【作者】 黄蕊；

【导师】 王倩；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 金融学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 后危机时代是一段漫长的经济重建过程，本文研究的后危机时代是指2008年至今这一时间段。作为本次经济危机的发源地，美国为了重整经济格局，复原金融与就业市场，不遗余力地推行了双扩张的货币政策与财政政策，希望借助强有力的反周期操作将自身拉出经济衰退的泥沼。然而，在全球经济一体化的背景下，任何单一的经济体都无法在危机中独善其身，外部政策变动对他国通货膨胀的溢出效应将是后危机时代的核心议题。本文力图探明美国政策变动对中国通货膨胀的溢出效应，探究中国通货膨胀的主因，进而提出应对策略。2008年1月至2011年12月是美国双扩张的货币政策与财政政策的实施时期,它正好对应于美国经济的严重衰退阶段。本文对于政策溢出效应问题的讨论主要限定在这个时间段内。因此，在此经济周期背景下设定的理论前提与得出的研究结论存在着一定的特定性和局限性。经过分析，本文得出以下主要结论：第一，中国在危机初期最优的政策选择是与美国同步联动。通过对囚徒困境模型的分析可知，在经济严重衰退时期，中国在保持自身货币政策独立性的同时，选择与美国同方向的政策，将更有助于纳什均衡的实现，这也是危机初期多国先后选择扩张性经济政策的原因所在；而在经济逐步复苏企稳时期，各国应降低各自货币政策的自由度，寻求团结合作，才能更有利于解决企稳时期可能的通货膨胀治理难题。第二，美国双扩张的货币政策与财政政策并不会对中国的通货膨胀造成直接冲击。美国处于经济周期的衰退阶段在很大程度上抑制了输入型通货膨胀的国际传导效应。美元的购买力锐减、中国资本账户管制与人民币升值都加强了通胀抑制效应。通过对两国货币政策传导模型的转化、推导，以及利用结构向量自回归模型的实证检验，均证实了美国扩张性经济政策对中国通货膨胀所形成的直接冲击影响微乎其微，但它却使得中国宏观经济政策在2008年发生了转向，并随美国同步联动，而这种政策的同步联动才是最终诱发中国通货膨胀波动的主因。政策渠道的作用也使得美国扩张性的宏观经济政策间接地抬升了中国的通货膨胀水平。第三，金融危机后中国通货膨胀带有一定的财政属性。中国反周期操作与美国最大的不同在于中国着力实施以财政政策为主导的经济政策。这也使得在此时期，中国的通货膨胀存在着一定的财政属性。政策冲击对通货膨胀的影响问题也转化为财政政策视角下的价格形成机制（即FTPL理论）在中国的适用性问题。为探明中国反周期政策的操作与实施逻辑，本文以史为鉴，将中国在次贷危机后的救市政策与美国“大萧条”后的罗斯福新政进行类比。同样是大危机下的救市操作，即便历史背景迥异，但政策的负向影响却异曲同工。对充分就业的盲目依赖及经济目标的短视性是凯恩斯主义一直最被诟病的。一味的“唯GDP论”虽然短期内对提高产出的效果显著，但产能过剩危机、结构化转型搁置、私人投资下降等更深层次的矛盾会进一步将中国经济推向失衡状态。在实证分析层面，本文对FTPL理论在中国后危机时代的适用性进行了动态因子模型和格兰杰因果关系检验。依据理论分析和实证检验的研究结果，笔者认为中国以财政政策为主导的救市政策，存在着时机与力度上的错配。这造成了诸多的不良后果：一是通货膨胀在2010~2011年间显著高企，并伴随着很强的财政属性；二是中国经济在蒙代尔-弗莱明模型下显示出严重偏离均衡的危险态势；三是经济非均衡趋势诱发了产业结构失调，催生了经济体的政策依赖性，同时挤压了原本较为脆弱的私人部门发展空间。综上所述，合理适度地把控宏观经济政策的实施力度，尤其是财政政策的实施力度，是中国未来防治通货膨胀的根本。在操作过程中，中国应通过债务盯住制度和通胀水平监测，实时地掌控宏观经济政策的实施时机与程度大小。加快我国财政政策与货币政策规则的制定，尽可能地规避相机抉择型宏观经济政策所带来的政策弊端，逐步降低经济体的政策依赖性。未来中国通货膨胀的治理问题也应更侧重于经济薄弱环节的修复与经济体制的改革。规范的财政政策规则设计同样也应提上议事日程，并将其作为中国未来财政体制改革中的一项重要环节。在应对外部政策溢出效应问题上，中国应以经济客观事实作为研究基础，规避诸如外部流动性扩张必然诱发中国物价高企的主观臆断，应切实利用严密的理论分析与实证推导，找到中国通胀抬升的本质缘由。同时，中国也应意识到，在今后经济逐步企稳的过程中，要更加注重经济结构的优化调整，放宽政府管制，增强市场的灵活度与有效性建设，以改革和创新作为新的经济增长突破口，从根本上完善中国经济体系中的薄弱环节，不但要在通胀治理上，更要在经济的可持续发展层面上争取更大的进步。更多还原

【Abstract】 Past-crisis era was a long-run economic reconstruction process. It containednot only deep recession but also recovery opportunity. In order to improve theeconomic landscape, the financial and the job markets, the US had carried outexpansionary monetary and fiscal policy for reinvigorating the economy. Theseanti-circle operation exerted tremendous power on the damaged departments. Visibly,loose economic policies could stabilize the markets’ confidence and be verynecessary during this period.However, because of the globalization, economical spillover effects could beunavoidable. Though the US had taken the policies for rescuing, other countries’policy choices had some passiveness. By using the game theory, this paper arguedthat the following countries should maintain the policies’ independence during therecession and seek cooperation in the reviving era to fight against the inflation.In fact, both China and the US implemented the loose polices in the past-crisisera and increased the money supply. So there was a concern that if these operationcould lead a high price? Would the QE do harm to other economic entities? Whatwas the main source of China’s inflation? According to these queries, this essaythought the American policies couldn’t shock China’s price in some degree onaccount of the low external purchasing power, capital account control and theappreciation of the RMB. This paper also used mathematical models and SVARmodel to verify the above hypothesis. Therefore, China’s inflation had a high possibility that it came from its own macro policies.We could see that the big difference between China and the US was the focus ofthe policies. China leaned to use fiscal policy but the US preferred the monetarypolicy. This phenomenon maybe resulted China’s inflation some fiscal nature. So itoffered us a new view of the relationship between inflation and the policies. Thisissue could convert into the FTPL theory’s applicability in China. Through systemanalysis, this essay had approved the correctness of the hypothesis. The fiscal natureof the China’s inflation was very unique during past-crisis era. Why could this exist?To answer this question, we compared China’s policies to Roosevelt’s New Deal in1930s. From the history, we could easily found that Keynesianism just hadshort-view in economic development which would exert negative impact in the longrun. The logic that the government was mad about GDP also induced China’seconomic imbalance. By using empirical analysis, China’s applicability of FTPLtheory had passed tests. From the results we could conclude that firstly China’sinflation had a strong fiscal nature in2010to2011; Secondly, MF model had showedthe economic imbalance of China; Finally, the imbalance could worsen privatedepartments and give rise to policy dependence.In the visible, the key point to fight against inflation was controlling thestrength of macro policies. During the operation process, we should focus oncrawling pegs of debts and inflation monitoring. In the future, we needed to payattention to the weakness of our own economy and to realize the economic reform.In dealing with the external policies’ spillover effect, we shouldn’t easily jump toconclusions without strict verification. We should seek strong evidence on the sourceof our country’s high price. Only in this way, the economy’s sustainabledevelopment would come true ultimately.更多还原