學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 台灣所得分配之動態門檻分析
Analysis of Income Inequality in Taiwan: Dynamic Panel Threshold Model作者 廖子萱
Liao, Tzu-Syuan貢獻者 洪福聲
廖子萱
Liao, Tzu-Syuan關鍵詞 動態門檻
所得分配
倒U型理論
Dynamic Threshold
Income Distribution
Inverted U-shape Theory日期 2023 上傳時間 9-Mar-2023 18:23:31 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究使用動態門檻模型分析台灣各縣市2009年至2018年年平均每人所得與所得五等分位差距倍數之間是否存在Kuznets曲線關係。實證結果發現各縣市年平均每人所得上升不利於所得分配，並且存在門檻效果。當年平均每人所得超過428,823元時，年平均每人所得的上升加劇所得差距幅度更大，因此並不符合Kuznets的倒U型理論。另外，當大專及以上學歷人口佔總人口比率愈高，以及女性勞動參與率愈高時，所得不均程度會上升；而當老年人口比率愈高、自有住宅率愈高時，所得不均程度會下降。對此實證結果有以下建議：政府可透過減輕租屋負擔與降低資本所得差距，進而改善所得不均；而老年人口增加會使貧富差距下降的結果並無法確認是來自老年人口均貧或是均富，但政府仍須加強針對老年人口經濟安全的保障。
This study uses a dynamic threshold model to analyze whether there is a Kuznets curve relationship between the average per capita income and the ratio of household income, top 20% to lowest 20% of Taiwan from 2009 to 2018. The empirical results show that the average per capital income exacerbates income gap with a threshold effect. In particular, when the average per capita income exceeds NT$428,823 dollars, the increase in the average per capita income aggravates the income gap to a greater extent than when it is below NT$428,823 dollars. Thus, Kuznets` inverted U-shaped theory is not observed in Taiwan. Additionally, when the proportion of the population with college education and above in the total population is higher, and the female labor force participation rate is higher, the degree of income inequality will increase; when the proportion of the elderly population is higher and the rate of home ownership is higher, the degree of income inequality will decrease. The following suggestions are made for this empirical result: the government can improve income inequality by reducing the burden of renting housing to reducing the gap between capital and income. However, it cannot be confirmed whether the result of the positive relationship between elderly population and income inequality is due to elders all become poor or rich, but the government still needs to strengthen social security for the elderly population.參考文獻 Aiyar, M. S., & Ebeke, M. C. H. (2019). Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth. International Monetary Fund.Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-components Models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.Becker, G. S., & Chiswick, B. R. (1966). Education and the Distribution of Earnings. The American Economic Review, 56, 358-369.Caner, M. & B. E. Hansen (2004). Instrumental Variable Estimation of a Threshold Model. Econometric Theory, 20(5), 813-843.Cancian, M., & Reed, D. (1998). Assessing the Effects of Wives` Earnings on Family Income Inequality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 73-79.Cancian, M., & Reed, D. (1999). The Impact of Wives’ Earnings on Income Inequality: Issues and Estimates. Demography, 36(2), 173-184.Causa, O., Woloszko, N., & Leite, D. (2019). Housing, Wealth Accumulation and Wealth Distribution: Evidence and Stylized Facts. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1588.Deaton, A., & Paxson, C. (1994). Intertemporal Choice and Inequality. Journal of Political Economy, 102(3), 437-467.Deaton, A. S., & Paxson, C. H. (1995). Saving, Inequality and Aging: An East Asian Perspective. Age, 1(45), 55.Dumitrescu, E.-I., & C. Hurlin. (2012). Testing for Granger Non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.Fei, John C.H, Gustav Ranis & Shirley W.Y. Kuo. (1979). Growth with Equity: The Taiwan Case. Oxford University Press.Galbraith, James. (2007). Global Inequality and Global Macroeconomics. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29 (4), 587-607.Gregorio, J. D., & Lee, J. W. (2002). Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence from Cross-country Data. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 395-416.Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345-368.Ho, S. H. & Saadaoui, J. (2022). Bank Credit and Economic Growth: A Dynamic Threshold Panel Model for ASEAN Countries. International Economics, 170, 115-128.Katz, L. F., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 35-78.Karoly, L. A., & Burtless, G. (1995). Demographic Change, Rising Earnings Inequality, and the Distribution of Personal Well-Being, 1959-1989. Demography, 32(3), 379-405.Kelly, N. J., & Witko, C. (2012). Federalism and American Inequality. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 414-426.Koutmeridis, T. (2018). Misallocation, Education Expansion and Wage Inequality. Available at SSRN 3124897.Kremer, S., A. Bick, & D. Nautz. (2013). Inflation and Growth: New Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Threshold Analysis. Empirical Economics, 44(2), 861-878.Kuznets, S. (1955). Growth and Income Inequality, The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.Lin, C. H. A. (2007). Education Expansion, Educational Inequality, and Income Inequality: Evidence from Taiwan, 1976-2003. Social Indicators Research, 80(3), 601-615.Luciano Lopez & Sylvain Weber. (2017). XTGCAUSE: Stata Module to Test for Granger non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Statistical Software Components S458308.Rodríguez‐Pose, A., & Tselios, V. (2009). Education and Income Inequality in the Regions of the European Union. Journal of Regional Science, 49(3), 411-437.Shin, Kwang-Yeong. (2010). The Effect of Labor Force Participation by Women on Family Income Inequality in Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Social Science Journal, 1, 27-55.Susan Harkness. (2010). The Contribution of Women’s Employment and Earnings to Household Income Inequality: A Cross-country Analysis. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, No. 531.Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 493-511.林宜臻（2020）。臺灣縣市合併對所得分配的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學經濟學系。林俊宏、王淳玄（2005）。教育不均度、所得分配與經濟成長-台灣之實證研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（NSC93-2415-H-034-002）。朱雲鵬（1989）。1980年至86年間台灣所得分配變動趨勢的分析。中央研究院三民主義研究所叢刊，25，437-455。邱忠榮（1999）。台灣省各縣市所得不均度分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。洪明皇（2018）。女性勞動對家戶所得分配的影響: 台灣, 韓國與日本。社會分析，17，1-46。俞哲民（2008）。人口老化對於所得分配之影響―以臺灣二十三個縣市為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學財政學系。袁心敏（2020）。社會福利支出是否影響所得分配?臺灣縣市別追蹤資料的實證研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立清華大學公共政策與管理學系。高文鶯（2019）。所得分配不均的政治經濟分析：台灣各縣市1982年至2016年間的實證研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系。徐美、莊奕琦、陳晏羚（2015）。台灣家戶所得不均度來源分析初探。社會科學論叢，9（1），1-31。葉金標（2008）。台灣各縣市所得分配不均之探討。財稅研究，40（1），111-121。賴鈺璇（2015）。影響臺灣縣市貧富差距因素：2009年至2013年的實證分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系。邊裕淵（1979）。工業化與農家所得分配。中央研究院三民主義研究所專題選刊，20。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
經濟學系
110258003資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110258003 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 洪福聲 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 廖子萱 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Liao, Tzu-Syuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 廖子萱 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Liao, Tzu-Syuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2023 en_US dc.date.accessioned 9-Mar-2023 18:23:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 9-Mar-2023 18:23:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-Mar-2023 18:23:31 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110258003 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143775 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 經濟學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 110258003 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究使用動態門檻模型分析台灣各縣市2009年至2018年年平均每人所得與所得五等分位差距倍數之間是否存在Kuznets曲線關係。實證結果發現各縣市年平均每人所得上升不利於所得分配，並且存在門檻效果。當年平均每人所得超過428,823元時，年平均每人所得的上升加劇所得差距幅度更大，因此並不符合Kuznets的倒U型理論。另外，當大專及以上學歷人口佔總人口比率愈高，以及女性勞動參與率愈高時，所得不均程度會上升；而當老年人口比率愈高、自有住宅率愈高時，所得不均程度會下降。對此實證結果有以下建議：政府可透過減輕租屋負擔與降低資本所得差距，進而改善所得不均；而老年人口增加會使貧富差距下降的結果並無法確認是來自老年人口均貧或是均富，但政府仍須加強針對老年人口經濟安全的保障。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study uses a dynamic threshold model to analyze whether there is a Kuznets curve relationship between the average per capita income and the ratio of household income, top 20% to lowest 20% of Taiwan from 2009 to 2018. The empirical results show that the average per capital income exacerbates income gap with a threshold effect. In particular, when the average per capita income exceeds NT$428,823 dollars, the increase in the average per capita income aggravates the income gap to a greater extent than when it is below NT$428,823 dollars. Thus, Kuznets` inverted U-shaped theory is not observed in Taiwan. Additionally, when the proportion of the population with college education and above in the total population is higher, and the female labor force participation rate is higher, the degree of income inequality will increase; when the proportion of the elderly population is higher and the rate of home ownership is higher, the degree of income inequality will decrease. The following suggestions are made for this empirical result: the government can improve income inequality by reducing the burden of renting housing to reducing the gap between capital and income. However, it cannot be confirmed whether the result of the positive relationship between elderly population and income inequality is due to elders all become poor or rich, but the government still needs to strengthen social security for the elderly population. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第二章 文獻回顧 4第一節 人均所得與所得分配 4第二節 人口老化與所得分配 5第三節 教育程度與所得分配 6第四節 女性勞動參與率與所得分配 7第五節 自有住宅與所得分配 8第六節 小結 9第三章 研究設計 10第一節 資料來源 10第二節 變數定義 11一、 所得五等分位差距倍數（大島指數） 11二、 所得變數 12三、 人口結構變數 13四、 教育程度變數 13五、 住宅情況變數 13六、 性別變數 13第三節 敘述統計 14第四章 實證模型與結果 15第一節 實證模型 16第二節 實證結果 18第五章 結論與建議 22參考文獻 23 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1124028 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110258003 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 動態門檻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 所得分配 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 倒U型理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Dynamic Threshold en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Income Distribution en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inverted U-shape Theory en_US dc.title (題名) 台灣所得分配之動態門檻分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Analysis of Income Inequality in Taiwan: Dynamic Panel Threshold Model en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Aiyar, M. S., & Ebeke, M. C. H. (2019). Inequality of Opportunity, Inequality of Income and Economic Growth. International Monetary Fund.Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-components Models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.Becker, G. S., & Chiswick, B. R. (1966). Education and the Distribution of Earnings. The American Economic Review, 56, 358-369.Caner, M. & B. E. Hansen (2004). Instrumental Variable Estimation of a Threshold Model. Econometric Theory, 20(5), 813-843.Cancian, M., & Reed, D. (1998). Assessing the Effects of Wives` Earnings on Family Income Inequality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 73-79.Cancian, M., & Reed, D. (1999). The Impact of Wives’ Earnings on Income Inequality: Issues and Estimates. Demography, 36(2), 173-184.Causa, O., Woloszko, N., & Leite, D. (2019). Housing, Wealth Accumulation and Wealth Distribution: Evidence and Stylized Facts. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1588.Deaton, A., & Paxson, C. (1994). Intertemporal Choice and Inequality. Journal of Political Economy, 102(3), 437-467.Deaton, A. S., & Paxson, C. H. (1995). Saving, Inequality and Aging: An East Asian Perspective. Age, 1(45), 55.Dumitrescu, E.-I., & C. Hurlin. (2012). Testing for Granger Non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.Fei, John C.H, Gustav Ranis & Shirley W.Y. Kuo. (1979). Growth with Equity: The Taiwan Case. Oxford University Press.Galbraith, James. (2007). Global Inequality and Global Macroeconomics. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29 (4), 587-607.Gregorio, J. D., & Lee, J. W. (2002). Education and Income Inequality: New Evidence from Cross-country Data. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(3), 395-416.Hansen, B. E. (1999). Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference. Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345-368.Ho, S. H. & Saadaoui, J. (2022). Bank Credit and Economic Growth: A Dynamic Threshold Panel Model for ASEAN Countries. International Economics, 170, 115-128.Katz, L. F., & Murphy, K. M. (1992). Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 35-78.Karoly, L. A., & Burtless, G. (1995). Demographic Change, Rising Earnings Inequality, and the Distribution of Personal Well-Being, 1959-1989. Demography, 32(3), 379-405.Kelly, N. J., & Witko, C. (2012). Federalism and American Inequality. The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 414-426.Koutmeridis, T. (2018). Misallocation, Education Expansion and Wage Inequality. Available at SSRN 3124897.Kremer, S., A. Bick, & D. Nautz. (2013). Inflation and Growth: New Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Threshold Analysis. Empirical Economics, 44(2), 861-878.Kuznets, S. (1955). Growth and Income Inequality, The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.Lin, C. H. A. (2007). Education Expansion, Educational Inequality, and Income Inequality: Evidence from Taiwan, 1976-2003. Social Indicators Research, 80(3), 601-615.Luciano Lopez & Sylvain Weber. (2017). XTGCAUSE: Stata Module to Test for Granger non-causality in Heterogeneous Panels. Statistical Software Components S458308.Rodríguez‐Pose, A., & Tselios, V. (2009). Education and Income Inequality in the Regions of the European Union. Journal of Regional Science, 49(3), 411-437.Shin, Kwang-Yeong. (2010). The Effect of Labor Force Participation by Women on Family Income Inequality in Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Social Science Journal, 1, 27-55.Susan Harkness. (2010). The Contribution of Women’s Employment and Earnings to Household Income Inequality: A Cross-country Analysis. Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, No. 531.Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2009). Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 493-511.林宜臻（2020）。臺灣縣市合併對所得分配的影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學經濟學系。林俊宏、王淳玄（2005）。教育不均度、所得分配與經濟成長-台灣之實證研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（NSC93-2415-H-034-002）。朱雲鵬（1989）。1980年至86年間台灣所得分配變動趨勢的分析。中央研究院三民主義研究所叢刊，25，437-455。邱忠榮（1999）。台灣省各縣市所得不均度分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。洪明皇（2018）。女性勞動對家戶所得分配的影響: 台灣, 韓國與日本。社會分析，17，1-46。俞哲民（2008）。人口老化對於所得分配之影響―以臺灣二十三個縣市為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學財政學系。袁心敏（2020）。社會福利支出是否影響所得分配?臺灣縣市別追蹤資料的實證研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立清華大學公共政策與管理學系。高文鶯（2019）。所得分配不均的政治經濟分析：台灣各縣市1982年至2016年間的實證研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系。徐美、莊奕琦、陳晏羚（2015）。台灣家戶所得不均度來源分析初探。社會科學論叢，9（1），1-31。葉金標（2008）。台灣各縣市所得分配不均之探討。財稅研究，40（1），111-121。賴鈺璇（2015）。影響臺灣縣市貧富差距因素：2009年至2013年的實證分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系。邊裕淵（1979）。工業化與農家所得分配。中央研究院三民主義研究所專題選刊，20。 zh_TW
