陕西南部生态移民减贫效应研究

doi:10.18402/resci.2018.08.08

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

陕西南部生态移民计划于2011—2020年实现240万人的移民搬迁,对其减贫效率进行定量评价,可为精准扶贫和移民减贫战略提供启示和借鉴。本文利用对陕西南部商洛、安康和汉中三市1032农户4年的平衡面板数据,采用农户陷入贫困的维度数和贫困剥夺得分为贫困代理变量,使用双重差分法、基于倾向得分匹配的双重差分法和固定面板效应回归方法,对陕西南部生态移民公共政策的减贫效应进行了评价。结果显示,陕西南部生态移民政策对迁移农户的减贫效应显著,高风险偏好和拥有更多外部机会的农户更容易脱贫。在后续的生态移民政策实施过程中,应着重培育产业发展,防止搬迁农户陷入收入贫困,同时,引导农户改变风险态度并提升自我发展能力,为农户提供更多的外部机会,使生态脆弱地区农户通过生态移民摆脱贫困。

关键词: 生态移民, 减贫, 风险与机会, 陕西南部

Abstract:

Ecological migration in southern Shaanxi province is an important public policy which aims to complete the relocation of 2. 4 million people and achieves the goals of poverty alleviation and environment protection. It has been more than five years since its implementation. Through the quantitative evaluation on its efficiency in poverty alleviation, enlightenment and reference can be identified for strategies over precision poverty alleviation, immigrant-targeted poverty alleviation and rural revitalization. By utilizing four years’ panel data of over 1000 households in southern Shaanxi and taking the dimension of peasant households in poverty and poverty deprivation score as poverty proxy variable, the evaluation on poverty reduction effect of public policies for ecological migration in southern Shaanxi was carried out through such methods as DID, which is based on propensity score matching and fixed panel effect. The results demonstrated that the ecological migration policy in southern Shaanxi plays an important and significant role in an impact on multidimensional poverty alleviation of migrant peasants. However, the result of relocation will increase the possibility of peasants falling into temporary income poverty as its effect on reducing poverty deprivation score is a little bit weak. The peasants with risk preference are more likely to take part in ecological migration and get more external opportunities such as information and relationships. They can easily find more substitute livelihoods and get rid of poverty through the ecological migration. In the future poverty reduction strategy, the government needs to focus on cultivating industry development to prevent migrant peasants fall into the income poverty trap. Meanwhile, the peasants should be guided in changing risk preference to improve their self-development ability and provided more external opportunities. Eventually, the peasants in ecological vulnerable areas could alleviate poverty and improve the sustainable development ability through ecological migration.

Key words: ecological immigration, poverty alleviation, risks & opportunities;, southern Shaanxi Province

王文略, 管睿, 加贺爪优, 余劲. 陕西南部生态移民减贫效应研究[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(8): 1572-1582.

Wenlue WANG, Rui GUAN, Masara KAGATSUME, Jin YU. Poverty alleviation effect of ecological migrants in southern Shaanxi Province[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(8): 1572-1582.

图/表 5

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 36

[37]	Alkire S, Roche J M, Vaz A.Changes over time in multidimensional poverty: methodology and results for 34 countries[J]. World Development, 2017, 94: 232-249.
[38]	UNDP. Human Development Report[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[39]	Holt C A, Laury S K.Risk aversion and incentive effects[J]. American Economic Review, 2002, 92(5): 1644-1655.
[40]	Rosenbaum P R, Rubin D B.Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score[J]. American Statistician, 1985, 39(1): 33-38.
[1]	Adams R H, Page J.Do international migration and remittances reduce poverty in developing countries?[J]. World Development, 2005, 33(10): 1645-1669.
[2]	蔡昉. 中国发展经验的世界意义[J]. 经济研究, 2017, (11): 4-6.
	[Cai F.The world significance of China's development experience[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2017, (11): 4-6. ]
[3]	施国庆. 非自愿移民: 冲突与和谐[J]. 江苏社会科学, 2005, (5): 22-25.
	[Shi G Q.Involuntary immigration: conflict and harmony[J]. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 2005, (5): 22-25. ]
[4]	施国庆. 移民权益保障与政府责任[M]. 长春: 吉林人民出版社, 2009.
	[Shi G Q.Protection of Immigrant Rights and Interests and Government Responsibility [M]. Changchun: Jilin People’s Press, 2009. ]
[5]	Lee E S.A theory of migration[J]. Demography, 1966, 3(1): 47-57.
[6]	Harris J R, Todaro M P.Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis[J]. The American Economic Review, 1970, 60(1): 126-142.
[7]	Loc D N, Grote U, Sharma R.Staying in the cities or returning home? An analysis of the rural-urban migration behavior in Vietnam[J]. Iza Journal of Migration, 2017, 7(1): 2-18.
[8]	Azam J P, Gubert F.Migrants’ remittances and the Migrants’ remittances and the household in Africa: a review of evidence[J]. Journal of African Economies, 2006, 15(2): 426-462.
[9]	Imran M, Stein A, Zurita-Milla R.Investigating rural poverty and marginality in Burkina Faso using remote sensing-based products[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2014, 26(1): 322-334.
[10]	Roth V, Tiberti L.Economic effects of migration on the left-behind in Cambodia[J]. The Journal of Development Studies, 2017, 53(11): 1787-1805.
[11]	Deb U, Anupama G V, Bantilan C, et al. Seasonal migration and moving out of poverty in rural India: Insights from statistical analysis[J]. Asian Journal of Agriculture & Development, 2016, 13(2): 35-53.
[12]	Curran S.Migration, social capital, and the environment: considering migrant selectivity and networks in relation to coastal ecosystems[J]. Population & Development Review, 2002, 28(1): 89-125.
[13]	Abdelmoneim Y, Litchfield J.Does Migration Improve Living Standards of Migrant-Sending Households? Evidence from Rural Ethiopia[R]. Brighton: Migrating out of Poverty, 2016.
[14]	Zhong H, Xu J, Piquero A R.Internal migration, social exclusion, and victimization: an analysis of Chinese rural-to-urban migrants[J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2017, 54(4): 479-514.
[15]	Mulcahy K, Kollamparambil U.The impact of rural-urban migration on subjective well-being in South Africa[J]. Journal of Development Studies, 2016, 52(9): 1-15.
[16]	Wei H, Yi J, Yuan Y, et al. The dynamic effect of rural-to-urban migration on inequality in source villages: system GMM estimates from rural China[J]. China Economic Review, 2016, 37: 27-39.
[17]	白南生, 卢迈. 中国农村扶贫开发移民: 方法和经验[J]. 管理世界, 2000, (3): 161-169.
	[Bai N S, Lu M.The rural poverty alleviation by immigration in China: methods and experiences[J]. Management World, 2000, (3): 161-169. ]
[18]	东梅, 王桂芬. 双重差分法在生态移民收入效应评价中的应用-以宁夏为例[J]. 农业技术经济, 2010, (8): 87-93.
	[Dong M, Wang G F.The application of DID method in the evaluation on the ecological immigration income effect: the case of Ningxia[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2010, (8): 87-93. ]
[19]	Kanbur R, Squire L.The Evolution of Thinking about Poverty: Exploring the Interactions[D]. New York: Cornell University, 1999.
[20]	Kahneman D, Tversky A.Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-291.
[21]	Rosenzweig M R, Binswanger H P. Wealth, Weather Risk,the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments[M]. Washington: World Bank Publications, 1992.
[22]	王文略, 毛谦谦, 余劲. 基于风险与机会视角的贫困再定义[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2015, 25(12): 147-153.
	[Wang W L, Mao Q Q, Yu J.Redefinition of the poverty based on risks and opportunities[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2015, 25(12): 147-153. ]
[23]	Tanaka T, Camerer C F, Nguyen Q.Risk and time preferences: linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam[J]. American Economic Review, 2010, 100(1): 557-571.
[24]	Liu E M.Time to change what to sow: risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2013, 95(4): 1386-1403.
[25]	Mao Q Q, Wang W L, Oniki S, et al. Experimental measure of rural household risk preference: the case of the SLCP area in Northern Shaanxi, China[J]. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 2016, 50(3): 253-265.
[26]	Bae K, Han D, Sohn H.Importance of access to finance in reducing income inequality and poverty level[J]. International Review of Public Administration, 2012, 17(1): 55-77.
[27]	单德朋, 王英. 金融可得性、经济机会与贫困减缓-基于四川集中连片特困地区扶贫统计监测县级门限面板模型的实证分析[J]. 财贸研究, 2017, (4): 50-60.
	[Shan D P, Wang Y.Finance accessibility, economic opportunity and poverty reduction[J]. Finance and Trade Research, 2017, (4): 50-60. ]
[28]	Ellis F.A Livelihoods Approach to Migration and Poverty Reduction[R]. Norwich, UK: ODG/DEV. Paper Commissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID), 2003.
[29]	Niimi Y, Pham T H, Reilly B.Determinants of remittances: recent evidence using data on internal migrants in Vietnam[J]. Asian Economic Journal, 2009, 23(1): 19-39.
[30]	Duc T P, Waibel H.Diversification, Risk Management and Risk Coping Strategies: Evidence from Rural Households in Three Provinces in Vietnam[R]. Frankfurt: Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, 2009.
[31]	Youssef B A, Arouri M, Nguyen C. Does Urbanization Reduce Rural Poverty? Evidence from Vietnam[EB/OL]. (2016-10-20)[2018-08-29].
[32]	World Bank.World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
[33]	Morten M.Temporary Migration and Endogenous Risk Sharing in Village India [R]. NBER Working Papers 22159, 2016.
[34]	Dustmann C, Fasani F, Meng X, et al. Risk Attitudes and Household Migration Decisions[R]. Bonn: IZA Discussion Papers 10603, 2017.
[35]	Zhang Y, Zhou X, Lei W.Social capital and its contingent value in poverty reduction: evidence from Western China[J]. World Development, 2017, 93: 350-361.
[36]	Alkire S, Foster J.Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2012, 95(7): 476-487.

维度	指标	剥夺临界值	权重
教育	受教育年限	家中最高受教育水平为小学,或18岁以上未完成6年教育的	0.125
教育	适龄儿童就读	家中至少有1名6岁以上儿童失学	0.125
健康	健康状况	家庭成员中有患有严重疾病,常年吃药或住院	0.125
健康	医疗保险	没有医疗保险	0.125
生活水平	做饭燃料	常用的做饭燃料非煤、电、液化气或天然气	0.042
	卫生设施	不能使用室内冲水马桶	0.042
	清洁饮用水	不能使用自来水	0.042
	照明	家中不能使用电	0.042
	住房	房屋材质为土坯房	0.042
	耐用品	家用电器中彩色电视机、洗衣机、冰箱、空调、电脑、微波炉、电饭煲、手机等最多拥有一种或者交通工具中电动车、摩托车、汽车中一项也没有	0.042
收入	人均纯收入	人均纯收入低于2 300元	0.250

	变量名	变量代码	变量含义及赋值
被解释变量
	多维贫困数	mult	农户陷入多维贫困的数量,连续变量
	贫困剥夺得分	depr	农户贫困剥夺得分,根据多维贫困指标体系测算所得,连续变量
解释变量
	是否移民	mig	1=是;0=否
	搬迁年数	time	搬迁后的年数,连续变量
	风险态度	risk	1=风险厌恶;2=风险中性;3=风险偏好
	机会	opp	农户能够获得外部机会的个数,连续变量
控制变量
户主特征	性别	gender	1=男;0=女
	年龄	age	户主实际年龄
	文化程度	edu	1=没上学;2=小学;3=初中;4=高中或中专;5=大专及以上
	社会经历	leader	是村干部、党员等=1,无=0
家庭特征	家庭总规模	family	连续变量
家庭特征	抚养比	depend	少儿和老人占家庭成员人数比例
居住特征	居住位置	location	1=平地;2=深沟;3=山坡
	离镇距离	town	连续变量
	聚集户数	gather	连续变量
社会网络	手机	cell	手机费用,连续变量
社会网络	电脑上网	net	1=家中有电脑上网;0=无电脑上网

评价方法		多维贫困数			贫困剥夺得分
评价方法		处理效应	SE	T值	处理效应	SE	T值
DID	DID	-2.166	0.111	19.500***	-0.076	0.012	6.230***
DID	含协变量的DID	-1.564	0.115	13.630***	-0.051	0.013	3.980***
DID+PSM	DID+核匹配	-2.144	0.101	21.230***	-0.080	0.011	7.100***

变量名	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5
解释变量
是否移民	-0.953*** (0.171)	-0.329** (0.145)
搬迁年数		-0.812*** (0.023)
风险态度			-1.029*** (0.034)
机会				-0.794*** (0.040)
风险态度×是否移民					-0.432*** (0.043)
机会×是否移民					-0.997*** (0.056)
控制变量
户主特征
性别	0.035 (0.157)	0.148 (0.133)	-0.007*** (0.138)	0.091 (0.149)	0.140 (0.141)
年龄	-0.053*** (0.005)	-0.005 (0.004)	-0.059* (0.004)	-0.020*** (0.005)	-0.027*** (0.004)
文化程度	-0.098* (0.053)	0.012 (0.045)	-0.097 (0.047)	-0.043 (0.050)	-0.047 (0.048)
社会经历	-0.359* (0.181)	-0.253* (0.153)	-0.198 (0.160)	-0.246 (0.172)	-0.174 (0.164)
家庭特征
家庭总规模	-0.021 (0.038)	-0.038 (0.032)	0.044 (0.033)	-0.041 (0.036)	-0.021 (0.034)
抚养比	0.437*** (0.156)	0.650*** (0.131)	0.124*** (0.137)	0.560*** (0.147)	0.538*** (0.141)
居住特征
居住位置	0.676*** (0.024)	0.167*** (0.025)	0.569 (0.021)	0.555*** (0.023)	0.301 (0.028)
聚集户数	0.000** (0.000)	0.000* (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)
离镇距离	0.018*** (0.004)	-0.001 (0.004)	0.017*** (0.004)	0.002 (0.004)	0.007* (0.000)
社会网络
手机	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)
电脑上网	-0.203*** (0.067)	0.003 (0.056)	-0.199*** (0.059)	-0.027 (0.064)	-0.046 (0.061)
截距项C	4.710*** (0.365)	3.874*** (0.308)	7.125 *** (0.322)	3.691 *** (0.330)	4.962*** (0.322)
样本数	4 128	4 128	4 128	4 128	4 128
R²	0.323	0.518	0.476	0.394	0.166

变量名	模型6	模型7	模型8	模型9	模型10
解释变量
是否移民	-0.072*** (0.018)	-0.041* (0.024)
搬迁年数		-0.039*** (0.003)
风险态度			-0.095*** (0.005)
机会				-0.043*** (0.007)
风险态度×是否移民					-0.039*** (0.005)
机会×是否移民					-0.053*** (0.006)
控制变量
户主特征
性别	0.006 (0.017)	0.011 (0.025)	0.003 (0.023)	0.008 (0.026)	0.001 (0.016)
年龄	-0.003*** (0.000)	0.000 (0.001)	-0.003*** (0.001)	-0.001 (0.001)	-0.001** (0.000)
文化程度	-0.014** (0.006)	-0.009 (0.009)	-0.014 (0.008)	-0.011 (0.009)	-0.011** (0.005)
社会经历	-0.040** (0.019)	-0.035 (0.031)	-0.025* (0.029)	-0.033 (0.031)	-0.028 (0.018)
家庭特征
家庭总规模	-0.007* (0.004)	-0.007 (0.006)	-0.001 (0.006)	-0.008 (0.006)	-0.006* (0.004)
抚养比	0.140*** (0.016)	0.150*** (0.025)	0.111*** (0.023)	0.147*** (0.025)	0.144*** (0.016)
居住特征
居住位置	0.032*** (0.003)	0.007* (0.004)	0.022*** (0.003)	0.025*** (0.004)	0.010*** (0.003)
聚集户数	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)	0.000*** (0.000)
离镇距离	0.001** (0.000)	0.000 (0.001)	0.001 (0.001)	0.000 (0.001)	0.001 (0.000)
社会网络
手机	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)	0.000 (0.000)
电脑上网	0.003 (0.007)	0.013 (0.009)	0.004 (0.008)	0.013 (0.009)	0.013* (0.007)
截距项C	0.319 *** (0.038)	0.279*** (0.059)	0.553*** (0.053)	0.251*** (0.056)	4.962*** (0.322)
样本数	4 128	4 128	4 128	4 128	4 128
R²	0.103	0.157	0.262	0.126	0.166