Impacts of risk aversion and social networks on the contract period of land transfer

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202005053

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2021, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3): 217-223.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202005053

Previous Articles Next Articles

Impacts of risk aversion and social networks on the contract period of land transfer

ZHOU Lixia(), CAI Zhijian^*(), WANG Jie, QIN Xi

College of Economics and Management,Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing 210037,China

Received:2020-05-28 Revised:2020-07-05 Online:2021-05-30 Published:2021-05-31
Contact: CAI Zhijian E-mail:zhoulixia@njfu.edu.cn;janecai69@njfu.edu.cn

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】This study explores the impacts of risk aversion and social networks on the contract period of farmland transfer, so as to promote the long-term transfer of farmland. 【Method】CHFS 2015 data of China Household Financial Survey were used for the empirical testing of the research hypothesis. A Logit model is used for a benchmark regression, and a probit model, OLS model and heterogeneity test are used for robustness tests. 【Result】The coefficients of influence of risk aversion variables on the long-term transfer contract of farmland are negative and significant at the level of 0.1. The estimated coefficients of the total social investment are positive but not significant. The estimated coefficients of the interaction item between the risk aversion and the total social investment are positive and significant at the level of 0.1. The risk aversion has a negative effect on farmers’ long-term land transfer contract selection. The direct role of social networks in the selection of such contracts is not significant. Social networks play a regulatory role, which can mitigate the negative impacts of risk avoidance on the aforementioned contract selection. 【Conclusion】The following measures should be used to increase the possibility of risk-averse farmers choosing long-term land transfer contracts: reduce the various risks faced by farmers in the long-term land transfer and focus on building and maintaining an effective social network for farmers.

Key words: risk aversion, social network, farmland transfer, long-term contract

CLC Number:

F301.0

ZHOU Lixia, CAI Zhijian, WANG Jie, QIN Xi. Impacts of risk aversion and social networks on the contract period of land transfer[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(3): 217-223.

Figures/Tables 4

Table 1

Table 2

Parameter estimation results of the benchmark regression model"

变量类型 type	变量 variable	Logit(1)	Logit(2)	Logit(3)
核心解释变量 independent variable	A	-0.098^*(0.055)	-0.095^*(0.055)	-0.099^*(0.054)
	lnS_p	—	0.024(0.020)	-0.030(0.037)
	A $·$ lnS_p	—	—	0.075^*(0.044)
控制变量 control variable	S	0.011^***(0.004)	0.011^***(0.004)	0.010^***(0.004)
	n	-0.005^**(0.002)	-0.004^*(0.002)	-0.004^*(0.002)
	E_du	-0.021(0.024)	-0.023(0.024)	-0.024(0.024)
	L_ab	-0.059^*(0.032)	-0.064^*(0.033)	-0.067^**(0.032)
	R_F	-0.221^***(0.081)	-0.222^***(0.082)	-0.227^***(0.081)
	R_FI	0.102(0.088)	0.105(0.089)	0.118(0.089)
	I_ns	-0.116^*(0.066)	-0.118^*(0.066)	-0.115^*(0.064)
	R_eg	控制	控制	控制
常数项constant		3.104^***(0.932)	2.123^***(1.238)	4.238^***(1.770)
伪R² pseudo R²		0.086	0.089	0.095
极大似然对数值log likelihood		-237.401	-236.625	-235.084
卡方值chi-square		32.85	36.18	41.07
观察值数number of observations		388	388	388

Table 2

Table 3

Parameter estimation results of the robustness test model"

变量类型 type	变量 variable	Probit(1)	Probit(2)	Probit(3)	OLS(1)	OLS(2)	OLS(3)
核心解释变量 independent variable	A	-0.100^* (0.055)	-0.096^* (0.055)	-0.101^* (0.054)	-0.103^* (0.059)	-0.099^* (0.059)	-0.104^* (0.059)
	lnS_p	—	0.026 (0.020)	-0.030 (0.037)	—	0.024 (0.020)	-0.035 (0.040)
	A $·$ lnS_p	—	—	0.077^* (0.043)	—	—	0.078^* (0.046)
控制变量 control variable	S	0.010^*** (0.003)	0.010^*** (0.003)	0.010^*** (0.003)	0.009^*** (0.002)	0.009^*** (0.002)	0.009^*** (0.002)
	n	-0.005^** (0.002)	-0.004^* (0.002)	-0.005^** (0.002)	-0.005^** (0.002)	-0.004^* (0.002)	-0.005^** (0.002)
	E_du	-0.021 (0.024)	-0.022 (0.023)	-0.023 (0.023)	-0.020 (0.024)	-0.021 (0.024)	-0.022 (0.024)
	L_ab	-0.061^* (0.032)	-0.065^** (0.032)	-0.068^** (0.032)	-0.059^* (0.032)	-0.063^* (0.033)	-0.066^** (0.032)
	R_F	-0.213^*** (0.078)	-0.215^*** (0.078)	-0.222^*** (0.078)	-0.204^*** (0.074)	-0.205^*** (0.074)	-0.211^*** (0.074)
	R_FI	0.091 (0.088)	0.095 (0.088)	0.109 (0.088)	0.086 (0.082)	0.088 (0.082)	0.102 (0.082)
	I_ns	-0.119^* (0.067)	-0.120^* (0.067)	-0.117^* (0.066)	-0.124^* (0.072)	-0.125^* (0.072)	-0.122^* (0.071)
	R_eg	控制	控制	控制	控制	控制	控制
常数项constant		1.908^*** (0.560)	1.258^*** (0.743)	2.586^*** (1.064)	1.168^*** (0.194)	-0.960^*** (0.262)	1.434^*** (0.388)
伪R² pseudo R²		0.086	0.089	0.096	—	—	—
R²		—	—	—	0.107	0.110	0.118
极大似然对数值log likelihood		-237.512	-236.588	-234.974	—	—	—
卡方值chi-square		36.22	40.15	45.21	—	—	—
观察值数number of obs		388	388	388	388	388	388

Table 3

Table 4

References 25

[1]	蒋瞻, 蔡志坚, 秦希. 生态绩效增长视角下的林业生产要素优化[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019,43(6):159-164.
	JIANG Z, CAI Z J, QIN X. Optimization of forestry production factors from the perspective of ecological performance growth[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2019,43(6):159-164. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201904016.
[2]	蒋瞻, 蔡志坚, 陈书林, 等. “三权分置”对农户用材林林地转出行为的影响研究:基于计划行为理论[J]. 江淮论坛, 2018(4):12-18.
	JIANG Z, CAI Z J, CHEN S L, et al. Farming households’ decision-making process of timber-forest land transfer out:a case study in Fujian Province[J]. Jianghuai Tribune, 2018(4):12-18. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-862X.2018.04.002.
[3]	仇焕广, 刘乐, 李登旺, 等. 经营规模、地权稳定性与土地生产率:基于全国4省地块层面调查数据的实证分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2017(6):30-43.
	QIU H G, LIU L, LI D W, et al. Farm size,tenure security and land productivity:an empirical study based on plot-level survey data from four provinces in China[J]. Chin Rural Econ, 2017(6):30-43.
[4]	王祥玉, 张红霄, 徐静文, 等. 农地流转契约对流转农户收入的影响分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020,44(4):205-214.
	WANG X Y, ZHANG H X, XU J W, et al. The impact of contract forms and contract duration on the income of peasant households involved in land transfer[J]. J Nanjing For Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2020,44(4):205-214. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201908031.
[5]	ROTH M, HAZELL P. Land tenure security and agricultural performance in Africa:overview of research methodology[J]. La Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento, 2013,10(4):1-33. DOI: 10.1007/BF02743027.
[6]	何欣, 蒋涛, 郭良燕, 等. 中国农地流转市场的发展与农户流转农地行为研究:基于2013-2015年29省的农户调查数据[J]. 管理世界, 2016(6):79-89.
	HE X, JIANG T, GUO L Y, et al. Research on the development of farmland circulation market in China and farmers’ farmland circulation behavior:based on the survey data of farmers in 29 provinces from 2013 to 2015[J]. Manag World, 2016(6):79-89. DOI: 10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2016.06.007.
[7]	李承桧, 杨朝现, 陈兰, 等. 基于农户收益风险视角的土地流转期限影响因素实证分析[J]. 中国人口资源与环境, 2015,25(S1):66-70.
	LI C H, YANG C X, CHEN L, et al. Empirical analysis on factors of land transfer term based on household income and risk perspectives[J]. China Polulation Resour Environ, 2015,25(S1):66-70.
[8]	徐珍源, 孔祥智. 转出土地流转期限影响因素实证分析:基于转出农户收益与风险视角[J]. 农业技术经济, 2010(7):30-40.
	XU Z Y, KONG X Z. Empirical analysis on the impact factor for the time limit of loan in land transfer:based on the perspective of rural land loaner’s income and risk[J]. J Agrotech Econ, 2010(7):30-40. DOI: 10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2010.07.011.
[9]	罗必良. 合约短期化与空合约假说:基于农地租约的经验证据[J]. 财经问题研究, 2017(1):10-21.
	LUO B L. Contract shortening and empty contract hypojournal:based on empirical evidence of agricultural land lease[J]. Res Financial Econ Issues, 2017(1):10-21. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-176X.2017.01.002.
[10]	钱龙, 洪名勇. 为何选择口头式、短期类和无偿型的农地流转契约:转出户控制权偏好视角下的实证分析[J]. 财贸研究, 2018,29(12):48-59.
	QIAN L, HONG M Y. Why does farmland transfer contract trend to be verbal,short-term and unpaid? empirical evidence from perspective of control right preference[J]. Finance Trade Res, 2018,29(12):48-59. DOI: 10.19337/j.cnki.34-1093/f.2018.12.005.
[11]	邹宝玲, 钟文晶, 张沁岚. 风险规避与农地租约期限选择:基于广东省农户问卷的实证分析[J]. 南方经济, 2016(10):12-22.
	ZOU B L, ZHONG W J, ZHANG Q L. Risk aversion and the duration of the rural land lease contract:an empirical analysis based on the survey of rural households in Guangdong[J]. South China J Econ, 2016(10):12-22. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6249.2016.10.002.
[12]	罗必良, 邹宝玲, 何一鸣. 农地租约期限的“逆向选择”:基于9省份农户问卷的实证分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2017(1):4-17.
	LUO B L, ZOU B L, HE Y M. The adverse selection of the term of farmland lease:an empirical analysis based on the questionnaire of farmers in 9 provinces[J]. J Agrotech Econ, 2017(1):4-17. DOI: 10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2017.01.001.
[13]	任广乾. 风险态度、劳动契约选择与当事人决策行为:基于比较制度实验的研究[J]. 中南财经政法大学学报, 2014(4):126-134.
	REN G Q. Attitude,labor contract selection and parties’ decision-making behavior: based on comparative system[J]. J Zhongnan Univ Finance Law Econ, 2014(4):126-134.
[14]	CARDENAS J C, CARPENTER J P. Three themes on field experiments and economic development[M] //Research in Experimental Economics.Bingley:Emerald (MCB UP), 2005,10(4):71-123. DOI: 10.1016/s0193-2306(04)10004-5.
[15]	杨芳, 张应良, 刘魏. 社会网络、土地规模与农户生产性投资[J]. 改革, 2019(1):97-108.
	YANG F, ZHANG Y L, LIU W. Social network,land scale and productivity-oriented investment of peasant household in agriculture[J]. Reform, 2019(1):97-108.
[16]	钟慧, 邓力源. 风险态度、社会网络与家庭消费[J]. 消费经济, 2015,31(4):71-75.
	ZHONG H, DENG L Y. Risk attitude,social network and household consumption[J]. Consumer Econ, 2015,31(4):71-75.
[17]	李涛, 郭杰. 风险态度与股票投资[J]. 经济研究, 2009,44(2):56-67.
	LI T, GUO J. Risk attitude and stock market investment[J]. Econ Res J, 2009,44(2):56-67.
[18]	李景刚, 高艳梅, 臧俊梅. 农户风险意识对土地流转决策行为的影响[J]. 农业技术经济, 2014(11):21-30.
	LI J G, GAO Y M, ZANG J M. Farmers’ risk awareness,expectation of land use change and willingness to transfer land contract management right[J]. J Agrotech Econ, 2014(11):21-30. DOI: 10.13246/j.cnki.jae.2014.11.003.
[19]	蒋瞻, 蔡志坚, 刘依依. 双 “帐户” 视角下农村土地承包经营纠纷的个体诉讼决策研究:以集体林地纠纷诉讼为例[J]. 浙江工商大学学报, 2019(4):70-78.
	JIANG Z, CAI Z J, LIU Y Y. Research on decision-making in individual lawsuits in rural land contract disputes from the perspective of double accounts:case study of forest land lawsuits[J]. J Zhejiang Gongshang Univ, 2019(4):70-78. DOI: 10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1337/c.2019.04.007.
[20]	姚洋. 农地制度与农业绩效的实证研究[J]. 中国农村观察, 1998(6):3-12.
	YAO Y. An empirical study on agricultural land system and agricultural performance[J]. China Rural Surv, 1998(6):3-12.
[21]	蒋乃华, 卞智勇. 社会资本对农村劳动力非农就业的影响:来自江苏的实证[J]. 管理世界, 2007(12):158-159.
	JIANG N H, BIAN Z Y. A research on the influence of social capital causing labour force in rural areas nonagricultural employment[J]. Manag World, 2007(12):158-159. DOI: 10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2007.12.020.
[22]	林丽琼, 王毅鹏. 社会资本影响民间借贷风险吗?:来自中国家庭金融调查的经验证据[J]. 现代财经-天津财经大学学报, 2018,38(10):43-60.
	LIN L Q, WANG Y P. Does social capital affect informal credit risk?:empirical evidence from China household finance survey[J]. Mod Finance Econ-J Tianjin Univ Finance Econ, 2018,38(10):43-60. DOI: 10.19559/j.cnki.12-1387.2018.10.004.
[23]	王全忠, 周宏. 农业生产性投资、流转租期与效益追求方式[J]. 华南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2017,16(5):15-27.
	WANG Q Z, ZHOU H. Agricultural production investment,lease transfer and benefit pursuit[J]. J South China Agric Univ (Soc Sci Ed), 2017,16(5):15-27. DOI: 10.7671/j.issn.1672-0202.2017.05.002.
[24]	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.
	XU X Y, XU C, LI C Z. The effect of relationship network on farmers’ forestland inflow behavior:an analysis based on survey data from Zhejiang Province[J]. Chin Rural Econ, 2018(9):62-78.
[25]	杨丽颖, 谢煜. 中国林业产权场内交易现状分析:基于南方林业产权交易所4565条交易数据[J]. 林业经济问题, 2017,37(5):79-84.
	YANG L Y, XIE Y. Forest tenure trade analysis in China in forest tenure trading markets:based on 4565 transactions data of southern forestry property exchange[J]. Probl For Econ, 2017,37(5):79-84. DOI: 10.16832/j.cnki.1005-9709.2017.05.014.

Metrics

Comments

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

变量类型 type	变量名称 variable	定义 description	均值 mean	标准差 SD
被解释变量 explaimed variable	契约期限(P_er)	1=1 a以上,0=1 a以内	0.608	0.419
核心解释变量 key explanatery variable	是否风险规避(A)	1=是,0=否	0.773	0.419
核心解释变量 key explanatery variable	年社交投资总额(取对数)(lnS_p)	家庭年度社交投资的总额	7.727	1.237
控制变量 control variable	转出农地面积(S)/hm²	转出经营权的耕地面积	6.410	9.461
	户主年龄(n)/a	户主的实际年龄	60.802	11.301
	户主文化程度(E_du)	1=没上过学,2=小学,3=初中,4=高中,5=中专/职高,6=大专/高职,7=大学本科,8=硕士研究生,9=博士研究生	2.637	1.301
	50岁以上劳动力(L_ab)	家庭50岁以上劳动力数量	0.585	0.765
	家庭务农人数占比(R_F)	农户中务农人数占总劳动力的比率	0.281	0.380
	农业收入占比(R_FI)	农户中农业收入占总收入的比率	0.143	0.312
	是否有养老或失业保险(I_ns)	1=是,0=否	0.869	0.338
	区域虚拟变量(R_eg)	东部(基准组):1=东部,0=其他中部:1=中部,0=其他西部:1=西部,0=其他	0.353 0.384 0.263	0.479 0.487 0.441

Impacts of risk aversion and social networks on the contract period of land transfer

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 4

References 25

Related Articles 3

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

变量类型 type	Logit(1)
变量类型 type	高社会网络组 high social network	低社会网络组 low social network
核心解释变量 independent variable	-0.022 (0.081)	-0.179^** (0.075)
控制变量control variable	已控制	已控制
常数项constant	2.833^** (1.274)	3.691^*** (1.440)
伪R² pseudo R²	0.044	0.106
极大似然对数值log likelihood	-121.245	-113.929
卡方值chi-square	0.044	21.87
观察值数number of obs	194	194

[1]	YANG Meng, PENG Hongjun. Strategies for risk-averse forestry enterprises under the put option contract [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(4): 244-252.
[2]	WANG Xiangyu, ZHANG Hongxiao, XU Jingwen, HE Wenjian. An impact of contracts and their duration on household income of farmers involved in land transfer [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(4): 205-214.
[3]	SHI Shumin, WANG Nan, LI Zhaxijie. Social network analysis of dominance behavior and social structure of Crossoptilon crossoptilon in breeding season [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(03): 137-144.