Title

所得分配、家庭社經特質與家庭消費行為— 臺灣核心家庭消費之實證分析

Translated Titles

Income Distribution, Familial Socioeconomic Status and Household Consumption Behavior: An Empirical Investigation of Taiwanese Nuclear Family

DOI

10.6342/NTU.2009.00153

Authors

陳英哲

Key Words

家戶消費 ; 所得不均 ; Tobit模型 ; 分量迴歸模型 ; 受限分量迴歸模型 ; household consumption ; income inequality ; tobit model ; quantile regression model ; censored quantile regression model

PublicationName

臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2009年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

張宏浩

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

台灣家庭所得分配不均度自1980年以後逐年呈現惡化的趨勢,而造成家庭所得分配惡化的主因之一為家庭結構逐漸轉變為以核心家庭為主。早期對於台灣所得分配不均現象的研究多著墨在所得不均度的分解及探討所得不均擴大的因素,鮮少文獻討論到所得分配趨於不均情況之下如何影響家戶消費行為與整體最終消費支出的變化,故本文主要研究目的在於探討在所得不均程度差異較大之核心家庭最終平均消費支出是否與所得不均程度差異較小之核心家庭有明顯之差異,並探討家庭社經特質對於家戶消費行為的影響。   本研究實證資料為行政院主計處所提供「95年臺灣地區家庭收支訪問調查」 ,原始資料樣本為13,776戶,扣除非核心家庭後最終樣本數為6,063戶。對於核心家庭平均消費支出最常使用最小平方法與Tobit模型,但估計結果僅提供平均數的分析,無法解釋極端消費家庭的消費行為,因此本文除了使用上述兩種估計模型外,並加入分量迴歸模型,對不同消費分量下之核心家庭提供不同的解釋。實證結果發現核心家庭在食品消費、酒精飲料消費與旅遊消費,在所得不均程度差異較大時核心家庭平均消費支出會增加;此外由分量迴歸模型也發現上述三項商品,所得不均度對於高消費分量家庭幾乎都呈現正向顯著效果,表示所得不均差異程度較大的情況下,會誘使高消費家庭增加更多的消費支出。

English Abstract

Income inequality of household in Taiwan has been growing since 1980 and risen over years. One of the main causes of increasing inequality is due to the change of family structure into nuclear family. Past research had paid attention on the decomposition of income inequality in Taiwan, while few studies had discussed the extent to which increasing income inequality may affect household consumption behavior. Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the distinction between high and low inequality areas in the final average expenditure of nuclear households, and also to analyze how the social-economic characteristics influence household consumption. This study utilized the Survey of family Income and Expenditure in Taiwan in 2006. The initial data is 13,776 households, and the final sample is 6063, distinguishing nuclear household from the others. OLS and Tobit model are commonly employed when it comes to the average consumption of nuclear households. However, these two models only show the analysis on average, and fail to explain the distributional effect. As an alternative, this study estimate a quantile regression model to analyze the effects of exogenous variables on the distribution of the household consumptions. Results show that household average expenditure in high inequality area are greater than in the low inequality for food expenditure, alcohol drink expenditure, and travel expenditure. That is, these three consumption expenditures increase significantly in high income household of the high inequality area. In addition, these three consumption expenditures have positive effects at high quantiles, indicating that the expenditure will increase in the high consumption household of high inequality area.

Topic Category 生物資源暨農學院 > 農業經濟學研究所
生物農學 > 農業
Reference
  1. 于宗先,2008。「M型社會的隱憂」,『經濟前瞻』。119期,91-95。
    連結:
  2. 林金源,1997。「家庭結構變化對臺灣所得分配及經濟福利分配的影響」,『人文 及社會科學集刊』。9卷,4期,39-63。
    連結:
  3. 莊碩立,2004。「臺灣汽車車體險理賠因素分析:受限制分量迴歸之應用」。碩士論文,國立臺灣大學財務金融學研究所。
    連結:
  4. 彭素玲,2009。「人口年齡結構、所得分配與產業結構轉型對臺灣民間消費與總體產出之影響」,『臺灣經濟預測與政策』。39卷,2期,51-101。
    連結:
  5. Aghion, P., E. Caroli, and C. Garcia-Penalosa, 1999. “Inequality and Economic Growth: The Perspective of the New Growth Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature. 37: 1615–1660.
    連結:
  6. Alesina, A. and R. Perotti, 1996. “Income Distribution, Political instability, and Investment,” European Economic Review. 40: 1028–1203.
    連結:
  7. Barrett, G. F., T. F. Crossley, and C. Worswick, 2000. “Consumption and Income Inequality in Australia,” Economic Record. 76: 116-138.
    連結:
  8. Buchinsky, M., 1994. “Changes in the U.S. Wage Structure 1963-1987: Application of Quantile Regression,” Econometrica. 62: 405-458.
    連結:
  9. Buchinsky, M. and J. Hahn, 1998. “An Alternative Estimator for the Censored Quantile Regression Model,” Econometrica. 66: 653-671.
    連結:
  10. Chernozhukov, V. and H. Hong, 2002. “Three-Step Censored Quantile Regression and Extramarital Affairs,” Journal of the American Statistical Association. 97: 872-882.
    連結:
  11. Chu, C. Y. C. and L. Jiang, 1997. “Demographic Transition, Family Structure, and Income Inequality,” The Review of Economics and Statistics. 79: 665-669.
    連結:
  12. Dhawan-Biswal, U., 2002. “Consumption and Income Inequality: The Case of Atlantic Canada from 1969-1996,” Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques. 28: 513-537.
    連結:
  13. Eide, E. and M. H. Schowalter, 1998. “The Effect of School Quality on Student Performance: A Quantile Regression Approach,” Economics Letters. 58: 245-350.
    連結:
  14. Hsieh, C. C. and M. D. Pugh, 1993. “Poverty, Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies,” Criminal Justice Review. 18: 182–202.
    連結:
  15. Ibragimov, M. and R. Ibragimov, 2007. “Market demand elasticity and income inequality,” Economic Theory. 32: 579–587
    連結:
  16. Koenker, R. and G. Bassett, 1978. “Regression Quantiles,” Econometrica. 46: 33-50.
    連結:
  17. Koenker, R. and B. J. Park, 1996. “An Interior Point Algorithm for Nonlinear Quantille Regression,” Journal of Econometrics. 71: 265-283.
    連結:
  18. Khan, S. and J. L. Powell, 2001. “Two-Step Estimation of Semiparametric Censored Regression Models,” Journal of Econometrics. 100: 319-355.
    連結:
  19. Li, H. and Y. Zhu, 2006. “Income, income inequality, and health: Evidence from China,” Journal of Comparative Economics. 34: 668-693.
    連結:
  20. Manning W. G., L. Blumberg, and L. H. Moulton, 1995. “The Demand for Alcohol: The Differential Response to Price,” Journal of Health Economics. 14: 123-148.
    連結:
  21. Marmot, M., 1997. “Inequality, Deprivation and Alcohol Use,” Addiction. 92: S13-S20.
    連結:
  22. McDowell, D. R., J. E. Allen-Smith, and P. E. McLean-Meyinsse, 1997. “Food Expenditures and Socioeconomic Characteristics: Focus on Income Class,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79: 1444-1451.
    連結:
  23. Powell, J. L., 1986. “Censored Regression Quantiles,” Journal of Econometrics. 32: 143-155.
    連結:
  24. Tobin, J., 1958. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables,” Econometrica. 26: 24-36.
    連結:
  25. Tsai, S. L. and C. M. Kuan, 2004. “A Quantile Regression Analysis in Family Income Determination with Mating Effects,” Working Paper. Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.
    連結:
  26. Wang, H., J. L. Sindelar, and S. H. Busch, 2006. “The Impact of Tobacco Expenditure on Household Consumption Patterns in Rural China,” Social Science & Medicine. 62: 1414-1426.
    連結:
  27. 大前研一,2006。『M型社會─中產階即消失的危機與商機』。臺北:商周出版社。
  28. 朱雲鵬與陳昭南,1988。「臺灣所得分配變動趨勢的分析」,『迎接挑戰開創新政:一次海內外知識份子的大辯論』。227-249。
  29. 行政院主計處,2006。『中華民國臺灣地區九十五年家庭收支調查報告』。臺北: 行政院主計處。
  30. 吳德敏、白璐、宋丕錕、蔡宗仁、徐黎玲、李敏貞、孫建安,1999。「吸菸、飲 酒與嚼食檳榔習慣之各人群聚」,『中華衛誌』。18期,454-458。
  31. 吳慧瑛,1998。「家戶人口規模與所得分配,1976-1995」,『經濟論文』。26卷,1期,19-50。
  32. 林益生,2003。「家戶所得、縣市及都市化程度對消費需求支出影響之研究」。碩士論文,國立臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所。
  33. 曹添旺與張植榕,2000。「臺灣家庭高低所得階層屬性分布與所得分配」,『人文 及社會科學研究彙刊』。10卷,3期,334-361。
Times Cited
  1. 鄭景名(2010)。台灣飲食消費分配不均與影響因素之探討。臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所學位論文。2010。1-70。 
  2. 陳英玉(2014)。台灣家庭美容美髮消費支出影響因素之研究。朝陽科技大學休閒生活美學產業碩士專班學位論文。2014。1-49。