臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

人力資本投資的代間移轉現象與手足效果在國外文獻中已經普遍被確認並深入分析但在台灣過去的文獻中，並未見到詳細而深入的研究，因此本文特別專注於台灣家庭人力資本投資中代間移轉現象與手足效果機制的研究。在考慮了過去文獻中所提到的性別偏好、家庭背景、父母經濟特性、居住區域等控制變數外，本研究是國內文獻中首先考慮手足地位效果，利用Zajonc聚合模型的特性，解釋不同手足地位的子女，在高等教育的表現上產生的差異變化。
在實證上，本研究同時利用台灣人力運用調查資料庫(MUS)與台灣地區家庭收支調查資料庫(SFIE)，進行多重邏輯迴歸模型(multinomial logistic regression model)的分析，引入多面向的控制變數，利用多種狀態選擇問題─大學、專科、不升學─架構18/19歲子女面臨高等教育時的人力資本投資決策行為，希冀能捕捉台灣家庭中最完整的代間移轉現象與手足效果。
由本研究之結果發現，代間移轉的現象在早期對子女進入高等教育具有一定的影響力，但隨經濟發展而逐漸淡化；而手足效果除了單純的手足效果之外，另外存在有手足地位效果。單純手足效果指出，姐姐的存在對手足的教育機會有正的輔助性，而哥哥、弟弟與妹妹的存在，對手足的教育機會有不利的影響，而這些邊際效果隨經濟發展而逐漸淡化。手足地位效果則描述了家庭中隨著子女數目的不同，存在負斜率的出生序線型，排行第一的子女在人力資本投資上最具優勢，而排行越後面的子女則越為不利；而子女數越多的家庭，其出負斜率的出生序線型的越陡峭，顯示子女越多的家庭，資源競爭情形可能越嚴重。

The phenomenon of intergenerational transfer and sibling effects on human capital investment are well documented in the literature,, but it is not received enough attention in the domestic studies.. This study demonstrates the mechanism of intergenerational transfer and sibling effects on human capital investment of Taiwanese households. Considering various control variables including gender difference, family background, and residential areas that discussed in past studies, we pioneer the discovery of sibling status effects. Incorporating the concept of Zajonc’s confluence model, we depict that children’s higher educational attainment is correlated to the sibship status.
This study uses “Manpower Utilization Survey” and “Survey of Family Income and Expenditure” datasets in analysis. We define three alternative statuses─enrolled university, college, and otherwise —to construct the decision-making process on human capital investment of aged 18/19 children. By running multinomial logit regression, we are able to capture the comprehensive effects of intergenerational transfer and sibship status.
The empirical results illustrate that intergenerational transfer has significant influence on children’s higher education while the effect diminishes over time. In addition to pure sibling effects, we do find sibship status effects. The pure sibling effects indicate that the existence of old sister would help younger siblings to have higher probability to pursue higher education, and the existence of older brother, younger sister and younger brother would have negative effect in contrary, and all these effects decrease over time. Sibship status effects, however, depicts a negative birth order effect, the oldest child received most human capital investment, and younger children get lesser. As number of child increasing, the negative birth order effect affects the later born child more. The result implies that the larger the sibsize, the more severe the resource competition within the household.

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機
第二節 研究目的
第三節 研究方法與對象
第四節 論文架構
第二章 人力資本理論文獻回顧
第一節 家庭經濟學的演進
第二節 代間移轉與人力資本投資的相關文獻
第三節 手足效果與人力資本投資的相關文獻
第三章 研究方法
第一節 資料來源與選取
第二節 變數意義與基本統計量
第四章 實證模型
第一節 多重邏輯迴歸模型
第二節 實證模型設定
第三節 變數解釋
第五章 實證結果與分析
第一節 長期下的人力資本代間移轉與手足效果
第二節 高低所得下的人力資本代間移轉與手足效果
第三節 短期下的人力資本代間移轉與手足效果
第六章 結論與未來研究方向第一節 結論
第二節 研究貢獻
第三節 研究限制
第四節 未來研究方向
參考文獻

參考文獻
一、中文部分
1.李巧琳 (2001)。“人力資本投資的代間移轉─家庭背景對子女教育成就的影響„。國立暨南國際大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
2.林大森 (2002)。“高中/高職的公立/私立分流對地位取得之影響„,教育與心理研究, 2002, 25輯,p35-62。
3.黃朗文 (2000)。“手足結構與家庭資源„。第三屆家庭與社會資源分配學術研討會論文集,p1-17。
4.陳怡靖 (2001)。“台灣地區高中/技職分流與教育機會不均等性之變遷„, 教育研究集刊2001, 7,47輯,p253-282。
5.陳建良 (2002)。“教育年數與手足組成及出生序的關係─PSFD資料的實證分析”。第四屆全國實證經濟學研討會論文。
6.陳永欽 (2002)。「家庭背景對子女教育成就之影響」。國立暨南國際大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
7.駱明慶 (2000)。“教育成就的省及與性別差異„。第三屆家庭與社會資源分配學術研討會論文集,p117-152。
8.駱明慶 (2002)。「誰是台大學生?─性別、省籍與城鄉差異」。經濟論文叢刊,30:1(2002),p113-147。
9.薛承泰 (1996)。“兄弟姊妹教育相似性的探究: 兩種迷迷模型的應用„。台灣社會學刊，p49-84。
二、英文部分
1.Daniel Aaronson .1997. “Using Sibling Data to Estimate the Impact of Neighborhoods on Children’s Education Outcomes”, Journal of Human Resources,vol.33,no.4 p915-946.
2.Joseph G.Altonji, Fumio Hayashi, Laurence J. Kotlikoff.1997. “Parental Altruism and inter Vivos Transfers︰The Theory and Evidence”,The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 105,Issue6(Dec,1997),p1121-1166.
3.Joseph G. Altonji, and Thomas A. Dunn. 1996.“The Effects of Family Characteristics on the Return to Education”,The Review of Economics and Stastics, Volume 78,Issue 4,p692-704.
4.Jere R. Behrman. 1999.“Schooling in Asia Selected micro evidence on determinants, effects, and policy implications”, Journal of Asian Economics 10(1999), p147-194.
5.Jere R. Behrman. 1999.“Schooling in Asia Selected--Micro Evidence on Determinants, Effects, and Policy Implications”, Journal of Asian Economics 10(1999), p147-194.
6.Jere R. Behrman, and Paul Taubman.1986.“Birth Order, Schooling, and Earnings”, Journal of Labor Economics, 1986,vol.4, no.3, pt 2,s121-145.
7.Jere R. Behrman, Robert A. Pollak, Paul Taubman, 1989. “Family Resource, Family Size, and Access to Financing for College Education ”, The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 97, Issue 2,p398-419.
8.Sandra E. Black, and Amir Sufi .2001.“Who goes to college?? Differential Enrollment by Race and Family Background”,NBER Working Paper no.9310.
9.Judith Blake, 1981.“The Only Child in America︰Prejudice versus Performance”,Population and Development Review, Volume 7, Issue 1,p43-54.
10.Kerwin Kofi Charles, Ming-Ching Luoh.2002.“Gender Difference in Completed Schooling”,NBER Working Paper no.9028.
11.Rachel Connelly, Peter Gottschalk. “The Effect of Cohort Composition on Human Capital Accumulation across Generation”, Journal of Human Resources,Volume 13,Issue 1,p155-176.
12.Robert M. Hauser, Hsiang-Hui Daphne Kuo, 1997.“Does Gender Composition of Sibships Affect Women’s Educational Achievement”,The Journal of Human Resources, Volume 32,Issue2,p250-285.
13.Kan, K and W.D. Tsai. 2001, “Parenting Practices and Children’s Education ,Seminar on panel Study of Family Dynamics”,Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica.
14.Robert Kaestner, 1996.“Are Brothers Really Better? Sibling Sex Composition and Education Achievement Revisited”,The Journal of Human Resources, Volume 32,Issue2,p250-285.
15.Thomas J. Kane. 1994. “ College Entry by Blacks since 1970: The Role of College Costs, Family Background, and the Returns to Education”, The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 102,Issue 5,p878-991
16.David Lam, Robert F. Shoeni, 1993. “Effect of Family Background on Earning and Returns to schooling︰Evidence from Brazil”,The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 101, Issue 4,p710-740.
17.Marjoris B. McElroy, Mary Jean Horney, 1981. “Nash-Bargained Household Decisions︰Toward a Generation of the Theory of Demand”,International Economic Review, Volume 22, Issue 2,p333-349.
18.Paul Miller，Charles Mulvey,Nick Martin. 1997.“Family Characteristics and the Return to schooling︰Evidence on Gender Difference from a Sample of Australian Twins”, Economica, New Series, Volume64, Issue523 (Feb, 1997), p119-136.
19.William L. Parish, and Robert J. Wills .1993. “Daughters, Education, and Family Budgets─Taiwan Experience”,Journal of Human Resources, vol.28, no.4, pp863-838.
20.William L. Parish, Robert J. Willis, and Yean-Ju Lee, 1994, “Sons, Daughters, and Intergenerational Support in Taiwan”, AJS, Volume99 no.4, p1010-1041
21.Sharon Sassler, 1995.“Trade-offs in the Family︰Sibling effects on Daughters’ activities in1910 ”,Demography, Volume 32,Issue 4,p557-574.