资源科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (1): 32-46.doi: 10.18402/resci.2022.01.03

• 资源管理 • 上一篇    下一篇

光伏扶贫对乡村振兴的政策效应

黄赋斌1(), 李文静2, 帅传敏1()   

  1. 1. 中国地质大学(武汉)经济管理学院,武汉 430074
    2. 华中农业大学经济管理学院,武汉 430070
  • 收稿日期:2021-05-11 修回日期:2021-11-10 出版日期:2022-01-25 发布日期:2022-03-25
  • 通讯作者: 帅传敏,男,湖北谷城人,博士,教授,博导,主要研究方向为扶贫项目管理。E-mail: shuaicm@cug.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:黄赋斌,女,安徽桐城人,博士生,主要研究方向为农村能源与贫困。E-mail: cughfubin@foxmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(71773119);中国地质大学(武汉)中央高校基本科研业务费资助项目;教育部人文社会科学研究项目(20YJC630065)

Policy effect of solar photovoltaic poverty alleviation on promoting rural revitalization

HUANG Fubin1(), LI Wenjing2, SHUAI Chuanmin1()   

  1. 1. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China
    2. School of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China;
  • Received:2021-05-11 Revised:2021-11-10 Online:2022-01-25 Published:2022-03-25

摘要:

本文基于中国8个省的1251户有效农户问卷,采用双重差分方法,分析了光伏扶贫对促进乡村振兴在村级治理、产业发展、人居环境以及农户生活等维度的政策效应,并通过安慰剂检验、倾向得分匹配、替换变量等进行了稳健性检验。结果表明:①光伏扶贫能够显著提升村级产业发展和改善人居环境,但对提升村级治理的政策效应不显著。②从户级农户生活维度来看,光伏扶贫可以显著改善居住条件和基础设施条件,但对推动就业的政策效应不显著。③稳健性检验表明,光伏扶贫有利于提升农户的生活满意度。进一步的异质性分析表明,光伏扶贫对不同类型光照资源区的政策效应具有显著差异,其中对第一、二类资源区的影响主要集中在农户生活层面,对第三类资源区的影响主要集中在产业发展和人居环境方面;与非贫困户相比,光伏扶贫对贫困户的政策效应更加显著,即不存在“精英俘获”现象。由此可见,光伏扶贫对乡村振兴的政策效应集中体现在促进产业发展,改善人居环境、居住条件和基础设施条件。未来需将提升村级治理能力和推动就业等作为光伏扶贫的工作重点。

关键词: 光伏扶贫, 乡村振兴, 双重差分, 产业发展, 人居环境, 农户生活

Abstract:

Based on the valid questionnaire of 1251 households in 8 provinces of China, this paper adopts the Differences-in-Differences (DID) model to analyze the policy effect of photovoltaic poverty alleviation (PVPA) on promoting Rural Revitalization in terms of village governance, industrial development, human settlements and household life. Then, this paper conducts robustness tests by means of placebo test, propensity score matching, substitution variables, etc. The results show that: (1) PVPA can significantly improve the development of village-level industrial development and human settlements, but the policy effect on promoting village governance is not significant. (2) From the perspective of household life, PVPA can significantly improve living conditions and infrastructure conditions, but the policy effect on promoting employment is not significant. (3) The robustness test shows that PVPA is conducive to improving the household life satisfaction. Further heterogeneity analysis shows that the policy effects of PVPA on different types of light resource areas are significantly different. The impact on the first and second types of resource areas is mainly concentrated on the household life, and the impact on the third type of resource areas is mainly concentrated on industrial development and human settlements. Compared with non-poor households, the policy effect of PVPA on the poor is more significant, that is, there is no phenomenon of “elite capture”. It can be seen that the policy effect of PVPA on Rural Revitalization is mainly reflected in promoting industrial development and human settlements, living conditions and infrastructure conditions. In the future, policy makers need to focus on improving village governance capacity and promoting employment.

Key words: photovoltaic poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, Differences-in-Differences (DID) model, industrial development, human settlements, household life