Does Participation in Social Security Increase Chinese Farmers’ Willingness of Homestead Withdrawal?

Abstract

The compensated withdrawal of rural homesteads can revitalize idle land resources, which is of significant importance for both farmers and rural development in China. Drawing upon data from the China Land Economic Survey 2022, this study uncovers the impact of participation in social security on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, as well as its mediating factor. The main conclusions are as follows. First, participation in social security can increase farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This conclusion has passed robustness tests. Second, facilitating entrepreneurial activities is an important mediating factor through which participation in social security increases the willingness of homestead withdrawal. Third, rural entrepreneurship training and finance accessibility can both have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and the willingness of homestead withdrawal. Fourth, for farmers who experienced significant negative events in their households, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is diminished, while for farmers engaging in farmland transfer-out, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is strengthened. This study provides policy implications for China in promoting the exit of rural farmers from homesteads through social security policies, thus achieving rural revitalization.

1. Introduction

For a long time, China’s rural homestead policies have played a crucial role in ensuring the well-being of farmers and maintaining rural social stability [1]. However, with the rapid advancement of urbanization in China, the massive outflow of rural population has led to changes in the relationship between people and land in rural areas, resulting in the coexistence of inefficient utilization of rural homesteads and insufficient supply of urban construction land [2,3]. According to the data from the Third National Land Survey, issued in 2021, the urbanization rate of China’s resident population is 62.71%. While the rural population is decreasing, the area of rural homesteads continues to increase. The results of the “National Overall Land Use Planning Outline (2006–2020)” study showed that from 1997 to 2005, China’s rural population decreased by nearly 100 million, but the land area for rural settlements increased by 113,330 hectares. In addition, a large number of rural homesteads in China remain idle. In the 2019 “Rural Green Book”, it was pointed out that the average idle rate of rural homesteads in China was 10.7% in 2018. All of these indicate the low efficiency of current rural homestead utilization in China and the wastage of land resources. In order to effectively improve the allocation and utilization efficiency of rural homestead resources and explore channels for voluntary withdrawal of homesteads by farmers who are willing to move to cities, China launched a pilot program for voluntary compensated withdrawal of homesteads in 33 counties, including Beijing Daxing in 2015. In China, rural homesteads are collectively owned, and farmers only have the right to use the land, whereas in most other countries, land is privately owned, granting landowners full property rights that governments cannot easily interfere with. Consequently, homestead withdrawal is a phenomenon unique to China, as it is rooted in the country’s distinctive land management system and dual urban-rural structure. Homestead withdrawal in China refers to the process where rural residents voluntarily relinquish their residential land use rights, often in exchange for compensation, as part of policies aimed at optimizing land use, promoting urbanization, and improving rural development. A number of pioneering experiences have been accumulated in places like Zhejiang Yiwu and Sichuan Lu county. In recent years, China’s central No. 1 document has been continuously focusing on the issue of homestead withdrawal. In 2018, it proposed the reform of “separation of the ownership, qualification, and use rights” of homesteads. In 2020, it emphasized further deepening the pilot reform of the rural homestead system, with a focus on exploring the “separation of the three rights” of homesteads. In 2024, it once again emphasized the steady and prudent promotion of rural homestead system reform. The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out the need to “deepen the rural land system reform and give farmers more comprehensive property rights and interests”. This holds great significance in the current context where there is a significant decrease in the rural permanent population, but the area of rural homesteads continues to increase rather than decrease. From 2000 to 2016, China’s rural resident population decreased from 808 million to 589 million, a reduction of 27.1%. However, during the same period, the area of rural homesteads expanded from 247 million mu to 298 million mu, an increase of 20.6% (http://www.inewsweek.cn/ (accessed on 4 June 2024). Mu is a traditional Chinese unit of land area, with 1 mu approximately equivalent to 0.0667 hectares. Land is the mother of wealth and an important factor of production. As an important part of rural land, the utilization of rural homesteads has also received attention from the government [4]. Homestead withdrawal, as an important practice in promoting rural land system reform in China, is of great significance in improving the efficiency of rural land use, facilitating the flow of urban and rural factors, increasing farmers’ property income, and allowing farmers to share more in the dividends of reform, thus comprehensively promoting rural revitalization [5,6,7]. Exploring farmers’ willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads not only helps China better understand their inherent demands but also provides theoretical and empirical references for the reform of homestead withdrawal system. Furthermore, it contributes to the intensive and efficient utilization of rural land and promotes the development of rural revitalization in China.

Participation in social security alleviates uncertainty in farmers’ lives and strengthens their ability to manage risks, ultimately shaping their production decisions and way of life. For instance, farmers may exhibit a stronger willingness to withdraw from rural homesteads after participating in social security. However, limited attention has been given to the impact of participation in social security on Chinese farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, leaving a research gap in understanding this relationship. In view of this, based on data from the China Land Economic Survey 2022 issued by Nanjing Agricultural University, the main goal of this study is to empirically explore the impact of participation in social security on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, as well as its mediating factor. It also examines the moderating role of various factors at the village level in the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Compared with previous studies, the marginal contributions of this study are as follows. First, this study verifies that participation in social security can increase farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, providing an empirical reference for refining social security policy with respect to promoting the reform of homestead withdrawal system. Second, this study reveals that the mediating factor through which social security increases the willingness of homestead withdrawal is by facilitating farmers’ entrepreneurial activities. Third, this study verifies that entrepreneurship training and finance accessibility in the village can both have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and the willingness of homestead withdrawal, which provides valuable insights and reference for effectively utilizing rural governance to promote orderly withdrawal of homesteads by farmers.

The remaining structure of the paper includes Section 2, which offers our literature review and theoretical analysis; Section 3, which details the econometric model and data samples; Section 4, which conducts the empirical testing and presents the findings; Section 5, which conducts the discussion; and Section 6, which summarizes the primary conclusions and discusses policy implications.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Analysis

2.1. Literature Review

The decline in the agricultural population is a global trend, which places higher demands on the efficient utilization of rural land. Internationally, studies have extensively focused on the multifaceted impacts of rural land use on ecological conservation [8], economic structural transformation [9], and the improvement of farmers’ livelihoods [10]. As an important practice in China’s rural land system reform, the homestead withdrawal holds significant implications for improving rural land utilization efficiency, facilitating the flow of urban-rural factors, increasing farmers’ property income, and enabling farmers to have a greater share of the benefits resulting from reform, thereby comprehensively promoting rural revitalization. In recent years, fruitful achievements have been made in the study of factors influencing Chinese farmers’ willingness and behaviors to withdraw from rural homesteads. From a research perspective, existing studies mainly focus on three aspects: macro, meso, and micro. In the context of a macro policy perspective, the influencing factors primarily include compensation standard [11,12], penalty mechanism [13], withdrawal modes [14], urban housing market [15], and so on. For example, Song et al. [16] found that increasing compensation standards were more likely to encourage farmers to withdraw from their rural homesteads, and that the implementation of dynamic subsidy strategies could increase the probability of farmers choosing to withdraw from their homesteads. In the context of a meso-level social perspective, the influencing factors mainly include the environmental conditions and economic development level in which rural homesteads are situated [17,18], social security level [19], and so on. For example, Tang et al. [20] believed that the participation of village committees enhanced policy transparency and reduced information costs, promoting the withdrawal of farmers from rural homesteads. Additionally, the depth of village committee involvement—referring to participation across multiple stages—had a positive impact on farmers’ withdrawal from rural homesteads. In the context of a micro farmer perspective, the influencing factors primarily include psychological cognition [21,22,23,24], aging population [25], intergenerational differences [26], and so on. For example, Liu et al. [27] found that emotional attachment and perception of inheritance rights intensified the level of distress experienced by villagers when withdrawing from rural homesteads, thereby strengthening their inclination towards retention.

Participation in social security reduces uncertainty in the lives of farmers and enhances their capacity to bear risks, thereby influencing their production and lifestyle [28]. Internationally, numerous studies have demonstrated that social security systems can enhance the economic stability of rural households and their sense of security about the future, enabling them to make decisions that align more closely with their long-term interests. For instance, Canedo [29] argued that Mexico’s social pensions increased the likelihood of international migration among rural household members. Similarly, Herrmann et al. [30] found that social pension reform in rural Thailand significantly improved the work status and literacy skills of children co-residing with eligible pension recipients. In addition, international studies have explored the impact of social security participation on cognitive behavior [31], food security [32], and income distribution [33]. In China, recent studies have mostly examined the effects of participation in social security on various aspects, such as the economic situations of farmers [34,35], labor supply [36], psychological cognition [37,38], health behavior [39,40], land use [41], and so on. For example, using data from the China Family Panel Studies, Cheng and Zhang [42] argued that participation in social security significantly improved subjective well-being among rural residents, with the greatest beneficiaries being those with poor health conditions and overall good living conditions. Using the field survey data of 881 farmers, Liang et al. [43] found that the new rural social pension insurance significantly impacted farmers’ income levels. Using China’s National Cooperative Medical Scheme as a quasi-natural experiment, Shi et al. [44] believed that public medical insurance could unleash entrepreneurship in the rural economy. Besides, the impact of public medical insurance on entrepreneurial development was particularly noticeable among wealthier rural households, those with broader insurance coverage, or those headed by younger individuals. Based on the data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, Li et al. [45] found that the urban-rural health insurance integration significantly decreased the poverty vulnerability of rural residents, with a more pronounced effect observed among vulnerable groups with relatively poor health compared to those with relatively good health. Using the data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, Cao et al. [46] argued that medical insurance greatly augmented family financial assistance between insured parents and their children in rural areas.

Based on the literature review above, it can be observed that previous studies have extensively discussed the factors influencing the willingness to withdraw from homestead land and the effects of participation in social security. Building on this foundation, this study further examines the impact of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, providing policy recommendations for the optimal allocation of rural land resources and the implementation of China’s rural revitalization strategy.

2.2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses

Firstly, social security—a government-provided system to mitigate risks and enhance livelihood security for individuals or households—plays a significant role in improving farmers’ expectations of security [47]. Once the security system in which farmers participate can offer sufficient future security, their sensitivity to risks in their practical decision-making will decrease [48]. This aligns with the core idea of risk-sharing theory, which suggests that external mechanisms, such as social security systems, can effectively distribute and mitigate individual risks, thereby reducing the psychological and economic burden on farmers when making decisions. In this case, they may be more inclined to give up some current economic benefits, such as traditional property like rural homesteads, in pursuit of long-term stability and well-being. This reflects the rational choice theory, which posits that individuals make decisions by weighing the costs and benefits to maximize their overall utility and future gains. Secondly, although the control over homesteads provides a certain form of social identity and economic benefits to farmers, it also comes with corresponding management costs and opportunity costs [49]. With the improvement of the social security system, particularly in terms of retirement and healthcare security, farmers can convert the compensation they receive from homestead exits into more efficient lifestyles and capital utilization, thereby promoting the effective transformation of homesteads. Meanwhile, although homesteads traditionally serve as a barrier for risk prevention and hold an important position, with the intervention of the social security system, farmers can alleviate their reliance on homesteads through more stable social security. This institutional guarantee, by serving as a risk-sharing mechanism, partially replaces the sense of security brought by homesteads, thereby enhancing farmers’ willingness to exit homesteads. Additionally, emotional dependence on homesteads and constraints from traditional beliefs may hinder the willingness to exit homesteads [27]. However, based on the behavioral economics theory, which emphasizes the role of psychological factors such as emotional attachment, habitual behavior, and loss aversion in decision-making, participation in social security provides a new sense of security and belonging. This reduces the emotional and cognitive barriers associated with homestead withdrawal, making it a more acceptable and rational option. In conclusion, participation in social security can reduce the risk costs associated with reliance on homesteads by providing stable future expectations. It also helps decrease the adherence caused by emotions or traditional values, thereby promoting farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Hence, the first hypothesis is proposed as follows.

Hypothesis 1 (H1):

Participation in social security can increase farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal.

The entrepreneurial activities of farmers can be seen as a mediating factor that influences the willingness of homestead withdrawal, particularly in terms of participation in social security. On one hand, the fundamental role of social security increases individuals’ or households’ ability to bear risks, aligning with risk-sharing theory, making farmers more likely to engage in entrepreneurship [44]. This reduces their reliance on agricultural production and rural homesteads. On the other hand, through entrepreneurial activities, farmers may achieve higher returns [50,51], which reflects the opportunity cost theory: as entrepreneurial activities yield higher returns compared to traditional land management, the opportunity cost of remaining reliant on rural homesteads increases. This further reduces their direct dependence on the economic value of rural homesteads, thereby enhancing their willingness and ability to exit. As rational economic agents, farmers constantly adjust resource allocation to maximize utility across multiple objectives, consistent with rational choice theory. When social security enhances farmers’ entrepreneurial capacity and risk prevention ability, they may be more inclined to allocate assets to entrepreneurial activities that provide higher returns, rather than traditional land management. This will further strengthen farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, promoting optimized allocation of land resources and intensive land management. Hence, the second hypothesis is proposed as follows.

Hypothesis 2 (H2):

Facilitating entrepreneurial activities is an important mediating factor through which participation in social security increases farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal.

Entrepreneurship training in the village can strengthen the positive effect of participation in social security on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Drawing on human capital theory, entrepreneurship training enhances the practical skills and knowledge of farmers in implementing business plans, increasing their chances of successful entrepreneurship and creating income sources [52]. This improvement in human capital reduces economic dependency on homesteads. Additionally, entrepreneurship training helps expand the farmers’ perspectives and cognitive scope, making them aware of broader economic space and opportunities beyond their homesteads. As the economic prospects of farmers improve and their sense of economic security increases, the supplementary role of social security is further strengthened. This reduces reliance on the traditional protective function of homestead, thereby increasing the willingness to relinquish it. Hence, the third hypothesis is proposed as follows.

Hypothesis 3 (H3):

Rural entrepreneurship training can have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal.

The enhancement of finance accessibility in the village can strengthen the positive effect of social security on the willingness of homestead withdrawal. Drawing on financial development theory, improved finance accessibility reduces transaction costs for farmers in engaging in financial activities, making it easier for them to access financial services and increasing their participation in the financial market, thereby enhancing their economic security [53]. Moreover, the enhanced finance accessibility means that farmers have easier access to loans, providing them with more financial support to improve their lives or start entrepreneurial ventures, reducing the relative importance of the economic value of homesteads. Additionally, the increased finance accessibility also provides farmers with opportunities to access financial knowledge, helping them engage in more rational financial planning, which may lead them to realize that maintaining the homestead land is not necessarily the best financial decision. Hence, the fourth hypothesis is proposed as follows.

Hypothesis 4 (H4):

Rural finance accessibility can have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal.

According to the research contents of this study, the research framework is briefly illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1. Data Description

The data used in this study were obtained from the China Land Economy Survey conducted by Nanjing Agricultural University in Jiangsu Province in 2022, which includes village-level data and household data. The survey employed Probability Proportional Scale sampling, whereby 12 counties were selected from six prefecture-level cities in Jiangsu. Two villages were selected from each county, and approximately 50 farmers’ households were randomly sampled from each village, resulting in a sample of 1203 households across 24 villages in Jiangsu. The village questionnaire collected information on basic village characteristics, while the household questionnaire covered household demographics and individual information. Due to Jiangsu Province’s representativeness in economic development, rural reform, and social security system construction, conducting research based on household data from Jiangsu not only reflects the practical experiences of advanced regions but also provides scientific evidence and policy references for rural land system reform and rural revitalization strategies nationwide.

3.2. Empirical Model Construction

To test the validity of Hypothesis 1, this study establishes the subsequent benchmark regression model for econometric analysis:

$$P\left(W{i}_i=1|\mathit{x}\right)=Probit\left({\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}S{S}_i+\beta X+{\mu }_v\right)$$

(1)

where i denotes the interviewed farmer, v denotes the village. The dependent variable, Wi_i, is a binary variable and captures the willingness of farmer i to withdraw from homesteads. Since the dependent variable, Wi_i, is a binary variable, the Probit estimator is employed to estimate model (1). P(·) represents conditional probability, where x is a vector of conditional variables. Probit(·) represents the distribution function that follows a normal distribution. SS_i represents the core independent variable, indicating the participation in social security. X represents a vector of observed variables that may affect farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. To control for heterogeneity across different villages, this study includes the dummy variables, μ_v, to account for village fixed effects. The parameters β will be estimated in model (1). Hypothesis 1 will be supported if the estimated value of β₁ is positive.

For robustness checks, this study applies bilateral 1% winsorization for continuous variables along with censoring techniques to mitigate the impact of outliers, enhancing the precision of our regression results. Bilateral winsorization is utilized to transform extreme values into more reasonable ones, while bilateral censoring entails excluding these extreme values.

Referencing Elvira-Lorilla et al. [54], this study introduces the subsequent mediating effect models to examine the validity of Hypothesis 2:

$$P\left(E{A}_i=1|\mathit{x}\right)=Probit\left({\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}S{S}_i+\alpha X+{\mu }_v\right)$$

(2)

$$P\left(W{i}_i=1|\mathit{x}\right)=Probit\left({\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}S{S}_i+{\gamma }_{2}E{A}_i+\gamma X+{\mu }_v\right)$$

(3)

where i denotes the interviewed farmer, v denotes the village. In models (2) and (3), the mediating variable, EA_i, is a binary variable and represents the entrepreneurial activities of farmer i. The parameters α will be estimated in model (2). The parameters γ will be estimated in model (3). The definitions of the remaining variables in models (2) and (3) are the same as those in model (1). In models (2) and (3), if the estimated values of α₁ and γ₂ are both greater than 0, Hypothesis 2 is supported. γ₁ measures the direct effect of SS_i on Wi_i, controlling for EA_i.

To investigate the validity of Hypotheses 3 and 4, this study presents the following moderating effect models, derived from the framework of model (1):

$$P\left(W{i}_i=1|\mathit{x}\right)=Probit\left({\chi }_0+{\chi }_{1}S{S}_i+{\chi }_2\left(RE{T}_v\times S{S}_i\right)+\chi X+{\mu }_v\right)$$

(4)

$$P\left(W{i}_i=1|\mathit{x}\right)=Probit\left({\delta }_0+{\delta }_{1}S{S}_i+{\delta }_2\left(RF{A}_v\times S{S}_i\right)+\delta X+{\mu }_v\right)$$

(5)

where i denotes the interviewed farmer, v denotes the village. In model (4), RET_v is a moderating variable and represents the entrepreneurship training of village v. The parameters χ will be estimated in model (4). In model (5), RFA_v is a moderating variable and represents the finance accessibility. The parameters δ will be estimated in model (5). The definitions of the remaining variables in models (4) and (5) are the same as those in model (1). In model (4), if the estimated value of χ₂ is greater than 0, Hypothesis 3 is supported. In model (5), if the estimated value of δ₂ is greater than 0, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

For the heterogeneity analysis, this study first explores the differential impact of experiencing significant negative events at home versus not experiencing such events on the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This study introduces an interaction term (N_i × SS_i) into model (1). N_i is a binary variable. If the farmer’s household experienced a significant negative event in the year 2021, such as the death of a family member, Ni is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is assigned a value of 0. Second, this study investigates the differential impact of farmland transfer-out on the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This study introduces an interaction term (F_i × SS_i) into model (1). Fi is a binary variable. If the farmer’s household engages in farmland transfer-out, F_i is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is assigned a value of 0.

3.3. Variable Selection and Descriptive Statistics

Dependent variable: The willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i) is the dependent variable. If the farmer is willing to give up his homesteads, Wi_i is assigned a value of 1, while if the farmer is unwilling to give up his homesteads, it is assigned a value of 0.

Core independent variable: Participation in social security (SS_i) is the core independent variable. If all members of the farmer’s household have medical insurance, SS_i is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is assigned a value of 0.

Mediating variable: Entrepreneurial activities (EA_i) serve as the mechanism variable. If the household of the farmer belongs to entrepreneurial households, EA_i is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is assigned a value of 0.

Moderating variables: Rural entrepreneurship training (RET_v) is a moderating variable, measured by the number of entrepreneurship training sessions organized by township governments within a year. Rural finance accessibility (RFA_v) is a moderating variable, measured by the number of bank outlets and agencies within the village.

Control variables: This study incorporates the following observable control variables that could potentially influence farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal into the regression models. Regarding the characteristics of farmer’s household, this study introduces variables such as the number of permanent residents (NPR_i), the number of properties other than homestead housing (NPHH_i), the area of homesteads by the farmer’s household (AH_i), in hectares, as well as binary variables indicating whether it is a party member household (PMH_i), whether it is a five-guarantee household, a subsistence insurance household or an insured household (FSIH_i). In terms of the individual characteristics of the farmer (respondent), this study incorporates variables such as gender (Gen_i), age (Age_i), years of education (Edu_i), perception of homesteads (Per_i), non-agricultural training (NaT_i), and risk preferences (RP_i_i). Gen_i is a binary variable. If the farmer’s gender is male, Gen_i is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is assigned a value of 0. Per_i is a binary variable. If the farmer believes that rural homestead can be inherited, Per_i takes a value of 1; otherwise, it takes a value of 0. NaT_i is a binary variable. If the farmer has received non-agricultural vocational education or training, NaT_i takes a value of 1; otherwise, it is 0. RP_i_i is a series of binary variables indicating risk preferences, including RP_1_i, RP_2_i, and RP_3_i. For example, RP_1_i = 1 indicates that the farmer prefers investments with a higher level of risk. RP_2_i = 1 indicates that the farmer prefers investments with a moderate level of risk. RP_3_i = 1 indicates that the farmer prefers investments with a lower level of risk. To avoid perfect collinearity, this study includes RP_1_i as a control group and introduces RP_2_i and RP_3_i into the regression models.

After selecting variables relevant to the research objectives, matching techniques were applied to the village and household data, and samples with missing variable values, abnormal variable values, and perfect prediction problems were excluded, resulting in a final sample size of 800 valid observations.

Table 1. Variable definitions and descriptive statistics.

Types	Variables	Definitions	Obs.	Mean	Std. Dev.
Dependent variable	Wii	The willingness of homestead withdrawal: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.1013	0.3018
Core independent variable	SSi	Participation in social security: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.9313	0.2532
Mediating variable	EAi	Entrepreneurial activities: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.0762	0.2656
Moderating variables	RETv	Rural entrepreneurship training: The number of entrepreneurship training sessions organized by township governments (unit).	800	2.6250	2.6183
	RFAv	Rural finance accessibility: The number of bank outlets and agencies (unit).	800	1.2513	0.9959
Household’s characteristics	NPRi	The number of permanent residents (unit).	800	3.1338	1.6191
	NPHHi	The number of properties other than homestead housing (unit).	800	0.3588	0.6524
	AHi	The area of homesteads by the farmer’s household (hectares).	800	0.0306	0.0383
	PMHi	Whether the farmer’s household is a party member household: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.3063	0.4612
	FSIHi	Whether the farmer’s household is a five-guarantee household, a subsistence insurance household or an insured household: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.0512	0.2206
Individual characteristics	Geni	Gender: 0 = Female, 1 = Male.	800	0.7438	0.4368
	Agei	Age of respondent (years).	800	62.3762	11.6937
	Edui	Respondent’s years of education (years).	800	7.1662	4.2138
	Peri	Respondent’s perception of homesteads: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.9350	0.2467
	NaTi	Non-agricultural training of respondent: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.1888	0.3916
	RP_2i	Whether the farmer prefers investments with a moderate level of risk: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.1788	0.3834
	RP_3i	Whether the farmer prefers investments with a lower level of risk: 0 = No, 1 = Yes.	800	0.7663	0.4235

presents the variable definitions and descriptive statistics, including the number of observations (Obs.), average values (Mean), and standard deviation (Std. Dev.).

4. Results

4.1. Benchmark Regression

To evaluate the validation of Hypothesis 1, this study utilizes the Probit estimator to conduct a benchmark regression analysis on model (1), and the corresponding results are presented in column (1) of

Table 2. Results of the benchmark regression.

Variables	Wii
	(1) Probit	(2) Average Marginal Effects
SSi	0.6711 **	0.1040 **
	(0.3318)	(0.0518)
NPRi	−0.0871 *	−0.0135 *
	(0.0446)	(0.0069)
NPHHi	0.2131 **	0.0330 **
	(0.0944)	(0.0147)
AHi	3.7451 ***	0.5804 ***
	(1.3122)	(0.2045)
PMHi	0.2299
	(0.1453)
FSIHi	−0.2315
	(0.3415)
Geni	0.2830 *	0.0439 *
	(0.1683)	(0.0263)
Agei	−0.0094
	(0.0074)
Edui	−0.0185
	(0.0207)
Peri	0.1148
	(0.2775)
NaTi	0.0504
	(0.1664)
RP_2i	0.4113
	(0.3679)
RP_3i	0.5000
	(0.3452)
CONSTANT	−2.2855 ***
	(0.7920)
Village dummy variables	Yes
Observations	800
Log likelihood	−228.5264
Wald chi2	77.77
Prob > chi2	0.0000

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 0.10 level, ** denotes significance at the 0.05 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

. To provide a clearer understanding of the extent of each variable’s impact, column (2) displays the corresponding average marginal effects of the variables with significant coefficients in column (1). As anticipated, at the significance level of 0.05, participation in social security (SS_i) demonstrates a significantly positive effect on the willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i), validating Hypothesis 1: Participation in social security can increase farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. According to the average marginal effects, compared to farmers from households where not all members participate in medical insurance, farmers from households with full family participation in medical insurance have a 0.104 higher probability of having a willingness to withdraw from their homesteads. As described in theoretical analysis, participation in social security can provide farmers with stable future expectations, thereby reducing the risk costs associated with dependence on homesteads. It also helps to decrease attachment stemming from emotions or traditional values, thereby promoting farmers’ willingness to withdraw from their homesteads.

In terms of control variables, the number of permanent residents (NPR_i) has a significantly negative impact on Wi_i, indicating that as the number of permanent residents in farmers’ households increases, their willingness to exit their homesteads decreases. According to the average marginal effects, for each additional resident in the household, the probability of farmers having the intention to exit their homesteads decreases by 0.014. The possible reason is that as the number of permanent residents grows, there may be a greater need for the homesteads to support the livelihoods and sustenance of the entire family. This increased reliance on the homesteads for agricultural activities and the provision of basic needs can make farmers more hesitant to give it up. The number of properties other than homestead housing (NPHH_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that as the number of properties other than homestead housing increases, farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal increases. According to the average marginal effects, for each additional property in the household, the probability of farmers having the willingness to exit their homesteads increases by 0.033. The possible reason is that owning multiple properties provides farmers with a diversified asset portfolio, reducing their reliance on a single asset such as the homesteads. This diversification makes them more willing to withdraw from the homesteads as they have alternative properties as substitutes. The area of homesteads (AH_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that as the area of homesteads increases, farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal increases. According to the average marginal effects, for every 1 hectare increase in homesteads’ area, the probability of farmers having the willingness to withdraw from their homesteads increases by 0.580. The possible reason is that with a larger homestead area, farmers can receive higher compensation upon exiting, which can meet their expected benefits after leaving. This can be beneficial for family members’ entrepreneurial activities and children’s education. Additionally, gender (GEN_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that male farmers are more likely to have a willingness to withdraw from their homesteads compared to female farmers. According to the average marginal effects, male farmers have a 0.044 higher probability of being willing to withdraw from their homesteads compared to female farmers. The possible reason is that men are expected to take on roles and responsibilities outside of the family, such as employment, entrepreneurship, business ventures, or other non-agricultural activities in cities. These social norms may contribute to a higher willingness among male farmers to withdraw from their homesteads in order to pursue broader social and economic participation.

4.2. Robustness Tests

In this section, this study investigates the robustness of our benchmark regression results. This study utilizes the Probit estimator to re-conduct regressions on model (1) after bilateral 1% winsorization and bilateral 1% censoring.

Table 3. Results of the robustness test via bilateral 1% winsorization and censoring.

Variables	Probit: Wii
	(1) Bilateral Winsorization	(2) Bilateral Censoring
SSi	0.6386 *	0.8490 **
	(0.3364)	(0.4096)
CONSTANT	−2.3113 ***	−2.1686 **
	(0.8089)	(0.8915)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes
Village dummy variables	Yes	Yes
Observations	800	756
Log likelihood	−229.1708	−211.5022
Wald chi2	74.32	77.35
Prob > chi2	0.0001	0.0000

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 0.10 level, ** denotes significance at the 0.05 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

presents the results of the robustness test via bilateral 1% winsorization and censoring. As shown in columns (1) and (2), whether using bilateral 1% winsorization or bilateral 1% censoring, participation in social security (SS_i) has a significantly positive effect on the willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i), indicating that the participation in social security by farmers can indeed enhance their willingness to withdraw from their homesteads. This finding confirms the robustness of the benchmark regression results.

Additionally, to verify the robustness of the benchmark regression results, this study utilizes the Logit estimator and the ordinary least squares (OLS) method to re-estimate the sample data. The Logit estimator assumes that the distribution function follows the Logistic distribution.

Table 4. Results of the robustness test using an alternative estimation method.

Variables	Wii
	(1) Logit	(2) OLS
SSi	1.2893 *	0.0780 **
	(0.7369)	(0.0302)
CONSTANT	−4.4549 ***	−0.0338
	(1.6729)	(0.1049)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes
Village dummy variables	Yes	Yes
Observations	800	800
Log likelihood	−229.0063
Wald chi2	70.32
Prob > chi2	0.0002

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 0.10 level, ** denotes significance at the 0.05 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

presents the results of the robustness test using an alternative estimation method. As shown in columns (1) and (2), whether using the Logit estimator or the OLS method, SS_i has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that the participation in social security by farmers can indeed enhance their willingness to withdraw from their homesteads. This finding further confirms the robustness of the benchmark regression results.

4.3. Mediating Effect Test

In this section, this study examines whether entrepreneurial activities (EA_i) mediate the positive relationship between participation in social security (SS_i) and the willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i). To evaluate the validation of Hypothesis 2, this study utilizes the Probit estimator to conduct regressions on models (2) and (3).

Table 5. Results of the mediating effect test.

Variables	Probit
	(1) EAi	(2) Wii
SSi	0.8181 *	0.6404 *
	(0.4333)	(0.3349)
EAi		0.4087 *
		(0.2329)
CONSTANT	1.0045	−2.5197 ***
	(0.8794)	(0.8221)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes
Village dummy variables	Yes	Yes
Observations	800	800
Log likelihood	−161.6232	−227.0760
Wald chi2	108.91	82.39
Prob > chi2	0.0000	0.0000

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 0.10 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

presents the results of the mediating effect test. As displayed in column (1), SS_i has a significantly positive effect on EA_i, indicating that participation in social security can facilitate farmers’ entrepreneurial activities. Enhanced by the protective nature of social security, individuals or households are empowered with greater risk-bearing capacity, thereby fostering an increased probability among farmers to partake in entrepreneurial activities. As displayed in column (2), EA_i has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that farmers engaged in entrepreneurial activities are more willing to withdraw from their homesteads. Through entrepreneurial activities, farmers may achieve higher returns and reduce their direct dependence on the economic value of rural homesteads. Moreover, the estimated coefficient of SS_i in column (2) is significantly positive, indicating that when introducing EA_i into the regression model, SS_i still has a direct effect on Wii. These findings validate Hypothesis 2: Facilitating entrepreneurial activities is an important mediating factor through which participation in social security increases farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal.

4.4. Moderating Effect Tests

In this section, this study examines whether rural entrepreneurship training (RET_v) and finance accessibility (RFA_v) have moderating effects on the positive relationship between participation in social security (SS_i) and the willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i). To evaluate the validation of Hypotheses 3 and 4, this study utilizes the Probit estimator to conduct regressions on models (4) and (5).

Table 6. Results of the moderating effect test.

Variables	Probit: Wii
	(1)	(2)
RETv × SSi	0.5439 ***
	(0.2011)
RFAv × SSi		4.1594 ***
		(0.5210)
SSi	−0.1075	−0.0272
	(0.4251)	(0.4349)
CONSTANT	−3.6209 ***	−1.6422 **
	(1.0181)	(0.8147)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes
Village dummy variables	Yes	Yes
Observations	800	800
Log likelihood	−227.0921	−226.2964
Wald chi2	80.34	506.43
Prob > chi2	0.0000	0.0000

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. ** denotes significance at the 0.05 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

presents the results of the moderating effect tests. As displayed in column (1), the interaction term (RET_v × SS_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that rural entrepreneurship training can strengthen the enhancing effect of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This finding validates Hypothesis 3: Rural entrepreneurship training can have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. On the one hand, rural entrepreneurship training enhances the opportunities for successful entrepreneurship among farmers. On the other hand, entrepreneurship training broadens farmers’ perspectives, reducing their expectations regarding the economic value of rural homesteads.

As displayed in column (2), the interaction term (RFA_v × SS_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that rural finance accessibility can strengthen the enhancing effect of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This finding validates Hypothesis 4: Rural finance accessibility can have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. On one hand, enhanced rural financial accessibility can provide farmers with more opportunities for financial support in entrepreneurship. On the other hand, improved financial accessibility can assist farmers in more rational financial planning, which may make them realize that retaining homesteads may not always be the best financial decision.

4.5. Heterogeneity Analysis

In this section, this study examines the heterogeneity of the impact of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. First, this study explores the differential impact of experiencing significant negative events at home versus not experiencing such events on the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. On one hand, significant negative events in farming households are often accompanied by significant financial pressures. In such cases, farmers may need to rely on the direct economic benefits provided by rural homesteads (e.g., crop income) or potential economic benefits (e.g., possibility of renting or selling the homesteads) to alleviate the burden. Consequently, this situation may weaken their willingness to withdrawal from their homesteads. On the other hand, aside from the economic impacts, significant negative events also inflict psychological damage on farmers. Faced with uncertainty and psychological distress, farmers may place greater emphasis on holding onto existing resources (such as homesteads), to provide emotional comfort and psychological security. Therefore, this study believes that, compared to farmers who did not experience significant negative events in their households, farmers who experienced significant negative events have a weaker enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal.

Table 7. Results of the heterogeneity analysis.

Variables	Probit: Wii
	(1)	(2)
Ni × SSi	−0.4722 *
	(0.2449)
Fi × SSi		0.2907 *
		(0.1498)
SSi	0.6989 **	0.5291
	(0.3314)	(0.3475)
CONSTANT	−2.2073 ***	−2.2300 ***
	(0.7882)	(0.7947)
Control Variables	Yes	Yes
Village dummy variables	Yes	Yes
Observations	800	800
Log likelihood	−226.7157	−226.8323
Wald chi2	84.69	81.78
Prob > chi2	0.0000	0.0000

Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. * denotes significance at the 0.10 level, ** denotes significance at the 0.05 level, and *** denotes significance at the 0.01 level.

presents the results of the heterogeneity analysis. As displayed in column (1), the interaction term (N_i × SS_i) has a significantly negative effect on the willingness of homestead withdrawal (Wi_i), indicating that for farmers who experienced significant negative events in their households, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is diminished.

Second, this study investigates the differential impact of farmland transfer-out on the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Farmland transfer-out often signifies that farmers are seeking income diversification and potentially engaging in non-agricultural activities. This transition may indicate that farmers have begun to explore broader economic opportunities and reduce their reliance on traditional agricultural activities. Participation in social security may further reinforce this motivation by providing a safety net, thereby increasing farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Thus, this study believes that the enhancing effect of social security participation on the willingness of homestead withdrawal is stronger for farmers who engage in farmland transfer-out compared to farmers who do not engage in such behavior. As displayed in column (2), the interaction term (F_i × SS_i) has a significantly positive effect on Wi_i, indicating that for farmers engaging in farmland transfer-out, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is strengthened.

5. Discussion

Based on the data from the China Land Economic Survey 2022, this study finds that participation in social security significantly enhances farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This conclusion aligns with most international studies, which have confirmed that participation in social security incorporates a risk-sharing mechanism, thereby encouraging individuals to pursue long-term benefits [55,56]. For example, Canedo [29] and Herrmann et al. [30] examined the risk mitigation effects of rural social security participation from the perspectives of migration and child outcomes, respectively. From the perspective of homestead withdrawal, the conclusion of this study confirms that social security systems can enhance the economic stability of rural households and their sense of security about the future, enabling them to make decisions that align more closely with their long-term interests. Meanwhile, this study also confirms that promoting entrepreneurial activities serves as a mediating factor through which social security participation enhances farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This finding extends the research of Shi et al. [44], which empirically demonstrated that participation in social security by rural residents increases the likelihood of entrepreneurial activities. In addition, Giné and Mansuri [52] found that rural entrepreneurship training can promote entrepreneurial activities. Building on this, this study further confirms that entrepreneurship training, by increasing entrepreneurial activities, enhances the willingness to withdraw from homesteads brought about by social security participation. Linh et al. [53] found that rural finance accessibility can increase the likelihood of farmers obtaining credit. Building on this, this study further confirms that rural finance accessibility, by facilitating farmers’ access to entrepreneurship loans, enhances the willingness to withdraw from homesteads induced by social security participation. In conclusion, this study offers valuable insights for China in refining social security policies to advance the reform of the homestead withdrawal system. It also serves as a meaningful reference for leveraging rural governance to facilitate the orderly withdrawal of homesteads by farmers.

However, this study has certain limitations. First, it is based on cross-sectional data, which fails to capture the dynamic changes or long-term effects among variables. Future research could utilize panel data to further explore the causal relationships between variables and their dynamic characteristics over time, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homesteads withdrawal. Second, key variables (e.g., participation in social security and entrepreneurial activities) are measured as binary variables (0 or 1), which may oversimplify and fail to fully reflect the complexity and diversity of these variables. Future studies could consider the depth of social security participation or the types of entrepreneurial activities to examine their potentially varied impacts on the research findings.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

Based on the data from the China Land Economic Survey 2022, this study explores the impact of participation in social security on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal and its mediating factor. Furthermore, this study also examines the moderating role of rural entrepreneurship training and finance accessibility in the relationship between participation in social security and farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. The main conclusions are as follows. First, participation in social security can increase farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. This conclusion has passed robustness tests including bilateral 1% winsorization and censoring, as well as using alternative estimation methods. Second, facilitating entrepreneurial activities is an important mediating factor through which participation in social security increases farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal. Third, rural entrepreneurship training and finance accessibility can both have a positive moderating influence on the positive relationship between participation in social security and the willingness of homestead withdrawal. Fourth, for farmers who experienced significant negative events in their households, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is diminished, while for farmers engaging in farmland transfer-out, the enhancing effect of social security participation on their willingness of homestead withdrawal is strengthened.

The research conclusions provide policy implications for China in promoting the exit of rural farmers from homesteads through social security policies, thus achieving rural revitalization. First, strengthen and expand social security coverage. Given that participation in social security increases the willingness of farmers to withdraw from homesteads, it is crucial for the government to expand the coverage and depth of social security programs. This encompasses a wide range of benefits including retirement, health insurance, and unemployment benefits, ensuring that farmers receive reliable and comprehensive social security. Moreover, establishing a comprehensive platform that provides information and consultations about social security, homestead withdrawal processes, compensation mechanisms, and legal regulations could reduce uncertainties and increase farmers’ willingness to proceed with withdrawal. This approach aims to build confidence and reduce perceived risks among farmers contemplating withdrawal. Second, increase financial incentives to support farmers’ entrepreneurial activities. Given that entrepreneurial activities serve as a crucial mediating factor, the government can implement financial incentives such as providing subsidies for start-up capital and interest rate subsidies for loans. These policies aim to alleviate the financial pressure during the initial phase of entrepreneurship and encourage farmers to actively engage in entrepreneurial activities. Third, promote rural entrepreneurship training and financial accessibility. With the acknowledgment that rural entrepreneurship training and financial accessibility can strengthen the enhancing effect of social security participation on farmers’ willingness of homestead withdrawal, targeted initiatives should be developed. These initiatives could include the implementation of more entrepreneurship training programs tailored for rural communities and improving farmers’ access to financial services. These steps might involve simplifying loan processes and increasing opportunities for farmers to obtain loans. Fourth, address the needs of specific groups. Policies should be tailored to address the needs of farmers who have experienced significant negative household events and those not engaged in farmland transfer-out. For those affected by negative events, special assistance programs offering financial support or psychological counseling could be established. Meanwhile, for farmers not involved in farmland transfer-out activities, additional incentives such as offering transfer compensation and reducing transaction costs could be provided to encourage them to engage in farmland transfer-out activities.