Summary:
To address the challenge of insufficient effective demand, stimulating consumption has become a core priority of China's macroeconomic policy. Stimulating consumption requires simultaneous efforts from both the demand and the supply sides. On the one hand, the demand for consumption can be boosted by improving the well-being of people. On the other hand, the supply of consumption can be improved by facilitating the innovation of goods and services. How to achieve consumption stimulation and social welfare improvement through coordinated efforts on both demand and supply sides constitutes a critical topic that requires in-depth investigation. Fiscal policy, which can provide direct targeted support for key areas, has unique advantages in addressing economic downturns and structural problems. However, as China's fiscal imbalance becomes increasingly prominent, it is essential to optimize the fiscal expenditure structure and improve fiscal spending efficiency. Meanwhile, structural monetary policy can incentivize financial institutions to provide financing for targeted sectors. Nonetheless, due to its endogeneity, structural monetary policy must be implemented in coordination with other policy instruments to stimulate consumption and expand aggregate demand. This paper aims to construct a multi-sector DSGE model based on China's macroeconomic characteristics to systematically analyze the effects of fiscal expenditure restructuring on consumption from both the demand and supply sides, and further explores the coordination mechanism of structural monetary policy with fiscal expenditure structural adjustment. In particular, China's economy exhibits a distinct vertical industrial structure, with state-owned enterprises largely concentrated in the upstream sectors of the industrial chain and private enterprises mainly located in the downstream sectors. Private enterprises, with their strong innovation capability and rapid adaptability to market changes, serve as a key driver of improvements in consumption supply. Accordingly, this paper incorporates a vertical industrial structure into the model to clarify the impact of various policies on the supply side of consumption. Based on the evolution of China's fiscal expenditure structure over the past decade, this paper classifies fiscal expenditure into three categories: livelihood expenditure, infrastructure expenditure, and government consumption. We examine the impacts of two structural adjustment approaches on consumption demand and consumption supply: (1) expanding the livelihood expenditure and cutting traditional infrastructure expenditure at the same time, and (2) expanding the livelihood expenditure and cutting government consumption at the same time. Increasing the livelihood expenditure can stimulate people's willingness to consume on the demand side. Infrastructure expenditure generates demand for intermediate goods produced by state-owned enterprises, thus reducing such expenditure helps redirect investment and credit funds from the state-owned sector to the private sector, thereby improving consumption supply. Under the vertical industrial structure, both government and households consume final goods produced by the private sector, hence cutting government consumption also contributes to improving consumption supply for households. This paper employs impulse response analysis and comparative static analysis to examine the short-run and long-run effects of fiscal expenditure structural adjustment, respectively. The results indicate both approaches can effectively boost consumption demand. In the short run, Approach (1) delivers a more significant expansion of consumption supply. In the long run, however, public capital accumulated through infrastructure expenditure generates positive spillover effects on the production sector. Consequently, the long-run boosting effect of Approach (1), which cuts infrastructure expenditure, is weaker than that of Approach (2). Therefore, increasing livelihood expenditure and reducing government consumption at the same time can better achieve the coordinated expansion of consumption supply and demand in the long run. Given that both approaches of fiscal expenditure structural adjustment can increase the credit spread for the private sector, this paper argues that implementing structural monetary policy alongside such fiscal expenditure structural adjustment can provide targeted liquidity to the private sector, thereby better leveraging the role of fiscal expenditure structural adjustment in promoting consumption supply. These findings carry important policy implications. First, stimulating consumption requires coordinated fiscal and monetary policies. Second, efforts should be made to promote sound interaction between supply and demand, with coordinated measures from both sides. Third, fiscal expenditure structure should be optimized by increasing livelihood expenditure and cutting government consumption.
王芳, 刘瑶琚, 王晨曦. 助消费提振:财政支出结构调整与结构性货币政策配合[J]. 金融研究, 2026, 551(5): 1-19.
WANG Fang, LIU Yaoju, WANG Chenxi. Stimulating Consumption: Fiscal Expenditure Structural Adjustment and the Coordination of Structural Monetary Policy. Journal of Financial Research, 2026, 551(5): 1-19.
[1]卞志村、赵亮和丁慧,2019,《货币政策调控框架转型、财政乘数非线性变动与新时代财政工具选择》,《经济研究》第9期,第56~72页。 [2]陈创练、高锡蓉和刘晓彬,2022,《“稳增长”与“防风险”双目标的宏观调控政策抉择》,《金融研究》第1期,第19~37页。 [3]陈创练、高锡蓉、徐锦辉和郭玉清,2023,《渐进式改革、双支柱调控转型与财政政策效果研究》,《经济研究》第8期,第43~61页。 [4]陈金至、刘元春和宋鹭,2023,《进退相济:国有经济的产业布局与宏观稳定效应》,《管理世界》第10期,第23~41页。 [5]陈小亮和马啸,2016,《“债务—通缩”风险与货币政策财政政策协调》,《经济研究》第8期,第28~42页。 [6]董兵兵、徐慧伦和谭小芬,2021,《货币政策能够兼顾稳增长与防风险吗?——基于动态随机一般均衡模型的分析》,《金融研究》第4期,第19~37页。 [7]郭长林,2018,《财政政策扩张、异质性企业与中国城镇就业》,《经济研究》第5期,第88~102页。 [8]李戎和刘力菲,2021,《制度优势、货币政策协调与财政拉动效应》,《中国工业经济》第10期,第22~40页。 [9]李戎和田晓晖,2021,《财政支出类型、结构性财政政策与积极财政政策提质增效》,《中国工业经济》第2期,第42~60页。 [10]陆磊、李力和冯业倩,2022,《跨境融资宏观审慎管理与外部输入性风险防范》,《经济研究》第10期,第18~34页。 [11]吕炜、高帅雄和周潮,2016,《投资建设性支出还是保障性支出——去杠杆背景下的财政政策实施研究》,《中国工业经济》第8期,第5~22页。 [12]梅冬州、温兴春和吴娱,2021,《财政扩张、信用违约和民营企业融资困境》,《经济研究》第3期,第116~131页。 [13]田国强和赵旭霞,2019,《金融体系效率与地方政府债务的联动影响——民企融资难融资贵的一个双重分析视角》,《经济研究》第8期,第4~20页。 [14]汪勇、马新彬和周俊仰,2018,《货币政策与异质性企业杠杆率——基于纵向产业结构的视角》,《金融研究》第5期,第47~64页。 [15]王国静和田国强,2014,《政府支出乘数》,《经济研究》第9期,第4~19页。 [16]王立勇和徐晓莉,2018,《纳入企业异质性与金融摩擦特征的政府支出乘数研究》,《经济研究》第8期,第100~115页。 [17]王义中、郑博文和邬介然,2023,《不确定性冲击、信贷资源错配与货币财政政策效果》,《世界经济》第2期,第3~30页。 [18]殷兴山、易振华和项燕彪,2020,《总量型和结构型货币政策工具的选择与搭配——基于结构性去杠杆视角下的分析》,《金融研究》第6期,第60~77页。 [19]战明华、李帅和姚耀军,2021,《投资潮涌、双重金融摩擦与货币政策传导——转型时期货币政策的结构调控功能探究》,《金融研究》第3期,第1~17页。 [20]张成思、刘瑶琚和王芳,2023,《国债流动性效应与财政货币政策配合机制》,《管理世界》第5期,第9~24页。 [21]张成思、田涵晖和王晨曦,2024,《结构性需求冲击、政策独立性与财政货币政策协调机制研究》,《经济理论与经济管理》第2期,第117~132页。 [22]张云、李俊青和张四灿,2020,《双重金融摩擦、企业目标转换与中国经济波动》,《经济研究》第1期,第17~32页。 [23]朱军、李建强和陈昌兵,2020,《金融供需摩擦、信贷结构与最优财政援助政策》,《经济研究》第9期,第58~73页。 [24]Bernanke, B. S., M. Gertler and S. Gilchrist, 1999, “The Financial Accelerator in a Quantitative Business Cycle Framework”,Handbook of Macroeconomics, 1, pp. 1341~1393. [25]Bianchi, F. and L. Melosi, 2019, “The Dire Effects of the Lack of Monetary and Fiscal Coordination”,Journal of Monetary Economics, 104, pp.1~22. [26]Chang, C., K. Chen, D. F. Waggoner and T. Zha, 2016, “Trends and Cycles in China's Macroeconomy”,NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 30(1), pp. 1~84. [27]Galí, J., 2020, “The Effects of a Money-financed Fiscal Stimulus”,Journal of Monetary Economics, 115, pp.1~19. [28]Gertler, M. and P. Karadi, 2011, “A Model of Unconventional Monetary Policy”,Journal of Monetary Economics, 58(1), pp. 17~34. [29]Kolasa, M. and G. Wesołowski, 2023, “Quantitative Easing in the US and Financial Cycles in Emerging Markets”,Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 149, 104631. [30]Paoli, B. D. and M. Paustian, 2017, “Coordinating Monetary and Macroprudential Policies”,Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 49(2-3), pp. 319~349. [31]Rannenberg, A., 2016, “Bank Leverage Cycles and the External Finance Premium”,Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 48(8), pp. 1569~1612.
