Viability, Government Support and the Service Function of Farmer Professional Cooperatives—Evidence from 487 Cooperatives in 13 Cities in Heilongjiang, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Analysis
2.2. Research Hypothesis
2.3. Data, Variables, and Descriptive Statistics
2.3.1. Data Sources
2.3.2. Description of Variables and Descriptive Statistics
2.4. Model Selection and Covariance Test
2.4.1. Model Building
2.4.2. Covariance Test
3. Results
3.1. Benchmark Model Analysis Results
3.1.1. Influence on the Pre-Production Services Function of Cooperatives
3.1.2. Influence on the Mid-Production Services Function of Cooperatives
3.1.3. Influence on the Post-Production Services Function of Cooperatives
3.1.4. Influence on the Overall Services Function of Cooperatives
3.2. Robustness Analyses
3.2.1. Multivariate Ordered Logistic Model
3.2.2. Changing the Measure of Explanatory Variables
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guo, X.M.; Wen, G.Q. Development Logic, Realistic Obstacles and Optimization Path of Agricultural Socialized Services. China Rural Econ. 2023, 7, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neves MC, R.; Silva, F.F.; Freitas, C.O.; Braga, M.J. The role of cooperatives in Brazilian agricultural production. Agriculture 2021, 11, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, S.P.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J. Experience and Reference of Agricultural Cooperative Development in the United States, European Union, and Japan. J. Econ. Issues Res. 2024, 1, 115–129. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.J. Perspectives on the new generation of cooperatives in the United States. China Rural Econ. 2003, 11, 72–78. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X. The experience and inspiration of the development of agricultural modernization in the United States. Econ. Syst. Reform 2019, 6, 157–162. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Lu, Z.Z. Marketization and Urban-Rural Equivalence: French Agricultural and Rural Modernization and Its Implications for China’s Rural Revitalization. Zhejiang J. 2022, 5, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaddad, F.R.; Cook, M.L. Understanding new cooperative models: An ownership control rights typology. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2004, 26, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.C.; Jia, G.D.; Liu, J.H. Development of agricultural cooperatives in Germany and some implications for China. Rural Bus. Manag. 2008, 5, 38–42. [Google Scholar]
- Qorri, D.; Felföldi, J. Research Trends in Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives: A Bibliometric Review. Agriculture 2024, 14, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Y.L.; Li, Z.Z.; Jia, Y.C. Response to the Three Major Controversial Issues Regarding the Development Quality of Farmer Professional Cooperatives in China: An Evaluation Based on the “Zhejiang University Carter-Enterprise Research China Rural Study Database”. China Rural Econ. 2024, 2, 90–111. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.F.; Chu, Q.Y. Service Rights and the Comprehensive Development of Farmer Cooperatives. Guizhou Soc. Sci. 2024, 1, 62–72. [Google Scholar]
- Rolfe, J.; Akbar, D.; Rahman, A.; Rajapaksa, D. Can cooperative business models solve horizontal and vertical coordination challenges? A case study in the Australian pineapple industry. J. Co-Oper. Organ. Manag. 2022, 10, 100184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.H.; Liu, H. How to Organically Connect Smallholder Farmers and Modern Agriculture in China—Insights Based on Japan and South Korea. World Agric. 2023, 6, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piccoli, P.; Bianchini, N., Jr.; Coser, J. Short-term financial sustainability of agricultural cooperatives. Agric. Financ. Rev. 2021, 81, 444–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira da Silva, F.; Knebel Baggio, D.; Ferreira Lopes Santos, D. Governance and performance model for agricultural cooperatives. Estud. Gerenciales 2022, 38, 464–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, B.Y.; Ma, K.W.; Liu, Y. Can government support enhance the performance of farmers’ cooperatives?—Evidence from 395 national model societies in Anhui Province. Rural Econ. 2023, 7, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X. Socialized Services of Farmer Cooperatives: Models, Effects, and Implications. J. Beijing Agric. Vocat. Coll. 2021, 35, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.Y. The realization path of the service function of farmers’ professional cooperatives—Based on the empirical revelation of Japanese agricultural cooperatives. China Ind. Econ. 2022, 18, 67–69. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X. Research on the Path of Enhancing the Socialized Service Function of Farmer Cooperatives under the Rural Revitalization Strategy. South Agric. 2021, 15, 112–114. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Y.F.; Wang, K. Analysis of the development and operation mechanism of farmers’ production service cooperatives—A survey based on Jiangsu Province. Agric. Econ. Issues 2010, 31, 28–33+110–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.H.; Gao, Y.L. The degree of realization of the service function of farmers’ professional cooperatives and its influencing factors. China Rural Econ. 2012, 7, 4–16. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T.Z. Autopoietic capacity, external support, and service function of farmers’ cooperatives. Agric. Econ. Issues 2017, 38, 14–27+110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Zhou, J. Mechanism and Effectiveness of Cooperative High-Quality Development Promoting Improvement of Agricultural Green Productivity. China Agric. Resour. Reg. 2024, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Huang, B.; Zhong, Z. Mechanisms determining the radius of agricultural socialized services: Evidence from four farmers’ cooperatives. Reform 2020, 12, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Q.Z.; Zhang, Y.F. Income-generating effects of cooperative members’ diversified socialized services: A counterfactual estimation based on the research data of farmers in Shandong Province. J. Northwest Agric. For. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 22, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Z.H.; Liang, Q. Collective action of small farmers participating in the big market—An analysis on the example of Ruo Heng watermelon cooperative in Zhejiang Province. Agric. Econ. Issues 2007, 9, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, X.Z.; Guo, Y.Q. The basic situation, organization and management of farmers’ cooperative economic organizations and the role of government at the present stage—A survey report on farmers’ cooperative economic organizations in 23 provinces. Agric. Econ. Issues 2006, 1, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, J.; Wan, L. The emergence, operation and significance of agricultural service cooperatives under the dual scale path of agricultural modernization. Agric. Econ. Issues 2023, 7, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
- Mu, N.N.; Zhong, Z.; Kong, X.Z. Transaction cost and the choice of agricultural socialized service model-A comparative study based on two cooperatives. J. Agric. For. Econ. Manag. 2019, 18, 366–375. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J.K.; Deng, H.S.; Xu, Z.G. The service function of Chinese farmer professional cooperative economic organizations and its influencing factors. Manag. World 2010, 5, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, Y. Analysis of the impact of the function of circulation services played by farmers’ professional cooperatives. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2016, 2, 92–102. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, X.; Deng, H.; Shen, G. Research on the Mechanism of High-Quality Development of Farmer Cooperatives. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2021, 21, 148–158. [Google Scholar]
- He, X.R. Reflections on the scale of agricultural business in China. Agric. Econ. Issues 2016, 37, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Service Function Evaluation Dimensions | Definitions and Metrics | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-production services (PSs) | Agricultural services Agricultural machinery services | no service = 0; one service involved = 1; two services involved = 2. | 0.721 | 0.770 |
Mid-production services (MSs) | Care of field Technology promotion Information supply | no service = 0; one service involved = 1; two services involved = 2; three services involved = 3. | 0.906 | 1.067 |
Post-production services (PPSs) | Storage Processing Sales | no service = 0; one service involved = 1; two services involved = 2; three services involved = 3. | 0.678 | 0.973 |
Overall services (OSs) | Agricultural services Agricultural machinery services Care of field Technology promotion Information supply Storage Processing Sales | no service = 0; one service involved = 1; two services involved = 2; three services involved = 3; four services involved = 4; five services involved = 5; six services involved = 6; seven services involved = 7; eight services involved = 8. | 2.304 | 2.118 |
Categorization | Settings | Description | Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
viability | individual characteristics | chairman | experience (EXP) | 1 = 1 experience; 2 = 2; 3 = 3; 4 = 4 and above. | 1.739 | 0.896 |
household income (INCOME) | 1 = USD 3,225,750 and below; 2 = USD 3,225,750 to USD 6,451,500; 3 = USD 6,451,500 to USD 9,677,250; 4 = USD 9,677,250 to USD 12,903,000; 5 = USD 12,903,000 and above. | 8.439 | 4.806 | |||
members | the number of board members (UBM) | 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2; 3 = 3; 4 = 4; 5 = 5 and above. | 4.244 | 1.214 | ||
the number of members (UM) | 1 = 0–200; 2 = 200–500; 3 = 500–1000; 4 = 1000–2000; 5 = more than 2000. | 1.345 | 0.799 | |||
the regional distribution of members (RDM) | 1 = home village; 2 = inter-village; 3 = inter-township; 4 = inter-county; 5 = inter-municipal. | 1.444 | 0.884 | |||
organizational characteristics | the demonstration grade (DEMO) | 0 = not a model society; 1 = county model society; 2 = municipal model society; 3 = provincial model society; 4 = national model society. | 0.842 | 1.230 | ||
the scale of land operation (SC) | 1 = less than 1000 acres; 2 = 1000 acres–5000 acres; 3 = 5000–10,000 acres; 4 = 10,000–20,000 acres; 5 = more than 20,000 acres. | 2.187 | 1.149 | |||
the profitability of cooperatives (PC) | 0 = no profit or loss; 1 = 0–500,000; 2 = 500–1,000,000; 3 = 1–2,000,000; 4 = over 2,000,000. | 1.337 | 1.143 | |||
institutional arrangements | property rights structure (PRS) | Chairman’s share | 1 = 20% and below; 2 = 20% to 40%; 3 = 40% to 60%; 4 = 60 to 80%; 5 = 80% and above. | 2.478 | 1.467 | |
profit distribution mechanism (PDM) | whether or not there is a secondary dividend for members of the society. | 0 = No; 1 = Yes. | 0.565 | 0.496 | ||
What funds are retained by the cooperative for subsequent operations | 0 = no retention; 1 = retention of provident fund or public welfare or risk fund; 2 = retention of two of provident fund, public welfare or risk fund; 3 = retention of provident fund, public welfare and risk fund. | 0.495 | 0.672 | |||
governance mechanism (GM) | number of supervisory board members | 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2; 3 = 3; 4 = 4; 5 = 5 and above. | 2.729 | 1.383 | ||
method of voting | 1 = one person, one vote; 2 = one share, one vote; 3 = collective discussion of the decision of the chairperson of the board; 4 = deliberation of the core members; 5 = other. | 2.470 | 1.303 | |||
government support | government financial support (FIN) | data on whether the cooperative has received government support funds in the past two years | 0 = No; 1 = Yes. | 0.230 | 0.421 | |
government provision of training (TRAIN) | Number of times local governments provided training in agricultural production for cooperative directors or cooperative members | 0 = 0; 1 = 1 to 3 times; 2 = 4 to 6 times; 3 = 7 to 9 times; 4 = 10 to 12 times; 5 = more than 12 times. | 0.914 | 0.837 |
Variables | Coefficient | Marginal Effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
PS | PS = 0 | PS = 1 | PS = 2 | |
EXP | 0.268 *** (4.44) | −0.0850 *** (−4.55) | 0.0253 *** (3.75) | 0.0598 *** (4.55) |
INCOME | −0.0680 (−0.76) | 0.0216 (0.76) | −0.00642 (−0.75) | −0.0152 (−0.76) |
UBM | 0.0914 * (1.85) | −0.0290 * (−1.87) | 0.00863 * (1.89) | 0.0204 * (1.83) |
UM | −0.490 *** (−5.31) | 0.155 *** (5.61) | −0.0462 *** (−4.95) | −0.109 *** (−5.17) |
RDM | 0.0735 (1.07) | −0.0233 (−1.07) | 0.00694 (1.06) | 0.0164 (1.07) |
DEMO | 0.0808 (1.49) | −0.0257 (−1.49) | 0.00763 (1.47) | 0.0180 (1.49) |
SC | 0.263 *** (4.36) | −0.0853 *** (−4.51) | 0.0248 *** (3.89) | 0.0587 *** (4.41) |
PC | 0.0817 (1.34) | −0.0259 (−1.35) | 0.00771 (1.35) | 0.0182 (1.34) |
PRS | 0.0498 (1.21) | −0.0158 (−1.21) | 0.00470 (1.18) | 0.0111 (1.21) |
DIV | 0.195 (1.39) | −0.0618 (−1.40) | 0.0184 (1.40) | 0.0435 (1.38) |
FRS | 0.0816 (0.91) | −0.0259 (−0.91) | 0.00770 (0.91) | 0.0182 (0.91) |
PM | 0.0614 (1.34) | −0.0195 (−1.34) | 0.00580 (1.32) | 0.0137 (1.34) |
DMM | −0.121 *** (−2.86) | 0.0387 *** (2.92) | −0.0115 *** (−2.72) | −0.0272 *** (−2.89) |
FIN | −0.0434 (−0.29) | 0.0138 (0.29) | −0.00410 (−0.29) | −0.00969 (−0.29) |
TRAIN | 0.238 *** (3.00) | −0.0755 *** (−3.06) | 0.0224 *** (2.80) | 0.0531 *** (3.05) |
R2 | 0.155 | |||
N | 487 |
Variables | Coefficient | Marginal Effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
MS | MS = 1 | MS = 2 | MS = 3 | |
EXP | 0.0955 (1.53) | 0.00474 (1.52) | 0.0111 (1.54) | 0.0161 (1.50) |
INCOME | −0.172 ** (−2.06) | −0.00857 * (−1.91) | −0.0201 ** (−2.05) | −0.0290 ** (−2.03) |
UBM | 0.124 ** (2.51) | 0.00617 ** (2.33) | 0.0145 ** (2.43) | 0.0209 ** (2.51) |
UM | −0.0750 (−0.87) | −0.00373 (−0.85) | −0.00875 (−0.87) | −0.0126 (−0.86) |
RDM | 0.159 ** (2.47) | 0.00790 ** (2.25) | 0.0185 ** (2.42) | 0.0267 ** (2.49) |
DEMO | 0.0454 (0.89) | 0.00226 (0.87) | 0.00529 (0.88) | 0.00764 (0.89) |
SC | 0.0261 (0.45) | 0.00130 (0.45) | 0.00304 (0.45) | 0.00439 (0.45) |
PC | 0.0385 (0.68) | 0.00192 (0.68) | 0.00449 (0.68) | 0.00648 (0.68) |
PRS | 0.00132 (0.03) | 0.0000657 (0.03) | 0.000154 (0.03) | 0.000222 (0.03) |
DIV | 0.609 *** (4.51) | 0.0303 *** (4.06) | 0.0711 *** (4.53) | 0.103 *** (4.15) |
FRS | 0.179 ** (1.98) | 0.00891 * (1.86) | 0.0209 * (1.96) | 0.0301 * (1.97) |
PM | −0.0818 ** (−2.00) | −0.00407 * (−1.89) | −0.00955 ** (−1.98) | −0.0138 ** (−1.98) |
DMM | −0.0177 (−0.43) | −0.000883 (−0.44) | −0.00207 (−0.43) | −0.00299 (−0.43) |
FIN | 0.289 ** (2.16) | 0.0144 ** (1.99) | 0.0337 ** (2.14) | 0.0487 ** (2.17) |
TRAIN | 0.204 *** (2.81) | 0.0101 ** (2.58) | 0.0238 *** (2.78) | 0.0343 *** (2.75) |
R2 | 0.106 | |||
N | 487 |
Variables | Coefficient | Marginal Effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
PPS | PPS = 1 | PPS = 2 | PPS = 3 | |
EXP | 0.114 * (1.77) | 0.00631 * (1.73) | 0.0161 * (1.80) | 0.0122 * (1.69) |
INCOME | −0.0398 (−0.51) | −0.00221 (−0.51) | −0.00562 (−0.51) | −0.00428 (−0.51) |
UBM | 0.166 *** (2.94) | 0.00923 *** (2.75) | 0.0235 *** (2.82) | 0.0179 *** (2.87) |
UM | −0.226 ** (−2.15) | −0.0125 ** (−2.07) | −0.0319 ** (−2.12) | −0.0243 ** (−2.05) |
RDM | 0.113 * (1.66) | 0.00628 (1.64) | 0.0160 * (1.67) | 0.0122 (1.63) |
DEMO | 0.0642 (1.22) | 0.00356 (1.20) | 0.00907 (1.22) | 0.00690 (1.21) |
SC | −0.0177 (−0.28) | −0.000981 (−0.28) | −0.00250 (−0.28) | −0.00190 (−0.28) |
PC | 0.149 *** (2.74) | 0.00828 ** (2.52) | 0.0211 *** (2.68) | 0.0160 *** (2.68) |
PRS | 0.0508 (1.15) | 0.00282 (1.14) | 0.00718 (1.14) | 0.00547 (1.15) |
DIV | 0.517 *** (3.47) | 0.0287 *** (3.55) | 0.0731 *** (3.39) | 0.0556 *** (3.12) |
FRS | 0.245 *** (2.65) | 0.0136 ** (2.39) | 0.0347 *** (2.64) | 0.0264 ** (2.55) |
PM | −0.0867 * (−1.92) | −0.00482 * (−1.83) | −0.0123 * (−1.87) | −0.00933 * (−1.94) |
DMM | −0.0298 (−0.66) | −0.00165 (−0.66) | −0.00421 (−0.66) | −0.00320 (−0.65) |
FIN | 0.0905 (0.58) | 0.00503 (0.58) | 0.0128 (0.58) | 0.00973 (0.58) |
TRAIN | 0.146 * (1.85) | 0.00813 * (1.81) | 0.0207 * (1.84) | 0.0158 * (1.84) |
R2 | 0.130 | |||
N | 487 |
Variables | Coefficient | Marginal Effect | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OS | OS = 6 | OS = 7 | OS = 8 | |
EXP | 0.197 *** (3.44) | 0.0121 *** (3.01) | 0.00687 ** (2.55) | 0.00780 *** (2.60) |
INCOME | −0.130 (−1.54) | −0.00797 (−1.49) | −0.00453 (−1.41) | −0.00515 (−1.48) |
UBM | 0.181 *** (3.97) | 0.0111 *** (3.33) | 0.00633 *** (2.81) | 0.00719 *** (2.74) |
UM | −0.298 *** (−3.58) | −0.0183 *** (−3.00) | −0.0104 *** (−2.73) | −0.0118 ** (−2.51) |
RDM | 0.145 ** (2.33) | 0.00887 ** (2.28) | 0.00505 * (1.85) | 0.00573 ** (2.16) |
DEMO | 0.0764 (1.58) | 0.00468 (1.50) | 0.00267 (1.42) | 0.00303 (1.58) |
SC | 0.110 ** (2.11) | 0.00676 * (1.95) | 0.00385 * (1.87) | 0.00437 * (1.87) |
PC | 0.113 ** (2.03) | 0.00691 * (1.93) | 0.00393 * (1.83) | 0.00446 * (1.83) |
PRS | 0.0494 (1.32) | 0.00303 (1.30) | 0.00172 (1.22) | 0.00196 (1.28) |
DIV | 0.602 *** (4.84) | 0.0369 *** (3.8) | 0.0210 *** (2.86) | 0.0239 *** (2.98) |
FRS | 0.222 *** (2.94) | 0.0136 *** (2.73) | 0.00777 ** (2.26) | 0.00881 ** (2.30) |
PM | −0.0561 (−1.48) | −0.00344 (−1.41) | −0.00196 (−1.43) | −0.00222 (−1.45) |
DMM | −0.0894 ** (−2.36) | −0.00548 ** (−2.22) | −0.00312 ** (−2.06) | −0.00354 ** (−1.99) |
FIN | 0.168 (1.28) | 0.0103 (1.24) | 0.00587 (1.24) | 0.00667 (1.20) |
TRAIN | 0.280 *** (3.73) | 0.0172 *** (3.37) | 0.00978 *** (3.00) | 0.0111 ** (2.54) |
R2 | 0.133 | |||
N | 487 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, Y.; Cao, L.; Wang, Y.; Liu, E. Viability, Government Support and the Service Function of Farmer Professional Cooperatives—Evidence from 487 Cooperatives in 13 Cities in Heilongjiang, China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040616
Liu Y, Cao L, Wang Y, Liu E. Viability, Government Support and the Service Function of Farmer Professional Cooperatives—Evidence from 487 Cooperatives in 13 Cities in Heilongjiang, China. Agriculture. 2024; 14(4):616. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040616
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Yuxin, Lihan Cao, Yijia Wang, and Eryang Liu. 2024. "Viability, Government Support and the Service Function of Farmer Professional Cooperatives—Evidence from 487 Cooperatives in 13 Cities in Heilongjiang, China" Agriculture 14, no. 4: 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040616