垄断、所有制性质对行业收入差距的影响——基于中国工业经济数据的研究

The Effects of Industrial Monopoly and Ownership on Inter-industrial Income Gap:A Study Based on the Data of China's Industrial Economics

本文从理论和实证两个方面揭示了垄断和所有制性质对中国行业收入差距截然不同的影响机制,弥补了现有文献对这两个因素不加区分甚至混为一谈的缺陷。研究认为,垄断行业在获得高资产回报率的基础上,将部分超额利润转化为职工的高工资;国有经济的低效率影响了行业资产获利能力,但固有的所有权虚置,导致低的资产报酬率(甚至亏损)依然产生了行业高收入。本文基于动态收入方程和中国工业行业数据,使用Shorrocks(1999)和Wan(2004)发展的"夏普里值"方法进一步分解了行业收入差距。结果显示,2005—2012年间,垄断、所有制及国有垄断对行业收入差距的贡献分别达到15.58%、7.1%及7.57%,且垄断的贡献程度呈现上升趋势。

Income inequality among different industries is probably due to their differences in production func- tion and technical features. Thus, those industries of higher technology which absorb laborers of high quality need to correspondingly pay their laborers with higher salary. In that event, the income inequality emerged here reasona- bly makes up for the investment of human capital. It is true that human capital should be a long-term factor that de- tion, though the impact is quite low. Nevertheless, differences in human capital and technical features cannot ex- plain the high income of some industries. As a common case, ＂unequal pay for equal work＂, namely, laborers who are the same human capital and even undertake totally the same kind of labor that shares the same intensity earn different income only because of different industry categories, has been an essential part of inter-industry income inequality. Such income inequality is apparently not reasonable, regardless of labor market friction. ＂Unequal pay for equal work＂, therefore, has made the public wonder why some industries can provide the same labor with much higher income. Essentially, such phenomenon is primarily generated by labor market segmentation which equals the labor mobility barrier in some particular industries. According to the current situation of income distribution in China, labor market segmen- tation caused by the monopoly of industries and defect of ownership system has been a critical reason for ＂unequal pay for equal work＂, which not only affects the long-term economic growth by distorting allocation of labor resources but also discontents the public with obviously unfair distribution methods, resulting in hidden dangers of social cri- sis. It is to be of practical significance for the present article to theoretically analyze income inequality through the perspective of monopoly and ownership system and to provide empirical evidence for the influence, so as to find out the degree to which these two factors contribute to income inequality. Based on previous study reviewed by other researchers, this paper manifested the mechanism of how monopoly and ownership system affects income inequality among different industries. Under the framework of profit maximiza- tion goal, the only reasonable explanation for ＂unequal pay for equal work＂ should be that ＂the premium of profit brought by increasing wage is worth more than the increase in wage cost＂. This means that monopolistic industries gain higher rate of return on equity （ROE） through monopoly, transforming part of the excess profit to the income of those highly paid under the effect of efficiency wage and fair wage. On the contrary, the impact of ownership sys- tem exerted on income inequality is completely different. On one hand, the established absence of ownership in state-owned enterprises vitiates principal-agent mechanism, resulting in wage determination terribly deviating from the profit maximization goal. On the other hand, though the low efficiency of the state-owned economy has dragged behind the industry＇s profitability, these companies with low rate of ROE （ or even a loss） still share high income. Empirical study has supported the theoretical hypothesis which states that the monopoly factor significantly im- proves the return on assets of the industry while the state ownership and state-owned monopoly factors reduces the profitability of the industry, and that all the factors play a significant role in increasing income of the industry. Based on the dynamic income equation and China industrial data, with the help of Shapley Value approach devel- oped by Shorrocks（ 1999 ） and Wan （2004）, the present study found out that monopoly, ownership and state-owned monopoly factors respectively made up 15.58% , 7.1% and 7.57% in contributing to inter-industrial income ine- quality during 2005--2012, and meanwhile monopoly＇s contribution was on the rise. The policy implication of this research is that both monopoly and state ownership factors will generate high in- come, and monopoly creates high income through high return of equity while high income of state ownership derives from the absence of ownership subject. This means that the income inequality caused by ownership factor is more unfair compared with monopoly factor. This implication provides precise policy guidance for eliminating the unrea- sonable inter-industrial income gap. In order to solve income inequality problem, it should be primarily eliminated that the ＂unequal pay for equal work＂ problem generated by the ownership system, which requires further reform of state-owned enterprises and the reconstruction of principal-agent mechanism.