Side-by-side Chinese-English

基层公共农技推广对农户技术采纳的影响——以水稻科技示范为例

佟大建1 黄武2 应瑞瑶1

(1.南京农业大学经济管理学院)
(2.南京农业大学人文与社会发展学院)

【摘要】本文利用11省份994户水稻种植户调查数据, 在采用倾向得分匹配法克服农技推广内生性问题的基础上分析了基层公共农技推广对农户农业技术采纳的影响。研究发现, 基层公共农技推广在一定程度上提升了农户的技术采纳水平, 具有部分的溢出效应且不同经营规模的农户受益程度不同。相对于非示范村农户, 基层公共农技推广显著提升了示范户测土配方施肥、秸秆还田和病虫害绿色防治技术的采纳水平, 也显著提升了示范村非示范户测土配方施肥和秸秆还田技术的采纳水平, 但并未显著提升其病虫害绿色防治技术的采纳水平;经营规模细分后的估计结果显示, 基层公共农技推广对小规模经营农户技术采纳有显著的正向影响, 对大规模经营农户技术采纳无显著影响。因此, 应进一步提升基层公共农技推广的溢出效应, 对于不同类型的农业技术要分类指导, 且在推广对象选取时不应过分强调经营规模, 对小规模经营农户也要给予充分关注。

【关键词】 基层公共农技推广;技术采纳;溢出效应;分配效应;

【DOI】

【基金资助】 国家社会科学基金项目“农户视角的农技推广效果评估及提升策略研究” (项目号:16BGL124) ; 国家自然科学基金项目“细碎化产权VS整片化土地利用:评承包地确权颁证对农户农地利用集体布局、投资与流转的影响” (项目号:71773050) ; 南京农业大学中央高校基本科研业务费人文社会科学基金项目 (项目号:SKPT2016016) ;

Impacts of grassroots public agricultural technology promotion on farmers’ technology adoption: an empirical analysis of rice technology demonstration

TONG Dajian1 HUANG Wu2 Ying Ruiyao1

(1.School of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University)
(2.School of Humanities & Social Development, Nanjing Agricultural University)

【Abstract】This article analyzes the impacts of promotion of grassroots public agricultural technology (GPATE) on farmers’ technology adoption based on survey data from 994 rice farmers in 11 provinces. It uses the propensity score matching to overcome the potential endogeneity of technology promotion. The results indicate that GPATE promotes technology adoption to some extent, generates partial spillover effects and different benefits for farmers with varied scales of operation. Compared to farmers in non-demonstration villages, GPATE significantly promotes the adoption behaviors of demonstration households in testing soil for formulated fertilization, straw returning and green-controlling of pests and diseases. It also significantly promotes the adoption behaviors of non-demonstration households in demonstration villages in testing soil for formulated fertilization and straw returning, yet without significant impacts on using green-controlling of pests and diseases technology. Moreover, GPATE significantly promotes technology adoption behaviors of small-scale farmers, but it has no significantly positive impact for large-scale farmers. Future policies should work to enhance spillover effects of GPATE, give classified guidance for different technologies, avoid overemphasizing scale operation in selecting promotion targets, and give more attention to small-scale farmers.

【Keywords】 promotion of grassroots public agricultural technology; technology adoption; spillover effect; allocation effect;

【DOI】

【Funds】 project of National Social Science Fund (16BGL124); project of National Natural Science Foundation (71773050); project of Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Nanjing Agricultural University (SKPT2016016);

Download this article
    Footnote

    [1]. ① As the probability of technology spillovers from the non-demonstration village farmers is very low, the interference of technology spillover can be eliminated by using them as the control group. [^Back]

    [2]. ① The propensity score estimation is based on the sample of demonstration villages, which can better identify the allocation of promotion resources among the farmers, because in fact, only in the villages where science and technology demonstration is carried out can the farmers have the opportunity to become demonstration households. [^Back]

    [3]. ① In the sample, the scale of farmer household management is unevenly distributed and the standard deviation is very large. This paper divides farmer households into ten mu management scale, in order to better balance the sub-sample size of treatment group and non-treatment group. [^Back]

    References

    1. Chen, Z., Li, H., Liu, X. et al. Forward Position or Economics (产经评论), (3) (2015).

    2. Chu, C., Feng, S. & Zhang, W. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (3) (2012).

    3. Feng, X. China Rural Survey (中国农村观察), (2) (2015).

    4. Gao, Y., Wang, N., Li, X. et al. Issues in Agricultural Economy (农业经济问题), (1) (2017).

    5. Hua, C., Lu, Q., Jiang, Y. et al. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics (农业技术经济), (4) (2013).

    6. Huang, J., Hu, R. & Zhi, H. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics (农业技术经济), (1) (2009).

    7. Jiang, C. Theoretical Investigation (理论探讨), (1) (2015).

    8. Sun, X. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Social Science Edition) (西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版)), (2) (2017).

    9. Wen, C. & Wu, J. Journal of China Agricultural University (中国农业大学学报), (9) (2016).

    10. Ying, R. & Zhu, Y. China Rural Survey (中国农村观察), (1) (2015).

    11. Yu, Y. & Zhang, J. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (11) (2009).

    12. Biggs, S., and G. Smith, 1998, “Beyond Methodologies: Coalition-building Participatory Technology Development”, World Development, 26 (2): 238–239.

    13. Cleaver, F., 1999, “Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development”, Journal of International Development, 11 (4): 597–612.

    14. Cunguara, B., and I. Darnhofer, 2011, “Assessing the Impact of Improved Agricultural Technologies on Household Income in Rural Mozambique”, Food Policy, 36 (3): 378–390.

    15. Emmanuel, D., E. Owusu-Sekyere, V. Owusu, and H. Jordaan, 2016, “Impact of Agricultural Promotion Service on Adoption of Chemical Fertilizer: Implications for Rice Productivity and Development in Ghana”, NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 79 (11): 41–49.

    16. Evenson, R., 1997, Improving Agricultural Promotion: A Reference Manual, Rome: FAO.

    17. Feder, G., R. R. Murgai, and J. B. Quizon, 2004, “The Acquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: The Case of Pest Management Training in Farmer Field Schools, Indonesia”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55 (2): 221–243.

    18. Feder, G., and R. Slade, 1986, “A Comparative Analysis of Some Aspects of the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Promotion in India”, Journal of Development Studies, 22 (2): 407–428.

    19. Heckman, J. J., H. Ichimura, and P. E. Todd, 1997, “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Program”, Review of Economic Studies, 64 (4): 605–654.

    20. Hoang, L. A., J. Castella, and P. Novosad, 2006, “Social Networks and Information Access: Implications for Agricultural Promotion in a Rice Farming Community in Northern Vietnam”, Agriculture and Human Values, 23 (4): 513–527.

    21. Hu, R. F., Y. Q. Cai, K. Z. Chen, and J. K. Huang, 2012, “Effects of Inclusive Public Agricultural Promotion Service: Results from a Policy Reform Experiment in Western China”, China Economic Review, 23 (4): 962–974.

    22. Hujer, R., M. Caliendo, and S. L. Thomsen, 2004, “New Evidence on the Effects of Job Creation Schemes in Germany: A Matching Approach with Threefold Heterogeneity”, Research in Economics, 58 (4): 257–302.

    23. Kondylis, F., V. Mueller, and J. Zhu, 2017, “Seeing is Believing? Evidence from an Promotion Network Experiment”, Journal of Development Economics, 125 (2): 7–20.

    24. Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin, 1983, “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects”, Biometrika, 70 (1): 41–55.

    25. Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin, 1985, “Constructing Control Group Using a Multivariate Matched Sampling Method that Incorporates the Propensity Score”, American Statistician, 39 (1): 33–38.

    26. Rosenbaum P. R., 2002, Observational Studies, New York: Springer.

    27. Tripp, R., M. Wijeratne, and V. H. Piyadasa, 2005, “What Should We Expect from Farmer Field Schools? A Sri Lanka Case Study”, World Development, 33 (10): 1705–1720.

This Article

ISSN:1006-4583

CN: 11-3586/F

Vol , No. 04, Pages 59-73

July 2018

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Analytical framework and econometric model
  • 3 Data sources, variable selection and descriptive statistics
  • 4 Empirical results and analysis
  • 5 Conclusion and enlightenment
  • Footnote

    References