Part-time ploughing and stable maintenance of self-circulation system in rural areas

Who will farm? I'm afraid no modern power is as concerned about this issue as China. After synthesizing all kinds of information, we have come to the conclusion that this problem has developed to a very serious level and must be solved as soon as possible. the way is to support family farms, encourage capital to go to the countryside, develop large-scale operation, and build modern agriculture. In the above line of thinking, the small-scale peasant economy is really abominable and incompatible with modernization, so it must be wiped out quickly.

Who will farm has become a problem, but also put the blame on small farmers, in my opinion, this is really the biggest misunderstanding of the national conditions of agriculture, rural areas and farmers. On the basis of misunderstanding the actual situation, this understanding separates the agricultural problems from the complete system of agriculture, rural areas, farmers and modernization. The decision-making practice under the guidance of this understanding may lead to a systematic chain reaction due to local blind action.

In the light of the main understanding of Huazhong village governance research on this issue in recent years, I would like to discuss the relationship between the current agricultural management model and farmers' livelihood and the process of urbanization, and analyze how it constitutes a benign self-circulation mechanism of rural society. then make the countryside become the stabilizer and reservoir of modernization, and finally reveal the institutional basis of this model. And reflect on how the current theory and policy practice dispel this foundation.

Family division of labor

Who is farming in the countryside at present? The general understanding of society is that the so-called "386199" troops, that is, women, the elderly and children, the quality of the labor force of the old, weak, women and children is relatively low, and it is bound to be inefficient for them to run agriculture. This is a misunderstanding of the existing mode of agricultural operation, a manifestation of the lack of basic common sense, and taking the left-behind population in rural areas as the main force of agricultural production. Their first mistake was to replace the whole agricultural production process with field management. In fact, in the most tense stage of seed rush and harvest in agricultural production, most of the labor force of migrant workers (especially the middle-aged) will return to the countryside, and the hustle and bustle of the village is not inferior to that of the Spring Festival. The second mistake is the failure to see an improvement in the level of agricultural productivity. Agricultural production is no longer maintained mainly by the "over-dense" input of the labor force in the past, and the mechanization and chemization of agriculture has reached a very high level, except for the inconvenience of farming in a few mountainous areas. the intensity of work in most agricultural areas has been greatly reduced, and the requirements of field management on the quality of the labor force are not high. If the agricultural machinery extension system is perfect, the old, weak, women and children can be managed better than they are now. The third mistake is that this kind of small farmers are inefficient. Measured from the input of labor and time and energy, the management of small farmers is indeed much more extensive than traditional intensive farming, but a large amount of investment in scientific and technological elements can make up for this. The 11th consecutive increase in grain in our country is based on the business model with small farmers as the main body. over the past decade, it has been the old, weak, women and children who have been operating agriculture, saying that their inefficiency cannot explain the continuous increase in grain production year after year. Therefore, the real situation is that the current mode of agricultural operation is based on the intergenerational and gender division of labor based on mechanization and chemicalization. the young and middle-aged labor force participates in the heaviest rush to harvest, and the old and weak women and children are responsible for the family management of lighter field management.

Since the rural reform in the 1980s, the family operation of this intergenerational and gender division of labor has been in stable operation for more than 30 years. After the reform and opening up, the export-oriented industrialization development strategy has led to the rapid development of the processing and manufacturing industry, and the demand for labor has been increasing. At this time, agricultural productivity has also developed to a considerable level, releasing a large number of labor force, and the mode of livelihood of working and farming has been formed and developed continuously. In recent years, the sustained high investment in infrastructure construction in order to stimulate economic growth has provided a broad employment space for a large number of middle-aged farmers, and the rapid development of the tertiary industry has also created a large number of employment opportunities. In this way, a pattern of young couples entering factories, middle-aged men working on construction sites, middle-aged women or middle-aged couples working in cities has been roughly formed. in addition, the income of migrant workers has far exceeded the income of agriculture, which has further consolidated the part-time livelihood model on the basis of family division of labor. We call this model "part-time ploughing based on intergenerational division of labor".

It can be seen that the semi-ploughing and semi-working model is historically formed and has both internal and external objective conditions. it is a way of livelihood that farmers create independently based on survival rationality in the existing economic structure and institutional environment. It makes full use of the ethical culture of the Chinese family and realizes the optimal allocation of labor resources within the family. Although there is no lack of the sacrifice of intergenerational exploitation, it generally ensures and promotes family succession. Specifically, its economic significance lies in that the income of the old, weak, women and children operating agriculture can basically meet the daily living expenses of families (calculated on the basis of the average annual agricultural income of 10, 000 to 20, 000 yuan of ordinary farmers), which can be called survival security fund. Young and strong labor force to work in cities has accumulated the most important wealth resources for family development, which can be called development security fund. For the vast majority of ordinary farmers, these two items are indispensable. Lack of development security funds, the economic situation of small-scale pure farmers will be more difficult, in the village status will be relatively marginal, lack of survival security funds, development security funds will be diluted, which is also disadvantageous to family development. In addition, for the old, weak, women and children, there is almost no room for them to work in cities, and their employment opportunities are very limited, so they can only be pure consumers. If they rush to the city, it is bound to greatly increase the cost of family living. They can still engage in production and create wealth in rural areas, and save a lot of living costs. This hidden income is also indispensable to small farmers' families. Its social significance lies in that for the people who stay in the village, farming arranges the rhythm of life, and the daily piecemeal field management forces them to work, which is good for maintaining their physical and mental health. For some elderly people who have the ability to work, they have a deep relationship with the land. Agricultural labor is not only conducive to physical exercise, but also an emotional sustenance. In the case of the general emptiness of farmers' leisure life, farming is really a very meaningful thing, in a sense, it can be regarded as a kind of "leisure". As a matter of fact, seasonal farming can also forcibly promote family reunion, so that those young and middle-aged people, especially the middle-aged, have to go home every once in a while, although the pace is very short, but the positive role in promoting family reunion can not be ignored. The dual security at the economic and social levels gives farmers sufficient room to choose, and can independently arrange the rhythm and way of settling in the city according to the development of their families. the general rule is that the whole family should make efforts to buy a house for their children in the city. Parents and the elderly continue to adopt the mode of part-time farming to provide resources (even means of livelihood such as rice and vegetables) for their children in the city, if the children struggle successfully. The good ones can take their parents to the city to enjoy their twilight years, and the general ones can each have their own place. if they encounter setbacks, they can also return to the countryside. As long as age permits, this advance and retreat can be repeated several times until eventually entering the city or having to return to the countryside. It is impossible for farmers to go to the city overnight, but it is an inevitable process with setbacks and repetition, which may take two or even several generations to complete. The part-time ploughing model based on intergenerational division of labor is the key mechanism to support this kind of family relay.

Stratum structure and Social Stability

In the process of forming and stabilizing, the semi-ploughing and semi-working model has been highly matched with the economic, social and even political structure of the rural society, and has become an important micro-basis for regulating the rate of urbanization and maintaining the stability of the rural society. Every family will make rational decisions to determine the scale of agricultural management, thus forming a spontaneous land transfer in the rural society. Some families, old, weak, women and children, have limited working capacity and have to reduce or give up their income from farming, and they will release part of their land. On the other hand, some families with a considerable income (especially those who are successful in business) may shrink or even give up farming, and they will release some of their land. Some families successfully move out of their families because of their family members' entrance examination, politics or other reasons, and they will also release part of the land. The proportion of the first two is relatively large, although the number of the latter is small, but it is an inevitable phenomenon in the process of urbanization. This part of the land released will generally be transferred to relatives and friends in the village for farming free of charge or at low rent through private consultation. Some of the farmers who have transferred to the land are unable to go out for various reasons, and they have the ability to expand the scale of operation by means of mechanization and science and technology, and some because housewives or the elderly have a relatively strong ability to work, so they can also expand the scale. After they are transferred to the land of relatives and friends, they can make their business scale reach the level of 30 to 50 mu or even hundreds of mu, obtain roughly the same economic income as part-time farmers, and also get a relatively decent social status in the village. Since the spontaneous transfer is almost entirely based on the human relationship in the acquaintance society (especially the relationship between one's own people), the degree of trust is very high, and it is rare to blatantly break the contract (although it is an oral agreement) when the farmers are transferred back to the land. a large number of our investigations have never found such a situation. This kind of informal human spontaneous circulation has realized the orderly circulation and effective use of land within the village (that is, within the unit of collective land ownership), and quietly reconstructed the stratum structure of the rural society. it has given birth to a kind of grass-roots (middle peasant class) that we call "backbone farmers". The middle peasant class is the farmers who rely on the transfer of land to form economies of scale, thus obtaining roughly the same (or even better) economic income as part-time peasant farmers. according to our statistics, this kind of peasant household accounts for about 1/10 of the population of the village. but they constitute the backbone of rural society. Most of them are between 40 and 60 years old, which is the golden period when they are engaged in agricultural production. The main social relations and life of this group are in the village, and they are the group most closely related to the interests of the village at present. They have deep feelings for agricultural production and rural life, have a certain enthusiasm for the stability and development of the village, and have a high degree of recognition of the national policy of benefiting farmers. It is the most core and stable force in the rural society at present and for quite a long time in the future.

We can make a simple comparison between the middle peasant class and other classes to analyze why this class is of special significance to the stability of rural society. First of all, let's take a look at part-time households. Perennial migrant workers only return home during the Spring Festival, and the time in the village is too short; seasonal migrant workers spend a relatively long time in the village, but their participation is restricted by the rhythm of going out, so they can not devote themselves to it. The second is non-farmers. Even if non-farmers who move out of the village are enthusiastic about public welfare affairs in the village, their participation and influence are very limited; industrial and commercial operators are tied down by business and have limited time and energy, and their interests are less related to the village (with a high degree of relevance to the market and society outside the village); retired veteran cadres and other time may also be responsible and enthusiastic, but there may be a lack of experience in rural society, at the same time, old age also constitutes a constraint. Thirdly, small farmers and vulnerable groups. It is difficult for this group to take care of itself, let alone participate in public affairs. The advantages of the middle peasant class reflect three aspects: first, rich production experience and strong production capacity. The farmers of this group have always been engaged in agricultural production, have a deep affection for land, and have accumulated rich production experience. With the assistance of small machinery and the input of scientific and technological elements, economies of scale can be maximized by means of family management. Second, rich life experience and high social prestige. Spontaneous circulation has the function of screening elites, and only those folk elites with rich social capital in the village can gain the trust of the people most. They are the prestigious capital accumulated by following local norms, so they are also the staunchest defenders of local norms. They not only have to live up to their commitments, but also stand up for justice in the face of those acts that destroy the morality and order of the village. Third, it is closely related to the interests of the village and has strong social participation. They are in the village for many years, they are most closely related to the interests of the village, are most concerned about the village affairs, and the characteristics of higher economic income and agricultural production also provide them with the time and energy to participate in village governance. it is the main source of the elite of village governance at present.

The formation of the middle peasant class is an endogenous social force in response to urbanization and modernization in the rural society, and the result of the spontaneous land transfer among farmers under the collective ownership of land, which is reversible and will not repeat the historical mistakes of land annexation under private ownership, which promotes the cycle and regeneration of the internal stratum structure of the rural society. Specifically, the land management scale of farmers will be adjusted with the family life cycle and the rhythm of going to the city. When working in the city is relatively smooth, part or even all of the land can be transferred to others for cultivation. With the increase of age, the advantage of the labor force disappears, and if there is not enough capital to gain a foothold in the city, the land can be returned to the countryside and the land can be recovered. Continue to engage in agricultural management, although the family can not get rich, but at least can ensure basic survival. For young people, they always have more romantic and optimistic expectations about the city, while they lack a rational understanding of farming. In their early years, they are more likely to give the land to their parents or simply transfer it out. Similarly, as they get older, reality will teach them how to arrange their lives more rationally. When people reach middle age, they can take back some or all of their land for farming, and place their hopes of going to the city on the next generation. Under normal circumstances, this land huff and puff in accordance with the life cycle (also the labor force decline cycle) will form a scale effect in the village, and the relatively free transfer mode can also better protect the interests of all parties. Many people think that the lack of fixed contracts and fixed terms is not conducive to protecting the interests of both the transferor and the transferee, but the problem is that once the land transfer is institutionalized and fixed, it will inevitably squeeze the space for farmers to adjust independently, on the contrary, it is disadvantageous.

Maintain the self-circulation system

In recent years, academia and government departments are keen to promote the construction of a new agricultural management system, and its starting point is naturally dissatisfied with the current agricultural management system. This point of view obviously does not notice that the rural society has spontaneously formed a quite dynamic internal circulation mechanism, and has not noticed the significance of the part-time mode to farmers. did not pay attention to the important value of the rise of the middle peasant class to the stability of rural society, one-sidedly solved the problem of agricultural modernization from the perspective of economic efficiency, and had a serious lack of understanding of the relationship between agriculture and rural farmers and even the whole modernization system.

The so-called cultivation of new types of agricultural operators, according to our survey, there are mainly two categories, one is the business operation with industrial and commercial capital as the main body, and the other is the family farm. Capital going to the countryside to transfer land is the most convenient way to "base large households". With the support of the local government, powerful industrial and commercial owners often contract thousands of mu of land on a large scale, which has lasted for several years. There are two types of capital going to the countryside to operate agriculture, one is to develop a new type of characteristic agricultural sightseeing agriculture, and the other is to engage in traditional planting. The former has high profits and high risks, while the latter is basically difficult to make a profit. The new type of agriculture is doomed to be impossible to popularize. on the one hand, the market is limited, and on the other hand, it is disadvantageous to food security, but it is most likely to produce performance projects, which often become the "bright spot" of local governments' agriculture-related work. The profit of the traditional planting industry is too low, what is more fatal is that the management cost and efficiency of enterprises operating large areas of food crops are too low, and their ability to deal with natural disasters and market risks is also relatively low, which is simply incomparable to that of small farmers' families. and their grain yield per mu has generally declined, and we have not found any grain-growing enterprises that make money in our survey, all of which are maintained by various government subsidies (and other benefits exchanged). Capital going to the countryside will cause a great reorganization of interests in the rural society, which has a lot of uncertainty, and poses a challenge to the basic management system of agriculture in our country. In contrast, the family farm seems to be much safer, it is still based on supporting family management, the significance of its "new" is that the scale of operation is larger than that of small farmers, but it is controlled within the scope of family management. The specific scale will vary according to the physical and geographical conditions, the status of agricultural infrastructure and the level of input of scientific and technological elements. Now, to identify, support and cultivate family farms has become the focus of local governments to build a new agricultural management system. On the face of it, the family farm is very similar to the middle farmer, both of which are land of moderate scale managed by the family. The key lies in that middle farmers and small farmers coexist in rural society, and they can be transformed into each other through spontaneous land transfer, which is a dynamic stratum structure. After the family farm has become the main body of the administrative power, the three rural policies such as agriculture-related capital investment have undergone a major shift, small farmers have become the opposite of the family farm, and the dynamic hierarchical structure is likely to be solidified. Rural society has spontaneously formed a dynamic and efficient stratum structure that matches the business model and population mobility, and the value of this dynamic and stable structure in the process of great changes can not be ignored. why bother to impose intervention and cause unnecessary risks?

The discussion of this article shows that the semi-ploughing and semi-working livelihood model adopted by farmers based on the division of labor within the family (intergenerational division of labor and gender division) is a rational choice of the repeated process of entering the city by the family relay, which gives birth to the spontaneous land transfer in the rural society. it has reorganized the rural stratum reorganization with the rise of the middle peasant class as the core, and the dynamic virtuous circle stratum structure is conducive to the stability of the rural society. The key link lies in the existence of spontaneous land transfer, which on the one hand effectively allocates land resources within the scope of collective land ownership, on the other hand, it also enables rural society to maintain basic vitality under the net loss of people and property. The focus of agriculture-related policies at present and for quite a long time in the future should be to protect the self-circulation system of rural society according to the above-mentioned situation and changes, such as strengthening the regulation and control power of collective ownership, so as to enhance the efficiency of national resources to the countryside. In a word, it is a long-term solution to maintain the rural social self-circulation system based on part-time ploughing livelihood model and spontaneous land transfer in order to give better play to the role of rural stabilizer and reservoir in the process of modernization.