IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i10p1951-d1264742.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Land Rights Confirmation, Clan Network, and Farmers’ Investment in Production and Operation

Author

Listed:
  • Mingyong Hong

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Shunfa Yu

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Jiao Long

    (School of Economics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

Abstract

This study is based on micro-survey data on rural household transfers in China. This study uses a multiple linear regression model (to analyze the relationship between variables), an instrumental variable model (to solve potential endogenous problems), and an intermediary effect model to explore the impact of farmland rights confirmation and clan network on farmers’ investment in production and operation and the relationship between clan network confirmation of farmland rights and farmer household investment. The research shows that: (1) The confirmation of farmland rights in China substantially bolsters farmers’ investments in agricultural production and operation. It serves as a secure foundation for land property rights, elevating farmers’ confidence and significantly contributing to the growth of rural economies and the improvement of farmers’ income levels in the Chinese context. (2) In the Chinese context, the existence of clan networks exerts a discernible adverse influence on farmers’ investment decisions in agricultural production and operation. This is primarily attributable to the restricted flow of information within these networks, the enforcement of stringent social norms, and the prevalence of risk-averse attitudes. These factors collectively act as barriers, dampening farmers’ enthusiasm for investment and impeding effective decision-making. (3) Importantly, the confirmation of agricultural land rights in China serves as a counterbalance to the inhibitory effects of clan networks. It achieves this by mitigating information asymmetry and reducing cooperation risks. This proactive approach not only promotes but also facilitates farmers’ investments in agricultural production and operation within the Chinese context. Consequently, land rights confirmation emerges as a key driver of increased rural investments in China. This study conducts in-depth research on the impact of farmland ownership confirmation and clan networks on farmers’ investment behavior and the mechanism of action, which provides a useful reference for formulating relevant policies, such as increasing the authority of cultivated land, promoting the modernization of clan networks, cultivating modern management capabilities, etc.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingyong Hong & Shunfa Yu & Jiao Long, 2023. "Agricultural Land Rights Confirmation, Clan Network, and Farmers’ Investment in Production and Operation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1951-:d:1264742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1951/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/10/1951/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tasso Adamopoulos & Loren Brandt & Jessica Leight & Diego Restuccia, 2022. "Misallocation, Selection, and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis With Panel Data From China," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1261-1282, May.
    2. Manda, Simon & Banda, Lizzy, 2023. "Seeing like the state? Customary land pressures and fracturing tenure systems in rural Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Adjei-Poku, Bernard & Afrane, Samuel K. & Amoako, Clifford & Inkoom, Daniel K.B., 2023. "Customary land ownership and land use change in Kumasi: An issue of chieftaincy sustenance?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Lankono, Charity Bazaabadire & Forkuor, David & Asaaga, Festus Atribawuni, 2023. "Examining the impact of customary land secretariats on decentralised land governance in Ghana: Evidence from stakeholders in Northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Hu, Xinyan & Chen, Zhuo & Chen, Xiangpo & Liu, Ziyu, 2023. "The political trust impacts of land titling in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Katusiime, Juliet & Schütt, Brigitta & Mutai, Noah, 2023. "The relationship of land tenure, land use and land cover changes in Lake Victoria basin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    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. Chaoran Chen, 2017. "Untitled Land, Occupational Choice, and Agricultural Productivity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 91-121, October.
    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. Mingyong Hong & Jiao Long & Wenjun Zhuo, 2023. "Clan Networks, Spatial Selection, and Farmland Transfer Contracts: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Ayala-Cantu, Luciano & Morando, Bruno, 2020. "Rental markets, gender, and land certificates: Evidence from Vietnam," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Gottlieb, Charles & Grobovšek, Jan, 2019. "Communal land and agricultural productivity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 135-152.
    6. Tang, Rongsheng & Tang, Yang, 2022. "Market formation in China from 1978," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    7. Pulido, José & Varón, Alejandra, 2024. "Misallocation of the immigrant workforce: Aggregate productivity effects for the host country," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Shuai Qin & Hong Chen & Tuyen Thi Tran & Haokun Wang, 2022. "Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Capital Misallocation on Agricultural Output—Taking the Main Grain Producing Areas in Northeast China as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Marijn A. Bolhuis & Swapnika R. Rachapalli & Diego Restuccia, 2021. "Misallocation in Indian Agriculture," NBER Working Papers 29363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Hertel, By Thomas W. & Baldos, Uris L.C. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2020. "Trade in technology: A potential solution to the food security challenges of the 21st century," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Tasso Adamopoulos & Loren Brandt & Chaoran Chen & Diego Restuccia & Xiaoyun Wei, 2022. "Land Security and Mobility Frictions," Working Papers tecipa-717, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    12. Qingen Gai & Naijia Guo & Bingjing Li & Qinghua Shi & Xiaodong Zhu, 2021. "Migration Costs, Sorting, and the Agricultural Productivity Gap," Working Papers tecipa-693, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Gáfaro, Margarita & Ibáñez, Ana María & Sánchez-Ordoñez, Daniel & Ortiz, María Camila, 2023. "Farm Size and Income Distribution of Latin American Agriculture New Perspectives on an Old Issue," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13078, Inter-American Development Bank.
    15. Diego Restuccia, 2019. "Misallocation and aggregate productivity across time and space," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 5-32, February.
    16. Yang, Jidong & Liu, Cheng & Liu, Kai, 2023. "Land marketization and industrial restructuring in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Fernando Aragon & Diego Restuccia & Juan Pablo Rud, 2022. "Assessing misallocation in agriculture: plots versus farms," Working Papers tecipa-718, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    18. Kai Ding & Filippo Rebessi, 2020. "Optimal Agricultural Policy: Small Gains?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1907-1928, October.
    19. Douglas Gollin & Christopher Udry, 2021. "Heterogeneity, Measurement Error, and Misallocation: Evidence from African Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(1), pages 1-80.
    20. Dzhamilya Nigmatulina, 2022. "Sanctions and misallocation. How sanctioned firms won and Russia lost," CEP Discussion Papers dp1886, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:10:p:1951-:d:1264742. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.