Next Article in Journal
Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Service Value in a Fragile Hilly Area of North China
Next Article in Special Issue
Coordinated Development of Farmland Transfer and Labor Migration in China: Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Driving Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Physical Vulnerability and Uncertainties for Debris Flow Hazard: A Review concerning Climate Change
Previous Article in Special Issue
Is There Herd Effect in Farmers’ Land Transfer Behavior?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/land11122241
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Theoretical Approach and Practice of Farmland Rights System Reform from Decentralization to Centralization Promoting Agricultural Modernization: Evidence from Yuyang District in Shaanxi, China

by
Lu Cai
1,
Chaoqing Chai
1,*,
Bangbang Zhang
1,*,
Feng Yang
2,
Wei Wang
3 and
Chengdong Zhang
4
1
College of Economic & Management, Northwest A&F University, Xi’an 712100, China
2
Center of Potato Industry Development of Yulin, Yulin 719000, China
3
Center of Collective Economic and Reform of Yulin, Yulin 719000, China
4
Yulin Agricultural and Rural Bureau, Yulin 719000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(12), 2241; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122241
Submission received: 30 October 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rural Land Use in China)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Chinese government is attempting to readjust the relationship of farmland rights by farmland rights system reform to optimize the allocation of farmland by market means. Therefore, this study is aimed at exploring the effectiveness of the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization and its impacts on agricultural modernization. In this study, the shift theory of land rights is introduced to analyze the approach of the reform promoting agricultural modernization, and the practice of Yuyang District as evidence illustrates that the reform is a further extension of the land marketization reform, which clears the obstacles of market allocation of farmlands and promotes agricultural modernization by achieving three objectives of agricultural production. The results of this study show the reform is beneficial to a high level of yield, efficient production, and environment friendly in agricultural production, so the reform indirectly promotes agricultural modernization. Meanwhile, Yuyang District’s experiences show that the farmland issue is a complex one, which should be considered from the perspectives of public benefits and private benefits, and appropriate farmland rights system reform is a policy accelerator for facilitating agricultural modernization. Generally, this study not only innovatively links the farmland rights system reform with the three objectives of agricultural production to analysis impact mechanism of the reform on agricultural modernization, but it also confirms the effectiveness of the reform design of the central government and provides some advanced experiences for other regions.

1. Introduction

To achieve the vision of fully building a modern country by 2050, the Chinese government is vigorously promoting agricultural modernization to make up for the shortcomings of modernization. The efficient use of farmland is the foundation of agricultural modernization, so the farmland rights system must always be geared towards achieving agricultural modernization [1]. However, historical experiences show that productive forces and production relations are not static. The productive forces can progress with the development of science and technology, thus generating the need to adjust production relations. Therefore, the farmland rights system reform has become a major way to adjust production relations. Through the adjustment of the rights relationship stipulated under the old farmland rights system, it builds a new farmland rights relationship that can meet the new needs of agricultural modernization and makes the production relationships compatible with advanced productive forces, which creates conditions for farmland capitalization and activates production factors in rural regions [2,3]. It underpins that farmland rights system reform is an important prerequisite for agricultural modernization, so it is very necessary to explore the approach of farmland rights system reform for the study of achieving agricultural modernization.
Many scholars have carried out research on this issue. The academic community generally considers the farmland rights system reform in China to be an initiative system reform led by the government. It has some positive characteristics, including effective planning by the government based on prospects in advance, the promotion of grassroots exploration in coordination during the event, and monitoring of multiple subjects after the event [4]. These characteristics reflect the efforts made in institutional design to achieve the established reform goals. In this reform system, the government played a key role: by amending the law and redistributing land rights, it created favorable conditions for the optimal allocation of farmland, thus making up for the lack of market capability [5]. Meanwhile, village committees, as the implementers of policies at the grassroots level, have natural advantages in terms of integrating rural resources and communicating between the government and the farmer in view of their inherent characteristics of being born in the rural society, embedded in the rural relationship network, and maintaining close contact with the government [6]. These advantages help village committees play important roles in farmland rights system reform [7]. In China, the latest farmland rights system reform is based on the idle or inefficiently used farmland in rural regions and attempts to optimize the allocation of farmland by building a clear farmland rights system and a perfect farmland circulation market because reformers and experts believe that these attempts will help the market to play a decisive role in the allocation of farmland, and it is beneficial for improving the efficiency of agricultural land use [8,9,10]. For this aim, the Chinese government proposed that the rights of farmland should be transformed from the separation of two rights systems to the separation of three rights systems, and the task has become one of the key tasks in the farmland rights system reform in China [11]. The purpose of this task is to revitalize the right to use farmlands while protecting the right of farmers to earn by separating the households’ contracted management right of farmland, in other words, achieving appropriate scale management of farmland while increasing farmers’ property income [12]. At present, farmland rights system reform has achieved some good results in China. The rights of farmland in the vast majority of rural regions in China have been redefined, and the clear property rights relationship has significantly reduced the transaction cost of farmland circulation, which promotes the circulation of numerous farmlands into new agricultural business entities, and the appropriate scale management of farmland gradually emerges, which initially achieved the expected policy goals of the reform [13].
However, in practice, most of these circulation activities are still spontaneous transactions by farmers in the land market, which often occur between farmers [14]. It optimizes the allocation of farmland to a certain degree, but there are still two obvious drawbacks. Firstly, farmland demanders must reach an agreement with each farmer of the farmland they need in order to achieve the appropriate scale management of farmland. This not only involves high transaction costs in the process of signing the agreement, but some farmers may also be unwilling to circulate their farmland, causing the fragmentation of farmland, which means these farmlands cannot meet the needs of land demanders, so it is difficult to attract high-quality business entities and improve agricultural production efficiency [15]. Secondly, there is widespread informal land circulation between relatives and friends in rural regions. There is a lack of formal contracts, agreements, and other circulation credentials, and the circulation price of farmland is often lower than the market price, which aggravates the rights risk of farmland circulation [16,17], and when the actual circulation price of farmland is lower than the market price, it is not conducive to farmers to improve their farmland productivity [18]. Reading the existing literature, most studies still focus on the positive impact of farmland rights system reform on the realization of the market-oriented allocation of farmland, but few scholars pay attention to some of the issues that restrict the agricultural development after the farmland rights system reform. Therefore, this study is aimed to explore the effectiveness of the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization and its impacts on agricultural modernization. Above all, this study will sort out the practice of farmland rights system reform in Yuyang District. Then, it will explore how to use theory to objectively and rationally prove that the practice is effective. Finally, it will discuss how to evaluate the reform performance in Yuyang District based on a method of quantitative analysis. In short, it tries to find a way to optimize the system based on the property rights theory for avoiding some potential challenges in the process of farmland rights system reform and introduces Yuyang’s practice to verify the feasibility of this method.

2. Theoretical Approach, Methodology and Data Sources

2.1. The Theoretical Approach Based on the Shift Theory of Land Rights

The shift theory of land rights is a development of the property rights theory in Western economics, which is mainly used to study land, a special property with both public and private benefits [19]. In China, the ownership of land has long been owned by the country and rural collectives, but the right to use land can be circulated in accordance with the law, and the right to benefit and dispose of land is also circulated to some degree among different owners with the circulation of the right to use. There is no doubt that land is also of great private benefit in China [20]. Most countries and regions implement private ownership of land, but they also provide some degrees of legal protection for the government’s violation of private land rights due to public benefits from the institutional level [21,22]. Obviously, whether in Eastern countries or Western countries, the rights relationship of land is very complicated. However, the main property rights theory is aimed at the study of private property, so it is difficult to fully explain the real-world land issues because, sometimes, keeping land rights moderately ambiguous to some degree, or strengthening term duration limits, are necessary and beneficial [23]. Therefore, a theory of property rights specially used to explain land issues is very necessary, which is why the shift theory of land rights is proposed, and it has three opinions [19].
Firstly, in essence, the real rights and the creditor rights of land are only the difference in the control rights of the right holder, and the control rights are in a process of continuous change. As shown in Figure 1, when the right to control changes from large to small, the real rights shift to the creditor rights until the right holder exercises full creditor rights. On the contrary, the creditor rights shift to the real rights until the right holder exercises full real rights.
Secondly, there are at least two owners who own the real rights of land, a public owner and a private owner, and they share 100% of the real rights of the land (Figure 2). When the real rights of land of the private owner become larger, the real rights of land of the public owner will become smaller, and the private benefits of land will become larger, which is called privatization. The opposite of this is called publicization.
Thirdly, for the land, the control right of land is shifted between the public owner and the private owner and the real rights and the creditor rights, which have formed a mechanism to realize the rational distribution of land rights and promote the reconciliation of public and private benefits.
According to the shift theory of land rights, a theoretical approach of analysis farmland issue is established (Figure 3). In the separation of two rights system of farmland, the Chinese government stabilizes the rights relationship of farmland and endow farmers with the right to circulate farmland by a series of policies [24,25,26]. In this period, the control rights of the land of farmers further shifted from creditor rights to real rights. The real rights of farmland involve farmers that have gradually exceeded the creditor rights, and the farmland also changed from a property biased towards public benefits to a property that is more inclined towards yielding private benefits. However, rural collectives have gradually lost the right to adjust farmland due to the protection of farmers’ rights by laws and policies [27]. With the improvement of productivity, rural collectives still have the ownership of farmland in name, but in reality, they cannot adjust the contracted land of farmers for the demand of advanced productivity due to the failure of the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization, so the fragmentation of farmland caused by rights has become increasingly serious.
In order to alleviate the fragmentation of farmland, the Chinese government further promotes the market-oriented reform of farmland and implements the separation of three rights systems to encourage appropriate scale management of farmland [2,12,28,29]. In the new reform, the government not only redefines and clears the ambiguous rights relationship of farmland due to mismanagement, informal circulation, illegal reclamation, etc., but encourages rural collectives to try to achieve appropriate scale management of farmland by the farmland shareholding cooperation. The policy adjustments provide some new ideas for rural collectives to adjust farmland, and more opportunities are given for the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization. Rural collectives can activate owner rights of farmland by the farmland shareholding cooperation so that rural collectives have the right to readjust farmland by market means. It means the control right of farmland of farmers is shifting from real rights to creditor rights, and the real right of farmland is shifting from private ownership to public ownership. Therefore, the fragmentation of farmland is gradually alleviated by the adjustment of rural collectives. It notes that farmers still have considerable real rights because the decisions of the farmland shareholding cooperation are made by farmers, rather than the government, and farmers are free to enter or exit the shareholding cooperation organization. The private benefits of farmland are still dominant, but the proportion of public benefits of farmland is higher than the former.
When the rural collectives manage most of the farmlands of their villages, the rural collective is the land supplier because of the increase in the quantity and quality of the supplied farmland, which is attractive to abundant high-quality farmland demanders, and a powerful gaming capability in the farmland market is given to them, which helps rural collectives to gain more benefits in the game [30]. Farmland demanders are very willing to trade with these high-quality farmland suppliers. They not only meet their business needs, but also reduce the transaction cost of circulation farmland, so these high-quality farmland suppliers are often regarded by them as the best choice. There is no doubt that the market-oriented farmland circulation that rural collectives participate in overcomes the issues of high transaction costs and fragmentation of farmland in the market-oriented land circulation that farmers directly participate in [15], and it improves the bargaining power of farmers and rural collectives, which enables farmers more capabilities to obtain benefits and resist risks, thereby reducing informal land circulation and avoiding rights risks and inefficient use of farmland [31]. It can be seen that the reform has contributed to the realization of land circulation activities with more quantity, on a larger scale, and more concentrated and contiguous land, while the large-scale, concentrated, and contiguous land is necessary for agricultural modernization, and it has also prompted the transformation of agricultural practitioner from traditional farmers to new agricultural business entities.
Intensification of factors, scale of farmlands, diversification of functions, and mechanization of production are typical characteristics of modern agriculture [32,33,34]. Compared with traditional farmers, new agricultural business entities are closer to the characteristics of agricultural modernization [35]. In the aspect of intensification of factors, these new agricultural business entities concentrate on less production factor inputs and overcome the law of diminishing return by advanced production technology, equipment, and management methods, in order to obtain higher yields and earnings of per unit of farmland [36]. In the aspect of scale of farmlands, new agricultural business entities can provide generous remuneration to numerous farmland suppliers, so it is easier for them to achieve the advantages of scale compared to traditional farmers [37,38]. In the aspect of diversification of functions, new agricultural business entities can not only exert the economic and social functions of agriculture by providing numerous agricultural products, but they can also fully explore the ecological functions of agriculture by optimizing planting structure, developing advanced technologies, and improving production methods [39]. In the aspect of mechanization of production, new agricultural business entities are more willing to improve the work efficiency of all production links by introducing advanced machinery and equipment, compared with traditional farmers, and some of them pay attention to research and the development of advanced technologies [40,41,42,43]. Therefore, new agricultural business entities play key roles in the process of agricultural modernization. They improve the use efficiency of farmland by pursuing intensification of factors, scale of farmlands, diversification of functions, and mechanization of production, which service development objects of high level of yield, efficient production and environment friendliness, and promote the process of agricultural modernization.

2.2. Indicators Selection of Evaluating Reform Performance

According to Chinese official documents, high levels of yield, efficient production, and environmental friendliness are regarded as the three main objectives in agricultural production. In order to ensure national food security, it is necessary to ensure the supply of important agricultural products and to deal with the uncertainty of the external environment with the certainty of stable domestic production, so a high level of production is one of missions of agricultural modernization [44,45,46]. Meanwhile, in order to adapt to the development of productivity and changes in production relations, more capital, technology, and talents are required to be invested in agriculture, so efficient production is another mission of agricultural modernization [47,48,49]. Furthermore, in order to reduce the negative impact of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on farmland, and to achieve sustainable use of farmland and improve the quality of agricultural products, it is necessary for agricultural production to change towards environment friendliness. [50,51]. Therefore, high levels of yield, efficient production, and environmental friendliness are appropriate to evaluate the degree of agricultural modernization.
Focusing on Yuyang District, the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization adjusts the farmland area and the number of plots of farmers, so the relationship among average area per household, average number of plots per household, and average yield of unit farmland can be used to evaluate whether high yields have been achieved after the reform. The unit farmland area remains unchanged, and mechanization rate, labor productivity, and higher capital input-output ratio of unit farmland are higher, which means that the use efficiency of unit farmland has improved [32,52], so changes in these indicators can be used to evaluate whether the reform has promoted the efficiency of agricultural production. In addition to ensuring the production of food and raw materials, farmland also plays an important role in ecological chain support and gas regulation services, so ecosystem service value (ESV) and agricultural carbon emissions can be used to evaluate the environmental friendliness of agricultural production [53]. By measuring the change of ESV, total carbon emission, and carbon emission intensity before and after the reform, the result can be evaluated whether the reform has promoted the environmental friendliness of agriculture production. Table 1 shows the indicators system constructed to evaluate the impact degree of reform promoting agricultural modernization. Various indicators have an indirect impact on agricultural modernization by affecting the objectives of high levels of yield, efficient production, and environmental friendliness.

2.3. The Methodology and Data Sources

Case analysis is a commonly used method to summarize theoretical results from practice, so this study will adopt this method to sort out the practice of farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization in Yuyang District. Above all, this study will introduce the general situation of Yuyang District. By sorting out the local history of changes in the farmland rights system since 1980, it clarifies the problems that existed in the local farmland before the latest reform was implemented and analyzes the causes of the problems. Besides, this study will explore the practice of farmland rights system reform in Yuyang. It aims to summarize the process of reform, to analyze the direction of shift in farmland rights, and to search out the causes of these changes. Finally, this study will survey the impact path of the reform on agricultural modernization and evaluate the reform performance by comparing key indicators before and after the reform.
Questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and document analysis are used to collect data required for this study. The study group went to Yuyang District four times in September 2020, July 2021, February 2022, and August 2022 to conduct field research. Questionnaire surveys were conducted in Yuyang in the first and fourth research fields, and these surveys helped the study group to collect numerous relevant data. In the second and third research fields, the study group lived in Yuyang District for more than three months. Through in-depth interviews with government cadres, village cadres, and farmers, the practice of reform and impacts on agricultural modernization were fully understood by the study group. Meanwhile, some relevant documents have been obtained with the help of local government. Table 2 shows the data obtained by the field research of study group, which provide strong support for this study.

3. The Practice of The Farmland Rights System Reform in Yuyang District

3.1. The General Situation of Yuyang District

Yuyang District is the center of Yulin City, the second largest city in Shaanxi Province. It is located in the arid and semi-arid regions of China and the interlaced zone of agriculture and animal husbandry. With the Great Wall as the boundary, the land in the north is relatively flat, and the land in the south is mainly mountainous. The GDP of Yuyang District reached 135.5 billion yuan2 in 2021. In the 1980s, with the implementation of the household contract responsibility system for farmland, it successfully stimulated farmers’ enthusiasm for production and effectively solved the issue of food. However, the “fat and thin matching” method of farmland division, based on the principle of fairness, led to the fragmentation of farmland. Each peasant family in Yuyang District has an average of 15 mu and 16 pieces of farmland, and each peasant family in the southern part has an average of 12 mu and 18 pieces of farmland. With the process of urbanization, 80% of the local rural laborers have left the countryside and choose to work in cities. There is a limited labor capacity of the elderly left behind, so they usually only cultivate some farmland close to home, with a large area and good soil conditions for the purpose of subsistence. The fragmentation of farmland has delayed the process of refined division of labor and specialization in agricultural production. Meanwhile, some issues, such as low input per mu of farmland, low farmland utilization efficiency, and abandoned farmland, have begun to appear. These issues have seriously hindered the development of agricultural modernization.
However, rural collectives in Yuyang District have difficulties adjusting these inefficient farmlands, so the failure of farmland rights from decentralization to centralization has occurred. Many reasons cause this result. Firstly, the central government’s policy of ‘increasing people without increasing farmland, and decreasing people without reducing farmland’ made rural collectives in Yuyang District lose the right to adjust farmland after the second round of farmland contracting. In practice, some rural collectives in Yuyang District have tried to adjust the distribution of farmland for the purpose of giving landless people farmland for their livelihood, but this ultimately failed. Their attempts were strongly opposed by members of their collectives and led to collective petitions by farmers. Finally, the local government resolved the conflict by coordination, but some people responsible for making these attempts were punished accordingly. There is no doubt that these incidents provided lessons for other rural collectives in Yuyang District, strengthened the notion that farmland cannot be adjusted, and blocked the attempt to shift farmland rights from decentralization to centralization. The other reason is that rural collectives did not have enough standardized asset management before, coupled with the informal circulation and irregular reclamation among farmers, there were common issues of unclear boundaries and ownership of farmland, which undoubtedly increased the transaction costs of farmland circulation in the formal market. The increase in the transaction cost of farmland circulation means that it is more difficult to realize the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization by market means.
Under the combined effect of administrative and market challenges, the failure of farmland rights from decentralization to centralization has occurred, resulting in a structural imbalance between the supply and demand of farmland. According to official statistics, 31,900 of the 118,000 peasant households in Yuyang District have no farmland, but on average, 7% of the farmland in each township is in a state of abandonment. The lack of farmland supply and the phenomenon of farmland abandonment coexist. Moreover, when rural collectives face the needs of social capital to invest in the development of scale planting industries locally, there is often no land available, which eventually leads to the abortion of social investment and damages the overall welfare of the collective.

3.2. The Farmland Rights System Reform from Decentralization to Centralization in Yuyang District

In order to solve the issue of farmland, the Yuyang District Government actively responded to the call of the central government for the reform of land marketization. In 2017, the Yuyang District Government promoted the farmland rights system reform with the ‘one household one plot’ system as the core and further promoted the farmland shareholding cooperation in some qualified rural collectives, on this basis, to realize the shift of farmland rights from decentralization to centralization (Figure 4). The ‘one household one plot’ system reform is a method of realizing each peasant family farming one piece of farmland by the adjustment of farmland rights, construction of farmland facilities, and improvement of soil quality based on the overall planning of rural collectives. The reform enables farmers to agree to the rural collectives to adjust farmland by administrative means because some promises (original area of farmland, original contracted relationship, and original managing model) and expectations (concentrated and contiguous farmlands, better farming conditions, and better-quality soil) are given to farmers, which improves the public benefits of rural collectives. From the results, the real rights are still greater than the creditor right in the control rights of farmland of farmers, but the rights start to shift from real rights to creditor rights, which means rural collectives have realized the adjustment of farmland based on certain conditions, and the adjustment of farmland is not an untouchable red line for rural collectives.
Based on the ‘one household one plot’ system reform, some rural collectives in Yuyang District tried to realize farmland shareholding cooperation by suppositional authentic right (farmers are only identified with the area of all their farmland, but not specific plots); they hoped to promote the shift of farmland rights from decentralization to centralization by market means. In these rural collectives, most members of rural collectives are less willing to manage farmland, and they have non-agricultural jobs and desire property income, so these rural collectives are suitable for farmland shareholding cooperation. These rural collectives promised the original area of farmland, original contracted relationship, and freedom to enter or exit, and these gave farmers the expectation of property income, more free time, and better jobs if the farmland shareholding cooperation could be agreed upon by members of rural collectives. These conditions set by these rural collectives are consistent with the needs of these members of rural collectives, so almost all members of rural collectives unify the proposal and join the newly established rural collective shareholding economic cooperative, according to the procedure, and formulate the cooperative charter. The cooperative charter stipulates that farmers will voluntarily use the area of farmland they hold as their original share in the cooperative. Meanwhile, it also stipulates that the farmland is planned and developed by the cooperative, and the collective members do not participate in specific business matters but have the right to supervise and make suggestions. In addition, if the collective members are dissatisfied with the cooperative’s operation, they have the right to apply to the cooperative to withdraw their shares in the form of negotiation, and the cooperative will redistribute to them specific plots that meet their contracted area. It is not difficult to find that the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization has been further realized after rural collectives complete the farmland shareholding cooperation by market means. Compared with the ‘one household one plot’ system reform, the degree of shift is more significant. According to the fact that farmers do not participate in the specific management of farmland, it can be seen that the control rights of the farmland of farmers have changed from being dominated by real rights to being dominated by creditor rights, but it is not an extreme set of creditor rights because farmers have the right to exit by negotiation.

3.3. The Development of Agricultural Modernization in Yuyang District after Farmland Rights System Reform

When Yuyang District completed the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization, these collectives circulated concentrated and contiguous farmlands to new agricultural business entities by the cooperative self-operation, introduction of social capital, and cooperation with social capital, which accelerates the development of appropriate scale management of farmland. According to data from seven rural collectives, compared with the past, the number of new agricultural business entities in the village has increased by 2.5 on average, and the farmland management area of them has increased by 50.9 mu.
When the appropriate scale management of farmland is achieved, these new agricultural business entities have a greater willingness to invest more production factors into the farmland. According to interviews with eight new agricultural business entities, all of them mention that the expansion of management scale decrease production cost of unit farmland, which makes it cost-effective to introduce new technologies and invest more production factors. They improve the farming efficiency and product quality by mechanized production, soil testing formulas, comprehensive water and fertilizer facilities, farmland management information systems, and innovation on technology and management of agriculture. This means the achievement of the intensification of elements on unit farmland. Meanwhile, these new agricultural business entities achieve the mechanization of all production links by purchasing agricultural machinery and provide mechanized production for local farmers by paid services, which promotes the improvement of the overall local agricultural production efficiency. Government officials in Yuyang District stated that all new agricultural business entities have realized mechanized operations, and they provide 80% of the agricultural mechanized services. Furthermore, the production behavior of the local new agricultural business entities also changes towards the direction of environmental friendliness with the expansion of the scale of farmland management. They believe that these changes can not only improve the quality of agricultural products to earn more profits, but also practice social responsibility by reducing the negative impact on the environment. Three new agricultural business entities said they stop farming a part of farmlands each year to restore fertility because other farmlands are enough to meet their needs of earning. Six new agricultural business entities said they purchase more high-quality fertilizers, which have less threats on farmlands, because their demands increase due to expansion of farmland area, and they can purchase these fertilizers for lower prices. According to interviews with government officials and village cadres, their words are also confirmed, and these situations are common in new agricultural business entities in Yuyang District.
Generally, the practice of Yuyang District proves that new agricultural business entities achieve high levels of yield, efficient production, and environment friendly agricultural development objectives by large-scale farmland management, intensive use of production factors, environmentally friendly production behavior, and agricultural mechanized production, thereby promoting the process of agricultural modernization. An important prerequisite for these changes is that rural collectives have obtained more real rights of farmland by the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization, and the appropriate scale management of farmland has been achieved by their adjustments.

4. The Farmland Rights System Reform Performance of Yuyang District

According to field research, corn, potatoes, and pasture are the main crops planted by agricultural business entities (traditional farmers and new agricultural business entities) in Yuyang District. Among them, corn is the crop with the largest planting area, and it is widely planted by traditional farmers and new agricultural business entities. Therefore, this study will evaluate the promotion effect of Yuyang District’s reform on agricultural modernization through the changes in the conditions of corn planting. Here, the data in 2016 are used as the data before the reform, and the data in 2021 are used after the reform, and the two are compared to explore the reform results.

4.1. High Level of Yield

Table 3 shows the changes of yield indicators before and after the reform. Obviously, the reform has significantly improved the farmland management conditions of all agricultural business entities. The average area of farmland per agricultural business entity has increased from 26.4 to 48.87 mu, and the average number of plots per agricultural business entity has decreased from 16 to 2.4. It should be noted that some agricultural business entities constantly circulate farmland from others, so the reform has realized the contracted farmland of each household, but some agricultural business entities still have more than one piece of farmland. In the new farmland management conditions, the average yield of unit farmland of corn also increased by 135.1 kg. Combined with the information obtained from different agricultural business entities, traditional farmers believe that the adjustment and consolidation of farmland facilitate agricultural production, so their actual cultivated area has increased after the reform. New agricultural business entities consider that the reform not only facilitates agricultural production by expanding the scale of farmland, but also that the increase in demand for agricultural materials supports them purchasing fertilizers and pesticides for lower prices, so they tend to purchase high-quality materials, and the change is conducive to increased production. The result proves that the reform has played a positive role in increasing the yield of unit farmland, which achieves the objective of high level of yield in agricultural production.

4.2. Efficient Production

Table 4 compares the changes of efficient production indicators for evaluating the impact of the reform on efficient production. It is not difficult to find that the agricultural mechanization rate has been significantly improved after the reform, from 63% in 2016 to 79.6% in 2022, which proves that the reform has lowered the cost of agricultural mechanization production by the adjustment. Labor productivity has grown dramatically, by nearly 50%. The popularization of agricultural mechanization, the improvement of agricultural socialization services, and the upgrading of agricultural technology and management technology have improved, so agricultural production does not require excessive labors and time. Meanwhile, the increase in the number of new agricultural business entities means that the number of high-quality labors in agriculture has increased. Moreover, the growth in output of unit farmland also increases the input-output ratio of unit farmland by 11.3% compared with before the reform. In traditional farmers’ views, their production costs are higher than before, but the rise of their incomes is remarkably faster than costs. Therefore, the result is that the reform accelerates the objective of efficient production of agricultural production by improving the mechanization rate, labor productivity, and input-output ratio of unit farmland can be drawn.

4.3. Environmental Friendliness

Table 5 shows the changes of environmental friendliness indicators in order to evaluate the impact of reform on environmental friendliness of agricultural production. According to ESV calculations, the ESV of Yuyang District in 2022 increased by 43.1 compared to 2016, which is beneficial regarding the increase in the actual cultivated area. It means an increase wherein humans gain more from the ecosystem. In terms of carbon emissions, the total carbon emissions and carbon intensity of agricultural production have decreased slightly after the reform because of the increase in the amount of organic fertilizer used by new agricultural business entities. Generally, the reform has increased the benefits of agricultural production from ecology and promotes agricultural production gradually changing towards environmentally friendly.

5. Discussion and Implications

5.1. Discussion

As this study shows, the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization effectively solves obstacles of farmland circulation, which facilitates concentrated and contiguous farmlands, which are circulated to new agricultural business entities from rural collectives [2,12,15,28,29,30,31]. These new agricultural business entities pursue the objectives of high levels of yield, efficient production, and environmental friendliness in agricultural production by scale of farmlands, intensification of factors, diversification of functions, and mechanization of production, and then indirectly promote the process of agricultural modernization [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. In essence, this reform is a further extension of the land marketization reform, which is to realize the shift of farmland rights from decentralization to centralization by market means rather than administrative means. The control rights of farmland of farmers still retain considerable real rights, and they have shifted with the change in demand of farmers. They not only avoid the negative impact of land circulation by administrative means on farmers’ enthusiasm for production, but also increase income growth channels for farmers, which is an effective mean to promote economic growth with market rules. The rights relationship of farmland was adjusted by administrative means in the early stage of reform, but its fundamental purpose is to clear the obstacles in order to complete the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization by market means. Obviously, in farmland issues, the intervention of administrative means can effectively make up for the deficiency of market means because it can avoid market failure by modifying the rights relationship of farmland.
Yuyang’s experiences show that the farmland issue is a complex one that cannot be solved by a theory based on a single type of property rights. The theory of property rights based on private ownership is still the main property rights theory, but it is still difficult to explain the issue of farmland without considering the public benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to explore agricultural land issues from the perspectives of public welfare and private benefits. Moreover, when considering the issue of farmland, administrative means are effective supplements to market means because it is difficult to achieve optimal allocation of farmland simply by relying on the market. The intervention of administrative means does not mean that it does not conform to the market rules, although it plays a key role in the process of the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization. In Yuyang’s practice, administrative means are used to remove obstacles that hinder the optimal allocation of farmland by market means, and the decision-making power of farmland allocation is still in the hands of the market. The reform has empowered rural collectives to participate in market activities, which is a way to facilitate the public benefits. Undoubtedly, the completion of the reform is a policy accelerator for the optimal allocation of farmland in the new development stage, which goes with the flow of change in social demand and promotes agricultural modernization.

5.2. Implications

As mentioned of this study, the reform is not an end, but a method to achieve the ultimate mission. Unlike previous studies, this study focuses on the contribution of reform to agricultural modernization and explores the impact mechanism of reforms on agricultural modernization. It innovatively links the farmland rights system reform with the three objectives of agricultural production, studies the impact mechanism of reform accelerating objectives of agricultural production, and evaluates the effect degree of reform promoting agricultural modernization based on the results. Meanwhile, this study constructs an indicators system to quantitatively analyze the impact of the reform on agricultural modernization, which overcomes the shortcomings of previous studies that excessively relied on the literature and documents to evaluate reform performance. Furthermore, this study sorts out the process of farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization in Yuyang District and summarizes the experiences of practice. It does note that the reform is an infant attempt in China, and rural collectives that have completed the shift in farmland rights from decentralization to centralization by market means are still in the minority, so the result of this study confirms the effectiveness of the reform design of the central government and provides some advanced experiences for other regions.
There are some limitations that are deserving of further study. Firstly, agricultural modernization has diverse demands on land use, including production, life, ecology, etc. [54], but this study only explores impact mechanism of farmland reform on agricultural modernization from the perspective of agricultural production, so the choice of study perspective is lack of diversity. Therefore, future studies should attempt to explore the impact mechanism of the reform on agricultural modernization in a comprehensive perspective, including all objectives of agricultural modernization. Secondly, the indicators system for evaluating reform performance constructed in this study is not perfect because of the single perspective of the study. It can only indirectly evaluate the effect of the reform on agricultural modernization by analyzing the impact of reform on agricultural production. Further studies should conduct a comprehensive indicators system based on diverse perspectives for evaluating reform performance. Finally, it is premature to evaluate the result of the reform on the example of one district, so further studies should consider how to explore this issue in a wider space.

6. Conclusions

In this study, it analyzes the process of promoting the optimal allocation of farmland from the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization based on the shift theory of land rights and analyzes the methods of the new agricultural business entities to promote the agricultural modernization, then deduces the theoretical approach of farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization promoting agricultural modernization based on these analyses. Meanwhile, a multi-dimensional indicator system is established to evaluate reform performance. According to a theoretical approach and an indicator system, the reform practice of Yuyang District has been sorted out and evaluated, which proves that the practice is scientific and feasible. The study has shown that the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization has alleviated the fragmentation of farmland and coordinated the new agricultural business entities to develop appropriate scale management of farmland, and it has assisted the pursuit of high level of yield, efficient production, and environment friendly objectives of agricultural production that promote the realization of agricultural modernization. Therefore, the farmland rights system reform from decentralization to centralization is an important prerequisite for agricultural modernization, which indirectly promotes the realization of agricultural modernization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.C.; methodology, L.C. and C.C.; data curation, L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C.; writing—review and editing, L.C., C.C. and B.Z.; supervision, B.Z.; resources, F.Y., W.W. and C.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Project with the title of “Research on The Path of Standardized and Efficient Utilization of Land Resources in Yuyang District” from Office of Policy Research of Yuyang District in Yulin City of Shaanxi Province in China, 2022 Soft Science Project of Agricultural Collaborative Innovation and Promotion Alliance of Shaanxi Province in China (No. LMR202203), Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi province in China (No. 2022ZDLNY02-01) and Project of Yulin Agriculture and Rural Bureau of Shaanxi Province in China (No. YLYHYTYQY2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to management rules of research group.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
Mu is a unit of area, which is equal to 0.0667 hectares.
2
Yuan refers to the currency unit of RMB.

References

  1. Ye, J. Land Transfer and the Pursuit of Agricultural Modernization in China. J. Agrar. Chang 2015, 15, 314–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guo, Y.; Liu, Y. Poverty alleviation through land assetization and its implications for rural revitalization in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 105, 105418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhou, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, Y. Rural land system reforms in China: History, issues, measures and prospects. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jiang, H.; Tian, S.; Chen, L. Research on the reform of market-oriented allocation of land factors in the new era based on consensus perspective. Issues Agric. Econ. 2022, 2, 70–84. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kan, K. Creating land markets for rural revitalization: Land transfer, property rights and gentrification in China. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Long, H.; Cui, W. Community-based rural residential land consolidation and allocation can help to revitalize hollowed villages in traditional agricultural areas of China: Evidence from Dancheng County, Henan Province. Land Use Policy 2014, 39, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, W. Short-term or long-term? New insights into rural collectives’ perceptions of Land Value Capture within China’s rural land marketization reform. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 89, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Qian, Z.; Mu, Y. Path selection of rural revitalization and the further reform of rural land institution. Issues Agric. Econ. 2020, 4, 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gao, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J. China’s initiatives towards rural land system reform. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhou, C.; Liang, Y.; Fuller, A. Tracing agricultural land transfer in China: Some legal and policy issues. Land 2021, 10, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Y.; Zang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 1923–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, Q.; Zhang, X. Three rights separation: China’s proposed rural land rights reform and four types of local trials. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Han, C. The reform of China’s rural land system. Issues Agric. Econ. 2019, 1, 4–16. [Google Scholar]
  14. Xu, Y.; Huang, X.; Bao, H.X.; Ju, X.; Zhong, T.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, Y. Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Y. The organized path of land transfer: Virtual land titling and the activation of collective land ownership. J. Nanjing Agric. Univ. 2020, 20, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, J.; Ji, Y.; Hu, H. Property right protection and farmer’s land transfer contract selection. Jianghai Acad. J. 2016, 3, 74–80+238. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gorgan, M.; Hartvigsen, M. Development of agricultural land markets in countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wen, G.; Yang, G. Impact mechanism and empirical study of cultivated land fragmentation on farmers’ cultivated land productivity. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2019, 29, 138–148. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhang, J. The shift theory of land rights and its explanation to the problems of land property right. Econ. Res. Guide 2011, 137, 104–106. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cai, J.L.M. The history and logic of contemporary of China’s land institutional changes. Econ. Perspect. 2021, 12, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, H. International comparison and reference of land expropriation system. Jiangxi Soc. Sci. 2009, 4, 163–169. [Google Scholar]
  22. Heng, A. Comparison and enlightenment of land expropriation system in China and America. Probe 2015, 6, 187–192. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yan, J.; Yang, Y.; Xia, F. Subjective land ownership and the endowment effect in land markets: A case study of the farmland “three rights separation” reform in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shi, X.; Gao, X.; Fang, S. Land System Reform in Rural China: Path and Mechanism. Land 2022, 11, 1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, L.; Feng, S. A Century of Evolution and Historical Experience of the CPC’s Rural Land System Reform. Issues Agric. Econ. 2021, 12, 4–15. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ding, C. Land policy reform in China: Assessment and prospects. Land Use Policy 2003, 20, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kung, J.K. Common property rights and land reallocations in rural China: Evidence from a village survey. World Dev. 2000, 28, 701–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, S. China’s two-stage land reform. Int. Econ. Rev. 2017, 5, 29–56. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gong, M.; Li, H.; Elahi, E. Three Rights Separation reform and its impact over farm’s productivity: A case study of China. Land Use Policy 2022, 122, 106393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, X.; Zhang, A.; Wen, L.; Bin, P. How horizontal integration affects transaction costs of rural collective construction land market? An empirical analysis in Nanhai District, Guangdong Province, China. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Li, X.; Liu, J.; Huo, X. Impacts of tenure security and market-oriented allocation of farmland on agricultural productivity: Evidence from China’s apple growers. Land Use Policy 2021, 102, 105233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.; Zhou, Q. Evaluation of development of agricultural modernization in central China. IERI Procedia 2013, 4, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Huttunen, S. Revisiting agricultural odernization: Interconnected farming practices driving rural development at the farm level. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 71, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Horlings, L.G.; Marsden, T.K. Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological odernization of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Xie, H.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Q. Prospects for agricultural sustainable intensification: A review of research. Land 2019, 8, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Clune, T.; Downey, H. Very good farmers, not particularly good business-people: A rural financial counsellor perspective on rural business failure. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 95, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, B.; Niu, W.; Ma, L.; Zuo, X.; Kong, X.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, W.; Zhao, M.; Xia, X. A company-dominated pattern of land consolidation to solve land fragmentation problem and its effectiveness evaluation: A case study in a hilly region of Guangxi Autonomous Region, Southwest China. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. 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]
  39. Chi, N.T.K. Driving factors for green innovation in agricultural production: An empirical study in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 368, 132965. [Google Scholar]
  40. Qiao, F. Increasing wage, mechanization, and agriculture production in China. China Econ. Rev. 2017, 46, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pingali, P. Agricultural mechanization: Adoption patterns and economic impact. Handb. Agric. Econ. 2007, 3, 2779–2805. [Google Scholar]
  42. Qiu, T.; Shi, X.; He, Q.; Luo, B. The paradox of developing agricultural mechanization services in China: Supporting or kicking out smallholder farmers? China Econ. Rev. 2021, 69, 101680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Emerick, K.; De Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E.; Dar, M.H. Technological innovations, downside risk, and the modernization of agriculture. Am. Econ. Rev. 2016, 106, 1537–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Long, H.; Ge, D.; Zhang, Y.; Tu, S.; Qu, Y.; Ma, L. Changing man-land interrelations in China’s farming area under urbanization and its implications for food security. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 209, 440–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ge, D.; Long, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, L.; Li, T. Farmland transition and its influences on grain production in China. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, B.; Li, X.; Chen, H.; Niu, W.; Kong, X.; Yu, Q.; Zhao, M.; Xia, X. Identifying opportunities to close yield gaps in China by use of certificated cultivars to estimate potential productivity. Land Use Policy 2022, 117, 106080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, C. Land consolidation and rural revitalization in China: Mechanisms and paths. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yuan, X.; Shao, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wei, X.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Y. Cultivated land quality improvement to promote revitalization of sandy rural areas along the Great Wall in northern Shaanxi Province, China. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 93, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, Y.; Li, Y. Promotion of degraded land consolidation to rural poverty alleviation in the agro-pastoral transition zone of northern China. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, Y.; Zou, L.; Wang, Y. Spatial-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of agricultural eco-efficiency in China in recent 40 years. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Long, H.; Tu, S.; Ge, D.; Li, T.; Liu, Y. The allocation and management of critical resources in rural China under restructuring: Problems and prospects. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 47, 392–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ye, J.; Li, Y.; Dong, D.; Zhou, X. Comprehensive Evaluation on Agricultural Modernization Development of Heilongjiang Province Based on Entropy Method and Generalized Least Squares. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 208, 391–400. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chai, C.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Niu, W.; Zheng, W.; Kong, X.; Yu, Q.; Zhao, M.; Xia, X. A new multi-dimensional framework considering environmental impacts to assess green development level of cultivated land during 1990 to 2018 in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 98, 106927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, Y. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 02241 g001 550
Figure 1. The right of control of the right holder.
Figure 1. The right of control of the right holder.
Land 11 02241 g001
Land 11 02241 g002 550
Figure 2. The real right of land between the public owner and the private owner.
Figure 2. The real right of land between the public owner and the private owner.
Land 11 02241 g002
Land 11 02241 g003 550
Figure 3. The theoretical approach of reform promoting agricultural modernization.
Figure 3. The theoretical approach of reform promoting agricultural modernization.
Land 11 02241 g003
Land 11 02241 g004 550
Figure 4. The farmland rights system reform in Yuyang District.
Figure 4. The farmland rights system reform in Yuyang District.
Land 11 02241 g004
Table
Table 1. Indicator system for evaluating impacts of the reform on agricultural modernization.
Table 1. Indicator system for evaluating impacts of the reform on agricultural modernization.
Base LayerIndicatorsIndex Calculation
High level of yieldAverage area per household (mu1)Original data
Average number of plots per household (piece)Original data
Average yield of unit farmland (kg)Original data
Efficient productionMechanization rate (%)Original data
Labor productivity (%)Gross output value of agriculture/Number of people employed in agriculture
Input-output ratio of unit farmland (%)The economic revenue of unit farmland/The economic cost of unit farmland
Environment friendlyEcological service valueCrop area × Crop price × Regional correction factor × Value equivalent factors of various ecosystem services, followed by its consequent sum
Total carbon emissions (t)The amount of a single carbon emission source × The corresponding carbon emission coefficient, followed by its consequent sum
Carbon intensity (t/hm2)Total carbon emissions/Farmland area
Table
Table 2. The data obtained by the field research of this study group.
Table 2. The data obtained by the field research of this study group.
TimeQuestionnaire (Rural Collectives)Questionnaire (Farmers)Interview RecordsWork Documents
September 20203134700
July 2021315310
February 202211471928
August 20222948900
Table
Table 3. Comparison of yield indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
Table 3. Comparison of yield indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
BeforeAfterChanges
High level of yieldAverage area of farmland per agricultural business entity (mu)26.448.87+22.47
Average number of plots per agricultural business entity (piece)162.4−13.6
Average yield of unit farmland (kg)729.8864.9+135.1
Table
Table 4. Comparison of efficiency indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
Table 4. Comparison of efficiency indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
BeforeAfterChanges
Efficient productionMechanization rate (%)6379.6+16.6
Labor productivity (%)65.7114.5+48.8
Input-output ratio of unit farmland (%)149.2160.5+11.3
Table
Table 5. Comparison of environmental friendliness indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
Table 5. Comparison of environmental friendliness indicators before and after the farmland rights system reform.
BeforeAfterChanges
Environmental friendlinessEcological service value101.7144.8+43.1
Total carbon emissions (t)46,92645,400−1562
Carbon intensity (t/hm2)0.290.28−0.01
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cai, L.; Chai, C.; Zhang, B.; Yang, F.; Wang, W.; Zhang, C. The Theoretical Approach and Practice of Farmland Rights System Reform from Decentralization to Centralization Promoting Agricultural Modernization: Evidence from Yuyang District in Shaanxi, China. Land 2022, 11, 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122241

AMA Style

Cai L, Chai C, Zhang B, Yang F, Wang W, Zhang C. The Theoretical Approach and Practice of Farmland Rights System Reform from Decentralization to Centralization Promoting Agricultural Modernization: Evidence from Yuyang District in Shaanxi, China. Land. 2022; 11(12):2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122241

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cai, Lu, Chaoqing Chai, Bangbang Zhang, Feng Yang, Wei Wang, and Chengdong Zhang. 2022. "The Theoretical Approach and Practice of Farmland Rights System Reform from Decentralization to Centralization Promoting Agricultural Modernization: Evidence from Yuyang District in Shaanxi, China" Land 11, no. 12: 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122241

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop