Effect of Rice Culture on Rural Residents’ Income: Evidences from China Labor-force Dynamic Survey
Xu Bin1,2, Ma Qingxuan1, Yuan Yuemei3
1.School of Economics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China 2.Modern Business Research Center, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China 3.School of Economics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Abstract：The increase of rural residents’ income is a key to common prosperity. Exploring the growth factors and potential mechanisms of income will help to further refine the focus of policy, which will accelerate the overall rural revitalization and common prosperity. Based on the Rice Theory, this paper observes the effect of rice culture on the income level of rural residents.This paper predicts that rice culture could promote social capital and thus increase rural residents’ income. Compared with the rural areas where rice is not cultivated, there are higher requirements for irrigation system, water rights allocation and busy farming season manpower coordination in the areas where rice is cultivated, which leads to a higher collectivism culture. These requirements increase interpersonal communication among villagers and promote mutual trust, which generates more social capital. Social capital can alleviate information asymmetry, reduce economic costs, and provide strong credit support for rural residents, thereby increasing rural residents’ income. Based on this, the paper predicts that rice culture could increase rural residents’ income through social capital.Based on the data of 2016 China Labor-force Dynamic Survey (CLDS2016), the paper examines this prediction. In our regression model, the dependent variable is the logarithm of individual total income, and the key independent variable is “the primary grain in the village”, which is the proxy variable of rice culture. This paper controls several variables with individual, village and regional characteristics. In addition, we provide cluster-robust standard errors at the village level in our regression model.Firstly, rice culture based on rice cultivation could significantly increase rural residents’ income. The results are robust when “rice suitability” is used as instrumental variable, which effectively alleviates the endogeneity problem. Secondly, when social capital is proxied by “gift expenditure between relatives and friends” and “trust in neighbors,” it is found that rice culture increases rural residents’ income through social capital. Thirdly, the effect of rice culture on income is heterogeneous. Rural residents with higher education level, experience of migrant workers, and residents in villages that organize agglomeration activities benefit from the income-increasing effect of rice culture. Lastly, the quantile regression shows that there are differences in the income effect of rice culture on different income groups: the income increasing effect is the most significant on the low and middle-income group, but not significant on the lowest income group.This paper examines the effect of rice culture on rural residents’ income and its mechanisms, which helps us understand the function mechanism of culture in the rural economic development and rural residents’ income increase. The high-level social capital and corresponding high-level income in rice-cultivation areas might be the continuity of long-lasting traditional collectivism culture over years. Policymakers can make full use of the valuable culture to promote the overall rural revitalization and common prosperity in rural areas.The marginal contributions of this paper are as follows Firstly, taking the cultural difference between rice planting in the south and wheat planting in the north as the breakthrough point, this paper discusses how it affects the income of rural residents by influencing social capital, which expands the cultural horizon for further understanding of rural residents’ income increase. Secondly, it is found that the effect of rice culture is limited by individual characteristics such as personal education level and migrant work experience. In addition, it is found that the effect of rice culture is the most significant on the low and middle-income group, but not significant on the lowest income group. Thus, this paper provides an inspiration for further understanding the relationship between the effect of culture and individual characteristics.
1 徐进、李小云： 《论2020年后农村减贫战略和政策的相关问题》，《贵州社会科学》2020年第10期，第149-155页。 2 马烈、李军： 《近代中国农业生产中南北方农民维持生存用工量的比较》，《中国农史》2021年第3期，第84-93页。 3 赵子乐、林建浩： 《经济发展差距的文化假说：从基因到语言》，《管理世界》2017年第1期，第65-77页。 4 Talhelm T.， Zhang X. & Oishi S. et al.， “Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture，” Science， Vol. 344， No. 6184 （2014）， pp. 603-608. 5 费孝通： 《江村经济》，上海：上海人民出版社，2007年。 6 史建云： 《浅述近代华北平原的农业劳动力市场》，《中国经济史研究》1998年第4期，第78-85页。 7 丁从明、周颖、梁甄桥： 《南稻北麦、协作与信任的经验研究》，《经济学（季刊）》2018年第2期，第579-608页。 8 Kinnan C. & Townsend R.， “Kinship and financial networks， formal financial access， and risk reduction，” American Economic Review， Vol. 102， No. 3 （2012）， pp. 289-293. 9 Schultz T. W.，“Economic growth and agriculture，” American Journal of Agricultural Economics， Vol. 51， No. 3（1968）， pp. 717-719. 10 于晓华： 《以市场促进农业发展：改革开放40年的经验和教训》，《农业经济问题》2018年第10期，第8-13页。 11 杨翠迎： 《中国社会保障制度的城乡差异及统筹改革思路》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2004年第3期，第13-21页。 12 Mendelsohn R.， Basist A. & Kurukulasuriya P. et al.， “Climate and rural income，” Climatic Change， Vol. 81， No. 1 （2007）， pp. 101-118. 13 Meng X. & Wu H. X.， “Household income determination and regional income differential in rural China，” Asian Economic Journal， Vol. 12， No. 1 （1998）， pp. 35-63. 14 高梦滔、姚洋： 《农户收入差距的微观基础：物质资本还是人力资本？》，《经济研究》2006年第12期，第71-80页。 15 程名望、Jin Yanhong、盖庆恩等： 《农村减贫：应该更关注教育还是健康？——基于收入增长和差距缩小双重视角的实证》，《经济研究》2014年第11期，第130-144页。 16 汪良军： 《促进农民创业对策》，《江苏农村经济》2007年第4期，第49-50页。 17 张爽、陆铭、章元： 《社会资本的作用随市场化进程减弱还是加强？——来自中国农村贫困的实证研究》，《经济学（季刊）》2007年第2期，第539-560页。 18 汪三贵、刘湘琳、史识洁等： 《人力资本和社会资本对返乡农民工创业的影响》，《农业技术经济》2010年第12期，第4-10页。 19 杨怡、王钊： 《社会资本、制度质量与农民收入——基于CHFS数据的微观计量分析》，《宏观经济研究》2021年第8期，第115-127页。 20 Putnam R. D.， Leonardi R. & Nanetti R.Y.， Making Democracy Work： Civic Traditions in Modern Italy， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1993. 21 Narayan D. & Pritchett L.， “Cents and sociability： household income and social capital in rural Tanzania，” Social Science Electronic Publishing， Vol. 47， No. 4 （1999）， pp. 871-897. 22 Chantarat S. & Barrett C. B.， “Social network capital， economic mobility and poverty traps，” Journal of Economic Inequality， Vol. 10， No. 3 （2012）， pp. 299-342. 23 袁益： 《文化差异与中国农村人口流动意愿——基于“稻米理论”的视角》，《中国农村经济》2020年第10期，第17-32页。 24 张博、范辰辰： 《稻作与创业：中国企业家精神南北差异的文化起源》，《财贸经济》2021年第6期，第71-86页。 25 Joseph P. H.， Fan Q. K. & Gu X. Y.， “Collectivist cultures and the emergence of family firms，” The Journal of law and Economics， Vol. 65， No. S1 （2022）， pp. 293-325. 26 Bardhan P.， “Irrigation and cooperation： an empirical analysis of 48 irrigation communities in South India，” Economic Development and Cultural Change， Vol. 48， No. 4 （2000）， pp. 847-865. 27 Bentzen J. S.， Kaarsen N. & Wingender A. M.，“Irrigation and autocracy，” Journal of the European Economic Association， Vol. 15， No. 1 （2017）， pp. 1-53. 28 von Carnap T.，“Irrigation as a historical determinant of social capital in India？ a large-scale survey analysis，” World Development， Vol. 95 （2017）， pp. 316-333. 29 王铭铭： 《“水利社会”的类型》，《读书》2004年第11期，第18-23页。 30 Freedman M.， Lineage Organization in Southeastern China， London： Athlone Press， 1958. 31 Pasternak B.， Kinship and Community in Two Chinese Villages， Redwood City： Stanford University Press， 1972. 32 白尔恒、［法］蓝克利、魏丕信编著： 《沟洫佚闻杂录》，北京：中华书局，2003年。 33 Buggle J. C.，“Growing collectivism： irrigation， group conformity and technological divergence，” Journal of Economic Growth， Vol. 25， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 147-193. 34 Bray F.， The Rice Economies： Technology and Development in Asian Societies， Oakland： University of California Press， 1986. 35 David P.， “Energy inputs in food crop production in developing and developed nations，” Energies， Vol. 2， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 1-24. 36 Collier P.， Social Capital and Poverty： A Microeconomic Perspective， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2002. 37 刘成玉、黎贤强、王焕印： 《社会资本与我国农村信贷风险控制》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2011年第2期，第106-115页。 38 周晔馨、叶静怡： 《社会资本在减轻农村贫困中的作用：文献述评与研究展望》，《南方经济》2014年第7期，第35-57页。 39 马光荣、杨恩艳： 《社会网络、非正规金融与创业》，《经济研究》2011年第3期，第83-94页。 40 丁从明、董诗涵、杨悦瑶： 《南稻北麦、家庭分工与女性社会地位》，《世界经济》2020年第7期，第3-25页。 41 李成贵： 《当代中国农村宗族问题研究》，《管理世界》1994年第5期，第184-191页。 42 李树、于文超： 《幸福的社会网络效应——基于中国居民消费的经验研究》，《经济研究》2020年第6期，第172-188页。 43 Conley T. G.， Hansen C. B. & Rossi P. E.， “Plausibly Exogenous，” Review of Economics and Statistics， Vol. 294， No. 1 （2012）， pp. 260-272. 44 van Kippersluis H. & Rietveld C. A.， “Beyond plausibly exogenous，” The Econometrics Journal， Vol. 21， No. 3 （2018）， pp. 316-331. 45 费孝通： 《乡土中国》，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1985年。 46 张景娜、朱俊丰： 《互联网使用与农村劳动力转移程度——兼论对家庭分工模式的影响》，《财经科学》2020年第1期，第93-105页。 47 吴重庆： 《无主体熟人社会及社会重建》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2014年。 48 王小华、韩林松、温涛： 《惠农贷的精英俘获及其包容性增长效应研究》，《中国农村经济》2021年第3期，第106-127页。
2022, Vol. 52 
