1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 政府支出結構與國家競爭力關係之研究
The study of relationship between government expenditure structure and national competitiveness
作者 古璧瑩
貢獻者 黃仁德
古璧瑩
關鍵詞 政府支出
政府支出結構
國家競爭力
Government Expenditure
Government Expenditure Structure
National Competitiveness
日期 2006
上傳時間 30-Oct-2012 11:09:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 1980年代以來，國家競爭力的概念漸受重視，提升國家競爭力成為各國政府主要的施政目標。雖然國家競爭力因具有一定的重要性而被各界所接受，但時至今日仍缺乏對其共通之定義及衡量方法。本文係以目前最具公信力的衡量機構，即瑞士洛桑國際管理學院 (IMD) 與世界經濟論壇 (WEF) 所做的國家競爭力研究報告加以探討。
      本研究以政府活動的內生成長模型為理論基礎，由政府支出面來探討其與國家競爭力的關係及影響國家競爭力的程度。經由具有公信力的國家競爭力評比中，選取具有比較性的國家，研究其支出結構的變動對其競爭力排名是否造成影響。本研究結果，主要發現，一般公共服務及公共秩序支出比重，對國家競爭力的提升有所幫助，但並非具有絕對正向關係；教育支出比重較高，對國家競爭力的提升具有正面效果；保健支出比重及經濟支出比重無法直接影響國家競爭力相關細項指標；政府投入適度的社福支出，對整體社會的穩定有所幫助。並提出可參採建議為，預算支出結構並無各國一體適用的最佳配置，應尋求符合國家整體最大利益的配置方式；參考先進國家預算支出結構，適當調整我國各項職能所占比重；知識經濟時代，宜由增加教育投資，提升國家整體人力素質；今後國家的發展，宜注意各項預算支出對國家競爭力實際可能產生的影響；政府各部門宜重視公共支出如何配合施政目標，以提升政府效率。
Since the 1980s, the concept of national competitiveness has gradually gained attentions, and how to enhance national competitiveness becomes a major goal for the governments. Although this concept has been widely accepted because of its importance, until today there doesn’t have common definitions and measurements against the competitiveness. This paper is produced by exploration of the reports in regards to the competitiveness of countries of the world which were generated by the most credible unions, the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland (IMD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
      This paper researches, with references to endogenous growth theory, the relationships between the government expenditures and country’s competitiveness. Through the credible comparability assessments, this paper selects major countries to research how the expenditure structures influence the national competitiveness. The important conclusion from this research tells that it’s not always positive correlation between the weighting of government’s general public services expenditure and the improvement of country’s competitiveness, though general public services expenditure is helpful for competitiveness. Education expenditure does positively affect the competitiveness. The weighting of health expenditure and economic affairs expenditure can’t affect relevant competitiveness indicators. Appropriate social welfare from government helps for the stabilization of the society. This research suggests there is no best budget structure fits in with all countries, governments need to assess respective budget allocation approach to maximize the interests for the country. Governments can refer to developed countries for their budget structure in relevant areas to adjust own budget allocation. In the era of knowledge centric economy, governments should lift manpower quality by allocation of more resources in education. In view of country’s development in the future, governments should be aware how budget structure can affect country’s competitiveness. All departments of the government should care how public expenditure can support country’s goals in order to enhance government performance.
參考文獻 吳文弘 (2004)，《政府會計－與非營利會計》。台北：自印。
     宋筱珮 (2005)，〈租稅與國家競爭力關聯性之研究〉，高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文。
     徐仁輝 (2002)，《公共財務管理－公共預算與財務行政》。台北：智勝文化事業有限公司。
     徐育珠、黄仁德 (1993)，〈經濟成長、生活素質與公共支出：台灣地區的實證研究〉，《國立政治大學學報》，66，頁73-128。
     莊義雄 (2003)，《財務行政》。台北：三民書局。
     陳春榮 (2005)，〈當代各種預算制度之演進與我國預算制度之比較〉，《今日會計》，98，頁1-8。
     陳慧娟 (2003)，〈政府職能及政事別支出結構之檢討〉，行政院財政改革委員會。
     黄仁德、羅時萬 (2001)，《現代經濟成長理論》。台北：華泰文化事業公司。
     詹中原 (2002)，〈國家競爭力之Who， What and How？〉，《國政評論》，憲政（評）091-093號。
     廖盈琪 (2002)，〈國家競爭力概念與指標分析〉，《科技發展標竿》，2:4，頁19-32。
     謝如媛 (2000)，〈中德政府預算之比較〉，臺灣大學三民主義研究所碩士論文。
     蘇彩足 (1998)，〈「聚合」或「分歧」？OECD各國政府資源配置之演變趨勢〉，「政府預算的改進」學術研討會，行政院主計處與世新大學主辦，1998年3月6日。
     羅雅惠、高志祥、王淑娟、饒志堅 (2004)，〈政府收支與總體經濟關連性之分析〉，統計專題研究報告，行政院主計處。
     Barro, R. J. (1990), “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth, ”Journal of Political Economy, 98:5, pp. S103-S125.
     Cashin, P. (1995), “Government Spending, Tax and Economic Growth,”IMF Staff Papers, 42:2, pp. 237-269.
     Engen, E. M. and J. Skinner (1996), “Taxation and Economic Growth,”National Tax Journal, 49:4, pp. 617-642.
     IMF, Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 1996-2006.
     International Institute for Management Development (2005), IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005.
     International Institute for Management Development (2006), IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006.
     Kneller, R., M. F. Bleaney, and N. Gemmell (1999), “Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries,” Journal of Public Economics, 74, pp. 171-190.
     Krugman, P. (1994), “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs, 73:2, pp. 28-44.
     Lopez-Claros, A. and A. L. Dahl (2006), “The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on the Economic Competitiveness and Social Development of Taiwan,” Global Information Technology Report 2005-2006, World Economic Forum 2006, pp. 107-118.
     Lucas, R. E. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, pp. 3-42.
     Porter, M. E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
     Romer, P. M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 94:5, pp. 1002-1037.
     Smith, H. D. (1945), The Management of Your Government. New York: McGraw Hill.
     Tanzi, V. and H. H. Zee (1997), “Fiscal Policy and Long-run Growth,” IMF Staff Papers, 44:2, pp. 179-209.
     Uzawa, H. (1965), “Optimal Technical Change in an Aggregative Model of Economic Growth,” International Economic Review, 6:1, pp. 18-31.
     Wagner, A. (1890), Finanzwissenschaft. Leipzig: C. F. Winter.
     World Economic Forum (2006), The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007.
     World Economic Forum (2005), The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006.
     World Economic Forum (2004), The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005.
     World Economic Forum (1996), The Global Competitiveness Report 1996.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
93921030
95
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093921030
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 黃仁德zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 古璧瑩zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 古璧瑩zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2006en_US
dc.date.accessioned 30-Oct-2012 11:09:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 30-Oct-2012 11:09:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-Oct-2012 11:09:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0093921030en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54483-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 行政管理碩士學程zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 93921030zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 1980年代以來，國家競爭力的概念漸受重視，提升國家競爭力成為各國政府主要的施政目標。雖然國家競爭力因具有一定的重要性而被各界所接受，但時至今日仍缺乏對其共通之定義及衡量方法。本文係以目前最具公信力的衡量機構，即瑞士洛桑國際管理學院 (IMD) 與世界經濟論壇 (WEF) 所做的國家競爭力研究報告加以探討。
      本研究以政府活動的內生成長模型為理論基礎，由政府支出面來探討其與國家競爭力的關係及影響國家競爭力的程度。經由具有公信力的國家競爭力評比中，選取具有比較性的國家，研究其支出結構的變動對其競爭力排名是否造成影響。本研究結果，主要發現，一般公共服務及公共秩序支出比重，對國家競爭力的提升有所幫助，但並非具有絕對正向關係；教育支出比重較高，對國家競爭力的提升具有正面效果；保健支出比重及經濟支出比重無法直接影響國家競爭力相關細項指標；政府投入適度的社福支出，對整體社會的穩定有所幫助。並提出可參採建議為，預算支出結構並無各國一體適用的最佳配置，應尋求符合國家整體最大利益的配置方式；參考先進國家預算支出結構，適當調整我國各項職能所占比重；知識經濟時代，宜由增加教育投資，提升國家整體人力素質；今後國家的發展，宜注意各項預算支出對國家競爭力實際可能產生的影響；政府各部門宜重視公共支出如何配合施政目標，以提升政府效率。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Since the 1980s, the concept of national competitiveness has gradually gained attentions, and how to enhance national competitiveness becomes a major goal for the governments. Although this concept has been widely accepted because of its importance, until today there doesn’t have common definitions and measurements against the competitiveness. This paper is produced by exploration of the reports in regards to the competitiveness of countries of the world which were generated by the most credible unions, the International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland (IMD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
      This paper researches, with references to endogenous growth theory, the relationships between the government expenditures and country’s competitiveness. Through the credible comparability assessments, this paper selects major countries to research how the expenditure structures influence the national competitiveness. The important conclusion from this research tells that it’s not always positive correlation between the weighting of government’s general public services expenditure and the improvement of country’s competitiveness, though general public services expenditure is helpful for competitiveness. Education expenditure does positively affect the competitiveness. The weighting of health expenditure and economic affairs expenditure can’t affect relevant competitiveness indicators. Appropriate social welfare from government helps for the stabilization of the society. This research suggests there is no best budget structure fits in with all countries, governments need to assess respective budget allocation approach to maximize the interests for the country. Governments can refer to developed countries for their budget structure in relevant areas to adjust own budget allocation. In the era of knowledge centric economy, governments should lift manpower quality by allocation of more resources in education. In view of country’s development in the future, governments should be aware how budget structure can affect country’s competitiveness. All departments of the government should care how public expenditure can support country’s goals in order to enhance government performance.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章　緒論 3
     第一節　研究動機與目的 3
     第二節　研究架構 3
     第二章 預算思想的演變 5
     第一節　預算的意義、功能與種類 5
     一、預算的意義 5
     二、預算的功能 7
     三、預算的種類 8
     第二節　預算的原則與政策 13
     一、預算的原則 13
     二、預算的政策 15
     第三節　預算制度的演進 20
     一、單式預算制度 21
     二、複式預算制度 21
     三、績效預算制度 22
     四、設計計畫預算制度 22
     五、零基預算制度 23
     六、彈性預算制度 23
     第四節　我國的預算政策 24
     一、我國預算政策的制定 24
     二、我國主要的預算政策 27
     第五節　結語 28
     第三章 我國與主要國家預算結構分析 31
     第一節　我國政事別支出分類的演進 31
     一、政事別分類的目的 31
     二、我國政事別歸類的法規依據 32
     三、我國政事別歷次修訂情形 33
     四、現行歲出政事別科目歸類原則與範圍 35
     第二節　國際上的職能別分類 36
     一、美國及日本的分類 40
     二、聯合國的分類 40
     第三節　我國政事別支出結構 45
     第四節　我國職能別支出結構之國際比較 47
     一、我國與不同經濟發展程度國家政府支出結構之比較 47
     二、我國與OECD國家支出結構之比較 49
     第五節　結語 56
     第四章 國家競爭力的內涵及其評比 57
     第一節　國家競爭力的定義及其發展 57
     第二節　國家競爭力的評比指標 59
     一、IMD 之世界競爭力年報 59
     二、WEF之全球競爭力年報 61
     第三節　我國國家競爭力排名分析 64
     一、IMD 之台灣競爭力指標排名分析 64
     二、WEF之台灣競爭力指標排名分析 67
     三、台灣財政指標領域排名分析 70
     第四節　台灣與OECD國家競爭力的排名 72
     一、台灣與OECD國家IMD排名之比較 72
     二、台灣與OECD國家WEF排名之比較 76
     第五節　結語 78
     第五章 預算結構與國家競爭力的關係 79
     第一節　政府活動與經濟成長理論 79
     第二節　我國與主要國家預算結構的趨勢 82
     一、我國預算結構的趨勢 82
     二、主要國家預算結構的趨勢 83
     第三節　預算結構與國家競爭力關係的國際比較 94
     一、中央政府支出結構與IMD國家競爭力 95
     二、中央政府支出結構與WEF全球競爭力 100
     第四節　結語 104
     第六章 結論與建議 107
     第一節　研究結論 107
     第二節　研究建議 110
     參考文獻 112		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093921030en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政府支出zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政府支出結構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國家競爭力zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Government Expenditureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Government Expenditure Structureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) National Competitivenessen_US
dc.title (題名) 政府支出結構與國家競爭力關係之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The study of relationship between government expenditure structure and national competitivenessen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 吳文弘 (2004)，《政府會計－與非營利會計》。台北：自印。
     宋筱珮 (2005)，〈租稅與國家競爭力關聯性之研究〉，高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文。
     徐仁輝 (2002)，《公共財務管理－公共預算與財務行政》。台北：智勝文化事業有限公司。
     徐育珠、黄仁德 (1993)，〈經濟成長、生活素質與公共支出：台灣地區的實證研究〉，《國立政治大學學報》，66，頁73-128。
     莊義雄 (2003)，《財務行政》。台北：三民書局。
     陳春榮 (2005)，〈當代各種預算制度之演進與我國預算制度之比較〉，《今日會計》，98，頁1-8。
     陳慧娟 (2003)，〈政府職能及政事別支出結構之檢討〉，行政院財政改革委員會。
     黄仁德、羅時萬 (2001)，《現代經濟成長理論》。台北：華泰文化事業公司。
     詹中原 (2002)，〈國家競爭力之Who， What and How？〉，《國政評論》，憲政（評）091-093號。
     廖盈琪 (2002)，〈國家競爭力概念與指標分析〉，《科技發展標竿》，2:4，頁19-32。
     謝如媛 (2000)，〈中德政府預算之比較〉，臺灣大學三民主義研究所碩士論文。
     蘇彩足 (1998)，〈「聚合」或「分歧」？OECD各國政府資源配置之演變趨勢〉，「政府預算的改進」學術研討會，行政院主計處與世新大學主辦，1998年3月6日。
     羅雅惠、高志祥、王淑娟、饒志堅 (2004)，〈政府收支與總體經濟關連性之分析〉，統計專題研究報告，行政院主計處。
     Barro, R. J. (1990), “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth, ”Journal of Political Economy, 98:5, pp. S103-S125.
     Cashin, P. (1995), “Government Spending, Tax and Economic Growth,”IMF Staff Papers, 42:2, pp. 237-269.
     Engen, E. M. and J. Skinner (1996), “Taxation and Economic Growth,”National Tax Journal, 49:4, pp. 617-642.
     IMF, Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 1996-2006.
     International Institute for Management Development (2005), IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005.
     International Institute for Management Development (2006), IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006.
     Kneller, R., M. F. Bleaney, and N. Gemmell (1999), “Fiscal Policy and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries,” Journal of Public Economics, 74, pp. 171-190.
     Krugman, P. (1994), “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs, 73:2, pp. 28-44.
     Lopez-Claros, A. and A. L. Dahl (2006), “The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on the Economic Competitiveness and Social Development of Taiwan,” Global Information Technology Report 2005-2006, World Economic Forum 2006, pp. 107-118.
     Lucas, R. E. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, pp. 3-42.
     Porter, M. E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
     Romer, P. M. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 94:5, pp. 1002-1037.
     Smith, H. D. (1945), The Management of Your Government. New York: McGraw Hill.
     Tanzi, V. and H. H. Zee (1997), “Fiscal Policy and Long-run Growth,” IMF Staff Papers, 44:2, pp. 179-209.
     Uzawa, H. (1965), “Optimal Technical Change in an Aggregative Model of Economic Growth,” International Economic Review, 6:1, pp. 18-31.
     Wagner, A. (1890), Finanzwissenschaft. Leipzig: C. F. Winter.
     World Economic Forum (2006), The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007.
     World Economic Forum (2005), The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006.
     World Economic Forum (2004), The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005.
     World Economic Forum (1996), The Global Competitiveness Report 1996.		zh_TW