本文選題：社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群 + 收入差距��； 參考：《南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：社會(huì)輿論認(rèn)為，社會(huì)救助人群不論是就業(yè)狀況還是收入狀況都與城鎮(zhèn)職工存在明顯差距。然而，當(dāng)前理論界少有適用于社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群和城鎮(zhèn)職工收入差距的研究。本文實(shí)證研究了社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群與城鎮(zhèn)職工的收入差距，得出他們的收入差距一部分源自于他們本身的特征稟賦，一部分源自于這些特征的回報(bào)系數(shù)（歧視）。 本文首先對(duì)社會(huì)救助人群就業(yè)與收入現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析，理論解釋了社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群收入低的原因。其次，基于問(wèn)卷調(diào)查所得微觀數(shù)據(jù)，使用OLS回歸和百分位數(shù)回歸分析兩個(gè)群體收入的影響因素，結(jié)果顯示，兩個(gè)群體不僅在人力資本的特征變量上存在差異，而且在這些特征變量的回歸系數(shù)上也存在差異，即通常我們所說(shuō)的歧視。然后，使用了基于均值工資層面的Oaxaca分解、基于工資分布層面JMP1993分解和基于半?yún)?shù)模型的DFL分解這三種各具特色的收入差距分解方法，對(duì)城鎮(zhèn)社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群與城鎮(zhèn)職工的收入差距進(jìn)行分解。Oaxaca分解結(jié)果顯示，個(gè)人特征不能解釋部分造成的收入差距，即歧視占總差距的57.35%；JMP1993分解結(jié)果顯示，，低收入和高收入分位數(shù)上社會(huì)救助人群受到的歧視程度大于中等收入社會(huì)救助人群，總的來(lái)說(shuō)歧視造成的收入差距占總差距的40%左右；DFL分解結(jié)果可視化顯示，一方面，低分位數(shù)上的社會(huì)救助人群受到的歧視程度更大，另一方面，總體歧視造成的收入差距占總差距的63.82%。最后，文章分析了收入差距個(gè)人特征不能解釋部分的原因，指出這些由個(gè)人特征不能解釋的收入差距，一部分是由統(tǒng)計(jì)性歧視等歧視因素造成，一部分是由社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群消極被動(dòng)的個(gè)性特征所造成。 綜合本文所有實(shí)證結(jié)果來(lái)分析，社會(huì)救助再就業(yè)人群受到的歧視沒(méi)有人們感官上那么大。對(duì)社會(huì)救助人群的扶持，一是要努力促進(jìn)未就業(yè)人群再就業(yè)，二是進(jìn)一步縮小已就業(yè)人群收入差距。
[Abstract]:According to public opinion, there is a clear gap between the employment status and income status of social assistance people and urban workers. However, there are few researches on the income gap between the reemployed and urban workers. This paper empirically studies the income gap between reemployed people and urban workers. It is concluded that the income gap is partly derived from their own characteristic endowment and partly from the return coefficient (discrimination) of these characteristics. Firstly, this paper analyzes the present situation of employment and income of social relief population, and explains theoretically the reason for the low income of social assistance reemployment group. Secondly, based on the microcosmic data obtained from the questionnaire, OLS regression and percentile regression analysis are used to analyze the influencing factors of the income of the two groups. The results show that the two groups are different not only in the characteristic variables of human capital, but also in the characteristics of human capital. There are also differences in the regression coefficients of these characteristic variables, which are commonly referred to as discrimination. Then, we use the Oaxaca decomposition based on the average wage level, the JMP1993 decomposition based on the wage distribution level and the DFL decomposition based on the semi-parametric model. The results of decomposing the income gap between the urban social assistance reemployment population and the urban workers and staff show that the individual characteristics can not explain the income gap caused by part of the income gap, that is, discrimination accounts for 57.3535% of the total gap, and the result of JMP1993 decomposition shows that, On the low and high income quartiles, the discrimination degree of the social assistance population is greater than that of the middle income social assistance population. In general, the income gap caused by discrimination accounts for about 40% of the total gap. The results of DFL decomposition show that, on the one hand, On the other hand, the income gap caused by overall discrimination accounts for 63.82% of the total gap. Finally, the article analyzes the reasons why the personal characteristics of the income gap can not explain part of the reasons, and points out that these income differences, which can not be explained by the personal characteristics, are partly caused by discrimination such as statistical discrimination. Part of it is caused by the passive personality of the social assistance and re-employment population. Synthesizing all the empirical results of this paper, the discrimination of social assistance and re-employment is not as big as that of people's senses. To support the social assistance population, one is to promote the re-employment of the underemployed people, the other is to further narrow the income gap of the already employed people.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F124.7;F249.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 洪小良,王雪梅;低保未就業(yè)人員的情況分析與促進(jìn)就業(yè)的基本思路——對(duì)北京市東城區(qū)調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)的分析[J];北京社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年04期

2 王欣;;低收入群體就業(yè)與再就業(yè)的促進(jìn)研究——基于北京市原宣武區(qū)的數(shù)據(jù)分析[J];中國(guó)城市經(jīng)濟(jì);2011年02期

3 王萍;再就業(yè)工程中的歧視現(xiàn)象分析[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問(wèn)題研究;1999年05期

4 楊燦明;;中國(guó)城鄉(xiāng)居民收入的決定因素分析[J];當(dāng)代財(cái)經(jīng);2010年12期

5 白雪梅;教育與收入不平等:中國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)研究[J];管理世界;2004年06期

6 邢春冰;;農(nóng)民工與城鎮(zhèn)職工的收入差距[J];管理世界;2008年05期

7 胡鞍鋼;中國(guó)就業(yè)狀況分析[J];管理世界;1997年03期

8 李樂(lè)為;王麗華;;就業(yè)激勵(lì)和援助:貧困救助制度演進(jìn)和優(yōu)化的基本取向[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年03期

9 高黎丹;諸葛明;;下崗職工再就業(yè)歧視問(wèn)題研究[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年S1期

10 劉文忻;杜鳳蓮;;失業(yè)與中國(guó)城鎮(zhèn)人口收入差距[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)評(píng)論;2008年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐向峰;城市弱勢(shì)就業(yè)群體公共政策支持體系研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：2025981