4.5 Article

Dynamic and static analysis of agricultural productivity in China

Journal

CHINA AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REVIEW
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 293-312

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/CAER-08-2015-0095

Keywords

Agricultural productivity; Input redundancy; Regional differences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and input redundancies in different regions of China, and to bring out the policy implications for improving efficiency in agricultural production as well as environment protection. Design/methodology/approach Based on the provincial panel data during 1995-2014, the agricultural productivity of China and its regional disparity are analyzed. First, the agricultural TFP and its decomposition are dynamically evaluated by means of data envelopment analysis-Malmquist productivity index. Second, the agricultural radial production efficiency in year 2014 and the input redundancy changes from 1995 to 2014 are measured based on the BCC-slacks-based measure model. Findings The results showed that the overall agricultural TFP of China grew 4.3 percent annually during 1995-2014, mainly as a result of technical progress. However, the declines of technical efficiency and scale efficiency slowed down the agricultural TFP growth. The TFP growth in the Western region and Central region far exceeded the Eastern region in last few years. In 2014, most effective decision-making units were in the Western region. The input redundancies in the agricultural production increased substantially after 2006, especially for the pesticide use amount, reservoir capacity and agricultural machinery power. Originality/value Combining the dynamic and static analyses, the paper fulfilled the study of China's agricultural productivity and the input redundancies in recent years, and also presented the regional disparities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available