农地流转中的政府作用与农户收入——基于贵州省608户农户调查的实证分析

The Role of Government in Farmland Transfer and Rural Household Income:An Empirical Research Based on a Survey of 608 Rural Households in Guizhou Province

研究目的:探讨农地流转中的政府作用对农户收入的影响。研究方法:基于贵州省608户农户调研数据,利用倾向得分匹配法考察政府作用对转出户的收入效应,并进一步对比不同干预形式影响效果的差异。研究结果:(1)政府在农地流转中的作用可以分为直接干预和间接干预,受到两种干预的转出户分别占比82.21%和13.70%,当前以直接干预为主;(2)直接干预影响交易实施,促成农户与企业、合作社之间的流转,间接干预影响交易环境,促成农户与种植大户之间的自主流转;(3)政府干预农地流转中,转出户的租金收入未能完全补偿农业收入的减少,非农收入和总收入均未明显提高,即使将租金提高到农户期望水平,转出户土地报酬不再显著减少,总收入仍未明显增加;(4)与间接干预相比,政府直接干预下农户的农业收入更高,租金、非农收入和总收入的差异为正但不显著。研究结论:政府作用虽已内嵌于农地流转交易中,但政府干预下的对转出户的增收效应尚不显著,直接干预和间接干预对农户收入的影响效果差异不大,仅依靠合理显化租金不足以促进农户增收,实现农户劳动力向非农领域转移更为重要。

The purpose of the paper is to explore the role of government in farmland transfer and the income effect on rural households.Based on the survey data of 608 rural households in Guizhou Province,the method of propensity score matching is adopted in analyzing the impacts of government intervention on rural household income,and then the income effects between different intervention forms are compared.The results show that:1)the role of government in farmland transfer can be categorized into direct and indirect intervention.The proportion of lessors who were affected by the above two interventions is 82.21%and 13.70%respectively,with direct intervention as the main form.2)The direct intervention facilitates land leasing to firms and cooperations by implementing the transactions,and the indirect one affects the transaction environment and facilitates land leasing to the leading growers.3)Under government intervention,the rent can’t compensate lessors for the loss of on-farm income.Moreover,there is no significant increase of off-farm income and total income.The return of land resources is no longer decreases while improving the rent to lessor’s expected price,but the expected total income does not increase visibly.4)Compared with the indirect intervention,the rural households who lease out land under government direct intervention receive higher farm income.The differences of rent,off-farm income and total income are positive but not significant.In conclusion,the role of government has been embedded in farmland transfer,however,the rural household income does not increase significantly under government intervention.The income effects of different intervention forms do not display a visible difference either.The effective way to increase income is smooth the way for labor force transfer to non-agricultural sector but not merely relying on increasing rent.