To protect farmers 'interests, we should have correct opening methods

"protecting the interests of farmers" is a common policy term, but few people say "protect the interests of workers" and "protect the interests of intellectuals". The weakness of farmers reflects the weakness of agriculture. In the media, "poverty", "staying behind", "hollowing out". These key words have also formed the consensus of public opinion on rural areas and farmers, there is no worst, only worse.

Why is that? It seems not difficult to answer-the long-term urban-rural dual structure has formed a situation in which industrial products are expensive (urban) and agricultural products are cheap (rural), that is, the so-called "scissors gap". As a result, perceptual people appeal that it is time for industry to feed agriculture and cities to feed the countryside. Many media have the same way of thinking, it seems that "miserable" can get attention and benefits.

However, this may not be possible in law. After all, everyone is equal before the law, regardless of occupation, as long as they are legitimate rights and interests should be protected. For example, there are three standards for rural land transfer: "according to law, voluntary, and paid". In addition, it is necessary to act in accordance with the laws of the market-good land conditions in Northeast China, 1000 yuan per mu of rent, and poor land conditions in Guizhou. From a legal point of view, "protecting the interests of farmers" is to provide a legal and market environment for good governance, but not to keep the national land rent on a par with that of the northeast. To put it further, they are also migrant workers, some with a monthly income of 5000 yuan and some with a monthly income of only 2000 yuan. the income difference is a natural phenomenon, as long as it complies with the laws and regulations, there is no need to overread it.

Therefore, "protecting farmers' interests" more refers to policy bias, such as transfer payments, agricultural support, and so on. Prime Minister Li Keqiang also means to "ensure that financial investment in agriculture is only increased but not reduced." As far as the top-level design is concerned, there is nothing wrong with this, but when it comes to hierarchical docking, it will change somewhat-- whenever projects and policies related to rural areas fall to the ground, they must be called "protecting the interests of farmers". That is, it is "ignoring the interests of farmers"-it seems to secure the moral highland, but it actually blocks the channels for policy / project reflection and negotiation and improvement. Here are two examples:

First, the lowest purchase price for rice and wheat. In the short term, the minimum purchase price can indeed protect the interests of farmers. the question is whether such a policy is sustainable and how long it will last. It is important to know that the policy dividend is not sustainable and will seriously deplete the government's credit. In this regard, if there is not a rational prediction and adjustment plan, the consequences are likely to be catastrophic. For example, Thailand's former "rice pawn" policy (similar to the minimum purchase price policy) has not only caused financial losses of nearly US $4.5 billion over the past two years, but also brought embarrassment to the policy of high grain prices, high stocks, and high subsidies. When this policy finally came to a hasty end, it was the farmers who were most "hurt".

Second, restrictions on the import of sugar. At first glance, this is also to protect the interests of sugarcane farmers and protect the purchase price of domestic sugarcane. In fact, how? The enthusiasm of sugarcane farmers may have increased, but the morale of downstream sugar mills should be low-the exorbitant purchase price drained the profits of the sugar processing industry from the beginning (unless the domestic sugar price was raised accordingly, consumers should not like it again). Over time, there has been a situation in which sugarcane farmers are bundled with land and continue to grow sugarcane in excess of supply, while the downstream sugar processing industry is miserable and difficult to sustain.

Conversely, what will happen if restrictions on sugar imports are relaxed or lifted? Is it "self-destruct" as some people say? We can refer to the import of soybeans, cotton and yarns in our country. First of all, the cultivation of soybeans and cotton on agricultural land has indeed decreased, but the farmland has not been abandoned, but other crops with higher returns have been planted, so there is no waste of domestic agricultural production resources due to the import of agricultural products. Secondly, with the import of cheap agricultural products, edible oil processing industry, textile and clothing industry has been developed, which in turn provides more jobs, taxes and social wealth.

In many cases, the interests of farmers are protected in this way, especially by unreasonable industrial policies. So, how to correctly open the policy vocabulary of "protecting farmers' interests" so as to prevent it from becoming a fig leaf of unreasonable industrial policy?

At the beginning of the article, it is mentioned that one of the premises of "protecting the interests of farmers" is the weakness of farmers in society. From the perspective of wealth, this is true, and the gap between the rich and the poor between urban and rural areas cannot be denied. However, before this premise, many people have added another interpretation-- the peasants are not enlightened, so they need the help and intervention of the higher wisdom class. In short, the peasants are "stupid." This is why when a "protection" policy is ineffective, society tends to read that "profits have been earned by middlemen and farmers do not get any benefits" without reflecting on whether the policy design itself is reasonable.

No matter from the point of view of history or current situation, Chinese farmers are rational. To put it bluntly, in a country that has experienced peasant uprisings, it is not the peasants who are stupid, but those who underestimate their abilities. Stripping off this layer of prejudice, it is not hard to imagine that the policy of "protecting farmers' interests" will focus on giving farmers the opportunity to get rich and creating conditions for it, rather than providing discriminatory linked subsidies. The most direct way is to "give money", especially to improve the social security level of rural residents and gradually bridge the gap between urban and rural areas in health care, education, pension and so on. At the same time, promote the two-way flow of urban and rural elements, abolish the actual threshold of cities and towns for farmers, and consolidate the social foundation for the development of urbanization.

In addition, existing discriminatory industrial policies should also be phased out. The author has discussed the issue of agricultural support policies with relevant experts of the OECD, and the common conclusion is that because of their short-sightedness, these policies not only fail to "protect the interests of farmers", but also harm farmers. There is no problem with China's agricultural support policy and "protecting farmers' interests" itself, but it is necessary to believe that Chinese farmers are smart enough to gradually turn them into green boxes and return planting decisions to farmers.

The supply-side reform of China's agriculture has reached the point where it must be changed. A reasonable logic is to build a fair, reasonable and effective market economic order, so that the market mechanism plays a decisive role in the allocation of resources, and at the same time give better play to the role of the government in the field of externalities, such as agricultural infrastructure, rural education, environment, poverty alleviation and so on. Youdao is "emergency does not save the poor", attached to discriminatory subsidies, agriculture is very difficult to progress, it is difficult for rural areas to grow, and it is difficult for farmers to be rich.

To "protect the interests of farmers", there must be a correct way to open it.