辽宁省农户民间借贷状况与全国状况的比较分析

本文依据辽宁省农村住户调查队的农村住户调查数据(1986—2001)，以及中共中央政策研究室、农业部全国农村固定观察点办公室《全国农村社会典型调查数据汇编：1986—1999》相关数据及其它资料进行计算整理，从规模及构成上对辽宁省与全国的农村民间借贷状况进行比较分析。     

以农村低收入人口增收为抓手促进共同富裕：重点、难点与政策建议

过大的城乡收入差距和持续扩大的农村内部收入差距可能会阻碍共同富裕进程，因此提高农村低收入人口增收程度是实现共同富裕的重要路径。本文基于中国家庭收入调查(CHIP)、中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)和国家统计局公开数据，分析中国农村居民收入长期变动趋势，认为农村共同富裕的重点在于精准识别低收入群体，难点在于提高农村居民收入流动性。本文同时基于浙江省乡村振兴和共同富裕相关经验，为全国层面通过促进农村低收入人口增收进而实现共同富裕提出政策建议。研究认为，推动农村低收入居民增收，需要从初次分配、再分配与第三次分配三个方面共同发力，多措并举、精准施策，关键在保障有劳动能力人口的就业机会，重点在增强无劳动能力人口的收入保障。     

外出从业收入核算方式对农村居民收入水平及收入分配的影响

本文利用2007年CHIP住户调查数据,根据农村家庭外出从业成员的不同界定方式,讨论了不同的外出从业收入核算方式对农村居民收入水平和收入分配的影响。研究发现,在纯收入核算实践过程中,各地对农户成员外出从业收入的核算方式并不一致,这在一定程度上低估了农村居民收入水平,尤其是外出户居民人均收入水平。将核算方式统一调整后,收入差距的估计结果也会发生变化。具体而言,农村内部收入差距略有上升,而城乡之间收入差距及全国收入差距有所下降。因此,在农户成员外出从业收入核算中,需要选择统一而合理的核算口径。这对于准确估算农村居民收入和分析收入分配状况具有重要意义。     

农民愿意住在什么样的农村

<正>农民愿意居住在什么样的农村?如果不想简单随意地回答这个问题,就先来看一下意大利科研人员于2007年所做的一项调查吧。意大利农村地区收入情况这项调查研究采用多层次的研究方法考察多功能农业对生活质量的影响。该研究对意大利8000多个行政区中的农村和6356个半农村地区的家庭户数、总人口、总收入以及单个家庭收入等予以考察。为了更好地了解空间分化情形,将农村和半农村地区划分为边缘地区和非     

农户现金收入的调查与分析

农户现金收入是反映农户收入水平的重要指标。在商品经济条件下,现金收入是反映农户商品经济发展水平,反映农户生产和生活水平的重要标志。为此,我们于1988年7月1日至1989年6月30日对江苏吴县、河北固安县、湖北钟祥县、贵州望谟县共400个农村住户进行了为期一年的逐日登记调查。     

全国农村经济调查工作座谈会在宜昌召开

国家统计局于4月13日至25日在湖北省宜昌市召开全国农村经济调查工作座谈会。国家统计局农业统计司和来自全国29个省、市、自治区统计局的51名代表参加了会议。 会议的中心议题是审核汇编1981年全国农民家庭收支调查资料,座谈农民收入的来源情况和增长幅度。根据对全国28个省、市、自治区568个县18,529户农民所进行的家计抽样调查,1981年平均每人收入达到     

农村劳动力就业结构研究

本文利用全国农村固定观察点１９９５～１９９８年农户观察数据，从平均意义上对下列几方面问题进行了分析：全国农村劳动力就业结构的状况；东、中、西三大地带间农村劳动力就业结构的差异；两极收入群体间农村劳动力就业结构的差异；农村劳动力就业结构变化趋势。全国农村固定观察点是在全国３１个省（市、自治区）（台湾省除外）选择了３２０个村庄，开展以农户为基础、村庄为核心的持续定位观察。目前已正式运行了１３年。１９９３、１９９５年两次修改调查指标。因考虑到指标的连续性，本文选择了１９９５～１９９８年约３００个村庄中…     

山西“十村千户”的调查研究(上)

山西省是全国最早开展农村固定观察点工作的省份之一,从1984年中央农研室在8个省份开展农村社会经济试点调查以来,已经有32年了。到目前山西省农村固定观察点已覆盖全省10个市(太原市除外),10个县12个农村,俗称"十村千户"调查。30多年来,一茬又一茬从事农村固定观察点工作的同志,尽心竭力,在这项平凡的工作中做出了不平凡的业绩。     

重要文章预告

本刊今年第六期将刊登中央书记处农村政策研究室、国务院农村发展研究中心农村调查领导小组撰写的《全国农村社会经济典型调查情况综合报告》(节录)。此报告综合了对272个村、37420户和93个乡、71个县进行的农村社会经济典型调查材料,在大量调查数据的     

深化改革给上海农村带来新发展：1996年上海农村固定观察点调查报告

根据中共中央政策研究室、农业部全国农村固定观察点办公室的部署,1996年对嘉定区徐行村、南汇县红光村、青浦县陆湾村、崇明县北双村、金山县欢兴村等5个村的社会经济发展及500户农户进行了追踪调查。调查表明,上海农村在市委、市府及农村党委、农委的领导下,加大了改革的力度,带来了农村经济的新发展。这次调查结果与往年调查相比有以下特点:     

USGS"2000世界油气评价"待发现油气资源预测法

美国地质调查局 2 0 0 0年的油气资源评价中 ,主要进行了两个方面的预测 :待发现油气资源预测和储量增长预测。待发现油气资源的预测主要运用了油气藏规模分布预测方法及蒙特卡洛模拟方法。     

20世纪中期关中地区的土地问题 --以高陵县通远乡为例

本文通过对土地改革前后高陵县通远乡的土地状况的个案分析，论证了正是因为关中地区人地关系的宽松，租佃关系不普遍，地主和富农拥有的土地不多，结果在土地改革期间，关中地区可供分配的土地比较少，当地政府无法同时做到既完全贯彻中央精神，又充分考虑到地方实际情况，最终在实际执行中，导致了中央政令与地方具体实践在一定程度上的背离；而就产中地区的土地改革本身而言，其效果是不经济的。     

分析后感性1999-2009

前言后感性是在85新潮、89大展之后,中国社会情绪正处在一个失落的底点,85-89的艺术家大部分流落海外,与之前的70年代末星星画会情况相仿佛。而中国当代艺术的发展也正处在一个从强调自我身份(身份认同)、民族观(世界观的一部分)、颠覆与革命(89事件)、全球化(与世界接轨)等等现象迸发的转     

林业资源型城市经济转型新思路

针对资源型城市伊春市的具体情况，从产业、运作方式、创新机制和观念，合理安排劳动力就业等方面，提出了实施资源型城市转型的新思路和新措施。     

可持续发展的实质——建设资源节约型社会

我国正面临着日益严峻的资源紧缺形势.严峻资源形势呼唤资源节约型社会;可持续发展实质就是建设资源节约型社会;资源的稀缺性要求建设资源节约型社会.建设资源节约型社会是我国经济社会可持续发展的必由之路和唯一出路,势在必行.     

关于建设高素质农村基层干部队伍的思考

本文以广东省梅州市第四届村委会组成人员的文化程度和年龄结构为基本数据,对当前农村基层干部队伍现状、存在问题及原因进行分析,并提出建设高素质农村基层干部队伍的几点建议。     

森林生态效益补偿的理论探因和资金筹措浅析

阐述外部影响的概念、类型、影响,分析外部影响与市场失灵的关系及其解决办法。用经济学理论分析森林生态效益具有外部经济的原因,提出了解决森林生态效益外部经济问题的办法是进行森林生态效益补偿,并分析了其中的原因。对森林生态效益补偿资金筹措的原则和途径进行了分析,认为资金募集的途径必须具有公开性、公众性,提出了五种主要的资金筹措方式和建议。     

Editorial - Multiple-use forestry

The problem of multiple-use forestry arises because (1) a forest can be managed to provide a wide range of products and services, (2) the different uses are not perfectly compatible with each other, and (3) some products are not priced in markets and many of the services a forest provides have the characteristics of public goods. Examples of major forest products include, in addition to timber, edible berries, fungi, and hunting games. Forests also provide recreation opportunities and various environmental services (such as regulating local climate, reducing soil erosion, reducing pollutants in the atmosphere, regulating the global climate, providing habitats for wildlife, etc.). The outputs of nontimber goods in general depend on the quantity and structure of the forest, which can be changed by various forest management activities. However, a forest state most suitable for the production of one good is usually not optimal with respect to another good. Typically, there does not exist a set of management activities that simultaneously maximize the outputs of timber and all other goods.Another way to understand the conflicts between different uses is to view standing timber as an intermediate product of forestry investment, which is employed as an “input” for the production of timber products and nontimber goods. Thinking in this way, the conflicts arise partly because timber production and nontimber uses compete for the same input, and partly because of the differences in the “production technology” among different nontimber goods. A change in the standing timber may have positive impacts on some nontimber uses, but have negative effects on others. Because of the conflicts among different uses, it requires that both timber products and nontimber goods should be explicitly incorporated into forestry decision-making in order to achieve the greatest benefits to the forest owner and/or the public.Most of the economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions have explicitly or implicitly adopted the view that multiple-use should be achieved in individual stands. Each stand should be managed to produce an optimal mix of timber products and nontimber goods. Another view of multiple-use forestry is to manage each stand for a primary use, whereas multiple-use concerns are addressed by allocating different stands in a forest to different uses. A general argument in support of the primary-use view is that specialization makes for efficiency. The production of timber and nontimber goods is a joint process, however. Strictly speaking, one cannot separate timber production and the production of different nontimber goods. For example, managing a stand for timber production does not exclude the possibility of producing some nontimber goods in the stand. Since every stand usually produces more than one product, efficient multiple-use forestry requires that each stand should be managed for an optimal mix of timber and nontimber outputs. On the other hand, it may well be the case that the optimal multiple-use mix for a particular stand consists of a maximum output of one product. In this case the optimal multiple-use management decision would coincide with the optimal decision pertaining to a single use. In other words, it may be optimal to manage a particular stand for one primary use. Using the terminology of economics, primary-use may be efficient for stands in which the multiple-use production set is nonconvex. Recent research has explored several sources of nonconvexity in the multiple-use production set. However, there is no evidence supporting the argument that specialization is always more efficient than multiple-use management of individual stands. From an economics viewpoint, efficient primary-use is special cases of multiple-use stand management.A widely recognized limitation of multiple-use stand management is that, by considering each stand separately, one neglects the interdependence of nontimber benefits and ecological interactions among individual stands. The nontimber benefits of a stand depend on the output of nontimber goods from other stands. Likewise, the nontimber output from one stand affects the value of nontimber goods produced in the other stands. Ecological interactions among individual stands imply that the output of nontimber goods from two stands in a forest differs from the sum of the outputs from two isolated stands. These interdependence and interactions imply that the relationship between the nontimber benefits of a stand and the stand age (or standing timber stock) cannot be unambiguously determined - it depends on the flow of nontimber goods produced in the surrounding stands. Therefore, it is improper to determine optimal decisions for the individual stands independently. In stead, efficient multiple-use forestry decision should be analyzed by considering all the stands in a forest simultaneously.Another serious limitation of multiple-use stand management is that each stand is treated as a homogenous management unit to be managed according to a uniform management regime. One implicitly assumes that the boundaries of each stand is exogenously given and will remain unchanged over time. This assumption imposes a restriction on the multiple-use production set, thereby creates inefficiency. As an example, consider a large stand with a nonconvex production set. It may be possible to eliminate nonconvexity in the production set and push the production possibility frontier outwards by dividing the stand into several parts and managing each part for a primary-use. It may also be efficient to combine two adjacent stands into one to be managed following a uniform regime, because of the presences of fixed management costs, and/or because the relationship between some nontimber outputs and stand area is not linear.In contrast to income from timber production, nontimber goods produced at different time points are not perfect substitutes. The rate at which a forest owner is willing to substitute a nontimber good produced at one time point for that produced at another time point changes with the outputs of the nontimber good at the two time points. In general cases, the nontimber goods produced at one time point cannot be consumed at another time point, and the marginal utility of a nontimber good decreases when its output increases. This provides a motivation for reducing the variation in the output of nontimber goods over time. An effective approach to coordinating nontimber outputs over time is to apply different management regimes to different parts of a stand, or apply the same regime to adjacent stands, which would change the boundaries of the stands. Preserving the existing stand boundaries would limit the possibility of evening out the nontimber outputs over time, and thereby lead to intertemporal inefficiency in multiple-use management.In previous studies of multiple-use forestry decisions the nontimber outputs or benefits are usually modeled as functions of stand age or standing timber stock. Future flows of nontimber goods or benefits are incorporated into a stand/forest harvest decision model to explore the implications of nontimber uses for optimal harvest decisions. While stand age and standing timber stock may have significant impacts on nontimber outputs, other forest state variables, e. g. the spatial distribution of stands of different ages/species, may be of great importance to the production of nontimber goods. Recognition of such forest state variables could change the relationship between timber production and nontimber outputs and therefore change the optimal forest management decisions.In summary, multiple-use forestry is not simply an extension of timber management with additional flows of benefits to be considered when evaluating alternative management regimes. Recognition of multiple uses of a forest leads to two fundamental changes of the forestry decision problem. First, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income is no longer separable from forest management decisions. In general, the optimal intertemporal consumption of forestry income depends on future flows of nontimber goods, implying that the consumption-saving decision should be made simultaneously with the decision on the production of timber and nontimber goods over time. Secondly, it is no longer appropriate to optimize the management regime for each stand separately. The nontimber outputs from a forest depend on the age distribution of individual stands, and on a wide range of other forest state variables such as the spatial distribution of stands of different ages and tree-species composition. Ecological interactions and interdependence among stands imply that management regimes for different stands should be optimized simultaneously. In addition to changing rotation ages and harvest levels, efficient multiple-use forestry requires optimizing the spatial allocation of harvests, redefining the boundaries of stands, coordinating the choices of tree species in regeneration of harvested area and so on.The lack of rigorous production functions for nontimber goods imposes a severe restriction on attempts to perform comprehensive economic analyses of multiple-use forestry decisions. This restriction in itself is no justification for ignoring many of the key aspects of multiple-use forestry problem and modeling the problem as one of determining the optimal rotation age or optimal harvest level. It requires that economic models of multiple-use forestry should be developed with special consideration of the vague and imprecise information regarding the relationships between nontimber outputs and forest state variables.Peichen GongDepartment of Forest EconomicsSE-90183 UmeåSweden