學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 地方政府財政的自力更生或仰人鼻息？ 臺灣地方政府自籌財源比影響因素之實證研究
The Self-reliance or Dependence on the Central Government of Local Governments’ Finance? An Empirical Study of Elements Influencing the Self-financing Ratios of Taiwan’s Local Governments作者 謝丞堯
Hsieh, Cheng-Yao貢獻者 黃東益
Huang, Tong-Yi
謝丞堯
Hsieh, Cheng-Yao關鍵詞 地方政府財政
財政自主
自籌財源
集群分析
線性迴歸模型
Local Government Finance
Local Fiscal Autonomy
Self-financing Resources
Cluster Analysis
Simple Linear Regression日期 2019 上傳時間 2-Mar-2020 11:19:29 (UTC+8) 摘要 地方政府在提供各項服務的同時，能否自我負責而達到財政自主（Local fiscal autonomy）的目標？抑或是在很大程度執行業務上僅能仰賴中央的補助以及協助？本文透過「地方政府自籌財源比」做為衡量指標，探討各地方政府財政自主在2011年至2017年之發展趨勢、類型以及可能的影響因素。 本研究主要分為三個部分對研究主題進行探討：第一部分主要透過繪製各縣市自2011年起地方自籌財源比之時間趨勢圖進行分析；研究發現各地方政府地方自籌財源比之趨勢圖在年度的分布上經常在2014年前後出現變化，趨勢圖類型並未按照「縣市」、「直轄市」分布而具有因地制宜之表現，且財政惡化情形已不若過去嚴重。 第二部分則透過選取戶籍人口數、地方自籌財源比、都市地價指數以及融資需求四個變數進行集群分析，本文先透過階層集群分析法（Hierarchical cluster analysis）並選擇歐式距離平方法決定適合之組數，最終透過K-mean快速集群法呈現結果；研究結果顯示，若縣市具有較強烈的融資需求則位於「舉債組」，「自力更生組」之都市特色往往規模不大、融資需求不多但仍保有一定程度的財政自主，「仰人鼻息組」則普遍規模小、地方自籌財源比小且具有融資需求，而「優化組」之縣市則具備負向之融資需求，顯示該地方政府清償部分債務。 第三部分則選取戶籍人口數、地方產業營利事業銷售額、平均每戶可支配所得、都市地價指數、機動車輛登記數、不動產移轉面積以及融資需求共7個變數作為自變數，同時以地方政府自籌財源比作為依變數進行迴歸分析，探討影響地方自籌財源比的因素；研究結果顯示僅有平均每戶可支配所得對地方自籌財源比具有正向之影響。 基於上述之研究成果，在我國現行之地方財政自治制度下，建議建立更完善的地方財政自我負責之激勵機制，同時中央政府在地方政府進行舉債時扮演更積極的監督角色，避免地方政府面臨債務風險，最後建議地方政府及議會針對轄區內較大支出的部份開徵相關的稅收或提高稅率，甚至在必要時進行減稅，以促進地方財政自治的落實。
Can Taiwan’s local governments be responsible for achieving the goal of fiscal autonomy or just to rely on the central governments’ subsidies and assistance while providing services? To answer these questions, this thesis aims at analyzing Taiwan’s local governments’ fiscal autonomy, and uses “self-financing resources ratio” as a measure to explore its trends, types of local fiscal finance, and potential factors to local governments’ fiscal autonomy from 2011 to 2017.The research is mainly divided into three parts to discuss the research theme. The first part mainly analyzes the trend of the self-financing resources ratio after 2011. Compared with the trend chart between the local governments, different types of the trend charts do not follow the distribution of "counties" and "municipalities" and have performances tailored to local conditions; besides, the distribution of self-financing resources ratio often changes around 2014 and the overall situation of fiscal deterioration is not as deplorable as it used to be.In the second part, cluster analysis is performed by selecting four variables: population, local self-financing source ratio, urban land price index, and fiscal demand. We first process hierarchical cluster analysis and determine the appropriate group size by squared Euclidian distance method, and then develop “optimal” cluster solutions by the K-mean method. The results show that if a county or a city has strong fiscal demand, it is located in the "Debt financing group", while the characteristics of the members of "Self-reliance group" are often small-scale, little fiscal needing and keeping fiscal autonomy. The "Dependency group" is generally small in scale, the self-financing source ratio is low and has fiscal needs, which imply those counties in the group are fiscal dependence. Last but not least, cities in "Optimization group" have negative fiscal needs, indicating that the local government is paying off its debt.The third part selects 7 variables as independent variables, include population, profit-seeking enterprise sales amount, average disposable income per household, urban land price index, motor vehicle registrations, real estate transfer area size, and fiscal needs. The local government’s self-financing source ratio is used as a dependent variable for regression analysis to explore the factors affecting the local self-financing source ratio. The results show that only the average disposable income of each household has a positive impact on the local self-financing source ratio.Based on the above research results, under the current system in Taiwan, it is proposed to establish a complete mechanism for motivating local governments become fiscal self-responsibility. At the same time, we suggest central government can play a more active role in monitoring the local government`s debt to prevent local governments from over-indebtedness. Finally, it is suggested that local governments and councils levy relevant taxes or raise the tax rates for the financial resources of additional expenditures in their jurisdictions, and even reduce taxes when the expenditures are decreased to promote the implementation of local fiscal autonomy.參考文獻 中文部分方凱弘、梁綰琪（2009）。政策為何變遷？以桃園縣開徵地方稅為例。台灣民主季刊，6（3），125-167。方凱弘（2016）。建構區自治的議題與選項：美國地方自治與行政專業化的啟發。臺北市：翰蘆圖書。利秀蘭（2012）。不動產相關稅制之研究。經濟研究年刊，（12），73-99。吳挺鋒（2003）。台灣財政平衡的現實與迷思：沒有平等的成長崇拜。台灣社會研究季刊，（51），1-49。吳明彥、羅光達（2014）。景氣循環下的地方政府租稅努力—以土地稅為例。財稅研究，43（5），78-101。李惠宗（2012）。憲法要義（六版）。臺北市：元照出版有限公司。李允傑、劉志宏、張家瑋、李俊緯（2000）。我國地方財政管理指標之研究。財政部國庫署委託研究計畫（編號：PG 9906-0204）。臺北市：財政部。邱皓政（2015）。量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術（修訂版）。台北：雙葉書廊。林恭正、賴麗仙（2003）。我國地方財政能力之估測兼論影響租稅努力之因素。財稅研究，35（6），129-150。林恭正、劉品柔（2015）。地方政府財政永續性之實證研究。財稅研究，44（3），71-93。林惠玲、陳正倉（2017）。現代統計學（修訂版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。姚名鴻、林倩如（2014）。我國地方財政努力及其影響因素之實證研究。財稅研究，43（4），43-71。柯格鐘（2017）。財政權限劃分與地方稅。載於陳清秀、蔡志方（編），地方自治法（201-237）。台北：華藝。徐仁輝（1999）。當代預算改革的制度性研究（初版）。臺北市：智勝文化事業有限公司。孫克難（2000）。健全地方財政之全面思考。主計月報，540，11-17。孫世琪、吳玲玉、江鼎全（2001）。使用牌照稅收回自徵之研究。未知（未知）。曾巨威、羅白櫻、廖如敏（2001）。如何透過中央統籌分配稅款及補助款之分配激勵地方政府開闢財源。行政院研究發展考核委員會研究計畫（編號：RDEC-RES-089-051）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。曾巨威、黃郁升（2017）。如何改善我國財政赤字—開源或節流？財稅研究，46（1），1-30。黃建興（2001）。地方財政努力之分析。財稅研究，33(5)，47-55。溫豐文（2012）。土地法。台中：洪記印刷。廖坤榮、吳秋菊（2005）。扛不起的未來：地方財政困境之研究－嘉義縣鄉鎮市案例分析。公共行政學報，14，79-124。劉文仕（2018）。地方制度法釋義（三版）。台灣：五南。謝俊義（2015）。多層次分析：理論、方法與實務（二版）。臺北市：鼎茂。英文部分Ansari, M. (1982). Determinations of Tax Ratio: A cross-country Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 19, 1035-1042.Akin, J. (1973). Fiscal Capacity and the Estimation Methods of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. National Tax Journal, Vol. 26(2), 275-291.Bahl, R. W. (1972). A Regression Approach to Tax Effort and Tax Ratio Analysis. IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 18, 570-608.Battaglini, M. & S. Coate (2008). A Dynamic Theory of Public Spending, Taxation, and Debt. The American Economic Review, Vol. 98(1), 201-236.Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis. The American Economic Review, Vol. 57(3), 415-426.Blöchliger, H. and J. Rabesona (2009). The Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments: An update. Paris: OECDBlöchliger, H. and J. Piñero-Campos (2011). Tax Competition between Sub-Central Governments. Paris: OECD.Boehner, P. & S. F. Brown. (1990). Philosophical Writings (William of Ockham). USA, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.Buchanan, J. M. (1976). Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 84(2), 337-342.Campbell, N. A. & J. B. Reece (2001). Biology (6th Ed.). San Francisco, California: Benjamin Cummings.Chapman, J. I. (1999). Local Government, Fiscal Autonomy and Fiscal Stress: The Case of California (No. WP99JC1). MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Chelliah, R. J., H. J. Baas & M. R. Kelly (1975). Tax Ratios and Tax Effort in Developing Countries, 1969-71. IMF Staff Papers, 22, 187-205.Cuciti, P. L. (1978, August). City Need and the Responsiveness of Federal Grants Programs. Report for U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on the City, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington D.C..Cyan, M., J. Martinez-Vazquez & V. Vulovic (2013). Measuring tax effort: Does the estimation approach matter and should effort be linked to expenditure goals? International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, 39, 1-49.Domingos, P. (1999). The Role of Occam’s razor in Knowledge Discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3, 409-425.Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 7(1), 1-26.Eltony, M. N. (2002). Measuring tax effort in Arab countries. Economic Research Forum for the Arab Countries, Iran & Turkey.Hy, R., C. Boland, R. Hopper, and R. Sims. (1993). Measuring Revenue Capacity and Effort of County Governments: A Case Study of Arkansas. Public Administration Review, Vol. 53(3), 220-227.Hyman, D. N. (2011). Public Finance: A contemporary application of theory to policy (10th Ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.Inman, Robert P. “The Fiscal Performance of Local Governments: An Interpretive Review.” In Current Issues in Urban Economics, eds. Peter Mieszkowski and Mahlon Straszheim. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp.270-321.Joseph F. Hair, Jr, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin and Rolph E. Anderson (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Prespective (7th Ed.). New York, NY: FreePress.Leuthold, J. H. (1991). Tax shares in developing economies: a panel study. Journal of Development Economics, 35, 173–185Lotz, J. R. and E. R. Morss,. (1970). Measuring “Tax Effort” in Developing Countries. IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 14(1), 478-95.Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four System of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review, Vol. 32(4), 298-310.Martinez-Vazquez, J., S. Lago-Peñas, and A. Sacchi. (2016). The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey. Journal of Economic surveys, Vol. 31(4), 1095-1129.McNabb, D. 2008. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.Sharp.Neck, R., J. Jaenicke. (2018). Empirical Evidence for “Wagner’s Law of Increasing Government Activity” for Austria. In J. Bachaus, G. Chaloupek & H. A. Frambach. Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner: Legacy and Lessons for Civil Society and the State (pp. 153-174). Switzerland: Springer.North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York : Cambridge University Press.OECD. (1999). Taxing powers of state and local government. Paris: OECD.O’Sullivan, A. (2012). Urban Economics(8th Ed.). Singapore: McGraw Hill.Ross, J. P. & J. Greenfield. (1980). Measuring the Health of Cities. In C. H. Levine & I. Rubin, Fiscal Stress and Public Policy (pp. 89-110). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.Sagbas, Isa. 2001. “An Econometric Analysis of Local Fiscal Response to Revenue Sharing in Turkey,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. Vol. 19, p. 85-101.Shin, K. (1969). International Difference in Tax Ratio. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 51(2), 213-220Sjoquist, D. L. (1996). Local Government Fiscal Viability. Fiscal Research Program (Rep. No. 96.2). Fiscal Research Center of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.Slack, E. (2017). How much local fiscal autonomy do cities have? A comparison of eight cities around the world. IMFG perspective, 19, 2-15.Stotsky, J. G. and A. WoldeMariam. (1997). Tax Effort in Sub-Saharan Africa. IMF Working Paper, 97-107.Teera, Joweria M. and John Hudson. (2004). Tax Performance: A Comparative Study. Journal of International Development, 16, 785-802.Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64(5), 416-424.Wright, Deil S. (1988). Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Zafra-Gómez, J. L., A. M. López-Hernández, & A. Hernández-Bastida. (2009). Developing a Model to Measure Financial Condition in Local Government. Evaluating Service Quality and Minimizing the Effects of the Socioeconomic Environment: An Application to Spanish Municipalities. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 425-449. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
105256001資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256001 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 黃東益 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Tong-Yi en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 謝丞堯 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsieh, Cheng-Yao en_US dc.creator (作者) 謝丞堯 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hsieh, Cheng-Yao en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2020 11:19:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2020 11:19:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2020 11:19:29 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105256001 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128889 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 公共行政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105256001 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 地方政府在提供各項服務的同時，能否自我負責而達到財政自主（Local fiscal autonomy）的目標？抑或是在很大程度執行業務上僅能仰賴中央的補助以及協助？本文透過「地方政府自籌財源比」做為衡量指標，探討各地方政府財政自主在2011年至2017年之發展趨勢、類型以及可能的影響因素。 本研究主要分為三個部分對研究主題進行探討：第一部分主要透過繪製各縣市自2011年起地方自籌財源比之時間趨勢圖進行分析；研究發現各地方政府地方自籌財源比之趨勢圖在年度的分布上經常在2014年前後出現變化，趨勢圖類型並未按照「縣市」、「直轄市」分布而具有因地制宜之表現，且財政惡化情形已不若過去嚴重。 第二部分則透過選取戶籍人口數、地方自籌財源比、都市地價指數以及融資需求四個變數進行集群分析，本文先透過階層集群分析法（Hierarchical cluster analysis）並選擇歐式距離平方法決定適合之組數，最終透過K-mean快速集群法呈現結果；研究結果顯示，若縣市具有較強烈的融資需求則位於「舉債組」，「自力更生組」之都市特色往往規模不大、融資需求不多但仍保有一定程度的財政自主，「仰人鼻息組」則普遍規模小、地方自籌財源比小且具有融資需求，而「優化組」之縣市則具備負向之融資需求，顯示該地方政府清償部分債務。 第三部分則選取戶籍人口數、地方產業營利事業銷售額、平均每戶可支配所得、都市地價指數、機動車輛登記數、不動產移轉面積以及融資需求共7個變數作為自變數，同時以地方政府自籌財源比作為依變數進行迴歸分析，探討影響地方自籌財源比的因素；研究結果顯示僅有平均每戶可支配所得對地方自籌財源比具有正向之影響。 基於上述之研究成果，在我國現行之地方財政自治制度下，建議建立更完善的地方財政自我負責之激勵機制，同時中央政府在地方政府進行舉債時扮演更積極的監督角色，避免地方政府面臨債務風險，最後建議地方政府及議會針對轄區內較大支出的部份開徵相關的稅收或提高稅率，甚至在必要時進行減稅，以促進地方財政自治的落實。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Can Taiwan’s local governments be responsible for achieving the goal of fiscal autonomy or just to rely on the central governments’ subsidies and assistance while providing services? To answer these questions, this thesis aims at analyzing Taiwan’s local governments’ fiscal autonomy, and uses “self-financing resources ratio” as a measure to explore its trends, types of local fiscal finance, and potential factors to local governments’ fiscal autonomy from 2011 to 2017.The research is mainly divided into three parts to discuss the research theme. The first part mainly analyzes the trend of the self-financing resources ratio after 2011. Compared with the trend chart between the local governments, different types of the trend charts do not follow the distribution of "counties" and "municipalities" and have performances tailored to local conditions; besides, the distribution of self-financing resources ratio often changes around 2014 and the overall situation of fiscal deterioration is not as deplorable as it used to be.In the second part, cluster analysis is performed by selecting four variables: population, local self-financing source ratio, urban land price index, and fiscal demand. We first process hierarchical cluster analysis and determine the appropriate group size by squared Euclidian distance method, and then develop “optimal” cluster solutions by the K-mean method. The results show that if a county or a city has strong fiscal demand, it is located in the "Debt financing group", while the characteristics of the members of "Self-reliance group" are often small-scale, little fiscal needing and keeping fiscal autonomy. The "Dependency group" is generally small in scale, the self-financing source ratio is low and has fiscal needs, which imply those counties in the group are fiscal dependence. Last but not least, cities in "Optimization group" have negative fiscal needs, indicating that the local government is paying off its debt.The third part selects 7 variables as independent variables, include population, profit-seeking enterprise sales amount, average disposable income per household, urban land price index, motor vehicle registrations, real estate transfer area size, and fiscal needs. The local government’s self-financing source ratio is used as a dependent variable for regression analysis to explore the factors affecting the local self-financing source ratio. The results show that only the average disposable income of each household has a positive impact on the local self-financing source ratio.Based on the above research results, under the current system in Taiwan, it is proposed to establish a complete mechanism for motivating local governments become fiscal self-responsibility. At the same time, we suggest central government can play a more active role in monitoring the local government`s debt to prevent local governments from over-indebtedness. Finally, it is suggested that local governments and councils levy relevant taxes or raise the tax rates for the financial resources of additional expenditures in their jurisdictions, and even reduce taxes when the expenditures are decreased to promote the implementation of local fiscal autonomy. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與背景 1第二節 研究目的與研究問題 6第三節 研究範圍 11第二章 文獻回顧 12第一節 臺灣地方政府之制度設計 12第二節 地方自籌財源比的趨勢變化相關研究 14第三節 財政自主情形分類的相關研究 15第四節 地方財政自主影響因素之相關理論與指標研究 19第五節 小結與研究焦點 30第三章 研究設計 32第一節 研究問題與選用方法 32第二節 資料蒐集來源 37第四章 研究結果 39第一節 主要變數之描述統計 39第二節 趨勢變化的相關成果 43第三節 集群分析相關結果 46第四節 迴歸分析相關結果 59第五節 小結 65第五章 結論與建議 71第一節 就數論事──研究結果之解釋與推論 71第二節 政策建議 76第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 79參考文獻 86附錄一、中華民國106年度直轄市及縣市歲入彙計表 92附錄二、中央統籌分配稅款分配流程圖 93附錄三、地方政府自籌財源比趨勢圖彙總表 97附錄四、地方政府自籌財源比趨勢分類表 103附錄五、變數因素分析之嘗試 109附錄六、不同依變數模式下挑選指標的影響 115 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2497102 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256001 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 地方政府財政 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 財政自主 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自籌財源 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 集群分析 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 線性迴歸模型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Local Government Finance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Local Fiscal Autonomy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Self-financing Resources en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cluster Analysis en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Simple Linear Regression en_US dc.title (題名) 地方政府財政的自力更生或仰人鼻息？ 臺灣地方政府自籌財源比影響因素之實證研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Self-reliance or Dependence on the Central Government of Local Governments’ Finance? An Empirical Study of Elements Influencing the Self-financing Ratios of Taiwan’s Local Governments en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分方凱弘、梁綰琪（2009）。政策為何變遷？以桃園縣開徵地方稅為例。台灣民主季刊，6（3），125-167。方凱弘（2016）。建構區自治的議題與選項：美國地方自治與行政專業化的啟發。臺北市：翰蘆圖書。利秀蘭（2012）。不動產相關稅制之研究。經濟研究年刊，（12），73-99。吳挺鋒（2003）。台灣財政平衡的現實與迷思：沒有平等的成長崇拜。台灣社會研究季刊，（51），1-49。吳明彥、羅光達（2014）。景氣循環下的地方政府租稅努力—以土地稅為例。財稅研究，43（5），78-101。李惠宗（2012）。憲法要義（六版）。臺北市：元照出版有限公司。李允傑、劉志宏、張家瑋、李俊緯（2000）。我國地方財政管理指標之研究。財政部國庫署委託研究計畫（編號：PG 9906-0204）。臺北市：財政部。邱皓政（2015）。量化研究法（二）：統計原理與分析技術（修訂版）。台北：雙葉書廊。林恭正、賴麗仙（2003）。我國地方財政能力之估測兼論影響租稅努力之因素。財稅研究，35（6），129-150。林恭正、劉品柔（2015）。地方政府財政永續性之實證研究。財稅研究，44（3），71-93。林惠玲、陳正倉（2017）。現代統計學（修訂版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。姚名鴻、林倩如（2014）。我國地方財政努力及其影響因素之實證研究。財稅研究，43（4），43-71。柯格鐘（2017）。財政權限劃分與地方稅。載於陳清秀、蔡志方（編），地方自治法（201-237）。台北：華藝。徐仁輝（1999）。當代預算改革的制度性研究（初版）。臺北市：智勝文化事業有限公司。孫克難（2000）。健全地方財政之全面思考。主計月報，540，11-17。孫世琪、吳玲玉、江鼎全（2001）。使用牌照稅收回自徵之研究。未知（未知）。曾巨威、羅白櫻、廖如敏（2001）。如何透過中央統籌分配稅款及補助款之分配激勵地方政府開闢財源。行政院研究發展考核委員會研究計畫（編號：RDEC-RES-089-051）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。曾巨威、黃郁升（2017）。如何改善我國財政赤字—開源或節流？財稅研究，46（1），1-30。黃建興（2001）。地方財政努力之分析。財稅研究，33(5)，47-55。溫豐文（2012）。土地法。台中：洪記印刷。廖坤榮、吳秋菊（2005）。扛不起的未來：地方財政困境之研究－嘉義縣鄉鎮市案例分析。公共行政學報，14，79-124。劉文仕（2018）。地方制度法釋義（三版）。台灣：五南。謝俊義（2015）。多層次分析：理論、方法與實務（二版）。臺北市：鼎茂。英文部分Ansari, M. (1982). Determinations of Tax Ratio: A cross-country Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 19, 1035-1042.Akin, J. (1973). Fiscal Capacity and the Estimation Methods of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. National Tax Journal, Vol. 26(2), 275-291.Bahl, R. W. (1972). A Regression Approach to Tax Effort and Tax Ratio Analysis. IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 18, 570-608.Battaglini, M. & S. Coate (2008). A Dynamic Theory of Public Spending, Taxation, and Debt. The American Economic Review, Vol. 98(1), 201-236.Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis. The American Economic Review, Vol. 57(3), 415-426.Blöchliger, H. and J. Rabesona (2009). The Fiscal Autonomy of Sub-Central Governments: An update. Paris: OECDBlöchliger, H. and J. Piñero-Campos (2011). Tax Competition between Sub-Central Governments. Paris: OECD.Boehner, P. & S. F. Brown. (1990). Philosophical Writings (William of Ockham). USA, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company.Buchanan, J. M. (1976). Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 84(2), 337-342.Campbell, N. A. & J. B. Reece (2001). Biology (6th Ed.). San Francisco, California: Benjamin Cummings.Chapman, J. I. (1999). Local Government, Fiscal Autonomy and Fiscal Stress: The Case of California (No. WP99JC1). MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Chelliah, R. J., H. J. Baas & M. R. Kelly (1975). Tax Ratios and Tax Effort in Developing Countries, 1969-71. IMF Staff Papers, 22, 187-205.Cuciti, P. L. (1978, August). City Need and the Responsiveness of Federal Grants Programs. Report for U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on the City, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington D.C..Cyan, M., J. Martinez-Vazquez & V. Vulovic (2013). Measuring tax effort: Does the estimation approach matter and should effort be linked to expenditure goals? International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, 39, 1-49.Domingos, P. (1999). The Role of Occam’s razor in Knowledge Discovery. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3, 409-425.Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 7(1), 1-26.Eltony, M. N. (2002). Measuring tax effort in Arab countries. Economic Research Forum for the Arab Countries, Iran & Turkey.Hy, R., C. Boland, R. Hopper, and R. Sims. (1993). Measuring Revenue Capacity and Effort of County Governments: A Case Study of Arkansas. Public Administration Review, Vol. 53(3), 220-227.Hyman, D. N. (2011). Public Finance: A contemporary application of theory to policy (10th Ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.Inman, Robert P. “The Fiscal Performance of Local Governments: An Interpretive Review.” In Current Issues in Urban Economics, eds. Peter Mieszkowski and Mahlon Straszheim. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp.270-321.Joseph F. Hair, Jr, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin and Rolph E. Anderson (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Prespective (7th Ed.). New York, NY: FreePress.Leuthold, J. H. (1991). Tax shares in developing economies: a panel study. Journal of Development Economics, 35, 173–185Lotz, J. R. and E. R. Morss,. (1970). Measuring “Tax Effort” in Developing Countries. IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 14(1), 478-95.Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four System of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review, Vol. 32(4), 298-310.Martinez-Vazquez, J., S. Lago-Peñas, and A. Sacchi. (2016). The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey. Journal of Economic surveys, Vol. 31(4), 1095-1129.McNabb, D. 2008. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E.Sharp.Neck, R., J. Jaenicke. (2018). Empirical Evidence for “Wagner’s Law of Increasing Government Activity” for Austria. In J. Bachaus, G. Chaloupek & H. A. Frambach. Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner: Legacy and Lessons for Civil Society and the State (pp. 153-174). Switzerland: Springer.North, D. C. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York : Cambridge University Press.OECD. (1999). Taxing powers of state and local government. Paris: OECD.O’Sullivan, A. (2012). Urban Economics(8th Ed.). Singapore: McGraw Hill.Ross, J. P. & J. Greenfield. (1980). Measuring the Health of Cities. In C. H. Levine & I. Rubin, Fiscal Stress and Public Policy (pp. 89-110). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.Sagbas, Isa. 2001. “An Econometric Analysis of Local Fiscal Response to Revenue Sharing in Turkey,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. Vol. 19, p. 85-101.Shin, K. (1969). International Difference in Tax Ratio. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 51(2), 213-220Sjoquist, D. L. (1996). Local Government Fiscal Viability. Fiscal Research Program (Rep. No. 96.2). Fiscal Research Center of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.Slack, E. (2017). How much local fiscal autonomy do cities have? A comparison of eight cities around the world. IMFG perspective, 19, 2-15.Stotsky, J. G. and A. WoldeMariam. (1997). Tax Effort in Sub-Saharan Africa. IMF Working Paper, 97-107.Teera, Joweria M. and John Hudson. (2004). Tax Performance: A Comparative Study. Journal of International Development, 16, 785-802.Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64(5), 416-424.Wright, Deil S. (1988). Understanding Intergovernmental Relations. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Zafra-Gómez, J. L., A. M. López-Hernández, & A. Hernández-Bastida. (2009). Developing a Model to Measure Financial Condition in Local Government. Evaluating Service Quality and Minimizing the Effects of the Socioeconomic Environment: An Application to Spanish Municipalities. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 425-449. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000155 en_US
