一般性转移支付:能否促进基本公共服务供给?  

Can General Purpose Transfers Promote Basic Public Services?

作　　者：宋小宁[1] 陈斌[1] 梁若冰[2] 

机构地区：[1]中山大学管理学院 [2]厦门大学经济学院

出　　处：《数量经济技术经济研究》2012年第7期33-43,133,共12页Journal of Quantitative & Technological Economics

基　　金：国家自然科学基金(70873099);广东省自然科学基金(S2011040001563);广东高校优秀青年创新人才培养计划(育苗工程)项目(wym11003);中国博士后基金(2011M501349);中山大学人文社科青年教师铜山基金(1109142);中山大学青年教师起步资助计划;中山大学"中央高校基本科研业务费"项目;广东省科技计划项目(2011B061200008)

摘　　要：财力事权不匹配被广泛认为是制约地方政府供给基本公共服务的主要原因,长期的政策是增加一般性转移支付规模和比重,但是本文的实证结果发现一般性转移支付对基本公共服务的供给的影响极其微弱。这一结论的得出基于2000余个县级样本,同时运用FE-OLS和GMM估计方法估计,分别将教育、医疗、社会保障三项支出作为基本公共服务供给的度量指标。政策含义为,虽然专项转移支付有诸多弊端,但就基本公共服务供给而言,更应依靠专项转移支付,中央通过增加一般性转移支付来促进基本公共服务供给的政策需要改变。The mismatch between fiscal capability and accountability has been taken for granted as the cause of basic public services shortage. The long-term policy is to increase scale and proportion of general purpose transfers. Nonetheless, the empirical results show that the general purpose transfers have little effect on the supply of basic public services economically. This conclusion is drawn based on more than 2000 county-level sample, while the use of the FE-OLS and GMM esti- mation method estimates, respectively, and expenditure on education, health care, social security as metrics of basic public services supply. The policy implications is that we can＇t rely on general purpose transfers to achieve the equalization until supervision and evaluation mechanism of basic public services have been established. Conditional purpose transfers are better choice if we make the distribution more transparent.

关 键 词：一般性转移支付 基本公共服务 财政分权 

分 类 号：F812.4[经济管理—财政学]