基于CE的不同流向下农地城市流转负外部效应研究

发展与保护的权衡是土地资源配置中难以回避的棘手问题。农地城市流转在为城镇化的快速推进提供土地要素的同时,却也在社会、生态方面引起一系列外部性损失,已有研究认为该损失的大小与农地城市流转的用途和周围环境有关,但并未进一步定量揭示其关联程度。鉴于此,本文将农地城市流转的去向归纳为住宅及商服用地、工矿仓储及交通运输用地、公共管理与公共服务用地三类,以武汉市和鄂州市作为研究区域,运用选择实验法(CE)以及多元Logit模型(MNL)识别了受访者对于农地城市流转负外部效应治理方案的偏好,从而间接测度了不同流向下农地城市流转负外部效应的经济总量,以期为实施农地城市流转的用途和规模管制提供依据。结果表明:1不同流向下农地城市流转产生的交通状况恶化、噪音污染、公共设施不足等七种类别负外部效应在类型和强度上有所差异;2绝大多数居民对治理农地城市流转的负外部性具有支付意愿,且在参与程度和参与强度(支付额)方面因农地城市流转的不同流向而有所区别,并且居民的受教育程度和家庭收入水平对选择效用的影响具有显著性且呈正相关关系;3不同流向下农地城市流转所产生的负外部效应的经济总量不容忽视,三种流向的负外部效应从大到小依次为农地流转为工矿仓储及交通运输用地、公共管理与公共服务用地、住宅及商服用地。因此,作为农地城市流转的管制主体,各级政府应当采用经济性管制与社会性管制并举的多样化管制手段对农地城市流转的用途和规模予以调控和管制。     

湖北省农地资源正外部性价值量估算——基于对农地社会与生态之功能和价值分类的分析

农地资源的正外部性直接或间接对人类福利产生影响,但由于市场机制的自身缺陷导致人们对其价值缺乏定量认识,致使农地资源得不到应有的保护,造成向城市的过度流转。以湖北省为例,在将农地资源正外部性划分为提供社会保障、保证粮食安全以及提供生态服务3个方面的基础上,以2006年为评估期日,尝试用市场价格评估的方法对其年价值和无限年期的总价值进行了估算。结果显示：2006年湖北省农地资源在提供社会保障方面的年价值及无限年期价值分别为87460元/hm2·a和34 70635元/hm2;粮食安全保障功能的年价值及无限年期价值分别为32209元/hm2·a和12 78135元/hm2;生态服务功能的年价值及无限年期价值分别为4 34855元/hm2·a和172 56151元/hm2。最终核算出湖北省正外部性的年价值总量及无限年期价值总量分别为5 54524元/hm2·a和220 04921元/hm2,这部分无法通过市场价格表现的价值大致与湖北省农地经济产出价值相当,甚至略高出5%~38%,无疑是农地价值中不容忽视的重要组成部分,应当引起土地管理者和社会决策者的充分重视。农地城市流转的失控和对农地保护的忽视实质上就是对农地正外部效用的抛弃和破坏,最终将阻碍社会经济的可持续发展。     

湖北省农地资源正外部性价值量估算——基于对农地社会与生态之功能和价值分类的分析

农地资源的正外部性直接或间接对人类福利产生影响，但由于市场机制的自身缺陷导致人们对其价值缺乏定量认识，致使农地资源得不到应有的保护，造成向城市的过度流转。以湖北省为例，在将农地资源正外部性划分为提供社会保障、保证粮食安全以及提供生态服务3个方面的基础上，以2006年为评估期日，尝试用市场价格评估的方法对其年价值和无限年期的总价值进行了估算。结果显示：2006年湖北省农地资源在提供社会保障方面的年价值及无限年期价值分别为87460元/hm2·a和34 70635元/hm2；粮食安全保障功能的年价值及无限年期价值分别为32209元/hm2·a和12 78135元/hm2；生态服务功能的年价值及无限年期价值分别为4 34855元/hm2·a和172 56151元/hm2。最终核算出湖北省正外部性的年价值总量及无限年期价值总量分别为5 54524元/hm2·a和220 04921元/hm2，这部分无法通过市场价格表现的价值大致与湖北省农地经济产出价值相当，甚至略高出5%~38%，无疑是农地价值中不容忽视的重要组成部分，应当引起土地管理者和社会决策者的充分重视。农地城市流转的失控和对农地保护的忽视实质上就是对农地正外部效用的抛弃和破坏，最终将阻碍社会经济的可持续发展。     

农地城市流转中不同权利主体的福利均衡分析

以福利经济学为理论基础,探讨了农地城市流转中不同权利主体的福利变化;通过建立农地城市流转的福利分配模型,得出结论:社会福利绝对量的大小和各权利主体所得相对量的大小均与一定阶段内农地城市流转的速度密切相关;政府应确定一个公平、合理的征地价格,才足以弥补农民失地后损失的经济收益和社会保障;并通过构建农地城市流转的社会福利函数,分析了社会福利最大化的实现条件,结果表明:必须按照农业用地边际生产效益等于非农用地边际生产效益的原则配置土地资源,方可兼顾农地非农化配置的效率和公平,并实现土地资源的可持续利用;最后,针对土地市场机制、收益分配机制和失地农民的社会保障机制提出了相关的政策建议.     

农地选择价值研究的进展与趋势

为全面评估农地总价值、进一步深入研究农地城市流转过程中的选择价值,采用文献回顾法和归纳法综述了国内外有关选择价值的研究进展与趋势。研究发现,国内外关于选择价值的研究侧重点有所不同,研究成果也有差距。国内学者将选择价值、存在价值、遗产价值三者进行综合研究,研究内容较为单一,研究方法也以定性分析为主。而国外学者偏重于将选择价值单独进行研究,研究内容包括选择价值的概念、内涵及估算方法,并将选择价值应用到是否保护资源以及是否进行投资等一系列的现实问题当中。可见,国外对于选择价值的研究比较成熟,我国学者应在研究方向及研究方法上吸取国外的研究经验、借鉴国外的研究成果,并将其应用到我国土地价值评估的研究中去,为农地城市流转决策奠定坚实的理论基础.     

关天经济区农户农地流转行为研究

农地流转是现阶段实现农地规模经营的必经之路。本文基于关天经济区622份调查问卷,建立了农地流转的农户模型,利用Heckman两阶段模型研究了交易成本认知和农户禀赋对农户参与农地流转(转出)、农地流转率的影响。研究结果表明:(1)关天经济区农户参与农地流转的积极性不高,样本农户参与农地流转的仅为23%,农地流转率均值为11%;(2)流转价格了解程度、农地流转组织形式、农地流转合约期限和对外交通便利情况影响农户是否参与农地流转决策,而农地流转率仅受流转价格了解程度和农地流转契约形式影响;(3)劳动力和土地禀赋正向影响农户转出土地,农地流转率随农业生产能力增强而降低;(4)文化程度与农户是否参与农地流转、农地流转率呈现显著的负相关关系,与天水的农户相比,关中地区的农户更倾向于参与农地流转。因此,要促进农户参与农地流转、提升农地流转率,首先要加强农地流转政策的宣传力度,提高农户整体认知水平,增强农户农地流转政策的理解程度和接受能力;其次,深化农村土地产权改革,加快农地确权颁证,提升农户产权的稳定性和可预期性;再次,建立健全农地流转市场,完善市场在农地流转过程中的信号生成机制和传递功能,降低农地流转过程中的交易成本;第四,采取相应的激励政策提高农户土地、劳动力的利用程度,提升农户农业生产能力,避免农户在农地流转市场中的逆向选择行为;最后,建立有效的农地"经营权退出机制",将束缚在农业生产上的低效劳动力和土地释放出来,实现资源的最优化配置。     

农地城市流转中农民集体福利均衡分析

农地城市流转中不同利益集团的福利状况韭已成为学者和政策制定者关注的焦点.农民集体作为影响最为深刻的利益集团之一,其福利在农地城市流转中能否实现以及如何实现均衡成为本文研究的核心内容.本文首先介绍了农民集体福利的概念及其测度方法,然后论述福利均衡的概念,提出农民集体福利均衡分析的三个假设,在此基础上,对农地城市流转中的农民集体福利进行分析,提出实现农民集体福利均衡的条件,结果表明农地城市流转中农民集体福利均衡的必要条件为农民集体获得的经济补偿大于或等于其福利损失.然后通过比较分析发现当前土地征收中农民集体获得的福利补偿不能弥补其福利损失,农地城市流转前后农民集体福利呈现不均衡状态.最后提出农地城市流转中要尊重农民集体的土地产权,进一步提高农地征收的补偿标准,使农民集体获得的货币补偿能够弥补其由于土地财产损失造成的福利损失,以实现农民集体福利的均衡;政府应当通过改善农村交通、通讯、电力、饮水、居住等条件,完善农村社会保障体系等措施提高农民集体的福利水平,以弥补农民集体土地发展权受限造成的二次福利损失.     

城乡生态经济交错区农地城市流转决策博弈研究

在城市化过程中,城乡生态经济交错区的农地被占用是一种普遍现象。在我国,农地城市流转是通过土地征用而实现的,即我国农地城市流转决策属于政府行为,因此,从决策主体行为出发,研究农地城市流转,对于我国城市化的正常推进以及农地的有效保护具有重要的现实意义。研究得出,在现有的制度安排下,地方政府更加注重区域农地流转的经济发展,村干部往往是政策的执行者,而农民在决策中往往处于弱势地位,对于农地流转决策影响不大。可见,要控制农地过量向城市流转,必须树立科学的发展观,完善决策机制,规范征地行为,提高农民参与权。     

农地城市流转前后农户福利变化差异分析

在已有研究农地城市流转农户福利指数的基础上,参考基尼系数的计算方法提出福利差异系数的概念,通过对武汉市城乡交错区被征地农户的实证研究,分析了农地城市流转前后农户福利分布情况,发现农地城市流转后农户福利差异系数为0.255,而流转前为0.103,农户间福利差距拉大.通过建立多元线性回归模型,找出影响农户福利变化程度各异的主要影响因子分别为被征土地占原有土地面积的比例、征地后是否安排工作、农民受教育程度以及农民对补偿的心理满意度;而土地被征后的用途、非农就业人口比重以及地均CDP并不是显著的影响因子,说明农民无法参与分享经济发展的成果.由此可得出结论:对农民福利补偿不能单独采用货币补偿,两应采用提供社会保障、提供工作机会、增加培训与教育机会等复合补偿方式;只有采用复合补偿方式,才能既增加被征地农户的福利水平,又有利于减小彼此之间的福利差距.     

中国城市群农地城市流转全要素生产率研究

经济社会双重转型背景下,城市群已成为带动区域经济增长的主要地域单元,其形成与发展以城市扩张为基础,需不断占用农地资源。当前主要问题为农地城市流转过度,粮食安全受到威胁、生态环境遭到不可逆转的破坏。基于此,本文以中国16大城市群为研究对象,考虑环境污染,应用基于方向性距离函数的Malmquist-Luenberger指数,利用1999年至2013共15年的面板数据,借助数据包络分析法(DEA),对农地城市流转全要素生产率(TFP)进行测算和分析。结果显示:(1)研究农地城市流转TFP时考虑非期望产出即环境污染是合理且必要的。(2)1999年至2013年,农地城市流转参与社会经济生产的过程中,减少污染与环境副作用的技术发展与推广还存在障碍,提高生产要素投入质量的能力有限。(3)对16大城市群而言,农地城市流转TFP在研究期内均下降,西部城市群下降幅度最大,中部和东部次之,东北较小。(4)珠三角、长三角和武汉城市群在农地城市流转参与社会经济生产过程中对先进技术的运用较为合理和充分,作为"环境技术领先者"次数较多。针对研究结论,为我国城市群有效进行农地城市流转提出几点建议:第一,合理控制农地城市流转规模与城市增长边界,优化农地城市流转TFP,并提升城市群经济发展质量。第二,充分考虑农地城市流转TFP及其构成要素的区域差异,根据各城市群发展特征、资源禀赋状况以及区域功能定位差异等特点,实施土地利用差别化管理。第三,更多地使用可再生的资源和环保能源,并对土地资源加以合理配置和高效利用,走绿色环保城市群发展道路。     

Multi-objective Programming and Social Welfare Analysis of Rural-urban Land Conversion Decision-making

Rural-urban land conversion is an inevitable phenomenon in urbanization and industrialization. And the decision-making issue about this conversion is multi-objective because the social decision maker (the whole of central government and local authority) has to integrate the requirements of different interest groups (rural collective economic organizations, peasants, urban land users and the ones affected indirectly) and harmonize the sub-objects (economic, social and ecological outcomes) of this land allocation process. This paper established a multi-objective programming model for rural-urban land conversion decision-making and made some social welfare analysis correspondingly. Result shows that the general object of rural-urban land conversion decision-making is to reach the optimal level of social welfare in a certain state of resources allocation, while the preference of social decision makers and the value judgment of interest groups are two crucial factors which determine the realization of the rural-urban land conversion decision-making objects.     

Welfare Balance of Different Interest Groups During Rural-urban Land Conversion

Rural-urban land conversion is currently a common social economic phenomenon during the process of economic development and rural urbanization in China. Rural-urban land conversion is positively effective as far as social and economic benefits are concerned （Yang, 2002）, but its negative effect is also evident, resulting in such problems as low efficiency of rural land configuration and loss of social welfare. Consequently, farmers should also have an equal chance to enjoy the social welfare enhanced by land conversion. Based on the theories of welfare economy, this paper puts forward policy suggestions by discussing the welfare changes of various interest groups, builds the model of welfare distribution, and analyzes the conditions of maximizing social welfare. The absolute and opposite value of social welfare is closely related with the speed of rural-urban land conversion, and governments should give farmers and collectives fair compensation to make up for the utility loss caused by land expropriation, which are conclusions drawn from this paper. This study aims to provide a theoretical basis for regulating targets and evaluation criteria, realizing the mechanism and implementation of public polices during rural-urban land conversion.     

Rural-urban Migration,Rural Household Income and Sustainable Development in Rural Areas of China

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationships among rural-urban migration, rural household income and sustainable development in rural areas of China. The typical case study is done and 288 questionnaires are collected from five villages in Hebei and Guangxi provinces, China. The migration and remittance status, household income and sustainable development of rural areas are analyzed on the basis of questionnaires. Rural-urban migration is becoming a part of routine life in rural areas. And remittance is an important component in rural household income. Rural-urban migration increases the arable land area per labor, which releases the tight human-land relationship in villages. In total, the migration increases the rural household income and accelerates the sustainable development of rural areas.     

Rural-urban Migration,Rural Household Income and Sustainable Development in Rural Areas of China

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationships among rural-urban migration, rural household income and sustainable development in rural areas of China. The typical case study is done and 288 questionnaires are collected from five villages in Hebei and Guangxi provinces, China. The migration and remittance status, household income and sustainable development of rural areas are analyzed on the basis of questionnaires. Rural-urban migration is becoming a part of routine life in rural areas. And remittance is an important component in rural household income. Rural-urban migration increases the arable land area per labor, which releases the tight human-land relationship in villages. In total, the migration increases the rural household income and accelerates the sustainable development of rural areas.     

基于外部性内化的农地城市流转调控政策工具研究进展评述

本研究采用文献回顾法、归纳法,从农地城市流转外部性的分析与测度及政策工具在农地城市流转调控中的运用两个方面,对国内外相关研究进行了归纳与总结。结果表明,现有研究从内容和方法上都有待进一步的丰富和深入:在农地城市流转外部性的理论分析和定量测算方面,其外部性的内涵、分类与边界等尚未得到严格的界定与划分,评估技术的选择和应用尚存亟待回答的问题;在基于外部性内化的农地政策流转调控政策工具的运用方面,尚需在分析思路、政策工具的系统化和细节设计方面有所深入;在实证研究方面,亟需结合我国国情结合具体事例探讨政策工具运用的预期效果及不同政策工具可能的交互作用;此外,应考虑不确定与信息不对称对调控政策工具运行效率的影响。因此,我国学者应借鉴国内外已有的研究成果和经验,从外部性内化的角度设计适于我国国情的政策工具,从而为农地城市流转调控提供可靠的理论依据,以达到合理规制农地转用秩序的目的。     

Non-agricultural Population, Employment and Land： An Econometric Study in an Integrated Framework

Abstract： his paper explored the relationships among nonagricultural population, employment and land in an integrated framework, taking account of rural-urban land conversion into Carlino-Mills＇s model on the regional growth. Two-stage-leastsquares and ordinary-least-squares were employed. Recent data for district （grade） cities in China （from 1999 to 2005） were used. Our results showed that： first, urban population influenced non-agricultural employment, and vice versa, but the evidence that non-agricultural employment influenced urban population was stronger than the evidence that urban population influenced non-agricultural employment; second, urban population and non-agricultural employment both influenced ruralurban land conversion, but the evidence that urban population influenced rural urban land conversion was more stronger than the evidence that non-agricultural employment did. We also found that： first, the employment from the secondary industry influenced urban population in a positive way, and vice versa, but the employment from the tertiary industry influenced urban population in a negative way, and vice versa; second, the employment from the secondary industry influenced rural-urban land conversion in a positive way, but the employment from the tertiary industry influenced rural-urban land conversion in a negative way. We can conclude that the key of urbanization is to speed up the process of non-agricultural employment, especially the employment from the tertiary industry, which might promote non-agricultural population, employment and land harmoniously.     

Non-agricultural Population,Employment and Land: An Econometric Study in an Integrated Framework

Abstract

This paper explored the relationships among nonagricultural population, employment and land in an integrated framework, taking account of rural-urban land conversion into Carlino–Mills’s model on the regional growth. Two-stage-leastsquares and ordinary-least-squares were employed. Recent data for district (grade) cities in China (from 1999 to 2005) were used. Our results showed that: first, urban population influenced non-agricultural employment, and vice versa, but the evidence that non-agricultural employment influenced urban population was stronger than the evidence that urban population influenced non-agricultural employment; second, urban population and non-agricultural employment both influenced ruralurban land conversion, but the evidence that urban population influenced rural urban land conversion was more stronger than the evidence that non-agricultural employment did. We also found that: first, the employment from the secondary industry influenced urban population in a positive way, and vice versa, but the employment from the tertiary industry influenced urban population in a negative way, and vice versa; second, the employment from the secondary industry influenced rural-urban land conversion in a positive way, but the employment from the tertiary industry influenced rural-urban land conversion in a negative way. We can conclude that the key of urbanization is to speed up the process of non-agricultural employment, especially the employment from the tertiary industry, which might promote non-agricultural population, employment and land harmoniously.