“家庭农场”是中国农业的发展出路吗?

Rural China ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-221 ◽  

Early in 2013 China’s Party Central sounded the call for developing so-called “family farms.” A great deal of discussion ensued, in which the dominant view has been to call for developing scale economies in “family farming” through greatly increased transfers of land, in the belief that large-scale farms would help raise both labor and land productivity. The slogan used, “family farms,” is borrowed from American rhetoric and reflects the way American agriculture is mistakenly imagined by many people. This article demonstrates that such a vision runs counter to the logic shown by the history of agricultural modernization throughout the world. It mistakenly tries to force China’s reality of “lots of people and little land” into an American model predicated on its opposite of “lots of land and few people,” and it mistakenly tries to apply economic concepts based on the industrial machine age to agriculture. The vision/policy is also based on a misunderstanding of the realities of contemporary American agriculture, which has long since come to be dominated by agribusiness. The determinative logic in American agricultural modernization has been to economize on labor, in contrast to the path of modernizing development that has already taken hold in practice in Chinese agriculture of the past 30 years, in which the dominant logic has been to save on land, not labor, in what I term “labor and capital dual intensifying” “small and fine” agriculture. The American “big and coarse” “model” is in reality utterly inappropriate for Chinese agriculture. It also runs counter to the insights of the deep and weighty tradition of scholarship and theorizing about genuine peasant family farming. The correct path for Chinese agricultural development is the appropriately scaled, “small and fine” genuine family farms that have already arisen quite widely in the past 30 years. This article is in English. 中共中央于2013年年初提出要发展“家庭农场”,之后全国讨论沸沸扬扬,其中的主流意见特别强调推进家庭农场的规模化,提倡土地的大量流转,以为借此可以同时提高劳动和土地生产率。其所用的口号“家庭农场”是来自美国的修辞,背后是对美国农业的想象。本文论证,这是个不符合世界农业经济史所展示的农业现代化经济逻辑的设想,它错误地试图硬套“地多人少”的美国模式于“人多地少”的中国,错误地使用来自机器时代的经济学于农业,亟需改正。它也是对当今早已由企业型大农场主宰的美国农业经济实际的误解。美国农业现代化模式的主导逻辑是节省劳动力,而中国过去三十年来已经走出来的“劳动和资本双密集化”小而精模式的关键则在节省土地。美国模式不符合当前中国农业的实际,更不符合具有厚重传统的关于真正的小农经济家庭农场的理论洞见。中国近30年来已经相当广泛兴起的适度“小而精”规模的真正家庭农场才是中国农业正确的发展出路。

Rural China ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 433-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haijuan Wang (王海娟) ◽  
Xuefeng He (贺雪峰)

Past studies have discussed the “socialist” nature of agricultural development in China in terms of equality in distribution since the introduction of the Household Responsibility System (hrs) and its institutional necessities. This article instead addresses the issue of the modernization of the peasant economy by exploring the various practices in agricultural production that led to a socialist path since 1980. The peasant economy under thehrstakes the form of a dual-layer management, and the collective economy is under the unified management by the collective. The collective economy propels the modernization of the peasant economy by the means of integration of funding, integration of land rights, and land concentration, respectively, in response to the different phases in the development of the forces of production. What is emerging in China is the fourth path to agricultural modernization characteristic of China, after the existing three paths, namely capitalist agriculture of large private farms, socialist agriculture of large collective farms, and the capitalist agriculture of small family farms. This new path, or socialist agriculture of small family farms, is characterized by the enlargement of the management unit on the basis of the collective economy that overcomes the constraints of the peasant economy. However, while institutional possibilities do exist for a socialist path in agricultural development in China, the policies pursued by the Chinese government are turning Chinese agriculture into capitalist agriculture of small family farms.学界从均等分配角度揭示了家庭承包经营制后农业发展的“社会主义”性质及其制度合理性,本文尝试从农业生产角度揭示1980年以来中国社会主义道路实践,探究小农经济现代化问题。家庭承包经营制改革后的小农经济采取双层经营体制,集体经济以集体统一经营的方式存在。在不同生产力阶段,集体经济分别以资金整合、地权整合和土地集中的方式,促进小农经济现代化。从集体经济扩大农业经营单位,克服小农经济局限性的角度,中国在资本主式私人大农场农业、社会主义式集体大农场农业、资本主义式小农家庭农业之外,探索出具有中国特色的第四种农业现代化道路,即社会主义式小农家庭农业。中国农业发展有走向社会主义道路的制度空间,但中国政府的政策选择使得中国农业发展正在走向资本主义式小农家庭农业。(This article is in Chinese.)


Author(s):  
Niu Lichen ◽  

In the process of rapid economic development, an innovative mechanism for agricultural management, support for the functioning of family farms will contribute to the efficiency, large-scale, intensive agricultural production and economic benefits of China. The purpose of the article is to combine theoretical analysis with practical, in terms of management, scale and efficiency of family farms, to find the optimal ratio for Henan Province. Effective organization and management is an important factor to promote the development of any enterprise or subject. As a new agricultural management subject, family farms play a very important role in China's agricultural development. Appropriately sized family farms can effectively realize the optimal allocation of resource elements, which is in line with the current needs and policy objectives of China's modern agricultural development. As the main body of new agricultural management, family farm is an effective organizational form to promote agricultural intensive, professional, large-scale and modern management. After many years of research, Chinese and foreign scholars have indeed confirmed the importance of the contribution of family farms to the agricultural sector of the economy and believe that they are typical representatives and, of course, an indispensable component in promoting agriculture. On the basis of theoretical and in combination with empirical analysis, this study proved that under modern conditions of production organization, not all family farms have high efficiency. When family farms exceed their business capacity, they also lack production efficiency. At the same time, it should be noted that the most productive subjects of agriculture today are family farms of the appropriate scale. According to the results of the study, it was determined that a family farm with a land area of 60-110 Mu, is the most productive agricultural entity in this segment. In order to further implement, proposals and methods for improving the efficiency of family farms in Henan Province have been proposed.


Rural China ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-65 ◽  

Abstract Chinese agriculture has undergone a quiet transformation in the past fifteen years. The “old agriculture” of grain, cotton, and oil crops has seen a tremendous rise in uses of machinery (and also farm chemicals) to save labor. At the same time, the capital and labor dual-intensifying “new agriculture” of higher-value products—vegetables, fruit, meat, poultry, fish—has expanded greatly. These changes have been accompanied by substantial declines in the number of people working in agriculture. Together, the changes add up to a high degree of “capitalization” (i.e., increased capital inputs per unit labor) in Chinese agriculture. This article presents detailed quantitative evidence for these commonly neglected changes. Contrary to conventional assumptions, the capitalization has been powered principally by peasant household investments, more than state or capitalist firm investments. This fact points to the need to rely more on peasant initiative in the future, by providing greater state guidance and support for peasant family farm-based endeavors, rather than strongly favoring “dragon head” enterprises as in the past decade. (This article is in English.) 摘要 过去15年间,中国农业经历了悄然但巨大的变化。“旧农业”(粮食、棉花、油料作物)大量使用机械及农药以节约劳动。与此同时,资本与劳动双密集的“新农业”(主要是高产值的蔬菜、水果、肉、禽、鱼)有着极大的发展。这些变化是伴随农业就业人员数的持续下降而来的。结果是中国农业显著的“资本化”(亦即,单位劳动力资本投入的增加)。对于这些普遍被忽视的事实,本文将给出详细的量化证据。 与通常的假设不同,中国农业资本化主要是由农户投资推动的,其总量比国家和农业企业公司的投资还要大。这一事实的重要意义在于,未来中国农业的发展,需更注重和依赖农户的能动作用。国家需对农民家庭的经营行为给予更大的服务和扶持,不应像过去十年间那样,一味将政策支持倾斜于“龙头企业”。


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Halamska

AbstractThe author provides an analysis of family farming in Poland during the period 1990-2012, with special attention towards the close links of ownership and the operation of the farm by family members. The weight of various factors is given close attention, including the historical context of the farm, current conditions, and future intentions for the farm.The historical context acknowledges and stresses the importance of the late abolition of serfdom made by the partitioning powers, various agricultural reforms during the period 1919-1944, and the period 1948-1989 (when family farming was incorporated into a deficient centrally planned economy). This latter period saw family farms developing specific mechanisms of functioning, which can be seen two decades later. Analysis of the period 1990-2012 is based on data of the Central Statistical Office, the present study, and other published materials. The data series includes individual farms of more than 1 ha, based on family labour.Separated are two sub-periods: the post-communist transformation period from the early 1990s, and the period 2002-2012. The latter almost coincides with the accession to the EU. In the first period, the article outlines the process of creating duality in Polish agriculture. This describes a group of family farms where the household strongly reacted to the market and became larger and modernised (professional – 1/3 of the total) and small, extensive and producing mainly for own consumption (semi-subsistence – 2/3). In the second period, the functioning and transformation of households taking place under the CAP are examined. Modernisation is primarily seen on the professional farm. Specific mechanisms can be seen that provide fairly stable functioning of semisubsistence farms, independent of the market, with non-farm incomes and agricultural social security. These farms resisted collectivisation and stopped and hindered modernisation during the communist period, and this post-communist transformation now requires a doubly controlled modernisation process.


Author(s):  
Sergey Patsala ◽  
Nadezhda Goroshko

Russians still see national agriculture as a rearguard branch of the economy associated with stagnation and inefficiency. However, the agriculture has undergone significant positive changes over the past decade as a result of large-scale state support programs, import substitution policy, food embargo, depreciation of the ruble, etc. Russian agriculture requires a comprehensive assessment of its current state and position in the global agricultural market. Based on statistical and comparative analyses, the authors assessed the current state of Russian agriculture, as well as showed its place in the national economy and the country's position on the global agricultural market. The research revealed the vector of these changes in 2000–2018 and the main problems of the agricultural development at the present stage. A SWOT analysis shows that Russia has overcome the crisis in the transition to the market economy; the main economic and financial indicators are getting better, together with the most important production segments. Russian agriculture improves as production volumes keep growing and profitability is increasing. The number of unprofitable enterprises has been reduced by half, and the share of individual farms has fallen.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lungwani Muungo

The purpose of this review is to evaluate progress inmolecular epidemiology over the past 24 years in canceretiology and prevention to draw lessons for futureresearch incorporating the new generation of biomarkers.Molecular epidemiology was introduced inthe study of cancer in the early 1980s, with theexpectation that it would help overcome some majorlimitations of epidemiology and facilitate cancerprevention. The expectation was that biomarkerswould improve exposure assessment, document earlychanges preceding disease, and identify subgroupsin the population with greater susceptibility to cancer,thereby increasing the ability of epidemiologic studiesto identify causes and elucidate mechanisms incarcinogenesis. The first generation of biomarkers hasindeed contributed to our understanding of riskandsusceptibility related largely to genotoxic carcinogens.Consequently, interventions and policy changes havebeen mounted to reduce riskfrom several importantenvironmental carcinogens. Several new and promisingbiomarkers are now becoming available for epidemiologicstudies, thanks to the development of highthroughputtechnologies and theoretical advances inbiology. These include toxicogenomics, alterations ingene methylation and gene expression, proteomics, andmetabonomics, which allow large-scale studies, includingdiscovery-oriented as well as hypothesis-testinginvestigations. However, most of these newer biomarkershave not been adequately validated, and theirrole in the causal paradigm is not clear. There is a needfor their systematic validation using principles andcriteria established over the past several decades inmolecular cancer epidemiology.


1987 ◽  
Vol 19 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 701-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. L. Reidy ◽  
G. W. Samson

A low-cost wastewater disposal system was commissioned in 1959 to treat domestic and industrial wastewaters generated in the Latrobe River valley in the province of Gippsland, within the State of Victoria, Australia (Figure 1). The Latrobe Valley is the centre for large-scale generation of electricity and for the production of pulp and paper. In addition other industries have utilized the brown coal resource of the region e.g. gasification process and char production. Consequently, industrial wastewaters have been dominant in the disposal system for the past twenty-five years. The mixed industrial-domestic wastewaters were to be transported some eighty kilometres to be treated and disposed of by irrigation to land. Several important lessons have been learnt during twenty-five years of operating this system. Firstly the composition of the mixed waste stream has varied significantly with the passage of time and the development of the industrial base in the Valley, so that what was appropriate treatment in 1959 is not necessarily acceptable in 1985. Secondly the magnitude of adverse environmental impacts engendered by this low-cost disposal procedure was not imagined when the proposal was implemented. As a consequence, clean-up procedures which could remedy the adverse effects of twenty-five years of impact are likely to be costly. The question then may be asked - when the total costs including rehabilitation are considered, is there really a low-cost solution for environmentally safe disposal of complex wastewater streams?


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qihui Wu ◽  
Hanzhong Ke ◽  
Dongli Li ◽  
Qi Wang ◽  
Jiansong Fang ◽  
...  

Over the past decades, peptide as a therapeutic candidate has received increasing attention in drug discovery, especially for antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), anticancer peptides (ACPs) and antiinflammatory peptides (AIPs). It is considered that the peptides can regulate various complex diseases which are previously untouchable. In recent years, the critical problem of antimicrobial resistance drives the pharmaceutical industry to look for new therapeutic agents. Compared to organic small drugs, peptide- based therapy exhibits high specificity and minimal toxicity. Thus, peptides are widely recruited in the design and discovery of new potent drugs. Currently, large-scale screening of peptide activity with traditional approaches is costly, time-consuming and labor-intensive. Hence, in silico methods, mainly machine learning approaches, for their accuracy and effectiveness, have been introduced to predict the peptide activity. In this review, we document the recent progress in machine learning-based prediction of peptides which will be of great benefit to the discovery of potential active AMPs, ACPs and AIPs.


Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document