臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在台灣,長期以來，北部地區一直維持著較高的工資水準與平均教育程度，尤其以台北縣市最為明顯,使得許多人往北遷徙，而這些遷徙者的教育程度也較高。本文使用台灣的資料“PSFD”，以Lee (1983)的自我選擇模型為基礎，檢驗是否有自我選擇的情形，估計地區工資，估計人力資本是否對一個地區的工資有正的外部性，估計結果發現台北縣市的教育報酬較高，而地區人力資本對教育報酬有一定的解釋能力。本文以過去的經濟理論及文中的實證結果為基礎，認為台北縣市較高的工資不只是因為聚集的人比較有能力，也因為聚集的人力資本創造了良好的互動環境，提高了個人及整體的生產力。由於台北縣市的地區人力資本較高，使得教育報酬較高，因此教育程度較高的人，有較大的動機往台北縣市集中。

1.簡介................................................ 1
1.1 動機.............................................. 1
1.2 目的、方法與內容.................................. 1
2 文獻回顧............................................ 3
2.1遷徙行為本身的理論與實證........................... 3
2.2遷徙行為中的自我選擇問題........................... 5
2.3關於不同地區工資差距與人力資本的關係............... 8
3 資料敘述與初步的分析................................ 11
3.1 樣本概況.......................................... 11
3.2 遷徙的流量與流向.................................. 12
3.3 遷徙者的人口特質.................................. 14
4 模型設定與實證結果 ................................. 19
4.1 模型設定.......................................... 19
4.2 概似函數的推導.................................... 20
4.3 變數的選擇........................................ 22
4.4 估計結果.......................................... 23
5 地區人力資本的形成.................................. 29
6 結論................................................ 31
附錄一................................................ 32
附錄二................................................ 33
參考文獻.............................................. 34

1.謝高橋、張清富(1997), “城鄉連結 - 遷移人口的特性與適應”,臺灣 的都市社會,第九章,巨流出版。
2.Borjas, G.J., S.G. Bronars and S.J. Trejo (1992a), “Assimilation and the earnings of young internal migrants”, Review of Economics and Statistics 74, 170-175.
3.Borjas, G.J., S.G. Bronars and S.J. Trejo (1992b), “Self- selection and internal migration in United States”, Journal of Urban Economics 32, 259-185.
4.Barham, B. and S.Boucher (1998), “Migration,
remittances and inequality: estimating the net effects of migration on income distribution”,Journal of Development Economics 55, 307-331.
5.Chen, C-N and A.Speare (1991), “Migration transition and educational differentials in Taiwan, 1981-85”,人文及社會科學集刊第四卷第一期, 477-469.
6. Dowling, J.M. and C.Worswick (1999),
“ Labor market participation of urban women in Southest Asia by migration status evidiece from microdata”,
Journal of Asian Economics 10, 91-110.
7. Falaris, E. (1987), “A nested logit migration model with slectivity”, International Economic Review 28, 429-443.
8. Glaeser, E.L. and D. Mare (1994), “cities and skills”, NBER working paper no.4728.
9. Glaeser, E.L. (1999), “Learning in cities”, Journal of Urban Economics 46, 254-277.
10.Greenwood, M.J. (1997), “Internal migration in developed countries”, Handbook of Population and Family Economics vol 1B. by M.R.Rosenzweig and O. Stark. Amsterdam: North Holland.
11.Lucas, R.E.B. (1997), “Internal migration in developing countries”, Handbook of Population and Family Economics vol 1B. by M.R.Rosenzweig and O.Stark. Amsterdam: North Holland.
12.Lanzona, L.A. (1998), “Migration,self-selection and earnings in Philippine rural communities”, Journal of Development Economics 56, 27-50.
13.Lee, L-F. (1983), “Generalized econometric models with selectivity”,Econometrica 51, 507-512.
14.Marshall,A. (1948), Principle of Economics. New York: Mcmillan.
15. Rauch, J.E. (1993), “Productivity gains from geographic concentration of human capital: evidence from the cities”, Journal of Urban Economics 34, 380-400.
16. Zhao, Y. (1999), “Labor migration and earnings differences: the case of rural China”, Economic Development and Cultural Change 48,767-782.