Keywords: agriculture, rural and peasant policies, rural modernization
First, the policy dependence of rural social development from the perspective of GDP growth
China's economy has been growing rapidly for more than 20 years. However, through the analysis of the agricultural sector, we can find that the agricultural sector always has a more unstable growth structure than the overall economy, which can be confirmed by the total GDP of the agricultural sector and its growth rate, and the time series changes of growth are closely related to the agricultural policy reform in the corresponding period.
From 1982 to 1986, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the document 1 for five years in a row, and put the primary work layout in the field of "agriculture, countryside and farmers" every year. Through bold layout, rural productive forces have been effectively liberated, rural production relations have been more in line with the needs of productive forces development, and deepening adjustment work has been continuously carried out. It is the big moves in recent years that have brought earth-shaking changes to the countryside, which are directly reflected in the rapid increase of agricultural GDP growth rate, the rapid increase of farmers' per capita net income, the obvious narrowing of the income gap between urban and rural areas and the remarkable improvement of living standards. An example is that the mid-1980s was a peak of rural housing construction, and the policy effect of this period lasted until the end of 1980s.
At the end of 1980s, the rural economy entered the platform period, and the growth rate gradually slowed down. Since 1993, agricultural GDP has entered a period of rapid growth. But considering the economic background at that time, there are two main factors. One is the sharp increase in nominal GDP caused by rapid inflation, and the other is the period when the grain protection price policy was introduced in the mid-1990s. From 1995 to 1996, China began to fully implement the protection price acquisition policy. Due to high food prices, the ratio of 1995 to the net income of farmers' families increased by 1990, accounting for 38.3% of the added value of the net income of farmers' families in the same period. This shows that in the initial stage of the implementation of the protective price policy, the role of the protective price policy in promoting farmers' income is very obvious. However, with the continuous decline of food prices, the net income of farmers' family food crops decreased from165438+2436 yuan in 1995 to 1499.265438 yuan in 2000, a decrease of 937.34 yuan, and the decrease of food crops accounted for 90.67% of the decrease in net income of planting. For grain-producing farmers with underdeveloped non-agricultural industries and single family-run planting structure, the continuous decline of grain prices has become the main constraint to improve farmers' income level [2]. It can be seen that in the initial stage of the implementation of the protective price, this policy has played an obvious role in promoting farmers' income because the government maintained a high purchase price. However, as the government continues to lower the protection price standard, it has also become the main factor restricting the growth of farmers' income. The causal relationship between rural economic policies with grain protection price policy as the core and farmers' income is very clear.
After 1997, the rural economy once again entered the platform period, and the income of farmers increased slowly, and some areas even experienced negative growth for many years. During this period, although the central government introduced many new agricultural policies, it failed to reverse the situation of weak development. The reasons are as follows: first, agriculture lacks an effective endogenous growth mechanism; Secondly, the huge redundant agricultural labor force and dual social structure limit the limited resources for the development of agriculture itself, and at the same time lack external resources.
In 2004-2005, the central government successively issued two documents, 1, which directly took the issue of increasing farmers' income as the goal of policy operation. In 2004, more direct policies and measures such as "two exemptions and three subsidies" were adopted, and the central government's expenditure on agriculture, rural areas and farmers reached a record of more than 260 billion yuan. In 2005, the No.1 Document of the Central Committee focused on the steady increase of grain production and the continuous increase of farmers' income, and the policies directly supported by funds accounted for a considerable proportion. Adhere to the policy of "giving more, taking less and letting loose", and further take "improving agricultural comprehensive productivity" as the focus of agricultural and rural work in 2005. Judging from the policy effect in 2004, only the "two reductions and exemptions" and "three subsidies" in 2004 directly benefited farmers 45 1 100 million yuan. In 2004, the per capita net income of farmers was 2,934 yuan, an increase of 3 14 yuan and an increase of 12% compared with 2003. After deducting the price factor, it actually increased by 6.8%, breaking the low-speed growth situation since 1.997, and the total grain output reached 939 billion Jin, exceeding the expected 9 1 100 million Jin, increasing production.
Looking back on the agricultural economic and social development in the past 20 years of reform and opening up, it is enough to see that the characteristics of policy development have accompanied every climax and trough of the agricultural economy. Comparing the two periods before and after the document number 1, the previous focus was to mobilize farmers' enthusiasm for production and liberate rural productive forces, which can be said to be a successful reform within the rural economy. This reform based on the system itself basically reached the limit of its effectiveness in the 1980s. In the last two times, the policy goal was directed at increasing farmers' income. Although the central policy in 2005 further put forward the goal of strengthening the construction of comprehensive agricultural production capacity, increasing grain production and farmers' income, and promoting the all-round development of rural economy and society, policy dependence is still the most prominent development feature in the current rural economy, whether from the role of the policy itself or from the current situation in the agricultural field.
Second, the current "three rural issues" dilemma
Generally speaking, the biggest dilemma of agricultural economy is the lack of long-term mechanism for sustainable development. Just comparing 2005 and 2004, the effect of "increasing income" in 2004 is satisfactory, but judging from the situation in the first half of 2005, it is obviously more difficult for the same policy to achieve similar goals as in 2004. On the one hand, the price of agricultural products rose sharply in 2004 compared with 2003, and the output of agricultural products reached a record high. In addition, there are few natural disasters, and measures such as reducing agricultural tax and increasing direct subsidies can have immediate effects on agricultural production and life. In the first quarter of 2005, the price of agricultural products declined, while the price of agricultural means of production rose sharply, while the planting area and output of crops were difficult to improve. The market restraint mechanism of agricultural product prices will make the agricultural output benefit reach the peak quickly at the current productivity level. The long-term development track shows that policy has become the only effective dependence to solve the problems of agriculture, countryside and farmers, and this dependence is unreliable and unsustainable at the same time.
The current predicament of "agriculture, countryside and farmers" can be described from the following aspects.
1. The disharmony between population pressure and economic and social development
At the end of 2003, the agricultural population was 930 million, accounting for 72.5% of the total population in China, of which the agricultural labor force was 3 1 10,000, accounting for 63.8% of the rural labor force. The proportion of agricultural employees to social employees is 49. 1%, and the proportion of rural non-agricultural employees to social employees is 23.8%. The added value of agriculture only accounts for 14.8% of GDP, the retail sales of rural consumer goods only accounts for 35.0% of the total retail sales of social consumer goods, and the ratio of urban and rural consumption levels is 3.4: 1[3].
According to statistics, in 2002, China's urban-rural income gap index was 3. 1, which was much higher than that of most countries in the world. If we consider the factors that urban residents enjoy various benefits and subsidies, this index will be higher in China. In 2002, the regional income gap index of urban residents in China was 2. 10, and that of rural residents was 4. 16, while that of the United States, Canada, Italy and India was10.58, 2.30, 2.24 and 3.26 respectively. According to the calculation of the World Bank, the urban-rural income gap and regional income gap account for more than 80% of the total income gap in China.
As can be seen from the above data, on the one hand, the total agricultural economy is very low, accounting for only14.8% of the total national economy; On the other hand, the agricultural population accounts for more than 70% of the country's total population. Before 2004, this 14% total agricultural economy not only needs to maintain the survival and development of the entire agricultural population, which accounts for 70% of the total population, but also is very important. According to the proportion of financial support personnel per million dollars GDP, the United States is 2.3 1 person/million dollars GDP, the French is 3.46/million dollars GDP, the Japanese is 1.38/million dollars GDP, the British is 1.58/million dollars GDP, and China is 39/million dollars GDP [ Even if the national average is used to measure the per capita financial burden of rural population, the proportion is quite high.
At the same time, almost all inputs related to production development and labor resource regeneration, such as rural construction, education and health resource construction, mostly fall on the agricultural population itself. In other words, the medical expenses of the agricultural population basically depend on their own income, and low income means low investment. Taking health as an example, China's health financial expenditure accounts for about 2% of the total financial expenditure, while 80% of all input resources are distributed in cities and only 20% in rural areas.
Agricultural society has never been divorced from the self-sufficient economic model. However, decades after the founding of the People's Republic of China, the policies of "pumping farmers to make up for work" and "two kinds of household registration" have caused a large accumulation of agricultural population, which has evolved into a situation that seems powerless today. Almost any unusual big move is like posturing in the face of the deep-rooted "three rural issues". There is a strong centrifugal force between the population pressure and the current rural economic situation, and the rural economic and social development has been
Due to the inherent fragility and long-term weak foundation of agricultural economy, the status of agricultural economy in social and economic development is getting lower and lower, and it has almost no initiative and right to speak in the process of marketization. However, agricultural economy and rural society have been struggling to develop in a vicious environment of low output and high burden, among which population pressure is in an absolute central position.
2. The pressure of social resources and the lack of internal development motivation
With the increasing population pressure, the total supply of natural resources in rural society is close to its potential maximum. Under the existing conditions, the natural resource base on which rural society depends for development has a bottleneck effect. Judging from the most basic cultivated land resources and water resources, the situation is not optimistic [6]. However, as far as social redevelopment resources (such as financial resources, manpower, scientific and technological resources and social security, etc.) are concerned. ), they also face fundamental constraints.
It can be seen from the table 1 that the actual absolute amount of cultivated land has been decreasing for many years at the end of the year, among which ecological returning farmland accounts for the largest proportion. In the next few decades, on the one hand, we should pay off the "excessive demand" of nature and vigorously carry out environmental protection and soil and water conservation. On the other hand, urbanization will also have a new development peak. With the acceleration of urbanization, the proportion of construction land will also increase, which is bound to be at the expense of cultivated land, and the situation of cultivated land will become more severe.
Table 1 1998-2003 Changes of cultivated land area in China [7] Unit: 1000 hectares.
There was a real increase, a decrease and a net decrease at the end of the year.
Annual cultivated land area cultivated land area construction occupied affected cultivated land area ecological agriculture structure adjustment cultivated land area
1998 129,642. 1 309.4 570.4 176.2 159.5 164.6 70. 1 26 1.0
1999 129,205.5 405. 1 84 1.7 205.3 134.7 394.6 107. 1 436.6
2000 128,243. 1 603.7 1,566.0 163.3 6 1.7 762.8 578.2 962.4
200 1 127,6 15.8 265.9 893.3 163.7 30.6 590.7 108.3 627.3
2002 125,929.6 34 1.2 2,027.4 196.5 56.4 1,425.5 349.0 1686.2
2003 123,392.2 343.5 2,880.9 229. 1 50.4 2,237.3 364. 1 2,537.4
In terms of human resources, Table 2 lists the statistical data of household population and labor force of farmers in 2003, and it can also be seen that the human resources with the most long-term value for the development of agriculture, rural areas and farmers are facing an extremely severe situation. The accumulation and regeneration mechanism of human resources in agriculture, rural areas and farmers has lagged far behind the needs of economic development, and the accumulation ability of human and scientific and technological resources has been seriously weakened and hindered.
Table 2 Peasant Population and Labor Force in 2003 [8] (per household)
Indicator Name Unit East, Middle and West of China
The number of families surveyed is 20283 6876 7354 6053.
Household resident population 4.08 3.95 3.95438+0 4.4438+0
Rural population 3.84 3.68 3.73 4. 16
Family labor force 2.50 2.48 2.45 2.59
Among them: rural labor force 2.38 2.33 2.35 2.49.
In the rural labor force:
1. Illiteracy and semiilliteracy
2.0.86 0.79 0.92 0.87 with primary school education.
3. The person with junior high school education is1.051.051.001.
4. People with high school education 0.160.180.140.16.
In the rural labor force:
Number of professional and technical titles is 0.11.11.090.13.
The number of people with vocational education and training is 0.170.170.140.19.
In the family workforce:
1. Laborers engaged in agricultural household management1.381.10/.461.59
2. Labor force engaged in non-agricultural household management 0.25 0.28 0. 1 0.25
… … … … … …
The working hours of the whole family labor force are 205 195 204 2 16.
Number of workers working outside the home
… … … … … …
Note: … indicates that some contents are omitted.
As can be seen from the data in Table 2, 7 1.9% of rural laborers with junior high school education or above are working outside the home, while only 55.2% are engaged in agricultural operations. Take Beijing as an example. Of the 2.865 million migrant workers in 2004, 96.9% were between the ages of 15 and 49. The number of people with junior high school education or above is 2.409 million, accounting for 84. 1% of migrant workers in the city, of which junior high school education accounts for 69.7%. There is a big difference between men and women among all migrant workers, with 654.38+0.999 million men and 866,000 women [9]. It can be seen that the most productive young and middle-aged laborers in rural areas are all serving the development of cities, and this trend will be more obvious in the next few decades. This also means that while the urban economy is developing rapidly, the rural economy has dried up and the value of unit human capital invested is decreasing day by day.
From another perspective, the labor burden ratio of rural families is 1.54, and the proportion of rural population engaged in agricultural family business is 35.9%. According to the existing labor force engaged in agricultural operations and the population burden ratio of 1.54, the average rural population should be 2. 12. Compared with the existing 3.84, even according to the current situation, among the rural population,
For a long time, the lack of basic resources such as education, medical care and social security, which play a decisive role in human capital, will still restrict the development of agricultural population. Even if the output of rural human capital can make a great breakthrough, the weakness of rural economy will hinder its own benefit ability. Insufficient internal development motivation is the fundamental obstacle to the three rural issues, and any input will leak as quickly as rain. The lack of development resources and development motivation will form the fundamental contradiction of long-term causality between agriculture, countryside and farmers. Posted in China Paper Download Center.