論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available
論文名稱 Title |
結構變遷對生育率與人力資本的影響 The Impact of Structural Transformation on Fertility and Human Capital |
||
系所名稱 Department |
|||
畢業學年期 Year, semester |
語文別 Language |
||
學位類別 Degree |
頁數 Number of pages |
97 |
|
研究生 Author |
|||
指導教授 Advisor |
|||
召集委員 Convenor |
|||
口試委員 Advisory Committee |
|||
口試日期 Date of Exam |
2025-07-28 |
繳交日期 Date of Submission |
2026-02-05 |
關鍵字 Keywords |
動態一般均衡模型、產業變遷、生育率、人力資本、家庭生產 dynamic general equilibrium model, structural transformation, fertility, human capital, home production |
||
統計 Statistics |
本論文已被瀏覽 276 次,被下載 34 次 The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 276 times, has been downloaded 34 times. |
中文摘要 |
本研究建立一個涵蓋家庭生產、製造業與服務業的動態一般均衡模型,探討不同部門生產力變動所引發的產業結構轉型,如何透過價格與報酬調整,影響家庭的生育與教育決策。模擬結果顯示,雖然三部門技術衝擊皆推升工資並提高育兒成本,唯有製造業可同時帶動工資與資本報酬率上升,有效提升可支配所得,產生強烈所得效果,進而短期內促進生育。相對地,家庭與服務部門的技術進步則多強化教育誘因,抑制生育選擇。進一步分析亦指出,結構轉型對生育率變化並無直接對應關係,其效果主要依賴於工資、所得與教育報酬對家庭誘因結構的再塑能力。消費品間替代彈性的敏感性分析進一步說明,當價格調整帶來強烈替代反應時,產業轉型對家庭行為的影響尤為顯著。 |
Abstract |
This study develops a dynamic general equilibrium model with three sectors—home production, manufacturing, and service—to examine how sector-specific productivity changes induce structural transformation and, through adjustments in prices and returns, influence household fertility and education decisions. Simulation results show that while productivity shocks in all three sectors raise wages and increase the opportunity cost of childbearing, only improvements in manufacturing simultaneously raise wages and capital returns, significantly boosting disposable income and generating strong income effects that promote fertility in the short run. In contrast, productivity gains in the home and service sectors tend to reinforce educational incentives, thereby discouraging fertility. Further analysis reveals that structural transformation does not lead to a uniform response in fertility; its impact depends on how wages, income, and educational returns reshape households’intertemporal incentives. Sensitivity analysis also highlights the importance of substitution elasticity between consumption goods, showing that stronger price-driven substitution responses amplify the influence of structural shifts on household behavior. |
目次 Table of Contents |
論文審定書 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 誌謝. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii 摘要 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 目錄 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 圖次. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 表次 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 第一章 緒論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 研究動機 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 文獻回顧 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 本文架構 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 第二章 模型設定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 家戶部門 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1 家庭效用函數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 家庭生產函數. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.3 人力資本累積. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.4 人口動態與生育決策. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.5 家庭預算限制式 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.6 人均資本累積. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 市場部門 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3 政府部門 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 總體均衡 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4.1 商品市場均衡 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4.2 勞動市場結清條件 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4.3 資本市場結清條件 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.5 經濟成長 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 第三章 主要結果 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.1 參數設定 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2 基準模型 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 vi 3.2.1 家戶生產技術衝擊 𝐴𝑎 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.2.2 服務業生產技術衝擊 𝐴𝑠 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.2.3 製造業生產技術衝擊 𝐴𝑚 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.3 敏感性分析 𝜙 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.1 家庭生產技術衝擊 𝐴𝑎 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.2 服務業技術衝擊 𝐴𝑠 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.3.3 製造業技術衝擊 𝐴𝑚 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 第四章 結論 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 圖形與表格. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 參考文獻 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 附錄 A-總體均衡 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 附錄 B-成長率推導 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 附錄 C-BGP 均衡. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 附錄 D-BGP 靜止均衡解 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 |
參考文獻 References |
1. Acemoglu, D. and Guerrieri, V. (2008). “Capital Deepening and Nonbalanced Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 467–498. 2. Alvarez-Cuadrado, F. and Poschke, M. (2011). “Structural Change Out of Agriculture: Labor Push versus Labor Pull,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 127–158. 3. Barro, R. J. and Becker, G. S. (1989). “Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth,” Econometrica, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 481–501. 4. Becker, G. S. (1960). “An Economic Analysis of Fertility,” in Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Columbia University Press, pp. 209–240. 5. Becker, G. S. and Lewis, H. G. (1973). “On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. S279–S288. 6. Becker, G. S., Murphy, K. M., and Tamura, R. (1990). “Human Capital, Fertility, and Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. S12–S37. 7. Buera, F. J. and Kaboski, J. P. (2009). “Can Traditional Theories of Structural Change Fit the Data?” Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 7, no.2–3, pp. 469–477. 8. Buera, F. J. and Kaboski, J. P. (2012). “The Rise of the Service Economy,” American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 2540–2569. 9. Buera, F. J., Kaboski, J. P., and Rogerson, R. (2022). “Skill Biased Structural Change,” NBER Working Paper No. 30079. 10. Cheung, L. (2023). “Family Heterogeneity and Structural Transformation,” Manuscript. 11. Comin, D., Lashkari, D., and Mestieri, M. (2021). “Structural Change with LongRun Income and Price Effects,” Econometrica, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 311–374. 12. Matthias Doepke (2004). “Accounting for Fertility Decline During the Transition to Growth,” UCLA Department of Economics Working Paper No. 804. 13. Gunn, C. and Johri, J. (2011). “Can Sectoral Reallocation Explain the Growth of Human Capital?” Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 388–408. 14. Herrendorf, B., Rogerson, R., and Valentinyi, Á. (2014). “Growth and Structural Transformation,” in Handbook of Economic Growth, vol. 2B, Elsevier, pp. 855–941. 15. Jones, C. I. (1995). “R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 759–784. 16. Karachiwalla, N. and Palloni, G. (2019). “Structural Transformation and Intergenerational Mobility: Evidence from the Indonesian Family Life Survey,” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 470–485. 17. Li, N. (2011). “Cyclical Wage Movements in Emerging Markets Compared to Developed Economies: The Role of Interest Rates,” Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 14, pp. 686–704. 18. Lucas, R. E. Jr. (1988). “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3–42. 19. Ngai, L. R. and Pissarides, C. A. (2007). “Structural Change in a Multisector Model of Growth,” American Economic Review, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 429–443. 20. Ngai, L. R. and Pissarides, C. A. (2008). “Trends in Hours and Economic Growth,”Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 239–256. 21. Porzio, T., Santangelo, G., and Samaniego, R. (2022). “Education, Structural Transformation, and Productivity,” Journal of Development Economics, vol. 156, Article 102837. 22. Romer, P. M. (1990). “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. S71–S102. 23. Tournemaine, F. (2007). “Can Education Subsidies Induce Economic Growth?” Economic Theory, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 255–280. 24. Tournemaine, F. and Luangaram, P. (2012). “Fertility, Human Capital Accumulation, and the Dynamics of Economic Growth,” Economic Modelling, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1810–1822. |
電子全文 Fulltext |
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。 論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted 開放時間 Available: 校內 Campus: 已公開 available 校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available |
紙本論文 Printed copies |
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。 開放時間 available 已公開 available |
QR Code |