臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

地方政府預算是地方首長實現其施政理念的財務規劃書，一項預算決策的形成，除了地方首長的施政主張外，也涉及地方民意代表對首長理念贊同與否的政治因素，以及地方的社會、經濟、環境與制度等等的條件與情況，鑒於以往國內對預算決策的形成大多為討論方式的質性探討，缺乏量化的研究，本研究目的是採量化實證分析，探討影響台灣地方政府預算規模的決定因素。

本文依據Rubin(1992)的分類，分別從社會經濟面、環境面、政治面及制度面等四大面向分析影響地方政府歲出預算規模之因素。由於地方政府經常支出與資本支出的影響因素差異頗大，前者支出常受限於制度而缺乏彈性，後者多屬於計畫型支出相對較富有彈性；因此，除總預算支出外，進一步區分經常支出與資本支出來探討。為使探討的資料具一致性，採用1998年精省至2010年縣市改制前之我國23個直轄市及縣（市）政府共13年23縣市資料。

由於資料具時間與縣市縱橫數列的性質，採用追蹤資料(panel data)模型分析，透過F檢定及Hausman檢定結果顯示所有模型均採固定效果(fixed effect)模型結果進行分析。在社會經濟面，在1%顯著水準下失業率越高顯著增加經常預算支出，而在10%的顯著水準才顯著增加資本預算支出，可見失業率較顯著影響經常預算支出而非資本預算支出，符合失業津貼或輔導就業等支出都屬經常支出的預期。

在環境面，平均每人居住面積顯著正向影響人均預算總歲出、經常支出及資本支出；亦即人均居住面積越大，不但需要越多的經濟發展與公共建設等相關人均資本支出，也需要更多的一般行政及警政等相關人均經常支出。在政治面，各縣市首長與中央執政黨是否同黨籍以及地方首長與多數黨議員是否同黨籍之變數，對人均實質總歲出及資本支出預算數皆未呈顯著影響，反應出台灣地方政治對地方預算的影響主要是以首長及民意代表個別的利益為優先，而非受政黨政治變數的影響。在制度面，前期人均總預算歲出、經常預算支出及資本預算支出均分別呈顯著正向影響本期人均總預算支出、經常預算支出及資本預算支出，顯示地方政府預算的編列呈現遞增主義的型態。

Local government budgeting is a financial planning proposal for the local head/mayor to achieve his administration idea. Besides the local head proposition, many factors, such as society, economics, environment, system and the opinions of local council representatives, would affect the decision of local government budget. Due to the lack of quantitative discussion in this issue, the purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate the the impacts of decision factors on Taiwan’s local government budgeting scale.

Based on the categorization of Rubin(1992), this research considers social and economic, environmental, political, and systematic area as 4 factors that affect the budget decision of local government. Except total budget expenditure, we further consider current and capital expenditures separately as the dependent variables because the current expenditure limited to the restriction of system is considered as more inelastic than the capital expenditure most belonged to project expenditure is. For the reason of consistency, the data used in this study contains 13 years and 23 counties/cities of Taiwan local governments from 1998 to 2010 before the restructuring of counties/cities.

Due to the data structure of time series and cross section, a panel data model is employed to estimate these impacts. Through the examination of F test and Hausman test, all models confirm to be fixed effect models. For social and economic factors, the unemployment rate positively significantly increases the current budget expenditure at 1% significant level, whereas it positively significantly increases the capital budget at 10% significant level. This shows the unemployment rate is more significantly affecting the current instead of capital budget expenditure which demonstrates the expectation that the unemployment subsidy and employment tutoring expenditure are belonged to be current expenditures.

For environmental factors, living area per capita positively significantly affects the total spending, the current and capital expenditures per capita separately. This means that the more living area per capita the more economic development and public construction per capita we need, and furthermore, the more general administrative and police administrative current expenditure we also need. For the political factors, the variables of whether the head of counties/cities and the central ruling party are the same party and whether the head of counties/cities and local majority council representatives are the same party did not significantly affect total spending budget and capital spending budget which reply that the local budget is mainly affected by the benefits of counties/cities head and council representatives but not the local parties and political variables. For the systematic factors, the pre-period total budget, current budget and capital budget expenditures per capita are significantly separately affecting the current period total budget, current budget and capital budget expenditures per capita. This result reveals the symbol of incremental ideology in budget system.

Keywords: local government budgeting, budget decision, the panel data model, the fixed effects model, incremental ideology

目 錄

第一章 緒論 ……………………………………………………………………………… 1
　第一節 研究動機和背景…………………………………………………… 1
　第二節 研究目的 ……………………………………………………………… 4
　第三節　研究架構 …………………………………………………………… 6
第二章 文獻回顧 …………………………………………………………………… 8
　第一節 預算制度的介紹…………………………………………………… 8
　第二節 影響預算決策因素之文獻回顧 ……………………… 14
　第三節 本章小結 ………………………………………………………………… 23
第三章　我國現況分析 …………………………………………………………… 25
　第一節 我國預算的編審執行 ………………………………………… 25
　第二節 我國財政現況分析………………………………………………… 32
　第三節 本章小結 ………………………………………………………………… 37
第四章　實證模型分析……………………………………………………………… 39
　第一節 實證模型…………………………………………………………………… 39
　第二節 變數定義與敘述統計…………………………………………… 45
　第三節 實證結果分析………………………………………………………… 52
第五章 結論與建議 …………………………………………………………… 65

參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………………………………… 68

中文部分
韋端、許璋瑤、鹿篤瑾與蔡鴻坤（1998），〈財政改善之十年政策形成執行成果及未來展望〉，發表於「財政平衡與經濟發展」研討會，臺北：中華經濟研究院。
徐仁輝（2001），〈地方政府支出預算決策的研究〉，《公共行政學報》，5，1-15。
徐仁輝（2014），《公共財務管理》，台北：智勝文化事業有限公司。
傅彥凱（2003），《選舉與財政政策制定----臺灣政治預算循環之實證分析》，國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。
劉品柔（2014），《臺灣地方政府財政永續性之實證分析》，國立臺北大學財政學系碩士論文。
蘇彩足（1996），《政府預算之研究》，台北：華泰書局。
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」論文（1998年3月6日），台北：行政院主計處。

資料來源
中選會選舉資料庫網站（2015/2/28）http://db.cec.gov.tw/histMain.jsp
行政院主計處（2015/2/28）http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1
全國法規資料庫－決算法（2015/2/28）http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=T0020005
全國法規資料庫－預算法（2015/2/28）http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=T0020001
電子六法全書(S-link)－預算法新舊修改對照（2015/2/28）http://www.6law.idv.tw/6law/law/%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E6%B3%95.htm
審計部（2015/2/28）http://www.audit.gov.tw/bin/home.php

英文部分
Alt, J. E. and R. C. Lowry (1994), “Divided Government, Fiscal Institution, and Budget Deficit Evidence from the States,” American Political Science Review, 88(4), 811-828.
Axelrod, D. (1995). Budgeting for Modern Government. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Baumol, W. J. (1967), “Macroeconomics of Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban Crisis”, American Economic Review, 57, 3, 415-426.
Borcherding, T. E. (1985), “The Causes of Government Expenditure Growth: A Survey of the U.S. Evidence,” Journal of Public Economics, 28(3), 359-382.
Greene, W. (2003), Econometric Analysis, 5th ed, Prentic Hall.
Hausman, J. A. (1978), “Specification Tests in Econometrics,” Econometrica, 46(6), 1251-1271.
Kraan, D. J. (1996). Budgetary Decisions: A public Choice Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chiacago, IL: Aldine Atherton.
Peacock, A. T. and J. Wiseman. (1979), “Approaches to the Analysis of Government Expenditure growth,” Public Finance Quarterly, 7, 3-23.
Rubin, I. S. (1992), “Budget Reform and Political Reform: Conclusions from Six Cities,” Public Administration Review, 52(5), 454-466.
Somaini, P. and F. Wolak (2012) “An Algorithm to Estimate the Two-Way Fixed Effect Model.” from the World Wide Web:http://economics.mit.edu/files/8529.
Turley, G. and D. Flannery (2013), “The Impact of the Economic Boom and Bust on Local Government Budgets in Ireland,” Administration, 61 (2), 33-56.
Wagner, A. (1890). Finanzwissenchaft. Leipzig, Germany: Winter.
Wildavsky, A . (1988), The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.