社会互动、家庭负债对收入差距的影响机制研究

江西财经大学学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (2): 37-50.

社会互动、家庭负债对收入差距的影响机制研究

胡中立¹, 王书华¹, 崔泽园²

1. 山西财经大学金融学院,山西太原 030006;
2. 中共山西省委党校,山西太原 030006

收稿日期:2019-04-11 出版日期:2020-03-25 发布日期:2020-12-14
通讯作者: 胡中立,山西财经大学博士研究生,主要从事金融发展研究,联系方式andreasleepy@163.com。
作者简介:王书华,山西财经大学教授,博士生导师,主要从事金融计量分析研究;崔泽园,中共山西省委党校、山西行政学院副教授,山西财经大学博士研究生,主要从事金融发展研究。
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金项目“流动性风险约束与中国商业银行资本结构的动态调整机制研究”（15BJY178）; 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“宏观杠杆率最适水平、动态调整和政策协调研究”（19YJC790148）; 山西省高等学校决策咨询（智库）研究项目“高校科技创新评价分析报告”(晋教科〔2019〕6号); 山西省高等学校科学研究优秀成果培育项目“山西省高等学校科学研究优秀成果培育项目”(2019SK024)

Research on the Impact Mechanism of Social Interaction and Household Debt on Income Gap

HU Zhong-li¹, WANG Shu-hua¹, CUI Ze-yuan²

1. Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030006;
2. Party School of Shanxi Provincial Party Committee, Taiyuan 030006, China

Received:2019-04-11 Online:2020-03-25 Published:2020-12-14

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过建立包含家庭负债的交互基础模型以及家庭债务与收入差距的两部门模型,从数理上证明了社会互动、家庭债务对收入差距的影响机制,并结合2013年中国家庭金融调查数据,通过Probit、Tobit等方法予以实证检验。研究结果表明,社会互动对家庭负债存在正向促进作用;家庭负债水平的提升是导致收入差距扩大的因素之一,且社会互动对这一影响具有促进作用;社会互动对家庭负债的影响因家庭所处区域、教育背景以及风险态度的不同而存在差异。政策当局需拓宽有关金融信息的交流渠道,加强对非正规金融的监管力度,控制正规、非正规金融渠道的比例,提高家庭资产负债状况的关注力度。

关键词: 社会互动, 家庭负债, 收入差距, 中国家庭金融调查

Abstract: By establishing an interactive basic model including household debt and a two-sector model of household debt and income gap, this paper tries to mathematically prove the impact mechanism of social interaction and household debt on income gap, then combined with the data from the 2013 China Household Finance Survey, it conducts an empirical test by means of Probit, Tobit and other methods. The research results show that social interaction has a positive effect on household debt, that the increase in household debt is one of the factors leading to the widening of the income gap, and social interaction has a promoting effect on this impact, and that the impacts of social interaction on household debt are different due to the differences of family location, educational background and risk attitudes. The policy authorities need to broaden the channels for exchange of financial information, strengthen the supervision on informal finance, control the proportion of formal and informal financial channels, and increase the attention to household assets and liabilities.

Key words: social interaction, household debt, income gap, China Household Finance Survey

中图分类号:

F036

胡中立, 王书华, 崔泽园. 社会互动、家庭负债对收入差距的影响机制研究[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2020, 0(2): 37-50.

HU Zhong-li, WANG Shu-hua, CUI Ze-yuan. Research on the Impact Mechanism of Social Interaction and Household Debt on Income Gap[J]. Journal of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, 2020, 0(2): 37-50.

参考文献

[1] Campbell J.Y. Household Finance[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2006, 61(4): 1553-1604.
[2] Zinman J.Household Debt: Facts, Puzzles, Theories, and Policies[J]. Economics, 2015, 7(1): 251-276.
[3] 吴卫星,吴锟,王琎. 金融素养与家庭负债——基于中国居民家庭微观调查数据的分析[J]. 经济研究, 2018,(1):97-109.
[4] Christen M., Morgan R.M. Keeping up with the Joneses: Analyzing the Effect of Income Inequality on Consumer Borrowing[J]. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 2005, 3(2): 145-173.
[5] Georgarakos D., Haliassos M., Pasini G.Household Debt and Social Interactions[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2014, 27(5): 1404-1433.
[6] Durlauf S., Cohen-Cole E.Social Interaction Models[J]. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 2005, 11(3): 517-522.
[7] Leibenstein H. Bandwagon, Snob,Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1950, 64(2): 183-207.
[8] Krelle W. Dynamic Utility Functions, Mathematical Economics and Game Theory[M]. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1977.
[9] Kuhn P., Kooreman P., Soetevent A., et al.The Effects of Lottery Prizes on Winners and Their Neighbors: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery[J]. American Economic Review, 2011, 101(5): 2226-2247.
[10] Badarinza C.Mortgage Debt and Social Externalities[J]. Review of Economic Dynamics, 2019, 34(3): 43-60.
[11] Krueger D., Perri F.Does Income Inequality Lead to Consumption Inequality? Evidence and theory[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 2006, 73(1): 163-193.
[12] Iacoviello M.Household Debt and Income Inequality, 1963—2003[J]. Journal of Money Credit & Banking, 2008, 40(5): 929-965.
[13] Klein M.Inequality and Household Debt: A Panel Cointegration Analysis[J]. Empirica, 2015, 42(2): 391-412.
[14] 郭新华,刘辉,伍再华. 收入不平等与家庭借贷行为——家庭为追求社会地位而借贷的动机真的存在吗[J]. 经济理论与经济管理, 2016,(5):84-99.
[15] 杨晶,邓大松,申云. 养老保险、非农就业与农户收入差异[J]. 江西财经大学学报, 2019, (3):63-72.
[16] Aldashev A. Social Norms, Status Spending and Household Debt: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan[R]. MPRA.91363, 2019.
[17] Long N.V., Shimomura K. Relative Wealth, Status-Seeking, and Catching-Up[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2004, 53(4): 529-542.
[18] 汪伟,郭新强. 收入不平等与中国高储蓄率:基于目标性消费视角的理论与实证研究[J]. 管理世界, 2011, (9): 7-25, 52.
[19] Coibion O., Gorodnichenko Y., Kudlyak M., et al.Does Greater Inequality Lead to More Household Borrowing? New Evidence From Household Data[R]. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.
[20] 张蕴萍,杨友寸,牛欢. 山东省金融效率、溢出效应与外商直接投资——基于空间动态面板Dwbin模型的研究[J]. 管理理论,2018,(12):32-41.
[21] Blume L.E. The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 1993, 5(3): 111-145.
[22] Brock W.A., Durlauf S. N. Interactions-based Models[M]. Elsevier: Handbook of Econometrics. 2001.
[23] Bourguignon F., Morrisson C. Income Distribution, Development and Foreign Trade: A Cross-sectional Analysis[J]. European Economic Review, 1990, 34(6): 1113-1132.
[24] 范莉珈, 谢绵陛. 家庭资产负债率与家庭收入关系[J]. 集美大学学报(哲社版), 2016,(3):52-59.
[25] Todaro M.P. Rural—Urban Migration, Unemployment and Job Probabilities: Recent Theoretical and Empirical Research[M]. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1976.
[26] 伍再华, 叶菁菁, 郭新华. 财富不平等会抑制金融素养对家庭借贷行为的作用效果吗——基于CHFS数据的经验分析[J]. 经济理论与经济管理, 2017, (9): 71-86.
[27] 杨汝岱, 陈斌开, 朱诗娥. 基于社会网络视角的农户民间借贷需求行为研究[J]. 经济研究, 2011, (11): 116-129.
[28] 郭士祺, 梁平汉. 社会互动、信息渠道与家庭股市参与——基于2011年中国家庭金融调查的实证研究[J]. 经济研究, 2014, (1): 116-131.
[29] 王少平, 欧阳志刚. 中国城乡收入差距对实际经济增长的阈值效应[J]. 中国社会科学, 2008, (2): 54-66+205.
[30] 吴卫星, 邵旭方, 陶利斌. 家庭财富不平等会自我放大吗?——基于家庭财务杠杆的分析[J]. 管理世界, 2016, (9): 44-54.