审计定价管制与交易剩余——2010年审计定价管制失效的自然实验

在经济下行压力加大、资本市场进一步开放的新形势下,厘清审计市场交易——监管机制,完善审计服务市场尤为必要。借由2010 年审计定价管制政策失效的自然实验,本文通过嵌入双边随机边界模型,得到审计双方的定价交易剩余指标,运用双重差分模型解析价格管制与交易定价的作用机制。研究发现,定价管制失效的原因不在于规制俘获,而在于价格管制与当前的市场效率不匹配。下限管制尽管能够提高审计师剩余,但同时会放大交易定价风险,增加剩余的错配,扰乱交易秩序。上限管制则进一步固化市场的低价竞争。进一步研究发现审计师剩余与盈余质量显著相关,2014年的放开定价管制政策提高了审计师剩余。研究厘清了审计市场交易机制,有利于未来研究审计交易机制的微观影响及与盈余质量的关联,为在新时代把握审计市场交易——监管规律、培育自发良性交易的审计市场提供有益借鉴。     

自杀和生命的意义——来自脑科学研究的解读

生命本身是一个随机事件，并不具有高尚的意义。进化的结果使人类可通过工作、家庭和人际关系等给予自己的生命以意义感。当我们的生活方式使脑内奖赏系统获得刺激，就会带来生命具有意义的感受，这种感受给人带来更好的生存机会。生存的欲望是一切生物体最具特征的属性，一些精神疾病患者缺乏这种欲望。自杀主要发生于精神疾病患者，它并非是基于自由意志的行为。抗精神病治疗和适当的社会交往可以预防自杀。由于不同个体有着不同的大脑，人们的生活方式就应该去适应各自大脑的特征。只要人们的生活方式不对他人造成过多的伤害，政府就应该允许和保护人们自由地按照各自的方式生活。     

Beyond Piketty: A new perspective on poverty and inequality in India

The socio-economic literature has focused much on how overall inequality in income distribution (frequently measured by the Gini coefficient) undermines the “trickle down” effect. In other words, the higher the inequality in the income distribution, the lower is the growth elasticity of poverty. However, with the publication of Piketty’s magnum opus (2014), and a subsequent study by Chancel and Piketty (2017) of evolution of income inequality in India since 1922, the focus has shifted to the income disparity between the richest 1% (or 0.01%) and the bottom 50%. Their central argument is that the rapid growth of income at the top end of millionaires and billionaires is a by-product of growth. The present study extends this argument by linking it to poverty indices in India. Based on the India Human Development Survey 2005–12 – a nationwide panel survey-we examine the links between poverty and income inequality, especially in the upper tail relative to the bottom 50%, state affluence (measured in per capita income) and their interaction or their joint effect. Another feature of our research is that we analyse their effects on the FGT class of poverty indices. The results are similar in as much as direction of association is concerned but the elasticities vary with the poverty index. The growth elasticities are negative and significant for all poverty indices. In all three cases, the disparity between the income share of the top 1% and share of the bottom 50% is associated with greater poverty. These elasticities are much higher than the (absolute) income elasticities except in the case of the poverty gap. The largest increase occurs in the poverty gap squared – a 1% greater income disparity is associated with a 1.24% higher value of this index. Thus the consequences of even a small increase in the income disparity are alarming for the poorest.