【作者】 李恒；

【导师】 郭平；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 财政学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 我国改革已经处于攻坚阶段,与此同时,我国国债发行连年攀升,财政赤字逼近国际警戒线,虽然分税制改革大大强化了中央财政能力,但是却弱化了地方财政,造成了地方政府“跑部钱进”滋生了不规范的转移支付行为。同时,地方政府加强了对金融资源的控制,财政金融风险由此产生了连动效应。我国金融业特别是银行业改革举步维艰,虽然中央财政一再的减税、注资并未产生立竿见影的效果。国有银行经营状况不佳,金融功能深化出现了偏差甚至异化为财政功能,改革的各种利益冲突日益加剧。而政府当局对于财政风险虽然给予了高度关注,却无得力措施化解,偏重于短期效应的行政手段,造成了政府决策的短视化和风险的隐藏。另一方面,1994年分税制改革后,政府加强了对金融业的控制来弥补财权的分离造成的资金空缺。实际上促使金融行使了财政职能,这体现为:在汲取资源过程中,金融业替代税收的功能;在资源配置过程中,用行政性的干预金融业替代财政功能。由此,导致了金融资源深化为中央和地方政府的财政资金,金融业功能深化为“第二财政”。这种替代既有经济上的必然性——渐进改革的必然要求,从也有其现实上的不合理性——财政功能和金融功能错位。中央政府和地方政府主导下的金融分割,如成立中国人民银行大区分行(纵向)与地方政府控制了城市信用社(横向),使金融风险转化为财政风险的可能性大幅增加,也使金融功能财政化成为必然。但是,我们注意到,金融特别是国有商业银行本身具备了我国特殊国情下的“公共性”,一定程度上执行了提供公共品的职能。因此政府对银行的财政救济又成为一种必然的选择,完全否定金融功能财政化并非合理。究竟应当如何去分析财政风险与金融功能深化之间的相关性?并以此防范和化解财政风险?怎样才能在不损害市场效率的前提下深化金融发展,实现我国财政金融资源配置的最优化?这就是本文试图回答的问题。本文从财政风险产生与金融功能深化的相关性的角度出发来研究财政金融发展存在的问题,采用理论阐述、实证分析、实践总结等方法来探讨二者之间的思路。文章首先对财政风险原因进行分析,论证了我国金融功能深化特殊特点,并分析了财政风险与金融功能深化相关性。在做了大量资料统计分析的基础上,以实证的方法证明了二者存在共生性。接下来对政府介入国有银行改革进行了分析,然后提出建立财政风险预警机制,通过实证分析的内容更为清晰地反映出我国财政风险与金融功能深化之间的现状。为进一步展开对策研究作铺垫,最后,针对这些问题,对我国金融功能深化进行了进一部探讨,肯定了金融功能财政化的必然性与合理性,并主要从财政金融的制度与外部环境出发提出了政策性建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our country reformed is already in the key stage ,The national bond release successive years climbs, the financial deficit approaches the international red line, although the tax distribution system reform strengthened the central level funds ability greatly, but attenuated the local finance actually, created the local authority“to run a money to earn”,multiplied the non-standard shift payment behaviors, simultaneously strengthened the local authority to the financial resources `s control, the financial finance risk has had the gearing effect,China’s financial sector became a substitute to the taxation system in mobilizing national resources, and asubstitute to public finance in allocating rcaources. China’s financial sector has become the secondary fiscal institution. Funds stored in financial sector has provided for the resources needed by the Central and local governments. China’s financial sector performed the fund-ions of providing Seigniorage ,balancing the budget deficit,substituting government investment,balancing the regional economic disparity, suhstituting fiscal subsidies etc. "the raising of the central government’s financial capacity is the precondition of its falling fiscal capacity. The financial industry paid the cost of China`gradual reform. " to promote the gradual reform.China sacrificed both the development and the reform of finance. To start up the reform of finance,China must speed up restructure financial sector and fiscal institutions.Central authorities and under local authority leadership financial division,such as, established People’s Bank of China Big Area Branch (longitudinal) and the local authority in control of The city credit association (crosswise), has strongthed the financial risks, caused the financial risks to transform for the fiscal risks more possibly. But, we can see , the finance was specially state-owned commercial bank itself has had under our country special national condition“public”, in certain degree carried out has provided the public function, therefore the government became one kind of inevitable choice to the bank financial relief, denied the financial function finance to be by no means reasonable completely. Between actually has how to analyze the financial risk and the financial function deepens the relevance? And guards against and melts the financial risk by this? How can in not harm the market efficiency under the premise to realize our country finance finance resources disposition optimization and to deepen the financial development? This is a question which this article attempts to reply。更多还原