【作者】 金钰；

【导师】 蒋萍；

【作者基本信息】 东北财经大学 ， 统计学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 自亚当·斯密确立市场经济学以来,公共部门的活动基本上被局限于国家权力、国防、社会治安和外交等范围。但是,随着市场失灵的暴露,为了弥补市场经济的不足,公共部门的经济活动逐渐得到重视。虽然,亚当·斯密极力主张限制政府公共部门的作用,但是,通过市场不能解决的诸多问题仍需要依赖于公共部门来解决。第二次世界大战以来,随着混合经济体制的确立,政府财政支出占GDP的比重越来越高,例如,瑞典等北欧国家一般超过60%,美国和日本等国家则达到40%。相比之下,改革开放以来,中国财政支出占GDP的比重以1994年为转折点形成了V型轨迹,到2008年中国财政预算支出占GDP的比重达到了20.8%。伴随着中央政府支出占GDP比重的稳步上升,省级地方政府的规模也在不断扩大,从地方财政支出占中央财政支出的比重来看,地方财政支出的比重从1978年的52.6%上升到2008年的78.7%；中央和地方预算外资金支出比重的变化更大,从1986年的59.4%快速上升到2008年的92.6%。进一步分析,虽然省级地方政府获得了不断增大的财政责任,但其地区差异却在逐渐增大,1978年各地区人均预算内财政支出的变异系数为67.9%,1994年为68.3,2005年为74.2%,2008年上升到76.7%。这种政府财政能力的差异不可避免地导致地方政府公共部门之间在提供公共产品能力上的差异,进而导致政府公共部门效率的差异。鉴于此,通过经验检验来判断公共部门效率的变迁轨迹,找出造成地区间公共部门效率差异的主要影响因素,并分析公共部门效率差异对地区国民经济的影响,对于提升地方政府管理能力和综合竞争力具有重要的现实意义。近年来,许多学者从不同的角度提出了各种各样的假设,试图去识别导致地区间公共部门规模、效率差异的影响因素。但是,由于对“公共部门”的界定缺乏统一概念,致使对相关现象的描述模糊不清。加之,由于公共部门活动的非市场性,无法取得市场价格信息,难以对公共部门行为的质和量进行准确界定和度量,因此,度量公共部门效率困难重重。随着2003年《SNA(1993)修订工作计划》的正式启动,以及SNA(2008)的正式颁布,公共部门界定的核算框架得以确立,为公共部门的相关研究奠定了坚实的基础。而国际上,关于政府非市场服务投入产出测算及质量调整方法的研究也得到了空前的丰富和发展。但是,国内公共部门效率相关研究仅在复杂经验检验技术的应用上进行了尝试性的研究,如DEA方法的应用。而在公共部门相关数据质量的改进方面却缺少全面的整理和系统的归纳。在复杂的技术中使用数据的质量和适宜性,与技术本身具有同样的重要性,数据本身存在的缺陷在一定意义上限制了公共部门相关研究的深入。对上述问题的思考,形成了本文研究的脉络,即何为公共部门?其与私人部门的边界如何确定?研究公共部门效率的可供选择的方法是什么?适于该方法的数据来源的质量和适宜性如何?论文正文研究围绕上述问题依次展开,具体各章内容安排如下：第1章首先阐述了研究地区间公共部门效率差异的理论和实践意义。然后,根据本文研究要解决的问题,确定了研究的主线,搭建了详细的研究框架,并对本文研究中的核心概念技术效率及其与生产率、规模经济和X效率的关系做了详细的探讨。最后,总结了论文所做的研究工作,分析并提出了值得进一步研究的问题。第2章在对公共部门规模和效率的相关研究轨迹综述的基础上,进行了较为系统的归纳、剖析,指出了现有研究存在的问题。第3章从经济学和国民核算两个视角分析了公共部门与私人部门及公共部门内部各子部门边界划分依据。本章重点跟踪了SNA(1993)修订中与政府和其他公共部门相关的议题,并对SNA(2008)提出的界定公共部门边界的决策树模型中的“控制”和“有经济意义的价格”两个概念做了深入的剖析。第4章重点解决数据来源问题。在众多的研究中,都提到了公共部门产出度量的困境。本章系统借鉴了欧盟统计局、OECD和英国统计局关于政府产出与生产率度量的研究成果,区分了直接产出和消费产出,并深入探讨了产出指标的质量调整问题。在公共部门效率研究中,对公共部门资本存量的正确测算与处置是非常重要的。这恰恰是国内相关研究中都忽略的问题。第5章探讨了技术效率的测量方法。在系统回顾技术效率测量的参数方法和非参数方法的发展轨迹基础上,着重分析了DEA和SFA中常用的模型,以及DEA和SFA使用中的关键问题,提出在公共部门技术效率分析DEA和SFA的结合应用。第6章在上述各章分析的基础上,构建了中国公共部门技术效率测量的投入产出指标体系,并对利用DEA和SFA得到的省级公共部门技术效率得分的差异进行了系统的分析,进而利用BC(1995)模型研究了省级公共部门技术效率区域差异的影响因素。第7章利用第6章中根据SFA得到的省级公共部门技术效率得分,构建了省级面板数据,研究了公共部门技术效率与地区经济增长的关系,结果表明省级公共部门技术效率对地区经济增长有积极的促进作用,但存在明显的区域差异。第8章对全文的研究结论进行了总结,并提出了相应的政策建议。通过经验研究识别出了省级公共部门技术效率的持续改进,但也发现省级公共部门技术效率区域差异有逐级拉大的趋势,进一步分析引起省级公共部门技术效率差异的影响因素,可以发现人口密度,人均行政管理费支出对省级公共部门技术效率有显著的负影响,而地区居民受教育水平、地区居民可支配收入、地方政府规模对公共部门技术效率都有显著的正影响。因此,从制度上加强规范地方政府,防止地方政府行政管理费过快增长将有助于改善地区公共部门技术效率的之间的差异。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since Adam Smith established market economics, the activity of public sector has been largely limited to areas such as national power, national defense, social security and foreign affairs. However, with the emergence of market defect (or the market failure), scholars have started to pay more attention to public sector’s economic activities to solve issues related to market deficiency. Although Adam Smith strongly urges narrowing down the function of government public sector, the problems that can not be solved by market mechanism have to be solved by the public sector.Since World WarⅡ, with the establishment of the mixed economy, the share of government fiscal expenditure in the nation’s GDP has been continuously increasing. For example, government fiscal expenditure is more than 60% of the GDP in Sweden and other Nordic countries and about 40% in the United States, Japan and other countries. In contrast, since the economic reform started in 1978 China’s fiscal expenditure as a percentage of GDP has experienced a v-shaped trajectory, with 1994 as the turning point. In 2008, China’s budget expenditure reached 20.8% of the GDP. With the central government expenditure steadily rising, the size of provincial and local governments has also been continuously expanding. For example, the share of local fiscal expenditure in the central government fiscal expenditure increased from 52.6% in 1978 to 78.7% in 2008. The share of non-budgetary funds expenditure of central and local governments has changed more dramatically, rising from 59.4% in 1986 to 92.6% in 2008. Along with the increasing in the fiscal responsibility of provincial and local governments, regional difference has been increasing gradually. The coefficient of variation of per capita budget fiscal expenditure among regions was 67.9% in 1978,68.3% in 1994,74.2% in 2005, but rose to 76.7% in 2008. This regional difference in government fiscal ability inevitably leads to differences in local governments’ability of providing public products, which consequently causes differences in the efficiency of government public sector.Therefore, it is of great importance to track the changing dynamic of public sector efficiency by empirical investigating the antecedents of regional differences in public sector efficiency and analyzing the influence that such regional differences may have on regional and national economy. In recent years, scholars have proposed various hypotheses from different angles to identify factors that might contribute to regional differences in the size and efficiency of public sector. However, due to inconsistent definition of the concept "public sector", the description of related phenomenon has been unclear. In addition, because of the non-market nature of public sector activities, there is no market price for these activities. As a result, it is difficult to accurately define and measure the quality and quantity of public sector activities, in turn, it is greatly difficult to measure public sector efficiency. With the enaction of SNA (1993) Revision Work Plan in 2003, and the promulgation of SNA (2008)in 2008, the accounting standard of public sector has been established, which lays a solid foundation for the research related to public sector. Moreover, internationally, the research of the input-output measurement and quality adjustment method of the government non-market service also have received unprecedentedly enrichment and development. In contrast, research on China’s public sector efficiency has mainly been limited to application of complex technologies of empirical test, for example, the DEA method. As a result, there is a lack of a comprehensive examination of issues related to the improvement of the quality of public sector data. The quality and suitability of the data used in the complex technology is of equal importance as technology itself. The defects in the data limit the development in the research on public sector to certain extent. Given this limitation of the current literature, this dissertation is aimed to answer the following questions:what is public sector is?; how to determine the border between the private sector and the public sector?; what are the alternative methods of studying the efficiency of public sector?; and what is the quality and suitability of the data source that is used in each of the alternative method?.The dissertation is organized as the follows:ChapterⅠpresents the theoretical and practical significance of investigating regional differences in the efficiency of public sector. Also, following the research questions of the dissertation, the author lays out the research mainline, presents a detailed research framework, and discusses the core concept of technology efficiency and the relationship between productivity, scale economy, X efficiency and technology efficiency in the study. The last section of the chapter is a summary of the work conducted in this dissertation and suggestions for future research.ChapterⅡpresents a review of the literature on the size and efficiency of public sector. Based on a systematic analysis of the literature, the author points out the limitations of previous studies.In ChapterⅢ, applying the economics and national accounting perspectives, he author analyzes the underlying rational of defining the boundary between public sector and private sector, and among each department within public sector. The main section of the chapter is devoted to reviewing the issues government and other public sectors in the SNA (1993) revision. The author also deeply dissects the concept of "control" and the concept of "the price of economic significance", which are proposed in the decision tree model that SNA (2008) uses to define public sector.ChapterⅣfocuses on the issue of data sources. Many previous studies have mentioned the difficulty of measuring the output of public sector. Based on the findings of research on the measure of government output and productivity conducted by the European Union’s statistics office, OECD and UK Bureau of Statistics, the author distinguishes direct output and consumption output, and deeply probes into the quality adjustment issues of output indicators. For studies on public sector efficiency, it is very important to have the correct measure and disposal for capital stock. However, the extant literature in China has neglected this issue.ChapterⅤdiscusses the measurement of technology efficiency. Based on a systematically review of the development of parameters method and nonparametric method of technology efficiency measure, the author focuses on models that are commonly used in DEA and SFA and the key issues related to the application of these models Then the author discusses of the combination of the SFA with DEA in the analysis public sector technology efficiency.In ChapterⅥ, based on the analysis in previous chapters, the author constructs the input-output indicator system for technology efficiency measurement for China’s public sector. Furthermore, the author systematically analyzes the difference in technology efficiency score of provincial public sector obtained from the DEA and SFA. Last, the author examines factors influencing regional difference in technology efficiency of provincial public sector by using the BC (1995) model.In ChapterⅦ, using the technology efficiency score of the provincial public sector obtained from SFA in chapterⅥ, the author constructs the provincial panel data, and studies the relationship between technology efficiency of public sector and regional economic growth. The results show that technology efficiency of provincial public sector has a positive effect on regional economic growth, but the magnitude of the effect varies across regions. ChapterⅧpresents the conclusion of the study and the author’s suggestions for policy makers. The study’s results suggest continuous improvements of technology efficiency of the provincial public sector, however, the results also show that regional differences in technology efficiency of provincial public sector are gradually widening. A further analysis of factors resulting in technology efficiency differences of provincial public sector shows that population density and per capita administrative management expenditure negatively and significantly influence technology efficiency of provincial public sector, while the education level of regional resident, the disposable income of regional resident and the local government scale has a positive and significant effect. Based on these results, measures such as strengthening and regulating local government to prevent excessive growth of administrative management cost of local government and controlling drastic and extended expansion of large cities will help reduce the differences in technology efficiency among regional public sectors.更多还原