The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses
2.1. The Impact of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision
2.2. The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision through Land Transfer
2.3. The Impact of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision by Purchase of Agricultural Socialized Services
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sources of Date
3.2. Variables
3.3. Methods
3.3.1. Benchmark Regression Model
3.3.2. Mediating Effect
3.3.3. The Propensity Score Matching
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Benchmark Regression
4.2. Mediating Effect
4.3. Robustness Test
4.3.1. The Test of Propensity Score Matching
4.3.2. Replace the Core Explanatory Variable Test
4.3.3. Test of Replacing Dependent Variable Variables
4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Falco, S.D.; Penov, I.; Aleksiev, A.; Rensburg, T. Agrobiodiversity, farm profits and land fragmentation: Evidence from bulgaria. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartvigsen, M. Land reform and land fragmentation in central and Eastern Europe. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Yan, W. Analysis on function orientation and development countermeasures of new agricultural business entities. J. Northeast Agric. Univ. 2016, 23, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, L.; Zou, W.; Duan, K. The influence of new agricultural business entities on the economic welfare of farmer’s families. Agriculture 2021, 11, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, H.; Li, Y. The Values and influence factors of family farms’ efficiency. Manag. World 2020, 36, 168–181, 219. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ji, X.; Liu, S.; Yan, J.; Li, Y. Does security of land operational rights matter for the improvement of agricultural production efficiency under the collective ownership in china? China World Econ. 2021, 29, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostov, P.; Davidova, S.; Bailey, A. Comparative efficiency of family and corporate farms: Does family labour matter? J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 70, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, M.; Xi, Y.; Wu, B. Analysis on the operating performance and difference of new agricultural operation entities—based on the survey data from fixed observation points in rural areas. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2018, 5, 10–16, 160–161. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, C. Is new agricultural management entity capable of promoting the development of smallholder farmers: From the perspective of technical efficiency comparison. J. China Agric. Univ. 2020, 25, 200–214. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Wang, S.; Hu, J. Research on inherited barriers and supporting polices of family farms: Based on Micro data and case analysis of family farms in Shandong province. Issues Agric. Econ. 2021, 4, 121–131. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; Ding, X. Influence of rural industrial convergence development perception on entrepreneurial learning of returning migrant workers: A compound multiple mediator effect model. J. Harbin Inst. Technol. 2021, 23, 154–160. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Z. The welfare effects from the development of the new agricultural management entities. J. Quant. Tech. Econ. 2016, 33, 41–58. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ruan, R.; Gao, B.; Zhou, P.; Zheng, F. The Driving Capacity of New Agricultural Management Entities and Its Determinants: An Analysis Based on Data from 2615 New Agricultural Management Entities in China. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2017, 11, 17–32. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Blekking, J.; Gatti, N.; Waldman, K.; Evans, T.; Baylis, K. The benefits and limitations of agricultural input cooperatives in zambia. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhofstadt, E.; Maertens, M. Can agricultural cooperatives reduce poverty? heterogeneous impact of cooperative membership on farmers’ welfare in rwanda. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2015, 37, 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, M.; Yan, X.; Guo, Y.; Ji, H. Impact of risk awareness and agriculture cooperatives’ service on farmers’ safe production behaviour: Evidences from Shaanxi Province. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Kou, G.; Wang, S. Thoughts on constructing the benefit affiliating mechanism of new types of agribuiness and small household farmers. J. China Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2019, 36, 89–97. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Chen, W.; Luo, B. How can capital into the countryside drive farmers’ operation: Based on the analysis of Jiangxi Lvneng model. Issues Agric. Econ. 2021, 01, 69–81. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, Z. China new agricultural operators since the reform and opening up: Growth, evolution and trend. J. Renmin Univ. China 2018, 32, 43–55. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Ma, B.; Peng, C. Analysis on the factors of the industry convergence for new agricultural management subjects—Based on the survey data of RCRE. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2019, 09, 105–113. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J. Research on the proverty-alleviation effect of the agricultural industrialization in Chinese underdeveloped areas-spatial econometric analysis based on the panel data of 15 provinces. J. Shanxi Univ. Financ. Econ. 2020, 42, 52–68. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Deininger, K.; Savastano, S.; Carletto, C. Land fragmentation, cropland abandonment, and land market operation in albania. World Dev. 2012, 40, 2108–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S.; Nagarajan, H.K. Efficiency and equity impacts of rural land rental restrictions: Evidence from india. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2008, 52, 892–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, W.; Xu, Y.; Zhou, N.; He, Z.; Zhang, L. How did land titling affect china’s rural land rental market? size, composition and efficiency. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otsuka, K.; Liu, Y.; Yamauchi, F. Growing advantage of large farms in asia and its implications for global food security. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Wang, X.; Lu, H. The dual role and its dynamic transformation of agricultural machinery service of the new agricultural business entities: A preliminary analysis framework. Issues Agric. Econ. 2021, 2, 38–53. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, X.; Lin, Q. The impact of the development of production outsourcing services on the allocation of rural labor—Based on the perspective of farm household heterogeneity and link heterogeneity. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2021, 6, 101–114. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Mi, Q.; Li, X.; Gao, J. How to improve the welfare of smallholders through agricultural production outsourcing: Evidence from cotton farmers in Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, L. Self-employment of Chinese rural labor force: Subsistence or opportunity?—An empirical study based on nationally representative. J. Asian Econ. 2021, 28, 101397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhanaraj, S.; Mahambare, V. Family structure, education and women’s employment in rural India. World Dev. 2019, 115, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ji, Y.; Yu, X.; Zhong, F. Machinery investment decision and off-farm employment in rural China. China Econ. Rev. 2012, 23, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Z.; Wen, F. From employees to entrepreneurs: Rural land rental market and the upgrade of rural labor allocation in non-agricultural sectors. Manag. World 2020, 36, 171–185. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Tian, C.; Song, Y.; Boyle, C.E. Impacts of china’s burgeoning rural land rental markets on equity: A case study of developed areas along the eastern coast. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2012, 4, 301–315. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, J.S. Changes in labor force participation in the united states. J. Econ. Perspect. 2006, 20, 27–46. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, S.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, J. The effect of housing wealth on labor force participation: Evidence from china. J. Hous. Econ. 2016, 33, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | Definition | Mean | S.D |
---|---|---|---|
Farmers’ employment decision | No job = 0, farming = 1, non-agricultural employment = 2 | 1.146 | 0.597 |
New agricultural business entities | Weather the new agricultural business entities exist in the village? Exist = 1; otherwise = 0 | 0.713 | 0.452 |
Rent-out land | No = 0, yes = 1 | 0.072 | 0.259 |
Rent-in land | No = 0, yes = 1 | 0.187 | 0.390 |
Purchase of agricultural socialized services | The cost of leasing agricultural machinery per mu;200 yuan and below = 1; 200–500 yuan = 2; 500–1000 yuan = 3; more than 1000 yuan = 4 | 1.054 | 0.396 |
Age of head of the household | Under 50 years =1; 50–64 years old= 2; over 65 years old = 3 | 0.137 | 0.344 |
Education of head of the household | Under the high school = 0; high school and above = 1 | 2.009 | 0.670 |
Political status | A Party member? yes = 1; no = 2 | 1.900 | 0.300 |
Financial knowledge training | Have you ever taken economic and financial classes? no = 0; yes = 1 | 0.020 | 0.139 |
Average age of family labor | Average actual age of family labor (years) | 41.688 | 12.437 |
Average education level of family labor force | The proportion of high school or above (%) | 0.239 | 0.314 |
Health status of family members | Proportion of poor health family members (%) | 0.156 | 0.228 |
agricultural labor force | Several family members worked in agriculture | 1.977 | 0.891 |
Cultivated land scale | Total area of farmland (mu) | 9.665 | 15.659 |
Land expropriation | yes = 1, no = 0 | 0.090 | 0.286 |
farming income | 2000 yuan and below = 1; 2000–5000 yuan = 2; 5000–10,000 yuan = 3; 10,000–15000 yuan = 4; More than 15,000 yuan = 5 | 2.014 | 1.470 |
Variable | Without New Agricultural Business Entities in This Village | With New Agricultural Business Entities in the Village |
---|---|---|
Farmers’ employment decision | 1.115 | 1.158 *** |
Rent-out land | 0.059 | 0.078 *** |
Rent-in land | 0.172 | 0.193 ** |
Purchase of agricultural socialized services | 1.034 | 1.063 *** |
(1) Farmers’ Employment Decision | |
---|---|
New agricultural business entities | 0.029 ** |
(0.013) | |
Education of head of the household | 0.079 *** |
(0.021) | |
Age of head of the household | −0.286 *** |
(0.009) | |
Political status | −0.072 *** |
(0.020) | |
Financial knowledge training | 0.115 *** |
(0.043) | |
Average age of family labor | −0.001 ** |
(0.000) | |
Average education level of family labor force | 0.061 *** |
(0.023) | |
Health status of family members | −0.257 *** |
(0.027) | |
Agricultural labor force | −0.034 *** |
(0.007) | |
Cultivated land scale | −0.003 *** |
(0.000) | |
Land expropriation | 0.018 |
(0.021) | |
Farming income | −0.008 * |
(0.004) | |
_cons | 2.005 *** |
(0.053) | |
N | 8690 |
R2 | 0.140 |
Variables | (2) Rent-out Land | (3) Farmers’ Employment Decision | (4) Rent-in Land | (5) Farmers’ Employment Decision | (6) Purchase of Agricultural Socialized Services | (7) Farmers’ Employment Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New agricultural business entities | 0.027 *** (0.006) | 0.027 ** (0.013) | −0.016 * (0.009) | 0.029 ** (0.013) | 0.038 *** (0.009) | 0.027 ** (0.013) |
Rent-out land | —— | 0.076 *** (0.023) | —— | —— | —— | —— |
Rent-in land | —— | —— | —— | −0.008 (0.016) | —— | —— |
Purchase of agricultural socialized services | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— | 0.047 *** (0.015) |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
_cons | 0.075 *** (0.024) | 1.999 *** (0.053) | 0.068 ** (0.034) | 2.005 *** (0.053) | 1.164 *** (0.038) | 1.950 *** (0.056) |
N | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 |
R2 | 0.022 | 0.141 | 0.147 | 0.139 | 0.013 | 0.141 |
The Action Paths | Mediating Effect Test | Coefficient | Bias | Std. Err. | Bootstrapping | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentile 95%CI | Percentile 95%CI | |||||||
LLCI | ULCI | LLCI | ULCI | |||||
New agricultural business entities—rent-out land—farmers’ employment decision | Direct effect | 0.002 | −0.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Indirect effect | 0.027 | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.006 | 0.056 | 0.006 | 0.056 | |
New agricultural business entities—rent-in land—farmers’ employment decision | Direct effect | −0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.002 | 0.000 |
Indirect effect | 0.039 | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.0115 | 0.067 | 0.011 | 0.066 | |
New agricultural business entities—purchase of agricultural socialized services—farmers’ employment decision | Direct effect | 0.002 | −0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
Indirect effect | 0.027 | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.055 | 0.001 | 0.055 |
Variables | Unmatched(U)/Matched(M) | Treated | Control | %Bias | Bias | T-Statistic | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education of head of the household | U | 0.145 | 0.121 | 6.9 | 2.85 | 0.004 | |
M | 0.144 | 0.145 | −0.2 | 97.6 | −0.09 | 0.928 | |
Age of head of the household | U | 1.985 | 2.063 | −11.7 | −4.97 | 0.000 | |
M | 1.984 | 2.002 | −2.6 | 78.2 | −1.43 | 0.153 | |
Political status | U | 1.902 | 1.893 | 3.1 | 1.30 | 0.192 | |
M | 1.902 | 1.897 | 1.8 | 41.8 | 1.00 | 0.316 | |
Financial knowledge training | U | 0.022 | 0.015 | 4.7 | 1.94 | 0.053 | |
M | 0.021 | 0.022 | −0.4 | 91.2 | −0.22 | 0.829 | |
Average age of family labor | U | 41.783 | 41.382 | 3.2 | 1.36 | 0.173 | |
M | 41.785 | 41.849 | −0.5 | 84.2 | −0.27 | 0.789 | |
Average education level of family labor force | U | 0.245 | 0.226 | 6.2 | 2.60 | 0.009 | |
M | 0.245 | 0.251 | −1.9 | 68.9 | −1.04 | 0.296 | |
Health status of family members | U | 0.152 | 0.166 | −6.4 | −2.69 | 0.007 | |
M | 0.151 | 0.154 | −1.1 | 83.2 | −0.60 | 0.548 | |
Agricultural labor force | U | 1.989 | 1.950 | 4.5 | 1.87 | 0.061 | |
M | 1.989 | 1.991 | −0.2 | 95.1 | −0.12 | 0.903 | |
Cultivated land scale | U | 10.819 | 6.938 | 27.0 | 10.35 | 0.000 | |
M | 10.807 | 10.977 | −1.2 | 95.6 | −0.53 | 0.594 | |
Land expropriation | U | 0.095 | 0.077 | 6.3 | 2.60 | 0.009 | |
M | 0.095 | 0.095 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | |
Farming income | U | 2.078 | 1.855 | 15.7 | 6.44 | 0.000 | |
M | 2.078 | 2.053 | 1.8 | 88.8 | 0.94 | 0.347 |
Matching Algorithms | Treated | Control | Difference | S.E. | T-Stat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
K nearest neighbor caliper matching(n = 4) | 1.158 | 1.123 | 0.035 ** | 0.017 | 2.10 |
Nearest neighbor matching (n = 2) | 1.158 | 1.115 | 0.043 ** | 0.018 | 2.38 |
Nearest neighbor matching (n = 4) | 1.158 | 1.121 | 0.037 ** | 0.017 | 2.17 |
Local matching | 1.158 | 1.118 | 0.040 ** | 0.020 | 1.98 |
Variables | (8) Farmers’ Employment Decision | (9) Farmers’ Employment Decision |
---|---|---|
Number of new agricultural entities in the village (taking logarithm) | 0.009 ** (0.005) | — |
New agricultural business entities | — | 0.038 *** (0.014) |
Control variables | Yes | Yes |
_cons | 1.952 *** (0.055) | 2.043 *** (0.056) |
N | 8690 | 8690 |
R2 | 0.140 | 0.053 |
Variables | (10) No Job | (11) Farming | (12) Employment (with Legal Contract) | (13) Employment (without Legal Contract) | (14) Entrepreneurship | (15) Freelance Work (Including Painter, Freelance Writer or Singer) | (16) Other (Volunteer) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New agricultural business entities | −0.268 *** (0.037) | 0.062 *** (0.021) | 0.047 *** (0.014) | −0.099 *** (0.021) | 0.022 ** (0.011) | 0.004 (0.003) | 0.004 (0.003) |
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
_cons | 3.453 *** (0.148) | −0.327 *** (0.085) | 0.473 *** (0.055) | 1.120 *** (0.084) | 0.257 *** (0.042) | 0.018 (0.013) | 0.021 (0.010) |
N | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 | 8690 |
R2 | 0.049 | 0.285 | 0.086 | 0.052 | 0.022 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Cheng, L.; Cui, Y.; Duan, K.; Zou, W. The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision. Land 2022, 11, 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010112
Cheng L, Cui Y, Duan K, Zou W. The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision. Land. 2022; 11(1):112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010112
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Lingjuan, Yilin Cui, Kaifeng Duan, and Wei Zou. 2022. "The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision" Land 11, no. 1: 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010112
APA StyleCheng, L., Cui, Y., Duan, K., & Zou, W. (2022). The Influence of New Agricultural Business Entities on Farmers’ Employment Decision. Land, 11(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010112