【作者】 雷超超；

【导师】 宋海；

【作者基本信息】 华南理工大学 ， 金融工程与经济发展， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 探究中国改革开放以来农业劳动力转移的动因及机理，提出促进农村劳动力跨部门转移的对策措施，既是提高农民收入、缩小城乡差距，解决“三农”问题的根本办法，也是优化劳动力资源配置，调整中国经济结构，促进经济继续高速发展的有效手段。本文首先分析了中国农业劳动力转移历史的阶段特征和所处的体制、制度背景。计划经济体制和户籍政策直接限制了劳动力跨地域和跨部门转移，改革开放后，中国经济处于二元经济转换与计划体制向市场体制转型的双重过程中，所有制经济结构变动和户籍制度改革才使得劳动力流动的市场机制得以发挥作用。因此，发展经济学中“纯净”的劳动力转移经典模型不能很好地解释中国的现实情况，必须要兼顾户籍制度壁垒导致的流动成本因素以及所有制经济变动的影响。接着，文章分析了改革开放以来影响农业劳动力向非农部门转移的四大宏观层面因素。这四个因素中，部门生产率差异导致的部门间工资差异以及居民消费非位似特征引起的需求收入弹性差异是驱动劳动力由农业部门向非农部门转移的两大动因。但是，这两大机制发挥作用需要依赖于良好的市场经济环境。第一，非农部门相对于农业部门相对更高的生产率是推动劳动力跨部门转移的动因之一。从全要素生产率的视角看，技术进步是推动生产率增长的主要原因，改革开放后，非农部门生产率增长要高于农业部门，两者的相对生产率差距有继续扩大的趋势。这意味着非农部门的工资率要远远高于农业部门，在逐利动机驱动下，农业剩余劳动力源源不断地向非农部门转移。此外，技术进步下生产率的增长将使得农产品和非农产品的生产成本变动幅度不同，非农产品相对于农产品的生产成本逐步降低，反映到市场相对价格上就是非农产品相对变便宜，在居民总体收入不变的情况下，由于替代效应，非农产品的消费比例相对上升，市场供需均衡就会刺激非农部门扩大生产，需要的劳动力增加，从而造成更多劳动力流入非农部门。非农产品与农产品的替代弹性越高，替代效应发挥得越强。第二，从需求的角度看，非位似偏好更好地反映居民的现实消费特征，具有非位似偏好的消费者，其需求收入弹性将是变化的，在收入增加时其最优产品消费不会等比例地增加，这是驱动劳动力跨部门转移的另一个动因。农产品为生活必需品，需求收入弹性一般小于非农产品，在收入增加时，非农产品消费增加的幅度要大于农产品；非农部门消费将迅速地扩大，在供需均衡作用下，其生产规模快速扩张，拉动农业部门劳动力流向非农业部门。总体而言，非农产品和农产品需求收入弹性差别越大，驱动劳动力向非农部门转移的效应越强。第三，改革开放前户籍制度壁垒完全阻碍了劳动力在城乡之间的自由流动，户籍改革实施后，迁移政策逐步放松，劳动力跨部门转移才有可能实现。因此，制度因素直接制约和影响劳动力转移市场机制发挥作用。而且户籍制度造成长期以来都存在劳动力在城乡、不同经济部门之间的错配，使得劳动力价格、工资等要素价格在出现了严重扭曲，一方面，由于农村劳动力不能自由流动到城市，导致农业部门劳动力大大过剩，使得劳动力要素与资本要素的比价下降，劳动力工资相对原来降低，农业生产企业会更多地选择使用劳动力代替资本，减少农业生产中机器的使用，从而吸纳更多的农村劳动力。另一方面，在城市，由于劳动力的“相对”短缺，劳动力要素与资本要素比价上升，劳动力工资相对原来上升，非农部门（第二、第三产业）生产企业将选择减少劳动力的使用。户籍制度改革逐步矫正了这种错配，对劳动力的跨部门再配置产生重大影响。第四，在计划经济体制下，政府完全包办了劳动者的就业，不存在劳动力市场；改革开后中国向市场经济体制转轨，特别是私营经济等多种所有制经济迅猛发展，客观上促进了劳动力市场发育，使得从农业部门转移出来的劳动力能顺利通过各种社会化招聘最终成功进入非农部门。非农公共部门规模变动的核心是公有制经济份额在缩减，私有制经济份额在扩张，这是通过国企改革和乡镇集体企业改制实现的。这个过程，矫正了劳动力在非农公共部门和私人部门之间的“错配”，使得非农公共部门（国有经济、集体经济）和私人部门的生产率都得到了大幅的提升，并出现趋同。整个城镇非农经济领域（工业、服务业、建筑业）的劳动生产率由于劳动力要素优化配置而大大提升，非农部门相对于农村农业部门的生产率上升必然会推动劳动力在非农和农业部门之间的再配置。在上述理论分析基础上，本文构建了一个三部门模型来分析改革开放以来中国劳动力向非农部门转移的影响因素。模型不仅融合了先前研究所指出的跨部门生产率差异、居民消费非位似偏好特征、中国劳动力流动制度障碍等因素，还将非农公共部门规模变动作为一个重要影响因素。利用1978-2011年的实际统计数据进行拟合实证，发现模型总体拟合效果较好。进一步地，通过反事实试验发现：影响农业劳动力跨部门转移的因素中，部门间的生产率差异起了最重要的影响，居民消费非位似偏好特征影响效果次之，户籍制度改革与非农公共部门规模缩减两因素影响效果相当。定量来看，以基准模型的数据为标尺，在1978-2011年样本期内，如果跨部门生产率增长速度不变，农业部门就业比例份额程度只有基准模型下的67.39%，可以近似地认为部门生产率差异因素解释了劳动力转移原因的33%。如果户籍制度改革不进行，跨部门劳动力流动成本不变，农业部门就业比例份额程度达到基准模型下的78.26%，说明该因素解释了劳动力跨部门转移原因的22%。如果非农公共部门产出（广义税率）规模不变，农业部门就业比例份额程度达到基准模型下的80.43%，说明该因素解释了劳动力跨部门转移原因的19%。如果将户籍制度改革和非农公共部门产出规模变动两大因素作为综合反映政府干预而造成的自由市场扭曲程度，其对于劳动力转移的综合影响甚至大于部门生产率差异因素。最后，基于对农业劳动力向非农部门转移动因和机理的分析，本文提出了促进劳动力转移的对策建议：一是千方百计提高农业、非农部门的生产率，可以从推动生物育种技术创新和发展生产性服务业等方面着手。二是减收影响市场机制发挥作用的制度性阻碍，首先要推行土地制度改革，培育土地使用权市场，建立土地流转机制。其次要继续深化户籍制度改革。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper makes a study on the motivation and mechanism of agricultural labor forcetransferring to non-agricultural sector and how to promote this labor migration. Firstly, weanalyze the stage characteristics and the background of China’s agricultural labor transferhistory. Since the the reform and opening-up, China is under the step of both dual economictransformation and transformation from planned economy to market economy, which arehindering the labor flow across departments. As a result, the ‘pure’ classical Labor transfermodel in development economics cannot explain China’s current situation well; labor forceflow must be explained with the consideration of mobility cost factor caused by institutionalbarriers, and factor of public and non-public organization evolution.There are4macro factors that influence on labor reallocation since the Reformation. Thewage gap between agricultural sector and non-agricultural sector caused by productivitydifference is the most important motivation of the labor reallocation, the income elasticity ofdemand caused by non-homothetic preferential consumer secondly. However, these twomechanisms need on the good market economy environment to play a role.1. From supply aspect, comparing to agricultural sector, non-agricultural sector hasrelatively higher labor productivity which effects the changes in production technology, thusthe cost of non-agricultural sector gradually reduce; reflecting the price of non-agriculturalproduct is relatively cheap. Under the assumption that the overall income of residents isconstant, and by the substitution effect, consumption in non-agricultural product rises, andthe production of non-agricultural product will be escalated by the market equilibrium ofsupply and demand, resulting in more and more labor flow to non-agriculture section, andchange the employment structure.2. From the demand aspect, the income elasticity of demand of non-homotheticpreferential consumer is not constant, along with the increasing in income, optimum productconsumption structure changes. Due to agricultural product is necessary product whichincome elasticity of demand is less than1, and income elasticity of demand ofnon-agricultural product is normally higher than1implying that once income increase by1%,increasing in consumption of non-agricultural product is higher than agricultural product’s. Under the effect of demand-supply equilibrium, agricultural production scale enlarges slowly,then stagnates, result in flowing out of labor, and also decrease in employment share.Non-agricultural production scale enlarges quite fast, labor shifts from agricultural sector tonon-agricultural sector, and increases the employment share.3. Due to some system barriers, registration system for example, causing the labormisallocation in urban and rural, and misallocation in various economic sections. This kind ofmisallocation distorts the price of labor, wage, and other factor prices severely; in one hand,labor cannot move to the city freely, causing the great labor surplus in agricultural sector,which also results in labor factor and capital factor price parity decreasing. Labor wage,compare to the initial stage, falls down, thus, more and more agricultural enterprises use laborto substitute capital; reduce the usage of machine in the production, so that it can take morelabor force in. In another hand, labor force in urban area is ‘relatively’ short. Price parity oflabor factor and capital factor rises, labor wage is relatively high. Non-agricultural enterprisesthen reduce employing labor. Along with the ‘relatively’ high wage in non-agricultural sector,residents’ income rises. Consumers’ non-homothetic mechanism expands non-agriculturalsector, which facilitates labor in agricultural sector to flow to non-agricultural sector.4. Core characteristic of China’s market economic reformation is reducing in publicownership, rising in private ownership. State-owned enterprise and township enterprisereformation rectifies the labor misallocation between public sector and private sector, causingthe great rising in labor productivity in those two sectors. According to the optimizedallocation in labor factor, labor productivity of non-agricultural sector in countryside isgreatly elevated; stimulate the labor reallocation in agricultural and non-agricultural sectors.Based on the above theoretical analysis, this research forms a model of3sections toanalyze the driving factors of China’s cross-section labor reallocation as since its Reformation.Not only merging the previous researches of cross-section productivity differences,characteristics of consumers’ non-homothetic preferences, factors causing institutionalbarriers on Chinese labor flow, the research also takes scale alteration of public section asanother significant driving factor. Using the actual statistics from1978-2011to demonstrate,the overall result of this model is quite completed. Furthermore, analyzing counterfactual experiment, qualitatively, it is found out thatcross-sector productivity difference is the most important factor influencing on laborreallocation, and the role of household registration system causing labor flow barriers and roleof diminishing in scope of public section are similar.From the quantitative aspect, if the increment rate of cross-sector labor productivity isconstant during the period of1978-2011, the employment rate of agricultural section would beat the standard model of67.39%, which can roughly assume that productivity differencesaccount for33%of labor reallocation. If the cost of cross-sector labor flow is constant, theemployment rate of agricultural section would be at the standard model of78.26%, this factoraccounts for22%. Public output (general tax rate) proportion is constant, the employment rateof agricultural section would be at the standard model of80.43%, it should account for19%.By this amount, distortion level of government intervention against free market, which causesintegrated influences on labor reallocation, is effected more by the cost of cross-sector laborflow and public output proportion, rather than cross-sector labor productivity differences.更多还原