摘要
改革开放以来,我国经济和社会都得到了飞速发展。但是,由于各区域在区位条件、资源禀赋、历史文化等各方面存在巨大差异,导致经济发展也处于不同水平,尤其是东部与中西部之间、全国各省之间,经济差异十分显著。这在很大程度上制约了我国经济的长期平稳增长和社会的和谐稳定发展。财政能力在一定程度上是地区经济实力的反映,财政收入又是财政能力的体现。2012年11月,十八大报告中指出,要“完善促进基本公共服务均等化和主体功能区建设的公共财政体系”。2013年11月,十八届三中全会“关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定”再次重申要“推进基本公共服务均等化”。因此,缩小区域财政收入差异、均衡区域间的财政能力是我国当前面临的重大课题,是促进区域公共服务均等化、协调地区经济差距的基础和重要途径。
基于此,本文对我国区域财政收入差异进行了系统分析,各章之间有着严密的内在逻辑关系。第1章对国内外关于区域财政收入差异的相关研究进行了综述,第2章依托公平与效率、政府职能与政府干预、政府间转移支付制度等基础理论,梳理了西方国家缩小区域财政收入差异的实践并总结了经验。在第1、2章的理论研究基础上,第3章首先讨论了我国区域财政收入差异的现状与变化趋势,包括按照行政和地理划分的区域之间的差异,即省际间、东部内部、中部内部、西部内部和东中西部间的差异,以及采用聚类分析按照经济总体特征和结构特征划分的经济区域之间的差异。为了更完整地反映财政收入分配不平等的状况,第3章进一步计算了财政收入的区域流动性。基于上述研究结果,本文关注的重点是导致区域财政收入差异的原因,在探寻原因之前,我们必须确定不同收入源对区域财政收入差异的贡献,这样才能从贡献最大的关键因素入手找到差异的成因,所以第4章按照来源于不同项目、不同产业、不同行业和不同所有制企业的财政收入对区域间人均财政收入的差异进行了因素分解,明确了各因素对总体区域差异的贡献。根据第4章的研究,区域财政收入差异的关键因素是营业税,按照我国税制,营业税主要来源于第二三产业,尤其是第三产业。所以第5章先后采用主成分分析和面板模型对人均财政收入与第二、三产业人均GDP的关系进行了探讨,并进一步研究了第三产业的支柱行业房地产业的营业税收入和区域财政收入差异的协整关系,辨明了我国区域财政收入差异形成的主要原因和深层原因,并且对导致区域财政收入差异的其他原因进行了简要分析。掌握我国区域财政收入差异的现状和成因之后,我们需要明确如何缩小这种差异,目前我国的转移支付对区域财政收入差异是否具有调节作用呢?因此,本文第6章在构建转移支付区域分配对中央政府和地方政府的效果最优化模型基础上,测算了目前中央对地方的转移支付对区域财政收入差异的调节效果,并且采用秩和检验和转移份额法对转移支付的区域分配结构进行了评价。根据第5章的实证研究结果,我们了解到房地产业调控对缩小区域财政收入差异尤为重要,所以第7章从房地产业营业税的区域差异入手,预测了抑制住房价格对区域财政收入差异的影响,并对地方政府的效用变化以及房价和土地财政的关系进行了分析。第8章在前文的研究基础上提出了相关政策建议。
通过以上研究,本文得到如下结论：
1.尽管财政收入的区域差异总体来说呈现出收敛态势,但仍然非常显著,远远大于人均GDP的区域差异。其中,省际财政收入基尼系数最大,西部各省之间财政收入的基尼系数较小,但呈增长趋势。从贡献率来看,东中西部间的财政收入基尼系数对总体差异的贡献率最大。按照经济总体特征和经济结构特征划分的经济区域间的财政收入差异也呈现出下降趋势。另外,财政收入的区域流动性在长期内大于短期,并且流动性从大到小依次为西部、中部、省际、东部和东中西部间。除西部外,其它各区域财政收入的流动性对财政收入差距都起到了正向的减小作用。
2.区域间财政收入基尼系数的变化主要取决于各区域财政收入水平的变化。营业税、来源于第三产业的财政收入、来源于房地产业的财政收入、来源于股份公司的财政收入在区域财政收入差异中贡献最大。
3.第二、三产业的发展对区域财政收入差异有很大影响,尤其是第三产业的非均衡发展是区域财政收入差异形成的主要原因。作为第三产业的重要支撑行业,房地产业的地区发展不平衡,成为中国区域财政收入差异的深层原因。
4.现行的转移支付分配在一定程度上缩小了区域财政收入差异,并且这种调节效果随着一般性转移支付比例的增加而扩大。转移支付虽然改善了全国各省之间财政收入的流动性,却固化了东中西内部各省财政收入的位次,不利于东中西三大区域内部财政收入差距的缩小。目前的转移支付区域分配有待优化,因为人均本级财政收入与人均转移支付的分布在很大程度上是无差异的,也就是说,一些人均本级财政收入多的省份转移支付反而多,而一些财政收入少的省份转移支付却反而少。东部地区本级财政收入和转移支付分布无差异的态势在减弱,但仍强于中西部,应继续重点调整其转移支付的地区分配；全国范围内和中部地区,这种态势波动较大,但总体来说也呈下降趋势；虽然西部的这种态势弱于东部和中部,但近几年却在加强,因此也不能忽略其转移支付的合理分配。另外,东部的财政努力没有带来转移支付的增加,而中西部的财政努力度越高,人均转移支付越多。因此,优化转移支付区域分配的方向在于,增加对中西部的转移支付分配,采取多种形式激励其财政努力度,同时逐渐减少对东部的转移支付。
5.抑制住宅销售价格能够在一定程度上缩小区域财政收入差异,并且这种作用逐年提升。但是,,房价调控使地方政府的总效用下降了,即：房价下降带来的区域财政收入差异的缩小对地方政府的效用增加无法抵消因为房价下降导致的财政收入减少给地方政府带来的效用损失。所以,我们既应该将抑制高房价地区的房价上涨作为长期政策目标,缩小区域财政收入差距,促进公共服务均等化,还应该注意通过各种方式对控制房价的地区进行适当补助。
本文的创新主要体现在以下三个方面：
研究视角。第一,关注不同产业、不同行业和不同所有制企业对区域财政收入差异的贡献。目前的研究都止步于不同项目的财政收入对区域财政收入差异的贡献,本文进一步讨论来源于三次产业、不同行业和不同所有制企业的财政收入对区域财政收入差异的贡献,多角度地分析不同收入来源对区域财政收入差异的影响,从而引导我们探究差异形成的原因及其传导机制。第二,不仅按传统的行政和地理划分区域来讨论区域财政收入差异的现状和变化趋势,也按经济特征划分区域进行讨论。本文采用聚类分析,打破地理限制,分别按照各省(市、自治区)三次产业人均GDP的经济总体特征和结构特征将地区分类,进而讨论各类经济区域问的财政收入差异,这样能够对区域财政收入差异的现状和变化趋势形成更加全面的结论。第三,从导致区域财政收入差异的关键因素入手探讨差异成因的传导机制。目前为止,学术界对差异成因的探讨,都是对某一个原因进行分析或者对某几个原因分别讨论,如经济增长、产业结构、财政分权、人口数量、财政努力度、经济开放度等等。通过基尼系数分解,找到差异的关键因素,然后以此为导向,一层层找到差异形成的深层原因的研究尚属空白。第四,引入收入流动性指数,从流动性角度探索各区域人均财政收入差异的长期变化。收入流动性指数是测量居民收入在社会中相对位置的变化大小的指标,本文首次将其应用于分析财政收入的区域流动性,这样我们能够对各区域财政收入的长期变化情况作出更为明确的判断。
研究方法。本文在讨论区域财政收入差异的主要原因时,采用了面板数据模型。在以往的研究中,分析三次产业GDP与财政收入关系时,大部分学者采用的是时间序列数据和规范分析。目前尚未发现有学者运用面板数据模型研究各区域三次产业GDP与财政收入的数量关系。
提出具体量化的政策建议。从财政收入差异的根本机理入手,真正了解我国各区域财政收入差异原因,才能保证相关政策有的放矢,从根本上改善财政收入差异较大的格局。根据研究,本文能够提供多种具体量化的分析,为相关政府部门根据既有的条件,制定实现多个社会及经济目标的财政制度改革提供决策参考。如：根据对转移支付区域分配的研究,提出了增加对中西部的转移支付分配,采取多种形式激励其财政努力度的政策建议；通过对区域财政收入差异成因的分析,提出了有效控制住房价格上升并对房价调控地区进行适当补助的建议。
The development of economy and society in China is moving on fast since the reform and opening up policy was implemented. As a result of diversities in aspects like condition of locations, endowment of resources as well as history and cultures, the economic developments evolve to divergent levels among regions, especially among east, west and middle part, and provinces in the whole country, which largely restricts the stable growth of the economy and harmonious development of the society. Financial capacity reflected by fiscal revenues can mirror the economic strength of a region to some extent. It is pointed out:"We should improve the public finance system to ensure equal access to basic public services and promote the building of functional zones" in the Report to the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China on November8,2012. And then in the Eighteen Third Plenary Session in November2013,"Decision to numbers of major issues on deepening the reform overall" restates:"We should promote equal access to basic public services". Thus, not only are reducing regional disparity in revenues and equalizing inter-regional fiscal capacity significant subject towards us currently, but also the way to promote equal access to basic public services.
According to this reality, systematic analysis on disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues is done in this dissertation. Based on the literature review about disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues in chapter1, I summarize the practice and experience on reduction of disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues done by western countries in chapter2. In view of the former research, Chapter3explores the status quo and trend of change about disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues in China, in which regions are defined under different standards including administration, geographic area and Cluster Analysis. In order to reflect the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues more completely, I, furthermore, compute the mobility of fiscal revenues among regions. To find the causes for the gap in fiscal revenues, I should calculate the factor shares first, so I specify the contributions of each factor to the overall regional disparity in chapter4by decomposition of the disparity in fiscal revenues, from different sources on projects, industries, sectors and enterprises with distinct ownerships, to per capita fiscal revenue among regions. Conclusion from the research above shows that the crucial factor leading to the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues is the sales tax revenue. According to the tax regime in our country, sales tax revenue mainly comes from the second and the tertiary industries, especially the later one. Thus, I investigate the quantitative relationship between per capita fiscal revenue and GDP per capita in the second and the tertiary industries and study the cointegration relationship between inter-regional disparity of fiscal revenues and that of sales tax revenues from real estate which is the mainstay sector to the second industry, and then I identify the main and underlying causes for the formation of the gap in the inter-regional fiscal revenues. After that, on the basis of optimization model of transfer payments effect on central government and local governments, chapter6calculates and assesses the effects of transfer payments from central government to local ones against the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, using Rank Sum Test and Shift-share Analysis. Based on the result from chapter5, we know that the regulation on the real estate sector plays a great role on the reduction of the gap in inter-regional fiscal revenues, and thus, starting from the inter-regional disparity of real estate sales tax revenues, chapter7forecasts the effect on suppressing housing price to reducing disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, analyzes the utility change of local government, and discussed the relationship between house price and land finance. The last chapter is several suggestions relative to the content above.
In light on the above researches, the main conclusions are as follows:
1. Despite of the convergence, the disparity fiscal revenues, existing among regions apparently, is more significant than that of GDP per capita. Within them, the Gini Coefficient of inter-province fiscal revenues nationwide is biggest, while that of inter-province fiscal revenues in the western is smaller but with greatest increasing rate. The disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues among the eastern, the central region and the western gives the biggest contribution to the Gini Coefficient. The disparity of fiscal revenues from the regions divided by the features on the whole economy and economic structure shows a decreasing trend. The mobility of fiscal revenues among regions is bigger in the long run relative to the short run and the descending order of its size is in the west, in middle region, among provinces, in the east and among the east, west and middle part. Rather than in the west, mobility of fiscal revenues has a positive role in narrowing the regional disparity of that.
1. Changes in the Gini Coefficient of the inter-regional fiscal revenues mainly rest with the changes in regional fiscal revenues. Revenues from taxes on sale, the tertiary industry, real estate sector and joint stock companies give the maximum contribution.
3. The development of the second industry and the tertiary industry has a significant impact on the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, especially unbalanced development of the tertiary industry is the main cause. As the mainstay sector of the tertiary industry, inter-regional unbalanced development of real estate becomes the deeper cause of regional differences in fiscal revenue in China.
4. Current allocation of transfer payments narrows the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues to some extent, and this effect will get large with the ratio of general transfer payments increasing, meanwhile the descending order of the effect would be the ones among the eastern, the central region and the western, among the provinces, among the provinces within the eastern, the central region and the western. Although transfer payments improve the mobility among provinces, it solidifies the rank of fiscal revenues of the provinces within the eastern, the central region and the western, which is harmful for the reduction of the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues. The current allocation of transfer payments can be optimized on the ground that the distributions of the local level of per capita fiscal revenue and that of per capita transfer payments have no difference. There exists a trend that the province with higher local level of per capita fiscal revenue gets more transfer payments, the one with lower gets less for internal provinces within the eastern, the central region and the western. In the eastern, the situation that the distributions of the local level of per capita fiscal revenue and that of per capita transfer payments have no difference is becoming weak, but it still stronger than that in the central region and the western. Thus, the central government should continue to focus on local allocation of transfer payments; in the whole country and the central region, this trend that although moves in fluctuation decreases; this trend in the western that although becomes weaker than that in the eastern and central region is getting stronger in the recent years, so the central government cannot ignore the rationality of allocation of transfer payments in this area. In addition, financial effort in the east did not bring an increase in per capita transfer payments, while the higher the financial effort gets, the more the transfer payments are in the central and west region. The direction for optimizing the allocation of transfer payments rests with the fact that the central government should increase the transfer payments and encourage their financial effort in multiple ways for the provinces from central and west region, and meanwhile decrease the transfer payments to the provinces from the east progressively.
5. Inhibition of residential sales price can narrow regional differences in revenue to some extent, and this effect will be significant year after year. However, Inhibition of residential sales price reduces the utility of the local government, and that means that the amount of increasing utility for local government caused by reduction of the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues due to Inhibition of residential sales price cannot be offset by the decreasing utility f caused by the reduction of fiscal revenue due to the price lowering. As a consequence, not only should the central government take suppressing the residential sales price of regions with high housing price as a policy goal in the long run to promote equal access to basic public services and reduce the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, but also subsidize the local government controlling local residential sales price in multiple ways.
Innovation of this paper is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
Researching perspective. First, it focuses on the contributions from different industries, various sectors and enterprises with divergent ownerships to the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues. Existing researches only involve in contributions on revenues from various projects to the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, but in this dissertation, I further explore the contributions on revenues from different industries, various sectors and enterprises with divergent ownerships to the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, and analyze impact of different sources of income for the region's fiscal revenue differences in multiple perspectives, which can guide us to explore the reasons of differences'formation and their transmission mechanism. Second, the research divides regions not only by administration and geographic area traditionally, but also by the features of economy. Beyond the limitation of geography, this dissertation divides the zones with cluster analysis according to the overall economic features and structures on per capita GDP from different provinces, so it can result wholly on the situation and changing trend of the region's fiscal revenue differences. Third, starting from key factors causing the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, it investigates the reasons and transmission mechanism for the disparity. So far, the literature studying the reasons of disparity only focus on one or some of them like economic growth, industrial structure, fiscal decentralization, population, fiscal effort, economic openness and so on. By the decomposition of Gini Coefficient, nobody try to find out the key factors to the disparity and then the underlying causes for its formation. Fourth, by introducing index of mobility, it can investigate the changes of the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues per capita in various regions in the long run. Index of income mobility is a measurement measuring change of the relative position of an individual's income in the society. In this dissertation, it will be used in the analysis of the mobility of fiscal revenues among regions initially, and thus, we can make better judgments on the change of fiscal revenues in various regions in the long run.
Researching methods. Exploring the main causes for the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, I employ the panel data model. In the early literature, studying the relationship between GDP in different industries and fiscal revenues, most researchers adopt time series data and normative analysis. The panel data model for investigating the quantitative relationship between local GDP in different industries and fiscal revenues.
Quantitative suggestions. Starting from the fundamental mechanism of the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues, under the condition that we really understand the causes for the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues in China, we can just ensure the policy aiming at the target and then improve the situation that the disparity of inter-regional fiscal revenues is large. In this dissertation, I can provide multiple specific quantitative analyses, which would be a valuable reference in making decisions on the reform of financial reform with multi-dimensional goals for the relative government departments. For instance, in accordance with the research on regional distribution of transfer payments, I provide to increase the transfer payments to central and west region, and encourage their financial effort in multiple ways; through analyzing main cause of regional gap, I suggest to restrain the house sales price, meanwhile subsidize the local government in multiple ways.
引文
1 具体计算方法参见：洪兴建.基尼系数理论研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2008,154-157.
2 此处基尼系数是指单参数基尼系数即S基尼系数,当S基尼系数的参数取值为2时,S基尼系数就是基尼系数。由于计算方法不同结果有细微差别,但不影响分析结论。
4 数据来源：云南省人民政府网站http://www.yn.gov.cn/yn_yngk/yn_sqgm/201111/t20111107_1898.html.
5 数据来源：四川省人民政府网站http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10778/10876/2013/3/27/10253728.shtml。
12 数据来源：根据财政部预算司网站http://yss.mof.gov.cn/2012qhczjs/201307/t20130715966184.html据计算得到。
13 同上。
14 数据来源：根据2013年《中国统计年鉴》计算得到。
15 数据来源：根据2011-2013年《中国房地产统计年鉴》计算得到。
16 数据来源：根据2011-2013年《中国房地产统计年鉴》计算得到。
1.安体富,蒋震.促进区域经济协调发展的财税政策选择[J].税务研究,2008(5)：24-30.
2. 白仲林.面板数据的计量经济分析[M].天津：南开大学出版社,2008.
3. 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)：43-45.
4. 陈共.财政学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
5. 陈国际,刘亮.税收政策、财政体制和税收收入的地区性差异研究[J].财政研究,2009(4)：64-67.
6. 陈娟,吴国松.区域经济发展差异的税收分析[J].商业经济与管理,2003(3)：38-41.
7. 陈强.高级计量经济学及stata应用[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2010.
8. 陈秀山,张可云.区域经济理论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003.
9. 陈秀山,张启春.转轨期间财政转移支付制度的区域均衡效应[J].中国人民大学学报,2003(4)：69-76.
10.陈永杰.新公平效率观——对公平与效率问题的重新审视[J].经济理论与经济管理,2006(5)：5-12.
11.崔满红.区域财政理论研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2002.
12.方福前.论政府干预必要性的依据[J].中国人民大学学报,1995(3)：6-9.
13.方瑛.英国的财政转移支付制度[J].上海财税,1995(3)：39-42.
14.谷永芬,安鹏,周方召.财政收入与经济增长的计量经济学分析[J].财政研究,2005(11)：23-25.
15.洪兴建.基尼系数理论研究[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2008.
16.侯景新,尹卫红.区域经济分析方法[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004.
17.侯俊军,刘晓.湖南省财政收入与区域经济增长的实证研究[J].经济地理,2008,28(5)：776-812.
18.胡德仁,刘亮.中国地区间财政能力差异的度量及地区分解——基于地区间公共支出成本差异的视角[J].新疆财经大学学报,2011(1)：34-42.
19.胡海婧.我国地区间财政收入差异分析[J].经济研究参考,2011(5)：42-51.
20.胡健.营改增试点8月双扩铁路运输邮电通信择机入列[N].每日经济新闻,2013年 4月11日.
21.胡华.中国东、中、西部地区财政收入差异计量研究[J].生产力研究,2007(3)：47-50.
22.黄然.政府干预下的税负运动[J].税务研究,1995(1)：39-41.
23.江杰,李志慧.地方财政能力差异与转移支付均等化效应分析——基于湖南的实证研究[J].地方财政研究,2006(3)：21-25.
24.江庆.中国多级政府间财政不均衡性研究[D].厦门大学博士学位论文,2007.
25.焦国华,姚文良.政府间财政转移支付制度：国际比较与借鉴[J].经济社会体制比较,1997(2)：32-35.
26.景普秋,张复明.中国资源型地区城市化道路研究——以山西省为例[J].东南学术,2004(4)：56-63.
27.寇铁军,汪洋.完善我国过渡期财政转移支付的对策[J].财经问题研究,2003(8)：71-74.
28.李国忠.借鉴国外经验完善我国财政转移支付制度[J].财政研究,2005(5)：64-66.
29.李建军,谢芬,肖育才.经济开放对地方财政横向差异影响的实证研究[J].广东商学院学报,2011(4)：58-66.
30.李杰.公平与效率：三十年不同学科研究述评[J].社会科学研究,2008(6)：66-70.
31.李捷,陈川杨,朱璟.西部十省市区的财政收入分析[J].统计与决策,2010(10)：147-148.
32.李凌,卢洪友.我国省际间财政差异趋势与影响因素的实证研究[J].财经问题研究,2007(8)：72-76
33.李茂生.现代市场经济社会的财政职能[J].财贸经济,2005(11)：17-22.
34.李敏榕.关于公平与效率的争论[J].经济学动态,2005(2)：57-62.
35.李明贤,刘寒波,龚莉等.中部地区县域财政能力差异及其实证分析[J].湖南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008,9(1)：14-19.
36.李萍.财政体制简明图解[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2010.
37.李永友,裴育.我国地区间税负差异与地区间经济差异[J].中国软科学,2005(8)：104-112.
38.梁红梅,邹晖.基于现实税收收入的区域税收能力差异分析[J].财金研究,2010(18)：16-19.
39.林国庆.福建省区域财政发展差异的比较分析[J].发展研究,2002(4)：34-35.
40.刘寒波,龚莉,夏一丹.中国县域财政能力差异分析[J].财政研究,2006(5)：58-62.
41.刘军善.论完善我国的货币政策传导机制[J].财经问题研究,1996(11)：36-40.
42.刘亮.中国地区间财力差异的变化趋势及因素分解[J].财贸研究,2007(1)：65-72.
43.刘强.浙江省地区财政能力差异与转移支付制度研究[J].地方财政研究,2007(2)：20-24.
44.刘溶沧,焦国华.地区间财政能力差异与转移支付制度创新[J].财贸经济,2002(6)：5-12.
45.刘溶沧,杨之刚.德国政府间财政转移支付制度考察报告[J].财贸经济,1995(12)：45-51.
46.陆茂林,龚经海.加拿大转移支付制度及其借鉴[J].湖北社会科学,2004(4)：95-97.
47.骆祖春.中国土地财政问题研究[D].南京大学博士学位论文,2012.
48.吕宝生.区域财政管理初探[M].北京：新华出版社,2003.
49.马海涛,曾康华.中国省际人均财政收入差异形成的计量研究——基于1978-2008年30个省际数据的分析[J].财贸经济,2010(5)：47-52.
50.[美]阿瑟·奥肯.平等与效率[M].北京：华夏出版社,1987.
51.[美]哈维·罗森,特德·盖亚.财政学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
52.[美]蒋中一,[加]凯尔文·温赖特.数理经济学的基本方法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2006.
53.[美]罗伯特·诺齐克.无政府、国家与乌托邦[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1991.
54.[美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988.
55.庞皓.计量经济学[M].北京：科学出版社,2010.
56.平新乔.微观经济学十八讲[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
57.乔宝云,王道树.中国税收收入区域差异的实证分析[J].涉外税务,2004(12)：21-24.
58.任治俊,夏雪,游克斌.东西部地区之间的财政差异状况收敛了吗?——基于区际面板数据的一个实证分析[J].经济研究参考,2007(28)：11-20.
59.山东省财政厅课题组.财政收入与经济增长关系分析——兼析山东与广东的差距[J].财政研究,1998(7)：16-20.
60.佘国信,陈秋华.地区间财力差异的财政职能理论[J].财政研究,1999(1)：12-18.
61.宋其超.借鉴外国经验重构我国的转移支付制度[J].中央财政金融学院学报,1995(10)：58-62.
62.孙开,彭建.财政管理体制创新研究[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004.
63.谭东升,邓泽洲.英国财政转移支付制度浅析及借鉴[J].财会研究,1995(12)：7-9.
64.谭泰乾.西部十二省市区地方财政收入差异分析[J].重庆工商大学学报(西部论坛),2004(4)：92-95.
65.唐蕾蕾,宗颖.我国地区间财政能力差异与转移支付制度创新[J].现代管理科学,2003(3)：74-75.
66.陶勇.政府间财力分配与中国地方财政能力的差异[J].税务研究,2010(4)：8-12.
67.王国清,马骁,程谦.财政学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2006.
68.王洪亮,刘志彪,孙文华等.中国居民获取收入的机会是否公平：基于收入流动性的微观计量[J].世界经济,2012(1)：114-143.
69.王金秀.我国地区间财税的失衡及其矫正——以产业结构为视角对三大地区财税收入差异的经济分析[J].财贸经济,2007(6)：57-62.
70.王锐生.对效率与公平关系的历史观审视[J].哲学研究,1993(9)：11-17.
71.王晓润,尹宗成,吴永辉.我国地区税收收入差距的时空演变分析[J].安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版),2009(18)：27-30.
72.魏后凯.现代区域经济学经济[M].北京：经济管理出版社,2006.
73.吴邛.论公平与效率的统一[J].求实,2005(1)：22-23.
74.[匈]亚诺·科尔内.矛盾与困境[M].北京：中国经济出版社,1987.
75.徐小平,张启春.美国的政府间转移支付改革及启示[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2010(2)：58-63.
76.严金海.中国的房价与地价：理论、实证和政策分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2006(1)：17-26.
77.杨灿明,李景友.公共部门经济学[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2003.
78.杨扬,陈思.起点公平、过程公平和结果公平辨析[J].辽宁师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010(5)：33-35.
79.杨之刚.加拿大政府间转移支付：简介和评价[J].财贸经济,2002(6)：69-75.
80.姚洋,杨雷.制度供给失衡和中国财政分权的后果[J].战略与管理,2003(3)：27-33.
81.尹恒,康琳琳,王丽娟.政府间转移支付的财力均等化效应——基于中国县级数据的研究[J].管理世界,2007(1)：48-55.
82.尹恒,王文斌,沈拓彬.中国县级地区财力差距及其影响因素研究[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2010(6)：98-108.
83.于淑俐,唐晓波.我国省际政府间财政能力的差异[J].山东工商学院学报,2004,18(5)：28-33.
84.曾军平.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)：27-32.
85.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)：12-20.
86.张洪铭,张宗益.重庆市财政收入与经济增长关系的实证研究[J].财政研究,2011(5)：50-52.
87.张伦俊.区域经济发展与税收贡献的比较分析[J].财贸经济,2006(2)：69-73.
88.张伦俊,申山宏.2006年地区税收收入的差异分析[J].税务研究,2007(12)：38-43.
89.张伦伦.我国地区间财政努力度差异研究[J].财经问题研究,2006(5)：63-67.
90.张双长,李稻葵.“二次房改”的财政基础分析——基于土地财政与房地产价格关系的视角[J].财政研究,2010(7)：5-11.
91.张素芳.建设效率与公平统一的和谐社会[J].求是,2005(6)：27-29.
92.张通,许宏才,张宏安.德国政府间财政转移支付制度考察报告[J].财政研究,1997(3)： 49-53.
93.周彬,杜两省.“土地财政”与房地产价格上涨：理论分析和实证研究田.财贸经济,2010(8)：109-116.
94.朱广平.我国地区经济增长与其财政收入增长逆向变动格局研究[J].当代经济科学,2000,22(5)：31-35.
95.朱明熙.西方财政研究[M].成都：西南财经大学出版社,1999.
96. Arellano M, and Bond S. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data:Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations [J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1991,58(2):277-297.
97. Armstrong H, and Taylor J. Regional Economics and Policy [M]. Brighton:Harvester Wheatsheaf,2008.
98. Atkinson AB. On the Measurement of Inequality [J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 1970(2):244-263.
99. Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F, and Morrisson C. Empirical Studies of Earnings Mobility [M]. Reading:Harwood Academic Publishers,1992.
100. Ball L, Mankiw NG, and Romer D. The New Keynesian Economics and the Output-Inflation Trade-off [C]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1988(1):1-82.
101. Bartholomew DJ. Stochastic Models for Social Processes [M]. London:Wiley,1982.
102. Bentham J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1907.
103. Bond SR. Dynamic Panel Data Models:A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice [J]. Portuguese Economic Journal,2002,1(2):141-162.
104. Casler SD. A Theoretical Context for Shift and Share Analysis [J]. Regional Studies,1989, 23(1):463-469.
105. Chakravarty SR, Dutta B, and Weymark JA. Ethical Indices of Income Mobility [J]. Social Choice and Welfare,1985,2(1):1-21.
106. Chotikapanish S, and Griffiths W. On Calculation of the Extended Gini Coefficient [J]. Review of Income and Wealth,2001(47):541-547.
107. Creamer D. Shifts of Manufacturing Industries [A]. In National Resources Planning Board. Industrial Location and National Resources [C]. Washington DC:US Government Printing Office,1943,85-104.
108. Dabla-Norris E. Issues in Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in China[R]. IMF Working Paper,2005, No.05/30.
109. Fields GS. Distribution and Development:A New Look at the Developing World [M]. Boston:The MIT Press,2002.
110. Hayek FA. Law, Legislation and Liberty:Rules and Order [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago,1973.
111.Hayek FA. Law, Legislation and Liberty:The Mirage of Social Justice [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago,1976.
112. Hayek FA. Law, Legislation and Liberty:The Political Order of a Free People [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago,1979.
113. Hartsshorne R. The Nature of Geography. A Critical Survey of Current Thought in the Light of the Past [M]. Lancaster:The Association Lancaster,1939.
114. Hobbes T. Leviathan [M]. New York:Meridian Books,1651.
115.Hofman B and Guerra SC. Fiscal Disparities in East Asia:How Large and Do They Matter? [A] In:The World Bank. East Asia Decentralizes:Making Local Government Work [C]. Washington DC:The World Bank,2005,67-83.
116. Hoppes RS. Rejoinder:Industry-Level Shift-share Analysis [J]. Economic Development Quarterly,1994,8(2):214-217.
117. Jarvis S, and Jenkins SP. How Much Income Mobility is There in Britain [J]. The Economic Journal,1998,108(447):428-443.
118. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Imperialism and Social Classes [M]. Cleveland:The World Publishing Company,1955.
119. Kee JE. Fiscal Decentralization:Theory as Reform [M]. Washington DC:Administration Public Panama,2003.
120. Kuhn HW, and Tucker AW. Nonlinear Programming [A]. In Neyman J. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Sym-posium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability [C]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1951,481-492.
121. MacKay DI. Industrial Structure and Regional Growth:A Methodological Problem [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,1969,16(1):129-143.
122. Marshall A. Principles of Economics [M]. Amherst:Prometheus Books,1890.
123. Mclure Jr, CE. The Sharing of Tax on Natural Resources and the Future of the Russian Federalism [M]. Calif:Hoover Institution Press,1994.
124. Moisio A. Essays on Finnish Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Grants [R]. Government Institute for Economic Research Working Paper,2002, No.93.
125. Mookherjee D, and Shorrocks AF. A Decomposition Analysis of the Trend in UK Income Inequality [J]. The Economic Journal,1982(92):886-902.
126. Musgrave RA. The Theory of Public Finance:A Study in Public Economy [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill,1959.
127. Pigou AC. The Economics of Welfare [M]. London:Macmillan and Co.,1920.
128. Pigou AC. A Study in Public Finance [M]. London:Macmillan and Co.,1928.
129. Pareto L. Cours d'economie Politique [M]. Lausanne:Rouge,1896.
130. Parikh S, and Weingast BR. A Comparative Theory of Federalism:India [J]. Virginia Law Review,1997,83(7):1593-1615.
131. Prudhome R. The Dangers of Decentralization [J]. World Bank Research Observers, 1995(2):201-220.
132. Qian Y, and Roland G. Federalism and the Soft Budget Constrain [J]. American Economic Review,1998,88 (5):1143-1162.
133. Shah A. The Reform of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Developing and Emerging Market Economies [M]. Washington DC:The World Bank,1994.
134. Shorrocks AF. The Measurement of Mobility [J]. Econometrica,1978,46(5):1013-1024.
135. Shorrocks AF, and Wan G. Spatial Decomposition of Inequality [J]. Journal of Economic Geography,2005(5):59-82.
136. Slukhai S. Dilemmas and Compromises:Fiscal Equalization in Transition Countries [M]. Budapest:Open Society Institute,2003.
137. Smith A. The Wealth of Nations [M]. London:J. M. Dent and Sons,1776.
138. Stiglitz JE. The Economics Role of the State [M]. Hobken:Wiley-Blackwell,1989.
139. Stillwell FJB. Further Thoughts on the Shift and Share Approach [J]. Regional Studies, 1970,4(4):451-458.
140. Tsui K. Local Tax System, Intergovernmental Transfers and China's Local Fiscal Disparities [J]. Journal of Comparative Economics,2005(33):173-196.
141. Wilcoxon F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods [J]. Biometrics Bulletin,1945, 1(6):80-83.