The Impact of Migrant Workers’ Return Behaviors on Land Transfer-in: Evidence from the China Labor Dynamic Survey
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Policy Context and Theoretical Analysis
2.1. Policy Context
2.1.1. 1949–1978: The Restricted Mobility Phase
2.1.2. 1979–1988: The Initial Phase of Labor Outflow
2.1.3. 1989–2000: The Large-Scale Labor Outflow Phase
2.1.4. 2001–2011: The Two-Way Labor Flow Phase
2.1.5. 2012–Present: A Period of Widespread Returns
2.2. Theoretical Analysis
2.2.1. Human Capital, Return of Migrant Workers, and Large-Scale Farmland Management
2.2.2. The Return of Migrant Workers, the Scale of Farmland Management, and Mechanization Replacing Labor
2.2.3. The Return of Migrant Workers, the Scale of Farmland Operations, and Productive Agricultural Lending
2.2.4. Returning Migrant Workers, Farmland Scale, and Non-Farm Participation
3. Research Design
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Variable Settings
3.2.1. Explained Variables
3.2.2. Explanatory Variables
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.2.4. Mechanism Variables
3.3. Model Selection
4. Result Analysis
4.1. Baseline Regression Results
4.2. Counterfactual Framework Analysis
4.3. Endogenous Discussions
4.4. Robustness Checks
4.4.1. Substitution of Explanatory Variables
4.4.2. Replacement of Measurement Models
4.5. Further Analysis: Farmland Scale Expansion
4.5.1. The Pathway of Mechanization Replacing Labor
4.5.2. The Pathway of Increased Agricultural Production Loans
4.5.3. The Pathway of Reduced Non-Farm Participation
4.6. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.6.1. Can Age of Returning Migrant Workers Impact Farmland Transfer
4.6.2. Can Educational Level of Returning Migrant Workers Influence Farmland Transfer
4.6.3. Can the Timing of Migrant Workers’ Return Affect Farmland Transfer
4.6.4. Can Agricultural Support Services Facilitate Farmland Transfer by Returning Migrant Workers
4.6.5. Can the Return of Migrant Workers to Farming Be the Primary Driver of Large-Scale Agricultural Operations
4.6.6. Can Returning Migrant Workers Become Efficient Agricultural Businesses
4.6.7. Can Different Regions Facilitate Farmland Transfer by Returning Migrant Workers
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
6.1. Conclusions
6.2. Policy Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
TVE | Township and Village Enterprise |
OLS | Ordinary Least Squares |
CLDS | China Labor Dynamic Survey |
References
- Constant, A.F.; Zimmermann, K.F. Circular and repeat migration: Counts of exits and years away from the host country. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2011, 30, 495–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.W.; Fan, C.C. Success or failure: Selectivity and reasons of return migration in Sichuan and Anhui, China. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2006, 5, 939–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaodan, H.; Minkai, D.; Yahong, Z. Return migration and resource allocation in rural revitalization: Based on the micro-level analysis of return migrants’ behavior. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 2, 19–33. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhilei, S.; Jia, W. Migrant worker experience and rural labor force new technology acquisition. J. Zhongnan Univ. Econ. 2013, 2, 48–56+159. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xi, C.H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Qu, X. Does migration work experience promote return home for entrepreneurship? The mediation of cognitive ability and the moderation of risk preference. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, A.Z.; Pang, G.; Zeng, G. Entrepreneurial effect of rural return migrants: Evidence from China. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1078199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chi, L. How does migration working experience change farmers’ social capital in rural China? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahba, J. Selection, selection, selection: The impact of return migration. J. Popul. Econ. 2015, 28, 535–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ming, F. Migrant Workers and the Mystery of China’s High Savings Rate: An Analysis Based on a Search Matching Model. J. Manag. World 2017, 4, 20–31+59+187. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.J.; Shen, Z.; Liu, W.; Liu, Y.; Tang, B. Will the situation of Left-Behind children improve when their parents Return? evidence from China. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 164, 107856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junwu, X.; Zhaoxiong, C.; Junjie, W. Return of migrant workers, educational investment in children and intergenerational mobility in China? Econ. Anal. Policy 2022, 76, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zang, Y.Z.; Hu, S.; Zhou, B.; Lv, L.; Sui, X. Entrepreneurship and the formation mechanism of Taobao Villages: Implications for sustainable development in rural areas. J. Rural. Stud. 2023, 100, 103030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.G. Research on the linkage mechanism between migrant workers returning home to start businesses and rural industry revitalization based on the combination prediction and dynamic simulation model. Comp. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 2022, 1848822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, X.L.; Jin, Z.Y. Impact of return migration on employment structure: Evidence from rural China. J. Asian Econ. 2024, 91, 101697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L.; Yin, X.; Zheng, X.; Li, W. Lose to win: Entrepreneurship of returned migrants in China. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2017, 58, 341–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orozco-Aleman, S.; Gonzalez-Lozano, H. Return migration and self-employment: Evidence from Mexican migrants. J. Lab. Res. 2021, 42, 148–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, T.; Xiangguang, C.; Yanyan, Z. Can returning to hometown entrepreneurship raise rural residents’ income examination based on the pilot policy of returning to hometown entrepreneurship. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2024, 7, 111–128. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Hu, Y.; Zeng, W.; Liu, Z. Farmer heterogeneity and land transfer decisions based on the dual perspectives of economic endowment and land endowment. Land 2022, 11, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.S.; Wei, C.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, Y.; Yang, X. Influencing factors of farmers’ land circulation in mountainous Chongqing in China based on A multi-class logistic model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.L.; Wang, Y.; Bai, Y. Knowing and doing: The perception of subsidy policy and farmland transfer. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shui, W.; Xu, G.W. Analysis of the influential factors for changes to land use in China’s Xingwen Global Geopark against a tourism development background. Geocarto Int. 2016, 31, 22–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.R.; Zhao, Q.J. How does the method of farmland transfer affect the “non-grain” of farmland in China? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1418983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Q.; Guo, Y.; Dang, H.; Zhu, J.; Abula, K. The Second-Round Effects of the Agriculture Value Chain on Farmers’ Land Transfer-in: Evidence From the 2019 Land Economy Survey Data of Eleven Provinces in China. Land 2024, 4, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shui, W.; Wu, K.X.; Du, Y.; Yang, H.F. The Trade-Offs between Supply and Demand Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in the Bay Areas of Metropolitan Regions: A Case Study in Quanzhou, China. Land 2022, 1, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.Q.; Huang, Q.; Meng, Q.; Zang, L.; Xiao, H. Socialized farmland operation—An institutional interpretation of farmland scale management. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Zheng, W.; Zhong, T. Impact of migrant and returning farmer professionalization on food production diversity. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 94, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Statistical Office. Sexies: The Rise of Township and Village Enterprises. 1999. Available online: https://www.stats.gov.cn/zt_18555/ztfx/xzg50nxlfxbg/202303/t20230301_1920444.html (accessed on 13 April 2025).
- Linfei, S. Surplus of the rural labor force and its way out. Soc. Sci. China 1982, 05, 121–133. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hongyuan, S.; Huabo, H.; Guangming, L. Analysis of policy issues on rural labor mobility. Manag. World 2002, 5, 55–65+87–153. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, L.; Mingguo, G. Characterization of migrant workers’ return in the context of financial crisis. Rural. Econ. 2009, 12, 116–119. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Huo, C.J.; Chen, L.M. Research on the impact of land circulation on the income gap of rural households: Evidence from CHIP. Land 2021, 10, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.H.; Chen, L.; Ma, L.; Cai, L.; Li, X. Return migration, rural household investment decision, and poverty alleviation: Evidence from rural Guangdong, China. Growth Change 2023, 54, 304–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.L.; Wang, F. Can Migrant Workers Returning Home for Entrepreneurship Increase Agricultural Labor Productivity: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y. Causes and consequences of return migration: Recent evidence from China. J. Comp. Econ. 2002, 30, 376–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.; Liu, S.; Xu, D. Can the return of rural labor effectively stimulate the demand for land? empirical evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Agriculture 2025, 15, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jian, X.; Biliang, L. The core proposition of Chinese-style agricultural modernization: How small farmers move towards large-scale farmland management—Evidence from migrant workers returning to farm households. Rural. Econ. 2023, 2, 10–22. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Ma, W.; Mishra, A.K.; Gao, L. Access to credit and farmland rental market participation: Evidence from rural China. China Econ. Rev. 2020, 63, 101523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, J.Y.; Yin, J.; Xu, Y.; Wu, D. Should I stay or should I go? Job demands’ push and entrepreneurial resources’ pull in Chinese migrant workers’ return-home entrepreneurial intention. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2020, 32, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.J. Heterogeneous effects of rural-urban migration on agricultural productivity: Evidence from China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 482–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Liang, Y.; Fuller, A. Tracing agricultural land transfer in China: Some legal and policy issues. Land 2021, 10, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.P.; Huang, J.; Wang, J.; Guo, L. Return migration and Hukou registration constraints in Chinese cities. China Econ. Rev. 2020, 63, 101498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, T.; He, W.; Liu, Z. Exploring the influence of land titling on farmland transfer-out based on land parcel data. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Huan, H.T. Does the transfer of agricultural labor reduce China’s grain output? A substitution perspective of chemical fertilizer and agricultural machinery. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 961648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.X.; Luo, L.; Liu, Y.; Fu, X. Impact of labor migration on chemical fertilizer application of citrus growers: Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiaojiao, K.; Zhoufu, Y.; Fangwei, W. Does the Return of Rural Labor Inhibit the Transfer of Agricultural Land?—Another discussion on the relationship between employment distance and farmland transfer. Rural. Econ. 2024, 1, 112–121. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Fan, H.; Zhang, N.L.; Meng, C. Iinternet use, finance acquisition and returning migrant workers’ home entrepreneurship—Empirical analysis based on clds2016. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2023, 68, 1787–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, L.; Yuan, L.; Ding, Z.; Zhao, Y. How Do Support Pressure and Urban Housing Purchase Affect the Homecoming Decisions of Rural Migrant Workers? Evidence from Rural China. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, L.; Lu, H.; Gao, Q.; Lu, H. Household-owned farm machinery vs. outsourced machinery services: The impact of agricultural mechanization on the land leasing behavior of relatively large-scale farmers in China. Land Use Policy 2022, 115, 106008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Su, Q.; Lyu, J. Does access to credit matter in land transfer decision-making? Evidence from China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1111089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.; Cao, S.; Qing, C.; Xu, D.; Liu, S. Does labour migration necessarily promote farmers’ land transfer-in?—Empirical evidence from China’s rural panel data. J. Rural. Stud. 2023, 97, 534–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, H.L.; Lu, H. Impact of land fragmentation and non-agricultural labor supply on circulation of agricultural land management rights. Land Use Policy 2017, 68, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Che, Y. Off-farm employments and land rental behavior: Evidence from rural China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2016, 8, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Lu, Y.F.; Chun, Z.H. Did agricultural support protection subsidies promote grain growing by large-scale farmers?-Analysis based on data from the National Rural Fixed Observation Point Survey. Chin. Rural. Econ. 2020, 4, 15–33. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Onofri, L.; Trestini, S.; Mamine, F.; Loughrey, J. Understanding agricultural land leasing in Ireland: A transaction cost approach. Agric. Food Econ. 2023, 11, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable Category | Variable Name | Variable Definition | Average Value | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Explanatory variable | farmland_transfer | Whether transferred to agricultural land: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.138 | 0.345 |
Explanatory variable | migrant_return_farmhouse | With or without family members returning to agriculture: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.368 | 0.482 |
head_return_farm | Whether the head of household returns to agriculture: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.375 | 0.484 | |
Characteristics of the head of the household | Age | Actual age (years) | 51.226 | 11.502 |
gender | Male = 1, Female = 0 | 0.787 | 0.409 | |
education_level | Assigning values from 1 to 11 | 3.516 | 2.273 | |
hh_political_statuss | Political affiliation of the head of the household: Chinese Party member = 1, Democratic Party member = 2, Masses = 3 | 2.800 | 0.600 | |
Family characteristics | health_status | Assigning values from 1 to 5 | 3.581 | 1.010 |
avg_health_status | Total health of the family population/total number of persons | 2.031 | 0.715 | |
avg_education_level | Total education level of the household population/total number of persons | 3.446 | 1.626 | |
machinery_condition | The logarithm of the value of household farm machinery (dollars) | 0.058 | 0.731 | |
Village characteristics | mechanized_services | With or without mechanized farming services: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.358 | 0.479 |
village topography | Village topography: Plains = 0, Hills = 1 | 0.260 | 0.439 | |
location | Region in which the village is located: Eastern region = 1, Central region = 2, Western region = 3, Northeastern region = 4 | 1.999 | 0.987 | |
Mechanism variables | agri_production_loans | Whether the loan is used for productive investment: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.019 | 0.137 |
nonfarm_employment_ratio | Nonfarm payrolls/total employment | 0.723 | 0.368 | |
nonfarm_economic_status | Whether to develop the secondary and tertiary sectors: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.252 | 0.434 | |
mechanization_replacing_ labor | Purchase of own agricultural machinery: Yes = 1, No = 0 | 0.072 | 0.258 |
Empirical Analysis | Modeling | Proposed Solution | Bibliography |
---|---|---|---|
Baseline regression results | Probit | Examine how returning migrant workers influence farmers’ decisions to transfer land | Jiaojiao et al. [45] |
Self-selection bias | Propensity score matching | Mitigate the self-selection bias | Zhang et al. [44]; Wang et al. [10] |
Endogeneity test | Instrumental variable approach | Address the endogeneity arising from omitted variables | Long et al. [17]; Fan et al. [46] |
Robustness check | 2SLS; OLS | Robustness tests by substituting explanatory variables and econometric models | Jian and Biliang [36]; Xi, C.H. [5]; Niu et al. [47] |
Mechanism analysis | Three-step intermediary analysis method | Conduct an in-depth investigation of the mechanisms through which returning migrant workers stimulate farmland transfers | Lu, H.; Huan, H.T. [43] |
Variant | Farmland_Transfer | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | |||||||
0.385 *** (5.339) | 0.498 *** (4.494) | 0.486 *** (4.356) | 0.566 *** (4.100) | 0.442 *** (4.122) | 0.457 *** (4.100) | 0.447 *** (3.966) | 0.598 *** (4.264) | |
age | 0.050 (1.200) | 0.032 (0.749) | 0.013 (0.252) | 0.055 (1.327) | 0.038 (0.882) | 0.009 (0.170) | ||
age_squared | −0.001 (−1.312) | −0.000 (−0.885) | −0.000 (−0.379) | −0.001 (−1.458) | −0.000 (−1.039) | −0.000 (−0.350) | ||
gender | 0.210 (0.869) | 0.228 (0.941) | 0.224 (0.700) | 0.235 (0.973) | 0.255 (1.055) | 0.251 (0.781) | ||
hh_political_statuss | −0.114 (−1.001) | −0.120 (−1.042) | −0.132 (−0.849) | −0.123 (−1.095) | −0.126 (−1.118) | −0.121 (−0.793) | ||
education_level | 0.010 (0.192) | −0.031 (−0.513) | −0.043 (−0.589) | 0.012 (0.225) | −0.031 (−0.515) | −0.047 (−0.641) | ||
health_status | 0.016 (0.290) | 0.014 (0.222) | 0.043 (0.559) | 0.004 (0.076) | −0.002 (−0.035) | 0.003 (0.035) | ||
avg_health_status | −0.008 (−0.084) | −0.032 (−0.295) | −0.022 (−0.249) | −0.076 (−0.682) | ||||
avg_education_level | 0.087 (1.526) | 0.046 (0.647) | 0.090 (1.571) | 0.059 (0.835) | ||||
machinery_condition | 0.010 * (1.881) | 0.163 ** (2.368) | 0.100 * (1.857) | 0.164 ** (2.311) | ||||
mechanized_services | −0.093 (−0.683) | −0.034 (−0.248) | ||||||
location | 0.108 (1.582) | 0.118 * (1.721) | ||||||
village topography | −0.225 (−1.627) | −0.234 * (−1.694) | ||||||
_cons | −2.357 ** (−2.018) | −2.013 * (−1.685) | −1.540 (−1.043) | −1.274 *** (−17.594) | −2.386 ** (−2.058) | −2.018 * (−1.705) | −1.256 (−0.855) | |
N | 1935 | 875 | 875 | 622 | 879 | 875 | 875 | 622 |
adj. R2 | 0.018 | 0.036 | 0.044 | 0.074 | 0.024 | 0.031 | 0.039 | 0.077 |
Variant | Matching Method | Farmland_Transfer | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
ATT | S.E. | T Value | ||
migrant_return_farmhouse | nearest neighbor matching (1:1) | 0.076 * | 0.040 | 1.890 |
radius match | 0.125 *** | 0.033 | 3.840 | |
nuclear matching | 0.116 *** | 0.032 | 3.650 | |
head_return_farm | nearest neighbor matching (1:1) | 0.148 *** | 0.037 | 4.020 |
radius match | 0.123 *** | 0.035 | 3.520 | |
nuclear matching | 0.118 *** | 0.034 | 3.450 |
Variant | Phase I | Phase II | Phase I | Phase II |
---|---|---|---|---|
migrant_return_farmhouse | 0.292 * (1.774) | |||
head_return_farm | 0.332 * (1.762) | |||
Instrumental variable | 0.020 *** (4.470) | 0.018 *** (4.060) | ||
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Province fixed effects | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Endogeneity test | — | 1.154 | — | 1.248 |
F-statistic values for the first period | 19.956 | — | 16.510 | — |
Sample size | 622 | 622 | 622 | 622 |
Variant | Substitution of Explanatory Variables |
---|---|
Farmland_Transfer | |
Number of returned migrant workers farming | 0.153 * (1.814) |
Other control variables | Control |
R2 | 0.038 |
Observed value | 622 |
Variant | Farmland_Transfer | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | |||
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Ratio | 1.046 *** (4.059) | 0.123 *** (4.250) | 1.099 *** (4.218) | 0.132 *** (4.398) |
Control variable | Control | Control | Control | Control |
R2 | 0.074 | 0.077 | 0.048 | 0.050 |
Observed value | 622 | 622 | 622 | 622 |
Pathways of Action | Explanatory Variable | Measurement Model | Ratio | Control Variable | Observed Value | Adj-R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PanelA = migrant_return_farmhouse | ||||||
mechanization_replacing_ labor | Purchase of own agricultural machinery: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | 0.085 *** (3.312) | Control | 635 | 0.050 |
agri_production_loans | Whether the loan is used for productive investment: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | 0.009 (0.384) | Control | 634 | 0.022 |
nonfarm_employment_ratio | Nonfarm payrolls/total employment | OLS | −0.410 *** (−15.767) | Control | 608 | 0.408 |
nonfarm_economic_status | Whether to develop the secondary and tertiary sectors: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | −0.108 *** (−3.162) | Control | 635 | 0.075 |
PanelB = head_return_farm | ||||||
mechanization_replacing_ labor | Purchase of own agricultural machinery: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | 0.131 *** (4.950) | Control | 635 | 0.070 |
agri_production_loans | Whether the loan is used for productive investment: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | 0.040 * (1.684) | Control | 634 | 0.026 |
nonfarm_employment_ratio | Nonfarm payrolls/total employment | OLS | −0.204 *** (−6.629) | Control | 608 | 0.218 |
nonfarm_economic_status | Whether to develop the secondary and tertiary sectors: Yes = 1, No = 0 | OLS | −0.144 *** (−4.078) | Control | 635 | 0.084 |
Variant | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Farmland_transfer | −0.405 (−0.431) | −0.145 (−0.512) | 0.442 ** (2.378) | 0.666 ** (2.135) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observed value | 127 | 127 | 479 | 479 |
Variant | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Farmland_transfer | 0.518 ** (2.219) | 0.571 ** (2.166) | 0.037 (0.126) | 0.034 (0.125) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observed value | 389 | 389 | 233 | 233 |
Variant | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Farmland_transfer | −0.226 (−0.837) | −0.175 (−0.863) | 0.945 ** (1.990) | 0.979 * (1.910) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observed value | 219 | 219 | 403 | 403 |
Variant | Villages Have No Pro-Agriculture Services to Provide | Villages Have Pro-Agriculture and Pro-Farming Services Provided | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Ratio | 0.139 (0.864) | 0.195 (0.896) | 0.493 * (1.683) | 0.459 * (1.717) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observed value | 79 | 79 | 543 | 543 |
Variant | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Small Scale (<8 Acres) | (2) General Size (8~30 Acres) | (3) Large-Scale (>30 Acres) | (4) Small Scale (<8 Acres) | (5) General Size (8~30 Acres) | (6) Large-Scale (>30 Acres) | |
Ratio | 0.323 ** (2.017) | 0.292 * (1.774) | −0.521 (−0.354) | 0.313 ** (2.128) | 0.332 * (1.762) | 4.759 (0.089) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | ||||
Observed value | 340 | 622 | 72 | 340 | 622 | 72 |
Variant | Land Productivity | |
---|---|---|
Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | |
(1) | (2) | |
Ratio | 7.311 *** (2.683) | 6.864 *** (2.888) |
Other control variables | Control | Control |
Observed value | 543 | 543 |
Variant | Eastern and Central Regions | Western Region | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | Migrant_Return_Farmhouse | Head_Return_Farm | |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Farmland_transfer | 0.382 ** (1.980) | 0.417 ** (2.081) | 0.406 (1.035) | 0.650 (0.890) |
Other control variables | Control | Control | Control | Control |
Observed value | 271 | 271 | 223 | 223 |
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. |
© 2025 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
Zhou, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y. The Impact of Migrant Workers’ Return Behaviors on Land Transfer-in: Evidence from the China Labor Dynamic Survey. Land 2025, 14, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040869
Zhou Y, Wang Z, Wang W, Wang Y. The Impact of Migrant Workers’ Return Behaviors on Land Transfer-in: Evidence from the China Labor Dynamic Survey. Land. 2025; 14(4):869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040869
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhou, Yuzhe, Zehui Wang, Wei Wang, and Yulin Wang. 2025. "The Impact of Migrant Workers’ Return Behaviors on Land Transfer-in: Evidence from the China Labor Dynamic Survey" Land 14, no. 4: 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040869
APA StyleZhou, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, W., & Wang, Y. (2025). The Impact of Migrant Workers’ Return Behaviors on Land Transfer-in: Evidence from the China Labor Dynamic Survey. Land, 14(4), 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040869