: 3 :,10, 1994 2003,,,, :,,,,, (World Bank, 2002 ;,2002) 2000, 4290, 988, 3292,, 100,,,,,, (, 2002),,,,,, 3,,:100101,:tao. ccap @igsnrr. ac. cn ;, (70633002) ( KSCX22YW2N2039),,, 20 90,1995 2003 157 219,, 70 %,2003 16713,9214, 115, 26, 150 (,2005) 70
2008 5,,,,,,,,,, (,2002),,,?,,,,,, 1994 : 1994,, ( GDP ),, (,2004),,,,,,, highly decentralized,, decentralization, ( ),,,, fiscal decentralization (revenue decentralization),, ( expenditure decentralization), decentralization,,, ( ),,1994, ; 1994,,, 40 %, 1999 40 %, 20 80 90, 90,, 70 %( 50 %),OECD ( ) 32 % 26 % 14 %(World Bank, 2002) 71
: 61 %(,2002),(decentralization),,, decentralization, decentralization,, :,,,,(Weingast, 2000),,, (Besley and Coate, 2001 ; Ebel and Yilmaz, 2002),,,,,,,,,,20 90,,,, GDP, () 20 80,,, ( ), 20 90,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (World Bank, 2002) :,,,,,,,, (Wong, 2000 ; Tsui, 2005) 72
2008 5,,, :,, ;,,,,,, Bardhan Mookherjee (2001),,,, ;,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Careaga Weingast (2002),,, (Fedelino and Ter2Minassian, 2006) 73
:,:,,,,,,,,,(Rodden,2002),, (Careaga and Weingast, 2002),,,,, (Triesman, 2002) :, 1994 2003 2800, 1994 2003,,,,, 1527 10, ( ),, : Y it k = + j Z it + W it + i + i + it (1) j = 1, i, t Y i ( ) t ; W,, Z, ( ) ( ), ( ) ;,, ; ( ) ( ),,,,,,, v ;, ( ),, ( ) u ( ),,,, 1998, ( 1) 1994 2003, 1994 2003,, ( ) 2003,, 1527 74
2008 5 1997 1999,, 2000, 2003 1998, 1994 2003 1998 V 1999,,,,,, 2001,,, 1,,1994 2003 ;, 1527, 10, ( 1),, ;,,, ;, 1 ( %) ( ) ( %) ( ) 1 30. 3 248 200. 9 6 61. 2 292 207. 5 2 41. 6 256 152. 2 7 65. 7 305 211. 7 3 47. 3 260 153. 0 8 71. 5 335 234. 1 4 52. 0 282 192. 2 9 79. 4 418 327. 2 5 56. 7 277 183. 5 10 95. 7 427 411. 5 : 1994 2003, (,2002),,,,, 75
: ( 2),,,, () (),,,,,, ;,,,,,,,, ; 2 ( ), (FE) (RE),OLS,FGLS u u u,, ; u,,,,, ( ),,,,,, 76
2008 5,,, :1) Hausman,, ;2),,,,, (1), ( ),, ( ),,,( IV) ( ), (1), 1993 P (, 1, 0) 1994 2000, 1993,2001,, (,2004),, 1993 2001 P 2001,,2001,T00 (2001 1,2001 0),P T00 PT00, PT00 :,,,,,, PT00 (1) W, (1) 1994 2003, P 1993,, 1993 (1),, P 2 (1),,,, ( ) Hausman,,OLS,,,,, ;, 1993,, 592 (,2004), 1527 10, 2723, 2 77
: 2 OLS IV ( %) 30. 5 (4. 69) 333 21. 7 (3. 58) 333 196. 5 (8. 13) 333 334. 2 (2. 33) 33 126. 0 (3. 32) 333 564. 4 (2. 61) 333 ( %) 46. 7 (2. 14) 33 86. 7 (3. 94) 333-38. 8 (2. 24) 33 96. 8 (2. 90) 333 107. 0 (4. 57) 333 24. 6 (0. 6) GDP 17. 1 (3. 57) 333 45. 1 (11. 7) 333 2. 0 (0. 27) 54. 0 45. 5 26. 2 (2. 97) 333 (11. 65) 333 (1. 61) GDP 18. 0 (12. 6) 333 18. 1 (12. 7) 333-14. 5 (3. 87) 333 29. 3 (5. 29) 333 20. 3 (12. 29) 333-22. 0 (3. 7) 333-502. 5 (23. 41) 333-396. 6 (20. 3) 333-115. 7 (31. 05) 333-508. 0 (21. 9) 333-428. 8 (18. 74) 333-81. 7 (4. 04) 333 15223 15223 15223 15223 15223 15223 1527 1527 1527 1527 1527 1527 :t F, 333 33 1 % 5 % 10 %,,,, ;,, ;,,,,, 0123, 0103, GDP 0179, 0130,,,,,,,, GDP,, GDP ( ),,,,,, (, ),, GDP GDP, GDP,, 78
2008 5 (, GDP ),,,, 10,,,,50 %, 10 20,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 20 90,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,, 79
:,1995 2004 :,,2002 :,,2004 : :,,2004 ::, 10,2005 : : 10 ( ) 20 ( ), 2005 :, Besley, Timothy and Stephen Coate, 2001, Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods : A Political Economy Analysis, NBER Working Paper 7094. Careaga, Maite, and Barry R. Weingast, 2003, Fiscal Federalism, Good Governance, and Economic Growth in Mexico, in Dani Rodrik (eds. ), In Search of Prosperity : Analytic Narrativeson Economic Growth, Princeton University Press. Ebel, R. D., Yilmaz, S., 2002, On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization, World Bank, Washington, DC. Fedelino Annalisa and Teresa Ter2Minassian, 2006, Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in China, Paper prepared for the Stanford Conference on Economic Challenges in Asia, June 1 3. Rodden Jonathan, 2002, The Dilemma of Fiscal Federalism : Grants and Fiscal Performance around the World, American Journal of Political Science 46. 3 (July), 670 687. Tsui, Kai2yuen, 2005, Local Tax System, Intergovernmental Transfers and Chinaπs Local Fiscal Disparities, Journal of Comparative Economics 33(1), 173 196. Treisman Daniel, 2002, Fiscal Games and Public Employment : A Theory with Evidence from Russia, World Politics, 54(2), 145 183. Weingast, Barry, 2000, The Theory of Comparative Federalism and the Emergence of Economic Liberalization in Mexico, China, and India, Memo. Wong, Christine, 2000, Central2local Relations Revisited : The 1994 Tax Sharing Reform and Public Expenditure Management in China, China Perspective, Number 31, September2October. World Bank, 2002, China National Development and Sub2national Finance : A Review of Provincial Expenditures. Fiscal Transfers and Expansion of Fiscal Dependents in Chinaπs fiscal Recentralization Yuan Fei a, Tao Ran a, Xu Zhigang a and Liu Mingxing b (a : Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Sciences ; b : China Institute for Education Finance Research, Peking University ; China Economy and Management Academy, Central University of Economics and Finance) Abstract: Based on the theoretical literature of fiscal decentralization, we discuss the evolution of inter2governmental fiscal arrangements and analyze the impacts of increasing central transfers on local growth of fiscal dependents in the past decade. Using a county2level panel data set from 199422003, we identify the causality from the growth fiscal transfers to the expansion of fiscal dependents empirically through an instrumental variable approach. It is argued that under Chinaπs current governance regime, provisioning of either general purpose transfer or earmarked transfer would lead to serious problems. The policy implication is that a governance system that grants local governments higher fiscal power while at the same time hold them more accountable to local constituency is necessary for China to control government expansion and provide effective public services. Key Words : Fiscal Centralization ; Transfers ; Expansion of Fiscal Dependents JEL Classification : H710,H730 (: ) ( : ) 80