台灣低利率環境下財政政策有效性之分析

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：79

、訪客IP：3.15.186.56

姓名

游晴薇查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

經濟學系

論文名稱

台灣低利率環境下財政政策有效性之分析

相關論文

★ Inflation Forecasting in Japan: Are Disaggregated CPI Components Informative?	★ 台灣股票市場中個別公司報酬率風險和報酬的關係
★ 總體經濟基本面是否有助於匯率的預測?	★ 財務市場顯著異質性: 簡單代理人基財務模型之實證研究
★ The Macroeconomic Effects of Foreign Direct Investment	★ 最適政府支出組成-不完全競爭總體模型
★ 資料訊息問題與前瞻性泰勒法則	★ 考慮政府投資外部性之動態隨機一般均衡模型
★ 台灣小型開放動態隨機一般均衡模型之預測評估	★ 生產力變動與實質匯率?產業別的實證研究
★ 考量消息衝擊下的動態隨機一般均衡模型	★ Are Foreign-Owned Auction Houses More Efficient in the Chinese Art Market?
★ 產能利用率與能源補貼政策	★ 耐久財與能源補貼政策
★ Composition of Public Expenditure and Government Production in a DSGE Model	★ 耐久財與台灣景氣循環

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2025-7-31以後開放)

摘要(中)

本研究旨在探討台灣低利率環境下的財政政策有效性，我們將台灣 1981:1 至2021:3 的樣本資料切割成了正常時期與低利率時期，根據 Blanchard and Perotti (2002)提出的認定方法認定出未預期的台灣政府支出衝擊，運用平滑局部投射模型估計各總體變數對政府支出衝擊的反應，本研究所關心的變數有: 實質 GDP、民間消費、民間投資、名目利率以及物價，研究發現兩種不同時期的台灣財政政策效果會有所不同，第一，低利率時期的產出乘數會顯著大於正常時期，但兩種時期的乘數值皆會小於一，第二，低
利率時期擴張性的政府支出衝擊會對民間消費產生排擠效果，但對民間投資強烈的擠入效果導致低利率時期的產出乘數會顯著為正；相反的，正常時期會刺激民間消費，但排擠民間投資，強烈的排擠效果導致正常時期的產出乘數在排擠效果消失前皆顯著為負。面對政府支出增加的衝擊，低利率時期的名目利率會大幅下降，通膨率則並不會受到影響；相反的，正常時期的名目利率及通膨率皆會顯著上升，故低利率時期下的擴張性政府支出衝擊會導致實質利率的下跌，而正常時期的實質利率反應方向則未定，上述結果顯示台灣近期低利率環境下的擴張性財政政策會較正常時期更有效。

摘要(英)

The purpose of this research is to investigate the efficacy of Taiwan’s fiscal policy in a zero lower bound (ZLB) environment. We split our sample between 1981Q1 and
2021Q3 into a normal period and a ZLB period. Following Blanchard and Perotti (2002), we identify unexpected Taiwanese government spending shock and estimate the impulse
responses of macroeconomic variables using smooth local projections. The variables of interest include real GDP, private consumption, private investment, nominal interest rate, and price level. Our results indicate that the effects of Taiwanese fiscal policy are different in the two periods. First, output multiplier during the ZLB period is higher than that during the normal period, however both no greater than one. Second, an expansionary government spending shock during the ZLB period crowds out the private consumption;
however, the resulting strong crowd-in effect on the private investment leads to a positive output multiplier. On the contrary, an expansionary government spending shock during
the normal period crowds in the private consumption and strongly crowds out the private investment, which leads to a negative output multiplier in the short run. Responding to
a positive government spending shock, during the ZLB period the nominal interest rate declines considerably while inflation rate barely changes. Conversely, during the normal
period nominal interest rate rises as inflation rate increases. Accordingly, an expansionary government spending shock will result in a falling real interest rate during the ZLB period, and have an uncertain result during the normal period. This result suggests that Taiwan’s recent expansionary fiscal policy in a ZLB environment is more effective than during thenormal period

關鍵字(中)

★ 財政政策
★ 流動性陷阱
★ 制度訊息法
★ 平滑局部投射模型

關鍵字(英)

★ fiscal policy
★ liquidity trap
★ institutional information approach
★ smooth local projection model

論文目次

1 緒論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 文獻回顧 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 數據說明 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 資料來源與變數定義 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 變數處理 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 單根檢定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 資料初探 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 計量模型與估計方法 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 認定財政衝擊 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 衝擊反應函數 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 估計累積乘數 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 迴歸結果 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 財政衝擊認定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 衝擊反應函數 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3 累積乘數 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4 新凱因斯理論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 穩健性檢定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.1 消費者物價指數 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2 加入政府支出衝擊落後項 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.3 政府支出組成項目之排擠效果 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7 結論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
參考文獻 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

參考文獻

[1] 朱浩榜 (2021). 即時認定台灣的景氣轉折. 經濟論文叢刊, 49(3), 335-370.
[2] 李麗華, 霍德明, 朱浩民 (2011). 小型開放經濟體系財政政策有效性之實證研究: 以
臺灣爲例. 臺灣經濟預測與政策, 41(2), 51-93.
[3] 黃裕烈, 葉錦徽, 陳重吉 (2021). 台灣經濟政策不確定性指標之建構與分析. 經濟論
文叢刊, 49(2), 307-334.
[4] 黃琝琇 (2009). 台灣財政政策的動態效果-結構向量自我迴歸模型的運用. 國家發展
研究, 9(1), 145-186.
[5] 楊佳侑 (2021). 探討經濟結構特徵及景氣循環對政府消費乘數之影響. 中央銀行季
刊, 43(2), 5-32.
[6] Alloza, M., Burriel, P., Pérez, J. J. (2019). Fiscal policies in the euro area: Revisiting
the size of spillovers. Journal of Macroeconomics, 61, 103132.
[7] Ascari, G., Haber, T. (2022). Non-linearities,state-dependent prices and the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. Economic Journal, 132, 37-57.
[8] Auerbach, A. J., Gorodnichenko, Y. (2012). Measuring the output responses to fiscal
policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(2), 1-27.
[9] Auerbach, A. J., Gorodnichenko, Y. (2016). Effects of fiscal shocks in a globalized
world. IMF Economic Review, 64(1), 177-215.
[10] Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty.
Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 131(4), 1593-1636.
[11] Barnichon, R., Brownlees, C. (2019). Impulse response estimation by smooth local
projections. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 522-530.
[12] Baxter, M., King, R. G. (1993). Fiscal policy in general equilibrium. American Economic Review, 83(3), 315-334.
[13] Black, F. (1995). Interest rates as options.the Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1371-1376.
[14] Blanchard, O., Perotti, R. (2002). An empirical characterization of the dynamic
effects of changes in government spending and taxes on output. Quarterly Journal
of economics, 117(4), 1329-1368.
[15] Boehm, C. E. (2020). Government consumption and investment: Does the composition of purchases affect the multiplier?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 115, 80-93.
[16] Bouakez, H., Guillard, M., Roulleau-Pasdeloup, J. (2017). Public investment, time
to build, and the zero lower bound. Review of Economic Dynamics, 23, 60-79.
[17] Campbell, J. Y., Cocco, J. F. (2007). How do house prices affect consumption?
Evidence from micro data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 54(3), 591-621.
[18] Cavallo, A., Rigobon, R. (2016). The billion prices project: Using online prices for
measurement and research. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 151-78.
[19] Chiu, R. L. (2001). The intratemporal substitution between government spending and
private consumption: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Asian Economic Journal,
15(3), 313-323.
[20] Choi, S., Shin, J., Yoo, S. Y. (2022). Are government spending shocks inflationary at the zero lower bound? New evidence from daily data. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, 139, 104423.
[21] Cooper, D. (2010). Did easy credit lead to overspending? Home equity borrowing
and household behavior in the early 2000s. FRB of Boston Public Policy Discussion
Paper, (09-7).
[22] Crafts, N., Mills, T. C. (2013). Rearmament to the rescue? New estimates of the
impact of “Keynesian”policies in 1930s’ Britain. Journal of Economic History,
73(4), 1077-1104.
[23] Eggertsson, G. B. (2011). What fiscal policy is effective at zero interest rates?. NBER
Macroeconomics Annual, 25(1), 59-112.
[24] Faust, J. (1998). The robustness of identified VAR conclusions about money. In
Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (Vol. 49, pp. 207-244).
[25] Fisher, J. D., Peters, R. (2010). Using stock returns to identify government spending
shocks. Economic Journal, 120(544), 414-436.
[26] Giordano, R., Momigliano, S., Neri, S., Perotti, R. (2007). The effects of fiscal policy in Italy: Evidence from a VAR model. European Journal of Political Economy,
23(3), 707-733.
[27] Gonçalves, S. (2011). The moving blocks bootstrap for panel linear regression models with individual fixed effects. Econometric Theory, 27(5), 1048-1082.
[28] Gonçalves, S., Kaffo, M. (2015). Bootstrap inference for linear dynamic panel data
models with individual fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 186(2), 407-426.
[29] Ilzetzki, E., Mendoza, E. G., Végh, C. A. (2013). How big (small?) are fiscal multipliers?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 60(2), 239-254.
[30] Johannsen, B. K. (2014). When are the effects of fiscal policy uncertainty large?.
FEDS Working Paper No. 2014-40
[31] Jordà, Ò. (2005). Estimation and inference of impulse responses by local projections.
American Economic Review, 95(1), 161-182.
[32] Jørgensen, P. L., Ravn, S. H. (2022). The inflation response to government spending
shocks: A fiscal price puzzle?. European Economic Review, 141, 103982.
[33] Kan, K., Peng, S. K., Wang, P. (2017). Understanding consumption behavior: Evidence from consumers’ reaction to shopping vouchers. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 9(1), 137-53.
[34] Kwan, Y. K. (2007). The direct substitution between government and private consumption in East Asia. Fiscal Policy And Management In East Asia, NBER-EASE,
16, 45-58.
[35] Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that
economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
[36] Lin, T. C., Hsu, S. H., Lin, Y. L. (2019). The effect of housing prices on consumption
and economic growth–the case of Taiwan. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy,
24(2), 292-312.
[37] Mertens, K. R., Ravn, M. O. (2014). Fiscal policy in an expectations-driven liquidity
trap. Review of Economic Studies, 81(4), 1637-1667.
[38] Miyamoto, W., Nguyen, T. L., Sergeyev, D. (2018). Government spending multipliers under the zero lower bound: Evidence from Japan. American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics, 10(3), 247-77.
[39] Mountford, A., Uhlig, H. (2009). What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks?. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(6), 960-992.
[40] Ramey, V. A. (2011). Identifying government spending shocks: It’s all in the timing.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 1-50.
[41] Ramey, V. A., Shapiro, M. D. (1998). Costly capital reallocation and the effects of
government spending. In Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy
(Vol. 48, pp. 145-194).
[42] Ramey, V. A., Zubairy, S. (2018). Government spending multipliers in good times
and in bad: evidence from US historical data. Journal of Political Economy, 126(2),
850-901.
[43] Romer, C. D., Romer, D. H. (1989). Does monetary policy matter? A new test in
the spirit of Friedman and Schwartz. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 121-170.
[44] Stock, J. H., Wright, J. H., Yogo, M. (2002). A survey of weak instruments and weak
identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic
Statistics, 20(4), 518-529.
[45] Uhlig, H. (2010). Some fiscal calculus. American Economic Review, 100(2), 30-34.
[46] Woodford, M. (2011). Simple analytics of the government expenditure multiplier.
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3(1), 1-35.
[47] Wu, J. C., Xia, F. D. (2016). Measuring the macroeconomic impact of monetary
policy at the zero lower bound.Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 48(2-3), 253-
291.

指導教授

姚睿(Ruey-Yau)

審核日期

2022-8-8

推文