Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
## References

Blinder, Alan. (1981) “Temporary Income Taxes and Consumer Spending,” Journal of Political Economy 89 (1), pp. 26-53.

Browning, Martin and Dolores Collado. (2001) “The Response of Expenditures to Anticipated Income Changes: Panel Data Estimates,” American Economic Review.

Carroll, Christopher. (2000) “Risky habits” and the marginal propensity to consume out of permanent income, or, How much would a permanent tax cut boost Japanese consumption?”, NBER. Working Paper 7839.

Hayashi, Fumio. (1986) “Testing the Life Cycle-Permanent Income Hypothesis on Japanese Monthly Panel Data,” Keizai Kenkyu 101, pp. 1-23.

Hsieh, Chang-Tai. (2002) “Do Consumers React to Anticipated Income Changes? Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund,” Princeton University mimeo.

Hori, Masahiro, Hsieh, Chang-Tai, Murata, Keiko and Shimizutani, Satoshi (2002) “Did the Shopping Coupon Program Stimulate Consumption? Evidence from Japanese Micro Data,” ESRI Discussion Paper Series No.12, Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Tokyo, Japan.

Ishi, Hiromitsu. (2001) The Japanese Tax System (Third Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts, and Telecommunications. Annual report on the Family Income and Expenditure Survey, various years.

Parker, Jonathan. (1999) “The Reaction of Household Consumption to Predictable Changes in Payroll Tax Rates.” American Economic Review, 89(4), pp. 959-973.

Poterba, James. (1988) “Are Consumers Forward Looking? Evidence from Fiscal Experiments,” American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 78(2), pp. 413-18.

Shapiro, Matthew, and Slemrod, Joel. (1995) “Consumer Response to the Timing of Income: Evidence from a Change in Tax Withholding,” American Economic Review, 85 (1), pp. 274-283.

Shapiro, Matthew and Slemrod, Joel. (2001) “Consumer Response to Tax Rebates” mimeo.

Shea, John. (1995) “Union Contracts and the Life-Cycle/Permanent-Income Hypothesis.” American Economic Review, 85(1), pp. 186-200

Shimizutani, Satoshi. (2002) “Consumption and Tax Policy in Japan during the 1990s: Evidence from Household Data” University of Michigan, mimeo.

Souleles, Nicholas. (1999) “The Response of Household Consumption to Income Tax Refunds.” American Economic Review, 89(4), pp. 947-958

Souleles, Nicholas. “Consumer Response to the Reagan Tax Cuts.” Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming
Watanabe, Katsunori, Watanabe, Takayuki and Watanabe, Tsutomu. (1999) “Tax policy and consumer spending: Evidence from Japanese fiscal experiments” NBER.Working Paper 7252.

Zeldes, Stephen. (1989) “Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Political Economy, vol.97, no 2.
Table 1: Summary Statistics

Mean	S.D.
March-August Panel (N=4,372)
Consumption (exc. Transfer or gift)	281,463	236,501
Durables	20,627	136,394
Semi-durables	36,663	55,035
Non-durables	116,657	47,410
Services	107,518	139,502
National Income Tax Cut Benefit (95 Dec.)	12,682	9,641
National Income Tax Cut Benefit (96 Dec.)	13,910	9,825
Bonus	103,591	326,233
Bonus (95 Dec.)	556,223	546,620
Bonus (96 Dec.)	620,553	585,809
Monthly income $ ^{1} $	596,864	263,417
Age (household head)	45.8	10.9
Number of family members	3.6	1.2
April-September Panel (N=4,413)
Consumption (exc. Transfer or gift)	278,946	232,058
Durables	19,639	126,146
Semi-durables	36,575	64,216
Non-durables	115,063	47,572
Services	107,668	142,584
National Income Tax Cut Benefit (95 Dec.)	13,500	9,581
National Income Tax Cut Benefit (96 Dec.)	13,362	9,721
Bonus	103,364	326,203
Bonus (95 Dec.)	614,609	588,439
Bonus (96 Dec.)	589,250	582,338
Monthly income $ ^{2} $	598,829	257,828
Age (household head)	46.0	11.0
Number of family members	3.6	1.2

$ ^{1} $ Pretax annual income/12.

Note: Unit of observation is a household. Consumption refers to average monthly consumption in current yen.
Table 2: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Total Consumption

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Panel	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan.	Sep.-Feb.	Sep.-Feb.
Specification	(1)	(2)	(1)	(2)
Taxcuth,t+1Monthly Incomeh	1.70 * (0.99)	1.02 (1.00)	3.06 ** (0.96)	2.81 ** (0.97)
Taxcuth,tMonthly Incomeh	-1.09 (0.98)	-0.54 (0.99)	-1.51 (0.95)	-0.81 (0.97)
Taxcuth,t-1Monthly Incomeh	-0.12 (0.96)	0.48 (0.97)
Taxcuth,t+1*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	-1.21 (1.41)	-1.23 (1.40)	-1.91 (1.41)	-1.94 (1.40)
Taxcuth,t*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	0.13 (1.41)	0.20 (1.40)	1.37 (1.41)	1.11 (1.40)
Taxcuth,t-1*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	-0.32 (1.42)	-0.51 (1.41)
Sum of the Coefficients on tax cut (exc. interaction term)	0.61 (1.40)	0.48 (1.41)	1.43 (1.67)	2.49 (1.69)
Sum of the Coefficients on tax cut (all)	-0.47 (1.43)	-0.56 (1.44)	0.58 (1.82)	1.15 (1.82)
Bonus (current, lagged)	No	Yes	No	Yes
Lags of Current Income	No	Yes	No	Yes
F test (exc. Interaction term) (Prob.>F)	2.11 (0.12)	0.67 (0.51)	4.22 (0.01)	3.11 (0.03)
R squared (adjusted)	0.21	0.22	0.20	0.21
s.e.e.	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
Number of Observation	21,418	21,418	21,669	21,669

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly total consumption except durables. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Table 3-1: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Consumption by Type of Goods (Specification (1): Euler Equation)

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel	Aug.-Jan.	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
Dependent var.	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	3.86	0.25	2.60	3.79	1.63 **	2.92 *
Monthly Incomeh	(3.09)	(0.65)	(1.65)	(3.00)	(0.62)	(1.59)
Taxcuth,t	-6.67 **	-0.37	-0.54	-4.59	-0.23	-1.87
Monthly Incomeh	(3.10)	(0.66)	(1.66)	(3.01)	(0.62)	(1.60)
Taxcuth,t-1	1.93	-0.72	2.05
Monthly Incomeh	(3.06)	(0.62)	(1.60)
Taxcuth,t+1	-4.20	0.25	-0.91	-0.25	-2.66 **	-2.65
*96DUM	(4.45)	(0.93)	(2.37)	(4.41)	(0.92)	(2.35)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t	6.70	-0.59	-1.13	1.62	0.50	1.19
*96DUM	(4.47)	(0.94)	(2.37)	(4.45)	(0.92)	(2.39)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t-1	*96DUM	-2.02	0.13	-0.89
Monthly Incomeh	(4.52)	(0.91)	(2.36)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	-2.81	-0.11	2.06	1.12	0.68	3.10
(4.39)	(0.93)	(2.34)	(5.25)	(1.08)	(2.77)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	-0.31	-0.45	0.02	0.47	-1.35	0.74
(4.55)	(0.95)	(2.41)	(5.71)	(1.18)	(3.05)
F test (exc. Interaction term)	3.10	0.23	1.29	1.45	2.79	2.13
(Prob.>F)	(0.05)	(0.79)	(0.28)	(0.23)	(0.04)	(0.09)
R squared (adjusted)	0.08	0.39	0.02	0.09	0.41	0.02
s.e.e.	1.22	0.27	0.67	1.23	0.26	0.67
Number of Observation	20,731	21,605	21,352	20,962	21,786	21,548

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Table 3-2: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Consumption by Type of Goods (Specification (2))

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel	Aug.-Jan.	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
Dependent var.	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	2.16	0.39	1.51	1.20	1.71 **	2.09
Monthly Incomeh	(3.14)	(0.66)	(1.67)	(3.06)	(0.64)	(1.62)
Taxcuth,t	-5.23 *	-0.45	0.16	-3.28	-0.22	-1.09
Monthly Incomeh	(3.14)	(0.67)	(1.67)	(3.07)	(0.64)	(1.63)
Taxcuth,t-1	3.00	-0.22	2.39
Monthly Incomeh	(3.12)	(0.63)	(1.62)
Taxcuth,t+1	-4.29	0.30	-1.02	0.21	-2.71 **	-2.59
*96DUM	(4.45)	(0.93)	(2.36)	(4.40)	(0.92)	(2.34)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t	6.82	-0.61	-1.03	1.15	0.45	0.80
*96DUM	(4.46)	(0.94)	(2.36)	(4.44)	(0.92)	(2.38)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t-1	*96DUM	-1.91	0.02	-1.06
Monthly Incomeh	(4.52)	(0.91)	(2.35)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	-3.07	-0.06	1.67	0.92	1.27	3.39
(4.44)	(0.94)	(2.37)	(5.36)	(1.11)	(2.82)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	-0.54	-0.36	-0.37	0.38	-0.97	0.55
(4.63)	(0.97)	(2.44)	(5.78)	(1.19)	(3.07)
F test (exc. Interaction term)	1.63	0.41	0.41	0.74	2.47	1.43
(Prob.>F)	(0.20)	(0.67)	(0.66)	(0.53)	(0.06)	(0.23)
R squared (adjusted)	0.08	0.39	0.03	0.09	0.41	0.03
s.e.e.	1.22	0.27	0.67	1.23	0.26	0.66
Number of Observation	20,731	21,605	21,352	20,962	21,786	21,548

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies as well as bonus and lagged current income relative to monthly income in the previous year. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Table 4-1: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts by Income Levels (Specification (1))

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Panel	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
INCOME level	Above	Below	Above	Below	Above	Below	Above	Below
Dependent var.	Total	Total	Semi-durables	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Non-durables	Services	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	2.43**	5.07**	2.90	5.13	1.53**	1.63	1.29	7.75**
Monthly Incomeh	(1.04)	(2.16)	(3.46)	(6.20)	(0.72)	(1.29)	(1.73)	(3.57)
Taxcuth,t	-1.32	-1.97	-3.83	-7.67	-0.16	-0.09	0.13	-8.78**
Monthly Incomeh	(1.04)	(2.15)	(3.45)	(6.28)	(0.71)	(1.30)	(1.75)	(3.54)
Taxcuth,t-1	-0.12	0.33	0.75	6.00	-0.70	-0.89	2.33	1.80
Monthly Incomeh	(1.04)	(2.15)	(3.48)	(6.61)	(0.71)	(1.28)	(1.75)	(3.53)
Taxcuth,t+1	-0.56	-6.33**	3.56	-8.65	-1.65	-6.08**	-0.51	-9.87
Monthly Incomeh	(1.56)	(3.06)	(5.17)	(8.76)	(1.08)	(1.81)	(2.63)	(5.02)
Taxcuth,t	1.99*	0.74	0.86	5.02	-0.35*	3.72**	0.02	6.31
Monthly Incomeh	(1.56)	(3.04)	(5.25)	(8.74)	(1.08)	(1.82)	(2.69)	(5.01)
Taxcuth,t-1	0.24	-2.43	3.30	-15.19*	0.79	-2.06	-1.00	-1.33
Monthly Incomeh	(1.59)	(3.01)	(5.31)	(9.06)	(1.08)	(1.81)	(2.66)	(4.94)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	0.99	3.43	-0.19	3.47	0.68	0.65	3.75	0.77
(1.80)	(3.75)	(6.01)	(11.09)	(1.24)	(2.25)	(3.03)	(6.18)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	2.67	-4.58	7.53	-15.35	-0.53	-3.77*	2.25	-4.13
(2.05)	(3.75)	(6.86)	(10.78)	(1.41)	(2.23)	(3.50)	(6.14)
F test (exc. Interaction term) (Prob.>F)	2.37	2.13	0.66	1.00	1.86	0.70	0.78	3.72
(0.07)	(0.09)	(0.57)	(0.39)	(0.13)	(0.55)	(0.51)	(0.01)
R squared (adjusted)	0.21	0.19	0.09	0.09	0.38	0.45	0.02	0.02
s.e.e.	0.38	0.43	1.24	1.22	0.26	0.26	0.64	0.70
Number of Observation	12,419	9,250	11,848	9,114	12,456	9,330	12,311	9,237

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The panel from March to August is used. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Table 4-2: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts by Income Levels (Specification (2))

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Panel	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
INCOME	Above	Below	Above	Below	Above	Below	Above	Below
Dependent var.	Total	Total	Semi-durables	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Non-durables	Services	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	2.28**	5.07**	0.23	3.17	1.76**	1.57	0.46	7.33**
Monthly Incomeh	(1.05)	(2.18)	(3.53)	(6.31)	(0.73)	(1.32)	(1.76)	(3.61)
Taxcuth,t	-1.00	0.06	-3.29	-4.59	-0.33	0.30	0.96	-7.26**
Monthly Incomeh	(1.05)	(2.17)	(3.53)	(6.40)	(0.73)	(1.33)	(1.78)	(3.60)
Taxcuth,t-1	0.81	0.78	1.62	8.15	-0.28	-0.01	2.99*	2.00
Monthly Incomeh	(1.05)	(2.17)	(3.56)	(6.72)	(0.73)	(1.31)	(1.78)	(3.58)
Taxcuth,t+1	-0.59	-6.28**	4.15	-8.52	-1.75	-6.07*	-0.38	-9.71*
Monthly Incomeh	(1.55)	(3.03)	(5.16)	(8.75)	(1.08)	(1.81)	(2.61)	(4.99)
Taxcuth,t	2.00	-0.07	0.81	3.87	-0.28	3.46*	-0.23	5.41
Monthly Incomeh	(1.55)	(3.01)	(5.25)	(8.74)	(1.08)	(1.82)	(2.68)	(4.98)
Taxcuth,t-1	-0.02	-2.61	3.83	-15.70*	0.64	-2.18	-1.10	-1.50
Monthly Incomeh	(1.57)	(2.98)	(5.32)	(9.05)	(1.08)	(1.81)	(2.66)	(4.91)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	2.09	5.91	-1.44	6.73	1.15	1.86	4.41	2.07
(1.83)	(3.79)	(6.15)	(11.29)	(1.27)	(2.30)	(3.09)	(6.28)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	3.48	-3.04	7.36	-13.61	-0.23	-2.93	2.71	-3.72
(2.06)	(3.77)	(6.94)	(10.94)	(1.43)	(2.26)	(3.53)	(6.20)
F test (exc. Interaction term) (Prob.>F)	2.07	1.84	0.36	0.75	2.05	0.49	1.06	2.85
(0.10)	(0.14)	(0.78)	(0.52)	(0.10)	(0.69)	(0.37)	(0.04)
R squared (adjusted)	0.22	0.21	0.09	0.10	0.38	0.45	0.03	0.03
s.e.e.	0.38	0.42	1.24	1.22	0.26	0.26	0.64	0.70
Number of Observation	12,419	9,250	11,848	9,114	12,456	9,330	12,311	9,237

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The panel from March to August is used. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies as well as bonus and lagged current income relative to monthly income in the previous year. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Appendix 1. Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Total Consumption (Normalization: Average Consumption before December)

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Panel	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan.	Sep.-Feb.	Sep.-Feb.
Specification	(1)	(2)	(1)	(2)
Taxcuth,t+1Monthly Incomeh	0.84 ** (0.35)	0.22 (0.35)	2.15 ** (0.35)	1.43 ** (0.36)
Taxcuth,tMonthly Incomeh	-0.70 ** (0.35)	-0.51 (0.35)	-0.95 ** (0.35)	-0.63 * (0.36)
Taxcuth,t-1Monthly Incomeh	-0.00 (0.35)	0.06 (0.36)
Taxcuth,t+1*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	0.02 (0.48)	0.08 (0.48)	-1.47 ** (0.47)	-1.32 ** (0.47)
Taxcuth,t*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	0.61 (0.49)	0.56 (0.48)	1.12 ** (0.47)	1.09 ** (0.47)
Taxcuth,t-1*96DUMMonthly Incomeh	-0.07 (0.48)	-0.03 (0.47)
Sum of the Coefficients on tax cut (exc. interaction term)	0.14 (0.49)	-0.29 (0.50)	1.19 * (0.61)	0.86 (0.63)
Sum of the Coefficients on tax cut (all)	0.77 (0.48)	0.36 (0.50)	0.77 (0.56)	0.60 (0.58)
Bonus (current, lagged)	No	Yes	No	Yes
Lags of Current Income	No	Yes	No	Yes
F test (exc. Interaction term) (Prob.>F)	4.99 (0.01)	1.26 (0.28)	15.00 (0.00)	6.33 (0.00)
R squared (adjusted)	0.21	0.22	0.20	0.21
s.e.e.	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40
Number of Observation	21,418	21,418	21,669	21,669

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly total consumption except durables. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to average consumption between the first month of each panel and May. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Appendix 2-1: Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Consumption by Type of Goods (Normalization: Average Consumption before December, Specification(1))

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel	Aug.-Jan.	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
Dependent var.	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	2.38 **	0.20	0.96	2.64 **	0.93 **	1.66 **
Monthly Incomeh	(1.09)	(0.23)	(0.58)	(1.10)	(0.23)	(1.58)
Taxcuth,t	-2.84 **	-0.21	-0.48	-1.93 *	-0.18	-1.17 **
Monthly Incomeh	(1.10)	(0.23)	(0.58)	(1.11)	(0.23)	(0.58)
Taxcuth,t-1	0.52	-0.01	0.53
Monthly Incomeh	(1.12)	(0.22)	(0.59)
Taxcuth,t+1	-2.11	0.06	0.11	-1.06	-1.10 **	-1.23
*96DUM	(1.56)	(0.32)	(0.82)	(1.51)	(0.31)	(0.79)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t	3.05	-0.05	0.57	2.69 *	0.24	1.56 **
*96DUM	(1.56)	(0.32)	(0.82)	(1.48)	(0.31)	(0.79)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t-1	*96DUM	-0.87	0.02	-0.52
Monthly Incomeh	(1.54)	(0.30)	(0.79)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	-0.46	-0.01	0.48	1.23	0.75 *	1.02
(1.55)	(0.33)	(0.83)	(1.93)	(0.39)	(1.01)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	0.48	0.00	1.16	1.99	-0.11	0.83
(1.57)	(0.32)	(0.81)	(1.80)	(0.36)	(0.93)
F test (exc. Interaction term)	5.70	0.80	1.70	3.02	5.89	4.38
(Prob.>F)	(0.00)	(0.45)	(0.18)	(0.03)	(0.00)	(0.00)
R squared (adjusted)	0.08	0.39	0.02	0.09	0.41	0.02
s.e.e.	1.22	0.27	0.67	1.23	0.26	0.67
Number of Observation	20,731	21,605	21,352	20,962	21,786	21,548

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
Appendix 2-2 : Impact of the 1995/1996 Tax Cuts on Consumption by Type of Goods (Normalization: Average Consumption before December, Specification(2))

Column	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Panel	Aug.-Jan.	Aug.-Jan	Aug.-Jan	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb	Sep.-Feb
Dependent var.	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services	Semi-durables	Non-durables	Services
Taxcuth,t+1	1.59(1.12)	0.10(0.24)	0.35(0.59)	1.15(1.14)	0.74**(0.23)	0.94(0.60)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t	-2.38**(1.12)	-0.21(0.24)	-0.27(0.60)	-1.57(1.14)	-0.02(0.24)	-0.97(0.60)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t-1	0.76(1.16)	0.07(0.23)	0.76(0.61)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t+1*96DUM	-2.15(1.56)	0.10(0.32)	0.25(0.81)	-0.83(1.51)	-1.07**(0.31)	-1.11(0.79)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t	2.93*(1.56)	-0.08(0.32)	0.54(0.81)	2.60*(1.48)	0.20(0.31)	1.54*(0.79)
Monthly Incomeh
Taxcuth,t-1*96DUM	-0.83(1.54)	0.01(0.30)	-0.50(0.79)
Monthly Incomeh
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (exc. Interaction term)	-0.80(1.60)	-0.11(0.34)	0.08(0.85)	0.34(2.01)	0.79(0.41)	0.74(1.05)
Sum of the coefficients on tax cut (all)	-0.02(1.63)	-0.09(0.33)	0.86(0.84)	1.27(1.87)	-0.06(0.38)	0.66(0.97)
F test (exc. Interaction term)	3.27(0.04)	0.45(0.63)	0.28(0.76)	1.12(0.34)	3.38(0.02)	2.26(0.08)
R squared (adjusted)	0.08	0.39	0.03	0.09	0.41	0.03
s.e.e.	1.22	0.27	0.67	1.23	0.26	0.67
Number of Observation	20,731	21,605	21,352	20,962	21,786	21,548

Notes: Standard errors in parenthesis. The dependent variable is change in the log of monthly consumption by type of goods. The estimated elasticity to the tax cuts is the coefficient on tax cuts relative to monthly pre-tax income in the previous year. All regressions also include a quadratic in the age of the household head, number of family members, change in number of family members and month dummies as well as bonus and lagged current income relative to average consumption between the first month of each panel and May. All regressions include control years. The sample is 1990-1996 except 1994. $ * $ * indicates 5% level significance and $ * $ does 10% level. The null hypothesis for F test is all coefficients on tax cut relative to monthly income are zero.
## 今日的課題への対応 環境との関わり

近年、地球温暖化などの地球規模の環境問題が世界共通の課題として提起されています。このような中、学校施設についても、地球環境の保全を進める観点から、また、エネルギーの効率的利用を図る観点から、環境への負荷の低減や自然との共生に対応した施設づくりが求められています。

## 今日的課題への対応 地域との関わり

近年、地域における教育力の低下が問題視されており、学校と地域の連携を推進する様々な取り組みが行われているところです。学校施設においても、地域コミュニティーの拠点として、学校施設のより一層の活用を図るなど地域と連携した施設とすることが求められています。

ここでは、環境に関する学習活動を支える施設づくりや地域との連携を促進する施設づくり等のアイディア例を示しています。

## 環境との関わり

環境教育をすすめる空間
20. 学校全体が環境教育の教材……51

快適な学習・生活環境づくり
21. まぶしくない、暑くない教室……53
22. 風が通るさわやかな教室……55
23. 木の学校で学ぶ……57
24. 豊かな緑にかこまれながら……59

長く使い続ける
25. 地域性を活かしたデザイン……61
26. 長く使い続けられる学校……63

## 地域との関わり

地域の力を最大限に活かす学校づくり
27. 地域みんなで子どもを守る……65
28. 何かができる、みんなに会える……67
新たな公共施設としての学校
29. 学校をまちづくりの拠点に……69
30. 体を動かしに学校へ行こう……71
# 学校全体が 20環境教育の教材

## ～エコスクールを活用した環境・エネルギー教育の実践～

## ◆◇◆ アイディアの要点 ◆◇◆

○省エネルギーに配慮した施設整備や、新エネルギー $ ^{注6} $ の導入、エネルギーの消費実態などの「見える化」、自然生態を体感できる場の設置により、学校全体を環境教育の教材とするもの。

学校全体を教材として活用し、体験を通じて効果を実感しながら学ぶことができ、地球環境問題への関心を高めるとともに、持続可能な社会を実現するための行動マナーを身につけることにつながる。

## 期待される効果

## 地球環境問題の理解

・校舎屋上の太陽光パネルを実際に見学したり、ビオトープ注7における自然観察などの体験的な学習を

写真 20－1 屋上に風力発電を設置（富山市立中央小学校）

行ったりすることで、地球環境問題についての理解を深めることができる。

エコスクールは地域の人たちにとっての学習の場でもあり、家庭、地域への環境意識の啓発・向上につながる。

## 社会について考え、行動する姿勢

身近にある太陽光パネルなどに関連して持続可能な社会の実現について考えることで、社会的な問題に対して主体的に考える姿勢を育むことができる。

実際に省エネルギーにつながる行動を行ったときにその効果を実感できるようにしておくことで、行動を継続していく励みとなり、行動マナーとして身につけていくことができる。

## 注 $ ^{6} $

## 新エネルギー

新エネルギー利用等の促進に関する特別措置法（略称 新エネ法）で「技術的に実用化段階に達しつつあるが、経済性の面での制約から普及が十分でないもので、非化石エネルギーの導入を図るために特に必要なもの」と定義され、太陽光発電や風力発電、バイオマス発電など10種類が指定されている。

## 計画のポイント

## 体感のための工夫

・太陽光パネルなど新エネルギー設備については、発電量を分かりやすく表示するモニターを見やすい位置に設置する。

・風力発電や小水力発電など、仕組みが見て分かりやすい新エネルギー等の設置を積極的に検討する。

・自然生態を体感できる場として、ビオトープや水生植物等の観察を行うことができる小川、池等の設置を検討する。適切な断熱化や自然換気の工夫により、最少限の冷暖房でも教室内が快適になることが実感できるようにする。

写真 20－2 ビオトープでの自然観察（埼玉県戸田市立芦原小学校）

写真 20－3 外部の専門家による太陽光パネルを利用した出前授業（神奈川県横須賀市立大矢部小学校）

黒塗りの自作ペットボトルのソーラー給湯器でお湯を沸かし、掃除に利用することで、省エネーブル活動を実践。

## ビオトープ

## 注 $ ^{7} $

(ドイツ)Biotop：動物や植物が恒常的に生活できるように造成または復元された小規模な生息空間。公園の造成・河川の整備の計画などに取り入れられる。ギリシャ語で生物(bios)と場所(topos)を示す造語。

写真 20−5

ペットボトルのソーラー給湯器

出典：三省堂刊「大辞林」

## エネルギー使用量の「見える化」

電気の使用量を計測し、リアルタイムに表示するなど、エネルギー使用量を可視化したり、学校全体の電力の需要を監視したりすることにより、無駄の有無や、自らの省エネルギー活動の効果を把握することができる。

## 地中熱利用

## 注 $ ^{8} $

写真 20－4 太陽光パネルの発電モニターを目につきやすい昇降口に設置（静岡市立番町小学校）

体感が省エネ活動へとつながる（長野県高森町立高森南小学校）

写真出典：環境省「学校エコ改修と環境教育事業」HP（URL http://www.ecoflow.go.jp/）

地中の温度は年間を通して変化が小さく、夏は外気より冷たく冬は外気より温かい。この温度差が持つ熱エネルギーを冷暖房に利用するもの。

写真20－6 沸かしたお湯を掃除に利用

## ⾄補⾜說明

・エコスクールの整備は、自然換気、自然採光や日照調整、雨水利用、壁面緑化、内装の木質化、リサイクル建材の利用など、校舎全体に及ぶ。また、学校へ導入可能な新エネルギー等としては、太陽光パネルの他、太陽熱利用、地中熱利用 $ ^{注8} $ 、風力発電、バイオマス熱利用などがあり、地域特性、気候条件により適した設備を検討する。

p.53「21.まぶしくない、暑くない教室」参照 p.55「22.風が通るさわやかな教室」参照

p.57「23.木の学校で学び」参照

p.59「24. 豊かな緑にかこまれながら」参照

## ☑効果的に利用するための注意点

・エコスクールを構成する要素である太陽光パネル等については、授業での活用を前提として、安全で見学しやすいように設置する。

・環境・エネルギー教育を充実させるためには、外部の専門家の協力を得ることも考えられる。