农村社区农户互动效应的定量评估——来自河南省杞县孟寨村的实证
收稿日期: 2009-11-03
修回日期: 2010-05-26
网络出版日期: 2010-10-20
基金资助
教育部人文社科重点研究基地重大项目(2007JJD790151);国家自然科学基金重点项目(40535025)
Quantitative evaluation on effect of farmers' interaction in rural community:Evidence from Mengzhai Village, Henan Province
Received date: 2009-11-03
Revised date: 2010-05-26
Online published: 2010-10-20
信息流动会使农户产生互动学习效应,进而影响农户的农业生产率。基于河南省孟寨村第8小组农户的普查,获得有关农户亲戚、邻居和与之地块邻近农户的社会经济特征和大蒜产量的信息,对这些群组内部的互动学习效应进行检验,并识别不同类型的互动效应。结果表明:内生互动效应仅存在于亲缘群组;情境互动效应存在于地邻群组和邻里群组,但在两个群组中存在一定的差异;关联效应在三个群组均存在,与亲缘群组相比,邻里群组和地邻群组中关联效应更大,但在亲缘群组中,关联效应远小于内生互动效应,在邻里群组和地邻群组中也远小于情境互动效应。研究结论对国外学者的发现进行了修正。这种理论研究具有重要的政策含义。
罗庆, 李小建 . 农村社区农户互动效应的定量评估——来自河南省杞县孟寨村的实证[J]. 地理研究, 2010 , 29(10) : 1757 -1766 . DOI: 10.11821/yj2010100004
Agriculture information flows will produce interactive learning effect, and the existence of interactive learning effect plays very important roles in the spread of agricultural technology. Based on the surveys in Mengzhai Village, Henan Province, we collect the data concerning the social and economic conditions on garlic production of neighbors, relatives and nearby-plot farmers, examine interactive learning effect, and analyze the interaction consequences in different types of groups. Results show that: (1) endogenous interaction effects exist only in the kinship group; (2) contextual interaction effect exists in nearby-plot groups and neighborhood group, but interactive learning effects have remarkable differences between the groups; (3) correlated effect exists in all the groups. Compared with the kinship group, the other groups have more correlated effect. Correlated effect is much weaker than endogenous interaction effect in the kinship group, and it is also smaller than contextual interaction effect in nearby-plot group and neighborhood group; (4) direction can be identified in farmers' interactive learning. This suggests that a few farmers learn new methods by communicating with external actors or accumulating the new knowledge by planting the garlic, and their interaction with other farmers might result in knowledge externalities. The size of externalities depends on the degree of intimacy between farmers. The above conclusions have some important policy implications for the diffusion of new technology in Mengzhai Village. For example, in the extension of new technology, we can select a few farmers with stronger absorptive ability in different kinship groups, encourage them to adopt new technology, and thus affect other farmers to accept new technology by the interactive effect. These results revise the findings of foreign scholars. This academic research has important meanings for policy-making.
Key words： farmer interaction; interaction effects; information flow
[1] Feder G, Just R E, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1985, 33(2): 255~298.
[2] Besley T, Case A. Modeling technology adoption in developing countries. American Economic Review, 1993, 83(2): 396~402.
[3] 辛良杰, 李秀彬, 朱会义, 等. 农户土地规模与生产率的关系及其解释的印证——以吉林省为例. 地理研究, 2009, 28(5): 1276~1284.
[4] 鲁礼新, 马昌河, 鲁奇. 水城县沙坡村农户经济行为调查研究. 地理研究, 2004, 23(2): 218~226.
[5] Bardhan P, Udry C. Development Microeconomics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
[6] Bala V, Goyal S. Learning from neighbours. The Review of Economic Studies, 1998, 65: 595~621.
[7] Ellison G, Fudenberg D. Rules of thumb for social learning. Journal of Political Economy, 1993, 101(4): 612~643.
[8] Ellison G, Fudenberg D. Word-of-mouth communication and social learning. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, 110(1): 93~125.
[9] Foster A D, Rosenzweig M R. Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 1995, 103(6): 1176~1209.
[10] Manski C F. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 1993, 60(3): 531~542.
[11] Manski C F. Economic analysis of social interaction. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000, 14: 115~136.
[12] Case A. Neighborhood influence and technological change. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 1992, 22: 491~508.
[13] Munshi K. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: Technology diffusion in the Indian green revolution. Journal of Development Economics, 2004, 73(1): 185~213.
[14] Borjas G J. Ethnicity, neighborhoods, and human capital externalities. American Economic Review, 1995,85(3): 365~390.
[15] Udry C, Conley T. Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2001, 83(3): 668~673.
[16] Bandiera O, Rasul I. Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal, 2006, 116(514): 869~902.
[17] 李小建. 农户地理论. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009.
[18] 刘鹤玲. 亲缘选择理论:生物有机体的亲缘利他行为及其基因机制. 华中师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 42(1): 114~118.
[19] 郑传贵. 社会资本与农村社区发展. 上海: 学林出版社, 2007.
[20] 叶航. 利他行为的经济学解释. 经济学家, 2005, (3): 22~29.
[21] 班杜拉. 社会学习理论. 沈阳: 辽宁人民出版社, 1989.
[22] 高峰强. 罗推尔社会行为学习理论述评. 山东师范大学学报(社会科学版), 1996, (1): 55~62.
[23] Becker G. A theory of social interaction. The Journal of Political Economy, 1974, 82(6): 1063~1093.
[24] 李涛. 社会互动与投资选择. 经济研究, 2006, (8): 45~57.
[25] Durlauf S. Neighborhood effects. In: Henderson J V, Thisse J F. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 2004.2174~2242.
[26] 陆铭, 张爽. "人以群分":非市场互动和群分效应的文献评论. 经济学(季刊), 2007, 6(3): 991~1020.
[27] Brock W A, Durlauf S N. Interactions-based models. In: Heckman J, Leamer E. Handbook of Econometrics. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 2001. 3297~3380.
[28] Durlauf S N. On the empirics of social capital. The Economic Journal, 2002, 112(483): 459~479.
[29] Isham J. The effect of social capital on fertilizer adoption: Evidence from rural Tanzania, The Journal of African Economies, 2002, 11(1): 39~60.
[30] 李小建.还原论与农户地理研究.地理研究, 2010,29(5): 767~777.
[31] 林毅夫. 制度、技术与中国农业发展. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 1994.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |