2008年受到金融海嘯的影響,全球經濟情勢委靡不振,國內需求也因民眾的恐慌心理而日漸萎縮,台灣政府為了避免民眾因消費信心不足而減少消費,進而導致經濟的惡性循環,因此決定發放消費券,由於消費券在台灣屬於空前的政策,因此其合理性與政策效果受到極大的爭議,在政策施行完畢已逾一年之際,本文將運用文獻探討、次級資料分析與深度訪談法,來探究消費券政策的選擇、設計,以及從社會的角度來評估該政策的優劣。 消費券政策是屬於誘因型的政策工具,透過落實凱因斯的有效需求理論,由政府財政政策來著手改善有效需求不足的情況,並透過社會分紅的概念,期能保障弱勢民眾的生活。在政策設計方面,消費券採用票券的發放形式以及針對使用範圍與限制的規定,與提升民間消費確實存在因果關係,而不排富的政策設計由於受到其他因素影響,因此與民間消費並沒有絕對的因果關係,至於3,600的發放金額,與民間消費並不存在因果關聯。消費券為社會所帶來的效益項包括:(1)經濟成長;(2)民間消費;(3)消費信心;(4)政府施政滿意度;(5)增加台灣能見度;(6)國民所得分配;(7)落實換發身分證;(8)查獲通緝犯;(9)協助弱勢族群;(10)強化外籍與大陸配偶之管理;(11)清查未成年人未辦理監護或權利義務行使負擔登記。成本項包括:(1)消費券給付價額;(2)消費券印製及兌付作業;(3)消費券宣導費;(4)消費券諮詢平台;(5)非法地下經濟。在假設其他變數維持不變下,消費券可貨幣化的總成本為857餘億元,可貨幣化的總效益為355至546餘億元,若考量社會分配效果,總效益提升為497至764餘億元。 運用敏感度分析,可發現假設其他變數維持不變下,消費券可貨幣化的成本與效益在消費券的經濟貢獻率為0.67%時達到損益平衡點,並且在經濟貢獻率為0.43%,不同所得組分配權數為4倍時,消費券之效益會超越成本。 透過本文可以了解消費券在本次振興經濟措施中所扮演的政策角色,與其對於社會所帶來的價值與所付出的代價,可作為往後政府在研議是否採行相關政策的參考依據。
The growth momentum of major economies around the world was swiftly weakened under the impact of global financial tsunami. To avoid a vicious cycle of contracting domestic consumption, Taiwan government decided to implement consumption voucher. Since the policy of consumption voucher had finished over one year, the research is to assess the pros and cons of the consumption vouchers from different prospects including selection, design and cost-benefit analysis. Consumption vouchers policy is the implementation of Keynes’demand theory. Through government policy to stimulate demand. The policy is to issue consumption vouchers under restrictions on the usage occasion which cause effect on consumer consumption. However, more affluent members of the population were not excluded from the distribution which is influenced by other factors which do not have absolutely relation between cause and effect. The welfare bring by consumption voucher includes: (1) economic growth; (2) consumer consumption;(3)consumption confidence;(4) satisfaction rate on government policy; (5)increase awareness of Taiwan;(6)GDP allocation; (7)Enhance ID card exchange;(8)investigation of criminal (9)assist the disadvantaged; (10)enhance the management of foreign spouses; (11)child custody enrollment. On the other hand the cost of consumption voucher includes (1) voucher fare rate; (2)Print and exchange charge; (3)advertisement and promotion fee; (4)consulting platform of the consumption voucher; (5)illegal economy. Total cost of the consumption voucher is 85.7billions and total benefits is 35.5-54.6 billions and total welfare may increase to 49.7-76.4 billions when considering the effect of social welfare allocation. In sensitivity analysis, if we maintain other variables stable, consumption voucher policy could reach break even point when economic contribution ratio is 0.67%. If we maintain other variables stable, the benefit of consumption voucher policy could exceed the cost of consumption voucher policy when economic contribution ratio is 0.43% and distribution portion is 4 times. Through this study, we can understand consumption vouchers policy in different ways.