nav emailalert searchbtn searchbox tablepage yinyongbenwen piczone journalimg journalInfo journalinfonormal searchdiv searchzone qikanlogo popupnotification paper paperNew
2022, 09, No.521 88-100
风险态度对居民陷入相对贫困的影响及机制研究——基于机会获取的中介效应与政府转移支付的调节效应
基金项目(Foundation): 国家自然科学基金面上项目“粮食规模经营主体风险累积、行为响应及政策优化研究”(71873004)
邮箱(Email): jyjiang@ahau.edu.cn;
DOI: 10.13856/j.cn11-1097/s.2022.09.008
发布时间: 2022-09-09
出版时间: 2022-09-09
移动端阅读
摘要:

缓解相对贫困是促进共同富裕的必然要求。因主观风险厌恶造成的客观机会缺失成为当前相对贫困治理中的重点和难点,因此需要从风险态度和机会获取两方面探索缓解相对贫困的有效机制。本文基于2018年中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)7 243个居民调查数据,通过实验经济学方法测度居民风险态度,并构建结构方程模型以分析风险态度与相对贫困间的影响机理。在此基础上,进一步检验了获取发展机会的中介效应及政府转移支付的调节效应。研究结果表明:居民的风险态度对其陷入相对贫困开始有显著正向影响,并能通过获取发展机会的“中介效应”缓解相对贫困,且城市居民的中介效应强于农村居民;政府转移支付在风险态度影响居民获取机会的关系中具有正向调节作用,政府转移支付虽然提升了风险偏好者对机会的获取能力,但也会降低风险厌恶者对机会的获取能力,使其产生“福利依赖”。

Abstract:

It is necessary to alleviate relative poverty in order to promote common prosperity.Currently, deficiency in objective opportunities caused by subjective risk aversion has become the core difficulty in the governance of relative poverty.Therefore, it is necessary to explore effective mechanisms for alleviating relative poverty in terms of risk attitudes and opportunities acquisition.Based on the surveydata of 7 243 households China Family Tracking Survey(CFPS) in 2018,the risk attitude of residents was measured by experimental economics method, and a structural equation model was constructed to analyze the impact mechanism between risk attitude and relative poverty.And on this basis, the intermediary effect of opportunity acquisition and the regulatory effect of government transfer payment were examined.The research results show that the risk attitude of residents indirectly affect the relative poverty status of residents.However, after controlling for endogenous effects, the risk attitude of residents has a significant positive impact on their falling into relative poverty.Besides, the full mediation that development opportunities acquisition plays an important role in poverty alleviation.Furthermore, the intermediary effect of urban residents is stronger than that of rural residents.Government transfer payment has a positive moderating role in the relationship between risk attitudes and residents' development opportunities acquisition.Although government transfer payment improves the ability of risk preference people to acquire opportunities, it also reduces accessibility of risk averse people to opportunities, such as“welfare dependence”.

参考文献

[1]钟甫宁.中国农村脱贫历史性成就的经济学解释[J].农业经济问题,2021(5):4-11.

[2]樊增增,邹薇.从脱贫攻坚走向共同富裕:中国相对贫困的动态识别与贫困变化的量化分解 [J].中国工业经济,2021(10):59-77.

[3]汪三贵,胡骏.从生存到发展:新中国七十年反贫困的实践[J].农业经济问题,2020(2):4-14.

[4]高强.脱贫攻坚与乡村振兴有机衔接的逻辑关系及政策安排[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2019(5):15-23.

[5]BLUFFSTONE Y R A .Poverty,risk aversion,and path dependence in low-income countries:experimental evidence from ethiopia[J].American Journal of Agricultural Economics,2009,91(4):1022-1037.

[6]郭劲光,俎邵静,邓韬.扶贫资源配置低效问题研究:生成机制与治理路径[J].农业经济问题,2019(7):56-65.

[7]MANI A,MULLAINATHAN S,SHAFIR E,et al.Poverty impedes cognitive function[J].Science,2013(6149):976-980.

[8]汪三贵,曾小溪.从区域扶贫开发到精准扶贫:改革开放40年中国扶贫政策的演进及脱贫攻坚的难点和对策[J].农业经济问题,2018(8):40-50.

[9]世界银行.2014年世界发展报告:风险与机会管理风险,促进发展[M].胡光宇,赵冰,译.北京:清华大学出版社,2014.

[10]孙久文,夏添.中国扶贫战略与2020年后相对贫困线划定:基于理论、政策和数据的分析[J].中国农村经济,2019(10):98-113.

[11]汪三贵,孙俊娜.全面建成小康社会后中国的相对贫困标准、测量与瞄准:基于2018年中国住户调查数据的分析[J].中国农村经济,2021(3):2-23.

[12]傅若云,傅安国.脱贫内生动力:一个中国化的心理学概念[N].中国社会科学报,2020-02-14(3).

[13]ROSENZWEIG M R,BINSWANGER H P.Wealth,weather risk and the composition and profitability of agricultural investments[J].The Economic Journal,1993(416):56-78.

[14]DANIEL K A T.Prospect theory:an analysis of decision under risk[J].Econometrica,1979,47(2):263-291.

[15]TOMOMI T,COLIN F C,QUANG N.Risk and time p linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam[J].American Economic Review,2010(1):557-571.

[16]赖玥,柳弌祎.解读“穷人思维”:贫困农户风险态度的影响因素分析:来自广西、贵州贫困山区入户实地实验的证据[J].贵州财经大学学报,2019(6):92-101.

[17]阿马蒂亚·森.以自由看发展[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002:255-260.

[18]ROEMER J E .A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner[J].Philosophy&Public Affairs 1993,22(2):146.

[19]王文略,毛谦谦,余劲.基于风险与机会视角的贫困再定义[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2015(12):147-153.

[20]田勇,殷俊,薛惠元.“输血”还是“造血”?面向农户的公共转移支付的减贫效应评估:基于农业产出的视角[J].经济问题,2019(3):78-86.

[21]肖攀,苏静,刘春晖.“加剧”还是“缓解”:政府转移支付与农户家庭未来减贫:基于贫困脆弱性视角的实证分析[J].财经理论与实践,2020(4):86-93.

[22]陈国强,罗楚亮,吴世艳.公共政府转移支付的减贫效应估计:收入贫困还是多维贫困?[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2018(5):59-76.

[23]周业安,左聪颖,陈叶烽,等.具有社会偏好个体的风险厌恶的实验研究[J].管理世界,2012(6):86-95.

[24]ANDREW F H,KRISTOPHER J P.Statistical mediation analysis with a multi categorical independent variable[J].British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,2014(3):451-470.

[25]王孟成.潜变量建模与Mplus应用.基础篇[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2014.

[26]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,等.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004(5):614-620.

[27]陈瑞,郑毓煌,刘文静.中介效应分析:原理、程序、Bootstrap方法及其应用[J].营销科学学报,2013(4):120-135.

[28]HOLT C A,LAURY S K.Risk aversion and incentive effects[J].American Economic Review,2002(5):1644-1655.

[29]李莹,吕光明.中国机会不平等的生成源泉与作用渠道研究[J].中国工业经济,2019(9):60-78.

[30]尹志超,张栋浩.金融普惠、家庭贫困及脆弱性[J].经济学(季刊),2020(5):153-172.

[31]胡伦,陆迁.贫困地区农户互联网信息技术使用的增收效应[J].改革,2019(2):74-86.

[32]温忠麟,叶宝娟.中介效应分析:方法和模型发展[J].心理科学进展,2014(5):731-745.

[33]BONIN H ,DOHMEN T ,FALK A ,et al.Cross-sectional earnings riskand occupational sorting:the role of risk attitudes[J].Labour Economics,2007,14(6):926-937.

[34]张世虎,顾海英.互联网信息技术的应用如何缓解乡村居民风险厌恶态度?:基于中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)微观数据的分析[J].中国农村经济,2020(10):33-51.

基本信息:

DOI:10.13856/j.cn11-1097/s.2022.09.008

中图分类号:F126;F812.45

引用信息:

[1]汪俊雯,江激宇,张士云.风险态度对居民陷入相对贫困的影响及机制研究——基于机会获取的中介效应与政府转移支付的调节效应[J].世界农业,2022,No.521(09):88-100.DOI:10.13856/j.cn11-1097/s.2022.09.008.

基金信息:

国家自然科学基金面上项目“粮食规模经营主体风险累积、行为响应及政策优化研究”(71873004)

发布时间:

2022-09-09

出版时间:

2022-09-09

检 索 高级检索

引用

GB/T 7714-2015 格式引文
MLA格式引文
APA格式引文