生产外包服务、要素配置与农业生产效率

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20250021

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

生产外包服务是实现小农户和现代农业有机衔接的基本途径和重要机制。本文通过建立理论模型刻画了生产外包服务、农户要素配置和农业生产效率之间的关系,阐明了生产外包服务对农户要素投入和农业生产效率的影响机制。运用2020—2021年“中国土地经济调查”数据定量评估生产外包服务对农户要素投入和农业生产效率的影响。研究发现,生产外包服务显著提高了农户的土地生产率和农业全要素生产率,经过稳健性检验结论依然成立。生产外包服务通过资本替代劳动力显著降低了农业劳动时间投入,进而提高农业生产效率;同时生产外包服务通过增加化肥投入强度从而提高农业生产效率。进一步异质性分析发现,生产外包服务对经营规模0.67 hm²以下的小农户效率提升更明显,与技术密集型外包服务相比,劳动节约型外包服务能够显著提高农户的生产效率。由此,破除农业生产外包服务发展障碍,推动生产外包服务供给与农户生产需求有效对接,为加快小农户与现代农业有机衔接和提高农户生产效率提供政策参考。

关键词: 生产外包服务, 要素配置, 土地生产率, 农业全要素生产率

Abstract:

Production outsourcing services is a fundamental approach and important mechanism for achieving organic integration between small farmers and modern agriculture. This article describes the relationship between production outsourcing services, farmer factor allocation, and agricultural production efficiency by establishing a theoretical model, and explains the impact mechanism of production outsourcing services on farmer factor input and agricultural production efficiency. We quantitatively evaluate the impact of production outsourcing services on farmers' factor inputs and agricultural production efficiency using data from the 2020-2021 China Land Economic Survey. Research has found that production outsourcing services significantly improve farmers' land productivity and agricultural total factor productivity, and the robustness test conclusion still holds true. Production outsourcing services significantly reduce agricultural labor time input by replacing labor with capital, thereby improving agricultural production efficiency. At the same time, production outsourcing services can improve agricultural production efficiency by increasing the intensity of fertilizer input. Further heterogeneity analysis revealed that production outsourcing services have a more significant impact on the efficiency of small farmers with a business scale of less than 0.67 hm². Compared with technology intensive outsourcing services, labor-saving outsourcing services can significantly improve the production efficiency of farmers. Therefore, we will eliminate obstacles to the development of agricultural production outsourcing services, promote the effective connection between the supply of production outsourcing services and the production needs of farmers, and provide policy references for accelerating the organic connection between small farmers and modern agriculture and improving farmers' production efficiency.

Key words: production outsourcing services, factor allocation, land productivity, total factor productivity in agriculture

中图分类号:

F326.1

刘淑云, 韩家彬, 张晖. 生产外包服务、要素配置与农业生产效率[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2026, 67(1): 260-270.

LIU Shuyun, HAN Jiabin, ZHANG Hui. Production outsourcing services, factor allocation, and agricultural production efficiency[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(1): 260-270.

图/表 10

参考文献 21

[8]	CHEN Z, LI X J, XIA X L. Study on the effect of reducing cost and increasing income of outsourcing services in agricultural production[J]. Rural Economy, 2022(3): 110-117.
[9]	李克乐, 杨宏力. 农业生产外包服务水平能否提高粮食生产: 基于2011—2020年省际面板数据的分析[J]. 经济体制改革, 2022(5): 83-91.
	LI K L, YANG H L. Can the level of agricultural production outsourcing services improve food production: based on provincial panel data from 2011 to 2020[J]. Reform of Economic System, 2022(5): 83-91.
[10]	杨子, 饶芳萍, 诸培新. 农业社会化服务对土地规模经营的影响: 基于农户土地转入视角的实证分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2019(3): 82-95.
	YANG Z, RAO F P, ZHU P X. The impact of specialized agricultural services on land scale management: an empirical analysis from the perspective of farmers' land transfer-in[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2019(3): 82-95.
[11]	牛秋纯, 李谷成. 农户兼业、农业生产性服务与农业生产效率: 来自全国农村固定观察点的经验证据[J]. 华中农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2024(5): 72-81.
	NIU Q C, LI G C. Off-farm work, agricultural productive services and production efficiency: empirical evidence from national rural fixed observation points survey[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2024(5): 72-81.
[12]	SHENG Y, JACKSON T, GOODAY P. Resource reallocation and its contribution to productivity growth in Australian broadacre agriculture[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2017, 61(1): 56-75.
[13]	CHEN C R. Untitled land, occupational choice, and agricultural productivity[J]. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2017, 9(4): 91-121.
[14]	朱喜, 史清华, 盖庆恩. 要素配置扭曲与农业全要素生产率[J]. 经济研究, 2011, 46(5): 86-98.
	ZHU X, SHI Q H, GAI Q E. Misallocation and TFP in rural China[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2011, 46(5): 86-98.
[15]	柏培文. 三大产业劳动力无扭曲配置对产出增长的影响[J]. 中国工业经济, 2014(4): 32-44.
[1]	蔡昉, 王美艳. 从穷人经济到规模经济: 发展阶段变化对中国农业提出的挑战[J]. 经济研究, 2016, 51(5): 14-26.
	CAI F, WANG M Y. Challenges facing China's agriculture as it moves towards a new development stage[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2016, 51(5): 14-26.
[2]	黄增付. 农民土地转出中的道义理性选择及现实困境: 以核心产粮区典型村庄为例[J]. 农业经济问题, 2016, 37(7): 81-89, 111-112.
	HUANG Z F. The moral rational choice of farmers' land transfer and realistic predicament: case of typical village in the core area of grain production[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2016, 37(7): 81-89, 111-112.
[3]	刘灵辉. 家庭农场土地流转集中的困境与对策[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 19(2): 109-115.
	LIU L H. Problem and countermeasure of land moderate scale concentration of family farm through land transference[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Social Science Edition), 2019, 19(2): 109-115.
[4]	钟真, 胡珺祎, 曹世祥. 土地流转与社会化服务: “路线竞争”还是“相得益彰”: 基于山东临沂12个村的案例分析[J]. 中国农村经济, 2020(10): 52-70.
	ZHONG Z, HU J Y, CAO S X. Land transfer and agricultural services: “route competition” or “mutual reinforcement” an analysis based on cases from 12 villages in Linyi, Shandong Province[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2020(10): 52-70.
[5]	LI J P, VATSA P, MA W L. Can mechanized pesticide application help reduce pesticide use and increase crop yield Evidence from rice farmers in Jiangsu Province, China[J]. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2023, 21(1): 2227809.
[6]	张梦玲, 陈昭玖, 翁贞林, 等. 农业社会化服务对化肥减量施用的影响研究: 基于要素配置的调节效应分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2023(3): 104-123.
	ZHANG M L, CHEN Z J, WENG Z L, et al. Research on the influence of agricultural socialized services on fertilizer reduction: based on the regulation effect of element configuration[J]. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2023(3): 104-123.
[7]	康晨, 刘家成, 徐志刚. 农业生产外包服务对农村土地流转租金的影响[J]. 中国农村经济, 2020(9): 105-123.
	KANG C, LIU J C, XU Z G. The impacts of agricultural production outsourcing services on rural land transfer rent[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2020(9): 105-123.
[8]	陈哲, 李晓静, 夏显力. 农业生产环节外包服务的节本增收效应研究[J]. 农村经济, 2022(3): 110-117.
[15]	BAI P W. The influence of the labor allocation distortion on social outcomes in the three major industries[J]. China Industrial Economics, 2014(4): 32-44.
[16]	盖庆恩, 李承政, 张无坷, 等. 从小农户经营到规模经营: 土地流转与农业生产效率[J]. 经济研究, 2023, 58(5): 135-152.
	GAI Q E, LI C Z, ZHANG W K, et al. From smallholders to large-scale farmers: land rental and agricultural productivity[J]. Economic Research Journal, 2023, 58(5): 135-152.
[17]	SCHULTZ T W. Transforming traditional Agriculture[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
[18]	速水佑, RUTTAN V W. Agricultural development: an international perspective[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.
[19]	赵西亮. 倾向指数匹配方法: 变量选择和模型设定问题[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2015, 32(11): 133-147.
	ZHAO X L. Matching method of tendency index: variable selection and model setting[J]. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 2015, 32(11): 133-147.
[20]	ARRIAGADA R A, SILLS E O, PATTANAYAK S K, et al. Modeling fertilizer externalities around Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2010, 41(6): 567-575.
[21]	仇焕广, 栾昊, 李瑾, 等. 风险规避对农户化肥过量施用行为的影响[J]. 中国农村经济, 2014(3): 85-96.
	QIU H G, LUAN H, LI J, et al. Influence of risk aversion on farmers' excessive application of chemical fertilizers[J]. Chinese Rural Economy, 2014(3): 85-96.

类型	变量名称	变量测度	均值	标准差
因变量	土地生产率^*	单位土地面积粮食产量(kg·hm^-2)	8 046.83	1 933.35
	全要素生产率	运用SFA方法测算	0.81	0.14
核心自变量	生产外包服务	农户是否参与农业生产外包服务(1=是,0=否)	0.83	0.38
中间变量	化肥施用强度^*	单位面积化肥投入量(kg·hm^-2)	1 040.10	444.83
	农药施用强度^*	单位面积农药费用(元·hm^-2)	1 541.55	1 236.30
	劳动力投入^*	单位面积劳动力投入时间(d·hm^-2)	300.90	534.60
农户特征变量	年龄	家庭经营决策者实际年龄(岁)	61.04	9.98
	年龄的平方	年龄的平方/100	38.26	11.74
	性别	家庭经营决策者性别(1=男,0=女)	0.85	0.36
	文化程度	家庭经营决策者受教育年限(年)	7.03	3.69
	健康状况	1=无劳动能力,2=差,3=中,4=良,5=优	3.97	1.05
	技术培训	是否参与农业技术培训(1=是,0=否)	0.34	0.47
	风险偏好	1=较大,2=中等,3=较小	2.72	0.56
	时间偏好	1=注重当下收益,2=兼顾当下及未来收益,3=注重未来收益	1.67	0.72
	补贴^*	种植业补贴(元)	3 160.55	22 353.90
地块特征变量	作物类别	1=水稻,0=玉米	0.79	0.41
	耕地面积^*	最大地块的面积(hm²)	0.20	0.30
	坡度	1=平地,0=其他	0.93	0.26
	土壤类型	1=沙土,2=壤土,3=黏土,4=其他	2.27	0.91
	灌溉条件	1=能灌溉,0=不能灌溉	0.89	0.31
	土壤肥力	0=差,1=中,2=好	1.36	0.63
	耕地修复情况	是否对耕地污染治理修复(1=是,0=否)	0.06	0.24
	受灾情况	该地块是否受灾(1=是,0=否)	0.29	0.45

类型	变量名称	变量测度	均值	标准差
因变量	土地生产率^*	单位土地面积粮食产量(kg·hm^-2)	8 046.83	1 933.35
	全要素生产率	运用SFA方法测算	0.81	0.14
核心自变量	生产外包服务	农户是否参与农业生产外包服务(1=是,0=否)	0.83	0.38
中间变量	化肥施用强度^*	单位面积化肥投入量(kg·hm^-2)	1 040.10	444.83
	农药施用强度^*	单位面积农药费用(元·hm^-2)	1 541.55	1 236.30
	劳动力投入^*	单位面积劳动力投入时间(d·hm^-2)	300.90	534.60
农户特征变量	年龄	家庭经营决策者实际年龄(岁)	61.04	9.98
	年龄的平方	年龄的平方/100	38.26	11.74
	性别	家庭经营决策者性别(1=男,0=女)	0.85	0.36
	文化程度	家庭经营决策者受教育年限(年)	7.03	3.69
	健康状况	1=无劳动能力,2=差,3=中,4=良,5=优	3.97	1.05
	技术培训	是否参与农业技术培训(1=是,0=否)	0.34	0.47
	风险偏好	1=较大,2=中等,3=较小	2.72	0.56
	时间偏好	1=注重当下收益,2=兼顾当下及未来收益,3=注重未来收益	1.67	0.72
	补贴^*	种植业补贴(元)	3 160.55	22 353.90
地块特征变量	作物类别	1=水稻,0=玉米	0.79	0.41
	耕地面积^*	最大地块的面积(hm²)	0.20	0.30
	坡度	1=平地,0=其他	0.93	0.26
	土壤类型	1=沙土,2=壤土,3=黏土,4=其他	2.27	0.91
	灌溉条件	1=能灌溉,0=不能灌溉	0.89	0.31
	土壤肥力	0=差,1=中,2=好	1.36	0.63
	耕地修复情况	是否对耕地污染治理修复(1=是,0=否)	0.06	0.24
	受灾情况	该地块是否受灾(1=是,0=否)	0.29	0.45

变量		化肥施用强度/ (kg·hm^-2)	农药施用强度/ (元·hm^-2)	劳动力投入/ (d·hm^-2)	土地生产率/ (kg·hm^-2)	全要素生产率	农户数量	农户数量占比/%
农户参与生产外包服务环节数量	0	973.13(480.75)	1 666.50(1 317.90)	464.25(798.30)	7 662.00(1 992.00)	0.776 1(0.18)	321	17.01
	1	1 034.33(478.73)	1 570.65(1 834.50)	295.05(445.65)	8 418.38(2 486.25)	0.831 0(0.13)	330	17.49
	2	1 076.93(480.75)	1 557.00(883.80)	248.55(384.60)	8 171.78(1 628.25)	0.825 7(0.13)	562	29.78
	3	1 044.08(405.15)	1 476.00(1 080.45)	243.45(478.50)	7 917.68(2 010.00)	0.800 1(0.15)	365	19.34
	4	1 051.43(396.23)	1 479.00(1 116.60)	276.15(523.65)	8 006.33(1 404.75)	0.826 3(0.10)	217	11.50
	5	997.13(404.03)	1 350.75(936.75)	356.55(598.50)	7 901.10(1 663.50)	0.795 6(0.13)	92	4.88

变量		化肥施用强度/ (kg·hm^-2)	农药施用强度/ (元·hm^-2)	劳动力投入/ (d·hm^-2)	土地生产率/ (kg·hm^-2)	全要素生产率	农户数量	农户数量占比/%
农户参与生产外包服务环节数量	0	973.13(480.75)	1 666.50(1 317.90)	464.25(798.30)	7 662.00(1 992.00)	0.776 1(0.18)	321	17.01
	1	1 034.33(478.73)	1 570.65(1 834.50)	295.05(445.65)	8 418.38(2 486.25)	0.831 0(0.13)	330	17.49
	2	1 076.93(480.75)	1 557.00(883.80)	248.55(384.60)	8 171.78(1 628.25)	0.825 7(0.13)	562	29.78
	3	1 044.08(405.15)	1 476.00(1 080.45)	243.45(478.50)	7 917.68(2 010.00)	0.800 1(0.15)	365	19.34
	4	1 051.43(396.23)	1 479.00(1 116.60)	276.15(523.65)	8 006.33(1 404.75)	0.826 3(0.10)	217	11.50
	5	997.13(404.03)	1 350.75(936.75)	356.55(598.50)	7 901.10(1 663.50)	0.795 6(0.13)	92	4.88

变量	被解释变量:土地生产率		被解释变量:全要素生产率
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4
生产外包服务	0.061^**(0.024)	0.058^** (0.025)	0.035^***(0.011)	0.032^***(0.011)
年龄	0.002 (0.006)	0.002 (0.006)	0.002 (0.003)	0.001 (0.003)
年龄的平方	-0.000 (0.005)	-0.000 (0.005)	-0.000 (0.002)	-0.000 (0.002)
性别	-0.001 (0.021)	0.006 (0.021)	0.003 (0.009)	0.002 (0.009)
文化程度	0.004^** (0.002)	0.003 (0.002)	0.001 (0.001)	0.001 (0.001)
健康状况	0.011 (0.007)	0.013^* (0.007)	0.005 (0.003)	0.007^** (0.003)
技术培训	0.031^** (0.015)	0.013 (0.015)	0.014^** (0.007)	0.006 (0.007)
风险偏好	-0.024^** (0.010)	-0.020^* (0.010)	-0.010^** (0.005)	-0.007 (0.005)
时间偏好	-0.012 (0.010)	0.016 (0.010)	-0.006 (0.005)	-0.007 (0.005)
补贴	-0.000 (0.002)	0.001 (0.003)	0.002^* (0.001)	0.002^* (0.001)
作物类别	0.239^***(0.025)	0.300^***(0.041)	0.114^***(0.011)	0.153^***(0.017)
耕地面积	0.073^***(0.014)	0.039^***(0.015)	-0.006 (0.010)	-0.029^***(0.011)
坡度	0.031 (0.022)	0.004 (0.023)	0.021^* (0.012)	-0.004 (0.013)
土壤类型	-0.003 (0.008)	0.005 (0.010)	-0.002 (0.004)	0.002 (0.005)
灌溉条件	0.066^* (0.037)	0.062^* (0.037)	0.050^***(0.016)	0.047^***(0.016)
土壤肥力	0.035^***(0.011)	0.032^***(0.010)	0.017^***(0.005)	0.014^***(0.005)
耕地修复情况	0.064^***(0.023)	0.047^** (0.023)	0.030^***(0.012)	0.023^* (0.012)
受灾情况	-0.084^***(0.016)	-0.082^***(0.016)	-0.031^***(0.007)	-0.032^***(0.007)
常数项	6.422^***(0.176)	6.414^***(0.179)	0.546^***(0.084)	0.566^***(0.082)
年份固定效应	是	是	是	是
个体固定效应	否	是	否	是
调整后R²	0.212	0.243	0.228	0.270
样本量	1 715	1 698	1 715	1 698