本研究旨在探討台灣低利率環境下的財政政策有效性，我們將台灣 1981:1 至2021:3 的樣本資料切割成了正常時期與低利率時期，根據 Blanchard and Perotti (2002)提出的認定方法認定出未預期的台灣政府支出衝擊，運用平滑局部投射模型估計各總體變數對政府支出衝擊的反應，本研究所關心的變數有: 實質 GDP、民間消費、民間投資、名目利率以及物價，研究發現兩種不同時期的台灣財政政策效果會有所不同，第一，低利率時期的產出乘數會顯著大於正常時期，但兩種時期的乘數值皆會小於一，第二，低
利率時期擴張性的政府支出衝擊會對民間消費產生排擠效果，但對民間投資強烈的擠入效果導致低利率時期的產出乘數會顯著為正；相反的，正常時期會刺激民間消費，但排擠民間投資，強烈的排擠效果導致正常時期的產出乘數在排擠效果消失前皆顯著為負。面對政府支出增加的衝擊，低利率時期的名目利率會大幅下降，通膨率則並不會受到影響；相反的，正常時期的名目利率及通膨率皆會顯著上升，故低利率時期下的擴張性政府支出衝擊會導致實質利率的下跌，而正常時期的實質利率反應方向則未定，上述結果顯示台灣近期低利率環境下的擴張性財政政策會較正常時期更有效。

The purpose of this research is to investigate the efficacy of Taiwan’s fiscal policy in a zero lower bound (ZLB) environment. We split our sample between 1981Q1 and
2021Q3 into a normal period and a ZLB period. Following Blanchard and Perotti (2002), we identify unexpected Taiwanese government spending shock and estimate the impulse
responses of macroeconomic variables using smooth local projections. The variables of interest include real GDP, private consumption, private investment, nominal interest rate, and price level. Our results indicate that the effects of Taiwanese fiscal policy are different in the two periods. First, output multiplier during the ZLB period is higher than that during the normal period, however both no greater than one. Second, an expansionary government spending shock during the ZLB period crowds out the private consumption;
however, the resulting strong crowd-in effect on the private investment leads to a positive output multiplier. On the contrary, an expansionary government spending shock during
the normal period crowds in the private consumption and strongly crowds out the private investment, which leads to a negative output multiplier in the short run. Responding to
a positive government spending shock, during the ZLB period the nominal interest rate declines considerably while inflation rate barely changes. Conversely, during the normal
period nominal interest rate rises as inflation rate increases. Accordingly, an expansionary government spending shock will result in a falling real interest rate during the ZLB period, and have an uncertain result during the normal period. This result suggests that Taiwan’s recent expansionary fiscal policy in a ZLB environment is more effective than during thenormal period

[1] 朱浩榜 (2021). 即時認定台灣的景氣轉折. 經濟論文叢刊, 49(3), 335-370.
[2] 李麗華, 霍德明, 朱浩民 (2011). 小型開放經濟體系財政政策有效性之實證研究: 以
臺灣爲例. 臺灣經濟預測與政策, 41(2), 51-93.
[3] 黃裕烈, 葉錦徽, 陳重吉 (2021). 台灣經濟政策不確定性指標之建構與分析. 經濟論
文叢刊, 49(2), 307-334.
[4] 黃琝琇 (2009). 台灣財政政策的動態效果-結構向量自我迴歸模型的運用. 國家發展
研究, 9(1), 145-186.
[5] 楊佳侑 (2021). 探討經濟結構特徵及景氣循環對政府消費乘數之影響. 中央銀行季
刊, 43(2), 5-32.
[6] Alloza, M., Burriel, P., Pérez, J. J. (2019). Fiscal policies in the euro area: Revisiting
the size of spillovers. Journal of Macroeconomics, 61, 103132.
[7] Ascari, G., Haber, T. (2022). Non-linearities,state-dependent prices and the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. Economic Journal, 132, 37-57.
[8] Auerbach, A. J., Gorodnichenko, Y. (2012). Measuring the output responses to fiscal
policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(2), 1-27.
[9] Auerbach, A. J., Gorodnichenko, Y. (2016). Effects of fiscal shocks in a globalized
world. IMF Economic Review, 64(1), 177-215.
[10] Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty.
Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 131(4), 1593-1636.
[11] Barnichon, R., Brownlees, C. (2019). Impulse response estimation by smooth local
projections. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 522-530.
[12] Baxter, M., King, R. G. (1993). Fiscal policy in general equilibrium. American Economic Review, 83(3), 315-334.
[13] Black, F. (1995). Interest rates as options.the Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1371-1376.
[14] Blanchard, O., Perotti, R. (2002). An empirical characterization of the dynamic
effects of changes in government spending and taxes on output. Quarterly Journal
of economics, 117(4), 1329-1368.
[15] Boehm, C. E. (2020). Government consumption and investment: Does the composition of purchases affect the multiplier?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 115, 80-93.
[16] Bouakez, H., Guillard, M., Roulleau-Pasdeloup, J. (2017). Public investment, time
to build, and the zero lower bound. Review of Economic Dynamics, 23, 60-79.
[17] Campbell, J. Y., Cocco, J. F. (2007). How do house prices affect consumption?
Evidence from micro data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 54(3), 591-621.
[18] Cavallo, A., Rigobon, R. (2016). The billion prices project: Using online prices for
measurement and research. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 151-78.
[19] Chiu, R. L. (2001). The intratemporal substitution between government spending and
private consumption: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Asian Economic Journal,
15(3), 313-323.
[20] Choi, S., Shin, J., Yoo, S. Y. (2022). Are government spending shocks inflationary at the zero lower bound? New evidence from daily data. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, 139, 104423.
[21] Cooper, D. (2010). Did easy credit lead to overspending? Home equity borrowing
and household behavior in the early 2000s. FRB of Boston Public Policy Discussion
Paper, (09-7).
[22] Crafts, N., Mills, T. C. (2013). Rearmament to the rescue? New estimates of the
impact of “Keynesian”policies in 1930s’ Britain. Journal of Economic History,
73(4), 1077-1104.
[23] Eggertsson, G. B. (2011). What fiscal policy is effective at zero interest rates?. NBER
Macroeconomics Annual, 25(1), 59-112.
[24] Faust, J. (1998). The robustness of identified VAR conclusions about money. In
Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (Vol. 49, pp. 207-244).
[25] Fisher, J. D., Peters, R. (2010). Using stock returns to identify government spending
shocks. Economic Journal, 120(544), 414-436.
[26] Giordano, R., Momigliano, S., Neri, S., Perotti, R. (2007). The effects of fiscal policy in Italy: Evidence from a VAR model. European Journal of Political Economy,
23(3), 707-733.
[27] Gonçalves, S. (2011). The moving blocks bootstrap for panel linear regression models with individual fixed effects. Econometric Theory, 27(5), 1048-1082.
[28] Gonçalves, S., Kaffo, M. (2015). Bootstrap inference for linear dynamic panel data
models with individual fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 186(2), 407-426.
[29] Ilzetzki, E., Mendoza, E. G., Végh, C. A. (2013). How big (small?) are fiscal multipliers?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 60(2), 239-254.
[30] Johannsen, B. K. (2014). When are the effects of fiscal policy uncertainty large?.
FEDS Working Paper No. 2014-40
[31] Jordà, Ò. (2005). Estimation and inference of impulse responses by local projections.
American Economic Review, 95(1), 161-182.
[32] Jørgensen, P. L., Ravn, S. H. (2022). The inflation response to government spending
shocks: A fiscal price puzzle?. European Economic Review, 141, 103982.
[33] Kan, K., Peng, S. K., Wang, P. (2017). Understanding consumption behavior: Evidence from consumers’ reaction to shopping vouchers. American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy, 9(1), 137-53.
[34] Kwan, Y. K. (2007). The direct substitution between government and private consumption in East Asia. Fiscal Policy And Management In East Asia, NBER-EASE,
16, 45-58.
[35] Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that
economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
[36] Lin, T. C., Hsu, S. H., Lin, Y. L. (2019). The effect of housing prices on consumption
and economic growth–the case of Taiwan. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy,
24(2), 292-312.
[37] Mertens, K. R., Ravn, M. O. (2014). Fiscal policy in an expectations-driven liquidity
trap. Review of Economic Studies, 81(4), 1637-1667.
[38] Miyamoto, W., Nguyen, T. L., Sergeyev, D. (2018). Government spending multipliers under the zero lower bound: Evidence from Japan. American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics, 10(3), 247-77.
[39] Mountford, A., Uhlig, H. (2009). What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks?. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(6), 960-992.
[40] Ramey, V. A. (2011). Identifying government spending shocks: It’s all in the timing.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 1-50.
[41] Ramey, V. A., Shapiro, M. D. (1998). Costly capital reallocation and the effects of
government spending. In Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy
(Vol. 48, pp. 145-194).
[42] Ramey, V. A., Zubairy, S. (2018). Government spending multipliers in good times
and in bad: evidence from US historical data. Journal of Political Economy, 126(2),
850-901.
[43] Romer, C. D., Romer, D. H. (1989). Does monetary policy matter? A new test in
the spirit of Friedman and Schwartz. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 4, 121-170.
[44] Stock, J. H., Wright, J. H., Yogo, M. (2002). A survey of weak instruments and weak
identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic
Statistics, 20(4), 518-529.
[45] Uhlig, H. (2010). Some fiscal calculus. American Economic Review, 100(2), 30-34.
[46] Woodford, M. (2011). Simple analytics of the government expenditure multiplier.
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3(1), 1-35.
[47] Wu, J. C., Xia, F. D. (2016). Measuring the macroeconomic impact of monetary
policy at the zero lower bound.Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 48(2-3), 253-
291.