Deregulation, technical efficiency and production risk in rice farming: evidence from Zhejiang Province, China

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the technical efficiency and production risk in China's rice production and examine the effect of factor market reform on these two agricultural performance metrics.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title><jats:p>Using an unbalanced farm-level panel data with 2,193 observations on 329 rice farms from 2004 to 2016, the authors estimate a translog stochastic production frontier model that accounts for both technical inefficiency and production risk. A one-step procedure through the maximum likelihood method that combines the stochastic production frontier, technical inefficiency and production risk functions is used to circumvent the bias problem often found in the conventional two-step model.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title><jats:p>Estimation results show that both land and labor market reforms significantly improved the level of technical efficiency over the years, although the effect of land market deregulation is of a much higher magnitude compared to the latter. The land market reform, however, has also increased the risk of production. The authors further find that a higher proportion of hired labor in total labor cost helps lower production risk, while also acting to decrease technical efficiency. Additionally, agricultural subsidies not only increased the output variability but also lowered technical efficiency</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title><jats:p>First, the authors evaluate the effect of market deregulation on technical efficiency and production risk under a stochastic frontier framework that simultaneously accounts for both production performance metrics, which is important from a statistical point of view. Further, the authors exploit both cross-sectional and time-series variations in a panel setting to more accurately estimate the technical inefficiency scores and production risk for individual farmers, and investigate how the exogenous land and labor market reforms influence these two production performance measures in China's rice farming. This is the first study in the literature to analyze these questions under a panel framework.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Exploring the seasonal yield variability, production risk and efficiency: the case of rice farms in Bangladesh

“…Table 5 shows that increasing labor in farm practice decreases production risk in Aman rice. This result is consistent with Wang et al (2020). The positive and significant coefficient of fertilizer denotes that an increase in fertilizer will increases production risk.…”

The Impact of Changes in Rural Family Structure on Agricultural Productivity and Efficiency: Evidence from Rice Farmers in China

“…TE is typically defined as the ratio of the actual output to the maximum output that could be produced using the same inputs under the current technological conditions. The SFA is frequently used to estimate TE by decomposing the error term of the production function into two parts, namely the random and the non-random parts [36][37][38].…”

“…This study adopted the one-step SFA to estimate TE [32,37]. The random error term in the Cobb-Douglas production function can be decomposed as ε i = v i − u i [41,42].…”

Technical Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency of Beef Cattle Fattening in the Content of Digital Economy: An Empirical Study Based on Survey in China

“…Inputs and price subsidies have a positive income effect that influences the profit margins of agricultural production [35]. The industrial organization of the livestock industry also influences the efficiency of beef cattle production, with local cooperative organizations and livestock farming technology training directly affecting the specific management behaviors and production efficiency of farmers [36].…”