A Study on Farmer's Behaviors of Production and Consumption in The Transforming China

本研究首先利用1985-1998年中国农村住户调查的时间序列和区域截面数据，采用两阶段的LA/AIDS模型，估计了中国农村居民的需求系统及其结构变化，其次考察了中国农村的农民强制性负担现状，从我们的家庭需求估计结果来看，食品类的支出弹性和自有价格弹性从1985 ~ 1992年的1.0、-1.3下降到1993 ~ 1998年的0.7、-0.6，而其他非食品类如衣着，住房，生活用品，教育等支出，同期弹性较强。1985 - 1992年，在食品类中，主食和蔬菜的支出弹性最小，分别为0.2和0.6，而肉蛋、其他食品、食用油、酒和鱼的支出弹性较大，在1.6至2.3之间。1993 ~ 1998年，虽然这些家庭的支出弹性和价格弹性都有较大幅度的下降，但酒、肉蛋、鱼等食品的支出弹性仍保持在1.1 ~ 1.6的范围内。与城镇家庭的支出弹性比较，粮食、蔬菜等动物性食品的支出弹性差距较大，农村家庭对除住房以外的几乎所有商品的需求都具有更大的收入弹性。这意味着，农村的潜在市场不仅广阔，而且很深。只有在收入允许的情况下，农村地区对动物源性食品和其他工业商品的需求才会比城市地区增长得更快。

In this project, We first estimated the household demand system in rural China and it's structural change using a two-stage LA/AIDS and pooled time-series and regional cross-section data from the Rural Household Surveys for 1985-1998, second review the status quo of farmer's compulsory burden in rural China, which is a hot economic and political topic in China, and then discuss its economical and political origins and problem-solving measures.From our household demand estimated results, we found that expenditure and own-price elasticities for food group have greatly fallen from 1.0, -1.3 in 1985〜92 to 0.7, -0.6 in 1993〜98, while for other non-food groups such as clothing, housing, articles for daily use, education, and other expenditures, have become more elastic in the same periods. Within the food group, staple grain and vegetables have the smallest expenditure elasticities of 0.2 and 0.6, while meat ＆ eggs, other foods, cooking oil, liquor and fish have larger elasticities in a range of 1.6〜2.3 in 1985〜92. Although these individual fords' expenditure elasticities, as well as their price elasticities, dropped large in 1993〜98, some foods, such as liquor, meat ＆ eggs, fish keep their expenditure elasticitiesin range of 1.1〜1.6.Compared these results with urban household, it can de found that, expenditure elasticity's gap between grain, vegetables and other foods with animal origin are larger, and demands for almost commodities, except housing, are more income elastic in the rural households. This means that, potential market in the rural is not only wide, but also very deep. Only income permit, demands for foods with animal origin and other industrial commodities in the rural will increase more rapidly than in urban.