基于县域尺度财政转移支付数据,利用空间分析、熵权TOPSIS、GMM动态面板模型等方法,对我国转移支付空间格局及其社会经济发展效应进行测度,研究发现：首先,转移支付分布基本与分配机制吻合,呈现西多东少的基本特征,而税收返还则反之。特定区域如生态功能区、老少边穷地区等转移支付呈现投入增加的态势,总体而言财政转移支付并没未有效缩小地区间发展差异。其次,转移支付对社会经济发展的影响可分为总量影响、结构影响和双向影响。其中总量影响为正向影响,结构影响中无条件转移支付主要体现为总量效应,有条件转移支付则会通过影响地方政府决策而产生更为复杂的影响机制,双向影响指社会经济发展现状对于转移支付具有反向影响,对地方政府财税努力形成负向激励,弱化转移支付社会经济发展的正向促进作用。最后,综合性转移支付和均衡性转移支付对县域社会经济发展均起到明显的正向促进作用,但并未有效缩小欠发达地区与发达地区之间社会经济发展差距,其中负向激励和软性公共产品投入不足可能为其中的重要因素。

Basing on the county scale fiscal transfer data uses spatial analysis, entropy weight TOPSIS, GMM dynamic panel model and other methods to measure the spatial pattern of fiscal transfer in China and its effects on the county socio-economic development. Firstly, the distribution of fiscal transfer is basically consistent with the distribution mechanism presenting much larger in the western region than the eastern, while the tax return is the opposite. Fiscal transfer is increasing in ecological functional areas, former revolutionary base areas, areas inhabited by minority nationalities, remote and border areas and poverty-stricken areas. In general, fiscal transfer does not effectively narrow the development gap between regions. Secondly, the impact of fiscal transfer on socio-economic development can be divided into total impact (positive), structural influence and bidirectional influence, while unconditional fiscal transfer impacts on the county socio-economic development, the conditional would have a more complex impact mechanism by influencing local government decisions, it has a bidirectional influence between socio-economic development and fiscal transfer, the current situation of socio-economic development has a negative impact on the distribution of fiscal transfer, and fiscal transfer forms negative incentive on the efforts for the local government fiscal and taxation, weakening the positive impact of fiscal transfer on the socio-economic development. Finally, comprehensive fiscal transfer and balanced fiscal transfer both play a significant positive role in promoting socio-economic development in the county, butdo not effectively narrow the socio-economic development gap between underdeveloped regions and developed regions, the negative incentive of fiscal transfer on the efforts for the local government fiscal and taxation and insufficient investment in soft public goods may be important factors.