臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
教育財是一種非純粹性公共財，並具有明顯的外部利益，此時經由政府介入教育市場，可彌補市場機制運作之不足。政府也基於公平性的考量，透過公共政策對教育進行補貼。本文依據Friedman(1962)發揚自由教育市場目標為理念，利用教育券模式提供教育補助，使家長有充分選擇子女就讀私立學校的機會。
本文第三章試圖建立一社會中同時存在公立學校與私立學校提供基礎教育，並在多數決投票原則下，探討政府實施教育券制度後對融資稅率、教育品質、以及家長對公、私立學校選擇的影響。並且從模型中我們發現，在不同社會的所得分配結構中，教育券制度的實施會造成所得重分配的結果，而且教育券面額的多寡也會影響在不同的所得分配結構中，家庭所獲得的教育品質。另外考慮交易效率的因素後，我們探討教育券面額如何影響融資稅率，以及實行教育券制度後，如何降低融資成本的條件。在文中，我們以實際的資料，運用參數模擬的方法，來分析教育券制度在不同的所得分配結構下如何影響家庭對教育的決策。
本文第四章則是延續第三章的公私立並存機制下的教育券模型，不過我們更考慮了政府的自身行為如何影響教育的決策。我們把政府的目標函數同時納入社會福利的權重考量以及政府自身利益的預算極大化考量，並且探討窮人團體與富人團體如何各自地選擇公立教育支出與教育券面額。第五章則是本文結論以及未來可研究的方向。

Abstract
Education good is not only a kind of non-pure public good, but also has the character of external benefit. Government can make up for the market failure by intervene the education market, and sometimes it provides the subsidy for the education through public policies. This paper uses the educational vouchers to provide education subsidies in views of Friedman’s ideal which manifests the goal of the freedom education market. Thus, parents have the chance to choose private schools for their children. The third chapter tries to establish the mixed-regime education model, and study the effects of tax-financing, education quality and the right of choosing schools when the government carries out the educational voucher system under the rule of majority voting. From this model, we find that the practice of educational voucher system has the influence on the income redistribution, and the voucher amounts would influence the education quality which children obtain. By the way, considering the factor of transaction efficiency, we study how the voucher amounts influence the tax-financing and study how to reduce the tax rates under the vouchers system. In this paper, we use the way of parameter simulation to study how the vouchers system influences the parent’s choice on education in the different income distribution structure. In the forth chapter, we aim for the government behavior to the effects of education policies. The government’s objective function includes both the weight of social welfare factor and self-interest of maximizing budget, so we study how the poor groups and rich groups independently choose the public education expenditure and educational vouchers. The fifth chapter is conclusion and offers the study direction in the future.

目錄
第一章 緒論---------------------------------------------------------1
第一節 研究背景與目的-------------------------------------------1
第二節 研究方法與架構-------------------------------------------3
第二章 教育券文獻回顧-----------------------------------------------5
第一節 教育券的歷史發展背景-------------------------------------5
第二節 教育券的實際例子-----------------------------------------7
第三節 教育券的理論基礎-----------------------------------------8
第三章 公私校並存機制的教育券模型----------------------------------12
第一節 所得分配特徵--------------------------------------------12
第二節 公私校並存機制模型--------------------------------------13
第三節 家庭選擇教育的參數模擬分析------------------------------21
第四節 交易效率、稅率對教育券模型探討--------------------------38
第四章 政府、委員會對融資稅率和教育券制度的決策--------------------49
第一節 兩部門模型下的教育券制度--------------------------------49
第二節 公私校並存機制下的政府與家庭對教育的決策----------------57
第五章 結論與未來研究方向------------------------------------------64
第一節 結論----------------------------------------------------64
第二節 未來研究方向--------------------------------------------67
附錄A-------------------------------------------------------------68
附錄B-------------------------------------------------------------70
參考文獻-----------------------------------------------------------73
中文參考文獻---------------------------------------------------73
英文參考文獻---------------------------------------------------74

圖目錄
圖1–1 本文研究流程圖----------------------------------------------4
圖3–1 Lognormal 機率分配圖----------------------------------------12
圖3–2 Pareto機率分配圖-------------------------------------------13
圖3–3 Lognormal 選公、私校分布圖----------------------------------18
圖3–4 Pareto 選公、私校分布圖-------------------------------------18
圖3–5 選擇公立或私立效用分布情形---------------------------------18


















表目錄
表3–1公立與私立學校並存時不同分配下的各個均衡值------------------ 22
表3–2 Lognormal分配下主要變數的均衡值---------------------------- 23
表3–3 Pareto分配下主要變數的均衡值------------------------------- 24
表3–4 累加所得分配表--------------------------------------------- 29
表3–5 每組quintile(五分之一)家庭的所得份額----------------------- 29
表3–6 稅率5.1% 教育支出2110美元 無教育券制度下的所得分配-------- 30
表3–7 稅率政策5.1% 教育券面額500美元時的所得分配---------------- 30
表3–8稅率政策5.1% 教育券面額1500美元時的所得分配---------------- 31
表3–9 Lognormal分配各所得階層教育支出佔總教育支出的份額--------- 36
表3–10 Pareto分配各所得階層教育支出佔總教育支出的份額------------ 36
表3–11 教育支出不均等性衡量-------------------------------------- 37
表3–12 不考慮交易效率下的臨界所得和公立入學比例------------------ 42
表3–13 10%的交易效率損失下模擬均衡值------------------------------43
表3–14 20%的交易效率損失下模擬均衡值------------------------------44
表3–15 10%交易效率損失情況-------------------------------------- 45
表3–16 20%交易效率損失情況-------------------------------------- 45
表3–17 10%效率損失下的公立教育支出------------------------------ 46
表3–18 20%效率損失下的公立教育支出------------------------------ 46
表3–19 無效率損失下學生離開公立學校的比例----------------------- 47
表3–20 10%效率損失下學生離開公立學校的比例---------------------- 47
表3–21 20%效率損失下學生離開公立學校的比例---------------------- 47

參考文獻

中文參考文獻：

1.張維迎著,劉楚俊編校.2000,賽局理論與訊息經濟學,茂昌圖書有限公司.
2.陳麗珠.1995,教育券在我國可行性之研究:以高級中等教育為例,行政院國家科學發展委員會專題研究計畫成果報告.
3.陳麗珠.2000,美國教育財政改革,五南圖書出版有限公司.
4.蓋浙生.1993,教育經濟與計畫,五南圖書出版有限公司.
5.蓋浙生.1999,教育財政與教育發展,師大書苑有限公司.
6.楊瑩.1995,教育機會均等-教育社會學的探究,師大書苑有限公司.
7.賴志峰.1995,教育券之基本概念分析,教育資料文摘四月號,第207期.

英文參考文獻：
1. Bearse Peter; Glomm Gerhard and Ravikumar B (2000), “On the political economy of means-tested education vouchers”, European Economic Review, 44, 904-915.
2. Becker Gary S., Chiswick Barry R. (1966), “Education and the distribution of earnings”, The American Economic Review, Vol.56, No.1/2, 358-369.
3. Brasington D. M. (2003),“The supply of public school quality”, Economics of Education Review, 22, 367-377.
4. Chen Zhiqi; West Edwin G. (2000), “Selective versus universal vouchers: Modeling median voter preferences in education”, The American Economic Review, Vol.90, No.5, 1520-1534.
5. Chizmar John F.; Zak Thomas A. (1983),“Modeling Multiple outputs in educational production functions”, The American Economic Review, Vol.73, No.2, 18-22.
6. Chubb and Moe (1991),“Give choice a chance”, Education in the inner city. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute 115-156.
7. Coleman, James S.(1968), “The concept of equality of educational opportunity”, Harvard Education Review, 38(1), 7-22.
8. Cowell(1995),“How much inequality can we explain ? a methodology and an application to the United States”, The Economic Journal, Vol.105, No.429, 21-430.
9. Epple Dennis; Romano Richard E. (1996), “Ends against the middle: determining public service provision when there are private alternatives”, Journal of Public Economics 62 297-325.
10. Epple Dennis; Romano Richard E. (1998), “Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 88, Issue 1, 33-62.
11. Eysenbach M. L. (1974), “Voucher plans, voting models, and efficiency of local school finance”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.82, No.4, 863-871.
12. Fernandz and Rogerson(1999), “Public education and income distribution :a dynamic quantitative evaluation of education-finance reform”, The American Economic Review,Vol.88, No.4, 813-833.
13. Figlio David N. (1999),“Functional form and the estimated effects of school resources”, Economics of Education Review, 18, 241-252.
14. Frey Bruno S.(1983),“Democratic economic policy: a theoretical introduction”, Oxford Martin Robertson.
15. Friedman, Milton.(1962),“Capitalism and freedom” , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Friedman, M. (1979). “Free to choose”, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
17. Glomm Gerhard, Ravikumar B. (1998), “Opting out of Publicly Provided Services: A Majority voting Result”, Social Choice and Welfare 15: 187-199.
18. Glomm Gerhard, Ravikumar B. (2003) , “Public education and income inequality”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol.19 289-300.
19. Goldhaber Dan D.,Brewer Dominic J.,Eide Eric R. and Rees Daniel I. (1999),“Testing for sample selection in the Milwaukee school choice experiment”, Economics of Education review,18, 259-267.
20. Hoenack Stephen A. (1997), “An Application of a Structural Model of School Demand and Supply to Evaluate Alternative Designs of Voucher Education Systems”, Economics of Education Review, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 1-14.
21. Hoxby Caroline Minter.(1996), “Are efficiency and equity in school finance substitutes or complements?”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 10, Issue 4, 51-72.
22. Hoyt William H., Lee Kangoh. (1998), “Educational vouchers, welfare effect, and voting”, Journal of public Economics 69, 211-228.
23. Ireland N. J. (1990), “The mix of social and private provision of goods and services”, Journal of Public Economics, 43, 201-219.
24. Lee Kangoh (1994), “An economic analysis of public school choice plans”, Journal of Urban economics 41, 1-22.
25. Levin H.M. (1980) “Educational vouchers and social policy”, School of finance policies and practices. Ballinger,Cambridge,MA.
26. Mueller Dennis C. (1989), “Public choice II ”,Cambridge University Press.
27. Musgrave Richard A.(1956) “Public finance in theory and practice”, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, second edition P65.
28. Martinello and West (1998), “The optimal size of the tuition tax credit”, Public Finance Quarterly, 16(4), 425-438.
29. Nechyba Thomas (2003), “School finance, spatial income segregation, and the nature of communities”, Journal of Urban Economics, 54 61-88.
30. Olsen Edgar O.(1971),“Some theorems in the theory of efficient transfers”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 79, Issue 1, 166-176.
31. Niskanen(1968),“The peculiar economics of bureaucracy (in nonmarket decision making )”,The American Economic Review,Vol.58, No.2, 293-305.
32. Paine Thomas (1951),“The right of man”, intro. by Grorge Tacob Holyoake:323.4,p147.
33. Revankar Nagesh S.;Hartley Michael J. and Pagano Marcello (1974),“A characterization of the pareto distribution”, The Annals of Statistics, Vol.2, No.3, 599-601.
34. Riddle (1987), “Vouchers for the education of disadvantaged children:Analysis of the regan administration proposal”. Journal of Education Finance, No.12, 27-32.
35. Rubinfeld and Shapiro (1982),“Micro-based Estimates of demand functions for local school expenditures”, Econometrica Vol.50,No.5,1183-1206.
36. West Edwin G. (1997), “Educational vouchers in practice and principle: A world Survey.” World Bank Research Observer, February 12(1), 83-103.