公共服务绩效优化与民生改善机制研究
|
摘要
本项研究所关注的民生改善机制是一套有利于足量、高效、公平提供公共服务的保障机制,本论文致力于在公共服务绩效框架内,剖析制约中国民生改善的体制性障碍,从优化公共服务规模、效率、均等化三方面绩效的角度,探索一套适合中国体制环境与发展阶段的民生改善机制。
本论文选题的出发点在于,民生问题已经逐渐成为中国下一阶段改革与发展的核心问题,并且近期来看医疗、教育、养老、就业以及住房等这一领域的社会问题集中爆发,累积了相当多的社会矛盾需要化解；与此同时,尽管民众对改善民生的期盼日深,党和政府也多次将民生问题写入中央文件和工作报告,并将其作为政府工作的重点,但据笔者的前期研究表明实际效果却远非预期那么理想。这一现状凸显了我国民生领域的改革困境,表明中国政府改善民生的政策愿望在实际运行中受到了体制性的潜在约束,这促使我们需要从一个更为宏观、系统的体制层面来看待中国改革进程中的民生改善及公共服务绩效问题。如何评价我国的民生现状,究竟是什么原因导致了民生领域改革困境的出现,中国公共服务绩效优化的有效路径是什么?对这些问题的思考,是本论文思想和基本框架的最初来源。
本论文所关注的民生改善机制是一套有效提供公共服务的保障机制,优化公共服务绩效是其基本目的。笔者认为在经济改革与发展进程中,民生能否得以改善的关键取决于公共服务体制的三方面绩效：一是政府能否提供足量的公共服务以满足公共需求,即规模绩效；二是在既有公共服务投入规模条件下,能否高效率的将公共服务投入转化为公共服务产出,即效率绩效；三是由政府提供的公共服务能否公平、均等的提供给所有有公共需求的民众,即均等化绩效。只有保障这三方面绩效同时实现的机制,才是有效的民生改善机制。
首先在公共服务规模绩效评价及其优化路径研究方面,本论文创造性的依据均衡发展的思想提出了政府公共服务规模绩效评价指标。我们认为政府提供公共服务的适当规模应当取决于其经济发展阶段和自身财政能力,通过计量模型考察世界各国经济发展与公共服务支出比重之间存在的一般规律,并依据中国现实情况来计算其所应当提供的公共服务规模,进而通过对比其现实提供规模与理论规模间的比率客观评价了中国的公共服务规模绩效情况。
在客观评价公共服务规模绩效的基础上,我们重点考察了“为何中国会出现公共服务提供长期不足的现象,哪些机制给予了政府公共服务支出负激励?”的问题。我们研究认为中国式的分权制度以及以经济建设为中心的政府职能异化,既是促进中国经济长期快速增长的体制动力,同时也是阻碍政府服务性支出增长的体制性障碍,并形成了“经济增长——民生改善”相互替代的增长模式。在此基础上,我们通过建立基于中国省级面板数据的联立方程模型(SEM)实证分析了体制性因素对政府公共服务规模的影响。
其次在公共服务效率绩效评价及其优化路径研究方面,我们分别基于三个层面考察了中国的公共服务绩效水平情况：一是横向国际效率比较分析,基于国际数据运用数据包络分析(DEA)方法考察了中国公共服务提供在世界范围中的相对效率；二是纵向历史效率分析,基于我国国家层面的时间序列数据,运用协整及向量误差修正(VEC)方法,探讨了建国以来公共服务支出与实际公共服务效果之间的互动关系；三是地区效率差异比较分析,基于我国省级面板数据运用DEA方法考察了中国1978-2006年间各地区的公共服务效率变化情况。
在此基础上,我们基于1978-2006年的地区效率情况,基于随机效应Tobit面板回归方法,进行了中国公共服务效率影响机制研究。其中重点考察了财政分权、城市化进程、经济增长、地区差异以及财税制度改革等体制性因素的影响,从而为寻找提高政府公共服务效率的政策路径提供参考依据。
再次在公共服务均等化绩效评价及其优化路径研究,本论文分别从地区差异和城乡差异之间对中国的公共服务提供均等化情况进行了考察。对于地区公共服务均等化指标,我们通过计算相关不平等指标的倒数来实现,其中不平等指标我们将分别选取以人口规模为权数的变异系数、泰尔熵指数、基尼系数等指标,进而客观描述中国公共服务均等化情况的长期变化趋势。长期以来在基本公共服务均等化研究领域,存在着公共服务均等化是否等价于财政均等化的争论。利用上述方法,我们分别计算各地区人均财政支出和公共服务产出的非均等指标,并考察了其之间的协整关系,结果表明两者之间存在协整关系,即人均财政支出均等化和公共服务均等化在长期内是具有稳定关联的,从而对上述争论做出回应。
而对于城乡公共服务差异指标,由于缺乏有效统计指标,本论文独辟蹊径利用城市化率对公共服务规模的影响系数来作为考察城乡公共服务不平等程度的评价指标,因为在控制其他变量的条件下,城市化进程对公共服务平均规模的影响程度越大,则说明中国城乡之间公共服务水平差异越大,反之亦然。
关于均等化绩效的影响机制的研究,我们以各年度公共服务非均等化指标为被解释变量建立时间序列模型,系统分析了经济发展不平衡、人均财政支出不平衡(由相应不平等指标表示)、以及财政领域两个比重等问题对公共服务均等化程度的影响,从根本体制上探讨了中国公共服务非均等的原因及改进路径。
最后本论文对公共服务综合绩效进行了评价并提出了有利于民生改善机制设计的政策建议。我们在前面分别建立公共服务规模、效率及均等化三方面绩效指标的基础上,通过合成三方面绩效的方式来构建中国公共服务综合绩效评价指标,并对这一指标进行了清晰测算,从而清晰描述了中国的民生现状及发展趋势,从而对未来政府的发展战略与政策着力点提供方向性的参考。进而我们在系统梳理各种公共服务绩效影响因素的基础上,有针对性的探讨如何解除制约公共服务绩效实现的体制性障碍,提出了有利于中国民生改善机制建设的政策建议,助推契合中国体制环境和阶段特点的民生改善机制的形成。
本论文的研究建立在一个系统的研究框架基础之上,我们将公共服务绩效分解为了规模、效率和均等化三个绩效层面,并分别对三种绩效进行了客观评价和影响机制研究。值得强调的是,本论文的研究全部建立在规范经济学研究方法与客观的实证分析基础之上,广泛运用了国内外相关数据进行实证分析,致力于有针对性的研究如何进行体制改革和政策设计来优化中国的公共服务综合绩效,进而促进中国民生状况的改善。
笔者个人认为本论文具有以下几个方面的研究特色：一是我们提出了基于规模、效率、均等化三方面的公共服务绩效综合评价体系,并对我国公共服务领域的三方面绩效及综合绩效情况进行了量化的评价与分析；二是本论文的研究定位于从宏观体制层面来看待中国的公共服务及民生改善问题,而没有将公共服务和民生问题研究局限于具体公共服务层面,没有就民生而谈民生；三是本论文首次提出了维持现有经济增长的体制动力,已经部分异化为阻碍民生发展的体制性障碍的观点,并尝试运用实证方法对这一观点进行验证；四是我们利用实证方法分析了中国公共服务绩效的影响机制问题,并有针对性的提出了有利于我们民生改善机制建设的政策建议。
The mechanism of improving the people's livelihood this thesis concerned is the protection mechanisms that is in favor of an adequate, efficient and equitable delivery of public services. This thesis is committed in the framework of the performance of public services, to analysis the Chinese institutional obstacles which restrain from improving the people's livelihood, and to explore a mechanism to improve people's livelihood suited to China's institution environment and development phase by the point of view optimize the three aspects of public service performance from the scale, efficiency and equalization.
The starting point of the thesis topic is that livelihoods issues have become the core problem of next stage China's reform and development. And lately social problems outbreak focus on the livelihoods area, like as health care, education, pension, employment and housing and so on, meanwhile has accumulated a considerable amount social contradictions necessary to resolve. At the same time, even though people look forward to improving people's livelihood deeply, and party and government have repeatedly written livelihoods on the central documents and work report, and as the focus of the government work. However, according to our preliminary study shows that the actual results are expected so far from ideal. This situation highlights the reform plight on the people's livelihood, and show that the Chinese government's policy to improve people's livelihood faced on the potential institutional constraints in the actual operation. This has led us research the problem of improving people's livelihood and public service performance on the more macro and system institutional level in the process of China's reform. How to assess the status of our country's people's livelihood? What is the reason cause of reform plight on the people's livelihood? What is effective path to optimize the performance of Chinese public service? Consider the question of these is the original source of this thesis idea and the basic framework.
The mechanism of improving the people's livelihood this thesis concerned is the protection mechanisms of public services delivery and its purpose is optimize the performance of public services. I think in the economic reform and development process, whether to improve people's livelihood depends on the three aspects of public services institutional performance:First, the Government can provide adequate public services to meet public demand, that is, the scale performance; second, input scale at both the scale of public service conditions can be highly efficient transformed into public services output, that is, the efficiency performance; third, public services can be provided in a fair and equal for all the people which have public demand, that is, the equalization performance. Only the mechanism concerned these three aspects of performance at the same time, is an effective mechanism to improve people's livelihood.
Firstly, research on the path of scale performance evaluation and optimization, this thesis creatively proposed a government's public service scale performance evaluation index based on the balanced development idea. We believe that the appropriate scale of public services should depend on its stage of economic development and their own financial capacity. Based on this idea, we research the general proportion relations between economic development and public service expenditures through econometric model. Then we based on the realities of Chinese calculate the public services scale they should be provided. And we objectively evaluated the China's scale performance of public services.
Based on the scale performance evaluation objectively, we focus on research the question of why do Chinese public service will be inadequate in long-term situation, and what mechanisms provided the negative incentives to the government's public service expenditure. Consider our study, Chinese-style fiscal decentralization and government functions variation for economic development as the central, not only are the institutional motivity for the long-term rapid economy growth in China, but also are the institutional obstacles to hinder the growth of government services expenditure, and result in the growth model which is characteristic of "economic growth-people's livelihood improving" each alternative. And we empirically analysis the impact of public service scale by the institutional factors through set up the simultaneous equations model based on the Chinese provincial panel data.
Secondly, research on the path of efficiency performance evaluation and optimization, we separately research the China's performance of public services at three aspects:first is the cross-cutting international comparative efficiency analysis, in this we evaluated China's relative efficiency in the world based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach using international data; second is the longitudinal history efficiency analysis, we discussed the actual interaction effect between public services input and output since the founding, based on cointegration and vector error correction model(VEC) approach using our national level time-series data; third is the regional comparative efficiency analysis, in this we studied the China's public service efficiency in 1978-2006 each year, based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach using China's provincial-level panel data.
On this basis, we researched the Chinese impact mechanism of public service efficiency, based on random effects Tobit regression method and regional efficiency in the 1978-2006. Thereinto, we focus on researched institutional factors impact as fiscal decentralization, urbanization, economic growth, regional differences, as well as financial and taxation system reform, accordingly we can provide reference for the policy path of improving public services efficiency.
Thirdly, research on the path of equalization performance evaluation and optimization, we separately discussed the China's public services provision equalization performance form the regional differences and differences between urban and rural areas. For the regional equalization index, we used the reciprocal of classical inequality index as coefficient of variation, theil entropy index and Gini coefficient weighted by population size, accordingly we can objectively described the Chinese public service long-term trend equalization. There is an argument in the basic public services equalization research areas which is whether or not the equalization of public services is equivalent to the financial equalization. Using the above method, we calculated separately the regions per capita expenditure and public service output inequality index, and analysis their cointegration relationship. The results show that exist cointegration relations between the two, that is, equalization expenditure per capita and equalization of public services are stable associate in the long term, so we respond to the above argument.
For the urban and rural public services equalization index, because of the lack of an effective statistical indicators and data, we inventive structured this index by influence coefficient of urbanization impact on the public service scale. We think that when control other variables, the greater of index, the greater the difference of the level of public services between urban and rural, and vice versa.
About the impact mechanism of the equalization performance, we set up time-series model using the annual public service inequality index as dependence variable, and analysis the impact of economic development difference, the per capita fiscal expenditure imbalances, as well as both the proportion of the fiscal area on the degree of public services equalization. Accordingly, we analysis the reasons of China public services inequality and discuss the equalization path.
Lastly, we evaluated the general performance of public services, and proposed policy recommendations of in favor of a mechanism designed to improve people's livelihood. Based on the three aspects of performance index of public services scale, efficiency and equalization we founded, we established the Chinese general public services performance index by through the synthesis of three-way performance. And we clearly measured this index, and described Chinese people's livelihood status quo and development trend, consequently provided directional reference for government development strategies and policies focus in the future. Based on system combed a variety of factors affect the performance of public services, and we targeted discussed how to lift the institutional obstacles which constraints the implementation of public service performance, consequently proposed policy suggestion which in favor of improving people's livelihood and booster the mechanism fit the characteristics of the institutional environment and the stage.
This thesis's research set up in a system research framework, we break down the performance of public services into scale, efficiency and equalization three levels, and separately made evaluation and impact mechanism study. It is worth emphasizing that all of this thesis study set up in the normative economics and objective research methods, widely used relevant data carry out empirical analysis, and we are committed to the research has focused on how to carry out structural reforms and policies designed to optimize the Chinese general performance of public services, thereby contributing to the improvement of Chinese people's livelihood.
I personally think that this thesis has the following characteristics:first is we proposed public service general performance evaluation system based on scale, efficiency and equalization, and quantitative evaluated and analysis the general public service performance and three aspects of performance; second is that the thesis research improving Chinese people's livelihood in view of the Macro-institutional level, and doesn't limited the view in the specific dimensions of public service, also doesn't talk to the people's livelihood at the surface of people's livelihood; third is that the thesis firstly proposed viewpoint of institutional motivity which maintain the economic growth, has been part of transformed into institutional obstacles which obstruct the development of livelihood, and this hypothesis has been confirmed by positive ways; forth is that we use empirical approach analysis the impact mechanism of public service performance, and targeted proposed policy recommendations in favor of construction of people's livelihood improving mechanism.
本论文选题的出发点在于,民生问题已经逐渐成为中国下一阶段改革与发展的核心问题,并且近期来看医疗、教育、养老、就业以及住房等这一领域的社会问题集中爆发,累积了相当多的社会矛盾需要化解；与此同时,尽管民众对改善民生的期盼日深,党和政府也多次将民生问题写入中央文件和工作报告,并将其作为政府工作的重点,但据笔者的前期研究表明实际效果却远非预期那么理想。这一现状凸显了我国民生领域的改革困境,表明中国政府改善民生的政策愿望在实际运行中受到了体制性的潜在约束,这促使我们需要从一个更为宏观、系统的体制层面来看待中国改革进程中的民生改善及公共服务绩效问题。如何评价我国的民生现状,究竟是什么原因导致了民生领域改革困境的出现,中国公共服务绩效优化的有效路径是什么?对这些问题的思考,是本论文思想和基本框架的最初来源。
本论文所关注的民生改善机制是一套有效提供公共服务的保障机制,优化公共服务绩效是其基本目的。笔者认为在经济改革与发展进程中,民生能否得以改善的关键取决于公共服务体制的三方面绩效：一是政府能否提供足量的公共服务以满足公共需求,即规模绩效；二是在既有公共服务投入规模条件下,能否高效率的将公共服务投入转化为公共服务产出,即效率绩效；三是由政府提供的公共服务能否公平、均等的提供给所有有公共需求的民众,即均等化绩效。只有保障这三方面绩效同时实现的机制,才是有效的民生改善机制。
首先在公共服务规模绩效评价及其优化路径研究方面,本论文创造性的依据均衡发展的思想提出了政府公共服务规模绩效评价指标。我们认为政府提供公共服务的适当规模应当取决于其经济发展阶段和自身财政能力,通过计量模型考察世界各国经济发展与公共服务支出比重之间存在的一般规律,并依据中国现实情况来计算其所应当提供的公共服务规模,进而通过对比其现实提供规模与理论规模间的比率客观评价了中国的公共服务规模绩效情况。
在客观评价公共服务规模绩效的基础上,我们重点考察了“为何中国会出现公共服务提供长期不足的现象,哪些机制给予了政府公共服务支出负激励?”的问题。我们研究认为中国式的分权制度以及以经济建设为中心的政府职能异化,既是促进中国经济长期快速增长的体制动力,同时也是阻碍政府服务性支出增长的体制性障碍,并形成了“经济增长——民生改善”相互替代的增长模式。在此基础上,我们通过建立基于中国省级面板数据的联立方程模型(SEM)实证分析了体制性因素对政府公共服务规模的影响。
其次在公共服务效率绩效评价及其优化路径研究方面,我们分别基于三个层面考察了中国的公共服务绩效水平情况：一是横向国际效率比较分析,基于国际数据运用数据包络分析(DEA)方法考察了中国公共服务提供在世界范围中的相对效率；二是纵向历史效率分析,基于我国国家层面的时间序列数据,运用协整及向量误差修正(VEC)方法,探讨了建国以来公共服务支出与实际公共服务效果之间的互动关系；三是地区效率差异比较分析,基于我国省级面板数据运用DEA方法考察了中国1978-2006年间各地区的公共服务效率变化情况。
在此基础上,我们基于1978-2006年的地区效率情况,基于随机效应Tobit面板回归方法,进行了中国公共服务效率影响机制研究。其中重点考察了财政分权、城市化进程、经济增长、地区差异以及财税制度改革等体制性因素的影响,从而为寻找提高政府公共服务效率的政策路径提供参考依据。
再次在公共服务均等化绩效评价及其优化路径研究,本论文分别从地区差异和城乡差异之间对中国的公共服务提供均等化情况进行了考察。对于地区公共服务均等化指标,我们通过计算相关不平等指标的倒数来实现,其中不平等指标我们将分别选取以人口规模为权数的变异系数、泰尔熵指数、基尼系数等指标,进而客观描述中国公共服务均等化情况的长期变化趋势。长期以来在基本公共服务均等化研究领域,存在着公共服务均等化是否等价于财政均等化的争论。利用上述方法,我们分别计算各地区人均财政支出和公共服务产出的非均等指标,并考察了其之间的协整关系,结果表明两者之间存在协整关系,即人均财政支出均等化和公共服务均等化在长期内是具有稳定关联的,从而对上述争论做出回应。
而对于城乡公共服务差异指标,由于缺乏有效统计指标,本论文独辟蹊径利用城市化率对公共服务规模的影响系数来作为考察城乡公共服务不平等程度的评价指标,因为在控制其他变量的条件下,城市化进程对公共服务平均规模的影响程度越大,则说明中国城乡之间公共服务水平差异越大,反之亦然。
关于均等化绩效的影响机制的研究,我们以各年度公共服务非均等化指标为被解释变量建立时间序列模型,系统分析了经济发展不平衡、人均财政支出不平衡(由相应不平等指标表示)、以及财政领域两个比重等问题对公共服务均等化程度的影响,从根本体制上探讨了中国公共服务非均等的原因及改进路径。
最后本论文对公共服务综合绩效进行了评价并提出了有利于民生改善机制设计的政策建议。我们在前面分别建立公共服务规模、效率及均等化三方面绩效指标的基础上,通过合成三方面绩效的方式来构建中国公共服务综合绩效评价指标,并对这一指标进行了清晰测算,从而清晰描述了中国的民生现状及发展趋势,从而对未来政府的发展战略与政策着力点提供方向性的参考。进而我们在系统梳理各种公共服务绩效影响因素的基础上,有针对性的探讨如何解除制约公共服务绩效实现的体制性障碍,提出了有利于中国民生改善机制建设的政策建议,助推契合中国体制环境和阶段特点的民生改善机制的形成。
本论文的研究建立在一个系统的研究框架基础之上,我们将公共服务绩效分解为了规模、效率和均等化三个绩效层面,并分别对三种绩效进行了客观评价和影响机制研究。值得强调的是,本论文的研究全部建立在规范经济学研究方法与客观的实证分析基础之上,广泛运用了国内外相关数据进行实证分析,致力于有针对性的研究如何进行体制改革和政策设计来优化中国的公共服务综合绩效,进而促进中国民生状况的改善。
笔者个人认为本论文具有以下几个方面的研究特色：一是我们提出了基于规模、效率、均等化三方面的公共服务绩效综合评价体系,并对我国公共服务领域的三方面绩效及综合绩效情况进行了量化的评价与分析；二是本论文的研究定位于从宏观体制层面来看待中国的公共服务及民生改善问题,而没有将公共服务和民生问题研究局限于具体公共服务层面,没有就民生而谈民生；三是本论文首次提出了维持现有经济增长的体制动力,已经部分异化为阻碍民生发展的体制性障碍的观点,并尝试运用实证方法对这一观点进行验证；四是我们利用实证方法分析了中国公共服务绩效的影响机制问题,并有针对性的提出了有利于我们民生改善机制建设的政策建议。
The mechanism of improving the people's livelihood this thesis concerned is the protection mechanisms that is in favor of an adequate, efficient and equitable delivery of public services. This thesis is committed in the framework of the performance of public services, to analysis the Chinese institutional obstacles which restrain from improving the people's livelihood, and to explore a mechanism to improve people's livelihood suited to China's institution environment and development phase by the point of view optimize the three aspects of public service performance from the scale, efficiency and equalization.
The starting point of the thesis topic is that livelihoods issues have become the core problem of next stage China's reform and development. And lately social problems outbreak focus on the livelihoods area, like as health care, education, pension, employment and housing and so on, meanwhile has accumulated a considerable amount social contradictions necessary to resolve. At the same time, even though people look forward to improving people's livelihood deeply, and party and government have repeatedly written livelihoods on the central documents and work report, and as the focus of the government work. However, according to our preliminary study shows that the actual results are expected so far from ideal. This situation highlights the reform plight on the people's livelihood, and show that the Chinese government's policy to improve people's livelihood faced on the potential institutional constraints in the actual operation. This has led us research the problem of improving people's livelihood and public service performance on the more macro and system institutional level in the process of China's reform. How to assess the status of our country's people's livelihood? What is the reason cause of reform plight on the people's livelihood? What is effective path to optimize the performance of Chinese public service? Consider the question of these is the original source of this thesis idea and the basic framework.
The mechanism of improving the people's livelihood this thesis concerned is the protection mechanisms of public services delivery and its purpose is optimize the performance of public services. I think in the economic reform and development process, whether to improve people's livelihood depends on the three aspects of public services institutional performance:First, the Government can provide adequate public services to meet public demand, that is, the scale performance; second, input scale at both the scale of public service conditions can be highly efficient transformed into public services output, that is, the efficiency performance; third, public services can be provided in a fair and equal for all the people which have public demand, that is, the equalization performance. Only the mechanism concerned these three aspects of performance at the same time, is an effective mechanism to improve people's livelihood.
Firstly, research on the path of scale performance evaluation and optimization, this thesis creatively proposed a government's public service scale performance evaluation index based on the balanced development idea. We believe that the appropriate scale of public services should depend on its stage of economic development and their own financial capacity. Based on this idea, we research the general proportion relations between economic development and public service expenditures through econometric model. Then we based on the realities of Chinese calculate the public services scale they should be provided. And we objectively evaluated the China's scale performance of public services.
Based on the scale performance evaluation objectively, we focus on research the question of why do Chinese public service will be inadequate in long-term situation, and what mechanisms provided the negative incentives to the government's public service expenditure. Consider our study, Chinese-style fiscal decentralization and government functions variation for economic development as the central, not only are the institutional motivity for the long-term rapid economy growth in China, but also are the institutional obstacles to hinder the growth of government services expenditure, and result in the growth model which is characteristic of "economic growth-people's livelihood improving" each alternative. And we empirically analysis the impact of public service scale by the institutional factors through set up the simultaneous equations model based on the Chinese provincial panel data.
Secondly, research on the path of efficiency performance evaluation and optimization, we separately research the China's performance of public services at three aspects:first is the cross-cutting international comparative efficiency analysis, in this we evaluated China's relative efficiency in the world based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach using international data; second is the longitudinal history efficiency analysis, we discussed the actual interaction effect between public services input and output since the founding, based on cointegration and vector error correction model(VEC) approach using our national level time-series data; third is the regional comparative efficiency analysis, in this we studied the China's public service efficiency in 1978-2006 each year, based on the data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach using China's provincial-level panel data.
On this basis, we researched the Chinese impact mechanism of public service efficiency, based on random effects Tobit regression method and regional efficiency in the 1978-2006. Thereinto, we focus on researched institutional factors impact as fiscal decentralization, urbanization, economic growth, regional differences, as well as financial and taxation system reform, accordingly we can provide reference for the policy path of improving public services efficiency.
Thirdly, research on the path of equalization performance evaluation and optimization, we separately discussed the China's public services provision equalization performance form the regional differences and differences between urban and rural areas. For the regional equalization index, we used the reciprocal of classical inequality index as coefficient of variation, theil entropy index and Gini coefficient weighted by population size, accordingly we can objectively described the Chinese public service long-term trend equalization. There is an argument in the basic public services equalization research areas which is whether or not the equalization of public services is equivalent to the financial equalization. Using the above method, we calculated separately the regions per capita expenditure and public service output inequality index, and analysis their cointegration relationship. The results show that exist cointegration relations between the two, that is, equalization expenditure per capita and equalization of public services are stable associate in the long term, so we respond to the above argument.
For the urban and rural public services equalization index, because of the lack of an effective statistical indicators and data, we inventive structured this index by influence coefficient of urbanization impact on the public service scale. We think that when control other variables, the greater of index, the greater the difference of the level of public services between urban and rural, and vice versa.
About the impact mechanism of the equalization performance, we set up time-series model using the annual public service inequality index as dependence variable, and analysis the impact of economic development difference, the per capita fiscal expenditure imbalances, as well as both the proportion of the fiscal area on the degree of public services equalization. Accordingly, we analysis the reasons of China public services inequality and discuss the equalization path.
Lastly, we evaluated the general performance of public services, and proposed policy recommendations of in favor of a mechanism designed to improve people's livelihood. Based on the three aspects of performance index of public services scale, efficiency and equalization we founded, we established the Chinese general public services performance index by through the synthesis of three-way performance. And we clearly measured this index, and described Chinese people's livelihood status quo and development trend, consequently provided directional reference for government development strategies and policies focus in the future. Based on system combed a variety of factors affect the performance of public services, and we targeted discussed how to lift the institutional obstacles which constraints the implementation of public service performance, consequently proposed policy suggestion which in favor of improving people's livelihood and booster the mechanism fit the characteristics of the institutional environment and the stage.
This thesis's research set up in a system research framework, we break down the performance of public services into scale, efficiency and equalization three levels, and separately made evaluation and impact mechanism study. It is worth emphasizing that all of this thesis study set up in the normative economics and objective research methods, widely used relevant data carry out empirical analysis, and we are committed to the research has focused on how to carry out structural reforms and policies designed to optimize the Chinese general performance of public services, thereby contributing to the improvement of Chinese people's livelihood.
I personally think that this thesis has the following characteristics:first is we proposed public service general performance evaluation system based on scale, efficiency and equalization, and quantitative evaluated and analysis the general public service performance and three aspects of performance; second is that the thesis research improving Chinese people's livelihood in view of the Macro-institutional level, and doesn't limited the view in the specific dimensions of public service, also doesn't talk to the people's livelihood at the surface of people's livelihood; third is that the thesis firstly proposed viewpoint of institutional motivity which maintain the economic growth, has been part of transformed into institutional obstacles which obstruct the development of livelihood, and this hypothesis has been confirmed by positive ways; forth is that we use empirical approach analysis the impact mechanism of public service performance, and targeted proposed policy recommendations in favor of construction of people's livelihood improving mechanism.
引文
[1]阿马蒂亚·森.伦理学与经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2001.
[2]财政部教科文司.中国农村义务教育转移支付制度研究[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2005.
[3]蔡方、孙文样.政府间财力分配：计量模式与优化思路[J].财政研究.2004,(1).
[4]蔡宁、胡杨成.基于模糊层次分析法的公共部门绩效评估[J].技术经济.2005,(12).
[5]曹俊文、罗良清.转移支付的财政均等化效果实证分析[J].统计研究.2006(1).
[6]常修泽.中国现阶段基本公共服务均等化研究[J].天津市委党校学报.2007(2).
[7]陈昌盛、菜跃洲.中国政府公共服务：体制变迁与地区综合评估[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007.
[8]陈海威、田侃.我国基本公共服务均等化问题探讨[J].中州学刊.2007,(3).
[9]陈继勇、胡艺.知识经济时代与世界经济失衡问题的再认识[J].世界经济.2007,(7).
[10]陈抗,Arye L.Hillman,顾清扬.财政集权与地方政府行为变化——从援助之手到攫取之手[J].经济学(季刊).2002,(4).
[11]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,(4).
[12]迟福林.以基本公共服务均等化为重点的中央地方关系,中国(海南)改革发展研究院简报总第624期,2006.
[13]丛树海、周炜、于宁.公共支出绩效评价指标体系的构建.财贸经济.2005(3).
[14]丁元竹.科学把握我国现阶段的基本公共服务均等化[J].中国经贸导刊.2007(13).
[15]杜莉.中国经济与社会发展的失衡及其矫正[J].四川大学学报(社会科学版).2004,(1).
[16]方栓喜、匡贤明.以基本公共服务均等化为重点调整和改革中央地方关系得建议[J].经济前沿.2007(1).
[17]傅勇、张晏.中国式分权与财政支出结构偏向：为增长而竞争的代价[J].管理世界.2007,(3).
[18]甘行琼、汤凤林.美国财政分权的效率分析[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2004,(5)：91-95.
[19]高培勇.让财政均等化融入城乡协调发展进程[N].光明日报,2006-1-24.
[20]郭志刚.社会统计分析方法：SPSS软件应用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[21]郭志刚.社会统计分析方法——SPSS软件应用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[22]汉斯·范登·德尔.民主与福利经济学[M].中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[23]胡鞍钢.中国：民生与发展[M].第1版,北京：中国经济出版社,2008.1-11.
[24]黄朝峰.基于模糊DEA的高校办学效益评价方法及应用研究[M]. 国防科学技术大学,博士论文,2005.
[25]贾康、白景明.县乡财政解困与财政体制创新[J].经济研究.2002
[26]江明融.公共服务均等化论略[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2006(3)
[27]金人庆.完善公共财政制度逐步实现基本公共服务均等化[J].求是.2006(11).
[28]金人庆.完善公共财政制度逐步实现基本公共服务均等化[J].求是.2006,(11).
[29]景维民.全球化视野的我国城乡关系失衡与协整[J].改革.2006,(7).
[30]黎旭东.构建地方公共财政管理体制研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[31]李华.城乡公共品供给均等化与转移支付制度的完善[J].财政研究.2005(11).
[32]李玲.我国教育经费支出效益的实证分析.河北经贸大学学报.2001(2).
[33]李淑霞.财政分权理论的研究主题与方法[J ]社会科学.2007,(6)：36-44.
[34]李婉.财政分权影响地方财政规模的区域差异研究[J].北方经济.2008,(1)：66-67.
[35]廖楚晖.政府教育支出效益的有限性分析及模型.中南财经政法大学学报.2003(3).
[36]刘福垣.中国发展失衡与国家发展战略的反思[J].财贸经济.2003,(9).
[37]刘尚希.基本公共服务均等化：现实要求和政策路径[J].浙江经济.2007 (13).
[38]刘晓路.财政分权与经济增长：第二代财政分权理论[J].财贸经济.2007,(3)： 47-53.
[39]卢中原.合理调整政府投资和政府消费的比例关系,增强通过政府消费来改善公共服务的能力[J].经济研究参考.2006,(56).
[40]陆庆平.公共财政支出的绩效管理.财政研究.2003(4).
[41]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,(8).
[42]吕炜、王伟同.我国公共教育支出绩效考评指标体系研究[J].财政研究,2007,(8)： 25-29.
[43]吕炜、王伟同.我国基本公共服务均等化问题研究[J].财政研究.2008,(5).
[44]吕炜、王伟同.中国公共教育支出绩效：指标体系构建与实证研究[J].世界经济,2007,(12)：54-63.
[45]吕炜.体制性约束、经济失衡与财政政策-解析1998年以来的中国经济[J].中国社会科学.2004,(2).
[46]吕炜.我们离公共财政有多远[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2005.
[47]吕炜.转轨的实践模式与理论范式[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006.
[48]马国贤.基本公共服务均等化的公共财政政策研究[J].财政研究.2007(10).
[49]平新乔、白洁.中国财政分权与地方公共品的供给[J].财贸经济.2006,(2).
[50]普雷母詹德.公共支出管理[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002.
[51]沙安文、乔宝云.政府间财政关系(国际经验评述)[M].人民出版社,2006.
[52]邵明阳.从效率性分权到公平性分权：当代中国中央与地方权力调整轨迹分析[J].经济社会体制比较.2008,(3)：91-96.
[53]宋超、绍智.我国转移支付规模问题研究[J].地方财政研究.2005,(1).
[54]苏晓红、王文剑.中国的财政分权与地方政府规模[J].财政研究.2008,(1)：44-46.
[55]孙立平.权利失衡、两极社会与合作主义宪政体制[J].书屋.2007,(1).
[56]孙立平.我们在开始面对一个断裂的社会?[J].战略与管理.2002,(2).
[57]孙群力.财政分权与政府规模：中国的经验分析[J].统计与决策.2006,(12)：96-98.
[58]田侃、陈宇峰.我国医疗费用持续上涨的实证与对策研究[J].财政研究.2007,(2).
[59]王金秀.我国地区间财税的失衡及其矫正[J].财贸经济.2007,(6).
[60]王俊.政府卫生支出有效机制的研究——系统模型与经验分析[M],中国财政经济出版社,2007.
[61]王磊.试探公共产品最优供给规模及效率的模型与方法——在测度政府层级条件下[J].经济与管理.2007,(7)：10-16.
[62]王伟同.城市化进程与城乡公共服务均等化[J].财贸经济.2009,(2).
[63]王伟同.公共服务提供能力与绩效[J].地方财政研究.2007(11)
[64]王伟同.基本公共服务均等化的一般分析框架研究[J].东北财经大学学报,2008, (5)： 73-77.
[65]王晓洁.中国公共卫生支出均等化水平的实证分析——基于地区差别视角的量化分析[J].财贸经济,2009,(2)：46-49.
[66]王雍君.中国财政均等化与转移支付体制改革[J].中央财经大学学报.2006,(9)
[67]王永钦、丁菊红.公共部门内部的激励机制：一个文献述评[J].世界经济文汇.2007,(1).
[68]王永钦、张晏等.中国的大国发展道路——论分权式改革的得失[J].经济研究.2007,(1).
[69]吴峰.高等院校教育成本投入与办学效益DEA评价研究[M].第三军医大学,博士毕业论文,2007.
[70]吴建南、李贵宁.教育财政支出绩效评价：模型及其通用指标体系构建.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版).2004(2).
[71]许培源、高伟生.地方政府间竞争行为的博弈分析[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2008,(2)：27-33.
[72]徐霜北.文明演化与政策秩序——多维的财政分权[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2008.
[73]阎坤.转移支付制度与县乡财政体制构建[J].财贸经济.2004(8).
[74]杨方方.中国转型期社会保障中的政府责任[J].中国软科学.2004,(8).
[75]杨开忠、谢燮.中国城市投入产出有效性的数据包络分析[J].地理学与国土研究.2002,(3).
[76]曾军甲.政府间转移支付制度的财政平衡效应研究[J].经济研究.2000,(6).
[77]张恒龙、陈宪.我国财政均等化现状研究：1994-2004[J].中央财经大学学报.2006(12).
[78]张军、高远等.中国为什么拥有了良好的基础设施?[J].经济研究.2007, (3).
[79]张宁、胡鞍钢、郑京海.应用DEA方法测评中国各地区健康生产效率[J].经济研究.2006,(7).
[80]张少春.政府公共支出绩效考评理论与实践[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2005.
[81]张晏、龚六堂.地区差距、要素流动与财政分权[J].经济研究.2004,(7)：59-69.
[82]张晏、龚六堂.分税制改革、财政分权与中国经济增长[J].经济学季刊.2005,(3)： 75-108.
[83]郑磊.财政分权、政府竞争与公共支出结构——政府教育支出比重的影响因素分析[J].经济科学.2008,(1)：28-40.
[84]政府间财政关系课题组.政府间财政关系比较研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[85]中国(海南)改革发展研究院课题组.基本公共服务体制变迁与制度创新——惠及13亿人的基本公共服务[J].财贸经济.2009,(2)：22-29.
[86]中国财政学会课题组.公共服务均等化问题研究[J].经济研究参考.2007,(58).
[87]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).
[88]钟晓敏.市场化改革中的地方财政竞争[J].财经研究.2004(1)
[89]周黎安.晋升博弈中的政府官员的激励与合作[J].经济研究.2004,(6).
[90]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究.2007,(7)：36-50.
[91]朱红琼.多任务代理下地方政府行为取向研究[J].审计与经济研究.2008,(3)：84-87.
[92]朱志刚.财政支出绩效评价研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[1]Andrew Worthington, Cost Efficiency in Australian Local Government:A Comparative Analysis of Mathematical Programming and Econometric Approaches," Financial Accounting and Management, vol.16, no.3,2000, pp. 201-221.
[2]Antonio Afonso, Miguel St. Aubyn, "Cross-country Efficiency of Secondary Education Provision:A Semi-parametric Analysis with Non-discretionary Inputs," European Central Bank working paper, no.494, June 2005.
[3]Antonio Afonso, Sonia Fernandes, Measuring Local Government Spending Efficiency:Evidence for the Lisbon Region," Regional Studies, vol.40, no.1, 2006, pp.39-53.
[4]Antreas Athanassopoulos, Konstantino Triantis, "Assessing Aggregate Cost Efficiency and the Related Policy Implications for Greek Local Municipalities, INFOR, vol.36, no.3,1998, pp.66-83.
[5]B.Dahlby and L.S.Wilson:Fiscal Capacity,Tax Effort,and Optimal Equalization Grants.The Canadan Journal of Economics,Vol,27,No.3.(Aug.,1994),pp.657-672;
[6]Bardhan, P.,2006, "Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay:a Comparative Assessment of the Rise of China and India", paper presented at International Conference on the Dragon and the Elephant:China and India's Economic Reforms, July 1-2, 2006, Shanghai, China.
[7]Blanchard, O. and A. Shleifer,2000, "Federalism with and without Political Centralization:China versus Russia", Working Paper 7616, NBER.
[8]Campell, JP. "Managerial Behavior Performance and Effectiveness." New York: McGraw Hill.1970
[9]Gerdtam, U.-G., J. Sogaard, F. Andersson, and B. Jonsson, "An Econometric Analysis of Health Care Expenditure:A Cross-section Study of the OECD Countries", Journal of Health Economics,11,1992, pp.63—84.
[10]Grand J.L.,1982, Yhe Strategy of Equality:Redistribution and the Social Services, Allen and Unwin, London.
[11]J.F.Brun and J.L.Combes. Are There Spillover Effects between Coastal and Noncoastal Regions in China? China Economic Reviiew13 (2002)161-169.
[12]James M.Buchanan. Federalism and Fiscal Equity. The American Economic Review, Vol.40, No.4. (Sep.,1950),pp.583-599.
[13]Jameson Boex and Jorge Martinez-Vazquez:the Determinants of the Incidence of Intergovernmental Grants:ASurvey of the international Experience.Public Finance and Management, Volume Four, Number 4,2004,pp.454-479.
[14]Kai-yuen Tsui. "Local Tax System, Intergovernmental Transfers and China's Local Fiscal Disparities". Journal of Comparative Economics 33(2005)173-196.
[15]Kevin Milligan, Enrico Moretti, Philip Oreopoulos, "Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom," Journal of Public Economics, vol.88, no.9-10,2004, pp.1667-1695.
[16]Lanjouw, P.M. Pradham, F.Saadah, H, Sayed and R.Sparrow,2001, Poverty, Education, and Health in Indonesia:Who Benefits from Public Spending? Policy Research Working Paper 2739, The World Bank.
[17]Li, Hongbin and Li-An Zhou,2005, "Political Turnover and Economic Performance:The Incentive Role of Personnel Control in China", Journal of Public Economics,89, pp.1743-1762.
[18]LIN Y F, LIUZ Q. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in China[J].Economic Development and Cultural Change,2000,49,49 (1):1-21
[19]Mclure, Charles E., Jr,1994.The Sharing of Tax on Natural Resources and The Future of The Russian Federalism. In Christine I.Wallich, ed., Russia and the Challenge of Reform. Palo Alto, Calif.:Hoover Institution Press.
[20]Michael Davis, Kathy Hayes, "The Demand for Good Government," Review of Economics and Statistics, vol.75,1993, pp.148-152.
[21]Philip Grossman, Panayiotis Mavros, Robert Wassmer, "Public Sector Technical Inefficiency in Large U.S. Cities", Journal of Urban Economics, vol.46, no.2, 1999, pp.278-299.
[22]Philippe Vanden Eeckaut, Henry Tulkens, Marie-Astrid Jamar, "Cost Efficiency in Belgian Municipalities," in H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell, S. S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, pp.300-334.
[23]Qian Y. and B. Weingast,1997, "Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives", Journal of Economic Perspectives,11(4).
[24]Qian Y. and G. Roland,1998, "Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint", American Economic Review,88(5).
[25]Retzlaff-Roberts, D., C. F. Chang, and R. M. Rubin,2004, "Technical Efficiency in the Use of Health Care Resources:A Comparison of OECD Countries", Health Policy,69,55-72.
[26]Sahn, D.E. and S.D. Younger,2000,"Expenditure incidence in Africa: Microeconomic Evidence", Fiscal Studies, vol.21, no, pp.329-347.
[27]Savas E.S.2000, Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. Seven Bridges Press.
[28]Shantayanan Devarajan, Vinaya Swaroop, Heng-fu Zou. "The composition of public expenditure and economic growth" Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (1996)313-344.
[29]Tanzi, Veto,2005,"TheComingFiscalCrisis"Paper provided for the conference "The Long-Term Budget Challenge:Public Finance and Fiscal Sustainability in the G-7", June2-4, Washington, DC.
[30]Van de Walle,2005, Do Services and Transfers Reach Morocco's Poor? Evidence from Poverty and Spending Maps. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3478.
[31]Zhuravskaya, E. V.,2000, "Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods:Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style", Journal of Public Economics,76:337-68.
[2]财政部教科文司.中国农村义务教育转移支付制度研究[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2005.
[3]蔡方、孙文样.政府间财力分配：计量模式与优化思路[J].财政研究.2004,(1).
[4]蔡宁、胡杨成.基于模糊层次分析法的公共部门绩效评估[J].技术经济.2005,(12).
[5]曹俊文、罗良清.转移支付的财政均等化效果实证分析[J].统计研究.2006(1).
[6]常修泽.中国现阶段基本公共服务均等化研究[J].天津市委党校学报.2007(2).
[7]陈昌盛、菜跃洲.中国政府公共服务：体制变迁与地区综合评估[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,2007.
[8]陈海威、田侃.我国基本公共服务均等化问题探讨[J].中州学刊.2007,(3).
[9]陈继勇、胡艺.知识经济时代与世界经济失衡问题的再认识[J].世界经济.2007,(7).
[10]陈抗,Arye L.Hillman,顾清扬.财政集权与地方政府行为变化——从援助之手到攫取之手[J].经济学(季刊).2002,(4).
[11]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,(4).
[12]迟福林.以基本公共服务均等化为重点的中央地方关系,中国(海南)改革发展研究院简报总第624期,2006.
[13]丛树海、周炜、于宁.公共支出绩效评价指标体系的构建.财贸经济.2005(3).
[14]丁元竹.科学把握我国现阶段的基本公共服务均等化[J].中国经贸导刊.2007(13).
[15]杜莉.中国经济与社会发展的失衡及其矫正[J].四川大学学报(社会科学版).2004,(1).
[16]方栓喜、匡贤明.以基本公共服务均等化为重点调整和改革中央地方关系得建议[J].经济前沿.2007(1).
[17]傅勇、张晏.中国式分权与财政支出结构偏向：为增长而竞争的代价[J].管理世界.2007,(3).
[18]甘行琼、汤凤林.美国财政分权的效率分析[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2004,(5)：91-95.
[19]高培勇.让财政均等化融入城乡协调发展进程[N].光明日报,2006-1-24.
[20]郭志刚.社会统计分析方法：SPSS软件应用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1999.
[21]郭志刚.社会统计分析方法——SPSS软件应用[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[22]汉斯·范登·德尔.民主与福利经济学[M].中国社会科学出版社,1999.
[23]胡鞍钢.中国：民生与发展[M].第1版,北京：中国经济出版社,2008.1-11.
[24]黄朝峰.基于模糊DEA的高校办学效益评价方法及应用研究[M]. 国防科学技术大学,博士论文,2005.
[25]贾康、白景明.县乡财政解困与财政体制创新[J].经济研究.2002
[26]江明融.公共服务均等化论略[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2006(3)
[27]金人庆.完善公共财政制度逐步实现基本公共服务均等化[J].求是.2006(11).
[28]金人庆.完善公共财政制度逐步实现基本公共服务均等化[J].求是.2006,(11).
[29]景维民.全球化视野的我国城乡关系失衡与协整[J].改革.2006,(7).
[30]黎旭东.构建地方公共财政管理体制研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2006.
[31]李华.城乡公共品供给均等化与转移支付制度的完善[J].财政研究.2005(11).
[32]李玲.我国教育经费支出效益的实证分析.河北经贸大学学报.2001(2).
[33]李淑霞.财政分权理论的研究主题与方法[J ]社会科学.2007,(6)：36-44.
[34]李婉.财政分权影响地方财政规模的区域差异研究[J].北方经济.2008,(1)：66-67.
[35]廖楚晖.政府教育支出效益的有限性分析及模型.中南财经政法大学学报.2003(3).
[36]刘福垣.中国发展失衡与国家发展战略的反思[J].财贸经济.2003,(9).
[37]刘尚希.基本公共服务均等化：现实要求和政策路径[J].浙江经济.2007 (13).
[38]刘晓路.财政分权与经济增长：第二代财政分权理论[J].财贸经济.2007,(3)： 47-53.
[39]卢中原.合理调整政府投资和政府消费的比例关系,增强通过政府消费来改善公共服务的能力[J].经济研究参考.2006,(56).
[40]陆庆平.公共财政支出的绩效管理.财政研究.2003(4).
[41]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,(8).
[42]吕炜、王伟同.我国公共教育支出绩效考评指标体系研究[J].财政研究,2007,(8)： 25-29.
[43]吕炜、王伟同.我国基本公共服务均等化问题研究[J].财政研究.2008,(5).
[44]吕炜、王伟同.中国公共教育支出绩效：指标体系构建与实证研究[J].世界经济,2007,(12)：54-63.
[45]吕炜.体制性约束、经济失衡与财政政策-解析1998年以来的中国经济[J].中国社会科学.2004,(2).
[46]吕炜.我们离公共财政有多远[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2005.
[47]吕炜.转轨的实践模式与理论范式[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006.
[48]马国贤.基本公共服务均等化的公共财政政策研究[J].财政研究.2007(10).
[49]平新乔、白洁.中国财政分权与地方公共品的供给[J].财贸经济.2006,(2).
[50]普雷母詹德.公共支出管理[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2002.
[51]沙安文、乔宝云.政府间财政关系(国际经验评述)[M].人民出版社,2006.
[52]邵明阳.从效率性分权到公平性分权：当代中国中央与地方权力调整轨迹分析[J].经济社会体制比较.2008,(3)：91-96.
[53]宋超、绍智.我国转移支付规模问题研究[J].地方财政研究.2005,(1).
[54]苏晓红、王文剑.中国的财政分权与地方政府规模[J].财政研究.2008,(1)：44-46.
[55]孙立平.权利失衡、两极社会与合作主义宪政体制[J].书屋.2007,(1).
[56]孙立平.我们在开始面对一个断裂的社会?[J].战略与管理.2002,(2).
[57]孙群力.财政分权与政府规模：中国的经验分析[J].统计与决策.2006,(12)：96-98.
[58]田侃、陈宇峰.我国医疗费用持续上涨的实证与对策研究[J].财政研究.2007,(2).
[59]王金秀.我国地区间财税的失衡及其矫正[J].财贸经济.2007,(6).
[60]王俊.政府卫生支出有效机制的研究——系统模型与经验分析[M],中国财政经济出版社,2007.
[61]王磊.试探公共产品最优供给规模及效率的模型与方法——在测度政府层级条件下[J].经济与管理.2007,(7)：10-16.
[62]王伟同.城市化进程与城乡公共服务均等化[J].财贸经济.2009,(2).
[63]王伟同.公共服务提供能力与绩效[J].地方财政研究.2007(11)
[64]王伟同.基本公共服务均等化的一般分析框架研究[J].东北财经大学学报,2008, (5)： 73-77.
[65]王晓洁.中国公共卫生支出均等化水平的实证分析——基于地区差别视角的量化分析[J].财贸经济,2009,(2)：46-49.
[66]王雍君.中国财政均等化与转移支付体制改革[J].中央财经大学学报.2006,(9)
[67]王永钦、丁菊红.公共部门内部的激励机制：一个文献述评[J].世界经济文汇.2007,(1).
[68]王永钦、张晏等.中国的大国发展道路——论分权式改革的得失[J].经济研究.2007,(1).
[69]吴峰.高等院校教育成本投入与办学效益DEA评价研究[M].第三军医大学,博士毕业论文,2007.
[70]吴建南、李贵宁.教育财政支出绩效评价：模型及其通用指标体系构建.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版).2004(2).
[71]许培源、高伟生.地方政府间竞争行为的博弈分析[J].中南财经政法大学学报.2008,(2)：27-33.
[72]徐霜北.文明演化与政策秩序——多维的财政分权[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2008.
[73]阎坤.转移支付制度与县乡财政体制构建[J].财贸经济.2004(8).
[74]杨方方.中国转型期社会保障中的政府责任[J].中国软科学.2004,(8).
[75]杨开忠、谢燮.中国城市投入产出有效性的数据包络分析[J].地理学与国土研究.2002,(3).
[76]曾军甲.政府间转移支付制度的财政平衡效应研究[J].经济研究.2000,(6).
[77]张恒龙、陈宪.我国财政均等化现状研究：1994-2004[J].中央财经大学学报.2006(12).
[78]张军、高远等.中国为什么拥有了良好的基础设施?[J].经济研究.2007, (3).
[79]张宁、胡鞍钢、郑京海.应用DEA方法测评中国各地区健康生产效率[J].经济研究.2006,(7).
[80]张少春.政府公共支出绩效考评理论与实践[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2005.
[81]张晏、龚六堂.地区差距、要素流动与财政分权[J].经济研究.2004,(7)：59-69.
[82]张晏、龚六堂.分税制改革、财政分权与中国经济增长[J].经济学季刊.2005,(3)： 75-108.
[83]郑磊.财政分权、政府竞争与公共支出结构——政府教育支出比重的影响因素分析[J].经济科学.2008,(1)：28-40.
[84]政府间财政关系课题组.政府间财政关系比较研究[M].中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[85]中国(海南)改革发展研究院课题组.基本公共服务体制变迁与制度创新——惠及13亿人的基本公共服务[J].财贸经济.2009,(2)：22-29.
[86]中国财政学会课题组.公共服务均等化问题研究[J].经济研究参考.2007,(58).
[87]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).
[88]钟晓敏.市场化改革中的地方财政竞争[J].财经研究.2004(1)
[89]周黎安.晋升博弈中的政府官员的激励与合作[J].经济研究.2004,(6).
[90]周黎安.中国地方官员的晋升锦标赛模式研究[J].经济研究.2007,(7)：36-50.
[91]朱红琼.多任务代理下地方政府行为取向研究[J].审计与经济研究.2008,(3)：84-87.
[92]朱志刚.财政支出绩效评价研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2003.
[1]Andrew Worthington, Cost Efficiency in Australian Local Government:A Comparative Analysis of Mathematical Programming and Econometric Approaches," Financial Accounting and Management, vol.16, no.3,2000, pp. 201-221.
[2]Antonio Afonso, Miguel St. Aubyn, "Cross-country Efficiency of Secondary Education Provision:A Semi-parametric Analysis with Non-discretionary Inputs," European Central Bank working paper, no.494, June 2005.
[3]Antonio Afonso, Sonia Fernandes, Measuring Local Government Spending Efficiency:Evidence for the Lisbon Region," Regional Studies, vol.40, no.1, 2006, pp.39-53.
[4]Antreas Athanassopoulos, Konstantino Triantis, "Assessing Aggregate Cost Efficiency and the Related Policy Implications for Greek Local Municipalities, INFOR, vol.36, no.3,1998, pp.66-83.
[5]B.Dahlby and L.S.Wilson:Fiscal Capacity,Tax Effort,and Optimal Equalization Grants.The Canadan Journal of Economics,Vol,27,No.3.(Aug.,1994),pp.657-672;
[6]Bardhan, P.,2006, "Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay:a Comparative Assessment of the Rise of China and India", paper presented at International Conference on the Dragon and the Elephant:China and India's Economic Reforms, July 1-2, 2006, Shanghai, China.
[7]Blanchard, O. and A. Shleifer,2000, "Federalism with and without Political Centralization:China versus Russia", Working Paper 7616, NBER.
[8]Campell, JP. "Managerial Behavior Performance and Effectiveness." New York: McGraw Hill.1970
[9]Gerdtam, U.-G., J. Sogaard, F. Andersson, and B. Jonsson, "An Econometric Analysis of Health Care Expenditure:A Cross-section Study of the OECD Countries", Journal of Health Economics,11,1992, pp.63—84.
[10]Grand J.L.,1982, Yhe Strategy of Equality:Redistribution and the Social Services, Allen and Unwin, London.
[11]J.F.Brun and J.L.Combes. Are There Spillover Effects between Coastal and Noncoastal Regions in China? China Economic Reviiew13 (2002)161-169.
[12]James M.Buchanan. Federalism and Fiscal Equity. The American Economic Review, Vol.40, No.4. (Sep.,1950),pp.583-599.
[13]Jameson Boex and Jorge Martinez-Vazquez:the Determinants of the Incidence of Intergovernmental Grants:ASurvey of the international Experience.Public Finance and Management, Volume Four, Number 4,2004,pp.454-479.
[14]Kai-yuen Tsui. "Local Tax System, Intergovernmental Transfers and China's Local Fiscal Disparities". Journal of Comparative Economics 33(2005)173-196.
[15]Kevin Milligan, Enrico Moretti, Philip Oreopoulos, "Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom," Journal of Public Economics, vol.88, no.9-10,2004, pp.1667-1695.
[16]Lanjouw, P.M. Pradham, F.Saadah, H, Sayed and R.Sparrow,2001, Poverty, Education, and Health in Indonesia:Who Benefits from Public Spending? Policy Research Working Paper 2739, The World Bank.
[17]Li, Hongbin and Li-An Zhou,2005, "Political Turnover and Economic Performance:The Incentive Role of Personnel Control in China", Journal of Public Economics,89, pp.1743-1762.
[18]LIN Y F, LIUZ Q. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in China[J].Economic Development and Cultural Change,2000,49,49 (1):1-21
[19]Mclure, Charles E., Jr,1994.The Sharing of Tax on Natural Resources and The Future of The Russian Federalism. In Christine I.Wallich, ed., Russia and the Challenge of Reform. Palo Alto, Calif.:Hoover Institution Press.
[20]Michael Davis, Kathy Hayes, "The Demand for Good Government," Review of Economics and Statistics, vol.75,1993, pp.148-152.
[21]Philip Grossman, Panayiotis Mavros, Robert Wassmer, "Public Sector Technical Inefficiency in Large U.S. Cities", Journal of Urban Economics, vol.46, no.2, 1999, pp.278-299.
[22]Philippe Vanden Eeckaut, Henry Tulkens, Marie-Astrid Jamar, "Cost Efficiency in Belgian Municipalities," in H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell, S. S. Schmidt, eds., The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, pp.300-334.
[23]Qian Y. and B. Weingast,1997, "Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives", Journal of Economic Perspectives,11(4).
[24]Qian Y. and G. Roland,1998, "Federalism and the Soft Budget Constraint", American Economic Review,88(5).
[25]Retzlaff-Roberts, D., C. F. Chang, and R. M. Rubin,2004, "Technical Efficiency in the Use of Health Care Resources:A Comparison of OECD Countries", Health Policy,69,55-72.
[26]Sahn, D.E. and S.D. Younger,2000,"Expenditure incidence in Africa: Microeconomic Evidence", Fiscal Studies, vol.21, no, pp.329-347.
[27]Savas E.S.2000, Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships. Seven Bridges Press.
[28]Shantayanan Devarajan, Vinaya Swaroop, Heng-fu Zou. "The composition of public expenditure and economic growth" Journal of Monetary Economics 37 (1996)313-344.
[29]Tanzi, Veto,2005,"TheComingFiscalCrisis"Paper provided for the conference "The Long-Term Budget Challenge:Public Finance and Fiscal Sustainability in the G-7", June2-4, Washington, DC.
[30]Van de Walle,2005, Do Services and Transfers Reach Morocco's Poor? Evidence from Poverty and Spending Maps. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3478.
[31]Zhuravskaya, E. V.,2000, "Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods:Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style", Journal of Public Economics,76:337-68.