土地流转农户生计转型中生计资本整合特征及效益

为了揭示土地流转下异质性农户的生计资本整合特征,该文基于267户流转农户调查数据,将农户划分为稳定型纯农户、非农化纯农户、稳定型兼业户、非农化兼业户和稳定型弃农户,在此基础上,分析了异质性农户生计资本差异,并采用雷达图、生计资本扰动指数与生计资本增长指数,剖析了异质性农户生计资本整合的方向、强度及效益。结果表明:1)土地流转前,非农化纯农户和非农化兼业户在人力资本、生活资本、金融资本和社会资本上占优势,稳定型纯农户和稳定型兼业户在自然资本和生产资本上占优势;2)土地流转后,非农化纯农户和非农化兼业户侧重整合人力资本、金融资本和社会资本,而稳定型纯农户和稳定型兼业户侧重整合生产资本,稳定型弃农户整合方向不明显。3)生计资本扰动指数非农化纯农户(0.169)非农化兼业户(0.144)稳定型纯农户(0.124)稳定型兼业户(0.105)稳定型弃农户(0.098),生计资本整合强度非农化农户高于稳定型农户;4)生计资本增长指数非农化兼业户(0.135)非农化纯农户(0.120)稳定型兼业户(0.094)稳定型弃农户(0.093)稳定型纯农户(0.088),生计资本整合效益非农化农户亦显著优于稳定型农户。研究结果将有助于加深对农户生计资本整合与土地流转互动机制的认识,以期为促进土地顺畅流转实现"失地/得地"农户的生计可持续化政策制定提供参考。

Integrated features and benefits of livelihood capital of farmers after land transfer based on livelihood transformation

Abstract: As land is an important livelihood resource for rural households, land transfer means that rural households intend to break inherent livelihood pattern and seek alternative livelihoods through the integration of livelihood capital to ensure their livelihood security. In this paper, we aimed to determine the livelihood capital integration characteristics of rural household, including its direction, intensity and benefit. Taking three villages of Shuangkui Town, Hechuan District, Chongqing City, China as a case study, 267 questionnaires of rural household renting their farmland were collected prior to land transfer in 2013 and after land transfer in 2017, respectively. In this paper, firstly, according to the employed industry and its change, rural households were divided into five categories:stable pure households, non-agricultural pure households, stable part-time households, non-agricultural part-time households and stable off-farm households. Secondly, based on the livelihood capital system that included six subsystems: human capital, physical capital, productive capital, living capital, financial capital and social capital, the difference of livelihood capital among different types of households was analyzed. Finally, the radar chart, livelihood capital disturbance index and growth index were applied respectively to evaluate the integration direction, intensity and benefit of households'' livelihood capital before and after the land transfer. The results indicated thatthe livelihood capital totality of stable off-farm households, non-agricultural part-time households, stable part-time households, non-agricultural pure households and stable pure households were 3.248, 3.142, 2.967, 2.460 and 2.274, respectively, in 2013. Besides, non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households had more human capital, living capital, financial capital and social capital, while stable pure households and stable part-time households dominated in physical capital and productive capital before land transfer. It was apparent that the livelihood condition is the basis of livelihood transformation of rural households. The results also showed thatthe human capital, living capital, financial capital and social capital of non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households increased, while the physical capital of stable pure households and stable part-time households rose. Therefore, for livelihood capital intensity direction, non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households were inclined to the integration of human capital, financial capital and social capital, while stable pure households and stable part-time households focused mainly on the integration of productive capital. But, there was no obvious difference in the intensity direction of livelihood capital for stable off-farm households. In addition, livelihood capital disturbance index from large to small were non-agricultural pure households (0.169), non-agricultural part-time households (0.144), stable pure households (0.124), stable part-time households (0.105) and stable off-farm households (0.098). It showed that livelihood capital integration intensity of non-agricultural households was higher than that of stable style households. Moreover,livelihood capital growth index from large to small were non-agricultural part-time households (0.135), non-agricultural pure households (0.120), stable part-time households (0.094), stable off-farm households (0.093) and stable pure households (0.088), respectively. Thus, it could be seen that livelihood capital integration benefit of non-agricultural households was also higher than that of stable style households. From this research, we concluded that path inertia law existed in the livelihood capital integration process of rural households. That was, certain livelihood capital pattern was able to trigger off particular livelihood strategy which solidified the corresponding livelihood capital pattern, which was positive for non-agricultural part-time households and non-agricultural pure households but not for stable part-time households and stable pure households. The results would provide references for the establishment of policies on accelerating land transfer to ensure livelihood sustainability of households. Besides, the interactive mechanism between farmer''s livelihood capital integration and land transfer would be better understood.