The Impacts Of The Financial System Reform About "Province Govering County" On The People's Livelihood

For a long period of time,most areas in China have adopted five levels of administrative management systems at the central,provincial and prefecture-level cities,counties and townships.Although the city-county-county system has exerted a positive influence on the agglomeration effect of the urban economy,its drawbacks have become increasingly apparent.With the increasingly strong demands for the development of the county and the proposal for the construction of a new countryside,the reform of the system of “provincial direct management of counties” has gradually been implemented as a kind of reform measures to solve the many shortcomings of the “city management county”.Since the reform was implemented,the change in system design has,on the one hand,improved the county(city)level government in the development of local economic discourse rights,given the county more economic management decision-making power,strengthened the competition of the same level of government,and stimulated the vitality of county economic development.On the other hand,the provincial government's vertical management has reduced the distribution of benefits at the municipal level,strengthened tax incentives for county-level governments,and increased the self-financing rate of county-level governments.However,this does not suffice to show that the reform has already achieved the goal of “a strong people-rich county”.County development includes not only economic development and fiscal relief,but also the construction of people's livelihood.This article examines the effects of people's livelihood from the four dimensions of infrastructure construction,culture and education,health care,and social assistance,and uses the PSM-DID method to empirically analyze the average treatment effect of the reform of people's livelihood,and at the same time,examines the dynamic marginal year effects of reforms.Scientific estimate the impact of reforms on people's livelihood.As a result,it was found that when other factors were controlled,the fiscal system reform of “provincial provinces and counties” had a positive effect on basic construction and public health and social assistance and other public services,but it had a deterrent effect on cultural education.After further testing its dynamic marginal annual effect,it was found that the impact of reforms on infrastructure construction has obvious lag,and the positive effects of policy implementation began to appear in the third year;the impact on cultural education has obvious timeliness and Lasting,the effect is still significant in the third year of the reform;the impact on medical and health care also has obvious lag,and the policy has played a notably positive influence at the beginning of the policy.The negative effects of the policy began to appear in the third year;The impact of social assistance is transient,and the long-term implementation of reform policies has only had a weak positive effect on social assistance.The contribution of this paper is mainly from the perspective of people's livelihood to discuss the policy effect of the fiscal system reform of the county-administered county directly.The previous literature is mostly focused on discussing the effect of the provincial-administered county-level reform on local financial difficulties,fiscal revenue and expenditure,economic growth,industrial structure,and environmental quality.It is rare to pay attention to the study of the effects of provincial direct management reforms from the perspective of people's livelihood.In the past,studies on people's livelihood were mostly focused on the policy effects of individual livelihood indicators such as public services and urban-rural income disparity.Such studies are not sufficient to measure the overall livelihood effect of the “provincial direct management county” reform.In addition,the traditional assessment methods are mainly fixed-effect model and random-effect model estimation.This paper uses a more scientific dual-difference(DID)and propensity score matching(PSM)approach to the policy reform of “provincial direct management county”.The assessment of the people's livelihood effect helps to overcome the endogeneity of the model.