基于农户视角农业绿色全要素生产率的测度与分析

Measurement and analysis of agricultural green total factor productivity based on farmers’ perspectives

  • 摘要: 提升农业绿色全要素生产率, 加快农业绿色转型是全面建成社会主义现代化强国的必然选择。研究以中国家庭追踪调查(China Family Panel Studies, CFPS)的全国性大容量样本农户数据为蓝本, 在微观测度方法比较分析的基础上, 基于技术优化的Malmquist-Luenberger指数为基准, 测度分析了农户层农业绿色全要素生产率的状况, 并进一步选用核密度估计法和Dagum基尼系数法, 揭示了微观样本农业绿色全要素生产率的动态演变规律及其区域差异特征。主要研究发现如下: 1)技术优化的Malmquist-Luenberger指数测度显示, 2014年、2016年和2018年3期样本农户的农业绿色全要素生产率均值为1.0030, 总体发展态势良好; 农业绿色技术变化、绿色技术效率变化的共同作用是驱动农户层面农业绿色发展变化的主要引致因素, 且后者的影响程度远大于前者; 农户资源配置、管理模式及组织方式的改善优化, 在现阶段是农户发展绿色农业的提升关键, 其影响相对高于农户农业生产技术的革新。2)通过核密度估算发现, 2016年和2018年样本农户的绿色全要素生产率集中度较高, 农业绿色技术效率并未出现两级分化, 但农业绿色技术进步呈现上升趋势。3) Dagum基尼系数法结果表明, 农户层面农业绿色全要素生产率的区域差距不断缩小, 区域差距的降幅达22.32%, 超变密度是引致主因; 在区域内差距上, 东、西、中部地区内部, 农户的绿色农业差距依次递减; 在区域间差距上, 东西、东中、中西部间差距不断缩小、协同性不断增强, 但差距易受到环境因素影响。

     

    Abstract: Improving agricultural green total factor productivity (AGTFP) and hastening agricultural green transformation are unavoidable choices for comprehensively building a strong socialist, modernized country. Based on a comparative analysis of micro-measurement methods, this study analyzed the status of AGTFP at the farmer household level based on the technically optimized Malmquist-Luenberger index. The kernel density estimation method and the Dagum Gini coefficient method were further used to reveal the dynamic evolution of AGTFP and its regional differences in the micro-sample. The main findings are as follows: 1) From the measurement results, the mean value of AGTFP in the microfield in 2014, 2016 and 2018 was 1.0030, with a good overall development trend. The mean value of AGTFP of farmers in 2016 was 1.0099, and agricultural green development had a good growth trend. The mean values of technical efficiency change and technical progress change were 1.0165 and 0.9928, respectively, indicating that the improvement in farmers’ green agricultural technical efficiency was the main driving factor while the change in technical progress was relatively slow. In 2018, the mean value of AGTFP by farmers was 0.9960, which showed a decreasing trend. The corresponding mean values of technical efficiency change and technical progress change were 0.9765 and 1.0200, respectively, indicating that the technical efficiency improvement of green agriculture did not achieve a sustainable spillover effect and that the innovation function of technical progress change played a role in the improvement. 2) In terms of contributing factors, the use of subjective environmental assessment scores or objective provincial-level environmental pollution data as proxies for non-desired outputs among farmers with higher levels of AGTFP, agricultural green technological progress, and agricultural green technological efficiency was found to be more effective. For farmers with high levels of AGTFP, both green technological advances and green technological efficiency in agriculture were drivers of green growth, and the contribution of the latter was greater than that of the former. 3) From the perspective of a dynamic evolution pattern, in terms of AGTFP, the concentration in 2016 and 2018 was high, showing distinct clustering; however, the divergence phenomenon was not obvious, and the number of farmers with a high level of green development in 2018 was much higher than that in 2016; in terms of the agricultural technical efficiency of farmers, there was no bifurcation in 2016 and 2018. The number of low-level farmers in 2018 was higher than that in 2016, indicating that there was a regression phenomenon, and the difference between the agricultural technical efficiency of high- and low-level farmers was obvious. In terms of agricultural green technical progress of farmers, the overall trend was increasing, the number of low-level farmers in 2016 was lower, and the number of high-level farmers was relatively higher, while in 2018, the number of high- and low-level farmers remained the same, and a spatial clustering effect was evident. In 2018, the number of farmers with low levels of agricultural green technology progress decreased “precipitously.” On the premise that the number of farmers remained unchanged, this part of the low-level farmers moved to the middle- and high-level groups, forming the dynamic transfer effect of “internal push and external pull.” 4) From the perspective of regional disparity, the overall gap in AGTFP in the sample period was decreasing, with a decline of 22.32%. From the source decomposition, the hyper-variance density was the main cause of the overall regional disparity in AGTFP. From the contribution rate, the contribution rate of hyper-variance density was much higher than the contribution rate of intra- and inter-regional disparity, indicating that the cross-over problem between different regions was the main cause of the overall disparity in AGTFP at the farmer level. Further, from the intra-regional disparity, the disparity of AGTFP at the household level decreased within the eastern and western regions; from the inter-regional disparity, the disparity between the eastern and western, eastern and central, and central and western regions decreased continuously during the sample period, and the synergy was the highest, but this gap was susceptible to environmental factors.