本文基于2001－2009年地级数据研究了政府间转移支付对于地方教育支出的影响。理论分析表明，由于地方政府有很强的忽视教育支出的激励，且转移支付存在缺陷，转移支付可能不会增加教育支出。实证部分使用比重与人均值两类指标发现：首先，总转移支付并未增加教育支出，或实际效果很小。其次，一般性转移支付在2001－2006年对教育支出比重与人均支出均有显著正的影响，但实际效果很低；在2007－2009年则无显著影响。专项转移支付在两个阶段均显著减少了教育支出比重，但对人均支出有正的影响。再次，财力净流入地区的转移支付的效果高于财力净流出地区，但前者更可能忽视教育支出。最后，基于2001－2006年数据表明，转移支付对县乡级教育支出有较大影响，而对地本级教育支出影响较小；且一般性转移支付中的均衡性转移支付效果不佳。因此，应当增加教育专项资金或整块资金的比重，并强化地方政府转移支付使用过程中的问责制。%According to data from the year of 2001 to 2009 ,this paper investigates the effect of intergov‐ernmental fiscal transfer on local education spending in China .T heoretical analysis indicates that because local government is more likely to ignore education expenditures ,and fiscal transfer has serious default ,fiscal trans‐fer may not be able to increase local education expenditures .The empirical data which suggests the proportion indicator and the per capita indicator leads in five conclusions .First ,fiscal transfer is not found to have signifi‐cant effect on education expenditures .Second ,although general transfer is proved to have positive effect on ed‐ucation expenditure in both per capita and proportion from 2001 to 2006 ,the actual effect is very limited .Espe‐cially in the year of 2007 to 2009 ,it hardly has any significant effect .Third ,earmarked transfer is suggested to have negative effect on education expenditure in proportion ,but has a positive effect on per capita expenditures . Fourth ,the effect of fiscal transfer varies among different regions :It has better effect in undeveloped regions than in developed regions .Finally ,as suggested by data from 2001 to 2006 ,fiscal transfer mainly has more effect on the education expenditure of county and tow nship government rather than that of city .Consequently , this research implicates that more attention should be offered to earmarked transfers and block grants ,and local governments’ responsibilities should be clearly and precisely stated .
展开▼
