【作者】 武艳丽；

【导师】 李力；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 税收学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 教育的发展、特别是高等教育的发展将直接影响到一国的创新能力、技术革新和科技发展,并最终对经济和社会的发展产生深刻影响。我国历来就有重视教育的传统,“书中自有黄金屋”、”学而优则仕”,其实正反应出个人或家庭对教育的需求,即将接受教育的动机是建立在对未来获得更好收入的预期。因此,无论从个人还是社会,对教育的需求,特别是优质教育的需求都是强烈的。这也是本文关注教育,并希望能结合本专业的特点从公共财政的角度对高等教育问题进行研究的重要初衷。无论是经济学理论还是公共财政理论,都把教育定义为公共产品,而高等教育被认为:给个人带来的价值会大大超过给社会带来的价值,因此具有混合产品的性质,应该由社会和个人共同承担成本。从提供者的角度来看,主要由政府和市场来共同配置教育资源。在我国,公办大学是高等教育的主体,而这些学校的收入主要依靠政府的财政拨款。而公办大学中又根据行政主管部门级次的不同,划分为中央部属院校和地方省属院校。因中央和地方财力不同和政策的差异,不同级次财政对不同类型高校的财政拨款力度是不同的,甚至,对不同学历层次的高校支持程度也会有所差异。那么,这其中的教育资源配置是否合理呢?由此引出了对公共高等教育财政支出的绩效评价问题,这正是本文研究的出发点。首先,本文从公共财政追求的两大目标来分析,认为对高等教育财政支出绩效评价的核心应该是公平和效率,并且公平第一,效率第二。公共财政学的主流理论认为,教育追求的公平其实质是一种机会的公平,重点在于保障公民接受教育的权利,在高等教育问题上本文认为也是如此,甚至还应该包括选择教育的权利、保障就业的权利。特别是,建立在“个人的收入和生活质量与受教育程度有关”的假设前提下,剔除环境、家庭背景、性别、种族等可能的影响因素,高等教育的机会公平因可能校正“起点的不公平”而更加被认为意义重大。因为增加教育机会平等意味着增加了人们未来收入平等的机会。对此,美国经济学家舒尔茨曾提出观点:对人力资本尤其是普及教育进行的公共投资,就很可能是为了达到“促进社会公平”这个目的而支付的一种切实有效和效率很高的开支。这是因为:第一,社会中很大的一部分收入分配差异,实际上是由于所受教育的不同而引起的,土地本身并不是贫穷的主要因素,而人的能力和素质确实决定贫富的关键。这样,通过教育,不仅可以提高劳动者个人的劳动效率和收入水平,而且可以缩小因受教育不同所产生的收入差异,从而使社会收入的分配趋于公平。第二,对教育投资的增加,可以提高全社会中劳动力创造价值所占的比重。由于相对于非人力资本投资来说,教育投资的增长会使总的工资收入比全部财政性收入增长的幅度更大,而财产收入分配造成的不平等要比劳动收入分配的不平等严重得多,所以教育投资的增长会减少个人收入分配方面的不平等。1从这个角度讲,教育的确有助于改变目前社会上存在的分配和再分配的不合理或不平等现象。并且,公平和效率在公共教育财政支出绩效问题上是统一的,即努力实现教育公平本身就是考核公共教育财政支出效率的重要内涵之一。那么,什么才是公平的标准呢?并且,如何来评价高等教育财政支出的公平性呢?是否可以从教育结果的角度,即给个人带来的实际收益率的大小来评价公平呢?本文研究认为,公平并不意味着“平均”,对高等教育资源的财政拨款要兼顾考虑学历和地区的差异。其次,根据〔美〕约翰?罗尔斯对公平的定义,当公平作为一种社会制度时,既要遵循机会平等原则,又要遵循差别原则。在公共教育财政问题上,因为受到天然禀赋差别、个人努力程度差别、选择差别等因素的影响,教育的结果必然会存在一定的差别,而这种差别被认为是合理的。因此,单纯以教育给个人带来的收益率的大小来评价公平是不恰当的,但是如果当高等教育资源在配置上本身存在不公平问题、则教育给个人带来的收益率的差别可以被推测为在一定程度上是由于教育的机会不公平造成的。在这样的分析基础上,本文希望能够通过对不同学历层次和不同行政单位管理下的高校进行实证比较,并结合教育投资(对个人)的收益率,即从教育结果的角度评价教育资源配置的公平与效率问题。这是本文研究的一个创新尝试。于是,本文在研究中将本科和高职/专科院校、部属和省属院校分别作为两个分析组,探讨高等教育财政支出在不同类型院校上的分配公平问题和不同行政管理级别下高等教育财政支出的分配公平问题。并且在研究教育对个人的收益率时,本文将把主要依靠教育财政拨款的公办学校和没有得到任何财政拨款的民办/独立学院作为分析组。这些分析组中,所研究的对象同样为我国2004级大学生。通过比较研究发现,我国高职/专科院校一方面其招生数量众多,承担着为社会培养技术应用型人才和高技能型人才的需要,另一方面所得到的财政支持却很有限。其实,根据发展中国家对教育成本的研究结果,高职教育的成本是普通高等教育成本的2.6倍,即发展高职教育需要有更大的投入。但我国高等职业教育的政府预算内拨款占其学校教育经费总额的比重不到50%,大部分成本是由学生个人和家庭在承担,而从财政拨款来看,2005年本科和高职/专科得到的拨款占总教育经费支出的比重分别为89.46%和10.54%,悬殊甚大,可见这里面存在着很大的教育资源分配不公平问题。而从对部属和省属院校的比较研究中发现,目前我国的分级财政体制下,部属院校得到的财政拨款已经多于省属院校(包括高职/专科),且部属院校在地域分布上主要集中在发达地区,更加剧了教育财政在地域间分配不公平的矛盾。因此,通过研究要建议:中央财政应增加对省属院校特别是经济欠发达地区省属院校的教育投入,同时也鼓励地方财政对其地方院校的发展提高重视、增加拨款,因为根据理论研究,教育对区域经济的促进作用更明显。本文通过这样的实证比较研究,目的是探讨如何在追求公平和效率中、特别是在努力实现教育公平中更好地配置财政资源。接下来,在探讨如何提高高等教育财政资源配置的效率时,本文指出教育财政资源配置效率的绩效评价核心是:学校对财政拨款的使用“效果”、而非效益;同时深入分析引入第三方机构来对这种使用效果进行评价的重要性,即把高校纳入“以就业为导向”的教育质量评价体系,对这部分的研究借鉴了麦可思就业调查指标体系对大学的评估案例和美国蒙福特管理学院质量控制系统的成功模式。之所以从这个角度去探讨高等教育财政支出的效率问题,是因为在撰文之前的大量的文献和数据搜集过程中发现,以往的研究中对教育财政支出效率的评价主要停留在配置结构的考核上,所追求的效率目标往往是测算诸如:政府对每一位教师的经费提供应该负担多少学生的工作量才算合理;每一位学生占有多少教育房屋使用面积;教育人数和从事教育管理、教育科研、以及后勤人员等的比例应该是多少等等。并通过这些这指标来评价办学的效益如何。但是本文认为,高等教育财政支出效率评价体系中,一个很重要的方面应该是考核高校对教育财政拨款的使用效果,按照目前我国财政和统计部门的核算方法,对教育财政支出效益的评估重点在硬件设施建设上,如《中国教育经费统计年鉴》中,改建校舍面积、固定资产、房屋和建筑物、专用设备、购置图书等都被看做是效益指标,把培养的学生数目看做是产出,并不能反映出高等教育最本质和最直接的目标,即教育质量,特别是学生为核心的人才培养质量——在市场化的劳动力市场上,学生的就业质量往往就是人才培养质量的最好体现。因此,本文认为,从公共财政的角度,政府绩效评估更加看重效果,其准绳应是“顾客导向”和“结果为本”,而用在教育财政上,就是以“学生导向”和“就业为本”。因此,应将高校的就业指标也纳入到对教育财政支出效率的评价体系中,如高校培养的毕业生的就业能力(就业率、薪资、能力、工作与专业相关率、就业流向)和毕业生满意度,等等。从这个角度上讲,对高等教育财政支出效益的评价,也可以看作是相当于对大学“以就业为导向”的教育质量的评估。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the entrance of the human society to the era of sciential economy, education has been playing a very important role in economic development and civilization of the society. The process of educational development directly manifests its“contribution”to the development of the society. In terms of personal or social, educational needs, in particular the demand for quality education are strong. And it becomes a must to study the educational resource allocation by pubilic finance.Whether economic theory or public finance theory, have defined education as public education. While, cause the higher education can bring more value to individuals than to the social, it’s defined as a mixed product, and society and individuals should share the costs. In fact, the provider of higher education in our country, mainly is government. And the most universities depend on the income, which supplied by the government financial. So discuss what about the educational allocative efficiency and how to optimize the allocation of educational resources is the importance in this thesis.First of all, from public finance theory, the twin goals of public finance expenditure on higher education are equity and efficiency, and which should be the core of performance evaluation. Equity first, and efficiency second.Public Finance mainstream theory of the view that the pursuit of educational equity is the equitable opportunities, with emphasis on the protection of citizens the right to education. Even higher educational equity means the protection of the right to choose education and to have career opportunities. In particular, it means that equal educational opportunities will increase people’s income equality in the future. Therefore, increase in education funding would reduce the personal income distribution inequality.But, what is a fair standard? And how to evaluate the fairness of higher education expenditure? In this paper, that the fair does not mean that the“average”for the transfer of resources to pay for higher education to consider the balance between academic and regional differences. Secondly, according to the economist John Rawls on the definition of“fair”, it is necessary to follow the principle of equality of opportunity, but also to follow the principle of difference. In the financial problems of public education, due to differences in natural endowments, to the extent of individual differences, differences in choice and other factors, the results of education will inevitably be some differences, and this difference is considered to be reasonable. But when higher education in the allocation of resources on the inherent unfairness, the education of individuals to bring the yield difference may certain extent due to the unfair educational opportunities.By comparing the study found that China’s vocational / college students on the one hand, the large number of bears for the community-based training technology talents and skills of personnel needs, on the other hand, received limited financial support. In fact, based on the cost of developing the education research, higher education is the cost of regular higher education costs 2.6 times, that is, the development of higher education need to have more input. However, China’s higher vocational education budget of the government funding of its schools, the proportion of total education spending less than 50% of the cost of most of the students by individuals and families in the shoulder, and the financial allocation from the point of view, in 2005 undergraduate and vocational / specialist The allocation of the total expenditure on education, the proportion was 89.46% and 10.54%, very poor, we can see that there exist a lot of unfair distribution of educational resources issues.The question about how to improve the allocation of financial resources for higher efficiency, this article pointed out that the efficiency of the allocation of financial resources is the core of performance evaluation: School funding for the use of“effect”rather than efficiency. In this paper, believe that higher education expenditure evaluation of the efficiency of the system, a very important aspect of colleges and universities should be the assessment of the use of education funding results in accordance with China’s financial sector and statistical method of accounting, finance, education, to assess the effectiveness of expenditures in key The hardware construction, such as“China Statistical Yearbook of education”, the area of building structures, fixed assets, houses and buildings, equipment, the purchase of books, have been seen as indicators of effectiveness, to train students as the number of births is That does not reflect the nature of higher education and the most direct target of the quality of education, especially students at the core of the quality of personnel training - in the market of the labor market, the quality of student employment often reflects the quality of the college eudation.As a result, colleges and universities should be included in the employment indicators to the efficiency of fiscal spending on education evaluation system, such as colleges and universities graduates employability (employment, wages, the ability to work with the relevant professional rate, the flow of jobs) and graduates Satisfaction, and so on. From this perspective, the benefits of higher education expenditure evaluation, it can be seen as equivalent to the University of“employment-oriented”education quality assessment.更多还原