How Does the Land Rental Market Participation Affect Household Efficiency? Evidence from Rural China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background and Theory
3. Data and Method
3.1. Data Source
3.2. Empirical Methodology
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Description of Variables
4.2. The Effect of Land Rental Market on Rural Household Efficiency
4.3. Robustness Check
4.4. Further Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kimura, S.; Otsuka, K.; Sonobe, T.; Rozelle, S. Efficiency of Land Allocation through Tenancy Markets: Evidence from China. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2011, 59, 485–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C.; Restuccia, D.; Santaeulàlia-Llopis, R. The effects of land markets on resource allocation and agricultural productivity. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 2022, 45, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Rommel, J.; Feng, S. Do land markets improve land-use efficiency? evidence from Jiangsu, China. Appl. Econ. 2019, 52, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S.; Xia, F.; Huang, J. Moving Off the Farm: Land Institutions to Facilitate Structural Transformation and Agricultural Productivity Growth in China. World Devel. 2014, 59, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holden, S.; Shiferaw, B.; Pender, J. Market Imperfections and Land Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 52, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Mishra, A.K.; Zhu, P.; Li, X. Land rental market and agricultural labor productivity in rural China: A mediation analysis. World Devel. 2020, 135, 105089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Yan, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Will land transfer always increase technical efficiency in China?—A land cost perspective. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, R.; Lin, Z.; Chunga, J. How land transfer affects agricultural land use efficiency: Evidence from China’s agricultural sector. Land Use Policy 2021, 103, 105300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S. The potential of land rental markets in the process of economic development: Evidence from China. J. Dev. Econ. 2005, 78, 241–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Qian, K.; Lin, L.; Wang, K.; Guan, T.; Gan, M. Identifying the driving forces of non-grain production expansion in rural China and its implications for policies on cultivated land protection. Land Use Policy 2020, 92, 104435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johny, J.; Wichmann, B.; Swallow, B.M. Characterizing social networks and their effects on income diversification in rural Kerala, India. World Dev. 2017, 94, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lupi, C.; Giaccio, V.; Mastronardi, L.; Giannelli, A.; Scardera, A. Exploring the features of agritourism and its contribution to rural development in Italy. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forleo, M.B.; Giaccio, V.; Mastronardi, L.; Romagnoli, L. Analysing the efficiency of diversified farms: Evidences from Italian FADN data. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 82, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavas, J.P.; Shi, G.; Meng, X. Land rental market and rural household efficiency in China. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2021, 27, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.; Deininger, K. Land rental markets in the process of rural structural transformation: Productivity and equity impacts from China. J. Compar. Econ. 2009, 37, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cai, F. The Great Exodus: How agricultural surplus laborers have been transferred and reallocated in China’s reform period? China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bojnec, Š.; Latruffe, L. Farm size, agricultural subsidies and farm performance in Slovenia. Land Use Policy 2013, 32, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, Z.; Chen, M.; Liu, T. Changes in and prospects for cultivated land use since the reform and opening up in China. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C. The Fundamental Institutions of China’s Reforms and Development. J. Econ. Lit. 2011, 49, 1076–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Ding, J. Institutional innovation and policy support to facilitate small-scale farming transformation in China. Agric. Econ. 2016, 47, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X. Land and labor allocation under communal tenure: Theory and evidence from China. J. Dev. Econ. 2020, 147, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles, J.; Mu, R. Village Political Economy, Land Tenure Insecurity, and the Rural to Urban Migration Decision: Evidence from China. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 100, 521–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.L.; Huang, J.; Wang, X.; Tuan, F. Are China’s regional agricultural productivities converging: How and why? Food Policy 2019, 86, 101727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, B. Agricultural reforms and production in China: Changes in provincial production function and productivity in 1978–2015. J. Dev. Econ. 2018, 132, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eskelinen, J.; Kuosmanen, T. Intertemporal efficiency analysis of sales teams of a bank: Stochastic semi-nonparametric approach. J. Bank. Financ. 2013, 37, 5163–5175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, J.; Folmer, H.; Xue, J. Technical and allocative efficiency of irrigation water use in the Guanzhong Plain, China. Food Policy 2015, 50, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Démurger, S.; Xu, H. Return Migrants: The Rise of New Entrepreneurs in Rural China. World Dev. 2011, 39, 1847–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wooldridge, J.M. Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics. J. Hum. Res. 2015, 50, 420–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Feng, S.; Heerink, N.; Qu, F.; Kuyvenhoven, A. How do land rental markets affect household income? Evidence from rural Jiangsu, P.R. China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; Van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; Van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; Van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015, 517, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Heerink, N.; van Ierland, E.; Lang, H.; Shi, X. Decisions by Chinese households regarding renting in arable land—The impact of tenure security perceptions and trust. China Econ. Rev. 2020, 60, 101328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Shi, X.; Heerink, N.; Ma, X. The effect of land tenure governance on technical efficiency: Evidence from three provinces in eastern China. Appl. Econ. 2018, 51, 2337–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kansiime, M.K.; van Asten, P.; Sneyers, K. Farm diversity and resource use efficiency: Targeting agricultural policy interventions in East Africa farming systems. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2021, 85, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ducruet, C.; Juhász, R.; Nagy, D.K.; Steinwender, C. All Aboard: The Effects of Port Development; No. w28148; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Huy, H.T.; Nguyen, T.T. Cropland rental market and farm technical efficiency in rural Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 408–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chari, A.; Liu, E.M.; Wang, S.Y.; Wang, Y. Property Rights, Land Misallocation and Agricultural Efficiency in China. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2020, 88, 1831–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, T.; He, Q.; Choy, S.B.; Li, Y.; Luo, B. The impact of land renting-in on farm productivity: Evidence from maize production in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2020, 13, 78–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.-H.; Zhang, R.-X.; Tan, Z.-C. Grassland rental markets and herder technical efficiency: Ability effect or resource equilibration effect? Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Glauben, T.; Brümmer, B. The impact of land reallocation on technical efficiency: Evidence from China. Agric. Econ. 2011, 42, 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rada, N.E.; Fuglie, K.O. New perspectives on farm size and productivity. Food Policy 2019, 84, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Knickel, K. Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development pathways. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 59, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Feng, Z.; You, L.; Fan, L. Re-examining the inverse relationship between farm size and efficiency. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2013, 5, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, H. Considering Technical and Allocative Efficiency in the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 442–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yu, X.; Tian, X.; Geng, X.; Zhou, Y. Farm size, inefficiency, and rice production cost in China. J. Product. Anal. 2019, 52, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Region | Province | Crops | Number of Observations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All | 2017 | 2019 | |||
1 | Anhui, Hubei, Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Yunnan | Rice, wheat, and maize | 3768 | 1848 | 1920 |
2 | Henan, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, and Hebei | Wheat and maize | 4464 | 2354 | 2110 |
3 | Hunan, Guangxi, Guizhou, and Chongqing | Rice and maize | 2565 | 1246 | 1319 |
4 | Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning | Maize | 1963 | 1133 | 830 |
5 | Fujian, Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Jiangxi | Rice | 2587 | 1432 | 1155 |
Total | 15,347 | 8013 | 7334 |
2017 | 2019 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Abbreviations of the Variables (Unit) | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. |
Output variables (Yuan) | ||||
Output value of rice | 1092.87 | 4512.72 | 934.44 | 3493.00 |
Output value of wheat | 619.63 | 1605.52 | 508.09 | 1448.98 |
Output value of maize | 2805.27 | 8053.08 | 2059.90 | 6337.23 |
Output value of cash crops | 902.60 | 2963.76 | 1129.48 | 3695.71 |
Output value of other crops | 561.58 | 1931.68 | 509.39 | 1766.72 |
Off-farm income (Yuan) | 32,295.21 | 36,935.49 | 37,949.56 | 39,907.77 |
Input variables (Yuan) | ||||
Cultivated land (mu) (Yuan) | 5.02 | 9.26 | 4.67 | 7.52 |
Other type agricultural land (mu) | 0.47 | 1.80 | 0.847 | 3.14 |
No. of male family laborers over 15 years old | 1.37 | 0.72 | 1.307 | 0.692 |
No. of female laborers over 15 years old | 1.32 | 0.70 | 1.24 | 0.68 |
Hired labor costs (Yuan) | 49.27 | 308.72 | 51.45 | 337.66 |
Chemical fertilizer expenditures (Yuan) | 805.11 | 1398.57 | 775.55 | 1336.94 |
Pesticide expenditures (Yuan) | 281.85 | 431.62 | 212.90 | 403.60 |
Seeds costs (Yuan) | 321.51 | 657.55 | 318.43 | 646.09 |
Rental machinery costs (Yuan) | 388.44 | 826.36 | 351.02 | 725.98 |
Other expenditures for agricultural production (Yuan) | 241.85 | 597.58 | 221.43 | 549.60 |
TE | AE | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Groups | Number of Observations | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. |
A: By Regional Main Crops | |||||
Rice, wheat, and maize | 3768 | 0.455 | 0.298 | 0.621 | 0.367 |
Wheat and maize | 4464 | 0.467 | 0.293 | 0.617 | 0.355 |
Rice and maize | 2565 | 0.482 | 0.304 | 0.603 | 0.371 |
Maize | 1963 | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.674 | 0.191 |
Rice | 2587 | 0.395 | 0.295 | 0.764 | 0.35 |
B: By Farm Size | |||||
Less than 5 mu | 10,535 | 0.391 | 0.271 | 0.685 | 0.346 |
More than 5 mu | 4812 | 0.570 | 0.323 | 0.568 | 0.338 |
C: By Average Plot Size | |||||
Less than 1 mu | 9186 | 0.405 | 0.285 | 0.673 | 0.352 |
More than 1 mu | 5482 | 0.521 | 0.311 | 0.596 | 0.335 |
Total | 15,347 | 0.447 | 0.300 | 0.648 | 0.348 |
2017 | 2019 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abbreviations of the Variables | Definition of the Variables (Unit) | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. |
Rural household efficiency | |||||
TE | Technical efficiency | 0.450 | 0.301 | 0.444 | 0.300 |
AE | Allocative efficiency | 0.641 | 0.353 | 0.655 | 0.342 |
Land rental characteristics | |||||
Landin | Rent in (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.085 | 0.279 | 0.073 | 0.260 |
Landoff | Rent out (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.257 | 0.437 | 0.262 | 0.440 |
Socio-economic characteristics | |||||
Headgender | Gender of household head (1 = male; 0 = female) | 0.893 | 0.310 | 0.845 | 0.362 |
Headage | Age of household head | 53.488 | 11.232 | 54.295 | 10.521 |
Headedu | Educational attainment of household head | 2.699 | 1.075 | 2.714 | 1.025 |
Familysize | Number of family members in the household | 3.772 | 1.624 | 3.615 | 1.618 |
Female_ratio | Proportion of female laborers in the household | 0.366 | 0.174 | 0.362 | 0.182 |
Up_64 | Proportion of family members above 64 years old in the household | 0.426 | 0.670 | 0.443 | 0.681 |
Juniorhigh_ratio | Proportion of educational attainment above high school in the household | 0.364 | 0.336 | 0.376 | 0.348 |
Child_adult | Proportion of children in the family (%) | 0.210 | 0.309 | 0.207 | 0.328 |
Migrant | Migrant off-farm laborers in the household (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.239 | 0.426 | 0.155 | 0.362 |
Land_percapita | Amount of contracted land per capita in the household (mu) | 1.836 | 3.017 | 1.855 | 2.607 |
Land_cer | Land confirmation and certification (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.651 | 0.477 | 0.770 | 0.421 |
Debt | Household has unpaid debt (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.098 | 0.297 | 0.115 | 0.319 |
Machine | Use of machinery (1 = yes; 0 = no) | 0.788 | 0.409 | 0.825 | 0.380 |
Migtotal_ratio | Proportion of migrant off-farm laborers in the household | 0.089 | 0.179 | 0.057 | 0.150 |
Migprov_ratio | Proportion of out-province migrant, off-farm laborers in the household | 0.032 | 0.107 | 0.023 | 0.089 |
Migcity_ratio | Proportion of out-city migrant, off-farm laborers in the household | 0.048 | 0.131 | 0.033 | 0.109 |
Village-level characteristics | |||||
Othervillandin_ratio | Proportion of the amount of farmland rented in out of the total farmland in the city except this village | 0.070 | 0.068 | 0.061 | 0.062 |
Othervillandoff_ratio | Proportion of the amount of farmland rented out of the total farmland in the city except this village | 0.222 | 0.172 | 0.224 | 0.177 |
Inmigranthhs_ratio | Proportion of in-village migrant in the city except this village | 0.044 | 0.057 | 0.043 | 0.092 |
Dist | Distance of village to the town center (km) | 4.984 | 5.947 | 4.400 | 5.480 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
TE | AE | TE | AE | |
Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | |
Landin | 0.227 *** (−0.053) | −0.013 (−0.051) | ||
Landoff | −0.165 *** (−0.022) | 0.196 *** (−0.021) | ||
Hhlandin_cf | −0.055 ** (−0.025) | −0.024 ** (−0.011) | ||
Hhlandoff_cf | 0.039 *** (−0.012) | −0.030 *** (−0.011) | ||
Controls | YES | YES | YES | YES |
City FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
N | 15,347 | 15,347 | 15,347 | 15,347 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
TE | AE | TE | AE | |
Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | |
Landin | 0.284 *** (0.055) | −0.062 (0.252) | ||
Landoff | −0.241 *** (0.032) | 0.140 *** (0.031) | ||
Hhlandin_cf | −0.089 *** (0.027) | 0.067 ** (0.027) | ||
Hhlandoff_cf | 0.083 *** (0.016) | −0.015 *** (0.003) | ||
Controls | YES | YES | YES | YES |
City FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
Year FE | YES | YES | YES | YES |
N | 13,180 | 13,180 | 13,180 | 13,180 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
TE | AE | TE | AE | |
Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | Tobit | |
Landin2 | 0.266 *** (−0.059) | −0.037 (−0.057) | ||
Landoff2 | −0.152 *** (−0.023) | 0.204 *** (−0.022) | ||
Hhlandin_cf | −0.089 *** (−0.030) | |||
Hhlandoff_cf | −0.042 *** (−0.012) | |||
Controls | YES | YES | ||
City FE | YES | YES | ||
Year FE | YES | YES | ||
N | 11,366 | 11,366 | 14,130 | 14,130 |
Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A | Technical Efficiency | ||||
Landin | 0.0467 −0.104 | 0.406 *** −0.1345 | 0.135 −0.1482 | 0.371 *** −0.1141 | 0.105 −0.1517 |
Panel B | Allocative Efficiency | ||||
Landin | −0.00247 −0.101 | 0.00494 −0.1342 | −0.174 −0.1451 | 0.0947 −0.0777 | −0.330 ** −0.143 |
Panel C | Technical Efficiency | ||||
Landoff | −0.206 *** −0.0517 | −0.213 *** −0.0504 | −0.203 *** −0.0753 | −0.180 ** −0.071 | −0.141 ** −0.0572 |
Panel D | Allocative Efficiency | ||||
Landoff | 0.177 *** −0.0545 | 0.190 *** −0.0548 | 0.443 *** −0.0825 | −0.0135 −0.0436 | 0.385 *** −0.0778 |
N | 3768 | 4464 | 2565 | 1963 | 2587 |
TE | AE | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A | Small Farm Size | Large Farm Size | Small Farm Size | Large Farm Size |
Landin | 0.139 * (0.075) | 0.235 *** (0.078) | −0.201 *** (0.076) | 0.042 (0.073) |
N | 10,535 | 4812 | 10,535 | 4812 |
Panel B | Small Average Plot Size | Large Average Plot Size | Small Average Plot Size | Large Average Plot Size |
Landin | 0.128 (0.125) | 0.343 *** (0.081) | −0.147 * (0.082) | 0.073 (0.075) |
N | 9186 | 5482 | 9186 | 5482 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guo, X.; Shi, G.; Zheng, L.; Qian, W. How Does the Land Rental Market Participation Affect Household Efficiency? Evidence from Rural China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316175
Guo X, Shi G, Zheng L, Qian W. How Does the Land Rental Market Participation Affect Household Efficiency? Evidence from Rural China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(23):16175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316175
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuo, Xiaolin, Guanming Shi, Linyi Zheng, and Wenrong Qian. 2022. "How Does the Land Rental Market Participation Affect Household Efficiency? Evidence from Rural China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 23: 16175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316175