Do cooperatives promote family farms to choose environmental-friendly production practices: an empirical analysis of fertilizers and pesticides reduction
(2.Center for Food Security and Strategic Studies, Nanjing University of Finance & Economics)
(3.Rural Development Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
【Abstract】Under the background of resource and environment constraints, whether and how family farms can coordinate the sustainable development of agriculture and environment have become major practical problems. Taking the fertilizers and pesticides reduction behavior as an example, this paper uses the national monitoring data of family farms and builds a “counterfactual” framework based on an econometric analysis model to evaluate the treatment effects of cooperatives on the probability of fertilizers and pesticides reduction. The study finds that the proportion of family farms that reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides is still low. Cooperatives have positive impacts on the adoption of environmental-friendly production practices. Compared with non-members, cooperative members can increase the probability of fertilizers and pesticides reduction by 43.3% and 43.7%, respectively. In addition, differences in services and benefits obtained from cooperatives can partly explain family farms’ different treatment effects of joining cooperatives. Finally, the study provides three policy suggestions.
【Keywords】 family farm; cooperative; environmental-friendly production practice; treatment effect;
(Translated by MA Shujun)
. ① Whether the chemical fertilizer application is reduced or not is taken as the explained variable and exclusive constraint variable, while the other controlling variables are taken as the explaining variables, meanwhile, by using Probit model regression, it is found that the coefficient of exclusive constrain variable is −0.194, and the corresponding p value is 0.290. Whether the pesticide application is reduced or not is taken as the explained variable and exclusive constraint variable, while the other controlling variables are taken as the explaining variables. Meanwhile, by using Probit model regression, it is found that the coefficient of exclusive constrain variable is −0.139, and the corresponding p value is 0.425. [^Back]
. ① Explaining variables include the variable whether to join the cooperative or not, and other controlling variables. In order to save space, the model regression results are not listed herein. [^Back]
. ② The cmp command can be used for estimation in STATA software. [^Back]
. ① ρ12 and ρ13 are the residuals of the equation whether to reduce the application or not; the correlation between the residuals of the equation whether to reduce the application of pesticide or not is the residual difference and chemical fertilizer amount of the equation whether to join the cooperative or not; ρ23 is the residual of the equation whether to reduce the application of chemical fertilizer or not and the correlation coefficient of the residual of the equation whether to reduce the application of pesticide or not. [^Back]
. ② exp (1.072) − 1 ≈ 1.92. [^Back]
. ③ exp (0.794) − 1 ≈ 1.21. [^Back]
1. Cai, Y. & Du, Z. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (12) (2016).
2. He, J. & Qi, C. Reform of the Economic System (经济体制改革), (2) (2018).
3. Ji, Y., Zhang, H., Lu, W. et al. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics (农业技术经济), (2) (2016).
4. Liu, W., Du, Z. & Gao, L. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (4) (2018).
5. Qiu, H., Luan, H., Li, J. et al. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (3) (2014).
6. Wang, X., Wang, X., Du, Z. et al. Dongyue Tribune (东岳论丛), (3) (2018).
7. Wang, J. China Rural Survey (中国农村观察), (5) (2011).
8. Zhu, D., Kong, X. & Gu, J. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (8) (2014).
9. Zhu, Q. Journal of China Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition) (中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)), (2) (2013).
10. Zhang, C. & Xiao, H. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics (农业技术经济), (3) (2009).
11. Goodhue, R., S. Mohapatra, and C. Rausser, 2010, “Interactions between Incentive Instruments: Contracts and Quality in treatment Tomatoes”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92 (5): 1283–1293.
12. Lokshin, M., and B. Newson, 2011, “Impact of Interventions on Discrete Outcomes: Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Binary Choice Models with Binary Endogenous Regressors”, Stata Journal, 11 (3): 368–385.
13. Miranda, A., and S. Rabe-Hesketh, 2006, “Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Endogenous Switching and Sample Selection Models for Binary, Ordinal, and Count Variables”, Stata Journal, 6 (3): 285–308.
14. Saenger, C., M. Qaim, and M. Torero, 2013, “Contract Farming and Smallholder Incentives to Produce High Quality: Experimental Evidence from the Vietnamese Dairy Sector”, Agricultural Economics, 44 (3): 297–308.