IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v35y2002i4p689-716.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property rights, labour markets, and efficiency in a transition economy: the case of rural China

Author

Listed:
  • Dwayne Benjamin
  • Loren Brandt

Abstract

We investigate the consequences of imperfect factor market development for farm efficiency in North China. We estimate the extent to which an inverse relationship in farm productivity can be attributed to the administrative (as opposed to market) allocation of land, combined with unevenly developed off–farm opportunities. Using a new household survey, we find considerable inefficiency in the use of labour. This inefficiency is alleviated by external labour markets and, to a limited degree, by administrative reallocations. The reallocations do not go far enough, however, which raises important questions about constraints on rental activity and property rights formation more generally. JEL Classification: Q15, O12 Droits de propriété, marchés du travail et efficacité dans une économie en transition : le cas de la Chine rurale. Ce mémoire analyse les conséquences du développement de marchés imparfaits des facteurs de production sur l’efficacité des fermes dans le nord de la Chine. On examine jusqu’à quel point la relation inverse entre la productivité des fermes et leur taille est attribuable à l’allocation administrative de la terre (par opposition à l’allocation par le marché), en combinaison avec le développement inégal des opportunités en dehors de la ferme. Les auteurs utilisent une nouvelle enquête sur les ménages qui révèle une grande inefficacité dans l’utilisation du travail. Cette inefficacité est atténuée par des marchés de travail externes, et, à un moindre degré, par des ré–allocations administratives. Les ré–allocations ne vont pas assez loin cependant. Voilà qui soulève des questions importantes à propos des contraintes sur les activités de location et la formation des droits de propriété en général.

Suggested Citation

  • Dwayne Benjamin & Loren Brandt, 2002. "Property rights, labour markets, and efficiency in a transition economy: the case of rural China," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 689-716, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:35:y:2002:i:4:p:689-716
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-5982.00150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5982.00150
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-5982.00150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Udry, Christopher, 1996. "Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 1010-1046, October.
    2. Dwayne Benjamin & Loren Brandt & Paul Glewwe & Guo Li, 2002. "Markets, Human Capital and Inequality: Evidence from Rural China," International Economic Association Series, in: Richard B. Freeman (ed.), Inequality Around the World, chapter 5, pages 87-127, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Bhalla, Surjit S., 1988. "Does land quality matter? : Theory and measurement," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 45-62, July.
    4. Benjamin, Dwayne & Brandt, Loren, 1997. "Land, Factor Markets, and Inequality in Rural China: Historical Evidence," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 460-494, October.
    5. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1992. "Household Composition, Labor Markets, and Labor Demand: Testing for Separation in Agricultural Household Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 287-322, March.
    6. Benjamin, Dwayne, 1995. "Can unobserved land quality explain the inverse productivity relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-84, February.
    7. Binswanger, Hans P. & Deininger, Klaus & Feder, Gershon, 1995. "Power, distortions, revolt and reform in agricultural land relations," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Hollis Chenery & T.N. Srinivasan (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 2659-2772, Elsevier.
    8. John C. Ham & Kevin T. Reilly, 2002. "Testing Intertemporal Substitution, Implicit Contracts, and Hours Restriction Models of the Labor Market Using Micro Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 905-927, September.
    9. Matthew A. Turner & Loren Brandt & Scott Rozelle, 1999. "Property Rights Formation and the Organization of Exchange and Production in Rural China," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 250, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    10. Lin, Justin Yifu, 1992. "Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growth in China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 34-51, March.
    11. Carter, Michael R, 1984. "Identification of the Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: An Empirical Analysis of Peasant Agricultural Production," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 131-145, March.
    12. Besley, Timothy, 1995. "Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(5), pages 903-937, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gilligan, Daniel O., 1998. "Farm Size, Productivity, And Economic Efficiency: Accounting For Differences In Efficiency Of Farms By Size In Honduras," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20918, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    3. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    4. Roumasset, James A., 2006. "The Economics of Agricultural Development: What Have We Learned?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25598, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin, 2008. "Land Sales and Rental Markets in Transition: Evidence from Rural Vietnam," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(1), pages 67-101, February.
    6. Heltberg, Rasmus, 1998. "Rural market imperfections and the farm size-- productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 1807-1826, October.
    7. Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Jagger, Pamela & Sserunkuuma, Dick & Ssali, Henry, 2004. "Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: evidence from Uganda," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 181-195, December.
    8. Benjamin, Dwayne & Brandt, Loren, 1997. "Land, Factor Markets, and Inequality in Rural China: Historical Evidence," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 460-494, October.
    9. Deininger, Klaus & Binswanger, Hans, 1999. "The Evolution of the World Bank's Land Policy: Principles, Experience, and Future Challenges," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 14(2), pages 247-276, August.
    10. James Roumasset, 2006. "The Economics of Agricultural Development: What Have We Learned? Processes," Working Papers 200604, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    11. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    12. Faruqee, Rashid & Carey, Kevin, 1997. "Research on land markets in South Asia : what have we learned?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1754, The World Bank.
    13. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    14. Wang, Xiaobing, 2007. "Labor market behavior of Chinese rural households during transition," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 42, number 92321.
    15. Deininger, Klaus & Songqing Jin & Adenew, Berhanu & Gebre-Selassie, Samuel & Demeke, Mulat, 2003. "Market and non-market transfers of land in Ethiopia - implications for efficiency, equity, and non-farm development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2992, The World Bank.
    16. Holden, Stein T. & Ali, Daniel & Deininger, Klaus & Hilhorst, Thea, 2016. "A Land Tenure Module for LSMS," CLTS Working Papers 1/16, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    17. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    18. Béatrice D'HOMBRES & Jean-Louis ARCAND, 2006. "Testing for Separation in Agricultural Household Models and Unobservable Household-Specific Effects," Working Papers 200632, CERDI.
    19. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    20. Chaoran Chen & Diego Restuccia & Raül Santaeulàlia-Llopis, 2023. "Land Misallocation and Productivity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 441-465, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • J43 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Agricultural Labor Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:35:y:2002:i:4:p:689-716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.