IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4723-d1660653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Relationship Between Cultivated Land Regulations, Agricultural Productivity, and Trade Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis Among China, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan Under the Belt and Road Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Zhumash Babazov

    (College of Management, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

  • Chunbin Li

    (College of Management, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China)

Abstract

Ensuring food security and sustainable land management is a global priority, particularly within countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This study investigates the role of cultivated land regulation systems in influencing agricultural productivity and trade efficiency, focusing on China, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan. Despite the critical role of cultivated land, variations in land-regulation policies and regional practices have led to disparate outcomes in agricultural productivity, sustainability, and trade efficiency. A comparative methodology was employed, integrating descriptive statistics, regression modeling, and geospatial analysis to evaluate yield trends, irrigation coverage, land-use efficiency, and trade performance between 2016 and 2022. Data were sourced from government reports, international databases, and satellite imagery. The results indicate that China’s centralized land-regulation policies—such as the Red Line Policy—have stabilized arable land, enhanced average crop yields (6.1 tons/ha in 2022), and significantly expanded agricultural export volumes. In Russia, land consolidation and modernization efforts have improved productivity (2.9 tons/ha in 2022) and export capacities, though limited irrigation remains a challenge. Kyrgyzstan, while showing gradual improvements through cooperative farming, continues to face fragmentation, infrastructure deficiencies, and limited trade growth. The study concludes that harmonized and targeted land-regulation policies—coupled with infrastructure investments and regulatory alignment—are essential to secure productivity, improve trade efficiency, and strengthen agricultural resilience across BRI countries. Strengthened investments in infrastructure, land-tenure security, and policy alignment across BRI countries are recommended to enhance food security and agricultural trade efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhumash Babazov & Chunbin Li, 2025. "Exploring the Relationship Between Cultivated Land Regulations, Agricultural Productivity, and Trade Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis Among China, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan Under the Belt and Road Init," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-24, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4723-:d:1660653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4723/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4723/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William M. Liefert & Olga Liefert, 2012. "Russian Agriculture during Transition: Performance, Global Impact, and Outlook," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 37-75.
    2. Hongxing Yao & Mohammed Ismail Alhussam & Omar Abu Risha & Bilal Ahmed Memon, 2020. "Analyzing the Relationship between Agricultural FDI and Food Security: Evidence from Belt and Road Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Lerman, Zvi & Sedik, David, 2013. "Cooperatives in Kyrgyzstan: Findings from a Survey of Cooperatives and Users," Discussion Papers 164527, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
    4. Bo Wang & Siyu Gong & Yang Yang, 2023. "Innovation capability, global cooperation, and sustainable development along the Belt and Road Initiative," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 3490-3512, October.
    5. Feder, Gershon & Feeny, David, 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 5(1), pages 135-153, January.
    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. Wang, Hui & Riedinger, Jeffrey & Jin, Songqing, 2015. "Land documents, tenure security and land rental development: Panel evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 220-235.
    2. John Giles & Ren Mu, 2018. "Village Political Economy, Land Tenure Insecurity, and the Rural to Urban Migration Decision: Evidence from China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 521-544.
    3. Baye, Temesgen Gebeyehu, 2018. "Property Rights and Their Implications on Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia: A History," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 27(01), April.
    4. Woubet Kassa, 2018. "Land Titling, Local Governance and Investment: An Empirical Investigation in Tanzania," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-56, January.
    5. Cuffaro, Nadia, 1997. "Population growth and agriculture in poor countries: A review of theoretical issues and empirical evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1151-1163, July.
    6. Joshi, P. K. & Pangare, V. & Shiferaw, B. & Wani, S. P. & Bouma, Jetske & Scott, Christopher, 2004. "Socioeconomic and policy research on watershed management in India: synthesis of past experiences and needs for future research," IWMI Research Reports H035345, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Daniel Ayalew Ali & Stefan Dercon & Madhur Gautam, 2011. "Property rights in a very poor country: tenure insecurity and investment in Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 75-86, January.
    8. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    9. Emran, M. Shahe & Shilpi, Forhad, 2015. "Do Land Market Restrictions Hinder Structural Change in a Rural Economy? Evidence from Sri Lanka," MPRA Paper 66017, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    11. Macours, Karen, 2002. "Insecurity Of Property Rights And Matching In The Tenancy Market," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19603, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Jérémie GIGNOUX & Karen MACOURS & Liam WREN-LEWIS, 2015. "Impact of land administration programs on agricultural productivity and rural development: existing evidence, challenges and new approaches," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(3), pages 467-498.
    13. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zhang, Zhengfeng, 2019. "The role of land tenure security in promoting rural women’s empowerment: Empirical evidence from rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 280-289.
    14. Ceyhun Haydaroglu, 2015. "The Relationship between Property Rights and Economic Growth: an Analysis of OECD and EU Countries," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 217-239, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Ma, Shuang & Mu, Ren, 2020. "Forced off the farm? Farmers’ labor allocation response to land requisition in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    17. Tian, Guangjin & Duan, Jinlong & Yang, Lan, 2021. "Spatio-temporal pattern and driving mechanisms of cropland circulation in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    18. Sreeparna Saha & Prabal Roy Chowdhury & Jaideep Roy & Prasad Bhattarcharya, 2016. "Political Economy of Land Acquisition and Holdout," Discussion Papers 16-07, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    19. Yan Jin & Liyun Zhang & Lu Feng, 2022. "Success Factors of Cross-Border Agricultural Investments for Opium Poppy Alternative Project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Junyan Tian, 2023. "Does agricultural official development assistance facilitate foreign direct investment in agriculture: Evidence from 63 developing countries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 702-718, September.

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4723-:d:1660653. 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.