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：防治污染政策與研發補貼：R&;D內生成長模型的應用
作者：郭鐘元
作者(外文)：Chung-Yuan Kuo
校院名稱：逢甲大學
系所名稱：經濟學系
指導教授：胡士文
陳至還
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：R&;D內生成長；污染稅；外部性；社會福利；R&;D-based model；Pollution tax；Externality；Social welfare
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(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
R&;D活動對於促進經濟的成長，扮演著極重要的地位，各國政府為了提升國家競爭力，均積極推動R&;D活動。自從Romer（1987, 1990）強調研究與發展（R&;D）的機制，主張勞工可以透過「邊學邊做（learning by doing）」，增進他們的技術水準，以及 Lucas（1988）強調人力資本累積的機制之後，R&;D活動對於促進經濟的成長便有了學術理論的支持，而R&;D內生成長的文章，也如雨後春筍般的出現，其中Romer（1987, 1990）是帶動R&;D內生成長模型的論著。至今，透過R&;D促進經濟成長一直是重要議題。
Romer（1987, 1990）將生產部門劃分成上游的R&;D部門，中游的中間財部門，以及下游的最終材部門，其中中間財部門為獨占性競爭的產業。許多學者沿用Romer（1987, 1990）的模型，修改上、中、下游廠商的生產投入，而衍生出多種不同設計的理論模型。本論文亦依循Romer（1987, 1990）的模型，同時考量政府為了鼓勵 R&;D的研發，會對R&;D部門作補貼，並探討政府政策對經濟體系的影響。
我們以Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991) 的模型為基礎，將R&;D內生成長模型與環保議題作結合，考量中間財為獨占性競爭且具有污染性之產業，而政府部門有兩個政策工具，其一是對中間財部門課徵污染稅，來從事防治污染支出；其二是對家計單位課徵定額稅，來補貼一部分的R&;D研發活動。據此分別分析此兩種政策對於經濟成長與社會福利會產生何種影響？透過比較靜態與數值模擬分析的結果顯示，政府對中間財部門的污染課稅，除了可以改善環境品質外，經濟體系亦分別存在一個「成長率極大之最適污染稅率」與「福利極大之最適污染稅率」，使得經濟成長率與社會福利分別達到極大。然而，人類在追求經濟成長之際，已經對環境品質與生態造成了嚴重的破壞，使得環境品質在「成長率極大之最適污染稅率」的情況下，會甚低於在「福利極大之最適污染稅率」的情況。
另一方面，提高對R&;D部門的補貼率則有助於經濟成長，但是卻也加重了家計單位的定額稅負擔，使得家計單位的消費減少。經濟成長率提高可增加社會福利，但是家計單位的消費減少卻使得社會福利減少，因此存在一個最適的R&;D部門補貼率，使得社會福利達到極大，而此最適的R&;D部門補貼率，幾乎不會受到環境品質外部性的影響。
R&;D activities play an important role in the promotion of economic growth and governments seek to enhance national competitiveness by actively promoting them. After Romer (1987, 1990) emphasized the mechanism of R&;D and suggested that laborers can improve their technical level through “learning by doing,” Lucas (1988) emphasized the accumulated mechanism of human capital, and Barro (1990) noted that the government’s productive expenditure was an important factor for driving economic growth, R&;D activities for the promotion of economic growth then began to receive support from academic theory, and ever since, increasing research on R&;D-based models of endogenous growth has been conducted. The Romer (1987, 1990) model is an R&;D-based model describing how R&;D activities promote economic growth. So far, R&;D activities have played an important role in the promotion of economic growth.
Romer (1987, 1990) divided firms into those in the upstream (the R&;D sector), the midstream (the intermediate goods sector), and the downstream (the final goods sector), and set the midstream sector as monopolistic competition. Many economists have followed the Romer (1987, 1990) model, modifying firms’ production inputs and then deriving many different models. This thesis also follows the Romer (1987, 1990) model, and considers the government subsidies of R&;D investment to the R&;D sector to promote innovations. We then discuss how public policies affect the economic system.
We follow the Rivera-Batiz and Romer (1991) model and further integrate environmental protection into the model to set the intermediate goods sector as a monopolistically competitive polluting industry. The government sector has two policies. One policy is to tax polluters, the intermediate goods sector, for their pollution inputs. They are taxed in order to finance pollution prevention. The other policy is to impose a lump-sum tax on households to partially finance the subsidy expenditure for the R&;D sector. This chapter discusses how the two policies affect the economic growth rate and welfare. By comparative-static and numerical simulation analysis, we find that taxing polluters to finance pollution prevention improve environmental quality. Moreover, there exists an “optimum pollution tax rate for economic growth” and an “optimum pollution tax rate for welfare” to maximize the economic growth rate and welfare, respectively. However, human beings in the pursuit of economic growth have seriously harmed the environmental quality and ecology. The environmental quality in the situation of the “optimum pollution tax rate for economic growth” is much worse than that of the “optimum pollution tax rate for welfare.”
On the other hand, raising the R&;D subsidy rate is helpful for increasing the economic growth rate. However, the consumption in households will be reduced since a lump-sum tax is increased. The rise in the economic growth rate will increase social welfare, but the reduced consumption will decrease it. Hence, there exists an optimum R&;D subsidy rate in the economy to maximize welfare. In addition, the optimum R&;D subsidy rate is hardly affected by the environmental productivity externality.
Agenor, P. R. and P. J. Montiel, 1999. Development Macroeconomics. 2nd Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt, 2009. The Economics of Growth. Ch16. Cambridge: MIT 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: 199-216.
Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martin, 2004. Economic Growth. 2nd Edition. Ch6. Mass., Cambridge: MIT Press.
Benassy, J. P., 1998. “Is There Always Too Little Research in Endogenous Growth with Expanding Product Variety?” European Economic Review. 42: 61-69.
Benhabib, J. and R. E. Farmer, 1994. “Intermediacy and Growth,” Journal of Economic Theory. 63: 19-41.
Bovenberg, A. L. and R. A. de Mooij, 1997. “Environmental Tax Reform and Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Public Economics. 63: 207-237.
Bovenberg, A. L. and S. Smulders, 1995. “Environmental Quality and Pollution-Augmenting Technological Change in a Two-Sector Endogenous Growth Model,” Journal of Public Economics. 57: 369-391.
Bovenberg, A. L. and S. Smulders, 1996. “Transitional Impacts of Environmental Policy in an Endogenous Growth Model,” International Economic Review. 37: 861-893.
Brendemoen, A. and H. Vennemo, 1994. “A Climate Treaty and the Norwegian Economy: A CGE Assessment,” Energy Journal. 15: 77-93.
Brock, W. and M. Taylor, 2010. “The Green Solow Model,” Journal of Economic Growth. 15(2): 127-153.
Bucci, A., 2005. “An Inverted-U Relationship between Product Market Competition and Growth in an Extended Romerian Model,” Rivista di Politica Economica. 95: 177-205.
Bucci, A. and C. P. Parello, 2009. “Horizontal Innovation-Based Growth and Product Market Competition,” Economic Modelling. 26: 213-221.
Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2012. The Circumstances of International Energy and the Current Energy Policy in Taiwan. Taipei: Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs. Available from https://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/otweb/08.../KNOWLEDGE.aspx?serno...
Chen, J. H., C. C. Lai, and J. Y. Shieh, 2003. “Anticipated Environmental Policy and Transitional Dynamics in an Endogenous Growth Model,” Environmental and Resource Economics. 25: 233-254.
Chen, J. H. and J. Y. Shieh, 2008. “Emission Standards Policy and Economic Growth: An Imperfectly Competitive Macro Model,” Taiwan Economic Review. 36(3): 357-392.
Considine, T. J., 2001. “Mark-up Pricing in Petroleum Refining: A Multiproduct Framework”, International Journal of Industrial Organization. 19: 1499–1526.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 2010. The Report on 2006 Input-Output Tables. Taipei: Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 2011. The Report of Green GDP. Taipei: Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics.
Domowitz, I., R. G. Hubbard, and B. C. Peterson, 1988. “Market Structure and Cyclical Fluctuations in US Manufacturing”, Review of Economics and Statistics. 70: 55–66.
Gottinger, H. W., 1999. “Crime, Control and Environmental Policy: the Case of Hazardous Wastes,” Metroeconomica. 50: 1-33.
Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman, 1991. “Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth,” Review of Economic Studies. 58: 43-61.
Hall, R. E., 1986. “Market Structure and Macroeconomic Fluctuations,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 2: 285–322.
Hartwick, J. M., 1977. “Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources,” American Economics Review. 67(5): 972-974.
Haruyama, T. and J. I. Itaya, 2006. “Do Distortionary Taxes Always Harm Growth?" Journal of Economics. 87: 99-126.
Huang, C. H. and C. M. Lee, 2001. “Emission Trading, Investments and Economic Growth,” Journal of Agricultural Economics. 70: 1-35.
Huang, Y. Y. and D. S. Huang, 2004. “Trade, Cash Crops and Land Cultivation,” Taiwanese Agricultural Economic Review. 10(1): 101-123.
Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2004. Public Security Management White Paper: Plant Safety Management (Draft). Taipei: Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Jones, C. I., 1995. “R&;D-based Models of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy. 103: 759-784.
Jung, C., K. Krutilla, and R. Boyd, 1996, “Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30: 95-111.
Lai, C. C., 2011, “R&;D-Based Models of Endogenous Growth Theory,” Department of Economics, Feng Chia University, Taichung.（Mimeographed.）
Lucas, R. E., 1990. “Supply-Side Economics: an Analytical Review,” Oxford Economic Papers. 42: 293-316.
Murphy, J. and A. Gouldson, 2000. “Environmental Policy and Industrial Innovation: Integrating Environment and Economy Through Ecological Modernization,” GEOFORUM. 31(1): 33-44.
Ramsey, F. P., 1928. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving,” Economic Journal. 38: 543-559.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A. and P. M. Romer, 1991. “Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 106: 531-555.
Romer, P. M., 1987. “Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization,” AEA Papers and Proceedings. 77: 56-62.
Romer, P. M., 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy. 98: S71-S102.
Schneider, K., 1997. “Involuntary Unemployment and Environmental Policy: the Double Dividend Hypothesis,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 99: 45-59.
Shieh, H. T., J. H. Chen, and J. Y. Shieh, 2007. “The Growth Effect of Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Environmental Policy,” Journal of Agricultural Economics. 81: 165-196.
Solow, R. M., 1986. “On the Intergenerational Allocation of Natural Resources,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 88: 143-154.
Stokey, N. L. and S. Rebelo, 1995. “Growth Effects of Flat-Rate Taxes,” Journal of Political Economy. 103: 519-550.
Suen, Y. F. and S. W. Hu, 2006. “Subsidy Policy of Agricultural Biotechnology and Agriculture Endogenous Growth: Application of Environmental Protection and Endogenous Growth Theory,” Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80: 23-58.
Thompson, M., 2008. “Complementarities and Costly Investment in a Growth Model,” Journal of Economices. 94: 231-240.
Turnovsky, S. J., 1995. Methods of Macroeconomic Dynamics. The MIT Press.
Van Ewijk, C. and S. Van Wijnbergen, 1995. “Can Abatement Overcome the Conflict Between Environment and Economic Growth?” De Economist. 143: 197-216.
Yang, W. C. and D. Y. Chou, 1999. “Can the Economic Growth and the Environmental Quality be Concurrently Achieved?-A Study with a Two-Sector Endogenous Model,” Academia Economic Papers. 27(3): 385-406.
Zeng, J. and J. Zhang, 2007. “Subsidies in an R&;D Growth Model with Elastic Labor,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 31: 861-886.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
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：1007（臺灣：991，外國：16） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2625314 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68419097
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