财贸经济
財貿經濟
재무경제
Finance & Trade Economics
2013年
4期
29~38
,共null页
转移支付 财政分权 公共服务供给 区域差异
轉移支付 財政分權 公共服務供給 區域差異
전이지부 재정분권 공공복무공급 구역차이
iscal Decentralization, Intergovernmental Transfer, Public Service Supply, Regional Differences
本文分析了1978—2009年我国公共服务的均等化程度,从地方公共服务供给结果和成本两个角度考察了东、中、西部地区中央转移支付和财政分权对不同类别公共服务供给水平的影响差异。分析结果表明,目前我国地区间公共服务的供给水平差异相对较小,但供给的整体水平还相对较低。转移支付显著促进了中部地区低水平公共交通基础设施发展,抑制了中、东部地区公共医疗卫生服务发展,而对西部地区公共医疗卫生服务则有显著促进作用;同时,转移支付促进了西部地区公共基础教育发展,对中、东部地区则具有抑制作用。财政分权对公共交通基础设施有显著促进作用,特别是发展水平较高的东部地区,但是抑制了东部和西部地区公共医疗卫生服务的发展,而且西部地区公共基础教育也受到抑制,同时财政分权程度的提高降低了西部地区科教文卫支出的水平。
本文分析瞭1978—2009年我國公共服務的均等化程度,從地方公共服務供給結果和成本兩箇角度攷察瞭東、中、西部地區中央轉移支付和財政分權對不同類彆公共服務供給水平的影響差異。分析結果錶明,目前我國地區間公共服務的供給水平差異相對較小,但供給的整體水平還相對較低。轉移支付顯著促進瞭中部地區低水平公共交通基礎設施髮展,抑製瞭中、東部地區公共醫療衛生服務髮展,而對西部地區公共醫療衛生服務則有顯著促進作用;同時,轉移支付促進瞭西部地區公共基礎教育髮展,對中、東部地區則具有抑製作用。財政分權對公共交通基礎設施有顯著促進作用,特彆是髮展水平較高的東部地區,但是抑製瞭東部和西部地區公共醫療衛生服務的髮展,而且西部地區公共基礎教育也受到抑製,同時財政分權程度的提高降低瞭西部地區科教文衛支齣的水平。
본문분석료1978—2009년아국공공복무적균등화정도,종지방공공복무공급결과화성본량개각도고찰료동、중、서부지구중앙전이지부화재정분권대불동유별공공복무공급수평적영향차이。분석결과표명,목전아국지구간공공복무적공급수평차이상대교소,단공급적정체수평환상대교저。전이지부현저촉진료중부지구저수평공공교통기출설시발전,억제료중、동부지구공공의료위생복무발전,이대서부지구공공의료위생복무칙유현저촉진작용;동시,전이지부촉진료서부지구공공기출교육발전,대중、동부지구칙구유억제작용。재정분권대공공교통기출설시유현저촉진작용,특별시발전수평교고적동부지구,단시억제료동부화서부지구공공의료위생복무적발전,이차서부지구공공기출교육야수도억제,동시재정분권정도적제고강저료서부지구과교문위지출적수평。
This paper analyzes the degree of equalization of public services from 1978 to 2009, and investigates how central transfer payment and fiscal decentralization in eastern, central and western regions affect the supply level of different kinds of public service from the perspectives of local public service results and cost. The analysis results show that, the differences of the public services supply level between different regions are not relatively significant, but the overall level of supply is still relatively low. Intergovernmental transfer has significantly promoted the development of low-level public in central region, and restrained public health services development in central and eastern regions, while has promoted public medical health services in western region;intergovernmental transfer has also promoted public basic education in western region, but has inhibited that in central and eastern regions. Fiscal decentralization has promoted the public transport infrastructure significantly, especially that of eastern region, but has inhibited the public health service in eastern and western regions, and restrained public basic education in western region; fiscal decentralization has reduced the expenditure level of science, health and education in western region.