The Status of Collective Action among Rural Households in Underdeveloped Regions of China and Its Livelihood Effects under the Background of Rural Revitalization—Evidence from a Field Survey in Shanxi Province

Abstract

Enhancing collective action among rural households is crucial for promoting rural revitalization and improving livelihoods in underdeveloped areas. Taking Shanxi Province, China, as a case study, this paper employed a household survey method to collect 312 questionnaires from rural households. Using the mean value analysis of the measured items in the questionnaire. The participation status of farmers in less developed areas in collective actions, such as farmers’ professional cooperatives, village cadre elections, and cooperative construction of small farmland water conservancy, was examined in four aspects: willingness to participate, frequency of participation, time of participation, and sense of the value of participation. From the perspectives of livelihood risks, livelihood assets, livelihood patterns, and livelihood income, it analyzed the livelihood conditions of rural households in underdeveloped regions. Building upon the empowerment of collective action in rural livelihoods, the study further applied a multiple linear regression model to assess the impact of collective action on livelihoods. The findings indicated (1) a strong willingness and perceived value among rural households to participate in collective action, albeit with a low frequency and limited time commitment; (2) relatively low livelihood levels, characterized by limited livelihood assets, predominant subsistence farming, small-scale non-specialized enterprises, and low livelihood income, yet with notable resilience against livelihood risks; (3) that collective action significantly enhances rural household livelihoods positively. Based on these findings, policy recommendations are proposed, emphasizing the enhancement of collective organization, provision of incentive mechanisms, and improvement of farmers’ skills and qualities to foster greater participation in collective action.

1. Introduction

The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China first proposed the Rural Revitalization Strategy in October 2017, emphasizing that the “agriculture, rural areas, and farmers” issue is fundamental to national welfare and must be a top priority for the entire party. The strategy calls for vigorously implementing rural revitalization to solve the longstanding contradiction between small-scale production and large markets, which has hindered the development of modern agriculture and rural revitalization. The strategy of rural revitalization should be vigorously implemented, including improving the quality of agricultural development, building high-standard farmland, further strengthening the basic work of rural communities, building a new system of rural governance, fighting poverty eradication with precision, enhancing the sense of achievement of the poor, and promoting rural revitalization in terms of ecological revitalization, industrial revitalization, cultural revitalization, human resources revitalization, and organizational revitalization [1].

Under the implementation of the rural revitalization strategy, China’s countryside has undergone dramatic changes in industrial development, farm household income, and village appearance. However, the contradiction between small-scale production and large markets remains a key factor in restricting the development of modern agriculture and rural revitalization. Promoting cooperative production and collective cooperation among farmers is an important approach to resolving this contradiction. Actively organizing farmers to participate in collective activities can not only form professional cooperatives and mutual aid organizations, enhance bargaining power with markets and enterprises, and seek to maximize benefits, but also promote resource sharing among farmers and facilitate the upgrading and transformation of rural industries, thereby advancing rural revitalization [2].

In underdeveloped regions, where farmers have limited resources and face harsh living environments, achieving livelihoods is particularly challenging and requires participation in collective action to mitigate risks, access resources, and improve livelihood [3,4]. Therefore, exploring the participation of farmers in collective actions, such as professional cooperatives, elections of village cadres, and small-scale irrigation cooperative construction, as well as assessing the impact of collective action participation on farmers’ livelihoods, is crucial for advancing China’s Rural Revitalization Strategy.

Collective action refers to the process where individuals with interdependent relationships negotiate to achieve common interests through coordinated efforts [5,6]. In some developed countries, collective action among rural households has become the norm. For instance, farmers’ organizations in Europe have formed many farmers’ unions and cooperatives [7], both formal and informal. Luis et al. found that they differed in their goals of improving farmers’ incomes and implementing agroecological practices, with the more formalized the collectives (e.g., producers’ organizations), the better they met that goal [8]. Collectives work in a collaborative manner for agricultural production and marketing. These organizations not only enhance agricultural productivity [9,10] but also advocate for better policies and resources for farmers [11,12]. Additionally, some countries have implemented farmer training and technical support programs to improve farmers’ skills and capabilities [13,14].

In contrast, in some developing countries, the prevalence of collective action among rural households remains relatively low due to economic and social development constraints. Many farmers lack an awareness of organization and cooperation [15], compounded by policies and regulations that restrict the freedom and rights of peasant organizations [16]. However, as economic and social development progresses, more farmers are recognizing the importance of collective action and are actively participating in farmer organizations [3].

In China, the development of collective action among rural households has been steadily improving. The Chinese government has actively promoted the development of rural cooperative organizations [17,18], starting with the enactment of the Farmers’ Professional Cooperatives Law in 2006, followed by various policies, such as the Opinions on Strengthening and Improving the Construction of Rural Collective Economic Organizations (2015), the Rural Collective Economic Organizations Regulation (2017), Opinions on Promoting the Reform and Development of Rural Collective Economic Organizations (2019), and the Implementation Plan for Supporting the Development of Farmers’ Cooperatives (2022). Currently, rural cooperative organizations in China cover most parts of the country, serving as crucial platforms for farmer organization and cooperation. According to the statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, as of July 2019, there were 2.207 million registered farmers’ cooperatives nationwide, benefiting nearly half of all rural households.

Against the backdrop of rapid development in rural cooperative economic organizations and flourishing farmer cooperation, the level of participation of farmers in collective action and the effects of their participation are hot issues in collective action research. The measurement methods for assessing levels of participation primarily include the three following approaches: (1) output-based methods gauge participation by the outcomes and intensity of collective actions [19,20,21]; (2) input-based methods measure participation by the number of successfully organized collective activities (e.g., collective lobbying) [22]; (3) exemplar methods assess participation using typical collective actions like rural cooperative irrigation projects [23,24].

Research into the effects of rural household collective action encompasses four main aspects: (1) Exploration of the impact of collective action on rural communities reveals that it fosters cooperation and communication within communities, enhances community cohesion, and improves both economic and social benefits. For instance, studies in Uganda demonstrate that collective action improves financial inclusion among impoverished rural populations, thus promoting economic advancement in developing countries [25]. Effective local leadership and organizational strategies in rural collective action not only garner public support and participation but also promote stable and sustainable rural environmental management [18]. Collective action further facilitates rural community development through enhanced resource reallocation and efficiency in resource utilization under the joint influence of elite and non-elite groups [17]. (2) Analysis of the collective action’s impact on agricultural production indicates that it enhances production efficiency and quality, reduces production costs, and increases farmers’ incomes. For example, studies in Iran illustrate that agricultural cooperatives facilitate agricultural economic reform and the adoption of biotechnologies and innovative practices [26]. Through well-regulated institutional collective actions that actively engage farmers, better maintenance and improved rural infrastructure are achieved, thereby contributing to rural revitalization [27]. (3) Examination of the collective action’s influence on policy formulation and implementation demonstrates that it facilitates policy development and implementation, thereby enhancing policy effectiveness and sustainability. For instance, research on mass incidents in rural Guangdong Province by Qiu Hongbo identified collective petitioning as a predominant form and proposed improvements to relevant policies and regulations based on crisis management theory, advocating for prevention, early warning, response, and recovery stages to manage rural mass incidents in Guangdong [28]. (4) Furthermore, research on collective action and livelihoods has also found that the risk-sharing mechanisms of collective action promote land transfer among rural households [29]. In the Melapi community, disaster mitigation collective actions have improved household livelihoods and safeguarded community safety interests [30]. Technical training within organizations and enhanced coordination have fostered reciprocal cooperation among households, thereby increasing income levels [31]. Tu Shengwei argues that ensuring livelihoods for relocated households cannot solely rely on government assistance or individual efforts but requires the establishment of a robust collective organizational system [32]. Overall, in underdeveloped rural areas, households exhibit higher vulnerability in sustaining livelihoods [33]; they can enhance livelihood development by benefiting from assistance measures, optimizing household livelihood strategies [34], increasing income levels and learning abilities, and improving social security measures [35].

Compared with the existing literature, the marginal contributions of this study mainly manifest in the following three aspects: (1) From the perspective of the study, firstly, it explores the feasible path to improve the livelihood level of rural households in China’s underdeveloped regions from the perspective of collective action, which expands the academic vision of the factors influencing the livelihood level of rural households. Secondly, the sample of the study focuses on the rural households in China’s underdeveloped regions and pays attention to the status of the participation in collective action and the status of the livelihood level of the agricultural households in the underdeveloped regions, which provides a research case for the study of the actual situation of China’s rural areas in the world’s largest developing country. This provides a research case for studying the actual situation of rural areas in China, the world’s largest developing country, which can provide a scientific basis for the scientific understanding of the collective action and sustainable livelihood statuses of rural households in China’s less developed regions, and also provide micro evidence for scientifically grasping the practical performance of China’s strategy of rural revitalization, especially rural revitalization in China’s less developed regions. (2) In terms of the research methodology, the field survey method, which is the research method that can best provide a true understanding of the actual situation of rural areas in China, was adopted. The questionnaire was carefully designed, a pre-survey was conducted, the questionnaire was also moderately modified according to the pre-survey, and the samples were selected following the sampling methods of stratified and random sampling to make the samples more representative and scientific. (3) In terms of research content, not only was the collective action status of farm households comprehensively examined from four dimensions, including willingness to participate, frequency of participation, time of participation, and perceived value of participation, but also the status of the livelihood level of rural households was examined in-depth from four dimensions, including the status of coping with livelihood risk, the status of possessing livelihood capital, the status of livelihood mode, and the status of livelihood income. Then, it further analyzes the influence mechanisms and influence effects of collective action on the livelihood level of rural households. This not only deepens the depth of research on collective action and the livelihoods of rural households but also expands the breadth of research on the performance of collective action by farming households.

2. Analyses of the Status of Collective Action and Livelihoods of Rural Households

2.1. Data Source

In May 2023, during the completion of the research project “Study on Enhancing Livelihood Development Capability of Rural Households in Shanxi Province through Collective Farming”, the research team designed a survey questionnaire and conducted field investigations. The survey employed random sampling in eight prefecture-level cities across Shanxi Province as follows: Yangquan City in the eastern region, Jincheng City and Changzhi City in the southeast region, Linfen City and Yuncheng City in the southern region, Datong City in the northern region, and Taiyuan City and Jinzhong City in the central region, covering approximately 72.7% of the prefecture-level cities in Shanxi Province. Within each selected prefecture-level city, one to two counties (districts) were randomly selected, and within each county (district), one to two townships were randomly selected. Further, one to two administrative villages were randomly selected within each township, and within each administrative village, six to eight households were randomly selected. Ultimately, 350 survey questionnaires were distributed across 20 counties (districts), 31 townships, and 56 administrative villages in Shanxi Province. The survey adopted an in-house interview method, with surveyors from Taiyuan University of Technology, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, and Shanxi University, including undergraduate and graduate students. Each surveyor’s questionnaire underwent rigorous self-checks and sampling inspections by the research teams to ensure the authenticity, completeness, and scientific validity of the data. A total of 312 valid questionnaires were collected, resulting in a questionnaire effectiveness rate of 89.14%. The content of the sample mainly includes basic individual and household characteristics of respondents, participation in collective activities, livelihood risks, livelihood capital, livelihood strategies, and other aspects related to the rural livelihood levels concerning rural revitalization.

2.2. Analysis of Rural Household Collective Action

In rural areas of China, the household contracting responsibility system is implemented where farmers—organized by households—lease land and other production materials from collective economic organizations, which are primarily administrative villages and resident groups. These collective economic organizations act as contractors, primarily providing productive services to farmers in addition to the necessary coordination, management, and operation of certain subsidiary industries. Grassroots governance in rural areas adheres to the principle of villagers’ self-governance, with village heads and other grassroots governance officials democratically elected by villagers. Therefore, in rural China, the collective actions of farmers mainly involve participating in collective activities organized by village committees (such as democratic elections of village committees and agricultural technical training), community organizations (such as the construction and maintenance of small-scale agricultural water conservancy infrastructure and afforestation), and farmers’ professional cooperatives (such as joining farmers’ professional cooperatives and signing collective sales contracts). Thus, this study primarily examines rural households’ collective actions in these aspects.

2.2.1. Intense Participation Willingness

Table 1. The willingness of farmers to participate in collective actions.

Questionnaire Items	Very Unwilling = 1	Relatively Unwilling = 2	Generally = 3	More Willing = 4	Very Willing = 5	Scale Mean
1. Participate in village cadre elections	11/3.63	29/9.29	87/27.88	121/38.78	64/20.51	3.64
2. Participate in collective labor (such as agricultural water conservancy construction)	6/1.92	47/15.06	86/27.56	103/33.01	70/22.44	3.59
3. Join the Farmers Professional Cooperative	21/6.73	47/15.06	117/37.50	83/26.60	44/14.10	3.26
4. Partnerships with others for production and business activities	21/6.73	53/16.93	110/35.26	88/28.21	40/12.82	3.23
5. Join a five-person (or ten-person) joint guarantee loan team	52/16.67	97/31.09	102/32.69	47/15.06	14/4.49	2.60
6. Communicate and share with others the technology, information, and experience related to one’s own production and operation activities	9/2.88	47/15.06	96/30.77	115/36.86	45/14.42	3.45
7. Communicate and share with others about earning opportunities such as working, developing production, and doing business	15/4.81	40/12.82	92/29.49	107/34.29	58/18.59	3.49
The average willingness to participate in the above seven items	19/6.39	51/16.35	99/31.73	95/30.45	48/15.38	3.32

shows that rural households exhibit a strong willingness to participate in various collective activities such as village cadre elections, collective labor, and joining farmers’ professional cooperatives. Specifically, the proportion of farmers who are willing or very willing to participate reached 46.83%, with an overall mean score of 3.32. Among these activities, participation in village cadre elections, collective labor, and sharing opportunities for wage labor with others are the most preferred, with participation rates of 59.29%, 55.45%, and 52.88%, and mean scores of 3.64, 3.59, and 3.49, respectively. Conversely, forming small-group loans, partnering with others in productive and profitable activities, and joining farmers’ professional cooperatives show a relatively lower participation willingness at 19.55%, 41.03%, and 40.70%, with mean scores of 2.60, 3.23, and 3.26, respectively. These findings indicate that farmers are more inclined towards productive cooperation over financial assistance cooperation.

2.2.2. Low Frequency of Participation

Table 2. Frequency of farmers’ collective action participation.

Questionnaire Items	0 Times = 1	1–3 Times = 2	4–6 Times = 3	7–10 Times = 4	11 Times or More = 5	Scale Mean
1. Participate in various activities organized by the village committee every year (elections, training, forest protection, etc.)	24/7.69	168/53.84	75/24.04	30/9.62	15/4.81	2.50
2. Participate in various activities organized by residential groups every year (such as agricultural water conservancy construction, forest protection, etc.)	21/6.73	142/45.51	102/32.69	29/9.29	18/5.77	2.62
3. Participate in various activities organized by farmers’ professional cooperatives every year (such as technical learning, collective procurement, collective sales, etc.)	52/16.67	154/49.36	69/22.12	27/8.65	10/3.21	2.32
The average participation frequency of the above three items	32/10.36	155/49.57	82/26.28	29/9.19	14/4.59	2.48

shows that the frequency of households participating in collective activities organized by village committees, residential groups, and farmers’ professional cooperatives is relatively low. In terms of proportions, the proportion of households participating in collective activities 1–3 times a year reached 49.57%, while the proportion of households participating 11 times or more is only 4.59%. The proportion of households not participating in any collective activities reached 10.36%. The overall mean value is only 2.48. Among the three types of activities, the proportion and frequency of households participating in collective activities organized by residential groups are the highest, with the participation proportions reaching 93.27% and the proportion of participating 11 times or more reaching 5.77%. The corresponding mean value is 2.62. The proportion and frequency of households participating in technical learning, collective procurement and sales, and other activities organized by farmers’ professional cooperatives are the lowest, with participation proportions of 83.33% and the proportion of participating 11 times or more reaching only 3.21%. The corresponding mean value is only 2.32. This may be due to the relative lack of farmers’ professional cooperatives in some rural areas.

2.2.3. Limited Time Investment in Participation

Table 3. Time status of collective action participation by farmers.

Questionnaire Items	0 Days = 1	1–5 Days = 2	6–10 Days = 3	11–15 Days = 4	16 Days and above = 5	Scale Mean
1. Farmers invest in various activities organized by the village committee every year, which is equivalent to the number of days invested	24/7.69	162/51.92	83/26.60	24/7.69	19/6.09	2.53
2. Farmers invest in organizing various activities in residential groups (production teams) every year, which is equivalent to the number of days	23/7.37	136/43.59	108/34.62	26/8.33	19/6.09	2.62
3. Farmers invest in various activities organized by farmers’ professional cooperatives every year, which is equivalent to the number of days invested	56/17.95	157/50.32	59/18.91	28/8.97	12/3.85	2.30
The average participation time of the above three items	34/10.89	152/48.72	83/26.71	26/8.33	17/5.34	2.48

shows that households spend relatively little time participating in various collective activities organized by village committees, residential groups, and farmers’ professional cooperatives. A total of 48.72% of the households participated for 1–5 days, and the sample mean value is 2.48. Among the three types of activities, households spend the most time participating in the various activities organized by residential groups, with a mean value of 2.62. They spend the least time participating in various activities organized by farmers’ professional cooperatives, with a mean value of 2.30. The above data indicate that residential groups are the primary venues for the collective activities of households.

2.2.4. High Perceived Value of Participation

Table 4. Perceived values of collective action.

Questionnaire Items	Very Small = 1	Relatively Small = 2	General = 3	Relatively Large = 4	Very Large = 5	Scale Mean
1. Obtain production and operation market information (such as job opportunities, market conditions, bank loans, etc.)	15/4.81	48/15.38	106/33.97	97/31.09	46/14.74	3.36
2. Improve production and management skills and level (such as production technology and professional knowledge)	13/4.17	60/19.23	117/37.50	86/27.56	36/11.54	3.23
3. Preventing losses in production and operation caused by natural disasters or declining prices of agricultural products	26/8.33	68/21.79	117/37.50	60/19.23	41/13.15	3.07
4. Expand revenue sources and increase revenue scale	20/6.41	81/25.96	109/34.94	69/22.12	33/10.58	3.05
5. Expand social relationships (such as getting to know more people, enhancing mutual understanding, etc.)	12/3.85	54/17.31	115/36.86	99/31.73	32/10.26	3.27
6. Enhance the perception of social fairness and justice	22/7.05	63/20.19	113/36.22	84/26.92	30/9.62	3.12
The average participation effect of the above six items	18/5.77	62/19.98	113/36.16	83/26.44	36/11.65	3.18

shows that households highly evaluate the effects of participating in village collective activities in terms of gaining production and business market information, improving production and business skills, and preventing dual risks. The proportion of households that consider the effects to be relatively large or very large reached 38.09%, and the scale mean value is 3.18. The three main effects are gaining production and business information, expanding social networks, and improving production and business skills, with mean values of 3.36, 3.27, and 3.27, respectively. The average evaluations for expanding income sources, increasing income scale, preventing dual risks, and enhancing the perception of social fairness and justice are 3.05, 3.07, and 3.12, respectively.

2.3. Analysis of Rural Household Livelihood

2.3.1. Capability to Withstand Livelihood Risks Is Relatively High

Table 5. Capability to withstand livelihood risks of rural households.

Questionnaire Items	Very Unnecessary (Completely Impossible) = 1	Relatively Unnecessary (Relatively Impossible) = 2	General = 3	Relatively Necessary (Relatively Capable) = 4	Very Necessary (Completely Capable) = 5	Scale Mean
1. Ability to cope with medical expenses caused by general diseases	5/1.6	42/13.46	122/39.1	123/39.42	20/6.41	3.36
2. Ability to cope with production and business losses caused by more serious natural disasters	8/2.56	49/15.71	151/48.4	89/28.53	15/4.81	3.17
3. Ability to cope with production and operational losses caused by a decline in agricultural product prices	8/2.56	52/16.67	149/47.76	88/28.21	15/4.81	3.16
The average of the three risk response capabilities mentioned above	7/2.24	48/15.28	141/45.09	100/32.05	17/5.34	3.23

indicates that rural households are relatively capable of withstanding the general illness medical expenses and dual risks (natural and market risks) that lead to production and operational losses, with a mean score of 3.23. Specifically, their ability to handle general illness medical expenses is highest, with 45.83% of households able to cope comparably or completely. In contrast, their ability to cope with market risks (such as agricultural price declines) is weaker, with only 33.02% of households coping comparably or completely, averaging 3.16. This suggests that rural households under small-scale production conditions need to enhance their capability to withstand major market shocks.

2.3.2. Quantity of Livelihood Capital Is Relatively Limited

Financial capital serves as the most crucial material foundation for rural households to develop production and enhance their livelihoods. It represents an essential component of their livelihood capital in this study.

Table 6. Quantity of livelihood capital of rural households.

	Under 10,000 = 1	10,000– 30,000 = 2	40,000– 60,000 = 3	70,000– 100,000 = 4	110,000– 150,000 = 5	16,000– 200,000 = 6	21,000– 300,000 = 7	310,000 or More = 8	Scale Mean
Number of households/proportion	73/23.40	54/17.13	69/22.12	51/16.35	25/8.01	13/4.17	14/4.49	13/4.16	3.19

illustrates that rural households possess relatively low quantities of financial assets such as cash, deposits, financial management products, stocks, funds, and bonds. The proportions of households with financial assets below RMB 10,000, between RMB 10,000–30,000, and RMB 40,000–60,000 are 23.40%, 17.13%, and 22.12%, respectively, with a mean score of only 3.19.

2.3.3. Livelihoods Predominantly Rely on Small-Scale Farming and Local Non-Agricultural Work

As shown in

Table 7. Livelihood patterns of rural households.

	Small-Scale Farming = 1	Large-Scale Farming = 2	Local Workers = 3	Non-Local Workers = 4	Half Agriculture and Half Work = 5	Focusing on Doing Business = 6	Scale Mean
Number of households/proportion	112/35.90	20/6.41	98/31.41	31/9.94	36/11.54	15/4.81	2.69

, a significant portion of rural households, 35.90%, engage in small-scale, non-specialized agricultural cultivation or animal husbandry. Only 6.41% are involved in large-scale, specialized agricultural cultivation or animal husbandry. Local non-agricultural work is prevalent among 31.41% of households, while 11.54% practice a hybrid farming and working lifestyle.

2.3.4. Livelihood Income Is Relatively Low

As indicated in

Table 8. Livelihood income of rural households.

	Under 10,000 = 1	10,000– 30,000 = 2	40,000– 60,000 = 3	70,000– 100,000 = 4	110,000– 150,000 = 5	160,000– 200,000 = 6	210,000– 300,000 = 7	310,000– 500,000 = 8	Scale Mean
Number of households/proportion	13/4.71	49/15.71	91/29.17	84/26.92	46/14.74	18/5.77	10/3.21	1/0.32	3.64

, the rural households’ total income is comparatively low, with significant disparities. Proportions of rural households with a total income below CNY 10,000, CNY 30,000, and CNY 60,000 account for 4.71%, 20.42%, and 49.59%, respectively. Those with incomes above CNY 100,000 and CNY 200,000 constitute 24.03% and 3.53% of households, respectively.

3. Theoretical Analysis of Collective Action Empowering Rural Household Livelihoods

Collective action can enhance rural households’ ability to mitigate livelihood risks. By joining farmer cooperatives, specialized farmer cooperatives, or mutual aid organizations, farmers can collectively face various risks, such as natural disasters and market fluctuations [36]. Collective action enables farmers to diversify risks, establish mechanisms for shared risk mitigation, and alleviate economic pressures when facing individual risks. By jointly adopting preventive measures and sharing risk relief, farmers enhance their resilience against risks. Collective action also provides farmers with more information and technical support, enhancing their capacity to cope with diverse risks. Based on this, we propose research hypothesis H₁: Collective action positively influences rural household livelihood risk mitigation capabilities.

Collective action also contributes to the accumulation of livelihood capital. Through activities such as joint investments in collective economic organizations, cooperative farming, and agricultural processing, farmers pool their funds and resources to improve agricultural production efficiency and economic scale, thereby enhancing their capabilities and competitiveness. Collective action also promotes technological innovation and knowledge sharing, improving the science and sustainability of agricultural production. These activities help farmers accumulate capital, increase investment returns, and consequently boost their livelihood income. Based on this, we propose research hypothesis H₂: Collective action positively influences the accumulation of rural household livelihood capital.

Collective action also significantly influences the choice of livelihood models for rural households. Under rural revitalization initiatives, the options for livelihood models have expanded effectively but remain subject to multiple constraints [37]. Through collective action, farmers gain access to more resources and support, enabling them to learn about and adopt emerging production technologies, management models, and market trends, thereby enhancing the flexibility and diversity of their livelihood choices. For example, farmers may opt to develop specialty agricultural products or rural tourism to increase their income. Furthermore, collective action facilitates urban–rural economic interactions, facilitating the transition of farmers from traditional to modern agricultural industries and broadening their livelihood choices. Based on this, we propose research hypothesis H₃: Collective action positively influences rural household livelihood model selection.

Collective action contributes to increasing the livelihood income of farmers in underdeveloped regions. Collective action provides farmers with better opportunities for technical learning and market access, enhancing the competitiveness and added valueof agricultural products. Through collective operations and the establishment of agricultural brands, farmers can improve their product quality and market recognition, thereby gaining higher profits. Additionally, collective action provides farmers with services and support in agricultural product distribution, sales, and logistics, reducing transaction costs and risks and further increasing the farmers’ livelihood income. Based on this, we propose research hypothesis H₄: Collective action positively influences rural household livelihood income levels. Based on the above analyses, a theoretical framework was constructed as shown in Figure 1:

4. Research Methods

4.1. Variable Setting

4.1.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is rural household livelihoods. In this paper, the livelihood status of rural households is comprehensively reflected within four dimensions, including livelihood risk response capacity, livelihood capital accumulation, livelihood model status, and livelihood income level. Among them, the value of livelihood risk coping ability is taken from the mean value of the scales of the three measurement items in Table 5, and the values of the other three dimensions are taken from the values assigned to the measurement scales in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 of the questionnaire, respectively.

4.1.2. Independent Variable

The independent variable is the collective actions of rural households. Based on the questionnaire survey results in the first part of the paper, this study measures the level of rural households’ participation in collective actions by combining the frequency, time, and perceived value of participation in collective actions into three dimensions. Regarding the previous research methodology [20], factor analysis was used to measure the level of collective action participation among the sample of farmers. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity test show that the KMO sampling adequacy measure reached 0.825, and Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant at the 1% level, indicating that the data are suitable for factor analysis. The principal component analysis was employed to extract the common factors, and the maximum variance method was used for factor rotation. Three common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, and the cumulative variance contribution rate reached 76.20%. The weight was calculated based on the proportion of each common factor’s variance contribution rate to the cumulative variance contribution rate. The total score of the factors was then calculated to determine the level of participation in collective actions of rural households.

4.1.3. Control Variables

Considering the influence of other factors, gender, age, education, and region were selected as the control variables. The specific definitions of these variables are presented in

Table 9. Variables setting.

Variable Category	Variable Name	Variable Description
Dependent variable	Livelihood risk response capacity of rural households	The assigned values of three measurement scales for household livelihood risk coping capacity in the survey questionnaire
	Livelihood capital accumulation of rural households	The assigned values from the survey questionnaire’s investigation scale for financial capital
	Livelihood model status of rural households	The assigned values from the survey questionnaire’s investigation scale for household livelihood patterns
	Livelihood income level of rural households	Assignment of total rural household income in the questionnaire
Independent variable	Collective actions of rural household	Utilizing the factor analysis method, measuring the level of rural households’ participation in collective actions from three dimensions—participation frequency, time investment, and perceived value
Control variables	Gender	Gender was distinguished by 0–1 variable, male sample = 1, female sample = 0
	Age	Age was divided into 1–7 grades
	Educational background	Education level was divided into 1–7 grades
	Region	Taking Taiyuan as the control group, Taiyuan sample = 1, and samples from other regions = 0

.

4.2. Model Construction

Based on the fact that both dependent variables and core independent variables are continuous, we can use a multiple linear regression model to investigate the impact of collective action on farmers’ livelihood levels.

$$Y_i=a+bX+\sum Control+\epsilon$$

Among them, the explained Y variable represents the livelihood level of farmers in Shanxi Province; i from 1 to 4 represents four indicators of rural household livelihoods, namely the livelihood risk coping capacity, livelihood capital quantity, livelihood mode, and livelihood income; X represents collective action. The remaining are the control variables, and ε is residual.

5. Regression Results Analysis

5.1. Analysis of Benchmark Regression Results

From the regression results in

Table 10. Multiple linear model regression results of collective action affecting rural household livelihood.

Variables	Livelihood Risk Response Capacity	Livelihood Capital Accumulation	Livelihood Model Status	Livelihood Income Level
Collective action	0.223 *** (3.287)	1.155 *** (6.902)	0.236 * (1.946)	1.320 *** (12.898)
Age	0.030 (0.672)	−0.021 (−0.192)	−0.117 (−1.233)	−0.291 *** (−4.331)
Gender	0.014 (0.163)	0.182 (0.844)	−0.163 (−0.882)	0.079 (0.601)
Education level	0.020 (0.447)	−0.076 (−0.684)	0.027 (0.287)	0.107 *** (3.039)
Region	0.153 (1.762)	1.358 *** (2.990)	1.221 *** (3.136)	0.744 *** (2.679)
Intercept term	3.053 *** (11.454)	3.308 *** (5.020)	3.020 *** (5.347)	5.127 *** (12.728)
R2	0.024	0.162	0.037	0.377
F	2.526	11.822	3.396	38.570
p	0.029 **	0.000 ***	0.005 ***	0.000 ***

Note: ***, **, and * are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% statistical levels, respectively; the same as below.

, it is evident that the p-values of all four regression models are significant, indicating a well-fitting model. In the first column, the coefficient for collective action is 0.223, significant at the 1% level, suggesting that active participation in collective actions by rural households effectively enhances their livelihood risk response capacity. By engaging in collective actions, households not only share the benefits but also shoulder the risks together. The stronger the households’ awareness of insurance and the greater the number of insurances purchased, the higher their capacity to cope with livelihood risks, thus confirming hypothesis H₁. In the second column, the coefficient for collective action is positive and significant at the 1% confidence level, with a coefficient of 1.012, indicating that participation in collective actions increases the quantity of livelihood capital for households. Through collective actions, households can pool funds and resources and enhance their agricultural production efficiency and economic scale, thereby increasing their livelihood capital; therefore, hypothesis H₂ is verified. In the third column, the coefficient of the independent variable is positively significant at the 10% confidence level, indicating that in underdeveloped rural areas, higher levels of collective action development among households lead to more opportunities for choosing livelihood models. Active participation in collective actions broadens households’ horizons, facilitates resource acquisition, and helps them pursue higher-income livelihood models, confirming hypothesis H₃. In the fourth column, the coefficient of the independent variable reaches 1.320 and is significant at the 1% confidence level, indicating that in underdeveloped rural areas, household participation in collective actions increases livelihood income. Higher levels of collective action development among households encourage more active participation, reduce production costs compared to individualized production, and facilitate the easier sharing of production technologies and resources, thereby significantly increasing a household’s livelihood income, confirming H₄.

5.2. Robustness Test

This study employed the grouped t-test method for robustness testing. Specifically, based on the mean factor scores of collective action (which were zero), the sample households were divided into high-level and low-level groups of collective action.

Table 11. T-test results.

Livelihoods of Farmers	Participation Level in Collective Action		Two Groups Difference	T Value	p-Value
	Low Group (N = 166)	High Group (N = 146)
Livelihood risk response capacity	3.10	3.38	0.28	3.41	0.001 ***
Livelihood capital accumulation	2.94	3.99	1.05	6.49	0.000 ***
Livelihood model status	2.59	2.81	0.13	1.91	0.074 *
Livelihood income level	2.99	4.38	1.39	10.07	0.000 ***

Note: *** and * are significant at 1% and 10% statistical levels, respectively.

presents the test results, revealing significant differences between the two groups of households across the four indicators of livelihoods. This indicates that household participation in collective action enhances their livelihoods. The mechanism behind this enhancement lies in the intrinsic functions of collective action, such as information sharing, technology diffusion, risk sharing, capital accumulation, and promotion of entrepreneurship.

5.3. Endogeneity Test

The impact of the level of collective action participation on the livelihoods of rural households may be endogenous to the model due to reverse causality. To further deal with the possible endogeneity issue, drawing on Yin, Zhichao et al.’s [38] approach to instrumental variables, the average of the collective action participation levels of other farmers in the same village was selected as an instrumental variable, whereby respondent farmers can improve their motivation to participate in collective action by learning from the farmers around them, whereas the collective action participation levels of the other farmers are strictly exogenous concerning the livelihood capacity of the respondents.

Table 12. Instrumental variable method regression results.

Variables	First phase	Second phase
	(Dependent Variable: Collective Action)	Livelihood Risk Response Capacity	Livelihood Capital Accumulation	Livelihood Model Status	Livelihood Income Level
Average level of collective action participation of other farmers in the same village	0.735 *** (11.701)	-	-	-	-
Collective action	-	0.315 *** (3.967)	1.219 *** (4.048)	0.469 * (1.811)	1.456 *** (7.888)
control variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Intercept term	−0.372 ** (−1.99)	2.972 *** (10.696)	3.323 *** (5.021)	3.077 *** (5.401)	5.160 *** (12.719)
R2	0.326	-	-	-	-
F	29.586	2.713	5.571	3.486	17.715

Note: ***, **, and * are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% statistical levels, respectively.

reports the results of the two-stage instrumental variable regression, where the first stage of the regression shows that the coefficient on the average level of collective action participation of other farmers in the same village is significantly positive, indicating that the instrumental variable is valid and the F-statistic is 29.586, which excludes the problem of weakly correlated variables. The fitted coefficients of the level of participation in collective action in the second stage are all significantly positive, which is consistent with the results of the benchmark regression and confirms that participation in collective action improves the livelihoods of farm households.

5.4. Further Analysis

Table 13. Regression results of the impacts of three dimensions of collective action on rural households’ livelihood.

Variable	Livelihood Risk Response Capacity	Livelihood Capital Accumulation	Livelihood Model Status	Livelihood Income Level
Frequency of participation	0.048 (0.799)	0.358 *** (5.182)	0.400 *** (3.140)	0.350 *** (4.309)
Time investment	0.137 ** (2.300)	−0.028 (−0.311)	0.042 (0.335)	−0.043 (0.591)
Perceived value	0.147 ** (2.588)	0.548 *** (6.168)	0.136 (1.120)	0.988 *** (12.775)
Age	0.033 (0.761)	−0.059 (−0.879)	−0.101 (−1.094)	−0.245 *** (−4.178)
Gender	0.029 (0.344)	0.117 (0.891)	−0.209 (−1.173)	0.173 (1.517)
Education level	0.031 (0.121)	0.060 * (1.899)	0.025 (0.450)	0.189 *** (3.107)
Region	0.047 (0.262)	1.051 *** (3.769)	0.984 ** (2.587)	0.097 (0.400)
Intercept term	2.173 *** (7.156)	0.658 *** (3.062)	1.552 ** (2.427)	1.023 ** (2.506)
R2	0.075	0.500	0.098	0.533
F	4.603	45.459	5.849	51.651
p	0.000 ***	0.000 ***	0.000 ***	0.000 ***

Note: ***, **, and * are significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% statistical levels, respectively.

reports the regression results of a multiple linear model analyzing the impact of three dimensions of collective action (i.e., frequency of participation, time invested, and perceived value) on household livelihoods. The p-values for all four regression models are significant at the 1% level, indicating a good fit for the models.

The results in column 1 show that both the time invested in collective action and the perceived value of collective action are significant at the 5% level. However, the frequency of participation in collective action does not have a significant effect on the ability to cope with livelihood risks.

Column 2’s results indicate that each additional unit increase in the frequency of collective action participation and perceived value of collective action boosts households’ livelihood capital by 35.8% and 54.8%, respectively.

The results in column 3 demonstrate that the frequency of participation in collective action significantly promotes the upgrading of household livelihood patterns at the 1% confidence level. By actively participating in collective action, rural households can learn about and adopt new production technologies, management practices, and market trends, thereby adjusting their production methods and product structures to transform traditional livelihood patterns.

Column 4’s results reveal that the frequency of participation and perceived value of collective action significantly enhance a rural household’s livelihood income at the 1% confidence level. Through participation in collective action, rural households have the opportunity to share resources, technologies, and market channels, which helps improve production efficiency and agricultural product quality, leading to better livelihood incomes.

6. Discussion

This study analyzed 312 rural households in underdeveloped areas of Shanxi Province, China, using a livelihood analysis framework. It examined collective action among rural households from four dimensions: willingness to participate, frequency of participation, time input, and perceived value. The research identifies the overall characteristics of collective action and assesses the livelihood realities of rural households across livelihood risks, livelihood capital, livelihood patterns, and livelihood income. Furthermore, it explores the impact of collective action on household livelihood enhancement based on its functional roles.

Compared with previous studies, this paper focuses on analyzing the reality of collective actions of rural households in less developed regions in the great process of promoting rural revitalization in China. This study shows that rural household collective action in Shanxi Province is underdeveloped, and the frequency of participation and time invested in rural household collective action is relatively low. Since the collective action of rural households needs the guidance of policies and organizational forces [7], and Shanxi Province is located inland, some areas are relatively closed, and the traffic and information flow is not as convenient as that in coastal areas, which leads to the difficulty of organizing and publicizing the collective action of rural households, and the lack of motivation of rural households to participate [39]. This restricts the positivity and initiative of the collective action of rural households. After the abolition of the agricultural tax in rural areas, the phenomena of lack of production costs, the divergence of farmers’ interests, and the increase in free-riders have emerged, causing rural grassroots governance to become disorderly, with the provision of basic public goods difficult to maintain [40]. At the same time, the demolition and relocation of nail households, the sense of relative deprivation they bring, and the opportunistic behavior of uncooperative people in collective projects to enter villages have led to the inability of farmers’ collective action [41]. The relatively homogeneous structure of agricultural production in lesser-developed regions—mostly dominated by small-scale farmers’ operations [42]—may also affect the breadth and depth of collective action to some extent. However, the research also found that farmers’ willingness to participate in the activities organized by village committees as well as cooperatives and their perceived value is relatively high, indicating that there is more room for the development of collective action among farmers in less developed regions. Rural households in less developed areas tend to have a strong sense of native concepts and family consciousness, which, to some extent, enhances their sense of identity and value perception of collective action, and they generally believe that participation in collective action helps to maintain the harmony and stability of the village and enhances the social status of the individual and the family [43]. Currently, the national governance capacity has been significantly improved. Grassroots governance affairs have been incorporated into the scope of national governance in a large number of cases. However, there are still free-riders who thrive due to the inability of social constraints. Farmers are not motivated to organize themselves to take part in public affairs and, thus, stay out of the affairs of their villages [44]. There is a discrepancy between ‘will’ and ‘action’ that needs to be further addressed.

Previous studies of farmers’ livelihoods have focused on one aspect of livelihood capital or livelihood strategies; Muhammad found that livelihood capital is the most important factor in farmers’ adaptation to climate change [45]. Meanwhile, Zhang examined the types of livelihood patterns and evolutionary paths of farmers relocated for poverty alleviation and analyzed the factors influencing the selection and transformation of evolutionary paths, and that changes in the geography and a lack of resources after relocation can lead to a decline in farmers’ livelihood capital [46]. Furthermore, a lack of resources can lead to a decline in farmers’ livelihood capital [47]; therefore, farmers should make good use of business opportunities to shift their livelihood strategies to improve their income [48]. The study in this paper focuses on the overall livelihood capacity of rural households in underdeveloped areas, which includes four main aspects, namely, livelihood risk, livelihood capital, livelihood mode, and livelihood income. The findings found that the overall status of rural household livelihoods is less than ideal, with geographic and historical conditions limiting capital accumulation and livelihood incomes. Located on the Loess Plateau, Shanxi Province has a relatively harsh natural environment, and the conditions for agricultural production are not favorable, with farmers relatively lacking in production capital and production technology. The backwardness of rural development has led to a predominantly agricultural livelihood model, and the lack of high-quality employment opportunities in rural areas of Shanxi Province has forced farmers to choose local labor or small-scale farming as their main livelihood. Although this mode of livelihood is relatively stable, the level of income is relatively low, making it difficult to effectively accumulate livelihood capital, which is an important reason why it is difficult for farmers to develop on an individual basis.

In underdeveloped rural areas, collective action among rural households is an effective means for improving livelihood patterns and enhancing household income and capital accumulation [49,50]. This study investigates the potential impacts of collective action on the livelihoods of rural households, employing multiple linear regression and grouped regression models while further examining the heterogeneity of the collective action dimensions affecting household livelihoods. The empirical findings indicate that collective action among rural households in underdeveloped regions can elevate their livelihood standards. These insights deepen the intrinsic linkages between collective action and household livelihoods, contributing valuable explorations to the theoretical research on both fronts. Grounded in the livelihoods analysis framework of the International Development Agency and contextualized by the realities of Shanxi Province, this study enriches the theoretical frameworks by exploring the fundamental conditions of rural household livelihoods. It also proposes policy recommendations on how farmers can engage in collective action in the future. The statistical results of the sample surveys, empirical findings, and policy recommendations provide a scientific basis and decision-making reference for relevant government agencies when formulating policies related to collective action among rural households.

Despite its contributions, this study is limited by its insufficient measurement of collective action indicators and small sample size, suggesting avenues for future research expansion through larger and diversified methodologies. The empirical findings and policy recommendations offer a scientific basis and decision-making reference for relevant government agencies that are crafting policies related to rural collective action.

7. Conclusions and Suggestions

Promoting the level of farmers’ participation in collective action and improving the degree of farmers’ organization are important policy measures of the Rural Revitalization Strategy while improving farmers’ livelihood levels is an important Rural Revitalization Strategy policy goal. Taking Shanxi Province as an example, this paper investigates and analyzes the status of farmers’ collective action participation, livelihood levels, and the livelihood effect of collective action participation in underdeveloped areas. The results show that there is a “high willingness and low behavior” paradox between farmers’ willingness to participate in collective action and their participation behavior in underdeveloped areas; however, the participating farmers have a high degree of evaluation on the role of participation, indicating that there is a broad space for promoting farmers’ collective action in underdeveloped areas. Although it has a high ability to cope with livelihood risks, farmers’ livelihood capital and income are relatively low, which highlights the arduous task of rural revitalization in underdeveloped areas. Participation in collective action significantly improves farmers’ abilities to cope with livelihood risks, as well as assists with the accumulation of livelihood capital, livelihood patterns, and livelihood income. The frequency, time, and value perception of collective action have different degrees of impact on farmers’ livelihoods, indicating that collective action is an effective path to improve farmers’ livelihood levels.

Based on the above conclusions, the following policy suggestions are put forward to enhance the participation of farmers in collective action.

First, strengthen the organization construction of rural farmers to provide organizational support for collective action [51]. Establish and improve farmers’ organizations and rural cooperatives, improve the internal rules and regulations, and formulate relevant laws and regulations to ensure the science and fairness of organizational decisions.

Second, provide incentives to enhance farmers’ enthusiasm to participate in collective action. Provide incentives to individuals and organizations that perform well in collective action, including the material and spiritual aspects, especially for the professionals and excellent collective operation promoters who play an important role in the organization, and formulate a series of preferential policies to help the organization retain talents.

The third is to improve the quality and skills of farmers and build a rural development community. Training in agricultural technology and management knowledge should be increased to help farmers improve their professional skills and management capabilities; publicity and education should be strengthened for farmers, guiding them to change their traditional small-farmer attitudes and strengthen their recognition of the value of common consciousness.