Impact of agricultural producer services on agricultural green total factor productivity

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230615

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the panel data of 31 provinces in China from 2003 to 2021, this paper uses the SBM-GML index model to calculate the agricultural green total factor productivity (AGTFP). The fixed effect model is used to explore the impact effect and path of agricultural producer services on AGTFP, and the panel threshold model is used to analyze the stage differences in the impact of agricultural producer services on AGTFP in the process of urbanization. The study found that agricultural producer services have a significant role in promoting AGTFP. From the perspective of the impact path, the agricultural producer services mainly enhance AGTFP by improving the green technical efficiency, and the contribution of the green technology progress is not obvious. From the grain functional areas, the agricultural producer services has a significant positive impact on the AGTFP of non-main grain-producing areas, but has no significant impact on main grain-producing areas. The impact of agricultural producer services on AGTFP has the threshold effect. When the level of population urbanization and employment urbanization crosses the threshold, the growth effect increases significantly.

Key words: agricultural producer services, agricultural green total factor productivity, green development, urbanization

CLC Number:

F324.6

XIA Longteng, FAN Fan. Impact of agricultural producer services on agricultural green total factor productivity[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1512-1520.

Figures/Tables 9

References 23

[1]	HAN H B, ZHONG Z Q, WEN C C, et al. Agricultural environmental total factor productivity in China under technological heterogeneity: characteristics and determinants[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25(32): 32096-32111.
[2]	LIU Y, FENG C. What drives the fluctuations of “green” productivity in China's agricultural sector? A weighted Russell directional distance approach[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 147: 201-213.
[3]	展进涛, 徐钰娇. 环境规制、农业绿色生产率与粮食安全[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(3):167-176.
[4]	叶初升, 惠利. 农业财政支出对中国农业绿色生产率的影响[J]. 武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 69(3):48-55.
[5]	郭海红, 张在旭. 新型城镇化对农业绿色全要素生产率的门槛效应[J]. 湖南师范大学社会科学学报, 2019, 48(2):55-63.
[6]	陈芳, 杨梅君. 农产品国际贸易对中国农业绿色全要素生产率的影响[J]. 华南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 20(5):94-104.
[7]	李健旋. 农村金融发展与农业绿色全要素生产率提升研究[J]. 管理评论, 2021, 33(3): 84-95.
[8]	ZHU Y Y, ZHANG Y, PIAO H L. Does agricultural mechanization improve the green total factor productivity of China's planting industry?[J]. Energies, 2022, 15(3): 940.
[9]	马国群, 谭砚文. 环境规制对农业绿色全要素生产率的影响研究:基于面板门槛模型的分析[J]. 农业技术经济, 2021(5):77-92.
[10]	胡祎, 张正河. 农机服务对小麦生产技术效率有影响吗?[J]. 中国农村经济, 2018(5):68-83.
[11]	楚明钦. 农业生产性服务嵌入对农业效率影响的实证[J]. 统计与决策, 2021, 37(24):75-79.
[12]	CHEN T, RIZWAN M, ABBAS A. Exploring the role of agricultural services in production efficiency in Chinese agriculture: a case of the socialized agricultural service system[J]. Land, 2022, 11(3): 347.
[13]	武宵旭, 葛鹏飞, 徐璋勇. 城镇化与农业全要素生产率提升:异质性与空间效应[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(5):149-156.
[14]	张恒, 郭翔宇. 农业生产性服务业发展与农业全要素生产率提升:地区差异性与空间效应[J]. 农业技术经济, 2021(5):93-107.
[15]	SUN D Q, RICKAILLE M, XU Z G. Determinants and impacts of outsourcing pest and disease management[J]. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2018, 10(3): 443-461.
[16]	XU Q H, ZHU P X, TANG L. Agricultural services: another way of farmland utilization and its effect on agricultural green total factor productivity in China[J]. Land, 2022, 11(8): 1170.
[17]	胡凌啸. 中国农业规模经营的现实图谱:“土地+服务”的二元规模化[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, 39(11):20-28.
[18]	罗必良. 论服务规模经营:从纵向分工到横向分工及连片专业化[J]. 中国农村经济, 2017(11):2-16.
[19]	GAO J, SONG G, SUN X Q. Does labor migration affect rural land transfer? Evidence from China[J]. Land Use Policy, 2020, 99: 105096.
[20]	HANSEN B E. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference[J]. Journal of Econometrics, 1999, 93(2): 345-368.
[21]	TONE K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 130(3): 498-509.
[22]	FANG L, HU R, MAO H, et al. How crop insurance influences agricultural green total factor productivity: evidence from Chinese farmers[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 321: 128977.
[23]	DUBEY A, LAL R. Carbon footprint and sustainability of agricultural production systems in Punjab, India, and Ohio, USA[J]. Journal of Crop Improvement, 2009, 23(4): 332-350.

指标类型	指标选取	指标说明
投入	土地投入	农作物总播种面积(0.1万hm²)
	劳动投入	农业从业人员(万人)
	机械动力投入	农业机械总动力(万kW)
	农业用水投入	农业用水量(亿m³)
	化肥投入	农用化肥使用折纯量(万t)
	农药投入	农药使用量(万t)
	农膜投入	农用塑料薄膜使用量(万t)
期望产出	农业产出	农业总产值(亿元)
非期望产出	碳排放	化肥、农药、柴油、农膜、翻耕、灌溉产生的碳排放量总和(万)t

指标类型	指标选取	指标说明
投入	土地投入	农作物总播种面积(0.1万hm²)
	劳动投入	农业从业人员(万人)
	机械动力投入	农业机械总动力(万kW)
	农业用水投入	农业用水量(亿m³)
	化肥投入	农用化肥使用折纯量(万t)
	农药投入	农药使用量(万t)
	农膜投入	农用塑料薄膜使用量(万t)
期望产出	农业产出	农业总产值(亿元)
非期望产出	碳排放	化肥、农药、柴油、农膜、翻耕、灌溉产生的碳排放量总和(万)t

变量名称	符号	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
农业绿色全要素生产率	AGTFP	1.065 6	0.128 2	0.438 9	2.227 7
农业生产性服务业	APS	1.280 7	0.959 2	0.142 5	7.248 0
工业化程度	IND	0.449 6	0.085 7	0.161 6	0.664 2
财政支出	FINA	0.416 0	0.671 5	0.031 9	5.713 2
自然条件	NC	0.214 3	0.150 0	0.002 6	0.935 9
农村人力资本	HC	7.344 4	0.886 3	3.239 0	9.730 6
机械化水平	MECH	3.166 6	1.652 9	0.908 7	12.283 3
对外开放程度	OPEN	0.612 9	1.906 5	0.002 9	16.645 9
人口城镇化水平	PU	0.516 8	0.150 7	0.198 0	0.896 0
就业城镇化水平	EU	0.621 5	0.159 2	0.220 9	0.970 4

变量名称	符号	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
农业绿色全要素生产率	AGTFP	1.065 6	0.128 2	0.438 9	2.227 7
农业生产性服务业	APS	1.280 7	0.959 2	0.142 5	7.248 0
工业化程度	IND	0.449 6	0.085 7	0.161 6	0.664 2
财政支出	FINA	0.416 0	0.671 5	0.031 9	5.713 2
自然条件	NC	0.214 3	0.150 0	0.002 6	0.935 9
农村人力资本	HC	7.344 4	0.886 3	3.239 0	9.730 6
机械化水平	MECH	3.166 6	1.652 9	0.908 7	12.283 3
对外开放程度	OPEN	0.612 9	1.906 5	0.002 9	16.645 9
人口城镇化水平	PU	0.516 8	0.150 7	0.198 0	0.896 0
就业城镇化水平	EU	0.621 5	0.159 2	0.220 9	0.970 4

变量	(1)	(2)	(3)
农业生产性服务业	0.110 8^**(0.043 2)	0.124 8^***(0.035 2)	0.103 9^**(0.038 0)
工业化程度	—	-0.727 3^*(0.414 1)	-0.702 9(0.452 0)
财政支出	—	-0.213 7^**(0.090 2)	-0.215 7^**(0.096 3)
自然条件	—	-0.090 7^**(0.041 2)	-0.084 5^*(0.045 5)
农村人力资本	—	0.102 5^*(0.050 2)	0.104 5^*(0.053 7)
机械化水平	—	-0.036 4(0.022 7)	-0.033 8(0.021 4)
对外开放程度	—	0.044 1^*(0.024 7)	0.045 4^*(0.025 6)
省份固定效应	Yes	Yes	Yes
年份固定效应	Yes	Yes	Yes
R²	0.764 5	0.843 0	0.826 9
观测值	589	589	558