产权强度对公益林区林地流转的影响——基于禀赋效应与安全感知视角

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.01.13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文在构建产权强度与农户禀赋效应、安全感知及农户流转行为逻辑关联的基础上,基于甘肃省集体林权改革监测追踪调研累计1497份微观数据,探讨了产权强度如何通过农户禀赋效应与安全感知影响林地流转行为。研究发现：①产权强度整体上加大了农户禀赋效应和安全感知。具体而言,产权强度社会认同维度显著增加农户禀赋效应与安全感知;产权主体行使能力维度主要影响农户禀赋效应,对安全感知影响不明显,其中排他能力加剧了农户禀赋效应,交易处置能力则减弱农户禀赋效应。同时随着时间的增加,农户禀赋效应呈减弱趋势,安全感知则无显著变化。②产权强度影响下的禀赋效应的加剧容易使农户产生高估林地流转价格等倾向,阻碍林地流转的发生。③产权强度影响下的安全感知的增加可以提升农户对林地权属关系的稳定感,促进农户流转行为的发生。④禀赋效应与安全感知相互影响共同作用于农户流转行为,综合考虑禀赋效应及安全感知后,总效应正向影响林地流转行为。鉴于此,本文提出应把握确权方式的灵活运用、通过健全完善林权流转网络平台等方式降低农户禀赋效应以及注重提升农户安全感知等建议,以期促进林地流转,实现公益林林地生态效益和经济效益的最大化。

关键词: 产权强度, 禀赋效应, 安全感知, 林地流转, 双变量Probit模型, 处理效应模型, 甘肃省

Abstract:

Based on an examination of the logical relationship between forest land tenure security and endowment effect, security perception, and farmers’ land transfer behavior, and using survey data of 1497 samples collected by the monitoring program of collective forest rights reform in Gansu Province, this study analyzed the impact of forest land tenure security on households’ transfer of forest land through the endowment effect and security perception of farmers. The results show that higher forest land tenure security can improve the endowment effect and security perception of farmers. Specifically, the social identity dimension of property rights significantly increases the endowment effect and security perception of farmers; the exercise ability dimension of property rights mainly affects the endowment effect of farmers, but has no obvious impact on security perception. Ability of exclusion intensifies the endowment effect of farmers, while transaction and disposal ability effectively weakens the endowment effect. Property right security impact on endowment effect is weakened with the increase of time, but perception has no significant change. Endowment effect will hinder the behavior of forest land transfer while security perception could promote transfer they influence each other and affect the circulation behavior at the same time. When endowment effect and security perception are both considered, the total effect has a positive impact on forest land circulation behavior. In view of this, we suggest that the government could pay more attention to the flexible use of confirming the forest land rights and improving the online platform of forest land circulation to reduce the endowment effect of farmers and pay attention to enhance the security perception of farmers, in order to promote the circulation of forest land and realize the development of the maximum ecological and economic benefits of ecological forest land.

Key words: forest land tenure security, endowment effect, security perception, forest land circulation, bivariate Probit model, treatment effect model, Gansu Province

王雨格, 孟全省, 陈秉谱. 产权强度对公益林区林地流转的影响——基于禀赋效应与安全感知视角[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(1): 161-170.

WANG Yuge, MENG Quanxing, CHEN Bingpu. Impact of forest land tenure security on the circulation of ecological forest land:From the perspective of endowment effect and security perception[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(1): 161-170.

图/表 6

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 34

[1]	胡新艳, 陈小知, 米运生, 等. 农地整合确权政策对农业规模经营发展的影响评估: 来自准自然实验的证据[J]. 中国农村经济, 2018, (12):83-102.
	[ Hu X Y, Chen X Z, Mi Y S, et al. The impact of agricultural land consolidation and titling policies on the development of agricultural scale management: Evidence from quasi-natural experiments[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2018, (12):83-102.]
[2]	Liu Y, Yan B J, Wang Y, et al. Will land transfer always increase technical efficiency in China? A land cost perspective[J]. Land Use Policy, 2019,82:414-421. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.002
[3]	罗必良. 科斯定理反思与拓展: 兼论中国农地流转制度改革与选择[J]. 经济研究, 2017,52(11):178-193.
	[ Luo B L. Rethinking and extension of the Coase Theorem: Reform and choice of land circulation Institutions in rural China[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2017,52(11):178-193.]
[4]	杨宗耀, 仇焕广, 纪月清. 土地流转背景下农户经营规模与土地生产率关系再审视: 来自固定粮农和地块的证据[J]. 农业经济问题, 2020, (4):37-48.
	[ Yang Z Y, Qiu H G, Ji Y Q. Re-exploration of the inverse productivity: Size relationship using the fixed farmers’ fixed plots data in the context of land transfer[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2020, (4):37-48.]
[5]	刘汉成, 关江华. 适度规模经营背景下农村土地流转研究[J]. 农业经济问题, 2019, (8):59-64.
	[ Liu H C, Guan J H. Study on the problem of farmland transfer on the background of moderate scale management[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2019, (8):59-64.]
[6]	张亚丽, 白云丽, 辛良杰. 耕地质量与土地流转行为关系研究[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(6):1102-1110. doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.06.09
	[ Zhang Y L, Bai Y L, Xin L J. Relationships between cultivated land quality and land transfer behaviors at the plot scale[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(6):1102-1110.] doi: 10.18402/resci.2019.06.09
[7]	Kemper N, Ha L V, Klump R. Property rights and consumption volatility: Evidence from a land reform in Vietnam[J]. World Development, 2015,71:107-130. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.004
[8]	王士海, 王秀丽. 农村土地承包经营权确权强化了农户的禀赋效应吗: 基于山东省117个县 (市, 区) 农户的实证研究[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, (5):92-102.
	[ Wang S H, Wang X L. Does the confirmation of rural land contract management right strengthen the endowment effect of farmers: An empirical study based on questionnaire survey of rural households in 117 counties in Shandong Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2018, (5):92-102.]
[9]	黄培锋, 卢素兰, 黄和亮. 产权安全感知对林地流转的影响研究[J]. 林业经济问题, 2020,40(4):366-373.
	[ Huang P F, Lu S L, Huang H L. A study on the influence of property right security perception on forest land circulation[J]. Issues of Forestry Economics, 2020,40(4):366-373.]
[10]	钟文晶, 罗必良. 禀赋效应, 产权强度与农地流转抑制: 基于广东省的实证分析[J]. 农业经济问题, 2013, (3):6-16.
	[ Zhong W J, Luo B L. Endowment effect, property strength and restraint of agricultural land transfer: Farmer household’s survey data from Guangdong Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2013, (3):6-16.]
[11]	仇童伟, 罗必良. 农地产权强度对农业生产要素配置的影响[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2018,28(1):63-70.
	[ Qiu T W, Luo B L. The impacts of land tenure intensity on distribution of agricultural factors[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2018,28(1):63-70.]
[12]	罗必良. 从产权界定到产权实施: 中国农地经营制度变革的过去与未来[J]. 农业经济问题, 2019, (1):17-31.
	[ Luo B L. The property rights: From delimitation to implementation: The logical clue of Chinese farmland management system transformation[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2019, (1):17-31.]
[13]	Place F, Migot-Adholla S E. The economic effects of land registration on smallholder farms in Kenya: Evidence from Nyeri and Kakamega districts[J]. Land Economics, 1998,74(3):360-373. doi: 10.2307/3147118
[14]	Jacoby H, Minten B. Land titles, investment, and agricultural Productivity in Madagascar: A poverty and social impact analysis[J]. World Bank Other Operational Studies, 2006, (4):1-54.
[15]	Wang G Y, Innes J L, Lei J F, et al. China’s forestry reforms[J]. Science, 2007,318(5856):1556-1557. doi: 10.1126/science.1147247 pmid: 18063773
[16]	Liu C, Liu H, Wang S. Has China’s new round of collective forest reforms caused an increase in the use of productive forest inputs?[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,64:492-510. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.011
[17]	Lipscomb M, Prabakaran N. Property rights and deforestation: Evidence from the terra legal land reform in the Brazilian Amazon[J]. World Development, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104854. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105214 pmid: 32994663
[18]	Yi Y Y, Köhlin G, Xu J T. Property rights, tenure security and forest investment incentives: Evidence from China’s Collective Forest Tenure Reform[J]. Environment and Development Economics, 2014,19(1):48-73. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X13000272
[19]	Qin P, Xu J T. Forest land rights, tenure types, and farmers’ investment incentives in China: An empirical study of Fujian Province[J]. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2013,5(1):154-170. doi: 10.1108/17561371311294829
[20]	孔凡斌, 廖文梅. 基于收入结构差异化的农户林地流转行为分析: 以江西省为例[J]. 中国农村经济, 2011, (8):89-96.
	[ Kong F B, Liao W M. An analysis of farmer households’ woodland transferring behavior based on their differential income structure: Taking Jiangxi Province as example[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2011, (8):89-96.]
[21]	肖慧婷, 谢芳婷, 杜鹃, 等. 农户资源禀赋差异性对林地流转行为影响实证研究: 基于江西集体林区10县503农户的调查[J]. 林业经济, 2018,40(11):44-51.
	[ Xiao H T, Xie F T, Du J, et al. An empirical research on the impact of the difference in householder resource endowments on forestland circulation behavior: Survey of 503 householders from 10 counties in collective forest regions in Jiangxi[J]. Forestry Economics, 2018,40(11):44-51.]
[22]	Xie H L, Lu H. Impact of land fragmentation and non-agricultural labor supply on circulation of agricultural land management rights[J]. Land Use Policy, 2017,68:355-364. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.053
[23]	张寒, 程娟娟, 刘璨. 基于内生性视角的非农就业对林地流转的效应评价: 来自9省1497户林农的连续监测数据[J]. 农业技术经济, 2018, (1):122-131.
	[ Zhang H, Cheng J J, Liu C. The effect of off-farm employment on forestland transfer: An analysis based on endogenous perspective with 1497 households dataset from 9 provinces[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2018, (1):122-131.]
[24]	史若昀, 刘伟平. 基于产权强度理论的林地流转行为研究: 以福建省10县(市)50村农户调查为例[J]. 东南学术, 2017, (4):86-93.
	[ Shi R Y, Liu W P. Research on forest land circulation behavior based on the theory of property right intensity: A case study of 50 villages in 10 counties (cities) of Fujian Province[J]. Southeast Academic Research, 2017, (4):86-93.]
[25]	朱文清, 张莉琴. 集体林地确权到户对林地流转的政策效果分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018,40(7):1407-1417. doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.07.09
	[ Zhu W Q, Zhang L Q. The impact of confirming collective forest land property rights to households on the forest land circulation behavior of farmers[J]. Resources Science, 2018,40(7):1407-1417.] doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.07.09
[26]	罗必良. 农地确权, 交易含义与农业经营方式转型: 科斯定理拓展与案例研究[J]. 中国农村经济, 2016, (11):2-16.
	[ Luo B L. Farmland tenure confirm, transaction and transformation of agricultural management mode: Expansion of Coase Theorem and case study[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2016, (11):2-16.]
[27]	马贤磊, 仇童伟, 钱忠好. 土地产权经历, 产权情景对农民产权安全感知的影响: 基于土地法律执行视角[J]. 公共管理学报, 2015,12(4):111-121.
	[ Ma X L, Qiu T W, Qian Z H. Study about the impact of land tenure experience and tenure environment on farmers’ tenure security perception: From the perspective of land laws’ implementation[J]. Journal of Public Management, 2015,12(4):111-121.]
[28]	Thaler R H. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1980,1(1):39-60. doi: 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
[29]	朱文珏, 罗必良. 农地流转、禀赋效应及对象歧视性: 基于确权背景下的IV-Tobit模型的实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2019, (5):4-15.
	[ Zhu W J, Luo B L. The formation of farmland endowment effect and its object discrimination: An empirical analysis based on IV-Tobit model[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2019, (5):4-15.]
[30]	Broegaard R. Land tenure insecurity and inequality in Nicaragua[J]. Development and Change, 2005,36(5):845-864. doi: 10.1111/dech.2005.36.issue-5
[31]	Van Gelder J L. Feeling and thinking: quantifying the relationship between perceived tenure security and housing improvement in an informal neighborhood in Buenos Aires[J]. Habitat International, 2007,31(2):219-231. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.02.002
[32]	丰雷, 蒋妍, 叶剑平, 等. 中国农村土地调整制度变迁中的农户态度: 基于1999-2010年17省份调查的实证分析[J]. 管理世界, 2013, (7):44-58.
	[ Feng L, Jiang Y, Ye J P, et al. The attitude of farmers in the institutional change of rural land adjustment in China: An empirical analysis based on the survey of 17 provinces from 1999 to 2010[J]. Management World, 2013, (7):44-58.]
[33]	Maddala G S. Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
[34]	Pierce J L, Kostova T, Dirks K, et al. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research[J]. Review of General Psychology, 2003,7(1):84-107. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.84

监测县	样本乡镇	样本数/户	监测县	样本乡镇	样本数/户
灵台	百里	30	泾川	党原	30
	朝那	30		飞云	30
	独店	30		丰台	30
	什字	30		高坪	30
	中台	30		玉都	30
康县	城关	30	合水	板桥	30
	碾坝	30		店子	30
	太石	30		段家集	30
	铜钱	30		固城	30
	阳坝	30		吉砚	30
通渭	第三铺	30	宕昌	阿坞	30
	新景	27		官亭	30
	鸡川	30		哈达铺	30
	什川	30		何家堡	30
	李家店	30		南河	30
徽县	永宁	30	会宁	汉家岔	30
	榆树	30		侯家川	30
	银杏	30		会师镇	30
	嘉陵	30		平头川	30
	高桥	30		头寨子	30
清水	白沙	30	永靖	关山	30
	草川铺	30		岘塬	30
	陇东	30		小岭	30
	永清	30		徐顶	30
	新城	30		杨塔	30
合计	1497

类型	变量	定义	均值	标准差
主要被解释变量	林地是否流转	1=流转,0=不流转	0.091	0.007
处理变量	禀赋效应	1=存在禀赋效应,0=不存在禀赋效应	0.590	0.013
	安全感知	1=存在安全感知,0=不存在安全感知	0.657	0.012
	综合效应	1=存在禀赋效应或安全感知,0=不存在禀赋效应和安全感知	0.809	0.010
主要解释变量	产权强度社会认同维度	1=林权证在农户手中,0=林权证未在农户手中	0.832	0.012
	产权强度产权主体行使能力1（交易处置能力）	流转信息获取情况（1=很难获取,2=难获取,3=一般,4=容易获取,5=非常容易获取）	1.737	0.028
	产权强度产权主体行使能力2（排他能力）	林权纠纷状况（1=未发生过林地纠纷,0=发生过林地纠纷）	0.982	0.004
其他解释变量	户主年龄	岁	53.815	0.270
	户主性别	1=男,0=女	0.952	0.006
	户主受教育程度	1=小学及以下,2=初中,3=高中及以上	1.689	0.020
	家庭人口数量	人	4.600	0.044
	家庭劳动力数量	人	2.548	0.032
	劳动力占家庭人口比	％	0.571	0.007
	家中是否有人担任村干部	1=是,0=否	0.170	0.010
	林地面积	亩	35.187	1.714

	禀赋效应	安全感知
产权强度社会认同维度	1.063（0.092）***	1.655（0.100）***
产权强度产权主体行使能力1（交易处置能力）	-0.109（0..038）***	0.007（0.040）
产权强度产权主体行使能力2（排他能力）	0.513（0.265）*	-0.301（0.275）
户主年龄	0.008（0.003）**	0.000（0.004）
户主性别	0.053（0.164）	0.124（0.173）
户主受教育程度	0.022（0.046）	-0.032（0.048）
林地面积	-0.001（0.001）	-0.000（0.001）
家庭人口数量	0.002（0.025）	0.004（0.037）
家庭劳动力数量	-0.008（0.035）	0.075（0.036）**
年份	-0.130（0.050）***	0.010（0.053）
_cons	260.361（100.891）	-22.060（106.308）
Prob >chi²	0.000

	林地流转	综合效应
综合效应	0.135（0.040）***	–
禀赋效应×产权强度	-0.142（0.013）***	–
安全感知×产权强度	0.082（0.014）***	–
产权强度社会认同维度	–	1.702（0.100)***
产权强度产权主体行使能力1（交易处置能力）	–	0.009（0.048）
产权强度产权主体行使能力2（排他能力）	–	-0.054（0.297）
户主性别	-0.014（0.033）	0.024（0.057）
户主年龄	-0.002（0.001）**	0.009（0.004)**
户主受教育程度	-0.008（0.009）	0.024（0.057）
林地面积	0.001（0.000）***	-0.000（0.001)
家庭人口数量	-0.001（0.005）	0.019（0.026）
家中是否有人担任村干部	0.028（0.019）	–
家庭劳动力数量	0.013（0.007）*	–
劳动力占家庭人口比	–	0.033（0.062）
年份	–	-0.162（0.062）
Cons	–	326.636（125.301）

		系数（标准误差）
产权强度社会认同维度		0.445（0.253）*
产权强度产权主体行使能力1（交易处置能力）		0.336（0.122）***
产权强度产权主体行使能力2（排他能力）		-1.134（0.528）**
禀赋效应×产权强度		-3.081（0.389）***
安全感知×产权强度		2.990（0.525）***
控制变量		已引入
_cons	-1.232（0.967）
Prob>Chi²	0.0000