276.
[112] Hulten, C., Schwab, B.. Public Capital Formation and the Growth of Regional Manufacturing Industries[J]. National Tax Journal, 1991, 44: 121-134.
[113] Jalali, Naini. Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: Based on public product[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 2000, 23: 637-656.
[114] Laudau, D.. Government and Economic Growth: An Empirical Study for 1960-1980[J]. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1986, 68: 783-792.
[115] Mark Gradstein. the Political Economy of Public Spending on Education,Inequality,and Growth. World Bank Policy Research W0rking Paper 3162,November 2003.
[116] Munnell, A.. Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1992, 6: 189-198.
[117] Nelson, Singh. an Endogenious Economic Growth Model[J]. Journal of Economic Studies,1994, 32: 1309-1317.
[118] Ram. Government Expenditure Structure and Economic Growth: International Evidence [R]. Policy research Work Paper, No.1607, May 1986.
[119] R.A.Musgrave. FiscalSystems[M]. YaleUniversityPress, 1969.
[120] Richard Kohl &Kevin O’Rourke. What is new about Globalization:Implication for Income Inequality inDeveloping Countries. OECD-EA,2000.
[121] Rostow, W.. Politics and the Stage of Growth[M]. Cambridge University Press,1971.
[122] Rubbinson. Government expenditures and econmic growth[J]. Journal of Economic Perspective, 1977, 2: 119-128.
[123] Shabin Yaqub. How Equitable Is Public Spending on Health and Education? Background Paper to WDR 1, 2000.
[124] Sowell. Government Size and Economic Growth[J]. A Joint Economic Committee Study, 1980, 23: 215-223.
[125] Summers,R., A.Heston. A new Set of international Comparisons of Real Product and Price Levels: Estimates for 130 Countries[J]. Review of Income and Wealth, 1988, 34: 1-25.
[126] World Bank. Making Transition Work for Everyone:Poverty and Inequality in Europe and Central Asia. Washington D.C.,2000.
[127] World Bank.The East Asian Miracle:Economic Growth and Public Policy[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1993.
[128] World Bank. Transition:The First Ten Years Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Washington,D.C.,2002.