风险预期、社会网络与农户宅基地退出——基于安徽省金寨县626户农户样本
|
摘要
研究目的:以宅基地退出试点区安徽省金寨县626户农户的微观调研数据为基础,分析风险预期、社会网络对农户宅基地退出行为的影响,为促进农户宅基地退出、提高农村宅基地利用效率提供一定的理论依据和经验支持。研究方法:描述性统计分析方法和Probit模型。研究结果:风险预期对农户宅基地退出行为具有显著的负向影响,社会网络对农户宅基地退出行为具有显著的正向影响;同时,社会网络能够缓解风险预期对农户宅基地退出行为的不利影响;社会网络的两个维度(即强连接网络和弱连接网络)均对农户宅基地退出行为产生了显著的积极影响,且强连接网络缓解风险预期对农户宅基地退出行为效应显著。研究结论:为引导农户理性退出宅基地,应降低农户对宅基地退出的风险预期、注重培育和提升农户的社会网络以及实施差别化的宅基地退出政策等。
Based on the micro-samples of 626 rural households in Jinzhai County, Anhui Province, the paper uses Probit model to empirically analyze the effects of risk expectation and social network on rural residential land exit behavior.The results show that: first, risk expectation has a significant negative effect on rural residential land exit, whereas the social network has a significant positive effect. Second, two dimensions of social network, namely, strong connection and weak connection, have a significant positive effect on rural residential land exit. Third, social network can mitigate the adverse effect of risk expectation on rural residential land exit. Moreover, only strong connection network has a significant mitigation effect. In conclusion, farmers' social network should be fostered and promoted, the multiple guarantee mechanisms for rural households who withdrew the rural residential land should be improved, and the differentiated rural residential land exit policy should be implemented.
Based on the micro-samples of 626 rural households in Jinzhai County, Anhui Province, the paper uses Probit model to empirically analyze the effects of risk expectation and social network on rural residential land exit behavior.The results show that: first, risk expectation has a significant negative effect on rural residential land exit, whereas the social network has a significant positive effect. Second, two dimensions of social network, namely, strong connection and weak connection, have a significant positive effect on rural residential land exit. Third, social network can mitigate the adverse effect of risk expectation on rural residential land exit. Moreover, only strong connection network has a significant mitigation effect. In conclusion, farmers' social network should be fostered and promoted, the multiple guarantee mechanisms for rural households who withdrew the rural residential land should be improved, and the differentiated rural residential land exit policy should be implemented.
引文
[1]彭建超,吴群,钱畅.农村土地“增值”对农民市民化实现的贡献研究[J].人口学刊,2017,39(6):51-61.
[2]王兆林,杨庆媛,王娜.重庆宅基地退出中农民土地收益保护研究——基于比较收益的视角[J].中国土地科学,2016,30(8):47-55.
[3]王介勇,刘彦随,陈秧分.农村空心化程度影响因素的实证研究——基于山东省村庄调查数据[J].自然资源学报,2013,28(1):10-18.
[4]沈素素.湖南省农村宅基地利用效率实证评价[J].经济地理,2017,37(12):190-194.
[5]郭晓鸣,虞洪.建立农村宅基地自愿有偿退出机制的现实分析与政策构想——基于四川省的实证研究[J].农村经济,2016(5):3-9.
[6]史雨星,姚柳杨,赵敏娟.社会资本对牧户参与草场社区治理意愿的影响——基于Triple-Hurdle模型的分析[J].中国农村观察,2018(3):35-50.
[7]张婷,张安录,邓松林.期望收益、风险预期及农户宅基地退出行为——基于上海市松江区、金山区农户的实证分析[J].资源科学,2016,38(8):1503-1514.
[8]朱新华,陆思璇.风险认知、抗险能力与农户宅基地退出[J].资源科学,2018,40(4):698-706.
[9]FAFCHAMPS M, GUBERT F. Risk sharing and network formation[J]. The American Economic Review, 2007, 97(2):75-79.
[10]MUNSHI K, ROSENZWEIG M. Why is mobility in India so low? Social insurance, inequality and growth[R]. NEBR Working Papers, No. 121, 2005.
[11]KINNAN C, TOWNSEND R. Kinship and financial networks,formal financial access and risk reduction[J]. The American Economic Review, 2012, 102(3):289-293.
[12]AMBRUS A, MOBIUS M, SZEIDL A. Consumption risksharing in social networks[J]. The American Economic Review, 2007, 104(1):149-182.
[13]SLOVIC P. Perception of risk[J]. Science, 1987, 236(4799):280-285.
[14]罗明忠,刘恺.职业分化、政策评价及其优化——基于农户视角[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2016(5):10-19,143.
[15]CONLEY T G, C R UDRY. Learning about a new technology:Pineapple in Ghana[J]. American Economic Review, 2010,100(1):35-69.
[16]LEE RAINIE, BARRY WELLMAN. Networked:The New Social Operating System[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2012:153-162.
[17]王春超,袁伟.社会网络、风险分担与农户储蓄率[J].中国农村经济,2016(3):25-35.
[18]BURCHARDI K B, HASSAN T A. The economic impact of social ties:evidence from german reunification[R]. NBER Working Papers, 2011.
[19]李庆海,孙光林,何婧.社会网络对贫困地区农户信贷违约风险的影响:抑制还是激励?[J].中国农村观察,2018(5):45-66.
[20]杨志海.老龄化、社会网络与农户绿色生产技术采纳行为——来自长江流域六省农户数据的验证[J].中国农村观察,2018(4):44-58.
[21]OSTROM E. Analyzing collective action[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2010, 41(1):155-166.
[22]关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.不同生计资产配置的农户宅基地流转家庭福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(10):135-142.
[23]蔡起华,朱玉春.社会信任、收入水平与农村公共产品农户参与供给[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,15(1):41-50.
[24]LIN N. Social resources and instrumental action, social structure and network analysis[M]. Los Angeles:Sage Publications, 1982:131-145.
[25]BIAN Y. Bringing strong ties back in:indirect ties, network bridges and job searches in China[J]. American Sociological Review, 1997, 62(3):366-385.
[26]徐秀英,徐畅,李朝柱.关系网络对农户林地流入行为的影响——基于浙江省的调查数据[J].中国农村经济,2018(9):62-78.
[27]史恒通,睢党臣,吴海霞,等.社会资本对农户参与流域生态治理行为的影响:以黑河流域为例[J].中国农村经济,2018(1):34-45.
[2]王兆林,杨庆媛,王娜.重庆宅基地退出中农民土地收益保护研究——基于比较收益的视角[J].中国土地科学,2016,30(8):47-55.
[3]王介勇,刘彦随,陈秧分.农村空心化程度影响因素的实证研究——基于山东省村庄调查数据[J].自然资源学报,2013,28(1):10-18.
[4]沈素素.湖南省农村宅基地利用效率实证评价[J].经济地理,2017,37(12):190-194.
[5]郭晓鸣,虞洪.建立农村宅基地自愿有偿退出机制的现实分析与政策构想——基于四川省的实证研究[J].农村经济,2016(5):3-9.
[6]史雨星,姚柳杨,赵敏娟.社会资本对牧户参与草场社区治理意愿的影响——基于Triple-Hurdle模型的分析[J].中国农村观察,2018(3):35-50.
[7]张婷,张安录,邓松林.期望收益、风险预期及农户宅基地退出行为——基于上海市松江区、金山区农户的实证分析[J].资源科学,2016,38(8):1503-1514.
[8]朱新华,陆思璇.风险认知、抗险能力与农户宅基地退出[J].资源科学,2018,40(4):698-706.
[9]FAFCHAMPS M, GUBERT F. Risk sharing and network formation[J]. The American Economic Review, 2007, 97(2):75-79.
[10]MUNSHI K, ROSENZWEIG M. Why is mobility in India so low? Social insurance, inequality and growth[R]. NEBR Working Papers, No. 121, 2005.
[11]KINNAN C, TOWNSEND R. Kinship and financial networks,formal financial access and risk reduction[J]. The American Economic Review, 2012, 102(3):289-293.
[12]AMBRUS A, MOBIUS M, SZEIDL A. Consumption risksharing in social networks[J]. The American Economic Review, 2007, 104(1):149-182.
[13]SLOVIC P. Perception of risk[J]. Science, 1987, 236(4799):280-285.
[14]罗明忠,刘恺.职业分化、政策评价及其优化——基于农户视角[J].华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2016(5):10-19,143.
[15]CONLEY T G, C R UDRY. Learning about a new technology:Pineapple in Ghana[J]. American Economic Review, 2010,100(1):35-69.
[16]LEE RAINIE, BARRY WELLMAN. Networked:The New Social Operating System[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2012:153-162.
[17]王春超,袁伟.社会网络、风险分担与农户储蓄率[J].中国农村经济,2016(3):25-35.
[18]BURCHARDI K B, HASSAN T A. The economic impact of social ties:evidence from german reunification[R]. NBER Working Papers, 2011.
[19]李庆海,孙光林,何婧.社会网络对贫困地区农户信贷违约风险的影响:抑制还是激励?[J].中国农村观察,2018(5):45-66.
[20]杨志海.老龄化、社会网络与农户绿色生产技术采纳行为——来自长江流域六省农户数据的验证[J].中国农村观察,2018(4):44-58.
[21]OSTROM E. Analyzing collective action[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2010, 41(1):155-166.
[22]关江华,黄朝禧,胡银根.不同生计资产配置的农户宅基地流转家庭福利变化研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2014,24(10):135-142.
[23]蔡起华,朱玉春.社会信任、收入水平与农村公共产品农户参与供给[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,15(1):41-50.
[24]LIN N. Social resources and instrumental action, social structure and network analysis[M]. Los Angeles:Sage Publications, 1982:131-145.
[25]BIAN Y. Bringing strong ties back in:indirect ties, network bridges and job searches in China[J]. American Sociological Review, 1997, 62(3):366-385.
[26]徐秀英,徐畅,李朝柱.关系网络对农户林地流入行为的影响——基于浙江省的调查数据[J].中国农村经济,2018(9):62-78.
[27]史恒通,睢党臣,吴海霞,等.社会资本对农户参与流域生态治理行为的影响:以黑河流域为例[J].中国农村经济,2018(1):34-45.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |