臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：休閒與健康內生化之環境稅的雙紅利效果分析
作者：周婉玲
作者(外文)：WAN-LING CHOU
校院名稱：中國文化大學
系所名稱：經濟學研究所
指導教授：黃宗煌
黃瀕儀
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2009
主題關鍵詞：健康生產函數；健康效果；邊際社會損害；預防支出的效益面租稅交互效果；Health production function；Health effect；Marginal social damage；Prevention-based benefit-side tax-interaction effect
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:32
本文延伸龐雅文、蕭代基(2007)的模型，修正原有健康生產函數的設定，將「預防治療活動」進一步區分為治療支出與預防支出，以區別二者對家計單位在健康效果的異質性、及其於個人所得稅之可扣除性的差別待遇，同時考慮不同性質時間（包括勞動、休閒與生病）的價值差異，以及政府多元化處置稅收的方式（包括基礎建設、環境保護和移轉支付），分別建立家計單位的私人最適決策與政府單位的社會最適決策模型，除導出家計單位在政府開徵環境稅的Slutsky equation，藉以證明環境稅對財貨消費與休閒時間的效果並不確定之外，也比較兩種均衡的差異。另一方面，藉由檢討歷有文獻對邊際社會損害(MSD)的衡量缺失，提出正確的衡量方式，結果發現，除了過去文獻所提出的皮古效果、收入循環效果、租稅交互效果、效益面租稅交互效果、以及醫療的效益面租稅交互效果外，尚可衍生「預防支出的效益面租稅交互效果」，理論上該效果不確定，使得第二重紅利的存在性更增添不確定性因素。
其次，利用數值模擬分析，評估開徵環境稅與不同稅收處置方式對家計部門消費決策的影響，以及探討不同參數改變對財貨消費、時間配置、環境品質、與社會福利等影響。模擬結果發現：沿用歷有文獻所設定之logistic形態健康生產函數，會出現角解之不合理現象，故修正健康生產函數形態，重新進行模擬分析，結果發現醫療支出不再為零，矯正原有函數形態之缺失，而且在多數情境下，醫療支出消費均呈現成長態勢，主要歸因於政策上提供租稅優惠，預防支出則不明確，唯有在調整生病的邊際負效用時，二者有可能同時提高；此外，大部分情境的福利變化不明確，此與財貨的消費減少有關。
最後，根據模擬結果得出以下幾點結論：1.推動綠色租稅改革不一定保證第一重紅利存在。2.就業紅利在多數情況下不存在。3.第一重紅利與福利紅利目標難以並存。4.政府稅收多元用途優於單一用途。5.福利紅利的大小會受到政府稅收的處置方式、稅率水準、生病函數設定方式、參數值大小以及租稅中立原則等因素的影響而改變。6.在多數情況下，預防勝於治療假說難以成立。
This thesis extends Pang and Shaw’s (2007) model by dividing the medical expenditure into medical treatment expenditure and illness prevention expenditure to capture their difference in health effects and income tax deductibility. Differentiating the value of time of properties include labor employment, leisure and sick-time. In addition, we consider the government’s disposal of tax revenues on public goods, environmental protection and direct transfer payment to households, and set up an individual optimization model and social optimal decision respectively, which is compared with the difference of solutions from both optimal problems. Moreover, we obtain the Slutsky equation of environmental tax on dirty goods from households, it causes the impact of goods and leisure from environmental tax is indeterminate in sign. Besides, this paper also examines the marginal social damage (MSD) of dirty goods consumption defined improperly in some literature, and offers the proper measurement. The result shows that the prevention-based benefit-side tax- interaction effect emerges besides the Pigouvian effect, the revenue-recycling effect, the tax-interaction effect, the benefit-side tax-interaction effect and mitigation-based benefit-side tax-interaction effect in the previous literature. This new effect is ambiguous theoretically. It implies that the second dividend will enhance the uncertainly.
Secondly, we use simulation approach to estimate the effect of environmental tax and the government’s disposal of tax revenues on household’s decision, and the impacts of different parameters on varying goods, time allocation, environmental quality and welfare. Simulation results indicate that logistic function is typically used to model the health production function will cause corner solution inevitably. Therefore, we consider alternative functional form to perform a numerical simulation, the results show that medical expenditure isn’t be zero, it correct defections of logistic functions. In many cases, medical expenditure increases with environmental tax mainly due to tax deductibility in policy, as to illness prevention expenditure is indeterminate. Both expenditures maybe increase at the same time after taking the marginal disutility of illness into consideration. Moreover, the changes of welfare are ambiguous in most scenarios, mainly due to goods consumption decreases in the market.
Finally, simulation results are summarized as follows: 1.The first dividend may not exist with the green tax reform, 2.Employment dividend doesn’t exist in most situation, 3.The first dividend and welfare dividend fail to coexist certainly, 4.Tax revenues with various disposal are better than single use, 5.The level of welfare are affected by disposal of tax revenues, tax rate, illness function’s specification, parameters and the revenue neutral condition, 6.In most situation, prevention is better than cure hypothesis holds difficultly certainly.
參考文獻
周婉玲、黃宗煌 (2008)，《考慮醫療與預防支出之健康效果的雙紅利假說：再檢視》，2008環境資源經濟、管理暨系統分析研討會論文，2008年7月25日，台北大學國際會議廳。
陳唯泰 (2001)，《環境稅之雙紅利假說分析》，淡江大學產業經濟學系碩士論文。
黃宗煌 (1986)，「時間價值對遊憩效益的影響及其評估方法」，《台灣土地金融季刊》，23(3)，173-182。
黃宗煌、劉佩咊 (2005)，《勞動內生化下之環境目標與政策工具的的整合》，未發表論文，清華大學經濟系。
陳智華、蕭文宗、謝智源 (2003)，「內生化勞動休閒決策下污染與經濟成長的關係」，《經濟研究》，39(2)，147-172。new window
楊浩彥、郭迺鋒 (2001)，《台灣世貿入會、課徵碳稅與『雙紅利』:考慮市場結構之可計算一般均衡模型》，2001年能源經濟學會學術研討會研討論文。
龐雅文、蕭代基 (2007)，「健康效果對最適環境稅之影響」，《經濟論文》，35(1)，1-19。new window
Barnett, A.H. (1980), “The Pigouvian Tax Rule under Monopoly,” The American Economic Review, 70(5), 1037-1041.
Baumol, W.J. and W.E. Oates (1988), The Theory of Environmental Policy, 2nd. ed., Cambridge University Press.
Ballard, C. L. and S.G. Medema (1993), “The Marginal Efficiency Effects of Taxes and Subsidies in the Presence of Externalities: A computational general equilibrium approach,” Journal of Public Economics, 52(2), 199-216.
Becker, G. S. (1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493-517.
Bento, Antonio M. and Mark Jocobsen (2007), “Ricardian Rents, Environmental Policy and the ‘Double-dividend’ hypothesis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(1), 17-31.
Bosello, F. and C. Carraro (2001), “Recycling Energy Taxes: Impacts on a Disaggregated Labour Market,” Energy Economics, 23(5), 569-594.
Bosquet, B. (2000), “Environmental Tax Reform: does it work? a Survey of the Empirical Evidence,” Ecological Economics, 34(1), 19-32.
Bovenberg, A. Lans (1999), “Green Tax Reform and the Double Dividends: an Updated Reader’s Guide,” Internal Tax and Finance, 6(3), 421-443.
Bovenberg, A. Lans, and L.H. Goulder (1996), “Optimal Environmental Taxation in the Presence of Other Taxes: General Equilibrium Analyses,” American Economic Review, 86(4), 985-1000.
Bovenberg, A. Lans, and Ruud A. de Mooij (1994a), “Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation,” American Economic Review, 84(4), 1085-1089.
Bovenberg, A. Lans, and Ruud A. de Mooij (1994b), “Environmental Taxes and Labor-market Distortions,” European Journal of Political Economy, 10(4), 655-683.
Bovenberg, A. Lans and Ruud A. De Mooij (1997), “Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation: Reply.” American Economic Review, 87(1): 252-53.
Buchanan, J.M. (1969), “External Diseconomies, Corrective Taxes and Market Structure,” American Economic Review, 59(1), 174-177.
Carraro, C., M. Galeotti and M. Gallo (1996), “Environmental Taxation and Unemployment: Some Evidence on the Double Dividend Hypothesis in Europe,” Journal of Public Economics, 62(1-2), 141-181.
Chiroleu-Assouline, M. and M. Fodha (2005), “Double Dividend with Involuntary Unemployment: Efficiency and Intergenerational equity,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 31(4), 389-403.
Chiroleu-Assouline, M. and M. Fodha (2006), “Double Dividend Hypothesis, Golden Rule and Welfare Distribution,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51(3), 323-335.
Chou, W.L. and C.H. Huang (2009), “Health Effect of Medical Expenditures and its Implication to the Dividends Hypothesis of Environmental Tax,” unpublished working paper, College of Transportation and Tourism, Kainan University.
Conrad, K. and A. Löschel (2005), “Recycling of Eco-taxes, Labor Market Effects and the True Cost of Labor: a CGE Analysis,” Journal of Applied Economics, 8(2), 259-278.
Cropper, M. L. (1981), “Measuring the Benefits from Reduced Morbidity,” American Economic Review, 71(2), 235-240.
Dardanoni, V. and A. Wagstaff (1990), “Uncertainty and the Demand for Medical Care,” Journal of Health Economics, 9(1), 23-38.
Deroubaix, J.F. and F. Lévègue (2006), “The Rise and Fall of French Ecological Tax Reform: Social Acceptability versus Political Feasibility in the Energy Tax Implementation Process.” Energy Policy, 34(8), 940-949.
Francesco, B., C. Carraro and M. Galeotti (2001), ”The Double Dividend Issue: Modeling Strateages and Empirical Findings,” Environmental and Development Economics, 6(1), 9-45.
Freeman, A.M., III (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Washington, D.C: Resources for the future.
Fullerton, Don (1997), “Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation: Comment,” American Economic Review, 87(1), 245-251.
Fullerton, Don and Gilbert E. Metcalf (1997), “Environmental Taxes and Double Dividend Hypothesis: Did You Really Expect Something for Nothing？” NBER Working Paper, No. W6199.
Gahvari, F. and C.C.Yang (1993), “Optimal Commodity Taxation and Household Consumption Activities,” Public Finance Quarterly, 21, 479-487.
Gim nez, E.L. and M. Rodriguez (2006), “Pigou Dividend versus Ramsey Dividend in the Double Dividend Literature,” NOTA DILAVORO 85.2006.
Goulder, L.H. (1995a), “Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: a Reader’s Guide,” International Tax and Public Finance, 2(2), 157-183.
Goulder, L.H. (1995b), “Effects of Carbon Taxes in an Economy with Prior Tax Distortions: an Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(3), 271-297.
Goulder, L.H., I.W.H. Parry and Dallas Burtraw (1997), “Revenue-raising versus Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: the Critical Significance of Preexisting Tax Distortions,” RAND Journal of Economics, 28(4), 708-731.
Grossman, M. (1972), “On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health,” Journal of Political Economy, 80(2), 223-255.
Gruber, J. and J. M. Poterba (1994), “Tax Incentives and the Decision to Purchase Health Insurance,” Quarterly Journal of Economy, CIX, 701-734.
Kahn, J.R. and A. Farmer (1999), “The Double Dividend, Second-Best Worlds, and Real-World Environmental Policy,” Ecological Economics, 30(3), 433-439.
Kleven, H. J. (2004), “Optimal Taxation and the Allocation of Time,” Journal of Public Economics, 88(3-4), 545-557.
Koç, Ç. (2004), “The Productivity of Health Care and Health Production Functions,” Health Economics, 13(8), 739-747.
Koç, Ç. (2007), “Environmental Quality, Medical Care Demand and Environmental Tax Interactions,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(2), 431-443.
Kuper, G.H. (1996), “The Effect of Energy Taxes on Productivity and Employment: The Case of Netherlands.” Resource and Energy Economics, 18(2), 137-159.
Lee, D.R. and W.S. Misiolek (1986), “Substituting Pollution Taxation for General Taxation: Some Implications for Efficiency in Pollutions Taxation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13(4), 338-347.
Lucas, R. E. (1990), “Supply-side Economics: An Analytical Review, Oxford Economy Papers, 42, 293-316.
Manresa, A. and F. Sancho (2005), “Implementing a Double Dividend: Recycling Ecotaxes towards Lower Labour Taxes,” Energy Policy, 33(12), 1577-1585.
Misolek, W.S. (1980), “Effluent Taxation in Monopoly Markets,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 7(2), 103-107.
Parry, Lan W.H. (1995), “Pollution taxes and revenue recycling,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(3), S64-S77.
Parry, Lan W.H. and A.M. Brento (2000), “Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the ‘Double Dividend’ Hypothesis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(1), 67-96.
Parry, Lan W.H. (2002), “Tax Deductions and the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation,” International Tax and Public Finance, 9(5), 531-552.
Parry, L.W.H., R.C. Williams Ⅲ and L.H. Goulder (1999), ”The Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Instuments for Environmental Protection in a Second-best Setting,” Journal of Public Economics, 72(3), 329-360.
Pearce, D. W. (1991), “The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming,” Economic Journal, 101(407), 938-948.
Pigou, Arthur C. (1947), A Study in Public Finance. London: Macmillan.
Rosen, H. S. (1979), “Housing decisions and the U.S. Income Tax: An Econometric Analysis,” Journal of Public Economy, 11, 1-23.
Sanstad, A.H. and G.H. Wolff (2000), Tax shifting and the likelihood of double dividends: theoretical and computational issues, available at http://www.rprogress.org/newpubs/2000/ets_doublediv.pdf.
Schleiniger, R. (2001), “Money Illusion and the Double Dividend in the Short Run,” Working Paper Series, No. 93, Institution for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
Schwartz, J. and R. Repetto (2000), “Nonseparable Utility and the Double Dividend Debate: Reconsidering the Tax-interaction Effect,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 15(2), 149-157.
Shieh, J.Y., J.H. Chen, and C.C. Lai (2006), “Government Spending, Capital Accumulation and the Optimal Policy Rule: the Role of Public Service Capital,” Economic Modelling, 23(6), 875-889.
Terkla, David (1984), “The Efficiency Value Effluent Tax Revenue.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 11(2), 107-123.
Thornton, J. (2002), “Estimating a Health Production Function for the U. S.: Some New Evidence,” Applied Economics, 34(1), 59-62.
Williams, R. C. (2002), “Environmental Tax Interactions when Pollution Affects Health and Productivity,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(2), 261-270.
Williams, R. C. (2003), “Health Effects and Optimal Environmental Taxes,” Journal of Public Economics, 87(2), 323-335.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：823（臺灣：798，外國：25） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2393369 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68195046
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上