【作者】 汪厚安；

【导师】 王雅鹏；

【作者基本信息】 华中农业大学 ， 农业经济管理， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 长久以来,我国“三农”问题的症结被认为是以农补工经济战略造成的财政支农总量不足和城乡公共服务分配不均等。我国13个粮食主产区乡村人口4.3亿,占全国的60%,是“三农”问题解决的重点区域。该区域以占全国不到50%的财政支农资金,生产了占全国约75%的粮食,也是需要财政支农资金重点投入的特殊区域。虽然近年来财政支农力度得到较大提高,但由于长期以来在支农资金投入结构和使用管理上沉积的问题或体制弊端,导致财政支农资金在促进主产区农业发展和农民收入提高的效果并不显著,没有发挥出政策应有的效应。在中国现实的国力及体制环境约束下,短期内持续大幅提升主产区财政支农规模及实现城乡公共服务均等化并不现实。因此,通过提升财政支农效果实现农村民生状况的有效改善,符合粮食主产区的现实情况。本论文的研究目的及意义在于,一是分析财政支农政策对粮食主产区农业发展、粮食综合生产能力和农民收入的影响,寻找“利用财政支农政策能够缓解粮食主产区三农问题,确保我国粮食安全”的实证依据,并为此进行制度设计。这对利用财政支农政策促进主产区粮食产业可持续发展,以确保国家粮食安全具有理论及实践意义。二是从支出总量、政策结构和农户行为三个层面分析粮食主产区财政支农效果,探讨财政支农总量是否仍然处于边际报酬递增阶段以及最优支农结构,从而为提高支农效果的制度设计提供理论及实证依据。由此得到的研究结论如下：第一,分析粮食主产区粮食产业发展现状。研究发现,现阶段粮食主产区粮食产业持续发展具有重要性和两难性。前者表现在优越的土壤和气候条件、占全国比重较大的粮食产出规模和更经济的种粮成本效益上；后者表现在自然灾害频发、地方经济陷入低资源成本的比较优势陷阱、产业主体理性行为与发展粮食产业的矛盾、环境保护和粮食增产的矛盾等。第二,分析粮食主产区财政支农政策演变历史与实施现状。研究发现,从财政体制来看,主产区正进行省管县的财政分配模式改革,这对地方财政分配会造成一定利弊影响；从地方财政收支来看,虽然主产区财政收入逐年增长,但财政自给率比全国平均水平还要低,地方政府财政“入不敷出”现象比较严重；从财政支农来看,主产区正进入以工补农的高保护阶段。财政支农总量逐年上升,但增长速度波动较大,支农支出占地方财政支出比重逐年下降。在支农结构上,支援农村生产支出比重在上升、农林水利气象等部门事业费比重在下降,农业基本建设支出比重在下降、农村救济费和农业科技三项费用支出波动不大。与其他区域相比较,主产区财政支农支出严重不足,相对支农支出约为9%,而全国有12%,主销区达到13.6%,这与其在全国重要的农业经济地位不相符合。第三,评价粮食主产区财政支农政策实施的总量效果。研究发现财政支农政策对实现主产区经济效率和社会公平具有积极作用。从经济效率角度来看,粮食主产区财政支农支出对农业经济增长具有正效应。农村人均支农支出增加1%,第一产业增加值增长0.328%；支农支出对粮食综合生产能力具有正效应,农村人均支农支出增加1%,粮食增产0.061%。从社会公平角度来看,粮食主产区的财政支农政策能够有效提高农民收入。农村人均支农支出增加1%,农村居民人均纯收入将会增加0.299%。但是,财政支农政策对缩小主产区城乡居民收入差距的效果并不太明显。其中,财政支农力度不足是影响目标实现的“量”的原因。从经济效率与社会公平双目标的关系来看,二者不存在冲突。第四,评价粮食主产区财政支农政策实施的结构效果。研究发现,一是大多数的财政支农工具实施效果并不好。农业综合开发项目整体技术效率不足0.6(1为完全效率),财政投入与其产出之间并不匹配；最低收购价补贴对市场影响很大,收购价水平对粮食产量和农民种粮净利润具有显著正效应；粮食综合收入补贴对粮食产量无显著影响,但对农民收入有显著影响；良种补贴有利于提高良种利用率,农机具购置补贴推动了农业机械化进程,却也存在很多问题；农林水利气象等部门事业费与农业经济增长、粮食综合生产能力和农民收入之间没有显著的相关关系。二是从财政支农结构的综合效应来看,对于农业经济增长的作用,农业综合开发项目>支援农村生产支出>农林水利气象等部门事业费(>代表更优先)；对于提高粮食综合生产能力的作用,农业综合开发项目>支援农村生产支出>农林水利气象等部门事业费；对于城乡社会公平的作用,支援农村生产支出>农业综合开发项目>农林水利气象等部门事业费。因此,建议政府一是加大生产性支出金额,包括支援农村生产支出和农业综合开发支出；二是提高非生产性支出资金效率,压缩事业费在财政支农结构中的比例。第五,评价财政支农政策对农户农业投资行为的影响。在分析粮食主产区农户农业投资现状的基础上,对财政支农政策对农户农业投资行为影响进行了经济学分析,并以湖北省襄樊市为例,采用Tobit模型对这种影响进行进一步的实证论证。研究发现,财政支农政策对农户农业投资行为具有一定积极影响。对粮农进行粮食直接收入补贴、进行农机具购置补贴、增加农田水利设施建设投资都会增加农户私人投资。而良种补贴、农村剩余劳动力培训对农户农业投资行为均无显著影响。由此说明,粮食主产区农户农业投资行为受到多重因素的影响,要充分利用有利因素、克服不利因素的影响,仅仅依靠农户的力量是不够的,还需要国家大力支持。第六,进行主要财政支农政策的国际经验借鉴。国际经验的启示是,第一,财政支农政策实施不仅兼顾公平和效率的投入原则,还要具有调节本国农业经济波动的功能。第二,美欧日印四国的财政支农力度均高于中国,中央财政在支持农业发展中起着主导作用。第三,财政支持方式由价格支持向收入支持转变,由间接支持向直接支持转变；支持领域从单一农产品市场转向农产品与农业生产要素市场并举,从直接支持农业生产转向支持农村公共事业全面发展。第四,金融支农是国际上的普遍作法,国际社会均重视对农业合作组织的扶持,发展中国家重视地区性扶贫投资。国际经验得到的警惕是,一是过大的财政支农总量容易带来巨大的财政负担；二是对重要农产品的价格支持措施容易引发通货膨胀；三是农业生产资料补贴容易造成环境污染和农村贫富差距拉大；四是金融支农措施会加大财政负担并容易诱发政府金融体系的腐败和低效运行。第七,提出优化调整财政支农结构,提高政策实施效果的一揽子政策方案。主要包括财政支农目标要进行整合,支农总量要大幅提高,财政支农结构要优化调整,财政支农资金管理要进行优化完善,加强其他辅助措施。等等。更多还原

【Abstract】 For a long time, the problems of agriculture, countryside and farmer in China are considered the total lack of fiscal agricultural supporting policy and unequal distribution of public services, which are caused by the economic strategy based on nurturing industry by agriculture. Of the total population, those living in 13 major grain-producing areas have 430 million, accounting for 60 percent, which are the key areas to solve the three agricultural problems. These areas produce about 75% of the total national food by less than 50% of the fiscal fund for agriculture, and also are the main areas of the fiscal funds for supporting agriculture. Although the efforts of the fiscal support for agriculture have greatly improved in recent years, the effect on the fiscal funds is not significant to support agricultural development and increase farmers’income in the main producing areas, based on many problems deposited in capital investment structure and management system for a long time. The policy has not produced the best possible results. Under the constraints of the real national strength and the institutional environment, it is not realistic to continue to significantly enhance the scale of fiscal support for agriculture and achieve the equalization of public services in urban and rural areas in the main producing areas in the short term. Thus, enhancing effect of the fiscal support for agriculture is to meet the practical needs of the major grain-producing areas.The purpose of this study is that firstly it is to analyze fiscal agricultural supporting policy impacting on of agricultural development, food comprehensive produce ability and farmers’ income in the major grain-producing areas, and to look for the empirical evidences about "the use of fiscal agricultural supporting policy can alleviate the three agricultural problems in the major grain-producing areas and ensure the national food security", and to provide the better policies. which is the theoretical and practical significance; Secondly, from the total expenditure, policy structure and farmer household behavior, we analyze the effect of fiscal policy to explore the optimal amount of fiscal support for agriculture and the optimal structure, so as to provide theoretical and empirical basis for the policy design. Conclusions of the study are as follows:Firstly, it is to analyze the grain industry development status in major grain-producing areas. The study has found that it is the importance and dilemma of the grain industry sustainable development at this stage. The former reflects in the excellent soil and climatic conditions, a larger proportion of grain production scale and more efficient production costs; the latter reflects in the frequent natural disasters, the local economy fallen into the comparative advantages trap of low-resource cost, the contradiction between the rational behavior in the stakeholders and the development of grain industry, and the contradiction between environmental protection and grain production growth, and so on.Secondly, it is to analyze the history and the status of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation. The study has found that the fiscal system is performing the reform of province directly governing counties in major grain-producing areas, which will be a certain impact on local fiscal allocation; From the local fiscal revenue and expenditure point of view, although the main producing areas’local fiscal revenue grows year by year, the fiscal self-sufficiency rate is even lower than the national average, and local fiscal deficit phenomenon are quite serious; From the fiscal support for agriculture point of view, the main producing areas are entering the high conservation stage of the nurturing agriculture by industry. Total amount of fiscal support for agriculture increases year by year, but the growth rate fluctuates, and the proportion of agriculture expenditure to total fiscal expenditure is declining year by year. From the structure of fiscal support for agriculture, the proportion of expenditure for supporting rural production is on the rise, while the proportion of operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc and the proportion of the expenditure for capital construction in agriculture is on the decline, rural relief funds and science and technology promotion funds in agriculture show very little volatility. Compared with other regions, there is a serious shortage of fiscal support for agriculture spending in the main producing areas, that is, the relative expenditure on agriculture is about 9%, while the nation has 12% and the major grain-selling areas reach 13.6%, which is not consistent with the main producing areas’important economic status in the national agriculture.Thirdly, it is to test the total effect of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation in the major grain-producing areas. The study has found the fiscal agricultural supporting policy can play an active role in achieving economic efficiency and social justice. From an economic efficiency perspective, total amount of fiscal support for agriculture has a positive effect on agricultural economic growth and food comprehensive produce ability. With per capita expenditure on agriculture increased by 1%, the growth of value added of the primary industry is 0.328%, or grain yields will increase by 0.061%. From a social justice perspective, fiscal support for agriculture policy can effectively improve farmers’ income. With per capita expenditure on agriculture increased by 1%, per capita net income of rural residents will increase by 0.299%. However, fiscal agricultural supporting policy has less obvious effect on narrowing the income gap between the urban and rural residents. Among them, the insufficient fiscal support for agriculture is the "quantity" of the reasons affecting the achievement of policy objectives. From the relationship between economic efficiency and social justice, there is no conflict between the two goals.Fourthly, it is to test the structure effect of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation in the major grain-producing areas. The study has found that firstly the implementation effects of most of the fiscal support for agriculture tools are not satisfying. Overall technical efficiency of agricultural comprehensive development project is less than 0.6. Fiscal inputs and outputs do not match. The policy for lowest grain purchase price has a strong influence on the market. Purchase price levels have a positive effect on grain yields and planting benefits. Grain comprehensive income subsidies have no significant effect on grain yields, but have the significant effect on farmers’income. Subsidy for good seed helps to improve the utilization of good seeds. Subsidy for the purchase of agricultural machinery and tools promotes the process of agricultural mechanization, but there are still many problems. It is no significant correlation between operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc and agricultural economic growth, food comprehensive produce ability or farmers’ income. Secondly, from the integrated effect of the structure of fiscal support for agriculture perspective, for the impact on agricultural economic growth, agricultural comprehensive development project> expenditure for supporting rural production> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc (">"stands for higher priority). For improving food comprehensive produce ability, agricultural comprehensive development project> expenditure for supporting rural production> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc. For the impact on social justice between the urban and rural areas, expenditure for supporting rural production> agricultural comprehensive development project> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc. Therefore, we suggest that the government increase the amount of productive fiscal expenditure firstly, including increasing expenditure for supporting rural production and expenditure on agricultural comprehensive development, and then improve the efficiency of non-productive fiscal expenditure, and compress the proportion of operating expenses in structure of fiscal support for agriculture.Fifthly, it is to test the effect of fiscal agricultural supporting policy on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. On the basis of the analysis of the status of household investment in agriculture in major grain-producing areas, we study fiscal agricultural supporting policy how to affect on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households by the economic analysis method, and use Tobit model to make a further empirical study based on the data collected from Xiangfan city in Hubei. The study has found that fiscal agricultural supporting policies have some significant effects on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. Providing the direct income subsidy for growing grain, and increasing subsidy for the purchase of agricultural machinery and tools, and increasing investment on construction of farmland water conservancy will increase the farmers’private investment. But the subsidy for good seed, and training for rural surplus labors have no significant effects on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. It is showed that agricultural investment behavior of farmer households is affected by multiple factors in major grain-producing areas. We should make full use of favorable factors and overcome the negative factors. It is not only to rely on the strength of farmers, but to need the national strong support.Sixthly, it is to draw on the international experience of major fiscal agricultural supporting policy. The study has found that fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation is not only to take into account the investment principles of equity and efficiency, but also to regulate the national agricultural economic fluctuations. Secondly, the central finance play a leading role in supporting agricultural development in the United States, Europe, Japan and India, and they have higher intensity of financial support for agriculture than China. Thirdly, the fiscal support modes are changing from price support to income support and from indirect support to direct support. The fiscal support areas are changing from single agricultural products market to the two markets of agricultural products and agricultural production factor, and from direct support agricultural production to support the comprehensive development of rural public utilities. In addition, financial support for agriculture is a common practice in the international area, the international community has pay attention to supporting the agricultural cooperation, and developing countries have appreciated regional anti-poverty investment. What is more, from the vigilance of the international experience, an excessive amount of fiscal support for agriculture has brought a huge government’s fiscal burden. Secondly, the prices support measures of important agricultural products can easily lead to inflation. Thirdly, subsidy of agriculture production materials is easy to cause environmental pollution and widen the gap between the rich and the poor in rural areas. Fourthly, financial support for agriculture will increase the fiscal burden and be easy to cause the government financial system into corruption and inefficient running. Finally, we have provided a package of policy measures to improve the effect of policy implementation, which are included in integrating fiscal policy targets, substantially increasing the total amount of fiscal support for agriculture, adjusting the structures for fiscal support for agriculture, reinforcing fiscal fund management for agriculture, and strengthening other supportive measures, and so on.更多还原