Study On Effect Evaluation And Policy Optimization Of Fiscal Support For Agriculture In Major Grain-producing Areas

For a long time, the problems of agriculture, countryside and farmer in China are considered the total lack of fiscal agricultural supporting policy and unequal distribution of public services, which are caused by the economic strategy based on nurturing industry by agriculture. Of the total population, those living in 13 major grain-producing areas have 430 million, accounting for 60 percent, which are the key areas to solve the three agricultural problems. These areas produce about 75% of the total national food by less than 50% of the fiscal fund for agriculture, and also are the main areas of the fiscal funds for supporting agriculture. Although the efforts of the fiscal support for agriculture have greatly improved in recent years, the effect on the fiscal funds is not significant to support agricultural development and increase farmers'income in the main producing areas, based on many problems deposited in capital investment structure and management system for a long time. The policy has not produced the best possible results. Under the constraints of the real national strength and the institutional environment, it is not realistic to continue to significantly enhance the scale of fiscal support for agriculture and achieve the equalization of public services in urban and rural areas in the main producing areas in the short term. Thus, enhancing effect of the fiscal support for agriculture is to meet the practical needs of the major grain-producing areas.The purpose of this study is that firstly it is to analyze fiscal agricultural supporting policy impacting on of agricultural development, food comprehensive produce ability and farmers' income in the major grain-producing areas, and to look for the empirical evidences about "the use of fiscal agricultural supporting policy can alleviate the three agricultural problems in the major grain-producing areas and ensure the national food security", and to provide the better policies. which is the theoretical and practical significance; Secondly, from the total expenditure, policy structure and farmer household behavior, we analyze the effect of fiscal policy to explore the optimal amount of fiscal support for agriculture and the optimal structure, so as to provide theoretical and empirical basis for the policy design. Conclusions of the study are as follows:Firstly, it is to analyze the grain industry development status in major grain-producing areas. The study has found that it is the importance and dilemma of the grain industry sustainable development at this stage. The former reflects in the excellent soil and climatic conditions, a larger proportion of grain production scale and more efficient production costs; the latter reflects in the frequent natural disasters, the local economy fallen into the comparative advantages trap of low-resource cost, the contradiction between the rational behavior in the stakeholders and the development of grain industry, and the contradiction between environmental protection and grain production growth, and so on.Secondly, it is to analyze the history and the status of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation. The study has found that the fiscal system is performing the reform of province directly governing counties in major grain-producing areas, which will be a certain impact on local fiscal allocation; From the local fiscal revenue and expenditure point of view, although the main producing areas'local fiscal revenue grows year by year, the fiscal self-sufficiency rate is even lower than the national average, and local fiscal deficit phenomenon are quite serious; From the fiscal support for agriculture point of view, the main producing areas are entering the high conservation stage of the nurturing agriculture by industry. Total amount of fiscal support for agriculture increases year by year, but the growth rate fluctuates, and the proportion of agriculture expenditure to total fiscal expenditure is declining year by year. From the structure of fiscal support for agriculture, the proportion of expenditure for supporting rural production is on the rise, while the proportion of operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc and the proportion of the expenditure for capital construction in agriculture is on the decline, rural relief funds and science and technology promotion funds in agriculture show very little volatility. Compared with other regions, there is a serious shortage of fiscal support for agriculture spending in the main producing areas, that is, the relative expenditure on agriculture is about 9%, while the nation has 12% and the major grain-selling areas reach 13.6%, which is not consistent with the main producing areas'important economic status in the national agriculture.Thirdly, it is to test the total effect of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation in the major grain-producing areas. The study has found the fiscal agricultural supporting policy can play an active role in achieving economic efficiency and social justice. From an economic efficiency perspective, total amount of fiscal support for agriculture has a positive effect on agricultural economic growth and food comprehensive produce ability. With per capita expenditure on agriculture increased by 1%, the growth of value added of the primary industry is 0.328%, or grain yields will increase by 0.061%. From a social justice perspective, fiscal support for agriculture policy can effectively improve farmers' income. With per capita expenditure on agriculture increased by 1%, per capita net income of rural residents will increase by 0.299%. However, fiscal agricultural supporting policy has less obvious effect on narrowing the income gap between the urban and rural residents. Among them, the insufficient fiscal support for agriculture is the "quantity" of the reasons affecting the achievement of policy objectives. From the relationship between economic efficiency and social justice, there is no conflict between the two goals.Fourthly, it is to test the structure effect of the fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation in the major grain-producing areas. The study has found that firstly the implementation effects of most of the fiscal support for agriculture tools are not satisfying. Overall technical efficiency of agricultural comprehensive development project is less than 0.6. Fiscal inputs and outputs do not match. The policy for lowest grain purchase price has a strong influence on the market. Purchase price levels have a positive effect on grain yields and planting benefits. Grain comprehensive income subsidies have no significant effect on grain yields, but have the significant effect on farmers'income. Subsidy for good seed helps to improve the utilization of good seeds. Subsidy for the purchase of agricultural machinery and tools promotes the process of agricultural mechanization, but there are still many problems. It is no significant correlation between operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc and agricultural economic growth, food comprehensive produce ability or farmers' income. Secondly, from the integrated effect of the structure of fiscal support for agriculture perspective, for the impact on agricultural economic growth, agricultural comprehensive development project> expenditure for supporting rural production> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc (">"stands for higher priority). For improving food comprehensive produce ability, agricultural comprehensive development project> expenditure for supporting rural production> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc. For the impact on social justice between the urban and rural areas, expenditure for supporting rural production> agricultural comprehensive development project> operating expenses of the departments of farming, forestry, water conservancy and meteorology etc. Therefore, we suggest that the government increase the amount of productive fiscal expenditure firstly, including increasing expenditure for supporting rural production and expenditure on agricultural comprehensive development, and then improve the efficiency of non-productive fiscal expenditure, and compress the proportion of operating expenses in structure of fiscal support for agriculture.Fifthly, it is to test the effect of fiscal agricultural supporting policy on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. On the basis of the analysis of the status of household investment in agriculture in major grain-producing areas, we study fiscal agricultural supporting policy how to affect on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households by the economic analysis method, and use Tobit model to make a further empirical study based on the data collected from Xiangfan city in Hubei. The study has found that fiscal agricultural supporting policies have some significant effects on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. Providing the direct income subsidy for growing grain, and increasing subsidy for the purchase of agricultural machinery and tools, and increasing investment on construction of farmland water conservancy will increase the farmers'private investment. But the subsidy for good seed, and training for rural surplus labors have no significant effects on agricultural investment behavior of farmer households. It is showed that agricultural investment behavior of farmer households is affected by multiple factors in major grain-producing areas. We should make full use of favorable factors and overcome the negative factors. It is not only to rely on the strength of farmers, but to need the national strong support.Sixthly, it is to draw on the international experience of major fiscal agricultural supporting policy. The study has found that fiscal agricultural supporting policy implementation is not only to take into account the investment principles of equity and efficiency, but also to regulate the national agricultural economic fluctuations. Secondly, the central finance play a leading role in supporting agricultural development in the United States, Europe, Japan and India, and they have higher intensity of financial support for agriculture than China. Thirdly, the fiscal support modes are changing from price support to income support and from indirect support to direct support. The fiscal support areas are changing from single agricultural products market to the two markets of agricultural products and agricultural production factor, and from direct support agricultural production to support the comprehensive development of rural public utilities. In addition, financial support for agriculture is a common practice in the international area, the international community has pay attention to supporting the agricultural cooperation, and developing countries have appreciated regional anti-poverty investment. What is more, from the vigilance of the international experience, an excessive amount of fiscal support for agriculture has brought a huge government's fiscal burden. Secondly, the prices support measures of important agricultural products can easily lead to inflation. Thirdly, subsidy of agriculture production materials is easy to cause environmental pollution and widen the gap between the rich and the poor in rural areas. Fourthly, financial support for agriculture will increase the fiscal burden and be easy to cause the government financial system into corruption and inefficient running. Finally, we have provided a package of policy measures to improve the effect of policy implementation, which are included in integrating fiscal policy targets, substantially increasing the total amount of fiscal support for agriculture, adjusting the structures for fiscal support for agriculture, reinforcing fiscal fund management for agriculture, and strengthening other supportive measures, and so on.