برنامه های توسعه پایدار چگونه پایدار هستند؟ مورد برنامه مبدل زمین شیبدار در چین
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29334||2009||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||16337 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : World Development, Volume 37, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 268–285
This paper undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the long-run sustainability of one of the world’s largest sustainable development programs, the Slopping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) in China under different plausible post-SLCP scenarios. The analysis is based on farmer contingent behavior post-program land and labor decisions as well as choice experiment data. Our econometric results highlight the main obstacles to the program’s sustainability, which include specific shortfalls in program implementation and certain institutional constraints, namely tenure insecurity and poor land renting rights. The use of a choice experiment also reveals unique evidence on rural households’ preferences over tenure reform in China.
There is a well-established literature on household behavior in developing countries that describes how market and institutional imperfections drive inefficient allocation choices, which in turn contribute to both poverty and environmental degradation (De Janvry and Sadoulet, 2005 and Key et al., 2000). For example, failures in the off-farm labor market prevent households to access income-enhancing off-farm activities and constrain them to oversupply labor on farm. Such constrained, excess on-farm labor has been shown to be associated with high levels of forest-land conversion, which lead to both economic hardship and to negative environmental externalities (Bowlus and Sicular, 2003, Feng et al., 2004 and Groom et al., 2006). Similarly, land right imperfections have been shown to undermine land quality investment incentives and provoke land degradation (Carter and Olinto, 2003, Deininger et al., 2003 and Li et al., 1998). This “diagnosis” has motivated various policy responses that aim at killing two birds with one stone: by addressing the common roots of poverty and environmental degradation, it is anticipated that households will be lifted out of inefficiency traps and steered toward a more sustainable development path. The idea is to provide direct or indirect financial incentives (usually in the forms of subsidies or royalty payments) to local communities in order to induce changes in their land and labor allocation choices. These policies measured include land set aside and agri-environment programs, community-based conservation schemes and the so-called Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (Abbot et al., 2001 and Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006). Though such sustainable development programs come in various guises they have one common feature: the duration of the financial incentives or subsidies provided is finite as the aim is to induce a structural economic change at the local level such that this “win–win” objective of poverty alleviation and environmental improvement becomes self-sustainable. The immediate silver bullet attraction of such programs led to their proliferation since the mid-1990s. Given the significant funds and attention that these programs have received, there has been evident interest in investigating to what extent they have been meeting their dual objective of addressing environmental externalities and economic development. This has sprung an extensive empirical policy evaluation literature. Some of this work has focused on examining the impact of these programs on household income, on household land and labor allocation decisions as well as on the environmental externalities the programs sought to address (Duflo & Kremer, 2003). The data used in these analyses mostly come from surveys that collect information over household behavior before and during the program. Though these studies provide useful information over the implementation of these programs, they are not particularly useful for assessing their long-term viability or sustainability, 1 that is, how participating households will be affected after the specific program ends. Such an analysis can be undertaken by using household surveys that include direct contingent behavior questions over household post-program decisions (e.g., Johnson, Misra, & Ervin, 1997). Further, most evaluation studies provide an assessment of the gross policy impact and thus do not adequately discern which particular attributes of a given policy are relatively more effective in generating the desired changes in allocative behavior. They are, thus, not very informative over any auxiliary improving measures that policy makers can adopt during the program nor over the optimal design features of a viable and cost-effective potential follow-up program after the current one expires. Addressing this issue requires a detailed analysis of the impact of specific attributes of a program, which represents an empirical challenge in the absence of sufficient randomization of program attributes among households. In the absence of such data, analysts may use stated preferences choice modeling techniques which are suitable for assessing the relative importance of different program attributes ( Louviere et al., 2000 and Mercer and Snook, 2004). 2 This paper attempts to address this limitation in the current policy appraisal literature by providing a comprehensive direct assessment of the sustainability of the largest sustainable development programs currently under implementation in the developing world, the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) in China—a program that simultaneously attempts to address rural poverty and externalities from deforestation. Our analysis uses both contingent behavior and choice modeling data obtained from household and village leader surveys undertaken in two provinces in China. The data allow us to assess the program’s sustainability under three plausible mutually exclusive post-program scenarios: the case when the current program is renewed in its current form, when the program is terminated altogether, and when a new program is introduced. By adopting such a direct ex ante assessment of the SLCP, the analysis is able to identify which policy characteristics warrant more attention in the post-SLCP period as well as which households should be targeted so that the dual objective of the program can be attained in a long lasting and cost-effective manner. Further, the use of a choice modeling approach reveals unique evidence on farmers’ preferences over land tenure reform currently underway in China. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the SLCP and discusses the framework adopted for directly assessing its sustainability using contingent behavior post-program land and labor allocation data as well as choice modeling data. Sections 3 and 4 present the econometric framework adopted for analyzing these two types of data and the results of the empirical analysis. Section 5 concludes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Sustainable development programs in the developing world are often characterized by limited budgets and finite time horizons reflecting both financial constraints and changing priorities in the policy world. These characteristics enhance the need for detailed ex ante assessment of the long-run viability of the benefits of such programs so that both the interim corrective measures can be adopted during the life-span of the current program but also appropriate new policies can be put into place after the termination of the old ones. This paper provides a framework for comprehensive ex ante assessment of the long-run viability of one of the world’s largest sustainable development programs, the SLCP in China, a massive subsidization program that aims at reforesting sloped rural terrain and address rural poverty. The analysis-based on household and village level survey data obtained from Ningxia and Guizhou provinces—aims at exploring the viability of the SLCP under the three plausible post-SLCP scenarios: where subsidies are stopped, where they are renewed in their current form and where a new program is instated. The challenge of obtaining ex ante information for making such an assessment was overcome by utilizing contingent behavior and choice experiment (stated preference) data. This allowed for a direct assessment of the program’s sustainability thereby providing valuable and unique insights that complement those obtained from other indirect assessments of the SLCP ( Groom et al., 2006, Uchida et al., 2005 and Uchida et al., 2007). Our analysis was able to provide the following main conclusions. First, we have shown that the viability of such “win–win” policies relies in their capacity to address the root causes of household inefficient allocative decisions, which in turn constrain farmers in poverty traps and environmental harmful production practices. In particular, weak and incomplete property rights coupled with high labor mobility transaction-costs that are associated with oversupply of on-farm labor emerge as major constraints on the sustainability of the SLCP. Further, the analysis has shown that securing the long-run viability of the program’s objectives would require policies that target both land and labor allocation decisions, as a strong simultaneity relationship between these two variables was found. This result has not been adequately acknowledged by previous research which has focused on examining the determinants of household land decisions alone. Second, in cases where the SLCP is renewed, we show that an important determinant of securing high levels of long-term community support is the provision of better forestry training to local households as well as enhanced autonomy in managing their reforested trees. Third, in the event that subsidies are not renewed, we have shown that farmers will tend not to reconvert back their reforested lands provided that the expected commercial value of the reforested trees is high. This finding further brings into question the prevailing mindset governing the design of the SLCP, which allows for very limited commercial exploitation of reforested lands. Further, secure property rights (both tenure and forest management rights) were also shown to be important factors in the post-SLCP scenario, where subsidies were terminated as they were found to contribute greatly to both securing forest land and freeing surplus labor away from farming on slopped lands. As inevitably subsidies will be terminated at some point in the future, the importance of such institutional reforms for the success of current sustainable development programs becomes even more evident. Fourth, in the scenario where a new SLCP program is offered, we find that the likelihood of re-enrollment is affected not just by the subsidy amount but also by the implementation assurances offered to farmers, by the average off-farm wage they can expect to earn as well as by further land tenure reforms. Hence, specific policy interventions that alleviate constraints and transactions costs associated with off-farm employment (e.g., creating employment centers, reducing local travel costs, enhancing education, and access to credit) coupled with wider institutional reforms (e.g., land tenure, land renting, and land management reforms) may increase the participation rates for a given level of subsidies or may reduce the minimum compensation levels required to be offered to farmers for a given participation rate. Hence, we display how specific social interventions and institutional reforms can provide wider social external benefits in the form of considerable cost-savings in the implementation of a development program, and in turn contribute toward its long-term viability as funds can be spread across a longer time horizon. Fifth, the CE results shed unprecedented insights on Chinese farmer preferences over tenure reform and how these preferences impact upon the viability of the SLCP. Though there is some work on the determinants of past or current forest land tenure arrangements in China (e.g., Brandt et al., 2004 and Xiao-Yuan, 1996) there is hardly any systematic research on actual farmer’s preferences for such arrangements. The current analysis shows that farmers display a strong aversion for land redistribution and favor the development of more secure land rental rights. This is an interesting contribution to the debate over institutional reform in China. Indeed, an obstacle to individualization of land rights is the fear that it might undermine the function of land as a social safety net and insurance mechanism (Burgess, 2001). For that reason, a key concern of Chinese policy makers preoccupied with land tenure reform has been that, even though it may be associated with economic and environmental benefits, a deepening of land property rights privatization would be opposed by a majority of the rural population. Our analysis shows that this is not the case and thereby contradicts a significant literature, which may now be outdated, that has found household opinion to be strongly in favor of land redistribution (Kung, 1995, Kung and Liu, 1997, Liu et al., 1998 and Carter and Yao, 2002). Sixth, our CE analysis shows that a sustainable design of a land conversion program requires a more flexible approach that takes under account regional heterogeneities. To date, the discussion (both within policy and academic circles) over how to achieve efficient (i.e., welfare enhancing) and cost-effective targeting has mainly focused on how to determine different levels of subsidies across regions. Our results highlight the need to also allow for further flexibility and differential design of other policy attributes. For example, our results show that households in Guizhou would be willing to maintain reforested lands even if hardly any direct subsidies are offered provided that they receive enhanced tenure and renting rights over their reforested lands as well as improved usages rights that would allow for the uninhibited selection and management of planted tree types as well as their full commercial exploitation. Finally, our paper displays the relative merits of using a framework that relies on contingent and stated behavior data for assessing the long-run viability of sustainable development programs. Areas for further consideration and research include the combination of revealed and hypothetical data as well as using experimental economic techniques where participants are placed in a more controlled setting. Given the interest and financial commitments made toward sustainable development programs we feel that such further detailed ex ante analyses are warranted.