:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:綠色財政改革與管理之研究-高雄市為例
作者:洪東煒 引用關係
作者(外文):Tung-wei Hung
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:公共事務管理研究所
指導教授:汪明生
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2004
主題關鍵詞:SJTSAGE環境稅綠色租稅改革SJTGreen Tax ReformEnvironmental TaxSAGE
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(9) 博士論文(4) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:9
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:142
近幾年來各級政府財政失衡與環境惡化日益嚴重,環境與財政政策制定過程常忽略相關當事人的觀點,導致政策資訊不足,衍生政策主張偏差,使政策績效與預期目標就有落差。此外,「綠色租稅改革」已蔚為潮流,近年來各國為促進環境保護所採行的措施,漸由行政管制轉向租稅手段,藉著經濟誘因,透過市場機能,更有效的達成產業綠化的目標,並產生改善環境品質與減輕租稅制度扭曲之雙重紅利效果。
本研究探討環境相關稅(費)制度與綠色租稅改革的內涵或歐美綠色改革的經驗並以高雄市為例作實證研究,運用社會判斷理論(Social Judgment Theory)與SAGE以及單一變異數統計分析法分別評估目前實施空氣污染防制費收入運用機制改善計畫之可接受性以及探討高雄市開徵特別稅課與臨時稅課之看法。
本實證研究結果發現,受測相關當事人或群體比較認同將空氣污染防制費收入運用機制改為統收統支機制,其相關當事人本身之認知一致性並無顯著性差異,而且相關當事人間認知的判斷相似值或判斷原則相似值亦無顯著性差異。此外,受測相關當事人亦支持高雄市政府未來開徵特別稅課與臨時稅課,經本研究結果與建議,可開徵的稅制包括煉油品特別稅、煉鋼品特別稅、民用機場噪音污染特別稅、進出港貨櫃車使用道路養護特別稅、住民所得特別稅、黃昏市(商)場攤販管理臨時稅、營建剩餘土石方臨時稅與住宅及土地更新與開發臨時稅等,其受測相關當事人間對開徵特別稅的看法並無顯著性差異,唯對其開徵臨時稅課的看法可能因租稅客體與稽徵程序或受測樣本限制而會因不同年齡層或職業別或所住行政區域而有差異。此外,建議同時調高營業稅稅率,並進行財政收支制度的配套改革,以及修改貨物稅條例、空污法與促進產業升級條例與地方稅法通則等相關法規,並加強消費稅如營業稅與貨物稅的環境效果,裨益建立健全環境財政制度以及環境秩序與財政紀律。由於本研究基於時間因素與樣本不易掌控,有關其認知回饋效果以及與資訊整合理論之比較或整合等部分並未再做進一步深入之探討,此可作為未來後續研究之方向。
For the last few years, the financial imbalance and the environmental deterioration are gradually serious in the various level of government. The formulating process of environmental and financial policies usually neglects the viewpoints of the interested stakeholders so that the insufficient policy information causes the policy deviation and even further leads to the gaps between the policy performance and the expected target. Additionally the “green tax reform” has become the trend worldwide. In the past few years, various countries gradually switch from administrative control to tax measures to facilitate the environmental protection. Through economic incentives and market mechanism, it will more effectively achieve the goal of industrial greening and will produce the double dividend in the improvement of environmental quality and the distortion alleviation of tax system.
The research studies the contents of the environment related tax (fee) system and the green tax reform or the green reform experiences in the European countries and the States, meanwhile the research takes Kaohsiung city as empirical case. Besides the research applies the social judgment theory (SJT), SAGE and one-way analysis of variance to separately evaluate the acceptability of current implemented improvement plan for the income application mechanism of air pollution control fee and to study the viewpoints on special tax and temporary tax imposed by Kaohsiung city.
The results of empirical study find out the tested interested stakeholders or groups prefer the income application mechanism of air pollution control fee to be changed toward the mechanism of complete gaining and expenditure. There are no significant gaps in the recognition consistence of the related interested stakeholders. In addition, no significant gaps are occurred in the judging similarity value or judging principle similarity value among interested stakeholders. In the meantime the tested interested stakeholders also support the Kaohsiung city government imposes the special tax and temporary tax in the future. The results and suggestions indicate the tax could be levied including special petroleum refining tax, special steel refining tax, special noise pollution tax in the civil airport, special road maintenance tax of incoming and outgoing container cars in the harbor, resident income special tax, temporary vendors management tax in the evening retail market, temporary tax of construction produced soil and temporary tax of residential and land renewal and development. There are no significant gaps existed in the opinions of tested interested stakeholders on special tax levy. However the gaps are occurred in the opinions of temporary tax levy, it may be because of tax object and levied procedure or being limited by tested samples so that different age groups or occupation or resided administrative district produce different results. Additionally the research suggests to increase the business tax rate, to conduct the complete reform of financial income and expenditure, to revise the commodity tax statutes, Air Pollution Control Act, Statutes for Upgrading Industries and local tax and duty regulations, to enhance the environmental effect of consumption tax including the business tax and commodity tax with hope of establishing the sound environmental financial system, environmental order and financial discipline. Since the research is restricted by time factor and the sample is not easily controlled, the research doesn’t conduct the further in-depth study in the parts of recognition feedback effect and the comparison or integration of information integration theory. However these parts can be used as the directions of subsequent studies.
1.王俊秀(2001)。「環境社會學的想像」。台北市:巨流圖書公司。new window
2.王俊秀(2001)。「環境社會學的出發:讓故鄉的風水有面子」。台北市:巨流圖書公司。new window
3.毛壽龍(2001)。「政治社會學」。北京:中國社會科學出版社。
4.吳倩瑤(1995)。空氣污染防制費可行性研究-以政策分析的角度。中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文。
5.吳昆基(2004)。綠色國民所得發展趨勢與展望。「主計月刊」,580,57-65頁。
6.李明輝(1992)。考績制度運作與組織成員對考績接受認知之探討,公營企業個案實證研究,中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
7.李禮仲(2002)。由國外綠色稅法制改革經驗評估我國綠色租稅改革可能性。行政院國科會研究計畫。
8.朱澤民(2001)。如何在維持財政穩定條件下,逐步將貨物稅定位成特種銷售稅,以創造工商業優良銷售稅環境。財政部委託研究期末報告。
9.朱澤民(2001)。台灣地區課徵地方所得稅可行性之研究。「賦稅改革與財政政策」,台北市:雙葉書廊有限公司。
10.池田篤(2001)。「圖說日本稅制」。平成13年版,東京:財經詳報社。
11.汪明生、洪東煒(2003)。都市公共財評量模式CVM與SJT之比較-以高雄市愛河水上巴士為例。「管理評論」,22(2),31-148。new window
12.汪明生、黃國良(1991)。高雄市製造業勞動條件之研究-社會判斷理論之應用。「管理評論」,10,1-22。new window
13.汪明生(1992)。「環境決策與管理」,高雄市:復文書局。
14.汪明生(2004)。「公共事務管理與實務」(尚未出版),高雄市。
15.汪明生、楊仁壽(1990)。結合事實與價值的環境影響評估模式-SAGE。「工程環境期刊」,12,27-39。
16.周嫦娥(2002)。國際綠色租稅改革探討,台北:財團法人台灣經濟研究院。
17.周嫦娥、李繼宇(2003)。國際綠色租稅改革之探討(II),2003永續發展科技與政策研討會,台北。
18.周嫦娥(2004)。綠色租稅改革與環境稅之第二重紅利。「經濟論衡」,台北:行政院經建會。
19.林大侯、李堅明、李涵茵(2000)。綠色財政改革與經濟成長之研究。「自由中國之工業」,92(2),1-77。
20.林月麗(1995)。降低機動車輛空氣污染排放量之效益研究。台北:中興大學財政研究所碩士論文。
21.林裕文(1999)。結合事實與價值環境決策模式-於美濃水庫興建決策之應用,高雄市:中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
22.施鴻志(2001)。「環境規劃」,新竹市:建都文化事業股份有限公司。new window
23.孫玳(1999)。國軍部隊社區關係管理系統建構之探討-以陸軍仁武營區為例。高雄市:中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
24.張山嶺、劉亞明(1996)。「稅收與環境:互補性政策」,台北:中國環境科學出版社。
25.張世秋、李彬(1996)。「環境管理中的經濟手段」,台北:中國環境科學出版社。
26.張帆(2000)。「環境與自然資源經濟學」,台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
27.張政國(1996)。課徵營建業者空氣污染防制費之省思。「營造天下」,2,34-36。
28.張憲國(2000)。台灣海岸景觀與海岸保全的相容發展與展望。「海下技術季刊」,台北市。
29.梁啟源(1995)。空氣污染防治對台灣空氣污染社會成本及經濟之影響。「經濟情勢評論」,1(3),100-106。
30.陳小玲(2002)。我國石油稅制綠色改革。台北市:台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文。
31.陳淑君(1994)。我國空氣污染管制政策之研究-以石化業為研究焦點。台北市:中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文。
32.陳澤義與許志義(1997)。空氣污染防制費之執行效益評估。台北:行政院環保署。
33.陳鴻達(2001)。綠色租稅改革-歐美環境稅的推動現況。「財稅研究」,33(4),161-192。new window
34.陳連芬(2002)。論地方稅立法權之侷限與實踐。「稅務旬刊」,1883,10-17。
35.陸雲(1990)。環境資源估價之研究-非市場估價方法。「經濟論文」,18(1),93-120。new window
36.黃宗煌(2002)。綠色財政改革。台北市:財團法人國家政策研究基金會。
37.黃俊英(1989)。台灣省政府集中辦公及促進內外聯繫問題之研究。南投:台灣省政府研考會編印。
38.黃耀輝(2000)。以環境稅為基礎的前瞻性財政改革。「經濟前瞻」,台北市。
39.黃耀輝(2003)。一舉兩得的環境財政改革:改善財政和提昇綠色所得。「農業與經濟」,30,89-115。new window
40.楊鴻鎰(2000)。我國空氣污染防治費政策之分析。台南市:成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士論文。
41.楊子涵(2002)。我國現行稅制從事綠色租稅改革之探討。台北市:行政院國科會研究計畫。
42.溫麗琪(1999),空氣污染防制與相關賦稅之整合研究。台北市:中華經濟研究院規劃報告。
43.廖文琦(1996)。空污費爭議之探討。「台灣經濟研究」,19(8),95-98。new window
44.劉宜君(1990)。管制和經濟誘因制度的污染防制政策之比較。台北市:中興大學公共政策研究所論文。
45.蔡茂寅(1998)。略論預算法上之特種基金-以空氣污染防制基金為例。「財稅研究」,30(2),90-110。new window
46.蔡益忠(2003)。地方稅法通則之制定與地方政府對賦予課稅權之運用。「財稅園地」,台北市:財政部財稅人員訓練所。
47.蕭代基(1995)。空氣污染防制費制度之檢討。「永續發展」,7,5-7。
48.蕭代基(1998)。空氣污染防制費收費辦法與執行之檢討。「經社法制論叢」,22,203-226。
49.蕭代基、葉淑琦譯(1998)。「綠色稅制改革-OECD最新環境稅報告」,台北市:台灣地球日出版社。
50.蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪(2002)。「環境保護之成本效益分析:理論、方法與應用」,台北市:俊傑書局股份有限公司。new window
51.簡錦紅(2000)。OECD綠色稅制改革經驗對我國之啟示。「財稅研究」,32(4),37-54。new window
52.歐陽嶠暉(1997)。環境問題與保護對策,中央大學哲學研究所應用倫理研究中心。new window
53.稅務旬刊(2003)。地方稅法通則有再檢討修正必要(社論),台北市:稅旬文化出版事業有限公司。
54.財政部稅制會(2003)。「中華民國財政」,財政部,台北縣:啟耀印制事業有限公司。
55.高雄市政府財政局(2004)。「高雄市政府財政局工作報告」,高雄市。
56.高雄市政府主計處(2004)。「高雄市統計年報」,高雄市政府主計處,高雄市。
57.財政部統計處(2003)。「中華民國、台灣地區財政統計月報」,財政部,台北市。
58.高雄市政府主計處(2004)。「高雄市統計月報」,高雄市政府主計處,高雄市。
59.Alexender, B. (1979). The Reduction of Cognitive Conflict:Effect of Various Types of Communication. Journal of Conflict Solution, 23(1), 120-138.
60.Anderson Norman H. (1990). Contributions to Information Integration Theory Volume I: Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. New Jersey, U.S.A.
61.Ballard, C. L., & Medema, (1993).The Marginal Efficiency of Taxes and Subsides in the Presence of Externalities: A Computational General Equilibrium Approach. The Journal of Public Economics, 52(2), 199-216.
62.BMU (German federal environment ministry)(2003). The Ecological Tax Reform: Introduction Continuation and Further Development to an Ecological Financial Reform.
63. Brehmer, B & Joyce,C.R.B. (1988). Advances in Psychology:Human Judgment -The SJT View. New York, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, INC.
64.Bovenberg,A.L., & Goulder,L.H.(1996). Optimal Environmental Taxation in The Presence of Other Taxes: General Equilibrum Analyses. American Economic Review, 86, 985-1000.
65.Bovenberg, A.L., & Mooij,R.A., (1994). Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation. American Economic Review, 84,.1085-1089.
66.Brunswik, E. (1952). The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67.Bremer, B. (1988). The Development of Social Judgment Theory. In B. Brehmer and C.R.B. Joyce (Eds), Human Judgment: The SJT View Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier, 13-40.
68.Brehmer, B. (1971). Effects of Communication and Feedback on Cognitive Conflict. The Journal of Psychology, 12, 205-216.
69.Brady, D., Rappoport, L. (1973). Policy Capturing in the Field: The Nuclear Safeguards Problem. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 253-266.
70.Ciriacy Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital Returns From Soil-Conservation Practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29,PP.1181-1196.
71.Cooksey, R. W., Freebody, P., & Davidson, G. (1986). Teacher’s Predictions of Children’s Early Reading Achievement: An Application of Social Judgment Theory. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 41-64.
72.Danish Energy Agency, 2000a(2000). Green Tax for Trade and Industry: Description and Evaluation, Coopenhagen.
73.Dwight R. Lee & Walter S. Misiolek (1985). Substituting Pollution Taxation for General Taxation. The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 13,338-347.
74.Daniel Kahenman & Jack L. Knetsch (1992). Contingent Valuation and The Value of Public Goods: Reply. Journal of Emisonmental Economice and Management, 22, 90-94.
75.ECOTEC (2001). Study on the Economic and Environmental Implicalions of the use of Environmental Taxes and Charges in the European Union and its Member States, Final Report, ECOTEC Research and Consulting, Brussels.
76.Eban Goodstein (2003). The Death of the Pigouvian Tax? Policy Implications From the Double-dividend Debate. Land Economics, 79(3.),403-411.
77.Gene M. Owens (1994). Financing Environmentally Sound Development. Asian Development Bank.
78.Goulder, Lawrence.H., (1995) Environmental Taxation and The Double Dividend: A Reader''s Guide. Public Economics and The Environment in an Imperfeet World.
79.Goulder, Lawrence.H., (1999). Environmantal Policy Making in a Second-Best Settling. Discussion Paper, Stanford University, CA.
80.Hammond, k. R., McClelland, G., & Mumpower, J. (1980). Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, Procedures. Praeger Publisers, New York, U.S.
81.Hill, Morris (1986). A Goals-achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners ,34, 19-28.
82.Hoerner, J.A. & Benoit Bosquet (2001). Environmentally Tax Reform: The European Experience. Center for a Sustainable Economy.
83.Hyman Eric L. & Stiftel Bruce (1988). Combining Facts and Values in Environmental Impact Assessment: Theories and Techniques. Westview Press, Inc, U.S.A
84.Hammond, K.R., Todd, F.J., & Wilkins, M.M., (1966). Cognitive Conflict Between Persons: Application of the Lens Model Paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 343-360.
85.Hammond, K.R., (1955). Probabilistic Functionalism and the Clinical Method. Psychological Review, 51,150-159.
86.Hammond, K.R., & Summers D. A. (1965). Cognitive Dependence on Linear and Nonlinear Cues. Psychological Review, 72, 215-224.
87.Hammond, K.R., Stewart, T.R., & Adelman, K. (1975). Report to the Denver City Council and Mayor Regarding the Choice of Handgun Amnunition for the Denver Policy Department. Report No.179, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado, Boulder, Co.
88.Hammond, K.R., Hursch, C.J. & Todd, F.J. (1964). Analyzing the Components of Clinical Inference. Psychological Review, 71, 438-456.
89.Hammond, K.R., and Joyce, C. R., (1955). Psychoactive Drugs and Social Judgment: Theory and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
90.Hildreth, W.B. & J.A. Richardsoneds.,(1999). Handbook on Taxation, New York : Marcel Dekker, Inc., Chapter 8 and 9.
91.Holzworth R.J., (1983). Intervention in a Cognitive Conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 216-231.
92.Inglehart, Ronald (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
93.Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and Postmoderation: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
94.Jackson, B.(2002). The Employment and Productivity Effects of Environmental Taxation: Additional Dividents or Added Distractions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(3), 389-406.
95.Jaeger, W. K. (2001). Double Dividend Reconsidered. Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Newsletter.
96.Joraenson, A. & Welcoxen, B. (1995). Reducing U.S.Carbon Emissions: An Economic General Equilibrium Assessment, CA: Stanford University Press.
97.Jaeger William K. (2002). Carbon Taxation When Climate Affects Productivity. Land Economics, 78(3). 354-365.
98.Kenneth R. Hammond & Barry F. Anderson(1981). Concepts in Judgment and Decision Research, Definitions, Sources, Interrelations, Comments. Prager Publishers, New York. U.S.
99.Ming-Shen, Wang and Jen-Shou, Yang (1992). An Experimental Validation for SAGE’S Value Assessment Procedures. Journal of Environmental Management, 34, 267-283.
100.Martin F. Kaplan & Steven Schwartz (1975). Human Judgment and Decision Processes. Academic Press, Inx. New York.
101.Mooij, R. A., (1999). The Double Dividend of an Environmental Tax Reform. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, 293-306.
102.Mumpower, J., Veirs, V., & Hammond, K.R. (1979). Scientific Information, Social Values, and Policy Formation: The Application of Simulation Models and Judgment to the Denver Regional Air Pollution Problem. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, 9, 464-476.
103.Mumpower, J., (1983). The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems. Management Science , 37, 1304-1324.
104.OECD, 1997, Environmental Taxes and Green Tax Reform, OECD, Paris.
105.OECD, 2000. Green Tax Mix in OECD Countries: A Preliminary Assessment. Organization for Economic Cooperation and development, Paris.
106.OECD, 2001a. Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries: Issues and Strategies. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development, Paris.
107.OECD, 2002a. Climate Change and Employment. Report on a Meeting of Management and Trade union Experts Held Under the OECD Labour/Management Programme, Organization for Economic Cooperation and development, Paris.
108.OECD, 2003. OECD Report Sectoral Tax Burdens Falling in Many OECD Countries.
109.OECD, 2003a. Environmental Taxes and Competitiveness: An Overview of Issues, Policy Options, and Research Needs. Organization for Economic Cooperation and development, Paris.
110.Pearce, D. W., (1991). The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming. Economic Journal, 101, 38-948.
111.Parry, Ian. & Bento, A. (2000). Tax Deductions, Environmeutal Policy, and The Double Dividend Hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,39, 67-96.
112.Parry, Ian. (1995). Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling. Jounal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 64-s77.
113.Pearce, D. W., (2003). Environmental Harmful Subsidies:Barriers to Substainable Development, in Environmental Harmful Subsidies:Policy Issues and Challenges. OECD, Paris.
114.Pigou, A.C., (1920). The Economics of Welfare. London:Macmillan.
115.Ribeiro, S. & Gee, B. (1999). Environmental Taxes Seem to be Effective Instruments For The Environment. The Market and The Environment-The Effectiveness of Market-Based Policy Instruments For Environmental Reform, 81-203.
116.Ray W. Cooksey (1996). Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications. University of New England, Australia.
117.Rothsein, K. (1986). The Effects of Time Pressure on Judgment on Multiple Cue Probability Learning, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process. 37. 83-92.
118.Smith, B. & Krutilla, T. (1980). Explorations in Natural Resource Economics Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
119.Stewart, T. R., (1997). The Importance of the Task in Analyzing Expert Judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69(3), 205-219.
120.Terkla, D. (1984). The Efficiency Value of Effluent Tax Revenues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,11(2), 107-123.
121.Tullock, G. (1967). Excess Benefit.Water Resources Reseach, 3(2), 643-344.
122.Walls, Margaret. & Jean, Hanson (1996). Distribution Impects of an Environmental Tax Shift: The Case of Motor Vehicle Emissions Taxes, Resource For The Future.
123.Wallace, E. Oates (1995). Pollution Charges as a Source of Public Revenues. Economic Progress and Environmental Concerns, Springer-verlag.
124.Welsch, E. (1996). Recyling of Carbon / Energy Taxes and The Labor Market: A General Equilibrium Analysis for The Europeon Community. Environmental and Resources Economics, 8(2), 141-155.
125.William, B. Lord (1982). Contingent Valuation and Social Judgment Analysis As Methods for Estimating Monetary Values of Forest Recreation. University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, U.S.
126.William, N. Dunn (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction(second edition). Prentice-Hall, Inc. U.S.A.
127.Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiattribute Utility Measurement in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. The Journal of Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis, 65, 409-445.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE