How Does Rural–Urban Migration Experience Affect Arable Land Use? Evidence from 2293 Farmers in China

Abstract

Return migrants play an increasingly important role in agricultural production in China and other developing countries. However, the effect of rural–urban migration experience on farmers’ arable land use remains unclear. This study aims to fill this gap using data from a survey of 2293 farmers consisting of 586 return migrants and 1707 non-migrants in China. We employ the treatment effects model to account for the self-selectivity of rural–urban migration experience arising from observable and unobservable factors. The results show that after accounting for the self-selectivity bias, the rural–urban migration experience significantly increases farmers’ arable land use by 22%. Meanwhile, the positive effect of rural–urban migration experience on arable land use differs by farmers’ age group and region. While rural–urban migration experience increases arable land use for farmers aged below 65 years old by 29%, it shows no significant effect on arable land use for farmers aged 65 years old and above. In addition, there is a positive relationship between rural–urban migration experience and arable land use in Shaanxi, Shandong, and Zhejiang. However, there is no significant effect of rural–urban migration experience on arable land use. On such a basis, we discuss several important implications for policies related to arable land use in China.

Exploring the Role of Agricultural Services in Production Efficiency in Chinese Agriculture: A Case of the Socialized Agricultural Service System

“…Looking at the efficiency vis à vis a publicly facilitated service provision provides further insights for effective policy formulation. In contrast, as shown by [53][54][55], service availability, its use and dynamics can either complement or promote rural-urban migration with little focus on various aspects of efficiency-allocative as well as technical ones. The work at hand goes beyond these injunctions, as we show how socialized service delivery can improve farmers' efficiency and reduce their search and procurement costs.…”

Impact of Rural–Urban Migration Experience on Rice Farmers’ Agricultural Machinery Expenditure: Evidence from China

“…In China, small-scale farmers still dominate agricultural production, which seriously limits the improvement of agricultural production efficiency and productivity as well as agricultural mechanization. Return migrants' engagement in agriculture may promote agricultural mechanization due to their advantages in physical capital, human capital, and entrepreneurship [15]. Second, more efforts should be made to support the old farmers to increase their agricultural machinery expenditure.…”

“…However, an increasingly large number of rural-urban migrants has actively or passively returned to their hometown due to various reasons since the 1990s [7,8]. Compared with the non-migrants, the return migrants with rural-urban migration experience have many different characteristics, and thus, their engagement in agriculture may alter agricultural labor force structure and further influence agricultural production [15,16].…”

“…Shi and Yang [17] find that the rural-urban migration experience of the return migrants in Hubei not only leads farmers to adopt more new agricultural technologies, but also improves their capability in agricultural production, both of which could increase agricultural production efficiency. Using survey data of 586 return migrants and 1707 non-migrants, Chen et al [15] empirically analyze the impact of rural-urban migration experience on farmers' farm size and conclude that rural-urban migration experience could promote farmers to expand their farm size by 22%. Zhang et al [16] further examine the relationship between rural-urban migration experience on fertilizer use in rice production and illustrate that rural-urban migration experience can help farmers to reduce fertilizer use after accounting for the self-selectivity bias.…”