4.7 Article

Modeling technological bias and factor input behavior in China's wheat production sector

期刊

ECONOMIC MODELLING
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 245-253

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2015.11.027

关键词

China; Grain production; Technological and factor biases; Demand and substitution; Agricultural mechanization

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [14BGL093]
  2. First Henan University Philosophy and Social Science Innovation Team Support Plan of Education Department of Henan Province [2012-CXTD-03]
  3. Philosophy and Social Science Key Breakthrough Project of Education Department of Henan Province [2013-ZG-06]
  4. Science and Technology Key Research Project of Education Department of Henan Province [13A790472]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past three decades, China has implemented reforms in the agricultural sector in an attempt to increase efficiency and food security. However, China now faces a number of environmental degradation problems, in part, caused by her past agricultural reforms. In this paper we estimate, using a provincial-based panel dataset, a third-order translog cost function for China's grain production sector over the period 1990-2011. Results from the estimation, including estimated elasticities of demand for and substitution of factors, suggest that labor and capital are substitutes. This arises because the increasing cost of labor, induced by urbanization and the growth of the manufacturing sector, has lead to a substitution of machinery for labor in the production of wheat. The results are consistent with current government policies to encourage via subsidies and agricultural mechanization, which we show to be technically, a substitute for labor. We further conclude this will create an additional bonus of reducing the amount of fertilizer that is needed to efficiently and securely produce wheat in China, as the new capital is more efficient at fertilizer distribution. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据