不同类型国家林业重点工程实施对劳动力利用与转移的影响

The impact of national key forestry programs on labor utilization and transfer in China

中国林业重点工程的实施,不仅为了生态修复和环境治理,同时将改善农民生计作为重要的政策目标。本文基于劳动参与的面板Probit模型和劳动供给的集群固定效应模型,利用全国6省区15县1995-2012年18年的平衡面板数据,探讨了不同类型国家林业重点工程的实施对劳动力利用与转移的影响。研究结果表明:不同类型国家林业重点工程对农户非农劳动参与和供给的影响存在差异;其中退耕还林工程、京津风沙源治理工程、野生动植物保护及自然保护区建设工程对农户进入非农市场和提高参与非农劳动时间均有显著的促进作用;防护林工程的正向影响不明显,天然林保护工程和速生丰产用材林工程则起到一定的抑制作用;此外,对退耕还林工程、京津风沙源治理工程、天然林保护工程又进行了不同参与时间的影响分析,发现退耕还林工程在促进劳动力非农转移方面持续性不及京津风沙源治理工程。最后,基于上述研究结论,本文提出了相应的政策建议。

The policy objectives of national key forestry programs are not only for ecological restoration and environmental governance, but improving farmers＇ livelihood. Using balanced panel data for 15 counties in six provinces in China from 1995 to 2012 we measured the impacts of different types of key forestry programs on rural labor force utilization and transfer. The Panel Probit Model was used to consider labor force participation and the Fixed Effects Model was used for labor supply. Because of survey data with inter-class correlation, the Fixed Effects Model was completed by clustering. The main results show that there are different kinds of effects among different kinds of Key Forestry Programs. The Sloping Land Conversion Program （SLCP） , Desertification Combating Program around Beijing and Tianjin （DCBT）and Wildlife Conservation and Nature Reserve Development Program （WCNR）improve access to non-agricultural markets for farmers. At the same time, these three programs have positive effects and increase the work time of farmers involved who already have off-farm jobs. However, the active influence of the Shelterbelt Development Program （SBDP）is not obvious both on work force participation and supply. The Natural Forest Protection Program （NFPP）and Fast-growing and High-yielding Program （FHP）have a certain inhibition effect on rural labor force allocation. On this basis we use tracking household survey data over 18 years to measure the different ages of farmer participation in Key Forestry Programs, primarily the effects of the SLCP, DCBP and NFPP. We found that the DCBT was better than the SLCP in sustainability of farmers＇ off-farm participation in final calculation results. We conclude with policy recommendations based on our main findings.