农户互动对农村宅基地退出补偿的影响——基于社会网络视角

doi:10.18402/resci.2021.07.13

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

测度、刻画农村宅基地退出补偿的农户互动影响有利于深入理解宅基地退出补偿的形成机理,对于科学地制定政策,推动农户依法自愿有偿退出宅基地具有重要意义。本文运用计量模型对农村宅基地退出补偿的农户互动影响进行测度,利用提名法构建反映农户互动影响关系的社会网络,分析农户个体的中心性及其驱动因素,刻画具有重要影响力的“人物”特征,进而从“人本”视角提出相应的政策启示。研究发现：①农户间的互动影响是农户宅基地退出补偿形成机理中的一个重要因素。在控制其他影响因素的情况下,一个农户“邻居”的宅基地退出受偿意愿价格变化1%,将会导致该农户的宅基地退出受偿意愿价格同向变动0.218%~0.421%;②农户宅基地退出补偿讨论网中农户的入度中心性、出度中心性存在明显差异,反映出不同农户施加影响与接受影响的水平呈现出明显差别;③农户中心性的形成机制中,个人收入并不是一个显著因素,而职业声望与受教育程度这两个与身份、声望相关联的因素则是显著因素。农户宅基地退出补偿推进的过程中,可以考虑按照分类推进的思路,运用农户的互动影响,更好地促进政策目标的实现。

关键词: 宅基地, 退出补偿, 农户, 互动影响, 空间计量模型, 社会互动模型, 社会网络分析

Abstract:

Measuring and depicting the influence of farming household interactions concerning rural homestead withdraw compensation is helpful for understanding the formation mechanism of homestead withdraw compensation, and has significance implications for making policy arrangements scientifically and promoting the withdraw of farmers who have settled in cities from rural homesteads according to the law, voluntarily, and with compensation. In this study, an econometric model was used to measure farmers’ interaction concerning homestead withdraw compensation, and the nomination method was used to construct a social network reflecting the interactions of farming households concerning homestead withdraw compensation. Furthermore, the centrality of individual farmers and its driving factors were analyzed, the characteristics of “people with important influence” were depicted, and then the corresponding policy implications were put forward from the people-oriented perspective. The results show that: (1) Interactions between farmers are an important factor in the formation mechanism of farmers’ homestead withdraw compensation. Controlling for the influence of other factors, for a farmer, a 1% change in the willingness to accept (WTA) of neighbors will lead to a change of 0.218%~0.421% in the same direction. (2) There are obvious differences in farmers’ in degree centrality and out degree centrality in the discussion network of homestead withdraw compensation, which reflects the varied ability of different farmers to exert and accept influences. (3) In the process of the formation of farmers’ centrality, personal income is not a significant factor, while the two factors related to identity and reputation, namely, professional prestige and educational level, are significant factors. The policy implication of this study is that in the process of promoting the compensation for farmers’ homestead withdrawal, according to the idea of differentiated promotion, we can use the interactive influence of farmers to better promote the realization of policy objectives.

Key words: rural homestead, withdraw compensation, farming households, interaction, spatial econometric model, social interaction model, social network analysis

彭山桂, 孙昊, 王健, 张勇. 农户互动对农村宅基地退出补偿的影响——基于社会网络视角[J]. 资源科学, 2021, 43(7): 1440-1453.

PENG Shangui, SUN Hao, WANG Jian, ZHANG Yong. Influence of farming household interactions on rural homestead withdrawal compensation from the perspective of social network[J]. Resources Science, 2021, 43(7): 1440-1453.

图/表 8

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图1

图2

表6

参考文献 37

[1]	张勇, 周丽. 农民市民化进程中农村宅基地财产权的实现路径[J]. 山西农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 19(4):66-70.
	[ Zhang Y, Zhou L. Research on the path to realize the property right of rural homestead in the process of peasants’citizenization[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2020, 19(4):66-70.]
[2]	张勇. 农村宅基地有偿退出的政策与实践: 基于2015年以来试点地区的比较分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 19(2):83-89.
	[ Zhang Y. Policy combing and practice comparison of rural homestead withdraw with compensation since 2015[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Social Science Edition), 2019, 19(2):83-89.]
[3]	苑韶峰, 李威, 彭文敏. 宅基地退出收益测算及分配策略研究综述[J]. 贵州大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 38(2):43-52.
	[ Yuan S F, Li W, Peng W M. A review of the research on homestead exit income calculation and distribution strategy[J]. Journal of Guizhou University (Social Science Edition), 2020, 38(2):43-52.]
[4]	于伟, 刘本城, 宋金平. 城镇化进程中农户宅基地退出的决策行为及影响因素[J]. 地理研究, 2016, 35(3):551-560. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201603013
	[ Yu W, Liu B C, Song J P. A study on farmers’willingness to quit rural residential lands and its influencing factors[J]. Geographical Research, 2016, 35(3):551-560.]
[5]	郭元元, 冯应斌. 农户宅基地退出补偿标准研究框架构建: 基于易地扶贫搬迁背景[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2020, 41(2):58-65.
	[ Guo Y Y, Feng Y B. Study on the compensation system of farmers’homestead withdrawal[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2020, 41(2):58-65.]
[6]	苑韶峰, 李威, 李胜男, 等. 应用多主体复杂适应系统理论的宅基地退出补偿定价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(3):263-270.
	[ Yuan S F, Li W, Li S N, et al. Compensation pricing of rural residential land exit based on multi-agent complex adaptive system theory[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(3):263-270.]
[7]	刘丹, 巩前文. 功能价值视角下农民宅基地自愿有偿退出补偿标准测算方法[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2020, 25(12):173-183.
	[ Liu D, Gong Q W. Calculation method of compensation criteria for farmers’voluntary withdrawal from homestead under the perspective of functional value[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2020, 25(12):173-183.]
[8]	彭长生. 农民分化对农村宅基地退出补偿模式选择的影响分析: 基于安徽省的农户调查数据[J]. 经济社会体制比较, 2013, (6):133-146.
	[ Peng C S. Analysis of the influence of peasants’social stratum on their choice of monetary compensation model for leaving their rural homestead: Based on survey data of farmers in Anhui Province[J]. Comparative Economic and Social System, 2013, (6):133-146.]
[9]	龚宏龄, 林铭海. 农民的异质化特征对宅基地退出补偿偏好的影响: 基于大足和涪陵两地的调研数据[J]. 农村经济, 2019, (2):31-38.
	[ Gong H N, Lin M H. The impact of farmers’heterogeneity on homestead exit compensation preference: Based on the survey data of Dazu and Fuling[J]. Rural Economy, 2019, (2):31-38.]
[10]	许恒周. 基于农户受偿意愿价格的宅基地退出补偿及影响因素分析: 以山东省临清市为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2012, 26(10):75-81.
	[ Xu H Z. Compensation for quitting rural residential land and its influential factors based on farmers’willingness to accept: A case study of Linqing City in Shandong Province[J]. China Land Science, 2012, 26(10):75-81.]
[11]	胡银根, 张曼. 农民工宅基地退出的补偿意愿及影响因素研究: 基于武汉市城市圈的问卷调查[J]. 华中农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2013, (4):90-95.
	[ Hu Y G, Zhang M. Study on migrant workers’compensation willingness and influencing factors of housing sites exit: Based on questionnaire of Wuhan City Circle[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University (Social Science Edition), 2013, (4):90-95.]
[12]	Zhou L X, Lin J, Li Y F, et al. Innovation diffusion of mobile applications in social networks: A multi-agent system[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(7):2884-3001. doi: 10.3390/su12072884
[13]	方航, 陈前恒. 社会互动效应研究进展[J]. 经济学动态, 2020, (5):117-131.
	[ Fang H, Chen Q H. Research progress on social interaction[J]. Economic Perspectives, 2020, (5):117-131.]
[14]	边燕杰, 郭小弦, 李晓光. 市场化与社会资本的变迁: 1999-2014[J]. 开放时代, 2020, (4):140-157.
	[ Bian Y J, Guo X X, Li X G. Marketization and the dynamics of social capital: 1999 to 2014[J]. Open Times, 2020, (4):140-157.]
[15]	Sparrowe R T, Liden R C, Sandy J. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 44(2):316-325.
[16]	Garas A, Argyrakis P, Rozenblat C, et al. Worldwide spreading of economic crisis[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2010, DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113043. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/113043
[17]	Yao Y H, Gao H, Sun F Q. The impact of dual network structure on firm performance: The moderating effect of innovation strategy[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2020, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2020.1739263. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2020.1739263
[18]	徐林, 宋程成, 王诗宗. 农村基层治理中的多重社会网络[J]. 中国社会科学, 2017, (1):25-45.
	[ Xu L, Song C C, Wang S Z. Multilayered social networks in rural grassroots governance[J]. Social Sciences in China, 2017, (1):25-45.]
[19]	Lin N. Social networks and status attainment[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1999, 25:467-487. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467
[20]	谢勇. 就业稳定性与新生代农民工的城市融合研究: 以江苏省为例[J]. 农业经济问题, 2015, 36(9):54-62.
	[ Xie Y. Job stabilityandurbanintegrationofnewgenerationmigrantworkers: Example of casein Jiangsu Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2015, 36(9):54-62.]
[21]	曾黎, 杨庆媛, 廖俊儒, 等. 基于农户受偿意愿价格的休耕补偿标准探讨: 以河北样本户为例[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(7):1375-1386.
	[ Zeng L, Yang Q Y, Liao J R, et al. Fallow compensation based on farmer willingness to accept in Hebei[J]. Resources Science, 2018, 40(7):1375-1386.]
[22]	Debarsy N, Ertur C. Interaction matrix selection in spatial autoregressive models with an application to growth theory[J]. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.01.002. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.01.002
[23]	Manski C F. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1993, 60(3):531-542. doi: 10.2307/2298123
[24]	程竹, 陈前恒. 小农户种植多样化行为的社会互动效应: 基于社会网络视角[J]. 财经科学, 2020, (2):106-119.
	[ Cheng Z, Chen Q H. The social interaction effect of farmers’ planting diversity behavior: Based on the perspective of social network[J]. Finance & Economics, 2020, (2):106-119.]
[25]	Carlson T N, Abrajano M, Bedolla L G. Political discussion networks and political engagement among voters of color[J]. Political Research Quarterly, 2020, 73(1):79-95. doi: 10.1177/1065912919873729
[26]	Carlson T N, McClean C T, Settle J E. Follow your heart: Could psychophysiology be associated with political discussion network homogeneity?[J]. Political Psychology, 2020, 41(1):165-187. doi: 10.1111/pops.v41.1
[27]	Knigge A, Maas I, Leeuwen M H D, et al. Status attainment of siblings during modernization[J]. American Sociological Review, 2014, 79(3):549-574. doi: 10.1177/0003122414529586
[28]	Haller W, Portes A. Class and ambition in the status attainment process: A Spanish replication[J]. The British Journal of Sociology, 2019, 70(5):1825-1849. doi: 10.1111/bjos.v70.5
[29]	边燕杰, 李路路, 李煜, 等. 结构壁垒、体制转型与地位资源含量[J]. 中国社会科学, 2006, (5):100-109.
	[ Bian Y J, Li L L, Li Y, et al. Structural barriers, institutional transformation and resource differentials: The Chinese general social survey report[J]. Social Science in China, 2006, (5):100-109.]
[30]	李强, 刘海洋. 变迁中的职业声望: 2009年北京职业声望调查浅析[J]. 学术研究, 2009, (12):34-42.
	[ Li Q, Liu H Y. The changing professional prestige: An analysis of the survey of professional prestige in Beijing in 2009[J]. Academic Research, 2009, (12):34-42.]
[31]	陈爱丽, 郑逸芳, 许佳贤. 教育能促进社会阶层代际流动吗? 基于中国综合社会调查(CGSS)的经验证据[J]. 教育与经济, 2019, (6):27-34.
	[ Chen A L, Zheng Y F, Xu J X. Does education promote intergenerational mobility of social class? Empirical evidence based on the CGSS[J]. Education and Economy, 2019, (6):27-34.]
[32]	边燕杰. 社会网络与地位获得[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2012.
	[ BianY J. Social Network and Status Attainment [M]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2012.]
[33]	Archuleta A J, Nunez S C, Weaver R D. Support networks among college enrolled Latinas: Using ego networks to examine gender differences in network language use and experiences of discrimination[J]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2020, 80:147-157. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.10.010
[34]	Downward P, Rasciute S, Kumar H. The effect of health on social capital: A longitudinal observation study of the UK[J]. BMC Public Health, 2020, 20(2):392-407. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08489-9
[35]	宗刚, 李盼道, 孙晨晨. 改革开放以来我国职业声望排序及变迁研究[J]. 北京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2016, 16(2):11-17.
	[ Zong G, Li P D, Sun C C. Study on ordination and changes of the occupational prestige since the reform and opening-up[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2016, 16(2):11-17.]
[36]	Freeman L C, Roeder D, Mulholland R R. Centrality in social networks: Experimental results[J]. Social Networks, 1980, 2(2):119-141. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(79)90002-9
[37]	马克斯·韦伯. 经济与社会(上卷)[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2006.
	[ Weber M. Economy and Society (Volume 1)[M]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2006.]

变量	变量描述	样本数/户	比例/%	变量	变量描述	样本数/户	比例/%
户主性别	男	120	96.77	家庭年收入/元	50000以下	12	9.68
户主性别	女	4	3.23	家庭年收入/元	50000~100000	98	79.03
户主年龄/岁	25~30	7	5.65		100000以上	14	11.29
	31~40	87	70.16	子女随迁情况	随迁	111	89.52
	41~50	28	22.58		在老家	13	10.48
	50以上	2	1.61	城市居住情况	自购商品房	92	74.19
户主受教育程度	小学	4	3.23		保障性住房	4	3.23
	初中	39	31.45		租房	28	22.58
	高中（含中专）	70	56.45
	大专及以上	11	8.87

受偿意愿价格区间/（元/m²）	样本数/户	百分比/%
(100, 200]	2	1.61
(200, 300]	6	4.84
(300, 400]	9	7.26
(400, 500]	25	20.16
(500, 600]	57	45.96
(600, 700]	15	12.1
(700, 800]	6	4.84
(800, 900]	4	3.23
合计	124	100.00

变量类别及名称	平均值	标准差	最大值	最小值	变量定义
农户宅基地退出受偿意愿价格的控制变量
个体特征
性别	0.967	0.176	1.000	0.000	男性为1;女性为0
年龄/岁	40.714	5.643	54.000	25.000
婚姻状况	0.917	0.276	1.000	0.000	已婚为1;未婚为0
受教育程度	3.129	0.813	4.000	1.000	小学及以下为1;初中为2;高中为3; 大专及以上为4
外出务工年限	17.369	7.524	33.000	5.000
家庭特征
户均人口数量/人	3.113	1.649	7.000	2.000
家庭年收入/万元	7.135	2.174	14.500	4.200
家庭供养系数	49.318	29.322	150.000	0.000	家庭非劳动年龄人口数/家庭劳动年龄人口数
宅基地禀赋特征
宅基地面积/ m²	199.863	35.837	379.000	162.000
宅基地使用条件的满意度	1.289	0.749	3.000	1.000	不满意为1;一般为2;满意为3
宅基地效用认知特征
宅基地退出补偿政策的熟悉度	1.876	0.688	3.000	1.000	不了解为1;大概了解为2;熟悉为3
宅基地在家庭财产份额中的重要性	1.558	0.641	3.000	1.000	不重要为1;有些重要为2;重要为3
农户中心性形成机制分析的相关变量
中心性	1.964	1.341	5.700	0.000	中心性测度结果扩大100倍而得
个人年收入/万元	4.131	2.391	10.000	2.500
职业声望	64.243	9.387	87.900	52.100	农户职业与职业声望得分匹配而得

统计量	统计量值（地理空间权重矩阵）	统计量值（经济空间权重矩阵）
莫兰指数（Morans’ I）	0.362***	0.674***
LR test（SAR）	4.761	6.017
LR test（SEM）	16.784***	17.583***

变量类型	变量名称	模型一：基于地理空间权重矩阵的空间计量模型	模型二：基于经济空间权重矩阵的空间计量模型	模型三：社会互动模型
核心解释变量	农户宅基地退出受偿意愿价格的空间滞后项（WY_i）	0.218*** (8.074)	0.421*** (7.096)	-
核心解释变量	农户宅基地退出受偿意愿价格的互动影响项（E[Y\|X]）	-	-	0.361*** (9.286)
控制变量：个体特征	性别	0.051 (1.074)	0.096 (1.107)	0.087 (1.096)
	年龄	0.047*** (3.916)	0.064*** (4.267)	0.061*** (4.357)
	婚姻状况	0.173 (0.601)	0.132 (0.628)	0.156 (0.661)
	受教育程度	-0.381** (-2.106)	-0.395** (-2.216)	-0.347** (-2.328)
	外出务工年限	-0.072*** (-6.545)	-0.094*** (-7.231)	-0.074*** (-8.253)
控制变量：家庭特征	户均人口数量	0.169 (0.701)	0.153 (0.718)	0.159 (0.757)
	家庭年收入	-0.217*** (-5.027)	-0.138*** (-6.381)	-0.176*** (-5.518)
	家庭供养系数	0.059*** (4.916)	0.073*** (5.214)	0.069*** (5.755)
控制变量：宅基地禀赋特征	宅基地面积	-0.117 (-0.801)	-0.123 (-0.831)	-0.129 (-0.872)
控制变量：宅基地禀赋特征	宅基地使用条件的满意度	0.061*** (3.476)	0.091*** (4.108)	0.085*** (3.976)
控制变量：宅基地效用认知特征	宅基地退出补偿政策的熟悉度	0.057*** (4.951)	0.053*** (5.326)	0.054*** (4.753)
控制变量：宅基地效用认知特征	宅基地在家庭财产份额中的重要性	0.069* (1.764)	0.092* (1.877)	0.073* (1.802)
	σ²	0.217	0.223	0.278
	R²	0.785	0.834	0.815
	Log-likelihood	-159.263	-124.741	-194.649